Patent wars continue to brew in 3D printing space
On January 2nd, Afinia filed its response to the Stratasys lawsuit, making a demand for a jury trial citing a number of issues.
January 09, 2014 at 04:42 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In the world of 3D printing, early innovators work hard to protect the value and investments made to obtain intellectual property. As consumer demand for affordable 3D printers grows, this emerging market will lure newcomers interested in participating in the potential for profitability that market offers.
Back in November, 3D printing giant Stratasys brought its own infringement action against the manufacturer of a consumer model 3D printer that competes with the offerings of Stratasys-owned MakerBot. Stratasys sued Microboards Technology, which does business as Afinia, claiming that Afinia's H-Series 3D Printer infringes several patents Stratasys holds directed to Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM).
In fact, Stratasys has alleged that Afinia's H-Series printer is a rebranded version of an UP! 3D printer, manufactured by Delta Micro Factory Corporation. The H-Series low price has made it a popular choice with universities as well as provided a functionality and ease of use that earned it selection in 2012 as “Best Overall” by 3D printing publication “Make Magazine.” Though Stratasys has not sued the OEM, this litigation could be part of a strategy to combat the threat Stratasys faces from low-cost 3D printers manufactured in China and marketed through U.S. licensing agreements. Although there is a great deal of tension amongst alternative suppliers, it is still not clear if there is any claim in the Stratasys lawsuit that is specific to the Afina 3D printer. A spokesperson from Afinia emphasized the fact that the company does not license 3D printing technology from Beijing Tier Tim, but it has an OEM/Distribution agreement with Tier Time.
Afina was the best target to go after in order to generate a knock-on effect in the sector and was the biggest threat to the revenues derived by Stratasys through Makerbot. On January 2nd, Afina filed its response to the Stratasys lawsuit, making a demand for a jury trial citing a number of issues. Afina invites on all counts that Stratasys prove its claims, states that the contents of the patents at the time of their publication constituted common knowledge to any person having ordinary skill in the art, and the alleged inventions were already in use more than one year prior to the patent applications by Stratasys.
Further, Afinia stated that it is considering filing an antitrust claim against Stratasys. While Afina may have a case against Stratasys, the millions of dollars in legal fees that will be required to fight the lawsuit might force Afinia to settle or withdraw.
While Stratasys may have a point, the fact that it has taken so long to take action — allowing for the sale of 10's of thousands of such printers to users who will potentially be left with unusable goods — will not please the users of Afinia's printers. The company's reputation would have been better maintained by action against any alleged patent infringers before they became well established with a developed installed base of printers.
As the recent claims brought by Stratasys and 3D Systems illustrate, patent infringement litigation will remain a real risk to these newcomers' chances for any real ongoing profitability.
For more on 3D printing, check out these articles:
In the world of 3D printing, early innovators work hard to protect the value and investments made to obtain intellectual property. As consumer demand for affordable 3D printers grows, this emerging market will lure newcomers interested in participating in the potential for profitability that market offers.
Back in November, 3D printing giant Stratasys brought its own infringement action against the manufacturer of a consumer model 3D printer that competes with the offerings of Stratasys-owned MakerBot. Stratasys sued Microboards Technology, which does business as Afinia, claiming that Afinia's H-Series 3D Printer infringes several patents Stratasys holds directed to Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM).
In fact, Stratasys has alleged that Afinia's H-Series printer is a rebranded version of an UP! 3D printer, manufactured by Delta Micro Factory Corporation. The H-Series low price has made it a popular choice with universities as well as provided a functionality and ease of use that earned it selection in 2012 as “Best Overall” by 3D printing publication “Make Magazine.” Though Stratasys has not sued the OEM, this litigation could be part of a strategy to combat the threat Stratasys faces from low-cost 3D printers manufactured in China and marketed through U.S. licensing agreements. Although there is a great deal of tension amongst alternative suppliers, it is still not clear if there is any claim in the Stratasys lawsuit that is specific to the Afina 3D printer. A spokesperson from Afinia emphasized the fact that the company does not license 3D printing technology from Beijing Tier Tim, but it has an OEM/Distribution agreement with Tier Time.
Afina was the best target to go after in order to generate a knock-on effect in the sector and was the biggest threat to the revenues derived by Stratasys through Makerbot. On January 2nd, Afina filed its response to the Stratasys lawsuit, making a demand for a jury trial citing a number of issues. Afina invites on all counts that Stratasys prove its claims, states that the contents of the patents at the time of their publication constituted common knowledge to any person having ordinary skill in the art, and the alleged inventions were already in use more than one year prior to the patent applications by Stratasys.
Further, Afinia stated that it is considering filing an antitrust claim against Stratasys. While Afina may have a case against Stratasys, the millions of dollars in legal fees that will be required to fight the lawsuit might force Afinia to settle or withdraw.
While Stratasys may have a point, the fact that it has taken so long to take action — allowing for the sale of 10's of thousands of such printers to users who will potentially be left with unusable goods — will not please the users of Afinia's printers. The company's reputation would have been better maintained by action against any alleged patent infringers before they became well established with a developed installed base of printers.
As the recent claims brought by Stratasys and 3D Systems illustrate, patent infringement litigation will remain a real risk to these newcomers' chances for any real ongoing profitability.
For more on 3D printing, check out these articles:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFinancial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250