Bissell v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 24-1509): Federal Circuit Affirms ITC Determination
Bissell, Inc. and Bissell Homecare, Inc. appealed an ITC final determination involving five patents asserted against Tineco and Resch wet-dry floor cleaner products. After 809 days, the Federal Circuit found all remaining arguments unpersuasive and affirmed the Commission's ruling in full.
Bissell's five-patent ITC appeal ends in Federal Circuit affirmance
Bissell, Inc. and Bissell Homecare, Inc. filed this appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 22 February 2024, challenging the International Trade Commission's Final Determination in an infringement action. The dispute centred on five US patents — US11071428B2, US11076735B2, US10820769B2, US11096541B2, and US11122949B2 — asserted against a range of floor-cleaning products including the Tineco Floor One S3, S5 Pro, iFloor, and the Resch Floor One S3 and iFloor 3.
The Federal Circuit issued its decision on 11 May 2026, stating that it had considered all remaining arguments advanced by both Appellants (Bissell) and Cross-Appellants and found them unpersuasive, affirming the Commission's Final Determination in full. The recorded Basis of Termination is noted as 'Appeal Dismissed'; the docket order states 'AFFIRMED.' Those two characterisations are reported as-is from the available record — the reader should reconcile them.
The case ran for 809 days across the appellate phase alone, reflecting the complexity of a multi-patent ITC appeal involving both appellant and cross-appellant tracks. The specific reasoning on each patent claim and the scope of the ITC's original Final Determination are not reproduced in the available record excerpt, meaning the full commercial and enforcement implications for both Bissell and the respondent product lines remain subject to review of the complete Commission and Federal Circuit opinions.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 809 days
809 days from filing to Federal Circuit decision — a multi-year appellate review
US11071428B2 and four further patents — wet-dry floor cleaning technology
Any manufacturer, importer, or distributor of wet-dry floor cleaning appliances — particularly products with integrated wash-and-suction or self-cleaning features comparable to the Tineco and Resch product lines named in this case — should treat the Bissell patent cluster as a material FTO risk. The ITC's Final Determination has now been affirmed at the Federal Circuit, which raises the enforcement risk profile for products with technically similar configurations entering the US market.
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit's order states that all remaining arguments advanced by Appellants and Cross-Appellants were considered and found unpersuasive, resulting in an express affirmance of the Commission's Final Determination. This language indicates a merits review applying the standard of review applicable to ITC determinations — typically substantial evidence for factual findings and de novo for legal conclusions — with the court finding the ITC's resolution supportable on all challenged grounds. The recorded Basis of Termination in the docket is 'Appeal Dismissed'; the verdict text states 'AFFIRMED.' Both are reported as recorded; the reader should consult the full docket for reconciliation.
Federal Circuit affirms: what the ruling means for both parties
What 'AFFIRMED' means at the Federal Circuit
An affirmance by the Federal Circuit means the appellate court found no reversible error in the ITC's Final Determination. The Commission's ruling stands in its entirety. The Federal Circuit reviewed Bissell's and the Cross-Appellants' remaining arguments and expressly found each unpersuasive, making the ITC's original determination the binding, final resolution of the merits at this level.
No reversible error foundITC Final Determination upheld — Bissell's challenge fails at appellate level
As the appellants, Bissell and Bissell Homecare sought to disturb the ITC's Final Determination through this appeal. The Federal Circuit's affirmance means that outcome is now confirmed. The specific relief or findings Bissell sought to alter through the appeal are not detailed in the available record, but the court's rejection of all remaining arguments suggests no modification to the ITC determination was granted.
Appellate challenge rejectedCross-appellants' arguments also found unpersuasive
The Federal Circuit's opinion expressly addressed cross-appellants' remaining arguments alongside those of Bissell and rejected both. The specific identity and arguments of the cross-appellants are not reproduced in the available record excerpt. For both tracks, further Federal Circuit review is foreclosed by the affirmance; any further challenge would require a petition to the Supreme Court.
Both appeal tracks rejectedTineco and Resch floor-cleaner products face confirmed ITC ruling
The five Bissell patents cover technology embodied in the Tineco Floor One S3, S5 Pro, iFloor, and Resch Floor One S3 and iFloor 3. With the ITC's Final Determination now affirmed at the Federal Circuit, the enforcement posture of those patents against the named product lines is strengthened. Companies active in the wet-dry floor-cleaning segment should monitor the ITC determination and these five patent numbers when conducting FTO and product clearance assessments.
ITC enforcement posture confirmedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bissell, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Bissell Homecare, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | International Trade Commission | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian L. Saunders | Attorney | Counsel for Bissell, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kevin P. B. Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for Bissell, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lisa M. Kattan | Attorney | Counsel for Bissell, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lori Ding | Attorney | Counsel for Bissell, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Hawes | Attorney | Counsel for Bissell, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sam Stephen Stake | Attorney | Counsel for Bissell, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott Alex Lasher | Attorney | Counsel for Bissell, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas Chisman Martin | Attorney | Counsel for Bissell, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing Bissell, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Bissell, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lynde Faun Herzbach | Attorney | Counsel for International Trade CommissionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michelle W. Klancnik | Attorney | Counsel for International Trade CommissionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | United States International Trade Commission | Law Firm | Representing International Trade CommissionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the wet-dry floor-cleaning appliance IP space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Bissell v. ITC case — covering Bissell's portfolio, Tineco's IP posture, and adjacent white space in floor-care technology.
Bissell's floor-care patent filing activity post-assertion
Bissell pursued five granted patents through ITC and Federal Circuit appeal, suggesting an active prosecution strategy in wet-dry cleaning technology. Monitoring Bissell's continuation, divisional, and new application filings in this technology cluster can reveal where the company is extending its IP perimeter — particularly around self-cleaning, brush-roll design, and fluid recovery systems.
Bissell portfolio watchFiling trends in wet-dry floor-cleaning system patents
The wet-dry floor-cleaning segment — covering combined suction, wash, and self-cleaning functions — has attracted growing patent activity from both established brands and Chinese OEM entrants. Mapping filing trends around brush-roll, fluid recovery, and cleaning-head design reveals where innovation is converging and where crowding may limit design freedom for new market entrants.
Sector filing trendsTineco's patent position in the US floor-care market
Tineco's Floor One and iFloor product lines were named respondents in the underlying ITC action. Assessing Tineco's own US patent filings — including any defensive publications, utility models, or design patents — provides insight into whether the company is building its own IP moat in the floor-care space or relying primarily on design-around and cost-based competition strategies.
Tineco IP watchAdjacent innovation opportunities near the Bissell patent cluster
With five Bissell patents covering core wet-dry floor-cleaning functions now affirmed through Federal Circuit review, adjacent technical areas — such as AI-driven cleaning path optimisation, battery and power management for cordless wet cleaners, and smart-home integration for floor-care appliances — may represent lower-risk innovation corridors where patent density is comparatively lower.
Adjacent white spaceSimilar ITC patent appeals in the consumer floor-care and appliance sector
Browse Federal Circuit appeals of ITC determinations involving consumer floor-cleaning and wet-dry appliance patents — cases with comparable multi-patent assertion and exclusion order postures.
What this case signals for the floor-cleaning appliance IP landscape
A Federal Circuit affirmance of a multi-patent ITC determination sends a clear signal to the wet-dry floor-cleaner market.
Five-patent ITC enforcement is a high-stakes exclusion mechanism
Asserting multiple patents before the ITC — rather than district court — allows patent holders to pursue exclusion orders rather than just damages. This case's multi-patent structure and Federal Circuit affirmance confirm that the ITC route remains a potent enforcement tool in the consumer appliance sector.
Wet-dry floor cleaner technology is an actively contested IP domain
Five separate patents covering floor-cleaning products were asserted in a single ITC action, suggesting the technology space around wet-dry floor cleaners carries dense IP coverage. R&D teams developing similar products should treat this patent cluster as a priority for FTO review and freedom-to-design analysis.
Bissell v International — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the International Trade Commission's Final Determination in case 24-1509. The court considered all remaining arguments from both Appellants (Bissell, Inc. and Bissell Homecare, Inc.) and Cross-Appellants and found them unpersuasive, issuing an express affirmance on 11 May 2026. The recorded Basis of Termination in the docket is 'Appeal Dismissed'; the verdict text states 'AFFIRMED.'
Five US patents were asserted: US11071428B2, US11076735B2, US10820769B2, US11096541B2, and US11122949B2. These patents were asserted against Tineco and Resch wet-dry floor cleaning products including the Tineco Floor One S3, Floor One S5 Pro, iFloor, and the Resch Floor One S3 and iFloor 3.
The products named in the dispute include the Tineco Floor One S3, Tineco Floor One S5 Pro, Tineco iFloor, Resch Floor One S3, and Resch iFloor 3 — all wet-dry consumer floor cleaning appliances sold or imported into the US market.
An affirmance means the Federal Circuit found no reversible error in the ITC's analysis of the relevant patent claims and infringement or validity issues. The ITC's Final Determination stands as the binding resolution. Any exclusion orders or other remedies granted by the ITC in the original determination remain in effect. Further challenge would require a petition to the US Supreme Court.
The appeal was filed on 22 February 2024 and the Federal Circuit issued its decision on 11 May 2026 — a duration of 809 days. This reflects the typical complexity of multi-patent ITC appeals, which often involve extensive briefing on both infringement and validity grounds across multiple patent families.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.