DCT

2:25-cv-00465

BambuLab USA Inc v. Stratasys Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00465, W.D. Tex., 12/09/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas based on Defendant Stratasys having a place of business (Stratasys Direct Manufacturing) in the district, engaging in enforcement activities within the district, and Plaintiff BambuLab USA being headquartered in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their "BambuLab" line of desktop 3D printers do not infringe ten patents owned by Defendant related to various aspects of 3D printing technology.
  • Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of additive manufacturing, specifically concerning technologies for force detection, tagged build materials, remote operation, and print process optimization for desktop 3D printers.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that this declaratory judgment action follows two lawsuits filed by Stratasys in the Eastern District of Texas asserting the same ten patents against all Plaintiff entities except for the domestic BambuLab USA. This filing in the Western District appears to be a responsive jurisdictional maneuver, often referred to as a "race to the courthouse," intended to secure a different venue for the dispute.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-02-28 Priority Date for ’357 Patent
2009-06-30 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,555,357
2010-07-16 Priority Date for ’324 Patent
2011-01-12 Priority Date for ’097 Patent
2012-10-29 Priority Date for ’698, ’381, ’466, ’464 Patents
2013-03-15 Priority Date for ’713, ’660 Patents
2013-10-22 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,562,324
2014-06-10 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,747,097
2014-12-31 Priority Date for ’774 Patent
2015-10-27 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,168,698
2016-09-06 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,421,713
2017-01-03 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,592,660
2020-02-11 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,556,381
2020-02-25 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,569,466
2021-11-09 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,167,464
2024-01-30 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,886,774
2024-12-09 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,168,698 - "Three-dimensional printer with force detection," issued October 27, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that components of 3D printers can degrade over time—becoming "dented, warped, misaligned, etc."—which negatively affects the printer's ability to accurately fabricate objects (’698 Patent, col. 1:15-20).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes instrumenting the extruder or tool head of a 3D printer with sensors to detect contact forces, such as those exerted by the build platform or the object being built. This force feedback data is then used to control the printer's operation during fabrication or for diagnostics, thereby compensating for mechanical inaccuracies (’698 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:25-33). Figure 6 illustrates this process, showing steps for detecting a "current contact force" and "creating a control signal" in response (’698 Patent, Fig. 6).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows a 3D printer to dynamically self-calibrate and respond to real-world physical conditions, potentially improving reliability and accuracy without requiring manual recalibration (’698 Patent, col. 10:29-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claim 1, which is a method claim (Compl. ¶24).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • identifying build instructions for fabricating an object;
    • initiating a build using a three-dimensional printer comprising a fabrication tool and one or more sensors;
    • detecting the current contact force between the fabrication tool and a separate structure based on a sensor signal; and
    • creating a control signal to control at least one component of the three-dimensional printer in response to the current contact force while depositing material.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert non-infringement of dependent claims (Compl. ¶24).

U.S. Patent No. 10,556,381 - "Three-dimensional printer with force detection," issued February 11, 2020

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’698 Patent, this patent addresses the problem of physical degradation and misalignment in 3D printers that can lead to fabrication errors (’381 Patent, col. 1:11-18).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a 3D printer system equipped with sensors mechanically coupled to the extruder. These sensors are operable to sense a contact force between the extruder and a separate structure (like the build platform). A controller receives signals from these sensors and calculates the contact force, using this information to adjust the printer's operation (’381 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:42-50). The solution is presented as a system, in contrast to the method claimed in the ’698 Patent.
  • Technical Importance: By embedding force-sensing capabilities directly into the printer's hardware and control loop, this invention provides a system-level solution for real-time error correction and process control in additive manufacturing (’381 Patent, col. 4:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claim 1, which is a system claim (Compl. ¶28).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • a fabrication tool including an extruder;
    • one or more sensors mechanically coupled to the extruder, operable to sense a contact force between the extruder and a separate structure; and
    • a controller configured to receive a signal from the sensors and to calculate the contact force between the extruder and the separate structure.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert non-infringement of dependent claims (Compl. ¶28).

U.S. Patent No. 10,569,466 - "Tagged build material for three-dimensional printing," issued February 25, 2020

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the need for 3D printers to automatically identify the characteristics of the build material being used (’466 Patent, col. 1:16-24). The solution involves instrumenting a supply of build material (e.g., a spool or cartridge) with a data tag containing information about the material, which a printer can then read to determine how to properly use it (’466 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 19 (Compl. ¶¶32-33).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the accused products do not infringe because they do not "includ[e] a tag sensor" or practice the claimed methods of receiving requests and operational parameters based on data from such a tag (Compl. ¶¶32-33).

U.S. Patent No. 11,167,464 - "Tagged build material for three-dimensional printing," issued November 9, 2021

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family as the ’466 Patent, also relates to tagged build materials for automatic printer configuration (’464 Patent, col. 1:24-28). The invention focuses on a method and system where the printer reads data from a tag, determines an operational parameter, and performs a diagnostic test to ensure the parameter is suitable before proceeding with fabrication (’464 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 12, and 19 (Compl. ¶¶37-39).
  • Accused Features: The complaint denies infringement by alleging the accused products do not "perform[] a diagnostic test to determine whether the operational parameter is suitable" and do not include a processor configured for such a test (Compl. ¶¶37-38).

U.S. Patent No. 8,562,324 - "Networked three-dimensional printing," issued October 22, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses remote operation and monitoring of 3D printers over a network. The invention describes a system including a video camera to capture the build volume and a processor that provides a remote user interface showing both the live image and a two-dimensional projection of the 3D model from the camera's point of view (’324 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 19 (Compl. ¶¶43-44).
  • Accused Features: Non-infringement is alleged because the accused products do not comprise a processor configured to "provide a user interface... [with] a two-dimensional projection of the three-dimensional model from the point of view of the video camera" (Compl. ¶43).

U.S. Patent No. 8,747,097 - "Networked three-dimensional printer with three-dimensional scanner," issued June 10, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a networked 3D printer that includes a web server. The invention allows the web server to transmit the status of a print job for display at a remote client through a network interface, facilitating remote monitoring (’097 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶48).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the accused products do not infringe because they do not comprise "a web server configured to transmit the status of the print job for display at a remote client through the network interface" (Compl. ¶48).

U.S. Patent No. 9,421,713 - "Additive manufacturing method for printing three-dimensional parts with purge towers," issued September 6, 2016

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses issues in multi-material 3D printing where print heads must be purged when switching between materials. The invention describes a method of printing a "purge tower" structure on the build plate to receive the purged material, which is performed when a print head switches from a stand-by to an operating mode (’713 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 10, and 16 (Compl. ¶¶52-54).
  • Accused Features: Non-infringement is alleged because the accused products do not use a method comprising the claimed steps of switching print heads between modes and "performing a purge operation... wherein the layers of the at least one purge tower are printed" (Compl. ¶52).

U.S. Patent No. 7,555,357 - "Method for building three-dimensional objects with extrusion-based layered deposition systems," issued June 30, 2009

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a software-based method for improving the infill of 3D printed objects. The invention addresses "void regions" in a build path that are too small for standard infill roads by generating "intermediate" and "remnant" paths to fill these gaps, thereby reducing porosity (’357 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 (Compl. ¶¶58-60).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges non-infringement because the accused products do not practice methods that comprise generating "at least one intermediate path in the void region" or a "remnant path" based on such an intermediate path (Compl. ¶58).

U.S. Patent No. 9,592,660 - "Heated build platform and system for three dimensional printing methods," issued January 3, 2017

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the need for heated build platforms when printing with high-temperature thermoplastics. The invention is for a build apparatus that includes a build platform with a temperature control unit configured to control heating of that platform (’660 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶64).
  • Accused Features: Non-infringement is alleged because the accused products do not comprise "a build platform with a temperature control unit configured to control heating of the build platform" (Compl. ¶64).

U.S. Patent No. 11,886,774 - "Detection and use of printer configuration information," issued January 30, 2024

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for optimizing the creation of printable models by querying a target printer for its specific configuration information (e.g., hardware, firmware, settings). This information is used to create a "fabrication profile" that ensures the resulting model is suitable for that specific printer (’774 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶68).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the accused products do not practice the claimed method of "querying the target printer for configuration information" or "creating a fabrication profile based on the one or more properties" (Compl. ¶68).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The "BambuLab line of products," which are described as "desktop 3D printers" (Compl. ¶¶13, 24).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs are technology companies focused on desktop 3D printers that "break the barriers between the digital and physical worlds" (Compl. ¶13). It contrasts these with Defendant's printers, which are described as being primarily for commercial applications and "not suitable for the desktop market" (Compl. ¶14). The complaint does not provide affirmative technical details of the accused products' operation; instead, it contains a series of denials that the products perform the specific functions recited in the patents-in-suit. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,168,698 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Basis for Non-Infringement Allegation Complaint Citation Patent Citation
detecting the current contact force between the fabrication tool and a separate structure based on a sensor signal from the one or more sensors The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element, beyond a general denial of the subsequent step. ¶24 col. 11:1-2
creating a control signal to control at least one component of the three-dimensional printer in response to the current contact force... The complaint alleges that the accused BambuLab products do not practice any method that comprises this step. ¶24 col. 12:14-19

U.S. Patent No. 10,556,381 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Basis for Non-Infringement Allegation Complaint Citation Patent Citation
one or more sensors mechanically coupled to the extruder, wherein the one or more sensors are collectively operable to sense a contact force... The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element, beyond a general denial of the subsequent element. ¶28 col. 12:62-66
a controller configured to receive a signal from the one or more sensors on the extruder and to calculate the contact force... The complaint alleges that the accused BambuLab products do not comprise a controller configured with these functions. ¶28 col. 13:1-4
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: For the ’698 and ’381 Patents, the central dispute will be a factual one regarding the operation of the accused printers' control systems. The complaint makes a direct denial without offering technical specifics. The key question will be whether the accused products' control systems, in fact, measure force between the extruder and another structure and use that measurement as a feedback signal to calculate force or create a control signal, as claimed.
    • Scope Questions: Across the full suite of patents, the dispute raises questions of claim scope. For instance, with the '466 and '464 Patents, the court may need to determine what constitutes a "tag sensor" and a "diagnostic test" in the context of 3D printing. For the '097 Patent, the scope of "web server" may be a point of contention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "contact force" (appearing in claims of both the ’698 and ’381 Patents)
  • Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the infringement analysis for the two lead patents. Whether the accused products infringe will likely depend on whether any forces they measure and respond to fall within the scope of this term as defined by the patents. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the patented invention from systems that might, for example, only monitor motor current or other indirect indicators of operational stress.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the ’381 Patent notes that feedback data can be used in a "variety of ways" and that the tool head may be instrumented to detect "deflection forces and the like acting on the tool that might indicate an operating error" (’381 Patent, Abstract). This language could support an interpretation that includes more than just direct normal force.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 of the ’381 Patent specifies the force is "between the extruder and a separate structure distinct from the fabrication tool." The detailed description explains that sensors may be used to sense "a contact force between the fabrication tool 300 and a separate structure, such as the object 304, the build platform 306, or some other structure" (’381 Patent, col. 8:58-63). This may support a narrower construction limited to forces arising from physical contact between these specific components, as opposed to more general operational forces within the machine.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint includes a general denial of inducing or contributing to any infringement by others (e.g., Compl. ¶23, ¶27). The complaint does not plead any specific facts regarding this denial, as is typical for a declaratory judgment action.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A primary issue will be jurisdictional and procedural: which court, the Eastern or Western District of Texas, will hear this multi-patent dispute? The outcome of motions related to the dueling lawsuits will be a critical first step.
  • A core evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: do the accused BambuLab printers actually implement the specific technologies recited in the claims? For example, do they measure "contact force" for feedback control as claimed in the ’698 and ’381 Patents, or do they utilize a "tag sensor" and perform a "diagnostic test" as required by the ’466 and ’464 Patents? The case will likely depend on a detailed factual analysis of the accused products' hardware and software.
  • A central legal question will be one of definitional scope: how will key terms like "contact force," "tag sensor," and "web server" be construed? The breadth of these terms will determine whether the functions performed by the accused products, once revealed, fall within the boundaries of the patent claims.