I have previously composed an article about iRobot suing its
counterparts.
On November 30th, ITC ruled that US patent 90382333 (233 patent)
is valid and infringed. Infringing products are not allowed to enter the US
market, which now impacts manufacturers bObsweep Inc, bObsweep USA, Hoover,
Shenzhen Silver Star.
The product models are:
bObsweep’s Class, Pet, PetHair, PetHair Plus, Standard, and
Junior robotic vacuum products (basically bObsweep branded products are
completely wiped out in the US market)
Hoover’s Quest 1000 Series Sweeping Robot
iRobot has ties as follows:
The manufacturing giant MSI (MSI) first reached agreement with iRobot.
It announced withdrawal from the sweeping robot market after compensating
iRobot. In exchange, iRobot agreed to remove MSI’s Hoover Quest 600, 700 and
800 series, except higher-end Quest 1000 series from the ban list.
Then in December, Black & Decker made a deal with iRobot to stop
selling sweeping robots after emptying the stock.
In late 2017, Matsutek sued iRobot with Taiwan Industrial
Technology Institute VSLAM patent (patent number US8,310,684) in China
Intellectual Property Office and Massachusetts, and both sides finally reached
a settlement agreement.
On September 18, 2018, iLife reached a settlement agreement with
iRobot, and iRobot withdrew its lawsuit against iLife.
The ITC ruling has been sent to the US president, and a 60-day
mandatory waiting period is followed. During this period, the president may
change the ITC’s ruling (currently, it seems not to turn better).
As such, the US market seems out of reach for many companies. It
is hard to say if more companies will be sued subsequently.
A reminder to the vacuum cleaner manufacturers is offered below.
I read news that a foreigner (male) in Boston sued Dyson for
$2.3 million as he put his testicles into the Dyson vacuum cleaner and got them
castrated by the vacuum cleaner due to strong suction.
Matthew Blair, a 47-year-old male, went through a surgery of 96
hours (one of testicles was cut off) and spent $1.26 million on medical treatment
without insurance.
This story may be boring. Yet it is true that some vacuum maker
was claimed a million dollars by a consumer whose glasses got hit by the popped
button of the machine.
It seems a disclaimer of “prohibition of
self-entertainment” is necessary in the user manual.
