DCT
3:24-cv-02262
Intrepid Automation Inc v. 3D Systems Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Intrepid Automation, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: 3D Systems Corporation (Delaware) and 3D Systems, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Smith Gambrell & Russell LLP; Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman, & Dicker LLP
- Case Identification: 3:24-cv-02262, S.D. Cal., 12/04/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendants maintaining a "regular and established place of business" within the Southern District of California, specifically a facility in San Diego from which they conduct business related to the action.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s PSLA 270 and other multi-projector 3D printers infringe patents related to using a plurality of coordinated projectors to form a single composite image for additive manufacturing.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses a key limitation in projector-based 3D printing, enabling the creation of large parts at high speed and resolution by combining images from multiple projectors, a significant advancement in the additive manufacturing market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states this action is related to a pending trade secrets case between the parties (3:21-cv-01141). Allegations from that case are used here to establish Defendant’s pre-suit knowledge of the technology and patents-in-suit, forming the basis for the willfulness claim.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-08-01 | Intrepid founders, former 3DS employees, form their own company. |
| 2018-07-30 | Earliest Priority Date for ’301 and ’511 Patents. |
| 2020-01-30 | 3DS IP Counsel allegedly obtains Intrepid's parent patent application. |
| 2021-01-26 | 3DS employee allegedly tours Intrepid's facilities under NDA. |
| 2021-05-01 | 3DS files "Trade Secrets Case" against Intrepid. |
| 2021-05-25 | U.S. Patent No. 11,014,301 issues. |
| 2022-04-26 | 3DS employees file "Gelber Application" for a bioprinter. |
| 2022-05-24 | U.S. Patent No. 11,338,511 issues. |
| 2023-11-01 | 3DS reportedly teases the PSLA 270 at Formnext conference. |
| 2024-11-07 | 3DS issues press release announcing the PSLA 270. |
| 2024-11-27 | 3DS CEO describes PSLA 270 as first in a "family" of new printers. |
| 2024-12-04 | Complaint filed. |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,014,301 - "Multiple Image Projection System for Additive Manufacturing," issued May 25, 2021
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a fundamental trade-off in conventional digital light processing (DLP) 3D printing: as the build area for a part gets larger, the projected pixel size increases, which decreases the final part's resolution and accuracy. This also reduces the projected energy density, slowing down the printing process. (’301 Patent, col. 1:24-34; Compl. ¶28-29).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an additive manufacturing system that uses a plurality of image projectors working in concert. Each projector casts a smaller "sub-image," and these are arranged in an array to form a single, large "composite image" on the photoreactive resin. A key aspect is a "display subsystem" that uses a stack of digital filters to correct for geometric distortions, normalize energy (irradiance), blend the seams between sub-images, and adjust the energy based on the resin's properties. (’301 Patent, Abstract; ’301 Patent, col. 2:40-55). This allows the system to achieve both a large build area and high resolution simultaneously. (’301 Patent, col. 3:57-67).
- Technical Importance: This multi-projector coordination technology enabled the creation of large-format parts using projective stereolithography (SLA) at a speed and quality that the complaint alleges was not commercially viable with prior single-projector systems. (Compl. ¶30).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of, at a minimum, independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶116).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- An additive manufacturing system with an image projection system having a plurality of projectors.
- The projectors cast a composite image composed of a plurality of sub-images arranged in an array.
- Two or more adjacent sub-images overlap at two or more sub-image edges.
- A display subsystem controls the projectors to adjust sub-image properties and alignment.
- A stack of filters is used to adjust sub-image properties, comprising an irradiance mask, a gamma adjustment mask, a warp correction filter, and an edge blending bar.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶127).
U.S. Patent No. 11,338,511 - "Multiple Image Projection Method for Additive Manufacturing," issued May 24, 2022
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same problem as the ’301 patent: the inherent limitations on size, resolution, and speed in conventional single-projector SLA systems. (’511 Patent, col. 1:20-35).
- The Patented Solution: This patent claims the method of operating the system described in the '301 patent. The method involves providing the multi-projector system and projecting a composite image from overlapping sub-images onto a resin pool. The core of the claimed method is the step of "adjusting properties and aligning a position of each sub-image" using a specific set of four digital filters: an irradiance mask, a gamma adjustment mask, a warp correction filter, and an edge blending bar. (’511 Patent, cl. 1; Compl. ¶31). This active, multi-filter adjustment process is central to creating a seamless and accurate final part from multiple light sources. (’511 Patent, col. 2:40-55).
- Technical Importance: This method provided a functional process for overcoming prior art barriers to large-format, high-speed projective SLA, which the complaint alleges was not commercially feasible before this invention. (Compl. ¶30).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of, at a minimum, independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶129).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Providing an additive manufacturing system with a plurality of projectors.
- Projecting a composite image composed of an array of overlapping sub-images.
- Adjusting the properties and alignment of each sub-image using a set of filters.
- The set of filters comprises an irradiance mask, a gamma adjustment mask, a warp correction filter, and an edge blending bar.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶140).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The primary accused products are the PSLA 270 3D printer, other large-format printers in the "PSLA 270 family," and the "3DS Bioprinter." (Compl. ¶84).
Functionality and Market Context
- The PSLA 270 is described in marketing materials as a "high speed, projector-based SLA additive manufacturing solution." (Compl. ¶54). The complaint alleges it uses "dual high-resolution projectors" that project two side-by-side sub-images onto a build platform within a vat of resin. (Compl. ¶57). A diagram from the defendant's website, included in the complaint, depicts this two-projector architecture. (Compl. ¶57, p. 15).
- The complaint alleges the PSLA 270 employs "trade secret pixel blending methods," which it contends is a term for using digital filters to perform functions including "warp correction, pixel blending, edge blending bars, stitching, irradiance, and gamma adjustment." (Compl. ¶60).
- The complaint includes a visual from the defendant's website contrasting "Raw Pixel Projection" with "Advanced Pixel Projection," which uses gray pixels to smooth jagged edges. (Compl. ¶59, p. 15). The complaint alleges this demonstrates the use of anti-aliasing techniques corresponding to the claimed "gamma adjustment filter." (Compl. ¶62).
- The defendant's CEO allegedly described the PSLA 270 as "the first of what will be a family of new projector-over-VAT printing systems," suggesting a strategic focus on this technology. (Compl. ¶71). The complaint also alleges the development of a version with four or more projectors. (Compl. ¶72).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
11,014,301 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an image projection system comprising a plurality of image projectors that project a composite image onto a build area within a resin pool… | The PSLA 270 is described as having "dual high-resolution projectors" that project two side-by-side sub-images downward onto a build platform. | ¶57 | col. 6:30-35 |
| wherein the composite image comprises a plurality of sub-images arranged in an array, and wherein two or more adjacent sub-images… overlap… | The PSLA 270 allegedly projects two side-by-side sub-images. A promotional video allegedly shows the sub-images overlapping to form a composite image. | ¶57, ¶63 | col. 4:8-11 |
| a display subsystem, wherein the display subsystem controls the image projection system and each of the image projectors… | The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that the PSLA 270 is controlled by a display subsystem that controls the projection system as a whole and each of the two projectors. | ¶58 | col. 4:12-19 |
| a stack of filters configured to adjust the properties of each sub-image… | 3DS allegedly defined its "edge-blending" trade secret to include digital filters or masks for achieving various corrections. | ¶60 | col. 2:50-55 |
| an irradiance mask configured to normalize irradiance; | The complaint alleges 3DS's "edge-blending" methods include "irradiance." | ¶60 | col. 11:21-25 |
| a gamma adjustment mask configured to adjust sub-image energy… thereby reducing aliasing artifacts of curved or smooth surfaces; | 3DS's website allegedly shows "Advanced Pixel Projection" using gray scaling to smooth edges, and its "edge-blending" methods are alleged to include "gamma adjustment." | ¶59, ¶60, ¶62 | col. 11:1-10 |
| a warp correction filter configured to provide geometric correction; and | 3DS's "edge-blending" methods are alleged to include "geometric distortion correction or digital filters or masks, that achieve or comprise warp correction." | ¶60 | col. 8:31-46 |
| an edge blending bar at one or more sub-image edges. | 3DS's "edge-blending" methods are alleged to include "pixel blending, edge blending bars, stitching." A promotional video allegedly shows overlapping portions of sub-images being blended. | ¶60, ¶63 | col. 8:55-61 |
11,338,511 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing an additive manufacturing system, comprising: an image projection system comprising a plurality of image projectors; and an image display subsystem; | The PSLA 270 is an additive manufacturing system with "dual high-resolution projectors" and is allegedly controlled by a display subsystem. | ¶54, ¶57, ¶58 | col. 4:1-11 |
| projecting a composite image onto a build area… wherein: the composite image comprises a plurality of sub-images arranged in an array; two or more adjacent sub-images… overlap… | The PSLA 270 allegedly projects two side-by-side sub-images that overlap to form a composite image, as shown in promotional materials. | ¶57, ¶63 | col. 2:60-65 |
| adjusting properties and aligning a position of each sub-image in the array using a set of filters comprising… | The complaint alleges 3DS's marketing and discovery responses describe using "pixel blending methods" which are alleged to be the claimed set of filters for warp correction, irradiance, gamma adjustment, and edge blending. | ¶59, ¶60 | col. 3:1-10 |
| an irradiance mask that normalizes irradiance; | 3DS's "edge-blending" methods are alleged to include functionality for "irradiance." | ¶60 | col. 11:21-25 |
| a gamma adjustment mask that adjusts sub-image energy…; | 3DS's website allegedly shows "Advanced Pixel Projection" using gray scaling, and its methods are alleged to include "gamma adjustment." | ¶59, ¶60, ¶62 | col. 11:1-2, 6-10 |
| a warp correction filter that provides geometric correction; and | 3DS's methods are alleged to include "geometric distortion correction" and "warp correction." | ¶60 | col. 8:31-37 |
| an edge blending bar at one or more sub-image edges. | 3DS's methods are alleged to include "edge blending bars" and "stitching." | ¶60 | col. 8:55-61 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may be whether the term "stack of filters" (or "set of filters") requires four distinct and separable software modules, or if the functions can be performed by one or more integrated algorithms. The patent illustrates a literal "stack" in Figure 2A (’301 Patent, Fig. 2A), which may support a narrower view, while the complaint's reliance on a list of terms from a discovery response (Compl. ¶60) suggests a focus on functional capability rather than implementation architecture.
- Technical Questions: The infringement case hinges on mapping the accused product's features to the claimed filters. For example, a key question is what evidence exists that the "gray scaling" technique shown on the 3DS website (Compl. ¶59, p. 15) performs the specific function of a "gamma adjustment mask" as defined in the patent—namely, mapping pixel intensity to the reactivity of the resin to reduce aliasing (’301 Patent, cl. 1)—as opposed to being a more generic anti-aliasing algorithm.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "gamma adjustment mask"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the complaint directly links it to the "Advanced Pixel Projection" and "gray scaling" features advertised by the defendant (Compl. ¶62). The construction of this term will likely determine whether the defendant's anti-aliasing methods fall within the scope of the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional: "configured to adjust sub-image energy by mapping a plurality of pixel intensity levels to an addressable range of reactivity for curing resin..., thereby reducing aliasing artifacts of curved or smooth surfaces" (’301 Patent, cl. 1). A party could argue this covers any software module that performs this function, regardless of the specific algorithm.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a highly detailed, multi-step process for implementing gamma correction, including creating data sets of cure depth versus energy, fitting the data to logarithmic equations, and creating a specific transfer function (’301 Patent, col. 11:20-12:67, Fig. 14). A party could argue the term should be limited to this disclosed embodiment.
The Term: "edge blending bar"
- Context and Importance: The complaint alleges that the defendant's "pixel blending" and "stitching" functionalities infringe this element (Compl. ¶60). Proving that the accused product has an "edge blending bar" is necessary for infringement, and the interpretation of this term will be central to that analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function of an edge blending filter as enabling "the data at the perimeters of adjacent projected sub-images to be faded out so that the transition between the adjacent sub-images can be made less noticeable" (’301 Patent, col. 8:62-66). This functional language may support a broad reading.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, including where blending functions are "linear, sigmoid, and geometric" and where intensity is reduced in a "complementary linear manner" in an overlap region (’301 Patent, col. 9:10-11, col. 10:1-3). A party could argue the term is limited to these types of specific, programmable blending functions applied at sub-image edges.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that the defendant induces infringement by its customers and partners through actions such as "advertisements, testing the Accused Instrumentalities, distributing the Accused Instrumentalities or prototypes thereof, providing instructional materials, [and] training" (Compl. ¶124, ¶137). Specific intent is alleged to be based on the defendant's purported actual knowledge of the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶124).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegations are based on extensive claims of pre-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges that the defendant's Chief IP counsel obtained and reviewed the parent application to the patents-in-suit on the day it was published in January 2020 (Compl. ¶87, ¶121). It further alleges that another 3DS employee toured the plaintiff's facility, viewed a prototype, was told to review the plaintiff's patents, and subsequently shared this information internally, leading to discussions at 3DS about the competitive threat posed by the technology. (Compl. ¶90, ¶95, ¶97-101).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional and functional mapping: Can the plaintiff demonstrate that the software features in the accused PSLA 270—marketed as "pixel blending" and "gray scaling"—perform the specific, multi-part functions of the four distinct filters required by the claims (irradiance, gamma adjustment, warp correction, and edge blending)? The outcome may depend on whether these terms are construed broadly by function or narrowly by the specific implementations detailed in the patent.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical equivalence: Does the defendant's "Advanced Pixel Projection" perform the same function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result as the claimed "gamma adjustment mask," which the patent describes as a specific process of mapping pixel intensity to resin reactivity, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
- The case will also likely turn on the impact of prior dealings: How will the extensive allegations of pre-suit knowledge, drawn from a related trade secrets dispute and internal company communications, influence the court's view on willfulness and potentially color the analysis of infringement and claim construction?