The news of Stratasys’ lawsuit has generated much commentary, but how much of it is accurate, and what’s really going on?
There’s much discussion on this very significant lawsuit, so let’s attempt to answer the key questions.
What is the Stratasys Lawsuit?
As background, last week Stratasys launched a patent infringement case against a group of Asian 3D printer manufacturers, including Bambu Lab. The lawsuit alleges that the named companies violated five specific patents held by Stratasys. The patents (and their filing date) are:
- U.S. Patent No. 9,421,713 (2016), describes s method to purge material from “multiple print heads or deposition lines” into purge towers.
- U.S. Patent No. 9,592,660 (2017), describes a method a thermally controlled build platform with a polymer coating to enable adhesion during printing and release after cooling.
- U.S. Patent No. 7,555,357 (2009), describes a method to 3D print walls with void regions.
- U.S. Patent No. 9,168,698 (2015), describes a method to detect FFF clogs using a force sensor in the extrusion mechanism.
- U.S. Patent No. 10,556,381 (2020), describes a method to detect FFF clogs using a force sensor in the extrusion mechanism.
The last two patents seem near identical.
In the lawsuit, Stratasys asks the court to declare the infringements are valid, and seeks unspecified damages. They also ask that the companies be prevented from further infringement, along with costs.
Which Companies are Affected?
The lawsuit names the following companies as infringers:
- Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd.,
- Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co., Ltd.,
- Bambulab Limited,
- Beijing Tiertime Technology Co., Ltd.
- Beijing Yinhua Laser Rapid Prototyping and Mould Technology Co. Ltd.
- Tuozhu Technology Limited
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., Tuozhu Technology Limited and Bambulab Limited are all Bambu Lab companies. Some are located in Hong Kong, which is a different legal jurisdiction than mainland China.
Tiertime is a long-time Chinese manufacturer of 3D printers, with an original founding name of Beijing Yinhua Laser Rapid Prototyping and
Mould Technology Co. Ltd.
The lawsuit is therefore directed at Bambu Lab and Tiertime. It is not clear to me why Tiertime is included in this lawsuit, as they have no visible connected to Bambu Lab. In fact, they are only mentioned specifically in the lawsuit as a defendant, whereas Bambu Lab is mentioned continuously throughout the 29-page document. However, Stratasys does allege that “defendants” infringed the patents.
It may be that behind the scenes Tiertime is providing some type of services to Bambu Lab, perhaps manufacturing devices or components. As far as I can tell, Tiertime is likely not a major investor in Bambu Lab, which is largely funded by venture capital firms. Venture Capital firms are not named in the lawsuit.
Tiertime was previously the subject of a Stratasys lawsuit about ten years ago. At that time US reseller Afinia was relabeling Tiertime gear, which Stratasys felt was infringing certain other patents. It’s not clear whether that has anything to do with the current lawsuit.
Is the Stratasys Lawsuit Valid?
Stratasys does indeed hold ownership of the aforementioned patents, and therefore can propose infringement by other parties. That’s what patents are all about — providing an inventor with exclusive use of the invention for a fixed period. In the US that is 20 years, meaning the patents would expire:
- U.S. Patent No. 9,421,713 Purging, expires in 2036
- U.S. Patent No. 9,592,660 Build platform, expires in 2037
- U.S. Patent No. 7,555,357 Void regions, expires in 2029
- U.S. Patent No. 9,168,698 Force sensor, expires in 2035
- U.S. Patent No. 10,556,381 Force sensor, expires in 2040
My reading of these patents is that they each must be evaluated against the technical situation. The Purging patent is possibly the weakest, as the patent describes “multiple” deposition lines, and it’s a bit of stretch to fit a single-nozzle system like Bambu Lab’s into that category.
The others seem pretty clear, although most of those methods seem obvious and were clearly used by others before the patent date.
However, that’s not how patents work. In the US the patent system works on the “first to file” principle. In other words, whoever files the paperwork for the patent application first, will be awarded the patent.
Some commenters talk about “prior art”, meaning previously used instances of the method. That is used only when the patent application is being processed to ensure it hasn’t already been in widespread use. Prior art generally isn’t used after the patent is awarded.
Here we have things that Stratasys has patented first, but somehow the US patent office didn’t accept any prior art on these methods. Purging, polymer-coated heated plates and void regions were all in use before those dates. Force sensors, likely not.
It seems that Stratasys has a legal right to attempt the lawsuit.
How Has the 3D Print Community Reacted?
The reaction from the desktop 3D print community has been very vocal and entirely negative against Stratasys.
There has been a considerable amount of misinformation and bad takes on this situation. Some stated that “Startasys” is a patent troll that doesn’t produce any products, for example. That’s nonsense, as the company has dozens of products and a massive worldwide operation. There are many more inaccuracies in dozens of online discussion threads.
There are many statements suggesting “how could that possibly be patentable?” That sounds true, but regardless — THE PATENTS WERE AWARDED! That’s already happened, and discussion of the viability of the patent should have happened during the application process, which was long ago.
The current desktop 3D printer market was made possible by Stratasys’ original 1980s patent expiring back in 2009. But while the original patents expired, Stratasys (and other 3D printer manufacturers) continued to issue new patents on variations and improvements on the process.
Some of those patents (Stratasys has apparently 2600 patents assigned) happen to be sufficiently similar to Bambu Lab’s methods, or at least Stratasys believes so.
Online discussions are so negative against the company because of this lawsuit that it is being directed against MakerBot and Thingiverse, which Stratasys acquired back in 2013. However, Stratasys no longer operates those businesses, as they were merged into UltiMaker a few years ago. As part of that merger, Stratasys obtained an unknown number of minority shares in the new UltiMaker.
It’s possible that UltiMaker may receive some blowback from the 3D print community as a result of the lawsuit. However, both Stratasys and UltiMaker focus on the professional and industrial 3D printer markets; there is very little desktop FFF 3D printer operators could do to affect these companies.
Why is Stratasys Doing This Now?
The obvious answer is that Bambu Lab has been creeping into Stratasys’ market. This has been an ongoing process for quite a few years, even before Bambu Lab emerged: FFF devices have been gradually improving in capabilities and now rival most professional options.
3D printer manufacturers that previously focused on desktop devices migrated to professional and educational markets years ago, as a safe space to continue their business. However, Bambu Lab’s technology and pricing has put that market in jeopardy, and multiple players are likely to fall out.
Stratasys never produced desktop equipment, but has been in the professional space for decades. It’s quite possible they view Bambu Lab’s equipment as cutting into their market.
Stratasys almost certainly did not enforce these (and other) patents previously because they were being infringed by companies producing products for other markets: it wasn’t directly affecting Stratasys.
Apparently now, it is.
Or it could be in the near future. Companies cannot change things in the past, so they always look forward to see what’s going to happen next. Actions are often related to what’s going to happen, rather than what did happen.
In this case it may be that Stratasys expects Bambu Lab to release a new machine that more directly overlaps with their market. Coincidentally, there are persistent rumors and hints from Bambu Lab that a new, larger machine is about to be announced. We don’t know much about this secret machine, but it could easily be a machine that could compete with Stratasys’s new F3300 series.
Perhaps that, or the expectation of it happening sooner or later, was the trigger for the lawsuit.
What is Likely to Happen Next?
We have a lawsuit, which eventually would go to a trial by jury as requested by Stratasys. However, it may not get that far if the parties can come to an agreement.
It may be that the lawsuit is simply a way for Stratasys to gain some revenue from Bambu Lab through the payment of royalties on sales. This will certainly be one of the topics of discussion between the parties.
There is a precedent for this. Years ago 3D Systems brought a lawsuit against Formlabs regarding the use of SLA technology in the company’s inexpensive equipment. After a considerable period, the lawsuit was settled with unspecified terms. It’s possible that Formlabs agreed to pay 3D Systems royalties, but we will never know.
That is quite possibly the type of outcome we could see here: Bambu Lab paying Stratasys royalties. However, that would almost certainly take years to conclude. In a statement, Bambu Lab said:
”We have taken note of the relevant information. As of now, we have not received any formal documents from the court, but we are closely monitoring the situation. We will actively respond to this case in accordance with the appropriate legal procedures to protect our legitimate rights and interests.
Bambu Lab has always advocated for and upheld the principles of respecting and protecting intellectual property. Through continuous research and technological innovation, we strive to provide our users with the best possible 3D printing experience.”
A lower probability would be stopping Bambu Lab from selling equipment in the US. It’s possible that Bambu Lab would simply alter their technical approach to remove infringing aspects, and they’d continue selling products. There’s also the rest of the world, where Bambu Lab continues to sell a considerable amount of equipment.
How Could the Stratasys Lawsuit Affect Desktop 3D Printing?
In spite of many doomsayers, it’s unlikely there will be much, if any change to the desktop FFF world. There are several reasons for this.
First, the legal process and negotiations between the companies will take a very long time to conclude. During that time things will stay more or less the same.
Second, Stratasys is very likely pursuing Bambu Lab because they are overlapping the professional market. Consumer 3D printing isn’t a thing for Stratasys, they will likely not care much about it. There would be no point for them to go after other smaller players, unless they also sought entry to the professional market.
Third, if the outcome is a royalty agreement between the parties, then things continue as is, albeit with perhaps a price hike from Bambu Lab to account for the royalty payments. If that’s the case, then US-sales of Bambu Lab equipment might carry a higher price.
Fourth, this has happened previously with the Afinia situation ten years ago. Nothing happened to desktop 3D printing then, so nothing should happen now.
Finally, it’s possible Stratasys could lose the lawsuit and then nothing happens at all.
Via RPXCorp (the lawsuit) Justia (Events) and Reddit
