A federal judge refused a request by the manufacturer of Ryobi table saws to toss out a jury verdict that awarded $27,000 to plaintiff William Anderson, who argued that the lack of blade-stopping technology is a design defect.
Pender said Bosch's “proposed construction improperly narrows the scope of the claims by importing limitations from the embodiments disclosed in the specification into the claims.” In other words, the judge ruled normal industry understandings of terminology should be used in explaining the case.
In effect, the ruling means that words used to explain the patents in dispute will be interpreted as a worker in a typical manufacturing operation might understand them, and not, as Bosch's lawyers asked, the “plain English meaning” of the words - an advantage to SawStop's case, according to analysts Eric Schweibenz and Tom Yebernetsky at IT337 LawBlog.com.
IN THE SHOP
From the initial introduction of the SawStop flesh-sensing safety system, I’ve been impressed. But I was even more impressed when I started using the saw.
SawStop filed its complaints on July 15, 2015, at the U.S. International Trade Commission and the U.S. District Court in Oregon against Robert Bosch GmbH of Germany and its U.S. subsidiary Robert Bosch Tool Corporation. The ITC, which has been widely used by U.S. wood products manufacturers against Chinese furniture dumping, will issue a ruling on the case based on whether five patents SawStop has named are being violated by Bosch.
Have something to say? Share your thoughts with us in the comments below.