In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN TABLE SAWS
`INCORPORATING ACTIVE INJURY
`MITIGATION TECHNOLOGY AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-965
`
`
`NOTICE OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION NOT TO REVIEW A FINAL
`INITIAL DETERMINATION FINDING A VIOLATION OF
`SECTION 337; SCHEDULE FOR BRIEFING ON
`REMEDY, THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AND BONDING
`
`AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.
`
`ACTION: Notice.
`
`SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has
`determined not to review a final initial determination (“ID”) issued by the presiding
`administrative law judge (“ALJ”), finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of
`1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337. The Commission has also set a schedule for briefing
`on remedy, the public interest, and bonding.
`
`FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Needham, Office of the
`General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW, Washington,
`D.C. 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in
`connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official
`business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International
`Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20436, telephone (202) 205-
`2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by
`accessing its Internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this
`investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
`https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this
`matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205-
`1810.
`
`SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted this investigation
`on September 1, 2015, based on a complaint filed by SawStop, LLC, and SD3, LLC
`(together, “SawStop”). 80 FR 52791-92 (Sept. 1, 2015). The amended complaint alleged
`violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the
`importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United
`States after importation of certain table saws incorporating active injury mitigation
`
`
`
`1
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2011 – Page 1
`
`

`
`
`
`technology and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain 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”). The notice of investigation named as
`respondents Robert Bosch Tool Corp. of Mount Prospect, Illinois, and Robert Bosch
`GmbH of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany (together, “Bosch”). Id. at 52792. The Office
`of Unfair Import Investigations is not a party to the investigation. Id.
`
`
`The Commission terminated the investigation with respect to the ’836 and ’450
`patents based on SawStop’s withdrawal of allegations concerning those patents. Order
`No. 8 (Mar. 10, 2016), not reviewed, Notice (Apr. 4, 2016); Order No. 13 (May 3, 2016),
`not reviewed, Notice (May 23, 2016).
`
`On January 27, 2016, SawStop moved for a summary determination that it
`satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. On February 8, 2016,
`Bosch indicated that it did not oppose the motion. On March 22, 2016, the ALJ granted
`the unopposed motion and determined that SawStop satisfied the economic prong of the
`domestic industry requirement. Order No. 10 (Mar. 22, 2016), not reviewed, Notice
`(Apr. 21, 2016).
`
`On September 9, 2016, the ALJ issued his final initial determination finding a
`violation of section 337 with respect to the ’927 and ’279 patents, and no violation of
`section 337 with respect to the ’712 and ’455 patents. Specifically, he found that Bosch
`did not directly or contributorily infringe the ’712 and ’455 patents, but found that
`Bosch’s REAXX table saw directly infringed the ’927 and ’279 patents and that Bosch’s
`activation cartridges contributorily infringed the ’927 and ’279 patents. He also found
`that Bosch had failed to show that any of the patent claims were invalid, and that
`SawStop satisfied the domestic industry requirement with respect to all four patents.
`Based on these findings, the ALJ recommended that a limited exclusion order issue
`against Bosch, that a cease and desist order issue against Robert Bosch Tool Corp., and
`that the bond during the period of Presidential review be set at zero percent. He also
`recommended that the scope of the exclusion order and cease and desist order specifically
`cover the contributorily infringing activation cartridges.
`
`On September 26, 2016, SawStop and Bosch each petitioned for review of the ID.
`On October 4, 2016, the parties opposed each other’s petitions. Having examined the
`record of this investigation, including the ALJ’s final ID, the petitions for review, and the
`responses thereto, the Commission has determined not to review the final ID.
`
`
`In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may
`(1) issue an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into
`the United States, and/or (2) issue a cease and desist order that could result in the
`respondent being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the
`importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in
`receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be
`ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for
`
`
`
`2
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2011 – Page 2
`
`

`
`
`
`purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide
`information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely
`affecting it or likely to do so. For background, see Certain Devices for Connecting
`Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December
`1994) (Commission Opinion).
`
`
`If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the
`effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider
`include the effect that an exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order would have on
`(1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3)
`U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject
`to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in
`receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in
`the context of this investigation. The Commission is particularly interested in briefing on
`the following issues:
`
`1. The parties dispute whether SawStop would be able to satisfy the market
`demand for table saws with active injury mitigation technology if the
`Commission issues a remedy against Bosch. Please discuss whether SawStop
`would be able to satisfy that demand quantitatively and qualitatively. How
`could remedial orders be tailored to address any concerns about the ability of
`SawStop (or other suppliers) to satisfy demand?
`
`2. Bosch requests that any Commission remedial order have a service and repair
`provision allowing Bosch to import and sell replacement parts, including its
`activation cartridges. Please discuss whether such a provision is appropriate.
`
`
`
`If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as
`delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission’s
`action. See Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005).
`During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under
`bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the Secretary of the
`Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning
`the amount of the bond that should be imposed if a remedy is ordered.
`
`WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Parties to the investigation, interested government
`agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on
`the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such submissions should address
`the recommended determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding, which issued on
`September 20, 2016. SawStop is also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for
`the Commission’s consideration. SawStop is additionally requested to state the date that
`the ’927 and ’279 patents expire, the HTSUS numbers under which the subject articles
`are imported, and to supply a list of known importers of the subject articles. The written
`submissions, exclusive of any exhibits, must not exceed 20 pages, and must be filed no
`later than close of business on November 22, 2016. Reply submissions must not exceed
`10 pages, and must be filed no later than the close of business on December 2, 2016. No
`
`
`
`3
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2011 – Page 3
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`furtheer submissioons on these issues will bbe permittedd unless otheerwise ordereed by the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Persons fiiling writtenn submissionns must file thhe original ddocument eleectronically
`
`
`
`
`nd submit 8 ated above andeadlines staon orr before the d
`
`true paper ccopies to the
`
` Office of thhe
`
`
`Secreetary by noonn the next daay pursuant to section 2110.4(f) of th
`e Commissi
`
`
`
`
`on's Rules oof
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Practtice and Proccedure (19 CCFR § 210.4((f)). Submisssions shouldd refer to thee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`invesstigation nummber (“Inv. NNo. 337-TA--965”) in a pprominent pllace on the ccover page
`
`
`
`
`and/oor the first paage. (See Haandbook for Electronic FFiling Proce
`
`dures,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`http:///www.usitc..gov/secretarry/fed_reg_nnotices/ruless/handbook__on_electronnic_
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`filingg.pdf). Persoons with queestions regardding filing sshould contaact the Secrettary (202-
`
`205-22000).
`
`
`t
`
`
`
`
`
`Any persoon desiring tto submit a ddocument to
`
`the Commisssion in conffidence mus
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ecretary to cted to the Seould be direcrequests shont. All such rtial treatmenrequeest confident
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the CCommission and must incclude a full sstatement off the reasons why the Coommission
`
`
`shoulld grant suchh treatment. See 19 C.F..R. § 201.6.
`
`
`
`
`confidential Documentss for which c
`
`
`
`
`
`
`treatmment by the CCommissionn is properlyy sought will be treated aaccordingly.
`All
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`informmation, incluuding confiddential businness informattion and doccuments for wwhich
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`confidential treatment is propperly sought,, submitted tto the Commmission for ppurposes of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`this Investigationn may be discclosed to andd used: (i) bby the Commmission, its eemployees
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cords of this ining the recng or maintaior developinrsonnel (a) focontract perand OOffices, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`or a rrelated proceeeding, or (b) in internal investigatioons, audits, reeviews, and
`evaluations
`
`
`
`
`relatiing to the proograms, perssonnel, and ooperations o
`
`
`
`f the Commmission includding under 55
`
`U.S.CC. Appendixx 3; or (ii) byy U.S. governnment emplooyees and coontract persoonnel[1],
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`solelyy for cyberseecurity purpooses. All noonconfidenti
`
`
`al written suubmissions wwill be
`
`
`
`
`
`availaable for public inspectioon at the Offiice of the Seecretary and
`on EDIS.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The authoority for the Commissionn’s determinnation is conttained in secction 337 of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the TTariff Act of 1930, as ammended (19 UU.S.C. 1337)), and in partt 210 of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Commmission’s Ruules of Practtice and Proccedure (19 CCFR part 2100).
`
`
`
`By order of the Commmission.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Barton
`Lisa R.
`
`
`
`Secretarry to the Commmission
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Issued: November 10, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[1] All contract peersonnel willl sign approppriate nondissclosure agreeements.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Commmission.
`
`
`SD3 Exhibit 2011 – Page 4