Stratasys vs. Bambu Lab: A 3D Printing Patent Dispute with Far-Reaching Implications

Additive manufacturing (AM) stalwart Stratasys Ltd. (Nasdaq: SSYS) has initiated legal action against Bambu Lab and its associated entities, alleging patent infringement by their 3D printers. Filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the lawsuit targets Bambu Lab’s parent company, Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co.; its affiliate, Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co.; and associated subsidiaries Bambulab Ltd. and Tuozhu Technology Ltd. Also named in the suit is Beijing Tiertime Technology Co., known for its Up series of 3D printers, along with its parent company Beijing Yinhua Laser Rapid Prototyping and Mould Technology Co.

Stratasys’s complaints focus on ten patents covering key technologies commonly used in consumer 3D printers, including heated build platforms, purge towers, and force detection systems. These patents, according to Stratasys, are crucial to the functioning and performance of 3D printers that target entry-level and intermediate users—areas where Bambu Lab has gained significant market traction since its launch in 2022.

The Technologies in Dispute

The specific patents being challenged in the Stratasys vs. Bambu Lab lawsuit are:

1. US9421713B2 – Additive Manufacturing Method for Printing Three-Dimensional Parts with Purge Towers
2. US9592660B2 – Heated Build Platform and System for Three-Dimensional Printing Methods
3. US7555357B2 – Method for Building Three-Dimensional Objects with Extrusion-Based Layered Deposition Systems
4. US9168698B2 – Three-Dimensional Printer with Force Detection
5. US10556381B2 – Three-Dimensional Printer with Force Detection
6. US10569466B2 – Tagged Build Material for Three-Dimensional Printing
7. US11167464B2 – Tagged Build Material for Three-Dimensional Printing
8. US8747097B2 – Networked Three-Dimensional Printer with Three-Dimensional Scanner
9. US11886774B2 – Detection and Use of Printer Configuration Information
10. US8562324B2 – Networked Three-Dimensional Printing

Among these patents, two stand out for their broad relevance to the 3D printing industry:

• Heated Build Platforms (US9592660B2): This technology is essential for ensuring that the first layers of a 3D printed model do not cool too quickly, which can lead to warping and defects. Nearly all consumer 3D printers incorporate some form of heated build platform, making this patent potentially very influential.
• Purge Towers (US9421713B2): Used in multi-material or multi-color printing, purge towers help in cleaning the nozzle of residual filament, preventing color bleed and ensuring print quality. This feature, branded as “prime towers” by Bambu Lab, has become common in the new generation of desktop systems that feature multi-color 3D printing.

While heated build platforms are a common feature, Stratasys does not currently offer 3D printers that use purge towers to switch between materials or colors. Stratasys’s professional and industrial material extrusion 3D printers typically use other methods to manage material transitions, such as dual extrusion systems where each material has its own dedicated print head, or internal material management systems that eliminate the need for external purge structures. Although Stratasys holds patents related to purge towers, this feature is not used in its own machines.

A History of Lawsuits

Historically, patent disputes in the 3D printing sector have had lasting impacts. For instance, 3D Systems’ lawsuit against Formlabs in 2012 resulted in a settlement requiring Formlabs to pay an 8% royalty on sales, which ultimately drove the desktop stereolithography (SLA) company to develop a completely novel form of SLA that likely got around 3D Systems’ intellectual property (IP).

Other major lawsuits have included EOS vs. DTM Corporation in 1997, in which the two companies ultimately had to cross-license their selective laser sintering (SLS) patents; 3D Systems vs. EOS GmbH in 2001, in which the two companies also cross-licensed; and MCP Tooling vs. EOS GmbH in 2008, which was settled out of court. These cases often led to significant changes in the companies involved, such as DTM being acquired by 3D Systems and MCP’s Realizer by DMG Mori, possibly hinting at the financial or competitive burden these smaller firms faced before being forced to sell.

In the case of Stratasys and Tiertime, there is an exact precedent. Stratasys sued Tiertime’s U.S. reseller Afinia in 2013, including patents related to heated build platforms. The case eventually led to a settlement, with Afinia agreeing to make adjustments to its printers. However, anyone new to analyzing the AM market likely hasn’t heard of Afinia, indicating just how detrimental the suit was to the brand. Meanwhile, Tiertime’s products have been overshadowed by Bambu and its competitors, such as Creality.

Stratasys vs. Bambu Lab: The Stakes

The stakes are somewhat different this time around. Due to the overall market climate, Stratasys has been suffering financially, to the point that it has sold off major assets and put its headquarters on the market. If it wins the suit against Bambu, Stratasys could potentially obtain some royalties from licensing, maybe upwards of $15 million over five years as a low-end estimate. This could offset the $1 to $10 million needed to continue the suit in the long run.

However, Stratasys’s recent financials suggest that financing a long and potentially expensive lawsuit might strain the company’s finances. While Stratasys has a robust asset base and remains one of the highest revenue pureplay 3D printing firms in the market, its current cash flow issues and consistent net losses could make a prolonged legal battle challenging. Nevertheless, with a strong balance sheet, Stratasys might still have the ability to leverage its assets or access external financing if necessary to cover the costs of litigation.

The time it would take to run the suit, however, would not bring in any immediate funds from royalties. With these sorts of cases stretching anywhere from two to five years, it may be more about placing a financial burden on Bambu or obtaining a settlement to avoid prolonged financial pressure.

Whether Bambu might wind up like its predecessors, Tiertime and Afinia, is difficult to predict. Bambu Lab’s printers have been game-changers for the industry and beyond. Numerous print farms have popped up, with the rapid throughput of the machines offsetting the cost, and the quality and colors possible resulting in commercially relevant products.

Two potential outcomes could be that Bambu loses to the point that it disappears from the market like Tiertime/Afinia, allowing a company like Creality or AnkerMake to take its place. This is essentially what happened in the wake of the consumer 3D printing bubble of the last decade. Alternatively, Bambu could hold significant enough weight in the Chinese additive industry that it could receive financial support to weather the storm—potentially with backing from drone manufacturer DJI, whose engineers went on to establish Bambu.