Stratasys has scored a significant patent victory against Bambu Lab in the US.
A federal jury in the Eastern District of Texas found that Bambu Lab infringed four Stratasys patents and awarded Stratasys US$27.6 million in damages.
The jury also found that the infringement was willful, which could become very important later. US patent law allows judges to increase damages in cases involving particularly serious infringement, although that does not happen automatically.
For now, US$27.6M is the number.
The patents involved cover some surprisingly obvious bits of today’s FFF desktop 3D printing technology. They include techniques involving purge blocks for multi-material printing, force sensing between the toolhead and build surface, and generation of extrusion paths.
In other words, these aren’t obscure industrial processes hidden inside million-dollar machines. They are functions that basically all FFF desktop 3D printer operators use every day.
That makes the decision particularly interesting.
Stratasys has been developing extrusion-based 3D printing technology for decades (their FDM technology, specifically), accumulating a substantial patent portfolio along the way. Bambu Lab, meanwhile, has rapidly pushed desktop FFF equipment forward with increasingly automated machines and sophisticated multi-material systems, all at very low cost.
Eventually those two worlds collided, and Stratasys leveraged their patents.
However, this week’s verdict certainly does not end the story.
Bambu Lab told Fabbaloo that it intends to challenge the result:
“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.”
There is also a very odd twist to this dispute: depending on where you look, the results haven’t always gone Stratasys’ way.
Earlier this year, Stratasys attempted to obtain a preliminary injunction against Bambu Lab at Europe’s Unified Patent Court over EP2964450, the European member of the same patent family as US9421713, the purge-tower patent involved in the Texas trial.
That attempt failed!
The Hague Local Division concluded that Bambu Lab’s H2C implementation was more likely than not outside the scope of the European patent and declined to issue the requested injunction. Bambu Lab said Stratasys did not appeal that decision. A separate proceeding attempting to invalidate the European patent is continuing.
Things are equally complicated in the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Bambu Lab has challenged several Stratasys patents there through inter partes review proceedings. According to Bambu Lab, challenged claims of US9592660 were found invalid and Stratasys did not appeal. Challenged claims of US8562324 were also found invalid, with Stratasys’ request for Director Review rejected.
Neither of those patents is among the four on which Stratasys just won its US$27.6M jury award.
The more interesting case is US9421713, covering the purge-tower concept. The PTAB upheld the challenged claims of that patent, but Bambu Lab has appealed that decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Yes, there are quite a few moving pieces here. That’s why it would be clearly premature to conclude that Bambu Lab will simply pay Stratasys US$27.6M and carry on.
There could be post-trial motions. There could be enhanced damages because of the willfulness finding. There could eventually be an injunction or ongoing royalty arrangement. Bambu Lab could modify software or machine behaviour to work around particular claims. And, of course, appeals could change parts of the result.
Meanwhile, other patents and proceedings between these companies remain active.
The larger question may ultimately be more interesting than the US$27.6M verdict itself.
Desktop 3D printers have become dramatically more sophisticated over the past several years, incorporating automation, sensing and multi-material techniques that were once found mainly on much more expensive equipment. As that happens, newer manufacturers are increasingly wandering into these older patent portfolios.
Any other party selling 3D printers in the US that is also using FFF techniques such as purge towers and force sensing must now be concerned: could Stratasys leverage this verdict against them, too? This is now entirely possible, but unlikely. That is, unless the party’s business is perceived to be treading on Stratasys’ customer base.
This verdict suggests that the patent situation may be considerably more important than it looked only a few years ago.
