Bissell, Inc. v. ITC

Bissell, Inc. v. ITC The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC's final determination in full. Substantial evidence supported the findings of no literal or equivalents infringement by Tineco's redesigned products, the findings that Bissell's domestic industry products and Tineco's original products meet the disputed limitations, and an expert may rely on source code that was not introduced into the trial record. Challenges framed as implicit claim construction or claim vitiation will fail if the underlying fact findings are not attacked for substantial evidence, and an expert may base an ITC technical domestic industry opinion on produced source code that was never made an exhibit, at least where unrebutted. Affirmed. Bissell alleged that Tineco's wet dry cleaners infringe the '735 and '428 patents, which share a specification. The Commission excluded the original accused products but found no infringement by the redesigned products, which had altered source code, of the limitation requiring the battery charging circuit to be disabled by the self-cleaning input and to remain disabled during the unattended cleanout cycle. Literal infringement: the court rejected Bissell's argument that the ALJ implicitly construed the claim. The ALJ applied the plain meaning, made credibility findings against Bissell's expert, and found the redesigned products do not complete a cleanout cycle with the charging circuit off. Bissell conceded at oral argument that it challenged only claim construction and did not raise a substantial evidence challenge. Doctrine of equivalents: the court read the ALJ's analysis as a fact finding under the insubstantial differences test, not a legal vitiation ruling, because the ALJ found the expert unpersuasive that a circuit that charges during the cycle is insubstantially different. Bissell did not argue lack of substantial evidence in its opening brief. Domestic industry: the court held that an expert may rely on source code produced in discovery without its introduction at trial, citing Fed. R. Evid. 703. The expert's unrebutted, non-conclusory testimony, plus an internal Bissell document, was substantial evidence. Tineco had offered no contrary theory and did not cross-examine the expert. Cross-appeal infringement findings: substantial evidence supported the 'brushroll within the recovery pathway' finding, based on Tineco's own demonstrative and its expert's 50 percent concession, and the 'suction nozzle configured to extract' finding, based on Tineco's expert's concessions and Bissell's experiment removing the blade. infringement claim construction domestic industry exclusion order waiver / forfeiture precedential