1 Like
Sir, that’s the purpose of the forum … to talk to each other. If you don’t want to - just close the tab and freely yeet away.
Here is the correct article, copied and pasted since this forum doesn’t permit posting links.
Now are you happy, or are you just going to ignore this too?
The following from Tom’s Hardware:
A Texas jury found Bambu Lab liable for patent infringement in the creation of the X1, P1, and A1 series of 3D printers, and awarded Stratasys, Inc. $27.6 million dollars in damages. The patents in dispute cover prime towers and bed leveling methods used by consumer 3D printers of multiple brands. Bambu Lab has issued a statement to Tom’s Hardware about the developments.
Stratasys, Inc., invented FDM 3D printing. Its co-founder Scott Crump held US5121329 filed in 1989, for the “Apparatus and Method for Creating Three-Dimensional Objects”. That patent expired in 2009, opening the doors to consumer 3D printing.
No injunctions have been placed on the machines named in the suit, which are all from Bambu Lab’s “first generation” of 3D printers. An anonymous source said Bambu Lab has been working on an alternative to prime towers should the need arise, but that information has not yet been made public.
The X1, Bambu Lab’s first 3D printer, launched in May 2022, was retired earlier this year. The P1S is not officially retired, but was nominally replaced by the P2S in October 2025. The A1 and A1 Mini are still part of Bambu’s active lineup, though a larger A2L was introduced this summer.
The first-gen Bambu Lab machines use single-nozzle filament purging, covered by Stratasys US 9421713 patent. They also rely on specific strain-gauge and force-sensor implementations targeted by Stratasys’s US 9168698 patent.
The newer H2 lineup, as well as the X2, are all dual-nozzle machines, which have side-stepped US 9421713. They also employ optical sensors and re-engineered bed probing that avoid the force-detection feedback loops claimed by Stratasys.
A representative from Bambu Lab reached out to Tom’s Hardware with the following statement:
“We appreciate the time and effort of the jury in considering this matter. While we respect the judicial process, we disagree with the verdict reached in this case. The law provides Bambu with the right to seek post-trial review and to appeal, and Bambu intends to avail itself of these legal processes.”
Bambu Lab has a sticky situation on its hands, as this ruling only covers US patents, and thus machines sold in the United States. In Europe, the company successfully defended its use of the technology held under similar European patents. This means an X1-Carbon in New York would violate a Stratasys prime tower patent, but the same machine in Germany would not.
In April of this year, the European Unified Patent Court (UPC) The Hague Local Division dismissed Stratasys’ preliminary injunction application against Bambu Lab. The court rejected Stratasys’ attempts to broaden its claims, and Stratasys did not appeal.
The Texas judgement handed down Friday is part of a larger multi-patent dispute. Bambu Lab successfully invalidated patents US 9592660 covering the use of heated build surfaces and flexible spring steel plates. Bambu Lab argued that this is not one singular invention but a combination of designs that were later patented by Stratasys after it acquired Arevo, Inc. These designs were revealed in prior art, making them fair game.
It was also able to defend its use of networked, cloud-connected 3D printing with remote camera monitoring, covered by US 8562324.
Four more patents are still awaiting judgement in Texas. These cover RFID tags on material, remote networking, LiDAR scanning and automatic printer detection. Notably, the LiDAR has only been used on the now defunct X1 Carbon.
Stratasys filed two civil lawsuits in 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Bambu Lab for the alleged infringement of ten different U.S. patents regarding 3D printers. Stratasys was founded in Eden Prairie, MN, and has its North American headquarters there. Bambu Lab, a Chinese company, maintains offices in Austin, TX, which is in the Western Texas District Court. The 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.
Hold on there buckaroo.
After telling me to read the article multiple times, you are deciding to link a separate article?
Btw, calling it the “correct” article? Why? How?
The article posted to Tom’s hardware did not exist when the original post was made.
Wow, you are a piece of work. Thanks for clarifying your position though.
If you want to have a technical conversation about what they are changing to avoid patents, or what issues are still there, we can do that. But for the time being I am done argueing to a wall.
Why are you suddenly the one deciding which article is right and which is wrong, even though CincinnatiDesigns started the thread? Are you trying a little thread takeover here, or what?
- Do you have fundamental trouble reading the date?
- Are you trying to do a speedrun of making yourself unpopular right now?
- Do you have your own opinion on the article, because all I see right now from you is copy and paste?
- Do you understand the basic function of a forum - that people post opinions, ask questions, give answers, and interact socially? Have you actually read the other posts, too?
So many unanswered questions… 
Here’s the article, by the way: