In what could prove to be a setback for Afinia and the 3D printing community as a whole, news has come out regarding potential evidence in the Stratasys lawsuit against Afinia, the brand behind the widely popular H-Series line of 3D printers. The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) body responsible for examining the validity of existing patents, has denied Afinia’s request to review the validity of three patents being brought up in the lawsuit between the two companies.
In November of 2013, 3D printing leader Stratasys brought their lawsuit against Afinia, the 3D printing division of Microboards Technology LLC, “seeking injunctive relief and damages” and claiming that the printer brand had infringed on four of the company’s patents related to “part porosity, liquefier structure, temperature control and tool paths for constructing part perimeters.” Afinia responded by arguing that Stratasys was attempting a monopoly on the market and misusing the patent system to do so. As the case progressed, the judge tossed out one of the patents in the case, related to infill, due to Afinia’s claim that Stratasys had actually re-patented this technology, having previously patented it once before.
A press release put out by Stratasys today states that the PTAB will not be performing an inter partes review of the other three patents in the case, saying that Afinia “has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.” Stratasys suggests in its press release that this is significant in that the PTAB only denies 25% of the inter partes reviews requested. Soonhee Jang, Stratasys Vice President and Chief IP Counsel, said of the news, “We are very pleased with the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision. These dismissals are evidence of the strength of our patent portfolio.”
The case is far from over, as the trial won’t even begin until December of this year. Though Stratasys boasts the PTAB inter partes review denial, the 3D printing community may not take the news so positively. Before the desktop 3D printing boom that began in 2012, the most affordable FDM printer made by Stratasys was the Mojo, priced at almost $10,000. The boom, however, drove the prices of extrusion printers down until printers were being released for under $200, sometimes even $100. The open source and affordable nature of these machines, some might argue, is almost entirely responsible for the current 3D printing revolution taking place. If Afinia does not come out on top in the upcoming trial, this could be an omen for the rest of the industry, as Stratasys could take their case to other FFF 3D printers around the world in order to dominate the space. The results of such an outcome may not be clear at this early stage, but don’t bode well for personal and distributed manufacturing. In other words, I’m taking sides in this case and it’s hard for me not to voice which side that is.
To read more about the PTAB decision, view the .pdf here.
I too, am taking sides in this attempt by Stratasys to suppress competition and maintain their higher price point products. It would appear that the benefits to all of humanity provided by affordable 3D printing is something that Stratasys is willing to forego in the pursuit of profit. I will be avoiding them like the plague. Go Afinia!
The question is, does the adjudicator in these types of cases have to consider common sense with respect to how a product works. (Referring to the ruling PDF) Yes the “glue gun” art does not point out that there is a heating element, but if you’ve ever used a glue gun or know at a very basic level how one works; you know a heater has to be in there somewhere. Or if the art does not show a heater, is that ignored as a fact and shame on those who prepared the art? (I know this is not the issue, but the thin wall tube thing is just too hard to argue in a few paragraphs)
It seems they are arguing over semantics, and or how carefully the patents were prepared – albeit with blinders on!
I’m not sure which side to fall on. I own an Afinia so my heart goes out to Microboards, and the rest of the sub $3000 industry, but at the same time, if I was the company that poured blood sweat and cash into (and then patented) this tech, I’d want some return on and protection for my invention.
Everyone likes to hate Goliath (me especially), but in this case it looks like Goliath may have been there first. I still don’t have enough info on the re-patent issue, so it’s difficult to tell if Goliath is abusing their power and the system. But with my knowledge of how this tech evolved from scratch, I can’t believe Stratasys was the first to think of the patent route, or that the patents should have run out by now. Next they will be arguing over the color of the extruding medium and saying that matters!
I wonder how many sub $2000 printers Stratasys actually sells? Compared to their larger (and by the way, excellent) machines that come with a price tag that has five or six zeros, and given the prints I have seen come out of the consumer grade machines, I have to think that it’s not a major part of any pie chart at their AGMs.
If that is the case, then “bully” does seem to come to mind.
If the early indicators are that Stratsys will win this case, then the likelihood of them targeting all other minor players with cease and desist letters will be high. In that case, the ONLY action that the 3D community could take is to not buy Stratsys BEFORE the case is won to minimise their cashflows being put toward legal pursuit of a potential monopoly
Am I missing something? The patents expired. So any company/printer sold after that is legit. But unless the truth about the “re-patenting” is true then the patents still exist due to “re-patents”. Now the trademarks do not expire. So those are truly legit.
Stratsys is a giant, and it can’t keep up with the competition. Everything they touch destroys innovation. Case and point Makerbot. Instead of making their technology innovative collaborative and open source, they’ve copyrighted everything, froze their prices or raised them, fired all their original staff, and offer bank loans if you cant pay their outrageous prices. Now it goes to show, sue all your competition even if they are exaggerated fabrications, just enough to cost them millions and delay release for a couple of years so they can corner more of the market. Stratsys is garbage. Their technology is being surpassed, and they are doomed, unless they change their market strategy. Suing everyone is just a way to max out profits before imploding.