Does Stratasys really deserve the heat it’s getting for its Bambu Lab lawsuit?
As I peruse social media on 3D printing, I often run into statements from random people saying something like this:
“I hate Stratasys. They are trying to stop everyone from using 3D printing with their patents and lawsuits!”
The sentiment is triggered by Stratasys’ recent lawsuit against Bambu Lab. Stratasys holds a number of patents on certain methods of 3D printing, and as such has the exclusive legal rights to use them. Anyone with a patent can sue someone else that uses their patented method, but normally the other party simply pays a licensing fee to continue using it.
In this situation, Stratasys decided to quietly launch a lawsuit against Bambu Lab, alleging that Bambu Lab had used several methods patented by Stratasys. While some of the methods listed were debatable, others were clearly used by Bambu Lab.
We haven’t heard the outcome of the lawsuit, as the parties are very likely discussing the matter behind the scenes. My thought is that Bambu Lab and Stratasys will agree to a license agreement for the specific methods involved, and everyone will continue on their merry way. However, we await an announcement.
The problem here is that some observers believe that Stratasys’ goal is to stop EVERYONE from using 3D printers, except for their own.
This is a completely ridiculous take, and there’s one very obvious proof.
Stratasys has held a large number of patents on 3D printing, and indeed was the one that invented FFF technology back in the 1980s. While that particular patent expired back in 2008, they continue to hold patents on a variety of other aspects of 3D printing.
During this entire period, dozens, maybe hundreds of companies launched 3D printer products. Many of them infringed on the Stratasys patents that were in force at the time. Stratasys could have sued all of them at any point.
But they did not.
Why, then, are they suing Bambu Lab now?
The other parties violating the patents were building products that didn’t infringe on Stratasys’ actual business. Stratasys did not sell small desktop machines, so they didn’t care. Infringers were typically very small, so even if their products did overlap with Stratasys’, it wasn’t a big deal. There was little point in Stratasys pursuing these parties, even though they were almost certainly infringing on the patents.
Back to Bambu Lab. The company has had the fastest growth in the industry, due to their inexpensive, reliable, and easy-to-use products. They’ve captured a large portion of the desktop 3D printer market — a market where Stratasys does not have products.
However, Bambu Lab has been hinting that they are about to announce a new and more powerful 3D printer.
My guess is that Stratasys got wind of the device’s capabilities and realized that it would indeed overlap with their products. It could therefore directly and materially affect Stratasys’ business. That’s why they are interested. That’s why the lawsuit was launched, in my opinion.
That’s also why Stratasys did not launch lawsuits against any number of other parties that violate the patent — because it doesn’t matter to the company.
Just because a company holds a patent doesn’t mean that they have to sue everyone. It depends on the circumstances. Launching lawsuits is an expensive matter, particularly if you lose. It’s a tool that should be used only when necessary, and evidently Stratasys believes that is the case with Bambu Lab.
Meanwhile, the rest of the 3D printer industry can continue doing its thing — as long as they don’t enter Stratasys’ market. Stratasys is not going to sue every 3D printer company.
