Breaking: Afinia's Startling Response to Stratasys’ Patent Claims

After appropriate time for attorneys to do their work, Afinia has formally responded in court documents to Stratasys’ claim of patent infringement. Readers may recall that Afinia is the target of a patent claim by Stratasys. The larger company claims Afinia has violated four of their numerous 3D printing-related patents. 

 

In the response, Afinia (or rather the parent company, Microboards), admit to selling a Chinese-made personal 3D printer within the court’s jurisdiction in the documents.  

 

So, what does the response say? We quote from the document's points responding to the specific violations claimed by Stratasys: 

 

24. Denied. 

25. Denied. 

26. Denied 

27. Denied. 

28. Denied. 

29. Denied. 

30. Denied. 

31. Denied. 

32. Denied. 

 

This pattern repeats for each of Stratasys’ specific allegations of patent violations. 

  

Much of the response follows this pattern, at least until Afinia provides defense:  

  

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Afinia has not engaged in any acts that would constitute infringement of any valid and enforceable patent-in-suit.

 

And then: 

 

The patents-in-suit are invalid for failure to comply with the statutory provisions for patentability and validity set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code, including one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112, 115, 116 and 256.

 

Afinia describes why they believe that the Stratasys “inventions” were “known or used by others” and provide several alternative patents that, after a quick read by us, appear to describe technologies similar to the 3D printing process. Afinia concludes that Stratasys “did not themselves invent the subject matter sought to be patented” and therefore are not entitled to any relief (meaning damages, royalties or settlements.) 

 

Perhaps even more interesting is the subsequent claims by Afinia that appear to show the specific evidence that aspects of the Stratasys patents existed before the patent was issued, and that “assertion of the ‘925 patent against any Afinia constitutes patent misuse”. And finally: 

  

Assertion of the ‘925 patent against Afinia is an attempt by Plaintiff to achieve a monopoly in the markets of additive manufacturing and/or important submarkets thereto.

 

Ouch! And that’s just for the first of the four alleged patent violations. The remainder of the 33 page Afinia response pick at the Stratasys allegations in a very specific manner (e.g. Stratasys patent claims thin walls between 0.005-0.015 inches, but Afinia says their unit has walls approximately four times that size, etc.)

 

Afinia, based on its own claims, seeks a declaration of non-infringement, and demands a jury trial. 

 

This one just got a lot hotter. Afinia believes that not only are they not guilty of infringement, but that Stratasys’ patents are invalid! What will happen if the jury agrees with Afinia? 

 

Via Afinia

3D Printing Patents Sky Rocket in Number

In a recently released report, the UK’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO) has stated that the amount of patent filing related to 3D printing has increased dramatically since the year 2000.

 

After analyzing 9000 patent records filed since 1980, a team of IPO researchers pinpointed a rapid upswing in 3D printing related patents; particularly in the fields of biomedicine, circuitry and electrode fabrication.

 

While the US is still, by far and away, the top IP generator when it comes to 3D printing patents, multinationals based outside of the US have shown a strong interest in developing 3D printing related technology. Chief among these are Fujitsu and NEC Corp which hold 92 and 67 patents respectively.

 

Industry giant 3D Systems filed its first 3D printing patent in 1990 with competitor Stratasys following suit some three years later. Surprisingly though, while the two companies have recently seen an increase in the number of patents they’re filing each year, it was Fujitsu that filed the first 3D printing related patents way back in 1980.

 

Read More at ENGINEERING.com

Autodesk Battles Bad Design

3D software giant Autodesk has released an infographic portraying the need for, guess what? 3D design software. (Click on the image above to see the fine details). 

 

It may be in their self-interest, but they have a valid point. The infographic indicates that a surprising amount of newly released products are subject to recall because of faulty design, either for safety reasons or simply because they didn't work properly. 

 

Their point is that proper design counts. In a world of digital manufacturing and specifically in 3D printing, you must spend time carefully designing your item before you consider printing it. They also hope you use Autodesk software to do so. 

 

Which isn't unreasonable, as they have perhaps the largest portfolio of 3D design software around. 

 

Via Autodesk

Stratasys Solves Those Troublesome 3D Print Seams

If you're using an extrusion-based 3D printer, you're likely familiar with the problem of seams. It's an annoying strip right up the side of your object that disrupts the otherwise smooth surface of your 3D print. 

 

The seam is actually composed of the vertical accumulation of start / end points from each layer's perimeter. The diagram above shows what happens on each layer. Typically they're in the same place on each layer and visually this leads to a seam.

 

While we've all suffered from this phenomenon, Stratasys has solved the problem, at least partially. In a process they've patented published on April 18 of this year, they describe a way to avoid or at least reduce unbecoming seams. 

 

Their solution is to place the start and stop points for each layer's perimeter on the interior of the print, not on the perimeter itself. You can see how it works in the image above. Stratasys has included several variations of this approach in their patent. They have or will incorporate this solution into their slicing software, which works only on their own 3D printers: the Mojo, uPrint and FORTUS lines. 

 

Although this looks like a great solution - you can't use it! It's only available for Stratasys equipment and software. As they've just patented this process, this precise feature cannot be included in any open source (or any) slicing software without risk of committing patent infringement. 

 

Via Google Patents

EFF Challenges 3D Printing Patent Applications

In a dramatic move, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has launched legal challenges against six foundational patent applications directly related to 3D printing. They've done this by submitting prior art (evidence of prior use or invention by others) to the proper authorities. 

 

The six patents include: 

 

• 3D model Voxel-based additive manufacturing
• UV-curable materials
• Support structure generation
• A method for Selective Laser Sintering (SLS)
• Chocolate 3D printing
• Use of ribbon filaments

 

Will the EFF succeed in overturning these patent applications? We have no idea, as the mysteries of US Patent processing are well beyond our comprehension level. Whatever the outcome, we are certain it will take a very long time. 

 

These six patent applications appear to be only the beginning. The EFF says it will next pursue additional patent applications, some of which could be related to 3D printing. 

  

Via EFF

iRobot Moving Into 3D Printing?

A very detailed patent was recently issued to iRobot and Raytheon for a "Robot Fabricator". 

 

iRobot is well-known for their Roomba series of household cleaning 'bots, but they're also manufacturers of many commercial and military robots. Raytheon is a long-time high-tech industrial focusing on military and electronics markets. Together they bring a huge amount of expertise to the table and could easily produce a capable Robot Fabricator. 

 

The patented system is a "fabrication machine/method that fuses additive and subtractive manufacturing with in-situ component placement to provide completely autonomous all-in-one product manufacturing". The system focuses around a six-axis robot arm that apparently can take on various tool heads, including those capable of 3D printing. 

 

The robot arm approach is different from traditional 3D printing, which relies on the 3-axis rail approach. Robot arms are more expensive, but are much more versatile. Perhaps cost matters less if you manufacture robots? 

 

We see a couple of interesting points in this patent: 

 

• iRobot and Raytheon are likely targeting the industrial market, not the consumer market. However, their move may lead to improvements in future consumer offerings.
• The patented system should be highly capable. It will also be expensive. 
• Combining additive and subtractive manufacturing in a single unit seems to be unique - and probably will require some hefty software to drive it.
• 3D printing continues its advance as more companies get involved. 

 

Via USPTO

Preventing 3D Printed Piracy… Or What?

A patent has been awarded to The Invention Science Fund, an organization holding patents for former Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures company.

 

What does this patent do? It's a method to implement copy-protection on your 3D printer! 

 

Wait a moment - Does this mean we will be unable to print some of our favorite 3D models on our personal 3D printers? 

 

No, not really. The patent, which happens to be written in a very general and vague fashion and thus is applicable to most current and envisioned digital manufacturing processes, is simply a concept. In order for it to become real it would have to be: 

 

• Implemented in 3D printer hardware by manufacturers
• Implemented in 3D model repositories 

 

Both of these are unlikely to happen in the near future, for several reasons, not the least of which is that the 3D printing industry is in a strong growth phase and the last thing the manufacturers want is any constraints on printing. 

 

Meanwhile, some designers no doubt wish to somehow protect their works from rampant copying and illegal redistribution. There's not much they can do at this point because not only have the printers not implemented this feature, but the designers (or their online repository systems) would have to pay royalties to Intellectual Ventures.  

 

We think Intellectual Ventures is merely speculating on the future of 3D printing. If it really takes off, in the distant future someone may wish to have a copy protection mechanism - and then they'd have to pay Intellectual Ventures, unless some other approach is used instead. 

 

This is the game plan for Intellectual Ventures: create, acquire or otherwise scoop up as many patents as possible and then charge everyone for infringing on them unless they pay licensing fees. It may seem to be an unethical business, but it is certainly legal. 

 

No worries on this one for many years to come. 

  

Via USPTO, Technology Review and TorrentFreak (Hat tip to Miguel)

The Phenix vs. EOS Patent War Heats Up

We've been advised that Phenix Systems has filed a lawsuit against 3D printer manufacturer EOS. This is more than likely in response to EOS's filing of a lawsuit against Phenix Systems for alleged patent violation. 

 

The new lawsuit from Phenix alleges that EOS has violated United States patent number 6,767,499 (Fast Prototyping Method by Laser Sintering of Powder) and Phenix is looking for damages from EOS. According to Phenix's press release: 

 

Phenix Systems has filed a patent infringement claim against EOS in the United States Federal Court, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,767,499 (“the ‘499 Patent”), entitled “Fast Prototyping Method by Laser Sintering of Powder.” The legal claim filed by Phenix asks the U.S. Court to award damages for patent infringement and to enjoin EOS from further infringing activity, including direct infringement and/or inducement of others to infringe the ‘499 Patent. Further, Phenix asserts that EOS was aware of the ‘499 Patent and that its infringing activity is willful and that special damages should be assessed by the U.S. Court. 

 

Phenix Systems is the parent company of AMT (Additive Manufacturing Technologies), Inc. based in Elk Grove Village, IL.

 

We still have no idea who's going to win this battle, as there are no lawyers handy. This could go several ways: Patents were violated, or they were not; One company could win or both could win; or perhaps they'll just settle this behind closed doors in some secret way. 

KraftWurx's Patent Available

The legalities behind the KraftWurx 3D print service/software are now available for public viewing, courtesy of the US Government's Patent and Trade office. Patent application number 20110313878, entitled "Made-to-order direct digital manufacturing enterprise" includes this abstract:

 

Methods and systems for designing and producing a three-dimensional object selection of a base three-dimensional object from a customer device. A base three-dimensional model corresponding to the object is displayed on the customer device, and one or more custom modifications are received. A modified three-dimensional model corresponding to the modified object is prepared and displayed. Once confirmation to produce the modified object is received, data corresponding to the modified three-dimensional model is transmitted to a manufacturing device for production of the object, using the data to do so, such that the object corresponds directly to the modified three-dimensional model. 

 

What does this mean? We believe this could be interpreted as a method to customize a partial design in order to build unique, one-off 3D objects. This is precisely what several other popular 3D print services do today, including Shapeways. We're wondering how this will affect Shapeways, as they could be seen as violating this particular patent. 

 

The patent covers not only the consumer side of the customization operation, but also the behind the scenes processing that must take place. Included are detailed descriptions of: 

 

• Website operations
• Customer order processing
• Customized 3D view preparation
• Customer database
• Customized design creation
• Production management
• Print job optimization
• Build optimization
• Payment processing
• Materials management
• Remote printing management
• Quality tracking
• And more.. 

 

Things could get very interesting in the 3D print services business in 2012!

 

BTW, the FreePatentsOnline site is immensely easier to use than the official US Patent site; we'd recommend you view the patent there. 

 

Via KraftWurx, USPTO and FreePatentsOnline

3D World Gets DMCA'd

This was totally inevitable. Earlier this week a new object posted to Thingiverse was widely discussed. It was a great object - apparently able to visually simulate an impossible object: The Penrose Triangle, except in reality. And the design succeeds, at least when viewed from the correct angle. 

 

But then the fun started. Ulrich Schwanitz issued a DMCA takedown notice to Thingiverse, claiming that this item was in fact infringing on his own design currently on sale at Shapeways (for USD$ 69.95 or €51.09 in alumide.) Thingiverse immediately took down the offending thing and much discussion ensued on Boing Boing, i.Materialise and other blogs. 

 

What does this mean? We realize this is perhaps the first such incident - in the 3D object space - but infringements happen constantly in other areas. This was inevitable, and in this specific case, probably correctly. 

 

We suspect the open atmosphere of Thingiverse can sometimes be taken a tad too far by its users. It's not a free-for-all storage service like those used to pirate movies and music; it's a place for True open source objects, with all the open source legalities standing behind them. When you post an object on that site, you'd better own it and be prepared for the consequences of open source use by others. Most users have this understanding, but Thingiverse might consider some gentle reminders to reduce the possibility of similar events in the future. They've just posted recommendations for use of creative commons licensing. 

 

We're glad this happened. It is still early on, with plenty of time for Thingiverse users to learn to stop, think and check before they post. This particular item fortunately didn't have a huge chain of derivatives that might also have been taken down, transforming hours of people's efforts into nil. 

 

But for us the bottom line is quite simple: 3D objects are now a serious matter. The 3D object space is now a legitimate business concern.  

 

Via Thingiverse, Thingiverse, Boing Boing and i.Materialise

 

[UPDATE] Today maker Ulrich Schwanitz relented and decided to release his design into the public domain. Full discussion and details are available at the Shapeways Blog. While this event has apparently concluded, the issue of object design ownership remains. This won't be the last time we see this story.  

Objet Patents a New Print Material

We've just been going through a rather lengthy patent application submitted by Eduardo Napandensky and Diana Ravich - and the patent is assigned to Objet Geometries, one of the top line commercial 3D printer manufacturers. The patent describes a mysterious new print material that has new color and strength properties.

 

Specifically, this is the abstract:

 

Described is a composition for solid freeform fabrication (SFF) at a given dispensing temperature. The composition comprises: a curable component having a monofunctional (meth)acrylic functional group; a photo-initiator, and a sulfur-containing additive. The viscosity of the composition, as measured at the given dispensing temperature, changes by no more than 3 cps during 30 days of aging at 40.degree. C.

 

But what's the nature of this invention? 

UV curable acrylic based compositions for SFF, for example FullCure.RTM.720 (from Objet Geometries Ltd, Israel) have a characteristic yellow tint. In some UV curable compositions, the yellow tint is present both before and after curing, while in other compositions, the yellow tint appears only during the curing process. Although the source of the yellow tint is not completely understood, the photoinitiator type and concentration influence the resulting material color. While some photo initiators have a strong color, e.g., I-369, resulting in an undesirable material color even at low photo initiator concentrations, other photo initiators, e.g., Darocure TPO, have much less color, but are required to be used at high concentrations in order to impart the composition sufficient reactivity, thus also resulting in a negative impact on the cured material's color. Other color sources are the color of the raw materials themselves, raw material contaminations as well as additives, e.g., radical scavengers, added in order to impede polymerization of the raw materials during the production process or in order to impede spontaneous polymerization over time during storage. 

 

and

 

In addition to the undesirable yellow tint produced by the use of photoinitiators at high concentrations, high photoinitiator concentrations also have a negative affect on the cured material's mechanical properties. For example, a high photoinitiator concentration tends to produce materials with inferior mechanical properties, such as lower tensile strength, compared to the tensile strength of the same material with a lower concentration of the respective photoinitiator.

 

What appears to be invented in this case is a new material that uses less sulphur (preferably 1% as opposed to 5%), which does two things:

 

• Improves color quality by reducing the yellow tint
• Improves mechanical strength by reducing the percentage of mechanically weak sulphur

 

As this is a patent application, we're not sure when this material might appear on their product shelf. Perhaps it already is, but it doesn't say in the application. 

 

Via PatentDocs

Fab-onomics

We've been wondering how property rights will work in the future, when anyone will be able to punch out objects on their 3D printer as necessary. Will you go to Home Depot to get that bolt? Or perhaps you will just print one? Do you have the design for the bolt? Maybe you need to buy the design from Home Depot Designs Online first? It seems that in the future the design will become more important than the object it represents.

This line of thought is discussed in more detail by Omar Elsayed in his blog, where he says:

Possessing a digital model of an object is all that’s needed to fabricate it - once again ownership affords nothing. That’s an all-around game changer.

We are certain there will be much more discussion on property rights in the future. This is just the start.

Via dessalles.com

Printing Tissue by Ink-Jet

It's not exactly Fabbing as we know it, but the World Intellectual Property Organization now includes an entry on printing live tissue. Yes, I mean punching out "mammalian cells" via an ink-jet process.

Evidently the cells are deposited in layers, much like 3D printing, onto an existing substrate. In some cases the substrate is itself printed, along with growth medium. Then the cells take over by growing and multiplying to develop into fully-formed tissue.

Via WIPO