Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—E.D. Va.: Claims cut in suit over table saw safety technology, (Jul 17, 2014)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

SD3, LLC, maker of the table saw safety technology “SawStop,” failed to sufficiently allege that Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc. and other tool companies illegally boycotted SawStop or otherwise conspired to corrupt table-saw standards, the federal district court in Alexandria, Virginia, has decided complaint (SD3, LLC v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc., July 15, 2014, Hilton, C.).

In 2000, SD3 approached a number of tool companies, including Black & Decker, to license SawStop—“active injury mitigation technology” designed to significantly reduce the risks of table-saw accidents. After various licensing negotiations fell through and the Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL) table-saw standards-setting committee voted to not mandate the use of SawStop on all table saws, SD3 filed suit. It claimed that the tool companies violated the Sherman Act by (1) engaging in a group boycott of the SawStop technology and (2) conspiring to corrupt UL table-saw standards to prevent SawStop from becoming an industry standard (standards conspiracy). The tool companies moved to dismiss.

Group boycott. The record demonstrated that there were a number of proposed licensing agreements and negotiations that occurred prior to and long after the alleged group boycott, contradicting SD3’s allegations that the tool companies made an agreement to restrain trade or participated in a concerted refusal to deal. Specifically, the court determined that because SD3 failed to demonstrate why the tool companies’ actions were not “simply the natural, unilateral reaction to a technology with uncertain commercial viability and safety,” it failed to sufficiently allege its group boycott claim.

Standards conspiracy. The court also found that SD3’s “standards conspiracy” allegations were insufficiently pleaded. First, the court noted that SD3 only alleged that a few defendants were on the UL standards-setting committee, and that it failed to allege any of the other tool companies had any involvement. For the companies that were on the committee, the court found that mere participation or membership would not be sufficient to state an antitrust conspiracy claim. Because UL did not exclude SawStop technology in any way, but only declined to impose it on the market, the court concluded that SD3 failed to demonstrate competitive harm, and his conspiracy claim consequently failed.

The case number is 1:14-cv-191.

Attorneys: Daniel M. Cohen (Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP) for SD3, LLC, and SawStop LLC. Bernard Joseph DiMuro (DiMuro Ginsberg PC) for Black & Decker (US), Inc.

Companies: SD3, LLC; SawStop LLC; Black & Decker (US), Inc.

Cases: Antitrust VirginiaNews