[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18177-18179]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06222]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 337-TA-1252]


Certain Robotic Floor Cleaning Devices and Components Thereof; 
Notice of Commission Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 
337; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; 
Termination of the Investigation

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade 
Commission has found a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended, in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission 
has issued a limited exclusion order (``LEO'') prohibiting the 
importation of certain robotic floor cleaning devices and components 
thereof that are imported by or on behalf of SharkNinja Operating LLC, 
SharkNinja Management LLC, SharkNinja Management Co., SharkNinja Sales 
Co., EP Midco LLC, and SharkNinja Hong Kong Co. Ltd., and that infringe 
claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,813,517 (``the '517 patent''). The 
Commission has also issued cease and desist orders (``CDOs'') against 
each Respondent. The investigation is terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Houda Morad, Office of the General 
Counsel, U.S. International Trade

[[Page 18178]]

Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-
4716. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with 
this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket 
(EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS, please email 
[email protected]. General information concerning the Commission may 
also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on 
this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal 
on (202) 205-1810.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation 
on March 2, 2021, based on a complaint filed on behalf of iRobot 
Corporation (``iRobot'' or ``Complainant'') of Bedford, Massachusetts. 
See 86 FR 12206-07 (Mar. 2, 2021). The complaint alleged violations of 
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, 
based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for 
importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of 
certain robotic floor cleaning devices and components thereof based on 
the infringement of certain claims of the '517 patent; as well as U.S. 
Patent Nos. 9,884,423 (``the '423 patent''); 7,571,511 (``the '511 
patent''); 10,835,096 (``the '096 patent''); and 10,296,007 (``the '007 
patent''). See id. The Commission's notice of investigation named as 
respondents SharkNinja Operating LLC, SharkNinja Management LLC, 
SharkNinja Management Co., SharkNinja Sales Co., and EP Midco LLC, all 
of Needham, Massachusetts; and SharkNinja Hong Kong Co. Ltd. of Hong 
Kong Island, Hong Kong (collectively, ``SharkNinja'' or 
``Respondents''). See id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is 
not participating in the investigation. See id.
    The '007 patent has been terminated from the investigation. See 
Order No. 23 (Sept. 13, 2021), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Oct. 5, 
2021); Order No. 38 (Jan. 4, 2022), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Jan. 
25, 2022). Accordingly, claims 9, 12, and 23 of the '423 patent; claims 
12 and 23 of the '511 patent; claims 1 and 9 of the '517 patent; and 
claims 17 and 26 of the '096 patent were still pending before the 
Administrative Law Judge (``ALJ'').
    On December 30, 2021, the ALJ issued a Markman Order (Order No. 37) 
construing the claim terms in dispute for all asserted patents.
    On October 7, 2022, the ALJ issued a final initial determination 
(``FID'') finding: (1) a violation of section 337 based on infringement 
of claims 9 and 12 of the '423 patent and claims 1 and 9 of the '517 
patent; (2) no infringement of claim 23 of the '423 patent; (3) no 
violation as to claims 17 and 26 of the '096 patent; and (4) no 
violation as to claims 12 and 23 of the '511 patent. The ALJ 
recommended, should the Commission find a violation, issuing a limited 
exclusion order directed to SharkNinja's infringing products and a 
cease and desist order directed to each SharkNinja entity and setting a 
bond in the amount of twenty percent (20%) for importation of 
infringing articles during the period of Presidential review.
    On October 24, 2022, SharkNinja and iRobot each petitioned for 
review of certain aspects of the FID. On November 1, 2022, SharkNinja 
and iRobot each filed a response in opposition to each other's petition 
for review.
    The Commission received no public interest comments from the public 
in response to the Commission's Federal Register notice seeking 
comments on the public interest. See 87 FR 62451-52 (Oct. 14, 2022). 
iRobot submitted public interest comments pursuant to Commission Rule 
210.50(a)(4) (19 CFR 210.50(a)(4)) on November 9, 2022.
    On January 4, 2023, the Commission determined to review certain 
aspects of the FID and requested submissions from the parties on 
certain issues under review. See 88 FR 1405-07 (Jan. 10, 2023). The 
Commission also requested written submissions from the parties, 
interested government agencies, and other interested persons on the 
issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. See id. 
Specifically, the Commission determined to review: (1) for the '511 
patent, the FID's finding that estoppel applies to the Trilobite prior 
art device and claims 1, 10, 12, and 23 are invalid based on the Patent 
Trial and Appeal Board's (``PTAB'') finding that the claims are 
unpatentable; (2) for the '423 patent, the FID's findings that: (i) 
claim 9 of the '423 patent is practiced by the domestic industry 
(``DI'') products; (ii) SharkNinja's accused robots with forward-
docking, i.e., the IQ, AI, and AI-WD products, do not infringe claim 23 
of the '423 patent; (iii) the prior art Dottie robot does not 
anticipate claim 23 of the '423 patent; (iv) the prior art combination 
of Dottie and Everett and the prior art combination of Dottie and Kim 
do not render claims 12 or 23, respectively, of the '423 patent obvious 
under 35 U.S.C. 103; (v) iRobot presented insufficient evidence of 
secondary considerations of non-obviousness with respect to claim 23; 
and (vi) claim 23 of the '423 patent is directed to patent-eligible 
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101; (3) for the '517 patent, the ALJ's 
construction and finding that (i) the ``receiving system'' for claims 1 
and 9 is not means-plus-function; (ii) claims 1 and 9 are infringed by 
SharkNinja's accused products; (iii) claims 1 and 9 are practiced by 
iRobot's DI products; and (iv) claims 1 and 9 are not anticipated by 
the asserted prior art (Kawakami); and (4) for all asserted patents, 
i.e., the '511, '423, '517, and '096 patents, the ID's finding that 
iRobot satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry 
requirement. See Comm'n Notice (Jan. 4, 2023); 88 FR 1405-07 (Jan. 10, 
2023).
    In response to the Commission's notice, on January 18, 2023, iRobot 
and SharkNinja each filed a brief on the requested issues under review, 
remedy, the public interest, and bonding. On January 25, 2023, the 
parties filed reply briefs. The Commission received no other 
submissions.
    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the 
FID, the RD, and the parties' submissions, the Commission has 
determined to affirm with modification the FID's determination of a 
violation of section 337 with respect to claims 1 and 9 of the '517 
patent. The Commission reverses and finds no violation as to the 
asserted claims of the '423 patent. Specifically, as explained in the 
Commission Opinion filed concurrently herewith, the Commission has 
determined to:
     vacate the FID's findings as to the '511 patent, which was 
found unpatentable by the PTAB and no appeal was taken from that PTAB 
determination;
     reverse the FID's finding that iRobot's DI products 
practice claim 9 of the '423 patent and thus the finding that iRobot 
satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement 
based on a valid claim;
     reverse the FID's finding that claim 12 of the '423 patent 
is not obvious over Dottie in view of Everett under 35 U.S.C. 103;
     reverse the FID's finding that certain accused products do 
not infringe claim 23 of the '423 patent;
     take no position with respect to the FID's finding that 
claim 23 of the '423 patent is not anticipated by Dottie under 35 
U.S.C. 102;
     reverse the FID's finding that claim 23 of the '423 patent 
is not obvious over Dottie in view of Kim under 35 U.S.C. 103;
     take no position with respect to the FID's finding that 
claim 23 of the '423

[[Page 18179]]

patent is patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101;
     modify and supplement the FID's claim construction of the 
term ``receiving system'';
     affirm with modification the FID's finding that 
SharkNinja's accused products infringe the asserted claims of the '517 
patent;
     affirm with modification the FID's finding that iRobot's 
DI products practice the asserted claims of the '517 patent; and
     affirm and supplement the FID's finding that the asserted 
claims of the '517 patent are not anticipated by Kawakami under 35 
U.S.C. 102;
     affirm the FID's findings that iRobot satisfies the 
economic prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the 
'517 patent and take no position as to those findings with respect to 
the '511,'423, or '096 patents.
    All findings in the FID that are not inconsistent with the 
Commission's determination are affirmed.
    The Commission has determined that the appropriate remedy is an LEO 
against Respondents' infringing products and a CDO against each 
Respondent. The Commission has also determined that the public interest 
factors enumerated in subsection 337(d)(1) and (f)(1) (19 U.S.C. 
1337(d)(1), (f)(1)) do not preclude the issuance of the LEO and CDOs. 
The Commission has further determined to set a bond during the period 
of Presidential review in the amount of twenty percent (20%) of the 
entered value of Respondents' infringing products (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)).
    The Commission's orders and opinion were delivered to the President 
and to the United States Trade Representative on the day of their 
issuance.
    The Commission's vote for this determination took place on March 
21, 2023.
    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in 
section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and 
in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 
part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 21, 2023.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023-06222 Filed 3-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P