The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently reaffirmed the International Trade Commission’s decision in a patent dispute, siding with the agency’s limited exclusion order. In Bissell, Inc. v. ITC (Case No. 24-1509), the three-judge panel upheld the ITC’s determination that only specific products infringing Bissell’s patents should be excluded from import, while allowing redesigned versions by Tineco to enter the market. The ruling centers on the boundaries of appellate review in patent cases, emphasizing deference to administrative findings.
The company initiated a Section 337 investigation in 2024, alleging that Tineco’s wet/dry surface-cleaning devices violated its patents. An administrative law judge (ALJ) conducted an evidentiary hearing and ruled that Tineco’s original products infringed the company’s claims. However, the ALJ also found that Tineco’s redesigned models did not infringe, leading to a limited exclusion order targeting only the original products. The agency affirmed this outcome, sparking appeals from both parties.
Related: Regulators Ease Small Business Lending Data Rules
The company contested the ALJ’s interpretation of a patent claim requiring that a battery charging circuit be “disabled during the self-cleaning mode” and “remain disabled during the cleanout cycle.” Tineco modified its devices so that some charging occurred during self-cleaning, but the company argued that the battery was disabled for most of the cleaning process. The company’s expert testified that the claim only required a period of disablement during self-cleaning, not the full cycle.
The ALJ rejected this narrower reading, concluding that the claim’s language mandated continuous disablement. The company claimed this amounted to improper claim construction, but the Federal Circuit ruled that the ALJ applied the plain meaning of the terms. The court noted that the company had not challenged the ALJ’s findings as lacking substantial evidence, a key threshold for overturning administrative decisions.
Tineco’s appeal focused on the ALJ’s reliance on the company’s expert testimony, which cited source code not formally admitted during the trial. Tineco argued this evidence was insufficient. The Federal Circuit, however, cited Federal Rule of Evidence 703, which permits experts to use information not formally admitted if it is reasonably relied upon in their field. The court stressed that source code analysis is standard practice in patent disputes and that the ALJ’s conclusion had ample support.
Related: 4 Most Common Types of Car Accidents in Atlanta
The ruling underscores the limits of appellate courts in reweighing evidence. The panel emphasized that when the agency interprets claim terms based on their “face,” courts must defer to that reading unless the agency’s interpretation is clearly erroneous. The decision also clarifies that expert testimony can suffice even if it relies on inadmissible materials, provided the evidence is relevant and commonly used in the field.
The case highlights the tension between judicial oversight and administrative expertise. While courts can correct legal errors, they cannot substitute their own factual assessments for those of the agency. The Federal Circuit’s stance reinforces a long-standing principle: appellate review in patent cases is narrow, focusing on procedural correctness rather than re-evaluating technical or factual determinations.
For litigants, the ruling offers a roadmap. Challenges to claim construction must target procedural flaws, not the ALJ’s interpretation of language. Similarly, disputes over expert testimony should be resolved during trial, not on appeal. The decision leaves little room for second-guessing administrative findings, provided they are supported by the record.
Related: Best Scrap Car Buyers in Ontario: How to Sell Your Junk Car for Cash
Practitioners in patent law will need to adjust strategies. The Federal Circuit’s emphasis on deference to the agency’s claim construction may limit opportunities to overturn decisions on technical grounds. However, the ruling also reaffirms the role of expert testimony, even when based on unadmitted materials, as long as the evidence aligns with industry standards. The case serves as a reminder that appellate courts are not equipped to re-litigate technical disputes, but must ensure agencies follow proper procedures.
The outcome may influence future Section 337 investigations, encouraging parties to challenge procedural errors early rather than contesting factual or technical conclusions. For the agency, the decision reinforces its authority to make nuanced determinations, even when outcomes are limited in scope. The Federal Circuit’s focus on procedural adherence over substantive re-evaluation could shape the trajectory of patent litigation for years to come.
