How’s Afinia Doing After that Stratasys Patent Claim?

3D printing giant Stratasys made a claim against Afinia, saying the latter has violated not one, but four of their patents related to plastic extrusion-based 3D printing. Now, you’d think having the weight of a major patent suit against you would have an effect on sales. Would prospective customer be scared off by the legal matters? 

 

We tried to speak with folks from Afinia, but they aren’t saying anything. 

 

So, without any official statements, we did some thinking about this scenario. We’re seeing increases in Afinia’s Twitter following, significant increases in their website’s Alexa ranking and as you can see in the image above, their CES booth was swamped with highly interested folks. There is no apparent change in operations.

 

With the patent suit expected to take a couple of years to resolve, it seems that it’s business as usual for Afinia. 

 

Via Afinia

The Staggering Implications of Afinia’s Countersuit

After last week’s blockbuster announcement of Afinia’s response to Stratasys’ allegations of patent infringement, we got thinking about what this might mean. 

 

We’re anxiously awaiting further developments, that likely being a full-on court case where a judge and jury hear detailed technical arguments from both sides. That hasn’t even begun yet and we suspect once it does such a case could take considerable time to complete. 

 

The case could result in several different outcomes: 

  

• Afinia is found in violation of the four Stratasys patents. In this scenario, Afinia would probably have to pay “relief” to Stratasys. Meaning dollars. They may also cease sales entirely unless they can afford to modify the violations out of their device.
• Afinia is found not in violation of said patents. In that scenario Afinia would likely continue selling product as planned, and perhaps even expand sales significantly. Barring an appeal by Stratasys, of course. 
• Afinia is found in violation of some of the four patents. In that scenario Afinia would likely pay some form of relief and modify their units to avoid infringement. But they may continue operations. 

 

There is one other scenario that could happen. Afinia’s response claimed that Stratasys’ four patents were invalid, having shown what they believe to be examples of similar prior work. Should this happen it could have a monumental affect on the 3D printing industry: 

 

• Stratasys’ stock price may take an instant hit as the value of their company is partially based on their patent portfolio.
• The technologies described in the four invalidated patents would then be available for use by anyone. 3D printing companies could continue to use the partial infill techniques common in the industry today.
• 3D printing companies could develop machines with thin walled extruders, controlled heating and cooling (e.g. heated chambers). 
• Such machines could eventually directly compete with Stratasys’ line of FDM 3D printers. 

 

If these things happen it could be a bad day for Stratasys. 

 

But then again, that may not be the jury’s decision. 

 

We await the verdict. And the trial, too. 

 

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

Extending the Ban on 3D Printed Weapons

A story in the Guardian describes the work by New York Senator Chuck Schumer to extend the ban on "undetectable guns" before it expires on December the 9th of this year. 

 

Obviously this work was inspired by recent events where working guns were produced on 3D printers - although the weapons produced were by no means particularly usable. In fact, they are more likely to be dangerous as bombs rather than weapons due to their penchant for exploding in the operator's hands. 

 

We're OK with the notion of banning undetectable weapons. We're not OK with banning the means of producing them - you can't shut down 3D printers simply because they can print weapons. If you're going to do that, you'd best also shut down any metal shop and many personal garages with the rudimentary tools that can make actual, metal weapons. 

 

3D printers are tools and can be used for good or bad. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater! 

 

Via The Guardian

Implications of the Stratasys - Afinia Lawsuit

By now you've no doubt heard that Stratasys has launched a major lawsuit against Afinia for alleged violations of several Stratasys patents. We examined these patents previously, but we believe there are implications that travel far beyond simply Afinia, as the patents describe methods commonly used in many personal 3D printers. 

 

The concept of partial interior fill is used by almost all 3D printers, and is a key feature to be selected when starting any print job. Does this mean no other company can offer "fill options" in their devices? Perhaps. If Stratasys is successful in defending their patent, other companies might be forced to remove this feature. Will we have to buy more plastic to print solid models only from now on?

 

The second patent involves use of a heated bed to prevent warping, or at least that's Stratasys' take on it within the Afinia claim. If you read the patent, it is a lengthy description of how plastic may be heated and cooled to effect printing. This implies not only heated beds, but could perhaps be interpreted to include heated chambers, cooling fans or any other temperature-related apparatus. These approaches are commonly used by many personal 3D printers. Again, if Stratasys is successful in defending this patent, it could force many emerging 3D printer manufacturers to remove such features. 

 

While one can debate the other two alleged patent violations, we're most concerned with these two, since they apply to almost every plastic extrusion printer in existence. 

 

But we think there's more to the story. Stratasys apparently selected Afinia as the first target perhaps because their successful product was beginning to get traction. Afinia was set to appear in multiple mainstream retailers - thus competing directly with Stratasys' new MakerBot division. 

 

While the many smaller manufacturers may escape legal action due to their size, we're wondering about 3D Systems' Cubify products, which may indeed violate these patents in the same way. And they have a lot more money at stake than Afinia. 

 

We're not sure how this will play out, but with any luck the incredibly rapid progress of 3D printing over the past several years will continue. 

 

Details of the Stratasys - Afinia Lawsuit

We've been reading more about this week's legal action by Stratasys against personal 3D printer marketer Afinia, who are alleged to have violated several of Stratasys' patents. 

 

We've obtained a copy of the "Complaint for Patent Infringement"  filed in the United States District Court, District of Minnesota (where Stratasys' HQ is located, and, totally coincidentally, Afinia's too). In the complaint, Stratasys claims Microboards (the company behind the Afinia brand) has violated four specific patents: 

 

U.S. Patent No 5,653,925 “METHOD FOR CONTROLLED POROSITY THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODELING". This patent:

  

relates to methods for controlling the porosity of objects through, among other things, adjusting the rate of deposition of material to create gaps as the object is built up layer by layer. 

 

In other words, selecting the "fill density" from a pre-determined list of choices. 

 

U.S. Patent No. 5,866,058 “METHOD FOR RAPID PROTOTYPING OF SOLID MODELS". This patent includes:

 

methods for controlling the solidification of extruded materials in layers by, among other things, maintaining a build environment in the vicinity where material is deposited at a temperature above a solidification temperature. The claimed methods tend to reduce the impact of curl deformation due to internal stresses created in the object during solidification.

 

This is interpreted by Stratasys as the Afinia's heated bed. 

 

U.S. Patent No. 6,004,124 “THIN-WALL TUBE LIQUIFIER". This patent: 

 

relates to an apparatus for controlling the temperature of extrudable material in the liquifier of the extruder through the use of a novel thin-wall tube construction in the liquifier.

 

In other words, Afinia's extruder heater block appears to use this technique. 

 

U.S. Patent No. 8,349,239 “SEAM CONCEALMENT FOR THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODELS". This patent relates to: 

 

methods for concealing layer seams by generating a contour tool path for a layer of extruded material, where the contour tool path comprises a start point, a stop point, and a path between the start point and the stop point that seals a perimeter of a layer. For example, the start and/or stop points may be located within the interior of a perimeter of the contour tool path

 

This is a technique used by not only Afinia but other filament 3D printers as well. 

 

We will continue our analysis in a future post. 

 

Stratasys Sues Afinia

3D printing giant Stratasys launched legal action against Afinia, a marketer of personal 3D printers. The statement from Stratasys says: 

 

Afinia’s sale, promotion and use of its Series H printer infringes patents directed to part porosity, liquefier structure, temperature control, and tool paths for constructing part perimeters. The most recent Stratasys patent that Afinia is alleged to infringe was issued in January 2013.

 

While everyone's aware that the original Stratasys patent on plastic filament extruding 3D printers has long expired, there remain many associated patents on other aspects of 3D printing. In fact, Stratasys holds over 560 patents. 

 

Evidently they believe that Afinia's machine runs afoul of some of them. 

 

Here's the interesting part: Afinia doesn't even make the machine they're selling. It's actually a rebranded Up! 3D printer from PP3DP, a branch of China-based Tiertime. We've heard from some that the Up! likely violated Stratasys patents and so Tiertime does not directly sell it in the US. However, Afinia took that risk and it now appears they will be subject to a lawsuit. 

 

What triggered Stratasys' action? We suspect two factors: 

 

1. Afinia's reputation for providing a great product and excellent service led to a dramatic expansion of their business. When you start making lots of money, then you become a target. 
2. Stratasys' recent acquisition of MakerBot meant they now directly compete with Afinia, thus making legal action more likely. 

 

We don't know how it will end, but probably Stratasys has many more lawyers than Afinia. There were no comments from Afinia. 

 

After Afinia, who will be the next target? Makers of filament-based 3D printers, beware. 

 

Via Stratasys

Lawmakers Hope to Regulate 3D Printed Guns with an Act from the 1980s

US Senator Chuck Schumer (D) is sounding the alarm about the proliferation of 3D printed weapons as a law banning undetectable firearms is set to end on December 9, 2013.

 

The Undetectable Firearms Act, which was adopted in the 1980s, sought to make firearms more easily detectable by requiring that they contain a minimum amount of detectable metals. At the time, lightweight polymer based firearms like the Glock-17 were entering the market, and lawmakers feared these weapons posed a potential security risk.

 

Today the same fears still echo through the halls of Washington, only now those fears are stoked by the dual specters of terrorism and 3D printed guns.

 

Read more at ENGINEERING.com

University of Pennsylvania's Take on 3D Print Liability Law

Nora Freeman Engstrom, Associate Professor of Law at Stanford has published a paper in which she examines some aspects of the legal implications of 3D printing. Many of us have been concerned about what may happen, but she states the problem eloquently: 

 

Following any significant technological breakthrough, legal scholars, practitioners, and policymakers must consider how the innovation meshes with—or poses challenges to—our existing laws and system of governance. Will it fit? What must change? Where are the pitfalls and opportunities? 3-D printing is no exception. The laws it implicates are numerous, and the challenges it poses are profound.

 

Engstrom examines one particular problem in the space, namely that of product liability. The gist of the existing law is that those who engage in selling defective products are liable for any carnage that may result. Does this apply to 3D printed models that might be sold by owners of personal 3D printers? She says: 

 

... even assuming that the product is unambiguously defective, a plaintiff will have trouble prevailing in a PL (product liability) action against any one of these three possible defendants (printer operator, printer manufacturer, 3D model designer).

  

This is not what you might have thought. The rationale for her conclusions are: 

 

• The law applies to those who are truly commercial sellers; most personal 3D printer situations are likely to be small time operations that would not qualify
• The printer manufacturer would be liable only if the printer itself was defective, which would not be the case here
• The designer would not be liable as the model is just information, not a product itself. Additionally the designer many not be a commercial seller

 

Thus there may be fewer liability lawsuits than expected. This, while bad news for those damaged by defective 3D prints, is good news for the 3D print industry. Consumers will not be deterred by fear of lawsuits and they'll end up buying more 3D printers. 

 

Via PennLaw (PDF)

Image Credit: Wikipedia

3D Printing Fears Jump the Shark

With the deployment of personal 3D printers to thousands of private homes, it was inevitable that some people would focus on the bad instead of the good. Now those fears have truly jumped the shark, when police in Manchester, UK raided what they believed to be a "3D printed gun factory". 

 

Unfortunately, their search uncovered only 3D printed parts for a MakerBot. 

 

The Manchester Police issued a statement (now retracted) where they claimed to have found parts, including a trigger, that could be made into a functional weapon. Unfortunately for the police, their announcement included image of said parts - which were quickly identified by many as common parts for MakerBots (a  Replicator 2 drive block and a spool holder).

 

The Manchester Police issued a second statement in which they say: 

 

We need to be absolutely clear that at that this stage, we cannot categorically say we have recovered the component parts for a 3D gun.

 

What we have seized are items that need further forensic testing by national ballistics experts to establish whether they can be used in the construction of a genuine, viable firearm.

 

We will also be conducting a thorough analysis of computers we have recovered to establish any evidence of a blueprint on how to construct such a weapon.

 

Clearly the fact we have seized a 3D printer and have intelligence about the possible production of a weapon using this technology is of concern. It prudent we establish exactly what these parts can be used for and whether they pose any threat.

 

What this has also done is open up a wider debate about the emerging threat these next generation of weapons might pose.

 

The worrying thing is for me is that these printers can be used to make certain components of guns, while others can be legitimately ordered over the Internet without arousing suspicion. When put together, this could allow a person to construct a firearm in their own home.

 

Sure, and perhaps they should raid every metal shop in the region, too, as they may be able to manufacture actual weapons that actually work. 

 

Perhaps it's time that society spends more effort eliminating the causes of gun crime instead of chasing down guns. 

 

Or in this case, non-existent guns. 

  

Via GigaOm

Image Credit: Wikipedia

An Overview of 3D Printing Intellectual Property Law

Patent attorney Bryan J. Vogel provides a reasonably brief overview of the legal aspects beginning to face the 3D printing industry in a post on Bloomberg Law. 

 

Vogel explains in simple terms the differences between patents, trade secrets, trademark and copyright where the legal battles will likely be fought in the future as 3D printing reaches the consumer space. 

 

Once in the consumer space, the value of the industry skyrockets and people, companies and organizations will battle over that value. In the courts. 

 

Vogel also points out two interesting angles that may also occur in upcoming legal fights: anti-trust laws used against patent holders and use of FDA limitations. 

 

We have two comments. First, the post doesn't mention open source principles and approaches that may influence the outcome of 3D printing's legal future. It is possible in the future that significant 3D print technologies and content may be used freely  to change the legal outcomes. It's also possible that the temptation of big cash may alter the trajectory of some currently open source companies. 

 

The second comment is regarding jurisdiction. Vogel's description applies to the USA, but the majority of 3D printing takes place outside the USA and this will likely increase over time. The non-US portion of the world is not subject to US legislation, although many countries may have similar laws. The differences in these laws may generate some interesting scenarios in the future. 

 

Via Bloomberg Law

Fabulonia to Protect 3D Designs

Startup Fabulonia has a new concept that could provide significant protection to designers fearful of losing control of their works. 

 

As we understand it, Fabulonia will operate as a repository of 3D models submitted by (hopefully famous and notable) 3D designers. Consumers will be able to search, select and purchase a "print" from the repository for production on their personal 3D printer. 

 

This is where it gets a little different. The "print" is actually streamed to the 3D printer. The consumer never receives the original 3D model. This is quite different from the typical repository, where STL files are simply downloaded and printed. 

 

And printed again. And maybe sold, too. That's where the problem lies for designers who have spent considerable time preparing their models. So far, Fabulonia seems to have signed up a number of 3D designers as listed on their site. They'll receive royalties, we presume, as site visitors purchase their models. 

 

We're not certain how the Fabulonia system works, but we suspect they may be generating some type of self-destructing GCODE for specific machines and streaming it to printers. We'll find out more when they launch. 

 

Via Fabulonia

Patent Issued for Digital Manufacturing

After years of process, US patent number 8,515,826 has been issued to Bryan Norman of KraftWurx fame. While there are billions of patents appearing, many of which are related to 3D printing, this one bears mentioning. Here's the abstract of the patent: 

 

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.

 

Wait, what does that mean? To us it appears that Mr. Norman has obtained what appears to be a very comprehensive patent on a standard process used by a great many online 3D model services: Tweak an existing model and have it 3D printed. This process has been done by Shapeways, 3D Systems and yes, even Thingiverse. 

 

We're not quite sure what the existence of the patent means, but we suspect some phone calls will occur shortly. 

 

Meanwhile, enjoy the (long) read at the USPTO link below. 

 

Via USPTO

Four MakerBot Digitizer Implications

We're certain most of you have heard of MakerBot's latest device: The Digitizer. It's a relatively inexpensive 3D scanner designed for prosumer use. As the first 3D scanner that could hit a mass audience, we pondered what it might mean. What happens when large numbers of people own a 3D scanner. Here's our predictions: 

 

Thingiverse Overflows. Sure, you can add more storage, but watch out - Thingiverse, the largest free online repository of 3D models will almost certainly fill up with all manner of scanned objects. While only some people are skilled 3D modelers, many more will now be able to create 3D models at the push of a button. They'll also be able to push the Thingiverse "upload" button. 

 

Lawsuits. Everywhere. The scanner permits 3D copying of patented or licensed material. Expect an avalanche of Star Wars characters, Cars and replacement parts. Then expect an avalanche of cease and desist orders, followed by lawsuits. 

 

Rigorous Rules. If lawsuits and takedowns occur frequently, expect the owners of online 3D repositories to change their terms of service to put the onus on uploaders to ensure their files are legal. 

 

CAD Demand Increases. With all the 3D scans appearing, we expect at least some people will want to convert them into CAD files for modification. Therefore, there will be a slight uptick in power 3D modeling software and associated training. 

 

HBO Clips a 3D Print Artist

HBO has squashed a new 3D printed product by nuPROTO 3D print artist Fernando Sosa. 

 

The product, "Throne Dock" is an iPhone/Android docking station inspired by the hugely popular HBO series, "Game of Thrones". At first, it seems like a good idea: "Let your friends and coworkers tremble at the sight of your Throne Dock."

 

But then HBO intervened. nuPROTO's updates tell the story: 

 

Due to a cease and desist letter from HBO we are pulling the product until we can work something out with HBO. Keep checking our site and blog for an update of this matter. Thanks for the interest and please check out our other product development services and other products. 

 

And then: 

 

HBO declined our offer to license the throne charging station because another company has licensed the idea of a throne charging station. Money will be refunded to those few who bought this product and we apologize if anyone thought this was anything more than inspired fan art work.(PS. we are working on something better)

 

So it goes. The moral of the story here is that just because you can design something, you don't always have the legal right to do so. Our advice: be creative, be unique and always build your own thing. 

 

Via nuPROTO