Bissell Inc. v. Multiple parties

Floor Care Giant Bissell Accuses Competitor of Patent Infringement in Fast-Track ITC Forum

In a significant clash within the competitive floor cleaning appliance market, American manufacturer Bissell Inc. has lodged a patent infringement complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). The Grand Rapids, Michigan-based company, a long-standing operating company in the vacuum and carpet cleaner space, alleges that certain "wet and dry surface cleaning devices" imported and sold by a key rival infringe its patented technology. The primary respondent named in the investigation (No. 337-TA-1304) is Tineco Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese manufacturer of smart home appliances, including vacuums and floor washers, that has been rapidly gaining market share globally.

The dispute centers on technology for combination wet-dry vacuum mops, a popular and growing category of home appliances. Bissell has asserted several patents, with a key focus on U.S. Patent No. 11,076,735. This patent generally covers a surface cleaning apparatus with a self-cleaning mode where the device can automatically flush its brush roll when docked in a storage tray. A specific feature highlighted in the litigation is a claimed limitation that the device's battery charging circuit is disabled during this self-cleaning cycle. Bissell alleges that Tineco's imported products, such as models in its FLOOR ONE series, incorporate this patented technology without authorization.

This case is notable for several reasons. It underscores the intense competition and innovation in the smart-home cleaning sector. Bissell chose the ITC as its venue, a strategic decision that offers a faster timeline than district court and, most critically, the potential for a powerful remedy: a limited exclusion order that would bar the importation of infringing products into the United States. The case took a significant turn when, after the investigation was instituted, Tineco redesigned the firmware of its accused products. This redesign reportedly altered the charging behavior during the self-cleaning cycle, a move intended to design around Bissell's patent claims. While the ITC initially found that Tineco's original products infringed, it determined the redesigned products did not, a decision later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in May 2026. This outcome highlights a common strategy in ITC litigation where respondents modify products mid-case to avoid exclusion, presenting a dynamic challenge for patent holders.

Bissell's Bid to Block Tineco Imports Sees Mixed Results, Ultimately Falls Short on Redesigned Products

2026-05-13 - An aggressive patent enforcement campaign by Bissell Inc. to block imports of rival Tineco's wet/dry surface cleaning devices has concluded, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirming a key International Trade Commission (ITC) decision. While Bissell initially secured an import ban on Tineco's original products, Tineco's redesigned devices were found not to infringe, a ruling that has now been upheld on appeal, effectively allowing Tineco to continue importing its current products.

The dispute, which spanned the ITC, federal district court, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), centered on Bissell's patents for its CrossWave line of multi-surface cleaners.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome

Filing and Initial Proceedings (2022)

• 2022-02-02: Complaint Filed: Bissell Inc. and Bissell Homecare, Inc. filed a complaint with the ITC, alleging that certain wet dry surface cleaning devices imported and sold by Tineco Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. and its affiliates infringed five of its U.S. patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,076,735. Bissell sought a limited exclusion order to block the importation of the accused Tineco products, such as the iFloor and Floor One lines, and a cease and desist order. On the same day, Bissell filed a parallel patent infringement lawsuit against Tineco in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
• 2022-03-09: Investigation Instituted: The ITC instituted a Section 337 investigation, officially docketed as Certain Wet Dry Surface Cleaning Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-3601 (the case number in the prompt, 337-TA-3601, appears to be a typo and should be 337-TA-1304 based on multiple search results). The named respondents were Tineco Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. of China; TEK (Hong Kong) Science & Technology Ltd. of Hong Kong; and Tineco Intelligent, Inc. of Seattle, WA.
• 2022-03-31: District Court Case Stayed: The parallel litigation in the District of Delaware (Bissell Inc. et al. v. Tineco Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. et al., No. 1:22-cv-00150) was stayed pending the resolution of the ITC investigation.

Pre-Trial and Trial Developments (2022-2023)

• Respondent's Redesign: Shortly after the investigation was instituted, Tineco redesigned the accused products' firmware. The key change involved the battery charging cycle during the self-cleaning mode. While Bissell's '735 patent described a battery charging circuit that "remains disabled during the unattended automatic cleanout cycle," Tineco's new software code caused the battery to charge briefly twice during the cleaning cycle, thereby designing around the literal language of the patent claim. This redesign became a pivotal issue in the case.
• 2022-12: Evidentiary Hearing: Chief Administrative Law Judge (CALJ) Clark S. Cheney held a five-day evidentiary hearing to consider Bissell's infringement allegations and Tineco's defenses.

Determinations and Final Rulings (2023)

• 2023-03-24: Initial Determination (ID): CALJ Cheney issued his Initial Determination, finding a mixed result. He found a violation of Section 337 with respect to some of the asserted patents, including claims 1, 13, and 15 of the '735 patent, by Tineco's original products. However, the CALJ found that Tineco's redesigned products did not infringe. The finding of no infringement for the redesigned products was critical, as it provided Tineco a path to continue accessing the U.S. market.
• 2023-08-01: Commission Review: The Commission determined to review the CALJ's ID in part.
• 2023-12-18: Final Determination & Remedial Orders: The Commission issued its Final Determination, affirming the CALJ's finding of a violation. It found that Tineco's iFloor3 and Floor One S3 devices infringed the '735 and '428 patents. As a result, the ITC issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting the importation of the infringing original Tineco products and cease and desist orders against the named respondents. The Commission also affirmed that Tineco's redesigned products did not infringe. The Commission set a bond of $99.01 per device for any infringing products imported during the 60-day Presidential review period.

Appeal to the Federal Circuit (2024-2026)

• Appeal Filed: Bissell appealed the ITC's final determination of non-infringement for the redesigned products to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Tineco cross-appealed the finding that Bissell had established a technical domestic industry for its products.
• 2026-05-11: Federal Circuit Affirmance: The Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision affirming the ITC's final determination in its entirety. The appellate court rejected Bissell's arguments that the ALJ had improperly construed the patent claims and had erred in finding no literal infringement or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents for the redesigned products. The court agreed that Tineco's firmware update, which introduced two brief charging periods during the self-cleaning cycle, meant the battery charging circuit did not "remain disabled" as required by the patent. The court also upheld the ITC's finding that Bissell's products satisfied the domestic industry requirement.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

In a related development, SharkNinja Operating LLC, a competitor but not a party to the ITC case, challenged the validity of several Bissell patents at the PTAB.

• 2024-01-11: PTAB Invalidates Bissell Patents: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued decisions in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, invalidating four Bissell patents and partially invalidating a fifth, finding the claims to be obvious or anticipated by prior art. While the specific impact on the '735 patent is not detailed in the available materials, these PTAB decisions represented a significant blow to Bissell's broader patent portfolio for mop-vacuum technology.

Final Outcome

The litigation has now reached a final conclusion. Bissell was successful in obtaining an exclusion order against Tineco's older, infringing products. However, Tineco's strategic redesign of its products' firmware allowed it to avoid the import ban for its current and future products. The Federal Circuit's recent affirmance solidifies this outcome, leaving Tineco free to import and sell its redesigned wet dry surface cleaners in the United States. The parallel district court case, which was stayed, is expected to be dismissed following the conclusion of the ITC and appellate proceedings.

An analysis of the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation, Certain Wet Dry Surface Cleaning Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1304, and its subsequent appeal reveals that the complainant, Bissell Inc., was represented by attorneys from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, during the investigation and by a team from both Quinn Emanuel and Baker Botts LLP during the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

It is highly probable that the case number referenced in the prompt, 337-TA-3601, is a typographical error, as all public records for the dispute between Bissell and Tineco involving patent 11,076,735 point to the 337-TA-1304 investigation initiated in 2022.

The following counsel have been identified from the Federal Circuit's opinion issued on May 11, 2026.

For Complainant-Appellant Bissell Inc.

• Name: Michael Hawes

  • Role: Lead Counsel (on appeal)
  • Firm & Office: Baker Botts LLP, Houston, TX
  • Note: Hawes argued the appeal for Bissell before the Federal Circuit and has a notable record in intellectual property appellate litigation.

• Name: Scott Alex Lasher

  • Role: Of Counsel (on appeal)
  • Firm & Office: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Lasher heads Quinn Emanuel's ITC Section 337 practice and has represented clients in over ninety Section 337 investigations.

• Name: Kevin P.B. Johnson

  • Role: Of Counsel (on appeal)
  • Firm & Office: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA
  • Note: Johnson is an experienced patent trial lawyer involved in high-stakes technology cases for major clients.

• Name: Brian L. Saunders

  • Role: Of Counsel (on appeal)
  • Firm & Office: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Note: His practice frequently involves patent disputes before the ITC and federal courts.

• Name: Sam Stephen Stake

  • Role: Of Counsel (on appeal)
  • Firm & Office: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA
  • Note: Stake focuses on complex intellectual property litigation for technology-focused clients.

• Name: Lori Ding

  • Role: Of Counsel (on appeal)
  • Firm & Office: Baker Botts LLP, Houston, TX
  • Note: Ding's practice concentrates on patent litigation and appeals in various technology sectors.

• Name: Lisa M. Kattan

  • Role: Of Counsel (on appeal)
  • Firm & Office: Baker Botts LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Kattan is a former senior attorney at the ITC and has deep expertise in Section 337 proceedings.

• Name: Thomas Chisman Martin

  • Role: Of Counsel (on appeal)
  • Firm & Office: Baker Botts LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Martin is an experienced litigator with a focus on patent infringement and trade secret cases at the ITC and in district courts.

While the Federal Circuit opinion provides a definitive list of counsel for the appeal, the complete list of attorneys who represented Bissell from the filing of the initial ITC complaint was not available in public documents found during the search. The original filings on the ITC's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) are not readily accessible through general web searches.

Counsel for Defendants/Respondents

The respondents—Tineco Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., TEK (Hong Kong) Science & Technology Ltd., and Tineco Intelligent, Inc.—were represented by the law firm Jones Day. The legal team included several partners with extensive experience in patent litigation and Section 337 investigations before the International Trade Commission (ITC).

Jones Day

• David M. Maiorana, Partner, Cleveland

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Note: A seasoned first-chair trial lawyer with nearly 30 years of experience in complex IP matters, including numerous ITC investigations for both complainants and respondents.

• Marc S. Blackman, Partner, Chicago

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Note: Served as trial counsel for Tineco in this investigation, where he examined three witnesses, including the cross-examination of a technical expert.

• Matthew J. Hertko, Partner, Chicago

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Note: Represents clients in high-stakes patent litigation across various technologies and has significant experience as trial counsel in ITC proceedings.

• Haifeng Huang, Partner, Hong Kong / Beijing

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Note: Leads Jones Day's Greater China intellectual property practice and has over 20 years of experience in cross-border litigation, representing numerous Chinese companies in high-stakes disputes.