Bambu Lab has called for Stratasys’ patent infringement lawsuits to be dismissed in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. However, it agrees that the case can continue to be considered in the Austin division of the Western District of Texas, where a parallel lawsuit was filed last year.
The complaints, initially filed in the Eastern District in August 2024, allege that the Shenzhen-based desktop 3D printing leader infringed on ten patents owned by Stratasys, an Israeli industrial additive manufacturing OEM. The features named in the lawsuit relate to elements common to many FDM 3D printers, including purge towers, heated build platforms, tool head force detection, and networking capabilities.
Stratasys’ allegations focus on the sale, importation, and distribution of allegedly patent-infringing 3D printers in the United States. Bambu Lab argued that the parent company is not responsible for these actions. Instead, it points to its US-based subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, which was not named in the original lawsuit filed in the Marshall Division.
The Chinese firm has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the case is invalid under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. It contends that any party considered a “primary participant” in the allegations must be included as a defendant. Bambu also alleges that the Eastern District of Texas is an improper venue for the suit because Bambu Lab USA has no business operations in this jurisdiction, meaning the case should not continue there.
The defendants have indicated their willingness to allow Stratasys to pursue its claims in the Western District, where Bambu Lab USA was listed as a defendant in September 2024.
Stratasys vs Bambu Lab: the legal battle so far
Stratasys has accused Bambu Lab of patent infringements involving its X1C, X1E, P1S, P1P, A1, and A1 Mini 3D printer models. The company is seeking a jury trial to obtain an official ruling that Bambu has violated its patents. Additionally, Stratasys has requested financial compensation for the infringements, a court order preventing future violations, reimbursement for attorney fees, and other related costs.
Given the widespread use of the patents in question, the lawsuit raises questions about how a pro-Stratasys ruling could impact other manufacturers.
Alan Laquer, a patent litigator at Knobbe Martens, previously told 3D Printing Industry that a Stratasys victory would not automatically invalidate 3D printing patents from other OEMs who can plead their case in court. However, he noted that “battle-tested” patents are viewed as more powerful tools in future disputes. On the other hand, success for Bambu Lab would mean “Stratasys couldn’t use those patents against anyone else.”
Last October, Stratasys dropped charges against two named defendants in the dispute. Court documents indicated that Beijing Tiertime Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Yinhua Laser Rapid Prototyping and Mould Technology Co. Ltd had been removed from the case. Both defendants represent the company Tiertime, China’s first 3D printer manufacturer. It is unclear why Tiertime was named as a defendant in the first place, with the OEM having no clear affiliation with Bambu Lab.
Interestingly, both companies had previously engaged in a tit-for-tat legal battle regarding patent infringements. Stratasys sued Afinia, Tiertime’s US distributor and partner, in 2013. Afinia responded in 2015 by suing uCRobotics, the Chinese distributor of MakerBot 3D printers, for allegedly infringing its 3D printing patents. Makerbot was a subsidiary of Stratasys between 2013 and 2022 when it merged with Ultimaker.
Bambu Lab files motion to dismiss in Texas Marshall Division
Bambu Lab filed its motion to dismiss the lawsuit in December last year, with Stratasys responding soon after. The Israel-based company argued that as the plaintiff and “Master of the Complaint”, it has the right to choose which defendants to sue. It justified the decision to omit Bambu Lab USA, claiming they are not required to sue every related company and can pursue claims against just the parent company and affiliates.
Stratasys alleges that Bambu Lab is seeking to “rewrite the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint” to cast “non-party BambuLab USA” as the “primary participant” in the infringement. Stratasys also argued that Bambu Lab misrepresented the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. The firm claimed that BambuLab USA is not a “required” party because its absence would neither prevent the court from granting full relief to the existing parties nor cause significant harm to the missing defendants. Stratasys maintains that it is only seeking relief from Bambu Lab, which can be held accountable without involving its US subsidiary.
The plaintiff also challenges Bambu Lab’s dispute over the Eastern District location. It argues that venue rules cannot be used to dismiss the case and that more evidence is needed before a final decision can be made. Ultimately, the firm requested that the defendants’ motion be rejected and the case move forward in the Eastern District.
Last month, Bambu Lab responded by repeating their arguments and countering Stratasys’ claims. It emphasized that its US subsidiary is a key player in 3D printer sales in North America and that their omission makes the lawsuit incomplete. The defendants claimed that the ruling could harm Bambu Lab USA’s business without offering them the chance to defend themselves.
This new legal document also pointed to the Fifth Circuit Court ruling in Dernick v. Bralorne Resources Ltd. and Freeman v. Northwest Acceptance Corp. According to Bambu Lab’s response, these cases confirm that when a subsidiary is the primary participant in the alleged wrongdoing, it must be included in the lawsuit. Bambu requested that the Eastern District case be dropped and that Stratasys be allowed to continue its lawsuit in the Western District of Texas, “where all indispensable parties are named.”
3D printing patent infringement lawsuits
Patent infringement battles are common in the additive manufacturing industry. Last year, 3D printer manufacturer Markforged settled a patent lawsuit filed by Continuous Composites. This dispute, which originated in 2021, relates to allegations that Markforged infringed on several patents held by Continuous Composites.
In April 2024, a jury ruled against Markforged, ordering the Massachusetts-based company to pay $17.34 million in damages. As part of the Settlement and Patent License Agreement, Markforged agreed to pay $18 million upfront, with additional payments of $1 million in 2025, $2 million in 2026, and $4 million in 2027.
Earlier this month, Spokane-based law firm Lee & Hayes PC alleged that Continuous Composites owes it more than $7 million in legal fees relating to this case. The composite 3D printing firm, on the other hand, insists its financial obligations do not exceed $3 million.
Lee & Hayes stated that it was unaware of the final settlement amount until reading a Markforged press release. According to the firm, Continuous Composites acknowledged receiving $18 million but refused to pay the alleged $7.2 million owed. In response, Continuous Composites filed a counterclaim, citing an email in which Lee & Hayes had allegedly agreed to accept $3 million as a full and final payment.
Elsewhere, 3D printed military drone manufacturer Firestorm Labs filed a lawsuit against its competitor RapidFlight earlier this year. In the intellectual property dispute, RapidFlight is alleged to have falsely accused San Diego-based Firestorm’s 3D printed Tempest drone of infringing on two patents.
Filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Firestorm has requested a jury trial to confirm its innocence. The USAF-contracted drone maker argues that its competitor resorted to legal action after falling behind on technology capabilities, performance, and price. According to Firestorm, this led RapidFlight to use “unsupported threats in an attempt to bully Firestorm out of the industry.”
Who won the 2024 3D Printing Industry Awards?
Subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter to keep up with the latest 3D printing news.
You can also follow us on LinkedIn, and subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry Youtube channel to access more exclusive content.
Featured image shows the Bambu Lab X1-Carbon 3D printer. Image via Bambu Lab.
