BISSELL v. ITC — Federal Circuit Affirms That Redesigned Tineco Vacuums Do Not Infringe, Clarifies Expert Reliance on Discovery Source Code

Background

BISSELL filed a Section 337 complaint at the International Trade Commission alleging that Tineco’s wet-dry surface cleaning devices infringed claims of two BISSELL patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 11,076,735 and 11,071,428). The patents cover vacuum technology with a self-cleaning mode that disables the battery charging circuit during an automatic cleanout cycle.

After the complaint was filed, Tineco redesigned its accused products by altering their source code. The ITC found that Tineco’s original products infringed the asserted claims and issued an exclusion order barring their importation. However, the ITC also found that Tineco’s redesigned products did not infringe because they no longer disabled the battery charging circuit during the self-cleaning cycle as required by the patent claims. BISSELL appealed the no-violation finding on the redesigned products, and Tineco cross-appealed on domestic industry and certain infringement findings.

The Court’s Holding

The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s determination in full, addressing both BISSELL’s appeal and Tineco’s cross-appeal.

Redesigned products — no infringement: The court upheld the ITC’s finding that Tineco’s redesigned products do not literally infringe because the redesigned source code does not disable the battery charging circuit during the cleanout cycle. The court also affirmed the rejection of BISSELL’s doctrine-of-equivalents argument, noting that the ITC’s Administrative Law Judge found BISSELL’s expert’s testimony unpersuasive when he argued that a charging circuit that does the opposite of what the claim requires (charges during cleanout rather than remaining disabled) is insubstantially different from the claimed limitation.

Expert reliance on source code — FRE 703: In a significant evidentiary ruling, the court rejected Tineco’s argument that BISSELL’s expert could not rely on source code that was produced during discovery but never formally introduced as a hearing exhibit. Under Rule 703 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, an expert may base an opinion on facts or data that experts in the field would reasonably rely on — even if those facts are not independently admissible. Because source code was produced in discovery, the expert reviewed it, and software experts routinely rely on source code to understand product operation, the expert’s reliance was proper.

Key Takeaways

• Effective design-arounds can moot ITC exclusion orders. Tineco’s strategy of redesigning its products’ source code after the complaint was filed successfully avoided an import ban on its newer product lines, even while the original products were excluded. This validates the design-around as a viable ITC response.
• Discovery materials can support expert testimony even without formal admission. The FRE 703 ruling confirms that ITC experts can rely on source code and other technical materials produced during discovery, even if those materials were never admitted as hearing exhibits — as long as experts in the field would reasonably rely on them.
• Doctrine of equivalents has limits. When a redesigned product does the opposite of what a claim limitation requires, the doctrine of equivalents will not bridge the gap. A battery circuit that charges during cleanout is not insubstantially different from one that remains disabled.

Why It Matters

This decision is important for two audiences. For companies facing ITC investigations, it demonstrates that timely product redesigns — particularly software-based changes — can effectively limit the scope of exclusion orders and allow continued importation of redesigned products. The case provides a playbook for responding to Section 337 complaints through engineering rather than purely legal defenses. For patent litigators in all forums, the FRE 703 ruling provides important guidance on expert evidence, confirming that the universe of materials an expert can rely on is broader than the formal evidentiary record — a principle that applies equally in district court patent cases.