Federal Circuit IP

Bissell, Inc. v. ITC

Published July 1, 2026

Bissell, Inc. v. ITC (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2026) (Stoll, Moore, Taranto)

Overview: Firmware redesign can provide a non-infringing workaround to an ITC exclusion order.

Facts / Procedural History

• At the ITC, Bissell asserted patents directed at floor cleaners with a self-cleaning mode.
• All asserted claims required that the battery remain disabled throughout the self-cleaning
• Tineco promptly rewrote the source code for the accused products, such that the battery briefly charged twice during the cleanout cycle.
• ALJ found infringement by the original accused products but no infringement by Tineco’s redesigned products.

Issues: Whether Tineco’s redesigned products infringed either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (“DOE”).

Holding / Analysis: The Federal Circuit affirmed because:

• The claim language required the battery charging circuit to remain disabled during the unattended cycle, and the redesign allowed charging during that cycle.
• The doctrine of equivalents finding was supported by substantial evidence, and Bissell did not preserve a meaningful challenge to the ALJ’s factual findings that the differences between the redesigned product and claims were not “insubstantial.”

Takeaways:

• Anticipate potential design-arounds, especially for negative limitations when drafting and amending.
• When facing infringement, consider redesigning the accused product as early as possible.