Federal Circuit Affirms ITC Finding That Tineco’s Redesigned Wet-Dry Vacuums Do Not Infringe Bissell Patents

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision on May 11, 2026 in Bissell, Inc. v. International Trade Commission (Appeal No. 24-1509), affirming a final determination of the International Trade Commission that Tineco’s redesigned wet-dry surface cleaning devices do not infringe Bissell’s patents. The ruling lets stand the ITC’s refusal to issue an exclusion order against the redesigned products. The Federal Circuit also affirmed the Commission’s finding that Bissell satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, rejecting Tineco’s cross-appeal.

The case centers on U.S. Patent Nos. 11,076,735 and 11,071,428, which cover wet-dry surface-cleaning devices that include a storage tray used during a self-cleaning mode and for battery recharging. According to the specifications, the battery does not recharge during the self-cleaning mode because the battery charging circuit is disabled. Bissell had filed a complaint under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, alleging that Tineco was importing and selling devices that infringe the claims.

The ITC originally barred Tineco from importing certain accused products that were found to infringe. After the complaint was filed, Tineco redesigned the products. The Commission concluded that the redesigned units did not infringe several claims and therefore declined to enter an exclusion order against them. Bissell appealed that no-violation finding, while Tineco cross-appealed to challenge the determination that Bissell had established a technical domestic industry.

Claim construction and the doctrine of equivalents

Writing for the panel, Judge Stoll first addressed Bissell’s argument that the redesigned products satisfy the limitation requiring the battery charging circuit to be disabled by actuation of the self-cleaning input control and to remain disabled during the unattended automatic cleanout cycle. Bissell argued that the Administrative Law Judge had relied on an implicit error in claim construction when concluding that the redesigned units do not literally meet the disabled-battery limitation.

The Federal Circuit rejected that argument. Judge Stoll explained that the Administrative Law Judge had simply applied the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language and had made credibility determinations, finding the testimony of Bissell’s expert unpersuasive. Timing diagrams showed that the redesigned products charge twice during the 120-second self-cleaning period, providing substantial evidence to support the finding of no literal infringement.

On the doctrine of equivalents, Bissell argued that the Administrative Law Judge had impermissibly relied on the doctrine of claim vitiation. The Federal Circuit disagreed, characterizing the ALJ’s reasoning as a factual determination that the testimony — to the effect that a battery circuit doing the opposite of what the claim requires is insubstantially different from the claim — was simply unpersuasive. The court affirmed the no-infringement finding under the doctrine of equivalents.

The domestic industry cross-appeal

Tineco’s cross-appeal challenged the Commission’s conclusion that Bissell’s own products met the disabled-battery limitation. Tineco argued that Bissell’s expert had relied on source code produced in discovery but never formally introduced into evidence at trial.

The Federal Circuit rejected that challenge as well. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 703, an expert may base an opinion on facts or data the expert has been made aware of in the case. The court emphasized that the source code had in fact been produced in discovery, the expert reviewed it, experts in the field would reasonably rely on source code to evaluate how the domestic industry products operate, and Tineco offered no contrary expert opinion. Substantial evidence therefore supported the Commission’s domestic-industry finding.

Tineco separately argued that substantial evidence did not support the finding that the accused products meet the limitation requiring the brushroll to be within the recovery pathway. The Federal Circuit noted that even under a narrower view of the recovery pathway, Tineco’s own expert conceded the limitation is met when at least 50% of the brushroll falls within the pathway. The court concluded that a reasonable fact-finder could rely on the demonstrative and expert testimony to find that the brushrolls are not materially different from a brushroll 50% inside the recovery pathway. Substantial evidence likewise supported the determination that Tineco’s products satisfy the suction nozzle limitation.

Implications for design-around strategy

The decision reaffirms that respondents in Section 337 proceedings can secure favorable outcomes through targeted design-arounds that defeat specific claim limitations. The court’s treatment of the doctrine-of-equivalents issue is particularly notable: by characterizing the ALJ’s analysis as a factual credibility judgment rather than an application of claim vitiation, the panel made clear that patent owners attempting to overcome a design-around through equivalents will face an elevated evidentiary burden on the persuasive force of their expert testimony.

Bissell is a leading U.S. floor-care brand, while Tineco is a Chinese manufacturer that continues to expand its U.S. presence. For Tineco, the affirmance is a meaningful legal victory in defending its redesigned product line. For Bissell, the affirmance of the domestic-industry finding preserves its ability to pursue future Section 337 litigation against other importers.