Bosch to Compete Against Saw Stop

[Svar]

Interesting things to note, from the Power Tool Institute:
...operators are nearly five times more likely to contact the saw blade of a SawStop saw as opposed to the operator of a conventional table saw.http://www.powertoolinstitute.com/pti-pages/it-table-saw-facts.asp

I'd question that. Number of Sawstop "incidents" is based on the number of cartridges sold. That includes everything: misfire due to wet lumber, miter gauge/fence contact, etc., contacts which would not have led to a serious injury on a conventional saw. In contrast to that the data from conventional saws only includes incidents which ended up in ER.

 

[Paul G]

This drama will be going on for a long time, or at least until the sawstop patents expire.

 

[antss]

Not what it means.

"The patents asserted against REAXX are based on applications filed more than 15 years ago; Bosch does not believe they apply to REAXX technology. In addition, Bosch believes that if the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had complete information it would not have issued certain patents in the first place."
[/quote]

I think y'all should read between the lines here

What is or was the "complete information" referred to in this release ?
The judge did not side with SS on all of its claims, but enough to move the claim to the next step. 

While a win for SS , I think it falls short of a "victory" that the linked article claims.

Reaxx are still on sale, and SS hasn't been granted damages, and they sure haven't received a check.  The war continues.

Back to the complete info question.  From my read of the complaint summary and ruling it would seem that the infringement claim (with teeth anyway ) centers around SS's tight definition of flesh sensing tech.  From this release it would seem Bosch is going to challenge the latest  ruling and initial patent on the basis that GAss &co. Shouldn't have been granted a patent on that because Bosch already developed that in another division. 

Anyone CLOSELY following this have a comment on that ? Reading just the headlines won't get it done on this one , sorry gallery.  There are many, many layers to this onion.

 

[Michael Kellough]

"Shouldn't have been granted a patent on that because Bosch already developed that in another division."

Where do you get this from?

 

[antss]

From between the lines.  I could be waaay off base though.  [unsure] [unsure] [unsure]

My understanding is the judge's finding said Bosch infringed because Reaxx uses a "cartridge" that is expended on triggering and  it's system uses "stored energy" to move a component after detecting a fault.  SS's other claims were denied or not addressed.

Let's assume I have the facts mixed up, misinterpreted , or my premise is just wrong-  THEN WHAT is that trial balloon from Bosch trying to say about the Patent Office not having all the correct info ? 

That public argument doesn't say the judge erred; it says in a veiled manner the P.O. screwed up.  My inference from that is that Bosch's contention is SS's tech shouldn't have been patent-able presumably because Bosch already had a system designed somewhere in their system.

Like I already said - this could totally just be a PR move by Bosch to shape public perception.  This is not a simple case of little guy invents the wheel, patents it, and big business come along and copies it and thumbs its nose at little guy.  Management of western conglomerates don't like the risk that would  come with outright copying something like this. Either on the $$$ side if found in violation, or with the brand image of kicking the little guy in the teeth.  The German mentality would allow them to proceed if they thought they'd come up with something different , or already had that tech in house before the other guy.

 

[Rip Van Winkle]

Some of the Sawstop patents had claims concerning the blade dropping below the table. There have been saws available for decades, that use a circular blade of the type used on a tablesaw, where the blade can be raised above the saw table to cut, and when a handle is released, the blade will automatically drop below the table, either due to a spring, or gravity, or both. The main saw of this design I know of is called a Gjerde saw after the inventor, and is commonly used in Scandinavian countries. I believe there are other designs as well though.

Another of the Sawstop patent claims had to due with the sawblade lowering due to the centrifugal force or momentun of the spinning blade. It would not surprise me if past saw designs, had cutting retractable cutting blades, whose retraction was assisted by the centrifugal force of a spinning blade, even if no patent had specifically been issued related to this. If there was a saw design from the past that could be shown to have this feature, it would count as prior art, and this patent claim would not be considered valid.

I haven't been able to find any more information on the subject, but when the Sawstop patents started to be discussed at length on various forums and magazines, I saw a comment from somebody who claimed that dyring the 1960's or 1970's, there was a tablesaw of some sort shown at a woodworking or industrial show in Germany, whose blade was designed to stop in case the blade contacted the user. Supposedly the woodworkers who saw the saw laughed at it, and nothing more came if it. Unfortunately, I don't speak or read German, so I haven't gone to the effort of trying to see if a German patent was issued for the saw. From the way the claims in the sawstop patents I've read are written, I suspect that there was some sort of prior art that would have prevented a patent from being issued, for the blade stopping simply because of physical contact with the blade.

 

[tjbnwi]

Some thoughts and info from reading about the Bosch.

I don't see how skin sensing by SS is enforceable. We've had touch lamps and other touch sensitive devices long before SS was available.

I believe what the items from the other division are the cartridges that force the blade below the table. They are nitrogen cartridges that come from the Bosch automotive division. The cartridge is used to lock seat belts in an accident.

The Bosch does not jamb the blade or use blade motion to lower the blade. It uses the charge from the cartridge to rapidly lower the blade.

Tom

 

[Klemm]

the next time you read media reports that SawStop won a legal victory over BOSCH, you may want to check the newsreleases at SawStop and compare the text. Then ask yourself how much objective journalism was involved in the media report vs. rephrasing or simply copying a corporate newsrelease.
Let me know if you find evidence that I am way off base in this propaganda war which has baely begun.
Hans

 

[Holmz]

...
Then ask yourself how much objective journalism was involved in the media report vs. rephrasing or simply copying a corporate newsrelease.
Let me know if you find evidence that I am way off base in this propaganda war which has baely begun.
Hans

This applies to just about all journalism these days.

 

[jimbo51]

http://www.fdmcdigital.com/news-art...bosch-reaxx-saw-violates-sawstop-patents.aspx

This piece contains actual quote by the judge that there is a violation by Bosch. 

 

[AlexThePalex]

Some of the Sawstop patents had claims concerning the blade dropping below the table. There have been saws available for decades, that use a circular blade of the type used on a tablesaw, where the blade can be raised above the saw table to cut, and when a handle is released, the blade will automatically drop below the table, either due to a spring, or gravity, or both. The main saw of this design I know of is called a Gjerde saw after the inventor, and is commonly used in Scandinavian countries. I believe there are other designs as well though.

Another of the Sawstop patent claims had to due with the sawblade lowering due to the centrifugal force or momentun of the spinning blade. It would not surprise me if past saw designs, had cutting retractable cutting blades, whose retraction was assisted by the centrifugal force of a spinning blade, even if no patent had specifically been issued related to this. If there was a saw design from the past that could be shown to have this feature, it would count as prior art, and this patent claim would not be considered valid.

I haven't been able to find any more information on the subject, but when the Sawstop patents started to be discussed at length on various forums and magazines, I saw a comment from somebody who claimed that dyring the 1960's or 1970's, there was a tablesaw of some sort shown at a woodworking or industrial show in Germany, whose blade was designed to stop in case the blade contacted the user. Supposedly the woodworkers who saw the saw laughed at it, and nothing more came if it. Unfortunately, I don't speak or read German, so I haven't gone to the effort of trying to see if a German patent was issued for the saw. From the way the claims in the sawstop patents I've read are written, I suspect that there was some sort of prior art that would have prevented a patent from being issued, for the blade stopping simply because of physical contact with the blade.

It doesn't matter for the court what was done in other countries, the court only looks at patents filed in the USA because they're only valid there.

-------

When I first heard of the Reaxx saw I thought it was nice to finally get safe saws here in Europe too. SawStop doesn't sell their saws over here, and Bosch is a German company, so I thought they would make them available here too.

But the odd thing is, Bosch has not released them here yet, and I have not heard anything about plans to do so.

So it looks like Bosch made their saw solely with the purpose of breaking SawStop's monopoly in the United States, a saw that was developed to pick a fight, and I'm sure the multi-billion dollar company has looked at all the legal implications with a huge team of lawyers.

 

[antss]

I suspect they'll be offered in Europe as soon as they can ramp up production to meet demand.

Tool Nut says he sold out of his first shipment, and looks like in pretty short order too.  Tells me that the thing is popular.  I do agree with the rest of your observations though.

 

[Rip Van Winkle]

Some of the Sawstop patents had claims concerning the blade dropping below the table. There have been saws available for decades, that use a circular blade of the type used on a tablesaw, where the blade can be raised above the saw table to cut, and when a handle is released, the blade will automatically drop below the table, either due to a spring, or gravity, or both. The main saw of this design I know of is called a Gjerde saw after the inventor, and is commonly used in Scandinavian countries. I believe there are other designs as well though.

Another of the Sawstop patent claims had to due with the sawblade lowering due to the centrifugal force or momentun of the spinning blade. It would not surprise me if past saw designs, had cutting retractable cutting blades, whose retraction was assisted by the centrifugal force of a spinning blade, even if no patent had specifically been issued related to this. If there was a saw design from the past that could be shown to have this feature, it would count as prior art, and this patent claim would not be considered valid.

I haven't been able to find any more information on the subject, but when the Sawstop patents started to be discussed at length on various forums and magazines, I saw a comment from somebody who claimed that dyring the 1960's or 1970's, there was a tablesaw of some sort shown at a woodworking or industrial show in Germany, whose blade was designed to stop in case the blade contacted the user. Supposedly the woodworkers who saw the saw laughed at it, and nothing more came if it. Unfortunately, I don't speak or read German, so I haven't gone to the effort of trying to see if a German patent was issued for the saw. From the way the claims in the sawstop patents I've read are written, I suspect that there was some sort of prior art that would have prevented a patent from being issued, for the blade stopping simply because of physical contact with the blade.

It doesn't matter for the court what was done in other countries, the court only looks at patents filed in the USA because they're only valid there.

-------

When I first heard of the Reaxx saw I thought it was nice to finally get safe saws here in Europe too. SawStop doesn't sell their saws over here, and Bosch is a German company, so I thought they would make them available here too.

But the odd thing is, Bosch has not released them here yet, and I have not heard anything about plans to do so.

So it looks like Bosch made their saw solely with the purpose of breaking SawStop's monopoly in the United States, a saw that was developed to pick a fight, and I'm sure the multi-billion dollar company has looked at all the legal implications with a huge team of lawyers.

You can't patent "prior art", or at least you're not supposed to be able to. If a technology or invention etc., already exists, and information on that invention has been published, or displayed in a public display, or forum, than that "invention" is generally considered no longer patentable. A prior patent for that invention, published in another country, would be considered prior art, especially if that patent was decades old. Some countries may allow, or used to allow, an item or invention, that had been previously patented in another country, to be patented in the second country if no patent had already been filed for the invention in the second country. I believe Japan used to allow this. I'm not sure if Japan still allows this, or whether any other countries still do.

The Gjerde saw I referenced has been manufactured and sold for decades, and was once slso officially sold in the United States, although it was not very common. Other types of saw that use a blade that drops below the table have also been sold in the United States, I recall seeing them in older industrial supply catalogues.

The saw that was supposedly didplayed at the German woodworking show would also count as prior art, especially if there was mention of it in the press or prior patents for the technology. If Bosch could actually find an example of the original saw, then that could be used to challenge the patent Sawstop was issued.

A patent clerk may not have complete knowledge of a subject when he determines whether a patent is valid and will be issued. If nobody has bothered to patent an invention because that invention is consider knowledge, then a patent clerk might find no reference to that invention in patent records and issue a patent by mistake. This is one of the reasons it is possible to challenge a patent.

 

[Svar]

Some of the Sawstop patents had claims concerning the blade dropping below the table. There have been saws available for decades, that use a circular blade of the type used on a tablesaw, where the blade can be raised above the saw table to cut, and when a handle is released, the blade will automatically drop below the table, either due to a spring, or gravity, or both. The main saw of this design I know of is called a Gjerde saw after the inventor, and is commonly used in Scandinavian countries. I believe there are other designs as well though.

I don't think that kind of blade drop will count. After all the blade on my saw also drops below the table by using crank.

 

[Cheese]

A patent clerk may not have complete knowledge of a subject when he determines whether a patent is valid and will be issued. If nobody has bothered to patent an invention because that invention is consider knowledge, then a patent clerk might find no reference to that invention in patent records and issue a patent by mistake. This is one of the reasons it is possible to challenge a patent.

Very true, and because of this, I feel, this stage is probably the most important part of the process. This is when your attorney needs to have a good working relationship with the examiner so that the exchange of information between the inventor, patent attorney and examiner, can be fairly rapid. The idea is to keep the patent application and all of its nuances and claims, fresh in the minds of everyone involved and it usually results in a more robust patent. This is the stage where information flows in both directions and is your opportunity to supply additional information to the examiner if he/she doesn't have complete knowledge of a subject.

 

[Rip Van Winkle]

Some of the Sawstop patents had claims concerning the blade dropping below the table. There have been saws available for decades, that use a circular blade of the type used on a tablesaw, where the blade can be raised above the saw table to cut, and when a handle is released, the blade will automatically drop below the table, either due to a spring, or gravity, or both. The main saw of this design I know of is called a Gjerde saw after the inventor, and is commonly used in Scandinavian countries. I believe there are other designs as well though.

I don't think that kind of blade drop will count. After all the blade on my saw also drops below the table by using crank.

The blade on a regular tablesaw raises and lowers by a crank, but will not drop if you let go of the crank. On the Gjerde saws the blade is raised by lifting a lever. To have the blade stay up though, you need to tighten a clamp. If you don't tighten the clamp, the blade will automatically lower. If you are using the saw for crosscuts using the kever to raise the blade thru the work, and you accidentally had your hand in the wrong place and cut into it, you could let go of the lever, and the blade would fall below the table. In this instance your brain would be acting as the flesh sensing technology, and your other hand as the release switch to lower the blade. There are other saws that work the same using a foot lever.

 

[JimD]

The Bosch press release is a lot more informative than the one by SS.  They explain the process and exactly where we are in that process.  SS tries to pretend that the battle is over.  That's wishful thinking on their part. 

Bosch is claiming that SS patents are not valid (should not have been granted) and that SS infringes it's patents.  I LOVE that.  Says they are ready to battle SS.  Bosch is not just defending itself, it is attacking Gass.  If they win, he could owe them money.  Their patents could disappear.  Gass really wishes it was over. 

I think all woodworkers owe Steve Gass a vote of gratitude for forcing blade sensing technology into the forefront for table saws.  But his tactics to enrich himself are just over the top.  3-8% licensing fee for an adaptation of existing technology is just out-of-line.  Testifying that Ryobi's $100 table saw should have had his technology making Ryobi 100% responsible for injuries that occurred when the user was not using the supplied guard or even the rip fence is, again, totally out-of-line.  So in the aggregate, I will not enrich Gass by buying anything from him and I really want Bosch to eliminate his blockade against other uses of blade sensing technology in wood working equipment. 

When large corporations battle small corporations over patents, guess who typically wins?  Unfortunately, more money means better lawyers which can influence the outcome.  In this case, I am glad it works this way.  Makes it more likely Bosch wins and we can get this technology at a more reasonable price.  Hasn't happened yet, Bosch is pricey too, but I am optimistic that if the threats of a Gass lawsuit go away, the price will fall.

Jim

 

[Paul G]

The Bosch press release is a lot more informative than the one by SS.  They explain the process and exactly where we are in that process.  SS tries to pretend that the battle is over.  That's wishful thinking on their part. 

Bosch is claiming that SS patents are not valid (should not have been granted) and that SS infringes it's patents.  I LOVE that.  Says they are ready to battle SS.  Bosch is not just defending itself, it is attacking Gass.  If they win, he could owe them money.  Their patents could disappear.  Gass really wishes it was over. 

I think all woodworkers owe Steve Gass a vote of gratitude for forcing blade sensing technology into the forefront for table saws.  But his tactics to enrich himself are just over the top.  3-8% licensing fee for an adaptation of existing technology is just out-of-line.  Testifying that Ryobi's $100 table saw should have had his technology making Ryobi 100% responsible for injuries that occurred when the user was not using the supplied guard or even the rip fence is, again, totally out-of-line.  So in the aggregate, I will not enrich Gass by buying anything from him and I really want Bosch to eliminate his blockade against other uses of blade sensing technology in wood working equipment. 

When large corporations battle small corporations over patents, guess who typically wins?  Unfortunately, more money means better lawyers which can influence the outcome.  In this case, I am glad it works this way.  Makes it more likely Bosch wins and we can get this technology at a more reasonable price.  Hasn't happened yet, Bosch is pricey too, but I am optimistic that if the threats of a Gass lawsuit go away, the price will fall.

Jim

so Bosch's profits are better than SawStops profits.  [blink]

SawStop took a big risk and proved there is a good market for the technology, now Bosch wants that market and their solution is to destroy the people who brought it to market in the first place, and some applaud that because the inventor was an ardent proponent of his safety technology. His early tactics failed as they should have and his licensing fees are his business, others can choose to pay it or not, that's their business to decide how much they value their customers safety. So he became a saw maker and by most counts they are great saws, but still people hate on him and seem to like the idea that he be destroyed by a giant. I have a hard time understanding the hate.

 

[rljatl]

Bosch is not out to destroy SawStop or the people that brought it to market.  Competition is good for consumers.  Competition makes products better and keeps prices down.  Bosch merely wants the opportunity to compete with SawStop in the free market.  Then, it is ultimately up to consumers to make their choice.

 

[Paul G]

Bosch is not out to destroy SawStop or the people that brought it to market.  Competition is good for consumers.  Competition makes products better and keeps prices down.  Bosch merely wants the opportunity to compete with SawStop in the free market.  Then, it is ultimately up to consumers to make their choice.

If Bosch is attacking SawStops patents and succeeds it will destroy SS because that is fundamental to their business at this point. Without patent protection other larger manufacturers will kill SS who only makes table saws. Their days may be numbered regardless since their patents will expire at some point, but at least there is the opportunity in that time to make a profit and build the brand.