Military drone manufacturer Firestorm Labs has filed a lawsuit against competitor RapidFlight in an intellectual property (IP) dispute. The San Diego-based company claims that RapidFlight falsely accused its 3D printed Tempest drone of infringing on two patents.
Filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, the case sees Firestorm request a jury trial to confirm that it has not infringed on either of RapidFlight’s US patent numbers 11,597,490 or 11,840,323. These relate to drone airframe structures with multiple 3D printed sections.
In the court filing, Firestorm argues that its drone-making adversary has failed to compete on technology capabilities, performance, and price. The company highlights one instance where, during a head-to-head demonstration, RapidFlight “figuratively and literally—crashed and burned.”
The plaintiff asserts that these failings have led the defendant to use “unsupported threats in an attempt to bully Firestorm out of the industry.” This reportedly includes repeated patent infringement assertions made verbally and in writing for over a year. RapidFlight is also said to have made unsupported allegations to its competitor’s potential customers, giving them an unfair advantage in attaining government contracts.
In addition to a declaration that Firestorm has not infringed the patents in question, the unmanned aerial system (UAS) manufacturer is seeking compensation for legal fees and additional relief deemed appropriate by the court. The anticipation that RapidFlight would file a patent infringement lawsuit prompted Firestorm to launch this pre-emptive declaratory judgment action.
Firestorm Labs and RapidFlight have been contacted for comment.
Firestorm challenges RapidFlight’s 3D printing patent infringement claims
The Complaint for Patent Infringement Lawsuit outlines a slew of allegations against RapidFlight, highlighting repeated legal threats and accusations. Firestorm stated that it responded to these in good faith, explaining why it believes them to be false. Despite this, RapidFlight is said to have persisted in “unjustified accusations of infringement.” The Virginia-based firm also reportedly refused to engage and reach an amicable resolution.
In one letter from June 2023, RapidFlight is said to have demanded that the plaintiff stop selling its alleged infringing products, destroy all offending inventory, and pay royalties. The letter accuses Firestorm of infringing the 11,547,490 patent, demanding the firm acquiesce to these demands within two weeks.
In response, multiple letters were sent to RapidFlight in July and August 2023 outlining why these allegations were false. In particular, Firestorm claims that a connector component was misidentified as a patented “reinforcement element,” voiding the infringement claim. 3D models of relevant drone sections were also sent to illustrate the company’s innocence.
Following this, RapidFlight reportedly requested access to its competitor’s confidential and sensitive “technical manuals or other product design documents.” Firestorm denied this request, categorizing it as a “fishing expedition” to find potential infringements.
The defendant then allegedly communicated “unsupported allegations” to potential Firestorm clients, including government decision-makers. This reportedly included claims that a patent infringement lawsuit was imminent, in an attempt to “gain an unfair advantage” in securing competitive contracts. The San Diego-based drone maker hopes launching this suit will “clear the cloud of litigation from its business and its customers.”
3D printing patent disputes
Firestorm is one of the latest companies to face 3D printing patent infringement allegations. Last year, Stratasys sued Bambu Lab, accusing the leading Shenzhen-based market leader of infringing on ten patents. The plaintiff argued that Bambu’s X1C, X1E, P1S, P1P, A1, and A1 mini breached IP relating to processes and features like purge towers, heated build platforms, tool head force detection, and networking capabilities.
Stratasys demanded a trial by jury to achieve a declaration that the patents had been infringed upon, in addition to damages and an injunction blocking the future sale of the offending machines.
This case has drawn criticism from the open-source 3D printing community. RepRap founder Dr. Adrian Bowyer called the idea of patents “nonsense upon stilts,” arguing that they “inhibit creativity and stifle innovation.” He criticized Stratasys for engaging in “patent parasite behavior.”
This sentiment was echoed by Dr. Joshua Pearce, who worries that the case could lead to the weaponization of IP. Andrew Spitzer, a patent litigator from Crowell & Moring, believes the case could cause a “seismic shift in the 3D printing landscape,” with Stratasys potentially becoming a “gatekeeper to the 3D printing industry.”
Elsewhere, 2024 saw 3D printer manufacturer Markforged settle a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Continuous Composites, resolving a legal battle that began in 2021. The allegations related to Markforged’s infringement of several patents relating to continuous composite additive manufacturing.
Earlier in the year, a jury ruled against Markforged on one patent claim, awarding $17.34 million in damages. In September, Markforged signed a Settlement and Patent License Agreement, in which it agreed to pay Continous Composites a further $18 million upfront, followed by $1 million in 2025, $2 million in 2026, and $4 million in 2027.
Who won the 2024 3D Printing Industry Awards?
All the news from Formnext 2024.
Subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter to keep up with the latest 3D printing news.
You can also follow us on X, like our Facebook page, and subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry Youtube channel to access more exclusive content.
Featured image shows a RapidFlight M2 drone. Image via RapidFlight.
