trial lawyerslwasninuton,do
`Illlillll Blllilllllfll
`777 Sixth Street NW, nth Floor, Washington, District of Columbia
`
`i
`zooor-3706 | TEL(202) 538-8ooo I FAX(zoz) 538-8100
`
`t WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL N0.
`
`._
`
`-
`
`(202) 538-8102
`
`~
`
`~ WRlTE.R'S INTERNET ADDRESS
`paulbriukman@quiunemanuel.con1
`
`July 30, 2015
`
`VIA HAND DELIVERY
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW —Room 112
`Washington, DC 2_0436
`
`Re:
`
`Certain Table Saws Incorporating Active Injury A/litigationTechnology and
`Components Thereof, Docket No. 337-TA-3077
`
`Dear Secretary Barton:
`
`Enclosed for filing in the above referenced matter please find Complainants’ first
`amended complaint and supplemental exhibits 21A, 25A and 35. The first amended complaint
`asserts additional claims to three of the asserted patents based on recently obtained information
`regarding the accused products.
`
`Please contact me with any questions regarding this filing.
`
`c
`
`y
`
`b tted,
`
`.
`
`4
`
`-
`
`- ­
`Paul F. Brinkman
`Counselfor Complainants SawStop, LLC and
`SD3, LLC
`l
`l
`
`Enclosures
`
`.
`‘
`E
`'
`uulnnnma||ue|un|||nam.su||ivan.lIn
`Los ANGELESI NEW YORK 1SAN FRANCISCO \ SILICON VALLEY | CHICAGO | HOUSTON | LONDON I TOKYO | MANNHEIM 1MOSCOW \ HAMBURG | mats
`MUNICH | SYDNEYl HONG KONG BRUSSELS
`
`\
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN TABLE SAWS
`INCORPORATING ACTIVE INJURY
`MITIGATION TECHNOLOGY AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA­
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 337 OF THE
`TARIFF ACT OF 1930, AS AMENDED
`
`Complainants
`
`SawStop, LLC
`9564 S.W. Tualatin Road
`Tualatin, OR 97062
`Tel. 503-570-3200
`
`SD3, LLC
`9564 S.W. Tualatin Road
`Tualatin, OR 97062
`Tel. 503-570-3200
`
`Proposed Respondents
`
`Robert Bosch Tool Corporation
`1800 Central Road
`Mount Prospect, IL 60056
`Tel. 224-232-2000
`
`Robert Bosch GmbH
`Robert=Bosch-Platz 1.
`70839 Gerlingen-Schillerhohe
`Baden-Wuerttemberg
`Germany
`Tel. +49-711-811-0
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. ..
`
`COMPLAINANTS............................................................................................ ..
`
`PROPOSED RESPONDENTS ......................................................................... ..
`
`THE PRODUCTS AT ISSUE ........................................................................... ..
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS AND NONTECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF
`THE INVENTIONS .......................................................................................... ..
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Non-Technical Overview of the Inventions in the Asserted Patents .......
`
`The ’712 Patent .....................................................................................
`
`._
`
`1..
`
`Identification and Ownership of the ’712 Patent ....................... ..
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Foreign Counterparts to the ’7l2 Patent ......................................
`
`_Non-Technical Description of the ’712 Patent .......................... ..
`
`C.
`
`The ’455 Patent ..................................................................................... ..
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3'.
`
`Identification and Ownership of the ’455 Patent .........................
`
`Foreign Counterparts to the ’455 Patent .................................... ..
`
`Non-Technicai Description ofthe ’455 Patent ............................
`
`D.
`
`The ’836 Patent ..................................................................................... ..
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Identification and Ownership of the ’836 Patent .........................
`
`Foreign Counterparts to the ’836 Patent .................................... ..
`
`Non-Technical Description of the ’836 Patent ............................
`
`E.
`
`The ’927 Patent ..................................................................................... ..
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Identification and Ownership of the ’927 Patent ....................... ..
`
`Foreign Counterparts to the ’927 Patent .................................... ..
`
`Non-Technical Description of the ’927 Patent ............................
`
`F.
`
`The ’279 Patent ..................................................................................... ..
`
`i
`
`

`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`"Identification and Ownership of the ’279 Patent ........................ ..
`
`Foreign Counterparts to the ’279 Patent ..................................... ..
`
`Non-Technical Description of the ’279 Patent .............................
`
`G.
`
`The ’450 Patent ...................................................................................... ..
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Identification and Ownership of the ’450 Patent..........................
`
`Foreign Counterparts to the ’450 Patent ..................................... ..
`
`Non-Technical Description of the ’450 Patent .............................
`
`H.
`
`Licensees to the Assefted Patents ........................................................... ..
`
`VI.
`
`UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR ACTS OF RESPONDENTS —PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT .............................................................................................. ..
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Infringement of the ’712 Patent.............................................................. ..
`
`Infringement of the ’455 Patent.............................................................. ..
`
`Infringement of the ’836 Patent.............................................................. ..
`
`Infringement of the ’927 Patent.............................................................. ..
`
`Infringement of the ’279 Patent.............................................................. ..
`
`Infringement of the ’450 Patent.............................................................. ..
`
`VII
`
`SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF UNFAIR IMPORTATION ................................. ..
`
`VIII
`
`CLASSIFICATION OF THE INFRINGING PRODUCTS UNDER THE
`HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE ............................................................ ..
`
`IX.
`
`X.
`
`RELATED LITIGATION .................................................................................. ..
`
`THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY RELATING TO THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`SaWSt0p’s Practice of the Asserted Patents (Technical Prong) ...............
`
`United States Economic Activity Relating-to the Domestic Industry
`Products (Economic Prong).................................................................... ..
`
`XI.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED ...................................................................................... ..
`
`ii
`
`

`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Certified Copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,225,712
`Certified Copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,600,455
`Certified Copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,610,836
`Certified Copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,895,927
`Certified Copy of U.S. Patent No. 8,011,279
`Certified Copy of U.S. Patent No. 8,191,450
`Certified Assigmnent Records for U.S. Patent No. 7,225,712
`Certified Assigmnent Records for U.S. Patent No. 7,600,455
`Certified Assigmnent Records for U.S. Patent No. 7,610,836
`Certified Assignment Records for U.S. Patent No. 7,895,927
`Certified Assignment Records for U.S. Patent No. 8,011,279
`Certified Assigmnent Records for U.S. Patent No. 8,191,450
`Foreign Counterparts of the Asserted Patents
`SawStop Awards
`SawStop Product Catalog
`SaWStop Jobsite Saw User Guide
`Confidential Comments from Dealers
`Selection from Bosch Tool Website
`Bosch Tool Press Release
`Media Reports About the Accused Products
`’7l2 Patent Infringement Claim Chart
`Supplemental ’7l2 Patent Infringement Claim Chart
`’455 Patent Infringement Claim Charts
`’836 Patent Infringement Claim Chart
`’927 Patent Infringement Claim Chart
`’279 Patent Infringement Claim Charts
`Supplemental ’279 Patent Infringement Claim Chart
`’450 Patent Infringement Claim Chart
`Declaration Regarding Evidence of Importation
`’7l2 Patent Domestic Industry Claim Chart
`’455 Patent Domestic Industry Claim Chart
`’836 Patent Domestic Industry Claim Chart
`’927 Patent Domestic Industry Claim Chart
`’279 Patent Domestic Industry Claim Chart
`’450 Patent Domestic Industry Claim Chart
`Confidential Declaration, Regarding the Domestic Industry
`Declaration Regarding Demonstrations of Accused Product
`Physical Exhibit: SawStop Jobsite Saw
`
`19
`20
`21
`21A
`22
`23
`24
`25
`25A
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`31
`32
`33
`34,
`35
`Pl
`
`iii
`
`

`
`APPENDIX LIST
`
`A
`B
`
`C
`D
`
`E
`F
`
`G
`H
`
`I
`J
`
`K
`L
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,225,712
`Patents and Applicable Pages of Technical References Mentioned in the
`Prosecution History ofU.S. Patent No. 7,225,712
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,600,455
`Additional Patents and Applicable Pages of Technical References Mentioned in
`the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,600,455]
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,610,836
`Additional Patents and Applicable Pages of Technical References Mentioned in
`the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,610,836
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,895,927
`Additional Patents and Applicable Pages of Technical References Mentioned in
`the Prosecution History of the U.S. Patent No. 7,895,927
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,011,279
`Additional Patents and Applicable Pages of Technical References Mentioned in
`the Prosecution-History of U-.S.Patent No. 8-,0}1,279­
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,191,450
`Additional Patents and Applicable Pages of Technical References Mentioned in
`the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,191,450
`
`1 This appendix and those that follow contains only patents and technical references not
`already included in earlier appendices.
`
`iv
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`SawStop, LLC and SD3, LLC (“SawStop” or “Complainants”) file this first
`
`amended complaint under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337,
`
`based on the unlawfill importation into the United States, sale for importation into the United
`
`States, and/or sale within the United States after importation by proposed respondents Robert
`
`Bosch Tool Corporation (“Bosch Tool”) and Robert Bosch GmbH (collectively “Proposed
`
`Respondents”) of certain table saws incorporating active injury mitigation technology and
`
`components thereof that infringe one or more claims of United States Patent Nos. 7,225,712
`
`(“the ’712 patent”); 7,600,455 (“the ’455 patent”); 7,610,836 (“the ’836 patent”); 7,895,927
`
`(“the ’927 patent”); 8,011,279 (“the ’279 patent”); and 8,191,450 (“the ’450 patent”)
`
`(collectively, the “Asserted Patents”), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`2.
`
`SawStop, LLC is a manufacturer of table saws incorporating active injury
`
`mitigation technology and a licensee of the Asserted Patents. SD3, LLC is the parent of
`
`SawStop, LLC and owner of all rights, title, and interest in and to the Asserted Patents.
`
`3.
`
`Proposed Respondents manufacture abroad, import, sell for importation into the
`
`United States, and/or sell or offer for sale after importation into the United States certain table
`
`saws incorporating active injury mitigation technology and components thereof (“Accused
`
`Products”) that infringe the following claims of the Asserted Patents (independent claims in
`
`b0ld)2:
`
`2 Complainants havenot yet been able to"conduct detailed examination and testing of
`the Accused Products because they have not yet been released for
`retail purchase.
`Complainants expect
`that, alter testing,
`the Accused Products will be shown to infringe
`additional claims of the Asserted Patents, including at least claims 12-14 of the ’712 patent and
`claims 2 and 3 of the ’455 patent. Complainants expect to move to amend the first amended
`complaint to assert additional claims after obtaining discovery of the Accused Products and
`conducting the appropriate testing to confinn infringement.
`
`l
`
`

`
`7,225,712
`
`7,600,455
`
`7,610,836
`
`7,895,927
`
`8,011,279
`
`8,191,450
`
`8, 9, 11, 15, 18, 20
`
`1, 5, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20
`
`1, 5, 16
`
`7, 8, 10, 11, 12
`
`1, 5, 6,10,11,12, 13,14, 16,17
`
`1, 2, 4, 6, 9,11
`
`4.
`
`A domestic industry as required by 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2) and (3) exists in the
`
`United States relating to articles protected by the Asserted Patents.
`
`SawStop’s domestic
`
`industry includes significant domestic investment in plant-and equipment, significant domestic
`
`employment of labor and capital, and substantial domestic investment in the exploitation of the
`
`inventions claimed in the Asserted Patents.
`
`5.
`
`SawStop seeks as relief a permanent limited exclusion order under 19 U.S.C. §
`
`1337(d) barring from entry into the United States infringing table saws incorporating active
`
`injury mitigation technology and components thereof that are manufactured abroad, sold for
`
`importation, imported, and/or sold in the United States after importation by or on behalf of the
`
`Proposed Respondents. SawStop further seeks as relief permanent cease and desist orders under
`
`19 U.S.C. § 1337(t) prohibiting the Proposed Respondents from importing, selling, marketing,
`
`advertising, distributing, offering for sale, transferring (except for exportation), soliciting United
`
`States agents or distributors, or aiding and abetting other entities in the importation, sale for
`
`importation, sale after importation,_transfer (except for exportation), or distribution of table
`
`saws incorporating active injury mitigation technology and components thereof that infringe the
`
`Asserted Patents.
`
`2
`
`

`
`II.
`
`COMPLAINANTS
`
`6.
`
`SawStop, LLC and SD3, LLC are limited liability companies organized and
`
`existing under the laws of Oregon. Both companies have a principal place of business at 9564
`
`S.W. Tualatin Road, Tualatin, Oregon. SD3, LLC owns the Asserted Patents and 100% of
`
`SawStop, LLC. SawStop, LLC is an operating company that designs, develops, produces and
`
`sells table saws with active injury mitigation technology.
`
`7.
`
`SawStop was founded in August, 2000 by Dr. Stephen F. Gass and several
`
`colleagues to commercialize inventions related to table saw safety. About one year earlier, Dr.
`
`Gass, a patent lawyer and life-long woodworker, was working in his newly-built barn when the
`
`thought came to him: “I wonder if you could stop a saw blade fast enough to avoid a serious
`
`injury?” Dr. Gass knew that table saw accidents are common and life-changing. His background
`
`in physics enabled him to calculate the speed and inertia of the blade, determine how fast the
`
`blade would have to stop to avoid a serious injury, and consider how to detect contact between
`
`the blade and a person. About a month afier beginning to work on the problem he had
`
`developed a prototype. T-hus»began the story of SawStop that would profoundly change not
`
`only Dr. Gass’ life, but the lives of thousands of woodworkers who would come to avoid
`
`serious injuries because of this technology.
`
`8.
`
`Excited by his invention, Dr. Gass joined with three fellow patent attomeys from
`
`his Portland law firm to further develop and protect the teclmology in hopes of licensing it to
`
`existing saw manufacturers. Pooling their resources, Dr. Gass and his colleagues formed SD3,
`
`LLC to own intellectual property associated with their work, and SawStop, LLC to further
`
`develop and commercialize safety systems for woodworking equipment. They also hired an
`
`engineering company to prepare more refined prototypes to demonstrate to potential licensees.
`
`3
`
`

`
`9.
`
`In 2000, SawStop’s founders took their prototypes to the largest woodworking
`
`tradeshow in the U.S. - the Intemational Woodworking Fair in Atlanta. There, in a small
`
`conference room far from the main show floor, Dr. Gass demonstrated the SawStop prototype to
`
`dozens of Woodworkers by holding a hot dog on a board as if it were a misplaced finger and
`
`pushing the board and hot dog into the spinning blade. The blade would cut through the board
`
`until it touched the hot dog and then stop, leaving the hot dog with only a scratch, as shown in
`
`these photographs:
`
`.
`
`10. Many woodworkers with missing fingers approached Dr. Gass and thanked him
`
`for making woodworking safer. Several power tool manufacturers also visited SawStop’s tiny
`
`booth to watch the demonstration.
`
`SawStop gave them ‘copies of about a dozen patent
`
`applications that they had recently filed on various inventions related to active injury mitigation
`
`technology to generate interest in commercializing SawStop’s inventions. Before leaving the
`
`trade show, SawStop’s prototypes won a competition called the Challenger’s Award, which
`
`recognizes the most innovative developments in woodworking over the prior two years.
`
`ll.
`
`Over the next two years, Dr. Gass and his colleagues discussed licensing their
`
`intellectual property to a number of interested power tool manufacturers, including Proposed
`
`4
`
`.
`
`

`
`Respondents. However, by late 2002 it became apparent
`
`that
`
`the existing power tool
`
`manufacturers were not willing to license SawStop’s inventions. Instead, Dr. Gass was told that
`
`while his technology was interesting, “safety doesn’t sell,” that the technology was unproven,
`
`could not be implemented in a benchtop or jobsite saw, and SawStop’s proposed royalty to
`
`license its patents was too high.
`
`12.
`
`Dr. Gass and his colleagues were then faced with a choice —either give up and
`
`go back to practicing law, or raise money to develop their own saw and bring it to market.
`
`Believing that there would be a market demand for safer saws, Dr. Gass and his colleagues
`
`chose the latter course. They were able to raise several million dollars from investors who
`
`believed that SD3’s patent rights would allow a small start-up company to compete successfully
`
`against larger, established power tool manufacturers like Proposed Respondents. Without patent
`
`protection, Dr. Gass and his colleagues would never have been able to raise the capital needed
`
`to bring their saws to market —and consumers would never have had the opportunity to
`
`purchase a safer saw.
`
`l3.
`
`In late 2004 SawStop started selling industrial
`
`table saws equipped with
`
`inventions described in the Asserted Patents. These industrial saws are large, relatively
`
`expensive, stationary table saws typically found in factories, schools and wood shops. Today,
`
`SawStop’s table saws are the best-selling industrial table saws in the cotmtry, with over 60,000
`
`saws installed in schools, factories and homes in all 50 states. SawStop saws have already saved
`
`the hands and fingers of thousands of people who had accidents while using them. Nearly every
`
`day, SawStop receives letters or e-mails from woodworkers who avoided injury,
`
`their
`
`employers, or their families such as the note below.
`
`5
`
`

`
`L
`
`1
`».
`1
`‘Kw
`
`~
`
`.,
`
`-, .; .=.; ::-:-:~;
`'=-- ~ —
`-=--
`-~ --~~~--
`;;;.\;. V.Ln]i.‘..‘11\‘i:|:"".:‘.>'.,';:1".".‘k‘glam ,-, -.\,»..l.» _-
`__.‘,£~_ V;
`'E§\t’
`'
`
`.
`
`1
`
`t
`a
`0 fi
`.Lt'\'l;.=E2.-.§u’.§.=I‘."i=;li3;;_iII_'§I51€II;$iEI!
`u>_,_P.“ 1;‘ __»-_-;'_;.?,.n‘;;..;.;-,§,§“.=5R;_€;_<»;;;ii F1
`*
`1 Y
`M H 4. L
`
`,
`
`.
`
`.
`
`_____t..._t&:_.t£_'?..7.,...__,E _
`
`-
`
`-_':
`
`a
`
`-
`
`_
`
`-
`
`.__
`
`-_
`
`_ _.__._____._­
`
`14
`
`About a year afier first demonstrating the saw in Atlanta, SawStop was contacted
`
`by the U S Consumer Product Safety Commission, which asked to test one SawStop’s
`
`'
`
`.
`
`.
`
`\
`
`'
`
`prototype saws 'SawStop was later awarded the CPSC Chainnan’s Commendation for
`
`Substantral Contributions to~P'r0ductSafety. ' SawStop5stable saws>h‘a-yereceived numerous­
`
`other awards, lncluding: Breakthrough Award from Popular: Mechanics magazine, One of the
`
`.
`
`_
`
`\
`
`,
`
`t
`
`t
`
`,
`
`<
`
`.
`
`100 Best New Innovations from Populor Science magaiine; Qne of the!Top 10_Toolsfrom
`
`¢
`
`_ u A‘
`
`Workbench magazine; Award of _Quality_‘Editor'sChoice"fr'on1*fW5Fk5e'nEhtmagazine, Readers“
`
`r
`
`4
`
`4
`
`s
`
`..
`
`l
`
`‘
`
`.
`
`6'.
`
`

`
`Choice Award from Woodshop News magazine; Best Innovations from Time magazine;
`
`Woodwork Institute of California Endorsement; Sequoia Award from the Association of
`
`Woodworking & Furnishings Suppliers; Imhotep Award from the International Social Security
`
`Association; Nova Award from the Construction Innovation Forum; Editor's Choice Award
`
`from Tools of the Trade magazine; Editor's Best Overall Choice and Readers Choice Awards
`
`from Taunt0n's Tool Guide; the Heartwood Award from the Architectural Woodwork Institute;
`
`and the Innovation Award from Handy Magazine. See Exhibit 14. SawStop’s patented
`
`technology has been featured multiple times on NPR3 and has even been lampooned by the
`
`Colbert Report —for “destroying America” by denying Americans’ right to cut off their
`
`fingers.‘
`
`15.
`
`As SawStop grew, it invested heavily in the creation of new products, employing
`
`about a dozen engineers to conduct research and development. SawStop introduced new saws
`
`for different users at different price points. See Exhibit I5. For the past few years, SawStop has
`
`been developing what it calls its Jobsite Saw. See Exhibits l6 and Pl. The Jobsite Saw is
`
`SawStop-’s first bench top table saw in a category the industry had,claimed would be impractical
`
`for SawStop’s safety technology. These saws are much lighter and less expensive than
`
`industrial table saws, and saws in the bench top category can typically be picked up by a single
`
`person to move from place to place or can be rolled around on a cart like a wheel barrow. Bench
`
`top table saws constitute the vast majority of the overall market for table saws. SawStop began
`
`3 See http://ww.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4182602;
`http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st0ry.php?storyId=127780027;
`http://www.npr.org/201 1/06/18/I37258370/if-table- saws-can-be-safer-why-arent-they;
`http://www.npr.org/201 l /09/23/140708285/regulators-consider-safety-brakes-for-table-saws;
`http://wwW.npr.0rg/20ll/12/29/144417825/20I2-could-see-new-regs-for-table-saws;
`http://www.npr.org/20 l 2/04/02/14984335I/fixing-the-cutting-edge-innovation-meets-table-saw.
`4 See http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/hgxqxc/people-who-are-destroying­
`america---sawstop
`
`7
`
`

`
`shipping these saws to dealers at the end of January 2015. SawStop’s entry into the bench top
`
`market is the first time that SawStop has offered a product that competes directly with table
`
`saws sold by Proposed Respondents.
`
`16.
`
`Shortly after SawStop released its Jobsite Saw,
`
`it
`
`learned from potential
`
`distributors that Proposed Respondents were intending to sell a competing table saw with active
`
`injury mitigation technology into the bench top market this fall. As discussed below, Proposed
`
`Respondents have demonstrated this saw at domestic trade shows and on the internet, and offer
`
`it for sale through a distributor, although it is not yet in stock for purchase. SawStop has
`
`repeatedly heard dealers say they are not going to offer SawStop’s Jobsite Saw and instead wait
`
`for the forthcoming saw from Proposed Respondents because of Proposed Respondents’
`
`dominant presence in the power tool market. See Exhibit 17.
`
`III.
`
`PROPOSED RESPONDENTS
`
`17.
`
`Bosch Tool is a Delaware Corporation with a principal place of business at 1800
`
`West Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois, 60056.
`
`18.
`
`According to its website, Bosch Tool was formed in January 2003-when Robert
`
`Bosch GmbH combined its North American power tool, accessory and lawn and garden
`
`divisions into one organization. See Exhibit 18.
`
`19.
`
`Robert Bosch GmbH is a Gennan multinational engineering and electronics
`
`company located at Robert-Bosch-Platz 1, 70839 Gerlingen-Schillerhohe, Baden­
`
`Wuerttemberg, Germany.
`
`1
`
`20.
`
`Robert Bosch GmbH designs anddevelops table saws and other power tools,
`
`which are predominately manufactured in Asia. Bosch Tool markets and sells Bosch-branded
`
`table saws and other power tools in the United States market.
`
`8
`
`

`
`21.
`
`On March 18, 2015, Bosch Tool announced the Bosch GTS1041A REAXX, a
`
`bench top table saw allegedly equipped with “Active Response TechnologyTM”that detects
`
`flesh that contacts the blade and retracts the blade below the tabletop. See Exhibit 19.
`
`22.
`
`Following this announcement, Bosch Tool posted a promotional video of its
`
`REAXX saw on its W€bSlt€5and has shown and demonstrated this table saw at several trade
`
`shows in the United States, including on March 20-21, 2015, in Providence, Rhode Island, at a
`
`trade show called “JLC Live New England.” After that public demonstration the media
`
`reported that Bosch had previously shown and demonstrated the table saw in Las Vegas,
`
`Nevada during a trade show called “World of Concrete” that was held on February 3-6, 2015.
`
`Bosch has also shown the table saw on May 19-21, 2015, in Louisville, Kentucky, at a trade
`
`show called “Wo0dcraft’s 18th Annual Vendor Trade Show.” Bosch’s announcement of a table
`
`saw with active injury mitigation technology has received substantial media attention, including
`
`comparisons with SawSt0p’s Jobsite Saw. See Exhibit 20
`
`23.
`
`Bosch Tool currently offers the Bosch GTS104lA REAXX for sale through a
`
`distributor, AceTool-. See http://www.acetoolonlinecom/Bosx-GTS l041A-09-Worksite-Table­
`
`Saw-REAXX-p/bos-gts1041a-O9.htm. However, at the time of filing this first amended
`
`complaint, AceTool did not have this saw in stock for retail purchase.
`
`IV.
`
`THE PRODUCTS AT ISSUE
`
`24.
`
`Pursuant
`
`to Commission Rule 210.12(a)(12), the Accused Products include,
`
`without limitation, table saws incorporating active injury mitigation technology and components
`
`5 See http://www.boschtools.com/Innovation/Pages/ReaXXSaw.aspx
`
`9
`
`

`
`thereof,
`
`including Bosch’s Model GTS-1041A REAXXTMtable saw and replaceable safety
`
`cartridges designed for use in this product.“
`
`‘
`
`V.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS AND NONTECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF
`THE INVENTIONS7
`
`A.
`
`25.
`
`Non-Technical Overview of the Inventions"in the Asserted Patents
`
`Each year,
`
`tens of thousands of people suffer serious injuries,
`
`including
`
`amputations, in accidents involving table saws. The Asserted Patents are generally directed to
`
`safety inventions that mitigate these injuries.
`
`26.
`
`Table saws have long been equipped with guards to block the user from coming
`
`into contact with the blade However, due to the nature of the cutting operation, such guards
`
`cannot completely prevent the user from contacting the blade and many users suffer serious
`
`injuries despite the guards. In addition, many users find the guards interfere with their work and
`
`remove them from the saw.
`
`27.
`
`The Asserted Patents overcome the shortcomings of traditional injury-prevention
`
`systems.
`
`Instead of merely blocking the operator from contacting the dangerous components,
`
`the inventions described in the Asserted Patents include wordworking machines that stop and/or
`
`retract
`
`the dangerous
`
`components
`
`in response
`
`to detecting a dangerous
`
`condition.
`
`Woodworking machines as described in the Asserted Patents minimize potential injury to the
`
`operator; what may have previously been a severed finger is instead a minor surface wound.
`
`6 As noted above, a physical exhibit of the Accused Products is presently unavailable.
`Information regarding the Model GTS-1041A REAXX table saw can be found at Exhibit 18.
`
`7 All non-technical descriptions of the patents herein are presented to give a general
`background of those patents. These statements are not intended to be used nor should they be
`used for purposes of patent claim construction. Complainants present these statements subject
`to and without waiver of its right to argue that claim terms should be construed in a particular
`way under claim interpretation jurisprudence and the relevant evidence.
`
`’
`
`10
`
`

`
`The patented inventions also overcome the shortcomings of traditional blade guards because
`
`they do not interfere with normal operation of the machine.
`
`28.
`
`The Asserted Patents also describe woodworking machines with control systems
`
`that determine the operability of the reaction system prior to an operator’s use of the machine.
`
`These control systems protect the operator from injury that might otherwise occur if the reaction
`
`system failed to operate properly.
`
`29.
`
`The combination of the inventive elements of the Asserted Patents substantially
`
`reduce the risks associated with the operation of woodworking machines, thereby providing an
`
`overall benefit to the public by virtue of increased operator safety and a reduction in workplace
`
`accidents.
`
`In fact, SawStop saws embodying the inventions in the Asserted Patents have
`
`already mitigated injuries in over 3,000 accidents where a user came into contact with a
`
`spinning blade.
`
`B.
`
`The ’712 Patent
`
`1.
`
`Identification and Ownership of the ’712Patent
`
`30.
`
`SD3, LLC owns by assignment the right, title and interest in United»States Patent
`
`No. 7,225,712, titled “Motion Detecting System for Use in a Safety System for Power
`
`Equipment,” which issued on June 5, 2007, naming Stephen F. Gass, Robert L. Chamberlain, J.
`
`David Fulmer, Joel F. Jensen, and Benjamin B. Schramm as inventors. A certified copy of the
`
`’712 patent is attached as Exhibit
`
`l. A certified copy of the assignment from the named
`
`inventors to SD3, LLC is attached as Exhibit 7. A certified copy of the prosecution history of
`
`the ’712 patent is attached as Appendix A. Copies of each patent andapplicable pages of each
`
`technical reference mentioned in the prosecution history of the ’712 patent are attached as
`
`Appendix B.
`
`ll
`
`

`
`2.
`
`Foreign Counterparts to the ’712 Patent
`
`31.
`
`Exhibit 13 lists each foreign patent and each pending foreign patent application
`
`(not already issued as a patent), and each foreign patent application that has been denied,
`
`abandoned or withdrawn, containing a disclosure corresponding to the ’712 patent, vw'th an
`
`indication of the prosecution status of each such patent application. No other foreign patents or
`
`patent applications corresponding to the ’712 patent have been filed, abandoned, withdrawn, or
`
`rejected.
`
`3.
`
`Non-Technical Description of the ’712 Patent
`
`32.
`
`The ’712 patent relates generally to a woodworking machine with a control
`
`system that monitors rotation of a cutting tool and triggers a reaction system only if the cutting
`
`tool is moving, thereby distinguishing between potentially safe and unsafe operator contact with
`
`the cutting tool. The control system allows an operator to work in close proximity to the cutting
`
`tool once it has stopped but while the machine is still powered, such as making a measurement
`
`between a saw blade and a fence with a tape measure to set the cutting width on a table saw,
`
`without facing the risk of triggering the safety system due to incidental but non=dangerous
`
`contact with the stationary tool. The alternative of, for instance, disconnecting the power each
`
`time such an operation must be carried out would be far less convenient for the user.
`
`C.
`
`The ’455 Patent
`
`1.
`
`Identification and Ownership of the ’455Patent
`
`33.
`
`SD3, LLC owns by assignment the right, title and interest in United States Patent
`
`No. 7,600,455, titled»“Logic Control for Fas‘eActing Safety System,” which issued Qctober P3,
`
`2009, naming Stephen F. Gass, J. David Fulmer, Joel F. Jensen, Benjamin B. Schramm, and
`
`Robert L. Chamberlain as inventors. A certified copy of the ’455 patent is attached as Exhibit
`
`2. A certified copy of the assignment from the named inventors to SD3, LLC is attached as
`
`12
`
`

`
`Exhibit 8. A certified copy of the prosecution history of the ’455 patent is attached as Appendix
`
`C. Copies of each patent and applicable pages of each technical reference mentioned in the
`
`prosecution history of the ’455 patent are attached as Appendix D.8
`
`2.
`
`Foreign Counterparts to the ’455Patent
`
`34.
`
`Exhibit 13 lists each foreign patent and each pending foreign patent application
`
`(not already issued as a patent), and each foreign patent application that has been denied,
`
`abandoned or withdrawn, containing a disclosure corresponding to the ’455 patent, with an
`
`indication of the prosecution status of each such patent application. No other foreign patents or
`
`patent applications corresponding to the ’455 patent have been filed, abandoned, withdrawn, or
`
`rejected.
`
`3.
`
`Non-Technical Description of the ’455 Patent
`
`35.
`
`The ’455 patent relates generally to a woodworking machine with a control
`
`system that tests whether a reaction system is operational. If the control system determines the
`
`reaction system is not operational, it will disable the machine. For example, if the control
`
`system determines the reaction system. has failed or been installed improperly, the control
`
`system will prevent
`
`the machine from spinning the cutting tool until the error has been
`
`corrected.
`
`D.
`
`The ’836 Patent
`
`1.
`
`Identification and Ownership of the ’836 Patent
`
`36.
`
`SD3, LLC owns by assignment the right, title and interest in United States Patent
`
`No. 7,6-10,836;titled~“Replacea-bleBrake Mechanisnrfor Power-Equipment,” which issued on
`
`November 3, 2009, naming Stephen F. Gass, David S. D'Ascenzo, Andrew L. Johnston, Joel F.
`
`8 Appendix D contains only unique patents and references that were not included in
`prior appendices.
`
`13
`
`

`
`Jensen, Sung H. Kim, and Anwyl M. McDonald as inventors. A certified copy of the ’836
`
`patent is attached as Exhibit 3. A certified copy of the assignment fr