Bosch Power Tools created an industry buzz when they released the Reaxx tablesaw, which features their version of a flesh-sensing technology to stop a blade before injury occurs during a user mishap. The Sawstop company, which created their own flesh-sensing safety mechanisms for tablesaws a decade ago, responded by filing a lawsuit against Bosch with the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), claiming patent infringement.
Last Friday, Administrative Law Judge Thomas B. Pender ruled that Bosch’s Reaxx saw was, in fact, infringing on SawStop’s patents: “Based on the foregoing, it is my Initial Determination that there is a violation 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, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain table saws incorporating active injury mitigation technology and components thereof, in connection with the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,895,927 and 8,011,279.” –U.S. I.T.C., Inv. No. 337-TA-965
After the ruling, SawStop is asking U.S. Customs to prohibit any Reaxx saws from entering the United States. Sawstop also wants Bosch to stop advertising and selling the saws and associated parts, which might include replacement cartridges essential to the saw’s operation.
Dr. Stephen Gass, SawStop’s president, notes that “the technology in SawStop saws wouldn’t have made it to market except for the protection offered by the United States patent system. We have invested millions of dollars in research and development to protect woodworkers from serious injury, and our inventions have been awarded numerous patents. Bosch chose to introduce the Reaxx saw in disregard of our patents, and we were left with no alternative but to defend our patent rights in court. We are very pleased Judge Pender confirmed that Bosch infringes our patents.”
Bosch released an official statement: “We believe that advanced REAXX safety technology does not violate any competitor’s intellectual property rights. … The patents asserted against REAXX are based on applications filed more than 15 years ago; Bosch does not believe they apply to REAXX technology. … Bosch has vigorously defended, and will continue to defend, its ability to make REAXX table saws available in the United States. In addition, Bosch will continue to pursue its own claim of patent infringement against the competitor filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The ongoing litigation has no effect on distributors’ ability to buy or sell Bosch REAXX table saws. REAXX cartridges, accessories and service parts are available.”
This is certainly not the end of litigation. The next step is for the USITC to decide if it should adopt, modify, or reject Judge Pender’s determination.
12/1/16 UPDATE: The following is an excerpt from a press release issued by SawStop today
On November 10th, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) confirmed Administrative Law Judge Thomas B. Pender’s previous patent infringement findings against Robert Bosch Tool Corporation. The ITC will now consider Judge Pender’s recommended next steps including “a cease and desist order issue against Robert Bosch Tool Corp.,” regarding importation of the infringing Reaxx saw and activation cartridges into the United States.
Comments
The following comments were posted during the migration of the website. Therefore they got left behind.
I've copy and pasted them below:
AKWintermute writes: Just because our patent system is broken and people can get granted patents that are so general to cover anything, doesn't mean Bosch copied Gass. I hope this gets thrown out. The problem with judges and juries making infringement rulings is that they aren't technically trained enough to make an informed decision in most cases.
From a technical stand point to me as an engineer these two products, achieve the same same outcome in different ways and they points where they're similar aren't novel so shouldn't be patent-able.
Posted: 12:09 pm on September 15th Spam
AKWintermute writes: Just because our patent system is broken and people can get granted patents that are so general to cover anything, doesn't mean Bosch copied Gass. I hope this gets thrown out. The problem with judges and juries making infringement rulings is that they aren't technically trained enough to make an informed decision in most cases.
From a technical stand point to me as an engineer these two products, achieve the same same outcome in different ways and they points where they're similar aren't novel so shouldn't be patent-able.
Posted: 12:09 pm on September 15th Spam
BostonDB1 writes: This is exactly why we have a patent system to protect inventions:
Gass: Hey guys, I have an idea for a safer saw!
Establishment Saw Makers: Piss off.
[Time passes]
Gass: Look everyone else, I spent years of my life and lots of money to make a safer saw!
[Lots of people buy that saw]
Establishment Saw Maker: Look everyone, we copied this guys idea!
It is obvious that they are two different technologies. Also, if "patent" has come to mean "monopoly", then the patents are worthless. Fix the system. Don't perpetuate the failure of the system.
There's a typo in the title. SawStop is misspelled.
On the topic at hand, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out in court. Of course, I believe it's a great idea to have at least two or more competitors in a given market place. It makes for better products for their consumer. Especially when the focus is on user safety for wood works like us. I'm all for it. I get the defense of the intellectual property rights argument too. Sometimes, patent fights are over legal issues that only a patent attorney could love. Maybe SawStop had their patents awarded with broad generous language for an emerging technology. I don't know. I do know that I am a big fan of Bosch tools and use their tools weekly. Don't own a SawStop but appreciate the fit and finish of the ones I've seen demonstrated. There is one certainty, the lawyers will all make a bundle. Just hope the system doesn't discourage further investment in saving the 10 fingers of us woodworkers.
Bosch: They're eating into our brand loyalty and small job site saw business. We don't want to pay them to license the technology. We'll just violate their patents and litigate them out of existance.
SawStop: We offered it to you and you chose to ignore us. Fine, we made a better quality product at a fair price. We don't make junk. And we've shown contractors how the saw saves them money on insurance alone, let alone all the other benefits.
I own Bosch tools and have really enjoyed using them. But this kind of clear abuse of power and money really makes me think twice about any more Bosch purchases, ever.
To top it off, I checked out the ReAxx at the local box store. Let's just say for $1500 I wasn't impressed. I haven't used both side by side, but the SawStop inspires confidence where the Bosch did not for me. But that's my opinion.
Not sure how that slipped by so many of us Brian. Thanks. This is what happens when Liz Healy goes on vacation. The nice thing is that with the new site I was able to change it on my phone while pumping gas.
The way I remember this...SawStop offered their idea to several woodworking machinery manufacturers , am I right?So why is Bosch doing this now,obviously its $$$.I like Bosch also but please guys lets not get "cruddy"
Capacitive sensing technology has been around for a long time in applications other than table saws. While I have not read the patent claims, I find it hard to believe that using a widely available technology in a new application is, in and of itself, patentable.
So much for the Hippocratic Oath Dr. Gass. You apparently prefer people were injured, rather than using a superior product - and Reaxx is in fact superior, saving money in equipment and downtime as well as fingers.
The fundamental sensing technology used in SawStop table saw has been applied to many other other types of machinery and equipment long before SawStop! Fortunately, Gass has not yet applied for a patent that pertains to breathing from an orifice.
He might then followup by incorporating supplemental patents to block all possible innovation by others. The supplemental and overly broad claims might read something like "any and all such devices, apparatus or alternative orifices that might sustain life."
SawStop's objective is to monopolize the table saw market for safety. Innovation and competition is good for the market and consumers. Innovative products do well in a free market and not so good in a protectionist environment. Lesser products do better in a restrictive environment under protectionism of patents. Which do you chose?
Log in or create an account to post a comment.
Sign up Log in