SD3, LLC v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc.
215 F. Supp. 3d 486
E.D. Va.2016Background
- SD3, LLC and SawStop, LLC were founded in Aug 2000 by Stephen Gass and David Fanning; Fanning serves as SawStop's general counsel.
- SawStop demonstrated its AIMT prototype in Aug 2000 and began licensing discussions with B&D, RBTC, and Ryobi after initial meetings.
- An Oct 11, 2000 meeting allegedly included cautions from B&D's Bill Taylor about industry pushback and potential industry collusion to oppose CPSC action; Ryobi reportedly urged rapid adoption.
- SawStop and PTI members held a Nov 10, 2000 demonstration to PTI; after, PTI counsel reportedly advised members not to collude and to make their own decisions.
- From 2001–2002, negotiations with B&D, RBTC, Ryobi, and Emerson occurred; Ryobi publicly indicated readiness to license by Jan 2002, but negotiations collapsed with others, leading SawStop to sell its own AIMT-equipped saws.
- SawStop did not license its AIMT after June 2002 and has since earned substantial sales; SawStop later asserted a conspiracy to exclude its technology, prompting antitrust litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the antitrust claim is time-barred by the four-year statute of limitations. | SawStop alleges injury by June 2002 and timely accrual under discovery/inquiry notice. | Defendants contend accrual and discovery occurred earlier; fraudulent concealment does not toll. | Summary judgment for Defendants on statute of limitations grounds. |
| Whether fraudulent concealment tolled the statute of limitations. | Defendants concealed the conspiracy, preventing discovery. | No concealment; SawStop had actual and inquiry notice by 2002. | Fraudulent concealment does not toll the period; no tolling. |
| Whether SawStop's continuing conspiracy theory supports tolling. | Defendants continued to act in furtherance of the conspiracy after 2002. | No post-2002 acts showing a continuing violation. | No continuing violation; no tolling. |
| Whether SawStop exercised reasonable diligence to discover the claim. | SawStop monitored lawsuits and consulted antitrust counsel; Peot testimony was pivotal. | Diligence was lacking; substantial allegations ignored or missed. | Failure to diligence as a matter of law; supports summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- GO Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 508 F.3d 170 (4th Cir. 2007) (statute of limitations accrual on injury, not discovery, start date; fraud tolling limited)
- Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (U.S. 2000) (discovery of injury starts the statute clock)
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321 (1971) (illustrates accrual concepts for antitrust claims)
- Burnett v. New York Cent. R. Co., 380 U.S. 424 (1965) (statutes of limitations protect defendants’ interests)
- Hobson v. Wilson, 737 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (actual notice requires specific facts showing a claim)
- Hexcel Corp. v. Ineos, 681 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2012) (fraudulent concealment tolls only if concealment of the claim; not mere suspicion)
- Pocahontas Supreme Coal Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 828 F.2d 211 (4th Cir. 1987) (burden to show concealment and discovery within statutory period)
- Charlotte Telecasters, Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Corp., 546 F.2d 570 (4th Cir. 1976) (continuing violation concepts and tolling relevance)
- Rx.com v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., 322 F. App’x 394 (5th Cir. 2009) (secret communications do not equal fraudulent concealment)