Sawstop patent evergreening?

[milkovich]

I don't know anything about patents, but it looks like this recent patent application: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20240255101A1 is the same as the infamous "840 patent" which looks to have finally expired? https://patents.google.com/patent/US9724840B2/en

Does anyone know much about patents? This is kind of niche to the wood working tool world so I can't find anyone talking about this anywhere.

 

[Firebrick43]

It the rat ******* trying to maintain a monopoly past the intent of why the patent office was established, via legal lawfare.

I can’t wait for them to loose in court.

 

[ericm]

I'm no expert but I've filed a bunch of patents and spent a lot of time reading patents and talking to patent attorneys.

The two make different claims even though they are describing similar devices. But it's the claims that are important not the device, if that makes any sense. You can keep filing patents making different claims about the same device as long as the examiner finds them valid. Judging from a quick scan of the prior art the new one lists, there is a lot in the field including newer patents from sawstop. So that may be what they are doing.

 

[Citation]

I don't know anything about patents, but it looks like this recent patent application: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20240255101A1 is the same as the infamous "840 patent" which looks to have finally expired? https://patents.google.com/patent/US9724840B2/en

Does anyone know much about patents? This is kind of niche to the wood working tool world so I can't find anyone talking about this anywhere.

Phone reply. I can't read the parents now but what makes you think they are the same thing? Presumably anytime that was shown on previous saws can't get a new patent since it's already been shown publicly.

 

[milkovich]

Phone reply. I can't read the parents now but what makes you think they are the same thing?

They use most of the exact same line art. The only thing different is the language in the initial claim as @ericm pointed out.

 

[Firebrick43]

I'm no expert but I've filed a bunch of patents and spent a lot of time reading patents and talking to patent attorneys.

The two make different claims even though they are describing similar devices. But it's the claims that are important not the device, if that makes any sense. You can keep filing patents making different claims about the same device as long as the examiner finds them valid. Judging from a quick scan of the prior art the new one lists, there is a lot in the field including newer patents from sawstop. So that may be what they are doing.

There is NOTHING novel about a brushed conductive rotary coupling. Nothing. They have been in use for over a hundred years.

Just because one changes the end purpose of the signal carried through a device doesn’t make it novel. Even the type of signal is not different from prior art

The cartridge firing and stopping the blade was novel. That has expired.

 

[Beerhippie]

The pharmaceutical industry gets away with it all the time....

 

[Ing3018]

I saw an interview where he said he would let the rest of industry use the technology without licensing. Maybe he was just playing semantics games or not being honest...?

 

[liliysdad]

I saw an interview where he said he would let the rest of industry use the technology without licensing. Maybe he was just playing semantics games or not being honest...?

Direct quotes from correspondence with the SawStop moguls to other manufacturers

Now that SawStop is established, any royalties Grizzly might pay would be less than what SawStop could earn by selling the same number of saws itself, and therefore, as I have explained, a license at the present time is far more challenging because of the risk it creates to SawStop’s business. This, of course, changes should the CPSC implement a requirement for table saws to include active injury mitigation systems. Should that happen, we have said we would offer non-discriminatory licenses to all manufacturers.

I don’t see a licensing agreement in our near future.

If Grizzly is serious about licensing the SawStop technology, then Grizzly should encourage the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to adopt new performance standards for table saws as soon as possible.

 

[BTL-A4]

I heard the guy that invented the Saw Stop approached Sears about making this and they blew him off. He decided to make his own saw in retaliation.

If this type of safety feature is mandated in all saws, it seems unfair to let one entity have a monopoly on the technology. They can license it, but they can charge whatever they want. I hope someone comes up with some alternate that works as well and then give away the tech for free or at a reduced rate.

 

[purplezr2]

I saw an interview where he said he would let the rest of industry use the technology without licensing. Maybe he was just playing semantics games or not being honest...?

Pretty sure Sawstop is now owned by the same company that owns Festool.

It is pretty cool to see see what the some of the more industrial sliding saw manufactures have come up with using sensors.

Check out PCS from Felder, Hand Guard from Altendorf, and Blade Off from SCM

 

[Firebrick43]

I heard the guy that invented the Saw Stop approached Sears about making this and they blew him off. He decided to make his own saw in retaliation.

If this type of safety feature is mandated in all saws, it seems unfair to let one entity have a monopoly on the technology. They can license it, but they can charge whatever they want. I hope someone comes up with some alternate that works as well and then give away the tech for free or at a reduced rate.

Other companies have come up with alternative solutions. Bosch came up with one that didn’t destroy the blade and could fire twice before needing replaced and was comparatively cheap as well.

The no good ******* sued saying the capacitance fleas h sensing tech was patented.

Capacitance flesh sensing sensors for operating machinery has been in use for well over a decade in common use before he filed his patent.


Stephen Gass is the most disgusting person in the tool industry today for his manipulation of the patent system and his attempt at manipulating the CPSC to force a monopoly on the industry

 

[acer66]

Pretty sure Sawstop is now owned by the same company that owns Festool.

It is pretty cool to see see what the some of the more industrial sliding saw manufactures have come up with using sensors.

Check out PCS from Felder, Hand Guard from Altendorf, and Blade Off from SCM

Yes it is and the whole thing does not seem to be that straight forward for example with the Bosch saw.

Toolguy is frequently updating the development.

SawStop Sued Another Table Saw Maker over Safety Tech Patents

toolguyd.com

SawStop Tries to Save Face with Patent Promise

toolguyd.com

Weird I though he had more recent ones.

 

[dave*99]

I can't speak to Sawstop licensing and the CPSC, but I have been involved in engineering standards that have had the option to mandate a patented product. There were some rules that prevented that from happening unless: If a patented technology was to be mandated, the owner of the patent had to agree to a reasonable licensing fee.

Since the patent owner is usually the one lobbying for the mandate, they are usually in the thick of the rule making. All standards committee meetings I attend begin with a request to the audience to disclose any applicable patents.

 

[scooby074]

Gass sold out to Festool. Sounds like festool is trying to double down on their investment

 

[Firebrick43]

Gass sold out to Festool. Sounds like festool is trying to double down on their investment

He did sell to Festool. But from festools own website, and the fact that they listed number one on this latest patent, the appearance is that he is still very much an active player at sawstop.

His official title there is "Vice President of Innovation."

 

[scooby074]

He did sell to Festool. But from festools own website, and the fact that they listed number one on this latest patent, the appearance is that he is still very much an active player at sawstop.

His official title there is "Vice President of Innovation."

Not a surprise he negotiated a cushy job after the sale. "Innovation" is a bit rich considering he spent the last 25 years stifling it

 

[Citation]

As someone who has helped draft several patents and is a co-author on around two dozen, I would be really reluctant to criticize what is going on here. First, the only part of the patent that would matter in this discussion is the actual claims. Yes, both patents have similar pictures. However, that is the background of the patent. Everything claimed by the original patents and (assuming no additional patents) every patented aspect of any saw the company released 20 years ago is no longer protected. With the exception of trademarked features you can basically make an exact copy of the original saw and sell it as your own so long as the superficial styling is changed. The new patent application (which is not the same thing as a granted patent) appears to talk about a better way to make electrical contact with the rotating part of the saw. OK. So if that is granted you can't copy that detail when implementing your clone of the original Sawstop design.

I've been on the side of patents that were frustrating because I wanted to know how something so obvious could have been granted. I've also been frustrated that novel ideals I had were difficult to express as a patent and I felt the final released patent wasn't very true to what I felt was actually novel about my work. Looking here I don't see an issue with either of these patents. The original covered the core of the system. The new patent protects a small refinement that was not part of the originally released saw. Note that if it was, the saw itself would be public disclosure and negate the current patent.

 

[honcho]

There is NOTHING novel about a brushed conductive rotary coupling. Nothing. They have been in use for over a hundred years.

Just because one changes the end purpose of the signal carried through a device doesn’t make it novel. Even the type of signal is not different from prior art

The cartridge firing and stopping the blade was novel. That has expired.

The patent world works in mysterious ways. What's prior art to mere mortals is sometimes found to be novel and worthy of new patent. I've got lots of complaints about the way the legal protections of intellectual property work, but Sawstop is just a bit player in the game. I suggest aiming your disdain at the system that creates the laws and regulations that allow such shenanigans.

 

[Firebrick43]

The patent world works in mysterious ways. What's prior art to mere mortals is sometimes found to be novel and worthy of new patent. I've got lots of complaints about the way the legal protections of intellectual property work, but Sawstop is just a bit player in the game. I suggest aiming your disdain at the system that creates the laws and regulations that allow such shenanigans.

Just because one can be a royal duche bag and still be inside the law, doesn’t mean one has to do it and doesn’t deserve disdain?

I have been mowing a ditch, small 1/4 patch, and trimming trees for 19 years in an area that most reasonable people assume is my property. However it isn’t mine, for whatever reason, the ditch was not plotted and so my property’s corner is clipped. I would likely prevail in a court if I filed adverse possession. I couldn’t live with myself if I did something that disrespectful and disgusting to my neighbor.

And my main ire is aimed at his previous attempt to get the government to mandate his patent at an unreasonable price and participate in several tort claims against other table saw manufactures as an expert witness. Lawsuits that the operator violated every single safety protocol. His latest patent “shenanigans” are merely little colored sprinkles on top of the cake.

 

[NUTTSGT]

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only looking at the guy with an unfavorable attitude.

 

[M635_Guy]

I think the guy is an *******, and over-does it in terms of how wide he shoots, but he's not an indictment to our patent system - it's a pretty great one. It protects innovation, but it also eventually delivers it to the broader market. It doesn't work all the time, and 'evergreening' isn't something I approve of, but the system is designed such that if you don't protect your IP you lose it. If the guy can continue genuine innovation, he has to defend it or lose it. Just granting the patent doesn't mean it can't be challenged and overturned. Yeah, it makes a lot of lawyer-**** happen, but on the whole it works.

 

[milkovich]

The new patent application (which is not the same thing as a granted patent) appears to talk about a better way to make electrical contact with the rotating part of the saw. OK. So if that is granted you can't copy that detail when implementing your clone of the original Sawstop design.

That's the new patent application. The old patent merely called it a detection circuit, the new patent is for a brushed contact between the blade/arbor to get the signal to the controller/powertool. Dumb question, but if that's how the saw operated before this patent, doesn't that mean that it was prior use and obvious?

 

[M635_Guy]

That's the new patent application. The old patent merely called it a detection circuit, the new patent is for a brushed contact between the blade/arbor to get the signal to the controller/powertool. Dumb question, but if that's how the saw operated before this patent, doesn't that mean that it was prior use and obvious?

As a guy who has a few patents and been adjacent to those who have many, I've never completely understood the full nuance of where something can become novel. Sometimes it is obvious enough, but with one of mine I honestly didn't think of it as novel/patentable until one of the people I was working with started the process (in my company) to submit. I was kind of astounded when it was granted, and as far as I know it hasn't been challenged/etc., though it's probably pretty close to expired if it hasn't already.

 

[Citation]

That's the new patent application. The old patent merely called it a detection circuit, the new patent is for a brushed contact between the blade/arbor to get the signal to the controller/powertool. Dumb question, but if that's how the saw operated before this patent, doesn't that mean that it was prior use and obvious?

Wheels on a car are obvious but if I come up with a new way to make a wheel I can get a patent on "the wheel" but what I'm actually getting is a narrow claim on some aspect of a wheel not the basic concept.

 

[neophyte]

I heard the guy that invented the Saw Stop approached Sears about making this and they blew him off. He decided to make his own saw in retaliation.

If this type of safety feature is mandated in all saws, it seems unfair to let one entity have a monopoly on the technology. They can license it, but they can charge whatever they want. I hope someone comes up with some alternate that works as well and then give away the tech for free or at a reduced rate.

He approached a number of manufacturers, including Black & Decker.
B&D tested the “technology”, and found flaws (false tripping) that the “inventor” didn’t realize, because he was apparently too cheap and lazy to properly test his own design.
Then the “inventor” hired an outside capacitance expert to fix the issue, and then sued that expert when the expert couldn’t.
Then the big work around, was to make it possible to disable the capacitance system.
In addition, he refused to self indemnify the saws with the safety system, and also asked for what was considered by the tool manufacturers as an excessive licensing fee.
Then the “inventor tried suing the various tool companies or their representative safety organization.
Or at least, this was the gist of the various articles around the time the inventor was pressing his technology on the industry.
There basically seemed to be a reason most major tool manufacturers walked away from licensing the Sawstop system.

Now Sawstop seems to be owned by Festool.
Festool manufactured the Kapex saws, which cost three times or more as much as other miter saws, including USA made saws, and were notorious for having their motors burn out for several years or more.

 

[M635_Guy]

In addition, he refused to self indemnify the saws with the safety system, and also asked for what was considered by the tool manufacturers as an excessive licensing fee.

Of the many times I've wanted to drill through my own eardrums with a spade bit while in meetings with attorneys, the ones having to do with indemnity always got me to that point fastest.

FWIW, I wouldn't want to have any stated indemnity on something so dependent on human ability to RTFM and follow the instructions either.

 

[neophyte]

The patent world works in mysterious ways. What's prior art to mere mortals is sometimes found to be novel and worthy of new patent. I've got lots of complaints about the way the legal protections of intellectual property work, but Sawstop is just a bit player in the game. I suggest aiming your disdain at the system that creates the laws and regulations that allow such shenanigans.

The reason there are time length limits to patents, and restrictions on extensions, was due to a patent on a power planer, that should have never been issued, because the planer was supposedly invented by a member of the Shakers, who never filed a patent, and hence was “existing technology”, when the person who actually filed for a patent did the paperwork.

The patent for the “bored thru cylinder” for revolving firearms, should also never have been issued, and President Grant basically said so, implying that the Patent Office was corrupt, when he invalidated the patent.

Plenty of patents get issued that likely shouldn’t, and it usually takes a person with deep pockets to afford the legal fees to fight patents they consider were invalid.

 

[neophyte]

Wheels on a car are obvious but if I come up with a new way to make a wheel I can get a patent on "the wheel" but what I'm actually getting is a narrow claim on some aspect of a wheel not the basic concept.

One of the main US Patent law decisions, although the patent office seems to regularly ignore it.

 

[Citation]

One of the main US Patent law decisions, although the patent office seems to regularly ignore it.

I don't think that proves the point I think you are trying to prove.

 

[jar944]

Dump the cabinet saw and go with a slider. Get more versatility and avoid sawstop patents.

 

[dave*99]

Plenty of patents get issued that likely shouldn’t, and it usually takes a person with deep pockets to afford the legal fees to fight patents they consider were invalid.

That process is called an Inter Partes Review. Patent law has changed over the years. Particularly after the AIA (America invents act) passed in 2011. Law favored challengers as a result. Challenges became rampant. Recent changes may have swung the pendulum more toward favor of the patent holder. The system is far from perfect.

 

[Steve_P]

Apple has, or had, a patent on the rounded corners on the iPhone. And you guys want to complain about the saw stop?

 

[Beerhippie]

Apple has, or had, a patent on the rounded corners on the iPhone. And you guys want to complain about the saw stop?

Actually, it was "a rectangle with rounded corners". Sounds like a playing card to me....

 

[Firebrick43]

Apple has, or had, a patent on the rounded corners on the iPhone. And you guys want to complain about the saw stop?

Trying to defend the patent just made them poorer

 

[BTL-A4]

Apple has, or had, a patent on the rounded corners on the iPhone. And you guys want to complain about the saw stop?

The corners are not just a radius. They are some sort of blended radius that joins the flat part in a certain way. There's a name for it, but I can't remember it at the moment. I got a friend who worked at Apple and described it to me. It's some sort of design/appearance patent.

 

[Beerhippie]

The corners are not just a radius. They are some sort of blended radius that joins the flat part in a certain way. There's a name for it, but I can't remember it at the moment. I got a friend who worked at Apple and described it to me. It's some sort of design/appearance patent.

It's called a "playing card". Only been around for a while....

 

[tak1313]

Speaking of Festool, I BELIEVE the patent on the Domino mechanism expires this year - or was it last year?

 

[tarbellb]

Speaking of Festool, I BELIEVE the patent on the Domino mechanism expires this year - or was it last year?

Yes! Festool Domino expiration is what I want to know about!

 

[Cruzan80]

It's called a "playing card". Only been around for a while....

Not really. Apple uses G3, G4 and other higher level curvature to define their "rounded" corners. Math gets VERY complicated very fast. Also add in the 2D to 3D transitions, and it is like comparing a Porsche to a Model T. Yes, they are both cars with engines, but ...