DCT

1:24-cv-01511

BambuLab USA Inc v. Stratasys Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-01511, W.D. Tex., 12/09/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiffs allege venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant Stratasys has a place of business in the district, conducts business there, and has engaged in patent enforcement activities within the district, including attempting to serve some of the Plaintiffs in Austin. The complaint also notes that Plaintiff BambuLab USA is headquartered in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that their BambuLab line of 3D printers do not infringe ten U.S. patents owned by Defendant related to various 3D printing technologies, including force detection, tagged build materials, diagnostic testing, and remote operation.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns technology in the additive manufacturing sector, specifically desktop 3D printers, a rapidly growing market for both consumer and commercial applications.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that this action follows two lawsuits filed by Stratasys in the Eastern District of Texas against all plaintiffs except for the domestic entity, BambuLab USA. Those suits collectively assert the same ten patents-in-suit. This declaratory judgment action appears to be a responsive filing aimed at litigating the dispute in the Western District of Texas, where the U.S.-based plaintiff is headquartered.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-01-31 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,555,357
2009-06-30 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,555,357
2010-08-18 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,747,097
2012-01-12 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,562,324
2012-10-29 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 9,168,698; 10,556,381; 10,569,466; 11,167,464
2013-04-02 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,421,713
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
2014-08-29 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,592,660
2014-12-31 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,886,774
2015-10-27 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,168,698
2016-08-23 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,421,713
2016-12-27 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 Oct. 27, 2015)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes how physical components of 3D printers can degrade over time—becoming "dented, warped, misaligned, etc."—which can "disadvantageously affect the ability of the three-dimensional printer to accurately fabricate objects" (U.S. Patent No. 10,556,381, col. 1:15-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes instrumenting the printer's extruder or tool head with sensors to detect contact forces exerted against it by external structures, such as the build platform or the object being printed. The resulting feedback data can be used to control the printer's operation, for instance, to perform diagnostics or compensate for physical irregularities during a build (’381 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:24-32). Figure 6 illustrates this process, which includes steps for detecting a "current contact force" and "creating a control signal(s)" in response ('381 Patent, Fig. 6).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provides a method for a 3D printer to actively sense and respond to its physical environment and mechanical state, which may enable automated calibration, error detection, and improved print quality.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 (a method claim) 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 configured to detect a current contact force between the tool and a separate structure;
    • detecting the current contact force based on a sensor signal; and
    • creating a control signal to control at least one component of the printer in response to the current contact force while depositing material during the build.
  • The complaint also states that Plaintiffs do not infringe any of the patent's dependent claims (Compl. ¶24).

U.S. Patent No. 10,556,381 - "Three-Dimensional Printer With Force Detection" (issued Feb. 11, 2020)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’698 Patent, the '381 Patent addresses the same technical problems related to the degradation of printer components and its effect on fabrication accuracy ('381 Patent, col. 1:15-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a 3D printer apparatus equipped with the force-detection technology described above. The core concept is a printer with sensors mechanically coupled to the extruder that can sense contact force, and a controller that processes signals from those sensors ('381 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This patent claims the physical system embodying the method described in the parent '698 Patent, shifting the focus from the process of using force feedback to the apparatus configured to perform it.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 (an apparatus claim) 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 also denies infringement of any dependent claims (Compl. ¶28).

U.S. Patent No. 10,569,466 - "Tagged Build Material For Three-Dimensional Printing" (issued Feb. 25, 2020)

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses the need for a 3D printer to automatically acquire characteristics of the build material being used. The described solution involves instrumenting a supply of build material (e.g., a spool or cartridge) with a data tag that a sensor on the printer can read to determine operational parameters for fabrication (U.S. Patent No. 10,569,466, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claims 1 and 19 (Compl. ¶¶ 32-33).

Accused Features

The non-infringement allegations suggest the dispute centers on whether the accused products include a "tag sensor" and whether they receive requests and operational parameters from a client over a network for fabricating an object using material properties stored in a tag (Compl. ¶32).

U.S. Patent No. 11,167,464 - "Tagged Build Material For Three-Dimensional Printing" (issued Nov. 9, 2021)

Technology Synopsis

This patent, related to the ’466 Patent, also concerns the automatic identification of build material properties. The solution focuses on performing a diagnostic test to determine if an operational parameter is suitable for the printer, and then controlling the printer based on that parameter (U.S. Patent No. 11,167,464, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claims 1, 12, and 19 (Compl. ¶¶ 37-39).

Accused Features

The allegations indicate a dispute over whether the accused products perform a "diagnostic test to determine whether the operational parameter is suitable" and subsequently control the printer based on that test's outcome (Compl. ¶37).

U.S. Patent No. 8,562,324 - "Networked Three-Dimensional Printing" (issued Oct. 22, 2013)

Technology Synopsis

The patent describes a networked 3D printer that can be accessed and controlled remotely. The invention includes a processor configured to receive a 3D model over a network and provide a user interface to a remote user, which can display a two-dimensional projection of the model from the point of view of a video camera on the printer (U.S. Patent No. 8,562,324, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claims 1 and 19 (Compl. ¶¶ 43-44).

Accused Features

The allegations focus on whether the accused products have a processor configured to receive a 3D model via a network interface and provide a specific user interface that includes 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 Jun. 10, 2014)

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a networked 3D printer that includes a web server. The web server is configured to transmit the status of a print job for display at a remote client through a network interface (U.S. Patent No. 8,747,097, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶48).

Accused Features

The dispute appears to center on whether the accused products comprise "a web server configured to transmit the status of the print job for display at a remote client" (Compl. ¶48).

U.S. Patent No. 9,421,713 - "Additive Manufacturing Method For Printing Three-Dimensional Parts With Purge Towers" (issued Aug. 23, 2016)

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses multi-material or multi-color 3D printing, where print heads must be purged when switching materials. The invention describes a method of printing a "purge tower" adjacent to the main object, where print heads are switched between stand-by and operating modes and a purge operation is performed by printing a layer of the tower (U.S. Patent No. 9,421,713, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claims 1, 10, and 16 (Compl. ¶¶ 52-54).

Accused Features

The allegations suggest a dispute over whether the accused products practice the specific sequence of switching print heads, performing purge operations, and printing layers of a part, support structure, and purge tower as claimed (Compl. ¶52).

U.S. Patent No. 7,555,357 - "Method For Building Three-Dimensional Objects With Extrusion-Based Layered Deposition Systems" (issued Jun. 30, 2009)

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a method for filling small "void regions" that can occur in the toolpaths for a layer of a 3D object. The solution involves generating an "intermediate path" within the void region and then generating a "remnant path" based on that intermediate path to fill the void (U.S. Patent No. 7,555,357, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 (Compl. ¶¶ 58-60).

Accused Features

The allegations focus on whether the accused products' toolpath generation methods include the steps of generating an "intermediate path" and a "remnant path" to fill void regions as described in the claims (Compl. ¶58).

U.S. Patent No. 9,592,660 - "Heated Build Platform And System For Three Dimensional Printing Methods" (issued Dec. 27, 2016)

Technology Synopsis

The patent describes a heated build platform apparatus for 3D printing. The invention comprises a build platform with a temperature control unit configured to control its heating (U.S. Patent No. 9,592,660, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶64).

Accused Features

The dispute appears to be over whether the accused products contain "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 Jan. 30, 2024)

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a method for creating printable models based on a target printer's specific configuration. The method involves querying a target printer for its properties and using that information to create a fabrication profile relevant to generating a machine-ready model for that printer (U.S. Patent No. 11,886,774, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts non-infringement of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶68).

Accused Features

The allegations suggest a dispute over whether the accused products practice a method of "querying the target printer for configuration information" and "creating a fabrication profile based on the one or more properties" (Compl. ¶68).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "BambuLab line of products," which it describes as "desktop 3D printers" (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the accused products. Instead, as a declaratory judgment complaint, it focuses on alleging the absence of specific functionalities required by the patents-in-suit. The complaint positions the products as focusing on the desktop 3D printer market, breaking "the barriers between the digital and physical worlds," and contrasts them with Stratasys's printers, which it characterizes as having primarily commercial applications (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts or detailed infringement theories. The analysis below is based on the specific, limited non-infringement allegations for each patent.

  • U.S. Patent No. 9,168,698 Infringement Allegations
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
...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 during the build. The accused BambuLab products do not practice any method that comprises this step. ¶24 col. 11:13-20
  • U.S. Patent No. 10,556,381 Infringement Allegations
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Non-Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
...a controller configured to receive a signal from the one or more sensors on the extruder and to calculate the contact force between the extruder and the separate structure. The accused BambuLab products do not comprise a controller configured to perform this function. ¶28 col. 13:1-4
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Functional Questions ('698 Patent): The primary point of contention appears to be factual: whether the accused products' software and hardware actually use sensor data that measures contact force to generate a control signal during a build. The dispute may turn on what BambuLab's sensors measure (e.g., contact force vs. nozzle pressure or motor strain) and how the printer's control system responds to that data.
    • Scope Questions ('381 Patent): For the apparatus claim, the dispute raises questions about the scope of "controller configured to... calculate the contact force." The question for the court may be whether the controller in the accused products performs a function that can be defined as a "calculation" of "contact force." BambuLab may contend that its controller merely detects a threshold event (e.g., contact/no-contact) without performing a quantitative calculation, or that the value it calculates represents a different physical phenomenon.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "contact force" (asserted in claims of '698 and '381 Patents)

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the dispute over the '698 and '381 patents. The definition will determine what type of physical phenomenon must be sensed and acted upon. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused products' sensors measure something other than a direct mechanical contact force (e.g., an optical distance, a change in motor current indicative of obstruction), it could support a non-infringement position.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention as detecting force against the extruder from various sources, including "a build platform or an object being fabricated" ('381 Patent, Abstract). It also mentions sensing "deflection forces and the like acting on the tool" ('381 Patent, col. 2:28-30).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses specific implementations using "strain gauges" and "piezoelectric sensors" to make measurements ('381 Patent, col. 9:15-20). This could suggest that "contact force" is limited to forces measured by such direct-contact, strain-measuring means.

  • The Term: "calculate the contact force" (asserted in claim 1 of '381 Patent)

    • Context and Importance: BambuLab's non-infringement allegation for the '381 patent hinges on this phrase. The dispute will likely involve whether the processing performed by the accused controller meets the definition of "calculate." Practitioners may focus on whether "calculate" requires a specific quantitative output (e.g., a force value in Newtons) or if it can encompass simpler logical operations based on sensor input (e.g., determining a binary state).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "controller" in broad terms as "any combination of software and/or processing circuitry" operable to control the printer's components ('381 Patent, col. 3:48-57). This could support a broad interpretation where any processing of a sensor signal to derive information about force constitutes a "calculation."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language requires the controller to "calculate the contact force," not merely to "receive a signal indicative of" a force. This phrasing may support a narrower interpretation requiring a quantitative computation of a force value, rather than a simple reaction to a sensor's signal crossing a threshold.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each patent-in-suit, the complaint makes a general denial of inducement and contributory infringement (e.g., Compl. ¶23). The complaint does not allege specific facts to support these denials beyond the assertion of no direct infringement.

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

  • A central procedural question will be one of proper forum: given that Stratasys filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas and BambuLab filed this declaratory judgment action in the Western District of Texas, the initial phase of litigation may focus on which court is the appropriate venue to resolve the dispute, potentially delaying a resolution on the technical merits.
  • A core evidentiary question for the force-detection patents ('698 and '381) will be one of technical operation: what do the sensors in BambuLab's printers actually measure, and how does the controller's software use that data? The outcome will likely depend on detailed analysis of the accused products' source code and hardware design to determine if their function falls within the scope of detecting and "calculating" a "contact force."
  • Across the ten-patent dispute, a key theme will be one of definitional scope: can terms rooted in the patents' specific embodiments, such as "tag sensor" ('466 Patent), "web server" (’097 Patent), and "purge tower" (’713 Patent), be construed to read on the corresponding features implemented in the accused BambuLab products? The case will likely resolve into a series of distinct infringement analyses, each turning on the construction of such key technical terms.