Anita Gogia is a IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.
iRobot Corp was recently issued a against its competitor SharkNinja Operating LLC for . The product in question was the innovative Roomba robotic vacuum and floor cleaning device. While the final decision is yet to be given in , the recent holding recommends an of any infringing SharkNinja devices. Once approved by ITC commissioners in February, this remedy will be enforced regardless of any appeals.
Such a decision is important as it provides credence to the work and intellectual property of iRobot engineers in revolutionizing home cleaning products. The iRobot portfolio consists of other technology innovations and ideas in .
It was found that SharkNinja was infringing two out of the four patents claimed by iRobot. The court found SharkNinja to infringe on two out of four of iRobot’s relevant patents, specifically for . While SharkNinja also infringed a patent for autonomous floor cleaning, there was no determination of a violation as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board had . The fourth patent for map-based training was . SharkNinja based their defence on the invalidity of iRobot’s patents. They that the patents were revisions of known technology and that such protection supresses innovation. For example, regarding the mapping patents, SharkNinja says, “”.
In the past, iRobot has applied their patent protections to . The iRobot advanced technologies have justified the high price for their products but have seen a largely due to competition from SharkNinja. In selling their vacuums for below half the price of the Roomba, SharkNinja has grown to be the in North America. According to representatives from iRobot, “”. Shark’s “plan” may work despite this decision, as the ban may not take place until February 2023, well beyond the holiday season when many household gifts such as robotic vacuum cleaners are purchased.
iRobot has revolutionized the home cleaning devices industry. However, a monopoly is typically considered contrary to public interest. One may argue that it is not reasonable for consumers to have no choice but to purchase an expensive robotic vacuum or not have one when a lower-quality and affordable one exists that offers the technology to navigate cleaning areas, autonomous charging, and map floor layouts. Perhaps if a consumer is willing to sacrifice quality to save money in their household, they should be able to.