PUBLIC VERSION
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`INITIAL DETERMINATION ON VIOLATION OF SECTION 337
`
`Administrative Law Judge Thomas B. Pender
`
`(September 9, 2016)
`
`Pursuant to the Notice of Investigation and Rule 2l0.42(a) of the Rules of Practice and
`
`Procedure of the United States International Trade Commission, this is my Initial Determination
`
`in the matter of Certain Table Saws Incorporating Active Injury Mitigation Technology And
`
`Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-965.
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2010 — Page 1
`
`In the Matter of I
`
`/
`
`CERTAIN TABLE SAWS INCORPORATING
`ACTIVE INJURY MITIGATION TECHNOLOGY
`
`Inv. No. 33.7-TA-965 _
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2010 – Page 1
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`IINTRODUCTIONIIO:......................................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B
`
`C.
`
`D
`
`Procedural Background............... . ............................................................ .. .......... .. l
`
`The Parties .., .........................................
`
`............................................................... ..3
`
`The Asserted Patents and Claims ...................................................... .: ................... ..3
`
`Products ‘at Issue .................................................................................................... ..6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Domestic Industry Products ....................................................................... ..6
`
`Accused Products ............................
`
`.................................... ... ................
`
`STANDARDS OF LAW ................................................................................................. .. 7
`
`A.
`
`Infringement .................................................................................................
`
`........ ..7
`
`1.
`
`Direct Infringement ................................................................ .. ................. ...7
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Literal. Infringement ....................................................................... ..7
`
`Doctrine of Equivalents ................................................. ..: ............. ..8
`
`2.
`
`Indirect Infringement ..............................................................
`
`..............8
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Induced Infringement ..................................................................... ..8
`
`Contributory Infringement ....
`
`...................
`
`................................. ..9
`
`III.
`
`.............................................. ..9
`Domestic Industry - Technical Prong ....................
`B.
`JURISDICTION AND IMPORTATION ..................................................................... 10
`A.
`Importation and In Rem Jurisdiction .....
`............................................................. .. l 0
`
`B.
`C.
`
`..................... ..1O
`Subject Matter Jurisdiction ............................... .; ........... .. .............
`Personal Jurisdiction .................................................................................. .: ........ ..l 1
`
`IV.
`
`DOMESTIC INDUSTRY - ECONOMIC PRONG ................................................... .. 11
`
`us. PATENT NO. 7,225,712 ......................................................................................... 12
`
`A.
`B.
`
`C.
`
`........................... .. 12
`........
`Level of Ordinary Skill innthe Art.................................
`‘Claims-at-Issue ; .............................................................. ...; ...................
`............ .. 12
`
`Claim Construction .............. ..'. ............................................................................. .. l4
`
`1.
`I 2.
`
`Retraction Embodiment #3 ............‘...‘......
`Braking Embodiment #1 ...........
`......
`
`...................15
`...... .._...................
`............................... ...._..... ..; ...... ..2O
`
`D.
`
`Infringement ...... ..-..‘. ................. .. ........................................ .: ..................... .. .......... ..2O
`
`i.
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2010 e Page 2
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2010 – Page 2
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`1.
`
`Claim 8 .......................
`
`..................................................................
`
`..... ..2_0
`
`-
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`“reaction system” .................................................................... ..'.....22
`
`“motion detection system” ........................................................... ..4O
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 9, 11, and 15 ................................................................. .. ............. ..52
`
`Claim 18 ......................................................... .._. ........................
`
`............. ..52
`
`a.
`
`“reaction system” .................................................................... ..52
`
`‘A b.
`
`“control system”........................................................................... ..52
`
`4.
`
`Claim 20 ...........................................
`
`...................................................... ..56
`
`E.
`
`Domestic Industry - Technical Prong. ................................................................. ..57_
`1.
`Claim 8 ............................................
`....................... .L ....................... .; ..... ..57
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`‘ 6.
`
`7.
`
`V
`
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................................... ..60
`
`'
`
`Claim 11 .................................
`
`......
`
`........................................................ ..6l
`
`Claim 12 ......... ..; .....................
`
`........ .; ...................................................... ..6l
`
`Claim 18 ........................................
`
`......................................................... ..6l
`
`Claim l9 ................................................................................................... ..65
`
`Claim 20 ...............................
`
`...................................
`
`............................. ..65
`
`VI.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,600,455 ......................................................................................... 66
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................................ ..66
`
`Claims-at-Issue .....................
`
`............................................................................. ..66
`
`Claim Construction .............................................................................................. ..67
`
`Reaction Embodiment #3 .......................................................
`1.
`................ ..68
`_ Braking. Embodiment #1 ........................ .;; .................
`_
`I 2.
`............................ ..69
`Infringement ......... .;‘ .........................................................
`................................... .170
`
`1.
`
`Claim l....'. ................................................................................................ ..7O
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`“reaction system” ......................................................................... ..70
`
`“control system”................
`
`......................................................... ..7O
`
`2.
`3.
`
`...................;......................................74
`....
`_- Claims 5 and 10 .....................
`Claim 16 ........................... .. ...................................................................... ..74
`
`E.
`
`I Domestic Industry — Technical Prong........................................................... .., .... ..75
`
`1.
`_ 2.
`3.
`
`1 Claim 1..._ ............................................. .;.; .................... ..-." .......................... ..75.
`Claim 5.....;...I...... ..-. ........................
`................ ... ...................
`................ ..76
`Claim 10 .........
`................................ ..-. .........
`...... .;.....
`.......... j, ......... ..77
`
`ii
`
`SD3 Exhiibit 2010 — Page 3
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2010 – Page 3
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`4;
`
`Claim_l6 ...........
`
`...................................................................................... ..78
`
`VII.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,895,927 ...........Q...............................
`
`........................
`
`.................. 79
`
`- A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................. .._....
`
`............................................ ..79
`
`Claims-at—Issue .................................................................................................... ..80 -
`
`Claim Construction .............................................................................................. ..80
`
`Infringement ......................................................................................................... ..80
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 7 ........................................ ..; .... ..’................ ... ................................. ..8l
`
`Claim 8 .... ..'. ..................
`
`....................................... .. ...................... .§ ......... ..82
`
`Claim 12 ................................................................................................... ..83
`
`E.
`
`Domestic Industry — Technical Prong....
`
`..................................................
`
`....... ..83
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 7 ..................................................................................................... ..83
`
`Claim 8 ...............................................
`
`.................................................... ..85
`
`VIII.
`
`pU.S. PATENT NO. 8,011,279 .........................................................,............................... 85
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`‘C.
`D
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................
`
`................................ ..85
`
`_ Claims-at-Issue ................................... .-. ..........
`
`....
`
`............................................. ..86
`
`Claim Construction .............................................................................................. ..87
`Infringement........................................................................................... .. ............ ..87
`1.
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................................... ..87
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 6 ..............................................................................
`
`.................. ..89
`
`Claim 16 ................................................................................................... ..89
`
`Claim 17 .............. .. .......................................................
`
`.......................... ..89
`
`E.
`
`Domestic Industry — Technical Prong .................................................................. ..90
`1.
`Claim 1 ............... .[. ........
`................ ..'..; .................................................... ..9o
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................................... ..92
`
`Claim 6...............................................
`
`..............................
`
`................ ..92
`
`Claim 16 ......................................
`
`...................................................
`
`...... ..93
`
`................................... j.....' .................. ..93
`Claim 17 ......................................
`'
`5.
`I
`INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT .....; ............................................................................. .. 93
`
`IX.
`
`VALIDITY................................................................................
`
`..................................... 95
`
`A.
`B.
`
`...... ..95
`......
`Improper Functional Claiming..................................... .. ........... ... ........
`35 U.S.C. § 112 11 l
`................
`....................
`............................
`................... ..loo
`1.
`Are the“Asserted Claims of the "455, ’927 and ’279 Patents Invalid for
`InsufficientWritten Description and Lack of Enablement for Failure to
`
`1“
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2010 — Page 4
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2010 – Page 4
`
`

`
`PUIBLIC VERSION.
`
`I
`Disclose in the Specification any Teaching of an Optical or Ultrasonic
`. Detection System, Among Others? ........................................................ ..l00
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Enablement ...............................................................................
`
`l 05
`
`Written Description........................................................
`
`.......... ..l 12
`
`2.
`
`-
`
`Are the Asserted Claims of the ’927 Patent Invalid for Insufficient
`Written Description and Lack of_Enablement for Failure to Disclose in '
`the Specification How to Retract All the Claimed Cutting Tools Below
`the Work Surface Over the Full Range of Faster than 14 Milliseconds? 113
`
`3.
`
`Are the Asserted Claims of the ’279 Patent Invalid for Insufficient
`
`Written Description and Lack of Enablement for Failure tovDisclose in
`the.Specification How to Move or Accelerate All Claimed Moveable
`Components Over the Entire Claimed Ranges for All Claimed Cutting
`Tools? ..................................................................................................... ..l 15
`
`C.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 - Obviousness .............................................
`
`........................... ..l15
`
`1.
`
`Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness
`
`.............................................. ..l20
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Recognition and Praise .............................................................. .. 121
`
`Long Felt But Unresolved Need ................................................ ..l24
`
`Skepticism and Unexpected Results ....................................
`
`.... .. 126
`
`Commercial Success .................................................................. ..128
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`The ‘7l2 Patent .................................................................
`
`.................. ..l29
`
`The ‘455 Patent ...................................................................................... ..l3l
`
`The ‘927 Patent ...................................................................................... ..l34
`
`The ‘279 Patent ...................................................................................... ..137
`
`XI.
`
`UNENFORCEABILITY - PATENT MISUSE ........................................................... 138
`
`XII. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ......;..................................§.......................;....
`
`......
`
`........ .. 144
`
`XIII.
`
`INITIAL DETERMINATION AND ORDER .....
`
`.................................................... 145
`
`iv
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2010 — Page 5
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2010 – Page 5
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION ‘
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`CDX
`
`I
`
`Complainants’ Demonstrative Exhibit
`
`CIB
`
`CPB
`
`CPX
`
`Complainants’ Initial Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Complainants’ Pre-Hearing Brief
`
`Complainants’ Physical ‘Exhibit
`
`CReplyB
`
`Complainants’ Reply Post-Hearing Brief
`
`CRB
`
`CX
`
`*
`
`Dep.
`
`'
`
`_
`
`’
`
`Complainants’ Responsive Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Complainants" Exhibit
`
`Deposition
`
`Hearing Tr.
`
`Hearing Transcript
`
`JX
`
`RDX
`
`RIB
`
`RPB
`
`RPX
`
`Joint Exhibit
`
`Respondents’ Demonstrative Exhibit
`
`Respondents’ Initial Post-Hearing Brief
`
`Respondents’ Pre-Hearing Brief
`
`Respondents’ Physical Exhibit
`
`RReplyB
`
`Respondents’ Reply Post-Hearing’; Brief
`
`Respondents’ Responsive Post;Hearing Brief
`
`-
`
`Respondents’ Exhibit
`
`Tr
`
`Transcript
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2010 — Page 6
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2010 – Page 6
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`I.
`
`I INTRODUCTION-
`A.
`Brocedural, Background
`
`Complainants SawStop, LLC and SD3, LLC (collectively “SavvStop” or “Complainants”)
`
`filed the complaint underlying this Investigation on July 16, 2015. The complaint alleges
`
`Respondents Robert Bosch Tool Corporation and Robert Bosch GmbH (collectively “Bosch” or‘
`
`“R‘espondents”) import certain products that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No.
`7,225,712 (“the ‘712 patent”); 7,600,455 (“the ‘455 patent”); 7,895,927 (“the ‘927 patent”); and
`8,011,279 (“the ‘279 patent”) (collectively, “asserted patents”). SaWStop amended the complaint
`
`on July 30, 2015 in order to assert additional claims from the ‘712 patent.
`
`By publication of a notice in the Federal Register on September 1, 2015, the U.S.
`
`International Trade Commission ordered that:
`
`Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,
`an investigation be instituted to determine Whether there is a violation of
`subsection (a)(l)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the
`sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of
`certain table saws
`incorporating active injury mitigation technology and
`components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 8, 9, 11,_
`1.5, 18, and 20 ofthe ’712 patent; claims 1, 5, 7, 10, 13-16, and 18-20 of the ’455
`patent; claims 1, 5, and 16 of the ’836 patent; claims 7, 8, and 10-12 of the ’927
`(patent; claims 1, 5, 6, 10-14, 16, and 17 of the ’279 patent; and claims 1, 2, 4, 6,
`9, and 11 of the ’450 patent, and Whether an industry in the United States exists as
`required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
`'
`'
`
`80 F.R. 52791-2 (Sept. 1, 2015).
`
`I set a target date of December 30, 2016 for completion of .this
`
`.
`
`investigation and set the evidentiary hearing for April25, 2016. Order No. 3. On October 1,
`
`2015, I issued the procedural schedule for this investigation. Order No. 4.
`
`In accordance with the procedural schedule, on December 14,-2015, I held a technology
`tutorial and Markman hearing. On February 9, 2016, I issued Order No. 7, construing certain
`
`terms of the asserted patents. In Order No. 7 I construed each of the terms “detection system”,
`
`“reaction system”, “control system”, “self-,test system”, and “safety system “to have its plain and
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2010 -Page 7_
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2010 – Page 7
`
`

`
`PUBIIC VERSION
`
`ordinary meaning as understood by one of skill in the art in View of the specification and
`prosecution history.” (Order No. 7 at 7.) Subsequent to issuing Order No. 7 I requested the
`parties file supplemental claim-construction briefing, first on the threshold issue ofwhether any
`of the “system” limitations are means-plus-function, and second on what structure would
`
`correspond to certain of the “system” elements if they were construed under 35 U.S.C. § 1121] 6.
`
`On April 29, 2016, I issued a supplemental claim construction order. Order No. 1 1.
`
`In light of the new constructions in Order No. ll, I rescheduled the evidentiary hearing in
`
`this Investigation to allow the parties additionaltime to engage in further expert discovery‘ to
`
`address infringement and invalidity opinions related to those constructions. See Order No. 1.5.
`
`On May 9, 2016, the parties submitted their prehearing briefs and prehearing statements. The
`
`evidentiary hearing in this investigation was held on May 16 and 23-25, 2016.
`I
`The following motions remain pending: SawStop’s motion to strike in part Bosch’s G.R.
`
`7.5 disclosure of invalidity contentions (Motion Docket‘No. 965-002); SawStop’s motion for
`
`summary determination of infringement of certain claims (Motion Docket No. 965-006);
`
`SawStop’s motion for summary determination that the domestic industry products practice the
`
`Asserted Patents ((Motion Docket No. 965-007); and Bosch’s motion for summary determination
`of invalidity due to improper functional claiming (Motion Docket No. 965-008). Motion'Docket
`Nos. 965-002, 965-006, 965-007, and 965-008, are hereby Denied.
`I
`
`On August_ 10, 2016, Bosch filed a motion to re-open the record to add one additional
`
`exhibit. (Motion Docket No. 965-024) The exhibit is a table that SawStop allegedly postedto I
`
`'
`
`their website after the evidentiary hearing in this investigation comparing the SawStop Jobsite
`
`saw to the Bosch REAXX saw. Commission Rule 2l0.42(g) states that -“[a]t any time prior to the .
`
`filing of the initial determination, the administrative law 'judge may reopen the proceedings for A
`
`SD3 Exhibigt 2010 — Page 8 I
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2010 – Page 8
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`0 the reception of additional evidence.” 19
`
`§ 2l0.42(g). “However, the proceedings will
`
`not be reopened absent a showing of good cause.” Certain Wireless Devices With 3G and/or 4G.
`Capabilities andComporzents Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-868, Order No. 113 at 3 (Mar. 31,
`
`2014).
`
`I do not find good cause to reopen the record. The evidence Bosch wishesto add was
`
`created well after the close of fact discovery
`
`is cumulative of evidence already in the record.
`
`In fact‘, even Bosch admits that “[a] similar comparison chart (RX-220) is in the record.”
`
`Accordingly, Motion Docket‘No. 965-024 is hereby Denied.
`
`B.
`
`The Parties
`
`Complainants SawStop, LLC and SD3, LLC are limited liability companies organized
`
`and existing under the laws of Oregon. Bothcompanies have a new principal place of business
`
`SD3, LLC owns
`at 1 1555 SW Myslony Street, Tualatin, Oregon. Amended Complaint at
`the Asserted Patents and 100% of SawStop, LLC. Id SawStop, LLC is an operating company I
`
`that designs, develops, produces and sells table saws with active injury mitigation technology‘.
`
`Id.
`
`Respondent Robert Bosch Tool Corporation is a Delaware Corporation with a principal
`
`place of business at 1800 West Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois, 60056.‘ Response to
`
`Complaint at 11 17. Respondent Robert Bosch GmbH, the parent of Robert Bosch Tool
`
`Corporation, is a German multinational engineering and electronics company located at Robert-
`Bosch-Platz 1, 70839 Gerlingen-Schillerhohe, Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany. Id. at $1 19.
`
`C.
`
`The Asserted Patents and Claims
`
`On February 26, 2016, 'SawStop filed a motion for partial termination by withdrawal of
`
`I claim 14 of the ‘279 patent and all asserted claims of the ‘4l50 patent. That motion was granted
`
`by initial determination dated March 10, 2016. See Order No. 8 (unreviewed). On April 15,
`
`_
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2010 — Page 9
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2010 – Page 9
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`2016, SawStop filed a motion for partial termination by withdrawal of claims 7, 13, 14, 15, 18,
`
`19, and 20 of the ‘455 patent; claims 7, 10, and 11 of the ‘927 patent; and claims 5, 10, 11, 12,
`and 13 ofthe ‘279 patent. On May 2, 2016, SawStop filed a motion for partial termination by
`withdrawal of its allegations directed to the ‘836 patent. These motions were granted by initial
`determination on May 3, 2016. See Order No. 13 (unreviewed).
`
`' The. asserted patentsl generally relate to active safety systems for woodworking
`
`machines. The following patents and claims remain at issue in this investigation:
`
`
`‘W
`
`tleégnd
`3
`
`
`,s~
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,225,712
`
`U.S. Patent 7,600,455
`
`
`
`
`
`~
`
`arms
`
`
`
`_
`
`—
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,895,927
`
`U.S. Patent 8,011,279
`
`The ‘712 patent is titled, “Motion Detecting System for Use in a Safety System for Power
`
`August 13, 2001, and claims priority to provisional
`Equipment.” JX-016. It was filed
`applications filed on August 14, 2000. The ‘712 patent issued on June 5, 2007. The "712 patent
`
`generally describes a woodworking machine safety system that includes amotion detection
`
`system or control system that monitors the rotational speed of a cutting tool and triggers a
`
`reaction system if the speed presents a dangerous condition to the operator. See JX-016 at
`
`Abstract. The motion detection ‘system or control system disables the reaction system when the
`
`cutting tool has stopped or slowed below a rotational-speed threshold, thereby allowing the
`
`operator to‘ contact the cutting tool in order to repair or replace it, or to make measurements
`
`. between the cutting tool and a fence, for example. See id. at 8:1-34. Without the claimed .
`
`V
`
`1 The effective date ofthe asserted? patents pre-dates the America Invents Act (“AIA”) enacted‘
`by Congress on September 16, 2011.
`'
`‘
`
`H SD3 Exhibit 2010 — Page 10
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2010 – Page 10
`
`

`
`PUBLTC VERSION
`
`technology, these operations would require the user to disconnect power to the woodworking
`machine, or otherwise would activate the reaction system unnecessarily.
`
`The ‘455 patent is titled, “Logic Control for Fast-Acting Safety System.” JX-017. It was
`
`filed on August 13, 2001, and claims priority to provisional applications filed on August 14,
`
`1
`
`2000. The ‘455i patent issued on October 13, 2009. The ‘455 patent generally describes a 1
`
`woodworking machine safety system that includes a self-test system or control system for
`
`monitoring the operation of a reaction system and disabling the machine’s motor if the self-test
`
`or control system determines that the reaction system is not operational. JX-017 at 7:10-41. In
`
`one embodiment, the self-test systemudetermines whether a capacitor stores charge sufficient to
`
`actuate the reaction system; if it does not, the self-test system will generate a signal to disconnect
`
`the motor, and thereby stop the saw blade from rotating or prevent it from starting. Id. at Fig.
`
`4C. The ‘455 patent fL11‘tl’16I‘ describes reaction systems that include single-use components such
`
`as fuse wires andpbrake pawls, explaining that the self-test system is configured to therefore test
`
`the reaction system without having to operate the reaction system. Id. at 13:8-14:17.
`
`The ‘927 patent is titled, “Power Equipment with Detection and Reaction Systems.” JX-
`019. It was filed on May 19, 2010, and is acontinuation of and claims priority to certain U.S.
`
`patent applications, including 10/984,643, filed November 8, 2004, which is a continuation of
`
`09/929,242, filed August 13, 2001. The ‘927 patent also claims priority to provisional
`
`applications filed August 14, 2000. The ‘927,patent issued on March 1, 2011. The ‘927 patent
`generally describes woodworking machine safety systems that include reaction systems designed
`
`to retract a cutting tool below a working system within approximately 14 milliseconds after the
`detection of a dangerous ‘condition- JX-019 at 12:6-13:49. The patent_ explains that retraction of
`
`"k
`
`the saw blade is one of the ways to mitigate injury, provided it occurs quickly enough. The
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2010 — Page 11
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2010 – Page 11
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`specification describes. different embodiments for retracting the cutting‘ tool. In one embodiment,
`
`angular momentum resulting from a brake engaging the spinning cutting tool retracts the saw
`
`blade within approximately 14 milliseconds after detecting a dangerous condition. Another
`
`embodiment “direct retraction” that results from a “spring or other force” acting on an arbor that ‘
`
`supports the tool such that the blade is retracted without a brake beingapplied to it.
`
`Id. at 1528-
`
`16:2; Figs. 10-12.
`
`The ‘279 patent is titled, “Power Equipment with Systems to Mitigate or Prevent Injury.”
`
`JX-020. It was filed on December 17, 2007, and is a continuation of and claims priority to U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 09/929,227, filed August 13, 2001. The ‘279 patent also claims priority
`
`to provisional applications filed August 14, 2000. The ‘279 patent issued on September 6, 2011.
`
`The ‘279 patent describes woodworking safety systems that include an actuator designed to
`
`move a moveable component in order to mitigate injury in response to detection of a dangerous
`
`condition. JX-020 at Abstract. In some embodiments, the actuator includes a spring and the
`
`moveable co-mponent includes a brake pawlior arbor block. Id. at 8:44-67. In other
`
`embodiments, the actuator includes a spring and the moveable component is an arbor block that
`is used in “direct retraction.” Id. at 17:54-18:61; Figs. 30-32. The asserted claims ofthe ‘279
`
`patent describe specific parameters of the ‘safety system, including the stored energy of the
`
`actuator and the distance and time within which the moveable component must move in order to
`mitigate injury. Id. at 8:59-9:58.
`D.
`Products at" Issue
`
`I 1.
`
`Domestic Industry Products
`
`The Domestic Industry Products include four categories of table saws manufactured and
`
`sold by SawStop:
`
`industrial cabinet saws (ICS), professional cabinet saws (PCS),_contractor
`
`saws (CNS), and jobsite saws (JSS). Tr. at 476:17-477:20; Order No. 10, 11 10. It is undisputed
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2010 — Page '12
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2010 – Page 12
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`that each model ofI each saw practices the asserted patents in the same way. Tr. at 477:2l-478:1
`
`Order No. 10, 1] 9.
`
`2.
`
`Accused Products
`
`The Accused Products are the Bosch GTS104lA REAXX table saw and components
`
`thereof, as well as prototype and sample units that have been imported into the United States. 80
`
`Fed. Reg. 52,791; Tr. 339218-340:21; RPX-2. The Accused Products are also identified as the
`
`GTS104lA-09 when sold with a stand, and as the REAXX, Armor Saw or ASAW, which are
`
`internal model names. JX-022C at 35:14-38:10, 40:15-41 :6.
`
`.
`
`II.
`
`STANDARDS OF LAW.
`
`A.
`
`Infringement‘
`
`“An infringement analysis entails two steps. The first step is determining the meaning
`
`and scope ofthe patent claims asserted to be infringed. The second step is comparing the
`
`properly construed claims to the device accused of infringing.” Markman, 52 F.3d at 976
`
`(citations omitted).
`
`1.
`
`Direct Infringement
`
`A complainant must prove either literal infringement or infringement under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents. Infringement must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. SmithKZine
`
`Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Labs. Corp, 859 F.2d 878, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A preponderance
`ofthe evidence standard “requires proving that infringement was more likely than not to have
`
`occurred,” Warner-Lambert Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 418 F.3d 1326, 1341 n.15- (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005)
`
`a.
`Literal Infringement
`Literal infringement is‘-a question of fact. Finisar Corp. v. Dz'recTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d
`
`1323, 1332 (Fed. _Cir. 2.808). "Literal infringement requires the patentee to prove that the accused -V
`
`SVD3 Exhibit 2010 1-. Page 13
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2010 – Page 13
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`device contains each and every limitation of the asserted claim(s). Frank ’s Casing Crew &
`
`Rental Tools, Inc. v. Weatherford Int ’I, Inc., 389 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2004). If any claim
`
`limitation is absent, there is no literal infringement of that claim as a matter of law. Bayer AG v.
`
`Elan Pharm. Research Corp, 212 F.3d 1241, 1247 (Fed._Cir. 2000).
`
`i
`
`b.
`
`Doctrine of Equivalents
`
`Where literal infringement is not found, infringement can still be found under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents. Determining infringement under the doctrine of equivalents “requires an
`intensely factual inquiry.” Vehicular Techs. Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int 7, Inc. ,. 212 F.3d 1377,
`
`1381 (Fed. Cir. 2000). According to the Federal Circuit:
`
`Infringement under the doctrine of equivalents may be found when the accused
`device contains an “insubstantial” change from the claimed invention. Whether
`equivalency exists may be determined based on the “insubstantial differences”
`test or based on the “triple identity” test, namely, whether the element of the
`accused device “performs substantially the same function in substantially the
`same way to obtain the same result.” The essential
`inquiry is whether “the
`accused product or process contain elements identical or equivalent to each
`claimed element of the patented invention[.]”
`
`TIP Sys., LLC V. Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin, Inc., 529 F.3d 1364, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`(citations omitted).
`
`2.
`
`Indirect Infringement
`
`a.
`
`Induced Infringement.
`
`Section 27l(b) ofthe Patent Act prohibits inducement: “[w]hoever actively induces
`
`infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.” 35"U.S.C». § 27l(b). See DSU Med.
`Corp.‘ v. .lMS Ca, 471 F.3d 1293, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc) (“To establish liability under
`
`section 271 (b), a patent holder mustprove that once the defendants knew of the patent, they
`
`actively and knowingly aided and abetted another’s direct infringement”) (citations omitted).
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2010 — Page 14
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2010 – Page 14
`
`

`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`“The mere knowledge of possible infringement by others does not amount to inducement;
`
`specific intent and action to induce infringement must be proven.” Id. (citations omitted).
`
`b.
`
`- Contributory Infringement -
`
`Section 271(c) of the Patent Act prohibits contributory infringement. See 35 U.S.C. §
`271(c). “Under 35 U.5.C. § 271(c), a party who sells a component with knowledge that the
`
`component is especially designed for use in a patented invention, and is not a staple article of
`
`commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, is liable as .a contributory infringer.”
`
`Wordtech Sys., Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc., 609 F.3d 1308, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`B.
`
`Domestic Industry .- Technical Prong
`
`The technical prong of the domestic industry requirement is satisfied when the ‘
`
`complainant in a patent-based section 337 investigation establishes that it is practicing or
`
`exploiting the patents at issue. See 19 U.S.C. §1337 (a)(2) and (3); Certain Microsphere
`
`Adhesives, Processfor Making Same and Prods.‘ Containing Same, Including .5‘elf-Stick
`Repositionable Notes, Inv. No. 337-TA-366, Comm’n Op. at 8 (U.S.I.T.C. Jan. 16, 1996).,-“In
`order to satisfy the