LumberJocks

Final Ruling on Sawstop vs Bosch by ITC

  • Advertise with us

« back to Power Tools, Hardware and Accessories forum

Forum topic by Rick_M posted 02-06-2017 07:27 AM 2843 views 1 time favorited 81 replies Add to Favorites Watch
View Rick_M's profile

Rick_M

10614 posts in 2215 days


02-06-2017 07:27 AM

Topic tags/keywords: bosch reaxx

If there was any discussion of this I missed it but on the 27th of January the ITC gave it’s final ruling the Bosch REAXX. Seems very final though I’m sure there is probably an appeals process.
http://www.finewoodworking.com/2017/02/01/last-reaxx-tablesaw-us


On January 27th, the U.S. International Trade Commission ordered Customs to exclude Bosch Reaxx table saws, and cartridges for those saws, from entering the United States, and the ITC issued an order to Robert Bosch Tool Corporation saying Bosch must “cease and desist from conducting any of the following activities in the United States: importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, transferring (except for exportation), and soliciting United States agents or distributors for imported [Reaxx] table saws.” The ITC has now terminated its investigation against Bosch. (ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-965)


The Commission has determined that the appropriate remedy is a limited exclusion order prohibiting the entry of table saws incorporating active injury mitigation technology and components thereof that infringe claims 8 and 12 of the ’927 patent and claims 1, 6, 16, and 17 of the ’279 patent, and an order that Robert Bosch Tool Corp. cease and desist from importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for sale, transferring (except for exportation), or soliciting U.S. agents or distributors of 2 imported table saws incorporating active injury mitigation technology and components thereof that infringe claims 8 and 12 of U.S. Patent the ’927 patent and claims 1, 6, 16, and 17 of the ’279 patent.

The Commission has determined that the public interest factors enumerated in section 337(d) and (f), 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d) and (f), do not preclude the issuance of the limited exclusion order or cease and desist order. The Commission has determined that bonding at zero percent of entered value is required during the period of Presidential review, 19 U.S.C. § 1337(j). Commissioner Kieff dissents as to the bond determination, and writes separately to explain his views both concerning the basis for issuing the cease and desist order and for making the bond determination. The investigation is terminated.

The Commission’s order and opinion were delivered to the President and the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance.

-- http://thewoodknack.blogspot.com/


81 replies so far

View robscastle's profile

robscastle

4507 posts in 2040 days


#1 posted 02-06-2017 07:31 AM

So if I was to want a Bosch REAXX here in Australia that would be OK?

-- Regards Robert

View UncannyValleyWoods's profile

UncannyValleyWoods

542 posts in 1699 days


#2 posted 02-06-2017 12:55 PM

That makes my decision to avoid purchase of a Saw Stop fairly straight forward. When profit is more important than people, we all lose.

-- “If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses.” ― Lenny Bruce

View OggieOglethorpe's profile

OggieOglethorpe

1276 posts in 1946 days


#3 posted 02-06-2017 01:21 PM

That makes my decision to avoid purchase of a Saw Stop fairly straight forward. When profit is more important than people, we all lose.

I agree, if the existing brands had installed the technology in their saws 15 years ago, we’d all be better off.

But… they were good with 50 year old designs. So mean old Rich Uncle Pennybags created a company, designed and built an entirely new product, set up a distribution network, and brought it to market. Shame on him!

Loving my 6 year old SawStop ICS! ;^)

View johnstoneb's profile

johnstoneb

2638 posts in 2008 days


#4 posted 02-06-2017 01:49 PM

Originally the technology was offered to the industry. The industry didn’t even try to negotiate with Gass. After Gass lost in court and congress. He made his own company and built a better saw. Now the industry is trying to steal the technology.

-- Bruce, Boise, ID

View JRsgarage's profile

JRsgarage

225 posts in 345 days


#5 posted 02-06-2017 02:18 PM

i agree he should reap the rewards of his technology/developements but he can make so much more by licensing his technology to his competitors. just finagle a strict usage clause/guidelines, and everyone would benefit.

-- Two is One, One is None

View dhazelton's profile

dhazelton

2608 posts in 2132 days


#6 posted 02-06-2017 02:49 PM

He should also apply the technology to band saws, circular saws and jointers.

View builtinbkyn's profile

builtinbkyn

1921 posts in 776 days


#7 posted 02-06-2017 02:54 PM

I’m surprised by the ruling. The two systems are quite different in their mechanical implementation. Yes they both stop a saw blade from injuring the user, but in very different ways. I don’t believe use or intent of a design, is the final standard. I can’t believe Bosch’s attorneys weren’t able to get that point across in their argument.

-- Bill, Yo!......in Brooklyn & Steel City :)

View TheGreatJon's profile

TheGreatJon

337 posts in 1069 days


#8 posted 02-06-2017 03:12 PM



I m surprised by the ruling. The two systems are quite different in their mechanical implementation. Yes they both stop a saw blade from injuring the user, but in very different ways. I don t believe use or intent of a design, is the final standard. I can t believe Bosch s attorneys weren t able to get that point across in their argument.

- builtinbkyn

I’m definitely with you there. I certainly haven’t read through the entire patent, or the legal claims. However, I find it hard to believe that SawStop managed to file a patent on the entire concept of an emergency blade braking system. As a mechanical engineer, with patents, my understanding is that you can patent a means of accomplishing a task, but you cannot put a patent on the goal of the task.

SawStop and Bosch have very different means of protecting our fingers. I don’t see how there was a patent violation. I’m fully admitting that I’m probably missing something, but it seems to me that this is the same as saying Company X has to stop making helicopters because Company Y makes airplanes and their claim to air travel is being violated.

-- This is not the signature line you are looking for.

View builtinbkyn's profile

builtinbkyn

1921 posts in 776 days


#9 posted 02-06-2017 03:56 PM

It may have something to do with the skin sensing aspect, but again that is a concept. If the means to accomplish that is different, then I don’t see an issue. I also haven’t read thru the patents and only read the ruling posted, but the mechanics of how each achieve the goal of stopping the blade are quite different. That in and of itself – a significant improvement, is usually enough to overcome the patent. At least that’s what I was told by an attorney that filed patents for Union Carbide (family friend), when I consulted him on an idea I was working on.

-- Bill, Yo!......in Brooklyn & Steel City :)

View JayT's profile

JayT

5453 posts in 2046 days


#10 posted 02-06-2017 04:03 PM

Having not read through all the patents and ruling, either, is the “infringement” against the system that is actually in the Sawstop? I agree that the Bosch system is enough different that it shouldn’t be seen as stealing the Sawstop system. It is my understanding, however, that when Gass designed the system, he also patented pretty much any possibility he could foresee competing against Sawstop in the future to try and eliminate potential competition. It’s possible the ruling is that Bosch is infringing on a patent he holds, but isn’t actually being produced.

I’m very surprised by the ruling, too. Bosch wouldn’t have put that much time and R&D dollars into the saw if they didn’t think it was enough different to avoid the patent issue and be able to sell the saw. It’s also possible that the person administering the ruling just doesn’t understand the mechanics—they are patent law experts, not mechanical engineers, after all.

-- In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. Thomas Jefferson

View builtinbkyn's profile

builtinbkyn

1921 posts in 776 days


#11 posted 02-06-2017 04:12 PM

I don’t believe a patent is intended to work like that – covering all the bases to prevent others from making a product. It’s intended to protect a single invention achieved in a singular manner. Variations of the design would require a patent for each.

I want to read thru more of the ruling later. Shop time now ;)

-- Bill, Yo!......in Brooklyn & Steel City :)

View JayT's profile

JayT

5453 posts in 2046 days


#12 posted 02-06-2017 04:22 PM

Variations of the design would require a patent for each.

- builtinbkyn

Yes. And it’s my understanding that is exactly what Gass did—he’s a patent attorney by trade, after all. Multiple patents to cover any possibility he could conceive of that would be able to compete with his manufactured design.

-- In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. Thomas Jefferson

View Lazyman's profile

Lazyman

1503 posts in 1223 days


#13 posted 02-06-2017 04:42 PM

You can find the complaint and list of patents here which you can then use to google the patents in the ruling.

After a quick glance, it is appears to me that the patents for this were written broadly enough to cover almost any method of implementing this, at least as currently conceived anyway (detect then stop and retract blade but only when the blade is moving). While it would be nice to have a competitor to bring the costs down (which Bosch didn’t do BTW), I cannot fault Sawstop for vigorously protecting their intellectual property. The American dream, right? As with most high tech stuff, we will just have to wait for the patent to expire or suck it up and pay the piper.

-- Nathan, TX -- Hire the lazy man. He may not do as much work but that's because he will find a better way.

View JayT's profile

JayT

5453 posts in 2046 days


#14 posted 02-06-2017 04:46 PM

Hmm, six patents on that complaint. From another site:

Not all of Sawstop’s claims proved valid. On September 9, 2016, the ALJ issued his final initial determination. They found a violation of section 337 with respect to the ’927 and ’279 patents. They found no violation of section 337 with respect to the ’712 and ’455 patents.

They’ve also terminated (closed) the investigation with respect to the ’836 and ’450 patents. SawStop’s withdrew their allegations on those patents.

So the only two patents with violations are ‘927 & ‘279. I’ll have to look those up.

-- In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. Thomas Jefferson

View JayT's profile

JayT

5453 posts in 2046 days


#15 posted 02-06-2017 04:55 PM

The ‘712 patent is the detection system. No violation. ‘455 patent is the control & testing system. No violation. The two that are found to have violations involve moving the blade below the work surface in order to mitigate injury.

That explains one potential device I had seen to get around the patents (I think from DeWalt) In that case, instead of dropping the blade, the table launched upwards on springs to move the hand out of the way and the blade didn’t move or have a brake—it spun down without power, similar to the Bosch. It was clunky and impractical, but was obviously being looked at to avoid those patents.

-- In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. Thomas Jefferson

showing 1 through 15 of 81 replies

Have your say...

You must be signed in to reply.

DISCLAIMER: Any posts on LJ are posted by individuals acting in their own right and do not necessarily reflect the views of LJ. LJ will not be held liable for the actions of any user.

Latest Projects | Latest Blog Entries | Latest Forum Topics

HomeRefurbers.com