Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Power tool manufacturer alleges conspiracy to boycott table saw product safety technology, (Feb 27, 2014)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

A group of manufacturers of power tools engaged in restraint of trade conduct by conspiring to boycott a developer’s product safety technology for table saws and influencing changes to the safety standards for power tools provided by Underwriters Laboratories (UL), according to a complaint filed in the federal district court of Alexandria, Virginia (SD3, LLC v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc., February 20, 2014).

SawStop, LLC developed an active injury mitigation technology for table saws and other power tools known as SawStop technology. After unsuccessful attempts to license the technology to other power tool manufacturers, the company designed and marketed its own table saws equipped with the SawStop technology.

SawStop alleged that, in 2000, while demonstrating a prototype table saw with the SawStop technology at a trade show, several manufacturers of power tools stated concerns that if one manufacturer adopted the SawStop technology, then all power tool manufacturers would be subject to greater product liability in the future. At a trade organization meeting in 2001, the defendant manufacturers collectively voted to refuse offers to license the SawStop technology from SawStop, LLC and assert they were investigating a better table saw injury mitigation technology. The actions were alleged to be an effort to conceal the conspiracy and depress the market for SawStop technology.

According to the complaint, at a trade organization meeting in 2002, the defendant manufacturers formed a task force project to influence the UL standardization requirements of table saw safety devices. SawStop’s proposal to the Standards Technical Panel to modify UL’s standards in light of the SawStop’s technology was rejected, allegedly because the panel was controlled by the defendants’ representatives. Subsequently, the defendants influenced changes to the UL blade guard standard that required a design that was different from SawStop technology. As a result, SawStop incurred significant costs to redesign the table saw blade guards to comply with the new UL design standards and reconfigure their manufacturing facilities to produce blade guards with the new design, the company alleged. In addition, SawStop allegedly was prevented from freely competing with the defendant manufacturers in the design of table saw guards due to the UL standards changes influenced by the defendants.

The plaintiffs assert claims for conspiracy in restraint of trade, fraudulent concealment, and violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and any other just and proper relief.

The case is No. 1:14-cv-00191-CMH-TRJ.

Attorneys: Daniel M. Cohen and Jonathan W. Cuneo (Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP) for SD3, LLC; SawStop, LLC

Companies: SD3, LLC; SawStop, LLC; Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc.; Black & Decker Corp.; Chang Type Industrial Co., Ltd.; Delta Power Equipment Corp.; DeWALT Industrial Tools; Emerson Electric Company; Hitachi Koki Co., Ltd; Hitachi Koki USA Ltd.; Makita Corporation; Makita USA, Inc.; Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp.; One World Technologies Inc.; OWT Industries, Inc.; Pentair Corporation; Porter-Cable Corporation; Robert Bosch GmbH; Robert Bosch Tool Corporation; Ryobi Technologies, Inc.; SKIL Power Tools; Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.; Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd.; Techtronic Industries North America, Inc.

News: Antitrust VirginiaNews