UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON DC
`
`Before the Honorable Thomas B. Pender
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-965
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN TABLE SAWS INCORPORATING
`ACTIVE INJURY MITIGATION
`TECHNOLOGY AND COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPONSE OF ROBERT BOSCH GMBH TO THE COMPLAINT OF SAWSTOP, LLC
`AND SD3, LLC UNDER SECTION 337 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930,
`AS AMENDED, AND NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION
`
`
`
`Counsel for Respondents
`
`
`
`
`Mark A. Hannemann
`
`Robin M. Plachy
`
`Alessandra Carcaterra Messing
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`1 Broadway
`
`
`
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`
`Telephone: (212) 425-7200
`
`Facsimile: (212) 425-5288
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 21, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respondents
`
`Robert Bosch Tool Corporation
`1800 West Central Avenue
`Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
`
`Robert Bosch GmbH
`1 Robert-Bosch-Platz
`70839 Gerlingen-Schillerhöhe
`Baden-Wuerttemberg
`Germany
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.13, Respondent Robert Bosch GmbH (“Bosch GmbH”)
`
`hereby responds to the Amended Complaint filed pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of
`
`1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”) by SawStop, LLC and SD3, LLC
`
`(collectively “Complainants”) on July 30, 2015, and to the Notice of Investigation issued by the
`
`United States International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) on August 26, 2015. (See 80
`
`Fed. Reg. 52791.)
`
`As an initial matter, Bosch GmbH denies that it has engaged in unfair competition or
`
`violated Section 337 by importing, selling for importation, or selling in the United States after
`
`importation any devices, products, or other articles that infringe any valid and enforceable
`
`intellectual property rights alleged in this investigation.
`
`Because discovery has just begun, Bosch GmbH has not had sufficient time and
`
`opportunity to collect and review all of the information that may be relevant to the issues raised
`
`in this Response. In addition, to the extent Complainants rely on evidence not yet presented in
`
`Investigation 337-TA-965 or present a position not consistent with a position already taken,
`
`Bosch GmbH has not yet had sufficient time and opportunity to collect and review all of the
`
`information that may be relevant to those issues. Accordingly, Bosch GmbH reserves the right
`
`to amend or supplement this Response, including raising any additional affirmative defenses,
`
`based on additional facts or developments that become available or that arise after the filing of
`
`this Response.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`
`
`Further, Bosch GmbH denies each and every allegation averred in the Amended
`
`Complaint that is not expressly admitted below. 1 Any factual allegation admitted below is
`
`admitted only as to the specific admitted facts, and not as to any purported conclusions,
`
`characterizations, implications or speculations that might follow from the admitted facts.
`
`Bosch GmbH has adopted the headings and paragraphs in the Amended Complaint for
`
`ease of reference. To the extent that such headings and paragraphs themselves contain factual
`
`and legal characterizations, Bosch GmbH denies such characterizations.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT
`
`
` SawStop, LLC and SD3, LLC (“SawStop” or “Complainants”) file this first
` 1.
`amended complaint under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337,
`based on the unlawful 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.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 1: Bosch GmbH admits that Complainants filed an Amended
`
`Complaint with the Commission pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
`
`(19 U.S.C. § 1337). Bosch GmbH admits that the Amended Complaint names Robert Bosch
`
`Tool Corporation and Robert Bosch GmbH as Respondents. Bosch GmbH is without knowledge
`
`or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 1 with
`
`
`1
`To the extent that the original Complaint, filed by Complainants on July 16, 2015,
`contains any allegations not included in the Amended Complaint, Bosch GmbH expressly denies
`each and every allegation averred in the original Complaint that is not expressly admitted below.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`
`
`respect to Bosch Tool and therefore denies them. Bosch GmbH denies any remaining allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 1.
`
` SawStop, LLC is a manufacturer of table saws incorporating active injury
` 2.
`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.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 2: Bosch GmbH is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 2 and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`Proposed Respondents manufacture abroad, import, sell for importation into the
` 3.
`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
`bold:
`
`Patent No.
`7,225,712
`7,600,455
`7,610,836
`7,895,927
`8,011,279
`8,191,450
`
`Asserted Claims
`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
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 3: Bosch GmbH is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 3 with respect to Bosch Tool and
`
`therefore denies them. Bosch GmbH denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 3.
`
`A domestic industry as required by 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2) and (3) exists in the
` 4.
`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.
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 4: Bosch GmbH is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 4 and therefore denies them.
`
`SawStop seeks as relief a permanent limited exclusion order under 19 U.S.C. §
` 5.
`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(f) 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.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 5: Bosch GmbH admits that Complainants seek relief in this action,
`
`including a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders. Bosch GmbH denies any
`
`remaining allegations contained in paragraph 5.
`
`II. COMPLAINANTS
`
`SawStop, LLC and SD3, LLC are limited liability companies organized and
` 6.
`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.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 6: Bosch GmbH is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 6 and therefore denies them.
`
`SawStop was founded in August, 2000 by Dr. Stephen F. Gass and several
` 7.
`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 after beginning to work on the problem he
`had developed a prototype. Thus began the story of SawStop that would profoundly change not
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`
`
`only Dr. Gass’ life, but the lives of thousands of woodworkers who would come to avoid
`serious injuries because of this technology.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 7: Bosch GmbH is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 7 and therefore denies them.
`
`Excited by his invention, Dr. Gass joined with three fellow patent attorneys from
` 8.
`his Portland law firm to further develop and protect the technology 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.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 8: Bosch GmbH is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 8 and therefore denies them.
`
`In 2000, SawStop’s founders took their prototypes to the largest woodworking
` 9.
`tradeshow in the U.S. - the International 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:
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 9: Bosch GmbH is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 9 and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
` 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
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`
`
`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.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 10: Bosch GmbH is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 10 and therefore denies them.
`
` 11. 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
`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.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 11: Bosch GmbH is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 11 and therefore denies them.
`
` 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.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 12: Bosch GmbH is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 12 and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`In late 2004 SawStop started selling industrial table saws equipped with
` 13.
`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 country, 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.
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 13: Bosch GmbH is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 13 and therefore denies
`
`
`
`them.
`
` 14. About a year after first demonstrating the saw in Atlanta, SawStop was contacted
`by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which asked to test one [of] SawStop’s
`prototype saws. SawStop was later awarded the CPSC Chairman’s Commendation for
`Substantial Contributions to Product Safety. SawStop’s table saws have received numerous
`other awards, including Breakthrough Award from Popular Mechanics Magazine; One of the
`100 Best New Innovations from Popular Science magazine; One of the Top 10 Tools from
`Workbench magazine; Award of Quality Editor’s Choice from Workbench magazine; Reader’s
`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
`Taunton'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
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`
`
`has been featured multiple times on NPR and has even been lampooned by the Colbert Report
`for “destroying America” by denying Americans’ right to cut off their fingers.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 14: Bosch GmbH admits that Exhibit 14 is attached to the Amended
`
`Complaint. Bosch GmbH is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 14 and therefore denies them.
`
` 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 15. For the past few years, SawStop has
`been developing what it calls its Jobsite Saw. See Exhibits 16 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 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.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 15: Bosch GmbH admits that Exhibits 15 and 16 are attached to the
`
`Amended Complaint. Bosch GmbH is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 15 and therefore denies them.
`
` 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.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 16: Bosch GmbH admits that Exhibit 17 is attached to the Amended
`
`Complaint. Bosch GmbH denies that it intends to sell a table saw with active injury mitigation
`
`technology in the United States market this fall. Bosch GmbH further denies that it has
`
`demonstrated a table saw with active injury mitigation technology at domestic trade shows and
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`
`
`on the internet, or that Bosch GmbH offers such product for sale in the United States through a
`
`distributor. Bosch GmbH is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 16 and therefore denies them.
`
`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.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 17: Bosch GmbH admits that Bosch Tool is a Delaware corporation with
`
`a principal place of business at 1800 West Central Avenue, 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.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 18: Bosch GmbH admits that according to Bosch Tool’s 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. Bosch
`
`GmbH admits that Exhibit 18 is attached to the Amended Complaint.
`
` 19. Robert Bosch GmbH is a German multinational engineering and electronics
`company located at Robert-Bosch-Platz 1, 70839 Gerlingen-Schillerhohe, Baden- Wuerttemberg,
`Germany.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 19: Bosch GmbH admits that it is a German company located at
`
`Robert-Bosch-Platz 1, 70839 Gerlingen-Schillerhöhe, Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany. Bosch
`
`GmbH denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 19.
`
` 20. Robert Bosch GmbH designs and develops 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.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 20: Bosch GmbH admits that it has designed and developed table
`
`saws and other power tools. Bosch GmbH admits that Bosch Tool markets and sells Bosch-
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`
`
`branded table saws and other power tools in the United States. Bosch GmbH is without
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`of paragraph 20 and therefore denies them.
`
` 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.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 21: Bosch GmbH admits that Exhibit 19 is attached to the Amended
`
`Complaint. Bosch GmbH is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 21 and therefore denies them.
`
` 22. Following this announcement, Bosch Tool posted a promotional video of its
`REAXX saw on its website and 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 Tool 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
`Tool has also shown the table saw on May 19−21, 2015, in Louisville, Kentucky, at a trade show
`called “Woodcraft's 18th Annual Vendor Trade Show.” Bosch Tool’s announcement of a table
`saw with active injury mitigation technology has received substantial media attention, including
`comparisons with SawStop's Jobsite Saw. See Exhibit 20.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 22: Bosch GmbH admits that Exhibit 20 is attached to the Amended
`
`Complaint. Bosch GmbH is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 22 and therefore denies them.
`
` 23. Bosch Tool currently offers the GTS1041A REAXX for sale through a
`distributor, AceTool. See http://www.acetoolonline.com/Bosx-GTS1041A-09-Worksite-Table-
`Saw-REAXX-p/bos-gts1041a-09.htm. However, at the time of filing this first amended
`complaint, AceTool did not have this saw in stock for retail purchase.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 23: Bosch GmbH is without sufficient knowledge or information to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 23 and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`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
`thereof, including Bosch’s Model GTS-1041A REAXXTM table saw and replaceable safety
`cartridges designed for use in this product.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 24: Bosch GmbH admits that Complainants have identified the
`
`GTS1041A REAXXTM table saw and replaceable safety cartridges as Accused Products in this
`
`investigation. Bosch GmbH admits that Exhibit 18 is attached to the Complaint. Bosch GmbH
`
`denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 24.
`
`V. THE ASSERTED PATENTS AND NONTECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE
`INVENTIONS
`
`A. Non-Technical Overview of the Inventions in the Asserted Patents
`
` 25. 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.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 25: Bosch GmbH admits that each year a number of people suffer
`
`injuries in accidents involving table saws. Bosch GmbH is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 25 and
`
`therefore denies them.
`
` 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.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 26: Bosch GmbH admits that table saws can be equipped with guards
`
`to help block the user from coming into contact with the blade. Bosch GmbH is without
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`in paragraph 26 and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`
`
` 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. The
`patented inventions also overcome the shortcomings of traditional blade guards because they do
`not interfere with normal operation of the machine.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 27: Each of the Asserted Patents speaks for itself. To the extent that
`
`paragraph 27 reflects Complainants’ characterizations of the Asserted Patents, Bosch GmbH
`
`denies the allegations contained therein.
`
` 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.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 28: Each of the Asserted Patents speaks for itself. To the extent that
`
`paragraph 28 reflects Complainants’ characterizations of the Asserted Patents, Bosch GmbH
`
`denies the allegations contained therein.
`
` 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.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 29: Each of the Asserted Patents speaks for itself. To the extent that
`
`paragraph 29 reflects Complainants’ characterizations of the Asserted Patents, Bosch GmbH
`
`denies the allegations contained therein. Bosch GmbH is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 29,
`
`and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`
`
`B. The ’712 Patent
`
`1. Identification and Ownership of the ’712 Patent
`
` 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 1. 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 and applicable pages of each
`technical reference mentioned in the prosecution history of the ’712 patent are attached as
`Appendix B.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 30: Bosch GmbH admits that, according to the face of the patent, the
`
`’712 patent issued on June 5, 2007, is entitled “Motion Detecting System for Use in a Safety
`
`System for Power Equipment,” and that Stephen F. Gass, Robert L. Chamberlain, J. David
`
`Fulmer, Joel F. Jensen, and Benjamin B. Schramm are listed as inventors. Bosch GmbH admits
`
`that Exhibits 1 and 7 and Appendices A and B are attached to the Amended Complaint; that
`
`Exhibit 1 contains what Complainants allege to be a certified copy of the ’712 patent; that
`
`Exhibit 7 contains what Complainants allege to be a certified copy of the assignment record for
`
`the ’712 patent; that Appendix A contains what Complainants allege to be a certified copy of the
`
`prosecution history of the ’712 patent; and that Appendix B contains what Complainants allege
`
`to be copies of each patent and applicable pages of each technical reference mentioned in the
`
`prosecution history of the ’712 patent. Bosch GmbH is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 30
`
`and therefore denies them.
`
`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, with an
`indication of the prosecution status of each such patent application. No other foreign patents or
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`
`
`patent applications corresponding to the ’712 patent have been filed, abandoned, withdrawn, or
`rejected.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 31: Bosch GmbH admits that Exhibit 13 is attached to the Amended
`
`Complaint. Bosch GmbH is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 31 and therefore denies them.
`
`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 not 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.
`
`RESPONSE TO ¶ 32: The ’712 patent speaks for itself. To the extent that paragraph 32
`
`reflects Complainants’ characterizations of the ’712 patent, Bosch GmbH denies the allegations
`
`contained therein.
`
`C. The ’455 Patent
`
`1. Identification and Ownership of the ’455 Patent
`
` 33. SD3, LLC owns by assignment the right, title and interest in United States Patent
`No. 7,600,455, titled “Logic Control for Fast-Acting Safety System,” which issued October 13,
`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 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