On February 1, 2017, the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) issued its opinion finding a violation of Section 337 in Certain Table Saws Incorporating Active Injury Mitigation Technology and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-965).

By way of background, this investigation is based on a July 16, 2015 complaint filed by SawStop, LLC and SD3, LLC (collectively, “SawStop”) alleging violation of Section 337 by Respondents Robert Bosch Tool Corporation and Robert Bosch GmbH (collectively, “Bosch”) in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain table saws incorporating active injury mitigation technology and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. 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”). See our July 16, 2015 and August 28, 2015 posts for more details on the complaint and Notice of Investigation, respectively. The Commission terminated the investigation with respect to the ’836 and ’450 patents based on SawStop’s withdrawal of its allegations concerning those patents.

On September 9, 2016, ALJ Thomas B. Pender issued a final Initial Determination (“ID”) finding a violation of Section 337 with respect to the ’927 and ’279 patents, and no violation with respect to the ’712 and ’455 patents. Specifically, the ALJ 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 those patents. ALJ Pender also found that Bosch failed to show that any of the asserted claims were invalid, and that SawStop satisfied the domestic industry requirement with respect to all four patents. ALJ Pender recommended that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) and cease-and-desist orders (“CDO”) against Bosch. The parties each petitioned for review of the ID. The Commission determined not to review the ID, but requested briefing from the parties and the public on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding.

According to the opinion, the Commission found that the public interest factors (public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, production of like or directly competitive articles in the U.S., and U.S. consumers) did not weigh against issuance of a remedial order. The Commission found that an LEO 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 is an appropriate remedy. The Commission also found that an appropriate remedy is the issuance of a CDO directing Robert Bosch Tool Corp. to cease and desist from importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for sale, transferring (except for exportation), or soliciting U.S. agents or distributors of imported 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. Finally, the Commission found that a bond rate of 0% is appropriate.