Bissell Inc. v. Tineco Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.

Bissell Inc. and Tineco Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. are direct competitors in the consumer floor care market. Bissell is a well-established American company based in Michigan, known for its extensive line of vacuum cleaners and carpet cleaning machines. Tineco is a relatively newer Chinese company, founded in 1998, that has aggressively marketed a range of "smart" cordless vacuums and wet/dry floor washers, rapidly gaining significant market share. Both are operating companies that manufacture and sell their own branded products, placing them in direct competition. This case represents a clash between an incumbent market leader and a disruptive challenger in the lucrative and technologically evolving segment of combination wet/dry hard floor cleaners.

The dispute focuses on Tineco's popular Floor One and iFloor series of wet/dry floor cleaners. Bissell alleged that these products infringed U.S. Patent No. 11,076,735, titled "Wet/dry floor cleaning device." The '735 patent claims technology related to a self-cleaning cycle that flushes the device's brush roll and internal fluid pathways with cleaning fluid to remove collected debris, a key convenience and hygiene feature in these machines. Bissell argued that the automated cleaning cycles in Tineco's accused products utilized its patented technology.

The litigation took place at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) under Investigation No. 337-TA-1304. This venue is significant because, unlike district courts which primarily award monetary damages, the ITC's primary remedy is an exclusion order, which directs U.S. Customs and Border Protection to block the importation of infringing products. This powerful tool can completely bar a competitor's product from the U.S. market. The case is notable for its outcome: while the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially found that Tineco's products did infringe, Tineco implemented a firmware modification during the investigation to alter the self-cleaning cycle. The full Commission reviewed the case and determined that Tineco's redesigned products no longer infringed the patent. As a result, no exclusion order was issued. Bissell has since appealed this determination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, making the case a key example of the "design-around" strategy often employed by respondents in fast-paced ITC investigations.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

This Section 337 investigation at the International Trade Commission (ITC) involved claims by Bissell Inc. that certain wet-dry surface cleaning devices from Tineco Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. infringed its patents. The case is notable for the strategic use of a product redesign during litigation, which ultimately led to a finding of no violation for the modified products and was affirmed on appeal.

Filing & Initial Proceedings

• 2022-02-01: Bissell Inc. and Bissell Homecare, Inc. (collectively, "Bissell") filed a complaint with the ITC under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, alleging patent infringement by Tineco Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., TEK (Hong Kong) Science & Technology Ltd., and Tineco Intelligent, Inc. (collectively, "Tineco"). The complaint accused Tineco's wet-dry vacuums, including the iFloor and Floor One series, of infringing five U.S. patents. The patent central to the final decisions was U.S. Patent No. 11,076,735 ('735 patent), which relates to a self-cleaning function where the device's battery charging is disabled during the cleaning cycle.
• 2022-02-01: Concurrently with the ITC complaint, Bissell filed a parallel patent infringement lawsuit against Tineco in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:22-cv-00150), asserting the same patents.
• 2022-03-09: The ITC instituted the investigation, docketed as Certain Wet Dry Surface Cleaning Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1304. The case was assigned to Chief Administrative Law Judge (CALJ) Clark S. Cheney.

Pre-Trial and Trial Developments

• Product Redesign: Shortly after Bissell filed its complaint, Tineco implemented a firmware update for its accused Floor One S3 and S5 Pro devices. This redesign altered the self-cleaning cycle to allow the battery to charge momentarily twice during the 120-second process. This modification was a pivotal strategic move aimed at avoiding literal infringement of the '735 patent's requirement that the battery charging circuit "remains disabled during the unattended automatic cleanout cycle."
• Evidentiary Hearing (Trial): A five-day evidentiary hearing was held before CALJ Cheney in December 2022.

ALJ's Initial Determination

• 2023-03-24: CALJ Cheney issued his final Initial Determination (ID). He found a violation of Section 337 with respect to Tineco's original product designs, concluding they infringed claims 1, 13, and 15 of Bissell's '735 patent and a claim of U.S. Patent No. 11,071,428 ('428 patent).
• Crucially, the ID found that Tineco's redesigned products with the new firmware did not infringe the asserted patents. The ALJ also found no infringement for three other Bissell patents asserted in the complaint.
• 2023-04-07: The CALJ issued a Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding, recommending a limited exclusion order (LEO) and cease and desist orders against the infringing original products. He proposed a bond of $99.01 per infringing Floor One S3 device imported during the 60-day Presidential review period.

Commission's Final Determination

• 2023-08-01: The Commission issued a notice stating its intent to review the ALJ's Initial Determination in part.
• 2023-12-18: The full Commission issued its Final Determination, affirming the ALJ's finding of a Section 337 violation. It upheld the finding that Tineco's original iFloor3 and Floor One S3 models infringed the '735 and '428 patents. However, it also affirmed the critical finding that the redesigned products did not infringe.
• The Commission issued an LEO and a cease and desist order, but these remedies applied only to the original, infringing Tineco models, effectively allowing Tineco to continue importing its redesigned, non-infringing products into the United States. The investigation was terminated.

Parallel Proceedings

• District Court Litigation: The parallel case in the District of Delaware (Bissell Inc. v. Tineco Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd., No. 1:22-cv-00150) was likely stayed pending the outcome of the ITC investigation, as is common practice under 28 U.S.C. § 1659. There is no indication of significant developments in this case, and its resolution was likely impacted by the definitive ITC and Federal Circuit rulings.
• A separate declaratory judgment action filed by Tineco in the Western District of Washington (Tineco Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. v. Bissell, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00297), concerning a different patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,089,933), was concluded on 2024-08-30 with a stipulated dismissal with prejudice, suggesting a settlement.
• PTAB Proceedings: No evidence was found of any Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings filed by Tineco at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of the key patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,076,735.

Appeal and Final Outcome

• Appeal to the Federal Circuit: Bissell appealed the ITC's final determination of no infringement by the redesigned products to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Tineco filed a cross-appeal challenging the ITC's finding that Bissell had satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for its asserted patents.
• 2026-05-11: The Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion affirming the ITC's decision in its entirety (Bissell, Inc. v. ITC, No. 24-1509). The court found that substantial evidence supported the ITC's determination that the redesigned Tineco products, which now briefly charge during the self-cleaning cycle, did not meet the claim limitation requiring the charging circuit to "remain disabled." The court also rejected Bissell's arguments under the doctrine of equivalents and affirmed the finding that Bissell's products satisfied the domestic industry requirement.

The Federal Circuit's decision marked a final victory for Tineco, validating its redesign strategy and ensuring its ability to continue importing and selling its updated wet-dry vacuum cleaners in the U.S. market.

Bissell Inc. was represented by attorneys from the law firms of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and Baker Botts L.L.P. in its patent infringement case against Tineco Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. at the International Trade Commission and the subsequent appeal to the Federal Circuit.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

The team from Quinn Emanuel was instrumental in the initial ITC investigation.

• S. Alex Lasher

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (Washington, D.C.)
  • Note: As head of the firm's ITC practice, Lasher has extensive experience in Section 337 investigations, having handled over seventy such cases.

• Kevin P. B. Johnson

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (Silicon Valley, CA)
  • Note: Johnson focuses on technology patent litigation and has served as lead counsel for major technology companies like Samsung and Sony.

• Brian Saunders

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (Washington, D.C.)
  • Note: Saunders' practice focuses on patent litigation, with experience in cases before district courts and the ITC.

• Sam Stake

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (San Francisco, CA)
  • Note: Stake is a trial lawyer with experience in high-stakes patent and intellectual property disputes.

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Attorneys from Baker Botts joined the legal team for Bissell during the appeal phase of the case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

• Michael Hawes

  • Role: Of Counsel (Appellate)
  • Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P. (Palo Alto, CA)
  • Note: Hawes is a seasoned intellectual property litigator with a focus on patent disputes in federal courts and the ITC.

• Lori A. Ding

  • Role: Of Counsel (Appellate)
  • Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P. (Palo Alto, CA)
  • Note: Ding's practice centers on patent litigation across various technologies, including matters before the ITC and federal courts.

• Lisa M. Kattan

  • Role: Of Counsel (Appellate)
  • Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P. (Washington, D.C.)
  • Note: Kattan is a former senior investigative attorney at the ITC, bringing significant experience in Section 337 investigations to her practice.

• Tommy Martin

  • Role: Of Counsel (Appellate)
  • Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P. (Houston, TX)
  • Note: Martin's practice focuses on intellectual property appeals, particularly before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Counsel for Defendant Tineco Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.

Tineco Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. was represented in International Trade Commission (ITC) Investigation No. 337-TA-1304 by the law firm Jones Day. The legal team was led by partners from the firm's Cleveland, Chicago, and Hong Kong offices, who specialize in high-stakes patent litigation and Section 337 investigations before the ITC.

Based on publicly available documents and firm announcements, the following attorneys served as counsel for Tineco:

Lead Counsel

• David M. Maiorana, Partner, Jones Day (Cleveland)
  • A first-chair trial lawyer and former USPTO patent examiner, Maiorana has nearly 30 years of experience in complex IP matters and frequently leads ITC litigation.
• Matthew J. Hertko, Partner, Jones Day (Chicago)
  • Hertko's practice focuses on high-stakes patent litigation, including representing clients in numerous ITC proceedings across a wide range of technologies.
• Haifeng Huang, Partner, Jones Day (Hong Kong & Beijing)
  • As head of Jones Day's IP practice in China, Huang advises on complex disputes involving patents, trade secrets, and unfair competition for U.S. and Chinese companies.
• Marc S. Blackman, Partner, Jones Day (Chicago)
  • Blackman has over 25 years of experience in patent infringement cases and served as trial counsel for Tineco in this investigation, where he examined multiple witnesses.

While these partners led the representation, the full legal team likely included other partners, of counsel, and associates from Jones Day. However, a comprehensive list of all appearing attorneys is not readily available in the public versions of the ITC's orders or the parties' press releases.