Federal Circuit Affirms ITC Finding That Redesigned Vacuum Products Do Not Infringe Bissell Patents
Briefly

Federal Circuit Affirms ITC Finding That Redesigned Vacuum Products Do Not Infringe Bissell Patents
"The Federal Circuit noted that the Administrative Law Judge merely applied the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language and made credibility determinations, finding the testimony of Bissell's expert unpersuasive."
"The CAFC affirmed the ITC's refusal to grant an exclusion order and also agreed that the Commission properly determined that Bissel's products satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement."
"Bissell, Inc. and Bissell Homecare, Inc. own U.S. Patent Nos. 11,076,735 and 11,071,428, directed to surface cleaning apparatuses. The patents describe a wet-dry surface-cleaning device featuring a storage tray used during a self-cleaning mode and for battery recharging. The specification notes that the battery does not recharge during the self-cleaning mode because the battery charging circuit is disabled."
"The ITC originally barred Tineco from importing certain accused products found to infringe. After the complaint was filed, Tineco redesigned the accused products. The ITC determined that the redesigned products did not infringe certain claims, and thus no exclusion order was entered. Bissell appealed the finding of no violation regarding the redesigned products."
The Federal Circuit affirmed a precedential decision upholding the International Trade Commission’s final determination of no import violation involving redesigned vacuum products. The ITC refused to grant an exclusion order after finding that the redesigned products did not infringe certain patent claims. The patents relate to wet-dry surface-cleaning devices with a storage tray used during self-cleaning and battery recharging. The specification states that the battery does not recharge during the self-cleaning mode because the battery charging circuit is disabled. The ITC also agreed that the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement was satisfied. The Federal Circuit found that the Administrative Law Judge applied the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language and made credibility determinations regarding expert testimony.
[
|
]