Background
Three-Dimensional printing (3D printing), using fused deposition modeling (FDM), has come a long way since its inception in the late 1980s. A co-founder of Stratasys, Scott Crump, came up with the idea while layering glue using a glue-gun to make a toy.[1] Building on this idea, substitute a glue-gun with a highly precise temperature controlled print head where its movement is controlled by precise motors along x, y and z-axis, you now have a 3D printer. This innovation would be patented by Crump in 1989.[2]
This technology would was largely unnoticed by many, and remained “proprietary and expensive” for decades[3] until the patent began expiring and “more people could experiment with the technology.“[4] Indeed, with the RepRap (Self-Replicating Rapid Prototyper) project starting open-source 3D printer revolution, the door to low-cost 3D printers opened[5] by radically reducing costs of 3D printers for entry level markets[6]. In fact, even one of the most popular 3D printer brands in the world[7], Prusa Research, remains operating on the principles of open-source, where only some information[8] is undisclosed to the consumers until the end of the product life cycle[9].
In the current market, a consumer can spend a mere couple of hundred dollars to buy a very precise, and competent machine[10][11]. However, these lower-end products, while capable, require an extensive amount of troubleshooting and upgrading[12] and sometimes it is inevitable, even with higher-end consumer printers, to run into problems when printing.[13]
This all changed recently when Bambu Labs, a Chinese 3D printer manufacturer, introduced a printer considered to be “one of the few plug-and-play 3D printers on the market.”[14] The company again revolutionized the world of 3D printing in the consumer market. With its focus on quality, speed, and plug-and-play aspect, the company expects to see CNY 1.5 billion in revenue (around $300 million CAD) in 2023[15] driving market dominance in the entry level 3d printers[16].
Before the emergence of Bambu Labs, there was a clear division between the consumer market and the commercial market for 3D printing industry. Specifically, due to the cost, size, and capabilities of the machines,[17] consumer grade 3D printers were often not a viable solution in professional settings. Meaning, the companies engaged in industrial 3D printing left the consumer market abated. That is, until professional users started recognizing the utility of Bambu Labs printers with more features and functionality comparable to more expensive units[18]. Finally, Stratasys, an industrial 3D Printing company with nearly 2000 patents,[19] launched two lawsuits[20] against Bambu Labs concerning 10 counts of patent infringement.[21]
Jurisdiction and Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division Courthouse
Since Bambu Labs is based in China, intellectual property rights being jurisdictional, would not be covered in China unless registered there[22]. However, the court reasoned that they have personal jurisdiction over the Defendants (Bambu Labs, among others) noting that they infringed patent and induced infringement by others in the district, regularly did or solicited business, derived substantial revenues and “purposefully established substantial, systematic, and continuous contacts with the district” where suits were to be expected[23]. Furthermore, the court explained that the Bambu Labs decision to do business directly and through subsidiaries makes the venue for the lawsuit valid under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c)[24] and/or 1400(b).[25][26]
Stratasys’ choice of jurisdiction is worth noting given that the Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division Courthouse is known to have reputation for fast trials and plaintiff-friendly verdicts,[27] with disproportionately high number of patent litigation cases going through this court[28]. Although some argue that this reputation is a myth, noting that the court found 49.3% of the defendants to be liable where the other trials in the US found 57.6% of the defendant liable ([29]) Stratasys’ choice of this particular court may be strategic given that their headquarters are located in Minnesota.
Possible Defense From Bambu Labs in Canadian Context
Bambu labs could potentially argue section 60(1) under the Patent Act to invalidate some of the claims raised by Stratasys. Bambu Labs may argue s. 28(1) and section 28(2) that the patents lack novelty. However, although some concepts may have existed outside of the 12 months of the patent filed, given the technicality behind the workings of a 3D printer, the biggest hurdle seems to be proving the lack of novelty without mosaicking given the rather recent explosion of the development[30]. Secondly, Bambu Labs could rely on obviousness defense. Section 28.3 of Patent Act describes that application for a patent requires “subject-matter that would not have been obvious on the claim date to a person skilled in the art or science.” While some patented technologies are certainly beyond obvious such as force detection patent[31] but adding networking capability (using Wi-Fi to print, like many regular printers have) seems self-evident that this ought to work, and could be reached “quickly, easily, directly and inexpensively.”[32] Similarly, using RFID tag to identify which filament (or plastic) to use seems rather obvious and even trivial. Again, this provides users with extreme convenience making the printer more plug-and-play but at the same time, it does not impact printing like other patents do.
That said, it is important to note that several of the patents discussed were filed more than a decade ago, it is unclear how obvious the concepts were to a person skilled in the art or science pertaining to 3D printers at the time. (see Appendix A for more personal opinion on the patents).
Are Users Infringing?
Closer reading of the case reveals even more concerning aspects of the lawsuit. The court explains that Bambu Labs indirectly infringed patent by “taking active steps to encourage and facilitate direct infringement by third parties, including users, partners, affiliates… …[and] by training its customers and users on the use of those products and the accompanying application,”[33] insinuating that users are also infringing their patents. While a regular hobbyist using the product for personal use may have less to worry about, according to the court in Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser, “inventors are normally deprived of the fruits of their invention and the full enjoyment of their monopoly when another person, without license or permission, uses the invention to further a business interest.”[34] Given that there are many in the 3D printing community running print farms as their business[35] or just making pocket change through a 3D printer, it does raise concerns for everyone in the community.
Going Forward
In 2011, Innovatio IP Ventures (Innovatio), after buying a few patents related to Wi-Fi, started sending thousands of letters asking for payments which targeted relatively smaller businesses and individuals branches such as hotels, coffee shops, and restaurants that provided Wi-Fi for customers.[36][37] After Cisco, a router manufacturing company stepped in to defend the customers, settled with Innovatio for 3.2 cents a unit in 2014.[38] Much less than thousands of dollars Innovatio was initially claiming, but Cisco was expecting compensation not the other way around.[39] Given how frivolous this claim seems, it seems likely that Stratasys and Bambu Labs will end up somewhere similar. That said, considering how essential some of the patents are to current 3D printing, it would probably add to the production cost, and ultimately the consumers will be hurt.
Dr Joshua Pearce, an academic engineer at Western University remarked that Stratasys’ victory would “slow innovation and increase costs for consumers” while the RepRap project founder, Dr. Adrian Bowyer, noted that patents are inhibiting creativity and stifling innovation.[40] If the objective of patent protection truly is “to promote the progress of science and useful arts” in the US and “to advance research and development and to encourage broader economic activity”[41] then the likes of lawsuit from Stratasys seem outright antithetical to the objective.
Perhaps patent law should adapt to such a fast-paced world. Rather than 20-year fixed term, consideration of the field, utility, and the nature of the patent and approaching the matter with flexibility may help with the problem. Justice Abella in Alberta (Education) v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency, highlighted the importance of considering user’s perspective.[42] When it comes to patent, it seems that the court’s main concern is the institution. However, given the explosion of 3D printing industry after its core patent expired, perhaps more emphasis on consumer’s involvement could further the ultimate objective of innovation and economic activity for certain technologies. Of course, this is not to undermine the rights and compensation for innovation and research. Rather, examination of Stratasys and Bambu Labs conflict denotes potentiality of patents being misused and signals the potential need for change to the current system. In conclusion, careful balancing of interests between patent holders and consumers, end-users, and the market as a whole would further advance innovations, economy, as well as the patent law.
[1] https://www.sys-uk.com/blog/a-history-of-3d-printing-with-stratasys/
[2] https://patents.google.com/patent/US5121329A/en
[3] J Gwamuri, J E Poliskey, J M Pearce. Open Source 3-D Printers: An Appropriate Technology for Developing Communities. Proceedings to the 7th International Conference on Appropriate Technology, 2016. ⟨hal-02113460⟩
[4] https://all3dp.com/2/history-of-3d-printing-when-was-3d-printing-invented/
[5] https://reprap.org/wiki/RepRap
[6] J Gwamuri, J E Poliskey, J M Pearce. Open Source 3-D Printers: An Appropriate Technology for Developing Communities. Proceedings to the 7th International Conference on Appropriate Technology, 2016. ⟨hal-02113460⟩
[7] https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolynschwaar/2024/07/09/will-this-czech-company-dominate-desktop-3d-printing-in-america/
[8] Usually manufacturing data or bill of materials.
[9] https://www.prusa3d.com/page/open-source-at-prusa-research_236812/
[10] https://store.creality.com/ca/products/ender-3-v3-se-3d-printer?spm=..collection_f54d010d-3006-4cd2-bbe0-f4803f859154.albums_1.1
[11] Lowest layer height of 0.1mm and printing accuracy of ±0.1mm
[12] https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-windows-10-and-autodesk-spark-integrate-2015-4
[13] Many people would underestimate how much tinkering is required to get a printer, especially a low costing one going. Some spend more on the printer upgrades than the cost of a printer. Unless one is prepared to spend large money, getting into 3D printing often came with a caveat that the objective of the hobby shouldn’t be to print object, but rather have fun with the 3D printer itself (upgrading, improving qualities of prints and etc).
[14] https://www.tomshardware.com/best-picks/best-3d-printers
[15] https://equalocean.com/news/2024010520422
[16] https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/bambu-lab-driving-market-dominance-of-entry-level-3d-printers-context-reports-229884/#:~:text=0Shares-,0%200%200%200,representing%20a%20new%20quarterly%20record.
[17] Temperature, materials used for the printer, and serviceability, to name a few, all plays into the factor. For example, certain materials might be too toxic and requires higher temperature for a consumer printer to handle. Other materials, like metal printing, seems impractical and nearly impossible for a regular consumer to own considering the printer’s footprint and requirements. Perhaps more importantly, cheaper 3D printers requires extensive servicing to get them to work.
[18] https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/bambu-lab-driving-market-dominance-of-entry-level-3d-printers-context-reports-229884/#:~:text=0Shares-,0%200%200%200,representing%20a%20new%20quarterly%20record.
[19] https://insights.greyb.com/stratasys-patents/
[20] CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-644 and CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-645 both IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION. It is unclear to me why two separate claims were filed. The court document seems very similar except that they deal with different patent infringement. One difference I noticed is that the former one pertains to patents ancillary, almost frivolous patents, while the latter filing includes patents that seem more fundamental and necessary to printing.
[21] U.S. Patent No. 9,421,713, U.S. Patent No. 9,592,660, U.S. Patent No. 7,555,357, U.S. Patent No. 9,168,698, U.S. Patent No. 10,556,381, U.S. Patent No. 10,569,466, U.S. Patent No. 11,167,464, U.S. Patent No. 8,747,097, U.S. Patent No. 11,886,774, U.S. Patent No. 8,562,324
[22] https://www.tradecommissioner.gc.ca/china-chine/market-facts-faits-sur-le-marche/96027.aspx?lang=eng
[23] CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-644, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION, para 9.
[24] Sections on governance of venues. Describes who can bring action.
[25] Describes who can bring civil action in a judicial district pertaining to patent claims.
[26] CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-644, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION, para 12-13.
[27] https://www.lewisrice.com/publications/why-is-one-courthouse-known-as-the-patent-litigation-capital-of-america-and-is-that-about-to-change/
[28] https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/after-tc-heartland-patent-owners-should-consider-the-nuanced-standards-in-other-districts-before-deciding-where-to-file.html
[29] https://ipwatchdog.com/2021/10/03/lets-put-myth-bed-eastern-district-texas-not-plaintiff-friendly/id=138296/
[30] In my observation, many of the 3D printing technology were combinations of several concepts and ideas making them into a working thing. Noting that my technical knowledge is very limited, it does raise questions on whether the seemingly similar technology can pass mosaicking given the technicalities outlined in the patent.
[31] US9168698B2 is rather not obvious. Although used widely, this method use detection of pressure from the print head to do various calibration for the printer. It is an essential piece of technology that made 3D printing extremely convenient, but would not have been obvious.
[32] Apotex Inc v Sanofi-Synthelabo Canada Inc 2008 SCC 61
[33] CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-644, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION, para 29.
[34] Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser 2004 SCC 34 (para 37)
[35] This is especially true for people who chose to buy Bambu Labs printers. They are more costly than other printers because they are most likely to “work out of the box” and produce high quality, many people who engage in business activity opts to buy Bambu Labs printers.
[36] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/02/infamous-wi-fi-patent-troll-settles-peanuts
[37] https://www.zdnet.com/article/patent-troll-innovatio-ip-goes-after-small-businesses/
[38] https://www.zdnet.com/article/patent-troll-innovatio-ip-goes-after-small-businesses/
[39] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/cisco-strikes-deal-to-pay-wi-fi-patent-troll-3-2-cents-per-router/
[40] https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/stratasys-vs-bambu-lab-lawsuit-charges-against-defendants-dropped-233325/
[41] Greg Hagen, Cameron Hutchison, Graham Reynolds, Teresa Scassa, Margaret Ann Wilkinson, Teshager Dagne, Canadian Intellectual Property Law: Cases and Materials, 3rd ed. (Toronto: Emond, 2022) p. 584
[42] Alberta (Education) v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright) 2012 SCC 37
Appendix A: Personal Observation and Opinions of Some Patents Discussed
*Disclaimer: I am by no means an expert in 3D printing technology, and this is my mere personal observation based on my experience of having fun with 3D printers for nearly a decade. I may not appreciate nor understand the true nature of the patents, and therefore, explanations may be inaccurate, subjective and biased.
| U.S. Patent No. 9,421,713 | Purge towers are used for muti-material printing. For Bambu Lab printers, they created AMS (Automatic Material System) which enables users to print different filaments for a single print, which means one can print different materials or different colors. When changing the filament, because some excess filaments remain in the extruder, they need to be “purged” in a separate area in the form of “purge tower” in order to produce cleaner prints. Purge towers are essential for multi-material printing and are one of the essential features of Bambu Labs printers. That said, experiments on using multi-materials have been experimented for a long time within the 3D printing community, and I was surprised to see Stratasys holding patent for this. That said, while this seems obvious to anyone interested in 3D printing, it could have been innovative when it was first filed in 2013. |
| U.S. Patent No. 9,592,660 | For plastic to adhere to the bed, it requires that the surface be certain material and certain temperature. It is my understanding that this method explains coating the bed surface with certain material to make plastic adhere to the surface better. As a sidenote, surface adhesion has been very tricky even for many 3D printing enthusiasts in the past. People would use masking tapes or apply glue on the surface to solve the problem. Now, one of the more reliable print surfaces is PEI (polyetherimide) coated spring steel plate, which this patent seems to be about. These are relatively cheap now and affordable, although I am not sure if patent infringement would change the cost drastically. |
| U.S. Patent No. 7,555,357 | After modelling, the files go through another program called slicer which creates commands for the 3D printers on their paths, extrusion, and movements. All of the prints I have sliced so far create outer perimeters first, then fills the inside with plastic. This method seems to be outlined in this patent. Personally speaking, I imagine that this truly was innovative in 2006 when the patent was filed, but this is extremely widespread now, where virtually all slicers function this way. |
| U.S. Patent No. 9,168,698 and U.S. Patent No. 10,556,381, | Bed-Levling and Bed-Tramming has been the biggest headache for many 3D printer users including me. Because of such detailed layer lines, the very first layer is crucial to a successful print. Too far away from the surface, and plastic is extruding in the thin air, or is not sticking to the bed. Too close to the surface, it blocks the nozzle from extruding plastic and creates blobs and plastic, or even worse, damages the surface. Furthermore, given that the beds are usually not truly flat, the printer needs to gather data on low sports and high spots to adjust accordingly. Again, another innovative technology that uses sensors detecting pressure to calibrate the distance between the nozzle and the bed. Other calibrations may be done through this technology, but bed-leveling is the only one I know. There are other ways of achieving bed-leveling, but it is my understanding that Bambu Labs uses this technology. In my estimation, this technology definitely is above what a regular hobbyist can come up with. |
| U.S. Patent No. 10,569,466 and U.S. Patent No. 11,167,464 | Insertion of RFID tags into filament spools (round wheel that holds plastic) for printers to get information on the filament and operate accordingly. Not fundamental or necessary for printing, and can be manually adjusted, but it is very convenient to have. Bambu Labs AMS system uses this technology quite extensively. |
| U.S. Patent No. 8,747,097 and U.S. Patent No. 8,562,324 | This enables printers to print over network (Wi-Fi, possibly). Older printers did not have network capabilities and users would have to transfer files to a SD card, then plug it in to the printer to print. For any prints with new files, users would have to work with SD cards. That said, some operating systems offer this capability (e.g. Klipper) when running printers through other devices such as Raspberry Pi with Wi-Fi capability. Personally, this resembles printing over Wi-Fi for a regular printer and I cannot understand why it would be different in case of a 3D printer (quick search indicates Wireless Mobile Printing patent is abandoned now). |
Copyright & Social Media
Communications Law