I would like to reiterate, “they” are NOT Texas judges. They are Federal judges in Texas. Texas has no say in the matter.
1 Like
It depends on whether your local government upholds the US patent claim. Some will, and some till not.
It depends on whether or not the judge accepts the ‘prior art’. It’s hard to demonstrate prior art generic enough to capture the concept of “headed platform”. I fully expect that the Stratasys play is to try to raise something that is too expensive for BL to fight…so they win by default. THEN they’ll be able to cite the win as precedent and go after others. Stratesys is a dying company and this seems a desperate move.
Heated bed patent covers more the PEI flex plate than the heated bed itself. IMO it’s maybe one of the easiest to demonstrate prior art or invalidate
Sorry. I have little experience with justice and circuit courts in ths US, therefore the lack of distinction between state/local and federal judges.
Nevertheless, the following might
help shed a better understanding of how things are seen by major companies and lawyers in regards to patent law cases that fill the TX courts’ dockets in both western and eastern districts of TX.
1] https://tiplj.org/wp-content/uploads/Volumes/v12/v12p473.pdf might help better understand the IP law in TX
The TX Eastern District has a reputation for being friendly to patent holders, with U.S. District Judge Alan Albright at one point hearing over 25% of the nation’s patent cases. (https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/us-chief-justice-roberts-pledges-review-patent-venue-rules-2022-01-03/).
Whether Stratasys is out to take out the competition (respectively BL) or merely wants the lion’s share of the profits is, at this time, unclear.
However, there is already a precedent for an upstart 3D printing company paying royalties to a more established player. In 2014, Formlabs agreed to pay 3D Systems (3DP IP Wars Update: Formlabs to pay 3D Systems sales royalties - Make:) an 8% royalty on all machines sold.
The Stratasys lawsuit names ten patents it claims to knowingly being infringed by BL. Some were originally filed by companies that Stratasys has acquired.
Here’s a list in order of when they expire:
-
US7555357B2, expires 3/3/27, by Stratasys: Method for building 3D objects with extrusion-based layered deposition systems.
-
US10569466B2, expires 10/28/28, filed by MakerBot: Tagged build material for 3D printing.
-
US8562324B2 expires 8/18/30, filed by MakerBot: Networked 3D printing.
-
US8747097B2 expires 8/18/30, filed by MakerBot: Networked 3D printer with 3D Scanner.
-
US11167464B2, expires 10/28/33, filed by MakerBot: Tagged build material for 3D printing.
-
US9168698B2, expires 2/7/34, filed by MakerBot: 3D printer with force detection.
-
US9421713B2, expires 8/20/34, by Stratasys Inc: Method for printing 3D parts with purge towers.
-
US11886774B2 expires 12/31/34, filed by Stratasys: Detection and use of printer configuration information.
-
US9592660B2, expires 1/8/35, by filed by Arevo Inc, Heated build platform and system for 3D printing methods.
-
US10556381B2, expires 7/27/36, filed by MakerBot: 3D printer with force detection.
The original documents can be found here:
Stratasys vs. Bambu Lab: A 3D Printing Patent Dispute with Far-Reaching Implications
August 14, 2024by Michael Molitch-Hou3D PrintingAsiaBusinessFeatured StoriesLegalStocks
Additive manufacturing (AM) stalwart Stratasys Ltd. (Nasdaq: SSYS) has initiated legal action against Bambu Lab and its associated entities, alleging patent infringement by their 3D printers. Filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the lawsuit targets Bambu Lab’s parent company, Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co.; its affiliate, Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co.; and associated subsidiaries Bambulab Ltd. and Tuozhu Technology Ltd. Also named in the suit is Beijing Tiertime Technology Co., known for its Up series of 3D printers, along with its parent company Beijing Yinhua Laser Rapid Prototyping and Mould Technology Co.
Among these patents, two stand out for their broad relevance to the 3D printing industry:
(a) Heated Build Platforms (US9592660B2): This technology is essential for ensuring that the first layers of a 3D printed model do not cool too quickly, which can lead to warping and defects. Nearly all consumer 3D printers incorporate some form of heated build platform, making this patent potentially very influential.
(b) Purge Towers (US9421713B2): Used in multi-material or multi-color printing, purge towers help in cleaning the nozzle of residual filament, preventing color bleed and ensuring print quality. This feature, branded as “prime towers” by Bambu Lab, has become common in the new generation of desktop systems that feature multi-color 3D printing.
While heated build platforms are a common feature, Stratasys does not currently offer 3D printers that use purge towers to switch between materials or colors. Stratasys’s professional and industrial material extrusion 3D printers typically use other methods to manage material transitions, such as dual extrusion systems where each material has its own dedicated print head, or internal material management systems that eliminate the need for external purge structures. Although Stratasys holds patents related to purge towers, this feature is not used in its own machines.
BL statement on the lawsuit, via Twitter (I won’t call it “X”)
(More info and legal analysis here :
2 Likes
This particular patent seems pretty rock solid and one that Bambu will definitely have to discontinue if Stratasys won’t allow them a license.
I’m not a lawyer but the Bambu printers are so similar to everything in that patent that I can only assume this was all licensed. If not licensed it’s a pretty egregious violation and I’d be surprised that the printers were ever allowed to be sold here.
Which is why the patent thing between MakerBot/Stratasys is odd if they are already in a patent license relationship.
Many unknowns about all this and hard to know who is really in the right or wrong. And unfortunately who is right and who is wrong may not matter in patent battles.
Fair point, but it seems clear to me that they’re just throwing sh*t against the wall to see if anything sticks. I won’t personally be worried until after we see the judge’s decision. Even then, BL (and everyone else) will likely just change a few aspects of the printing process and move on - I don’t see it as a huge problem either way.
Here we go… just like election fraud, speculation is good for no one. Next thing you know it will be James Blunt invented weed… lol
1 Like
Maybe they’ll use a cooled bed instead of heated bed, so the model freezes to the build platform… just kidding. I don’t see how they can make their printers not infringe on those patents. Unless they start making resin printers instead.
Perhaps you should read your own references, but I’ll break it down into a thumbnail. Even so, you need to research how the laws of the US are enacted and enforced.
Thumbnail:
*A. Exclusive Jurisdiction *
*Section 1338(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides: *
*The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress *
*relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks. *475 Such jurisdiction shall be *
*exclusive of the courts of the states in patent, plant variety protection and copyright cases.1 *
*1. Patent Cases *
Section 1338(a) grants exclusive jurisdiction to the federal district courts in cases arising under the patent laws.
I don’t know where you live but apparently, not in the US. So, stop calling them Texas judges. They are not. They are US Federal judges and can preside over any actions brought about under federal laws. Patents fall under federal law (read YOUR first reference above.)
Federal judges are appointed by the president of the United States. The president is in the Executive branch and the supreme law enforcement officer in the US. His duty is to enforce the laws enacted by the Legislative branch known as Congress (House of Representatives and the Senate). All courts fall under the Judicial branch. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and has final say over maters of law. All other courts in the US are subordinate. In the US, the three branches of government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial are EQUAL in power. This power is granted to them by the Constitution of the United States and the People. So, there’s your lesson on why the US is so powerful and the envy of every other country in the World.
1 Like
Nice of you helping clarify these aspects for us, the non-US folks. Chill.
They have as much say as a parking lot attendant.
Ken, I hate to say it, but to be honest we are not the envy of every other country in the World. We are actually far from it.
Not going to debate that. Just saying.
To your point about Federal Judges and being picked by POTUS, unfortnately that injects a certain degree of polotics into the mix. You have to admit, Texas is the state most want to try copyright cases in. While that is not a statement on the State, it is a statement on that district and it’s judges.
Some theories:
Texas has seen a surge in patent litigation, particularly in Marshall and Waco. Some say this is due to the speedy pace of litigation in the state, which favors plaintiffs. Others point to the demographics of East Texas jurors, who may have less experience with complex technology.
Here’s a deeper dive into the factors that contribute to Texas’s popularity for patent litigation:
- Plaintiff-friendly pace
The quick pace of litigation in Texas suits plaintiffs, as wealthy defendants can afford to drag out litigation.
- Juror demographics
Some say that East Texas jurors are older and less educated, and may have less experience with complex technology.
- Forum shopping
Some critics say that companies have engaged in “forum selling” by making donations to Marshall, Texas, where a busy division of the Eastern District of Texas is located.
- Legal vagueness
Unclear copyright infringement laws and market practices can lead to unintentional and undetectable copyright infringement.
In 2017, the Supreme Court made it harder for plaintiffs to file lawsuits in Marshall by requiring defendants to have an established business presence where they are sued. However, Waco has quickly become the new center of patent litigation in Texas, with one federal judge hearing more patent cases than any other judge in the country.
More thoughts:
1 Like
Yah, yah, yah. I’ve read all that. No need to copy and paste it here. Litigants follow the judges around. The same is occurring in Delaware but they slipped to second place behind the districts in Texas.
It makes no difference what we say here. BL will either have to fight it or succumb to the attack. I only joined this thread to defend my state from the uninformed and the misdirected slander.
Home of the free because of the brave! 
2 Likes
yeah, I was responsible for that. I wasn’t clear. Apologies.
1 Like
Often times, the result is a royalty stream. Cell phones have a bunch of licensing cost in them and it just gets passed onto the consumer. So maybe Bambu printers will go up $50 or something. Maybe not even that much. It will be a big nothing-burger. My main point is that I’m bolstering your point where you don’t see it as a problem.
1 Like
When I look into these things I seem to find the always same issues…
One company has something good but a something THEY did not actually invent as such, at least not in full.
Then one day they decide to make proper money from it by limiting other companies based on patent infringement claims and such.
In reality it comes down to the lightbulb problem…
1 Like
The X1-E is most likely the thorn in Stratasys’s side. Stratasys, like Tektronix and Fluke, charge exorbitant prices on the claim that they somehow know best, having been the original innovators, even though product offerings from other companies costing less than a third as much are readily available, many of them more reliable with more advanced features. Purchasing and engineering managers tend to be rather ignorant on the subject and often opt for the more expensive legacy company’s offerings, thinking of them as a safe bet. The X1-E is available through engineering supply dealers. In side by comparisons, the X1-E has been coming out on top and making inroads into the lucrative engineering prototyping market.
Your argument is obviously flawed because there are federal judges in every state. Its a Texas judge thing. Hence the 25% going through 1 judge