In June 2018, iRobot announced
Judge Thomas Pender rendered a verdict that bObsweep, Inc., bObsweep USA,
Hoover, Shenzhen ILIFE Robot with brand ILIFE and Shenzhen Xrobot (bObsweep and
Hoover undertake OEMs of Xrobot) infringed the patent of iRobot and suggested
International Trade Commission (ITC) prohibit infringed products from entering
the US.
“This
preliminary decision proves iRobot’s strength in patent layout. We are pleased to
get support of the judge in patent related claims. We will handle further
things after evaluation of the remaining part of this initial resolution. We
have full confidence in the patent validity and intensity and will continue to
fight against such patent infringement.”
iRobot CEO Colin Angle remarked after
informed of the initial resolution of Judge Thomas Pender.
The decision of Judge Thomas Pender has
been submitted to the ITC committee for discussion. ITC will make its ultimate
decision on October 25. Once ITC accepts the decision of Judge Thomas Pender
and makes the final ruling, the injunction against the infringed product will
take effect, no matter whether companies further appeal.
It dates back to September 2017 when US sweeping
robot manufacturer iRobot filed a lawsuit against 11 competitors for violating
its six technical patents with valid US patent registration numbers 6809490,
7155308, 8474090, 8600553, 9038233, 9486924 and applied to the ITC for 337
investigation as well as limited exclusion order and prohibition order.
Altogether 3 Chinese companies and 8 foreign companies were charged against,
including Shenzhen ILIFE Robot with iLife brand, Suzhou Laibao Electric Co.,
Ltd. Company, Shenzhen Xrobot as well as US Bissell, US Hoover (brand of TTI),
US Royal Appliance (brand of TTI), Canada bObsweep (US and Canada), US Black& Decker,
Taiwan Matsutek and MSI Technology (MSI).
iRobot’s specific complaints about 11
companies are:
US6809490 (B2) relates to multi-mode
automatic switching of the cleaning robot. The core lies in the robot’s
centralized cleaning in a separate area, the following mode of moving near the
obstacle while keeping a certain distance from the obstacle, and the way of
returning when coming across obstacles. These present main working modes of
existing sweeping robots, so the claims are quite extensive.
US7155308 (B2) concerns a robot obstacle
detection system, mainly an optical emitter and a photon detector. The core is
that the photon detector receives the beam sent by an emitter in the area, and
the automatic robot will be redirected when the obstacle does not exist. It
intrigues people how such an extensive scope gets authorized.
US8474090 (B2) relates to the overall
structure of the cleaning robot, including the arrangement of the housing, the
trash can, the control module and the roller. The core is the deflecting
setting of the roller through spring.
US8600553 (B2) relates to the automatic
speed control of a robot upon encountering an obstacle. The core is the
automatic deceleration when the proximity transducer detects potential obstacle
and change of the moving direction when approaching an obstacle.
US9038233 (B2) relates to the setting of
the brushing and steep wall sensors of the sweeping robot that prevent the
sweeping robot on the steps from falling down. Set the gap and asymmetric
structure to avoid the brushing’s interference on detected light speed of the
steep wall sensor.
US9486924 (B2) sets up the mobile phone
remote control of the sweeping robot. The cores include loading programs and
design routes.
It is clear that aforementioned portfolios
are highly valuable patent combinations in the realm of sweeping robots.
Deployment has been made in overall structure, detector, algorithm, remote
control and key obstacle detection.
This is not new for iRobot to apply the
weapon of patents to beat back its rivals.
As early as June 2013, iRobot sued five
companies at a German court for violating iRobot’s Roomba patent.
Five companies are: Pardus GmbH, Emparanza
y Galdos Internacional SA, Elektrogerate Solac Vertrieb GmbH, Electrodomesticos
Solac SA, and Celaya.
At the IFA in Berlin in September 2013,
iRobot found infringed products at the booth of Shenzhen Xrobot, and
immediately sued it while applying for a restraining order, requiring Shenzhen
Xrobot to withdraw infringed MyGenie sweeping robot series from the IFA.
In this 2017 lawsuit, several companies
sued moved fast to reach an agreement with iRobot:
The OEM giant MSI first posed to come to
terms with iRobot. It announced exiting the robot vacuum cleaner industry after
compensating iRobot. As a return, iRobot agreed to remove Hoover Quest 600, 700
and 800 series made by MSI from the prohibition list. But Hoover’s higher-end
Quest 1000 series remains in the list.
In December, Black & Decker and iRobot
tied up the agreement to stop selling the sweeping robot after emptying the
stock.
In late 2017, Matsutek sued iRobot in China
Intellectual Property Office and Massachusetts by virtue of Taiwan Industrial
Technology Research Institute’s VSLAM patent with patent number US8,310,684.
US 8,310,684 presents device positioning
system for estimating the device posture and establishing maps, including
inertial sensor, visual sensor, controller and device running posture operation
such as position and speed, without repetitive operation of skates (source from
Pan Rongen’s patent related blog, with link at the bottom)
Finally, Matsutek and iRobot signed a
reconciliation agreement that sets forth no charge against each other while
allowing access to the US market. This counteroffensive with iRobot is the
proudest achievement of Yan Cheng, founder of Matsutek.
Matsutron’s client Bissell was hence
removed from iRobot’s list of defendants.
Other enterprises involved did not submit
to arrest with folded arms. On January 25, 2018, as to the Shenzhen Xrobot’s
claim on invalidity of the sweeping robot patent held by iRobot, the Patent
Reexamination Board of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Patent Review
Committee”) decide “declaring patents are all invalid”.
The patent involved was a utility model
patent called “A Cleaning Robot”, which was submitted by iRobot USA on July 6,
2015 and was authorized on March 23, 2016.
You may have noticed that this 2017 lawsuit
did not involve domestic sweeping robot leader Ecovacs and its client, American
vacuum cleaner giant SharkNinja. In September 2017, SharkNinja released the
first sweeping robot ION Robot, priced at USD 299. iRobot saw its stock price
fell 15% on the day, as it was widely considered to be heavily pressured.
Some analysts believe iRobot did not sue
Ecovacs because iRobot prepared to explore the Chinese market, reluctant to
make war with this veteran cultivating in China.
To dig deeper, it is possibly because
iRobot has problems with its patent layout in China. The six patents that
iRobot used to sue 11 companies were not registered in China.
According to reports, the number of
iRobot’s patent applications before 2014 was a single digit. It was not until
2014 when Xrobot applied for patent invalidity that it started to develop
patents in China, when companies such as Ecovacs have grown up.
According to Ecovacs’s prospectus, Ecovacs
currently has 607 patents (including ordinary vacuum cleaners)
For companies that have no plan on patents,
the chilly winter is coming.
