3dprintingindustry.com
Intrepid Automation, a US developer of large-format resin 3D printers, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against 3D Systems, the Rock Hill-based additive manufacturing OEM.Operating out of San Diego, Intrepid accuses 3D Systems of unlawfully using patented technology in its PSLA 270 industrial resin 3D printer, which was launched at Formnext 2024. It claims that the new system is a blatant knock off of Intrepids DLP multi-projection Range 3D printer, otherwise known as Valkyrie.The Californian firm calls this alleged infringement the latest chapter of 3DSs brazen, anticompetitive scheme to drive a smaller competitor with more advanced technology out of the marketplace. The plaintiff also called 3D Systems PSLA 270s launch the culmination of a 3.5-year strategy to impede Intrepids market entry by claiming Intrepids ground-breaking technology as its own.Intrepid, led by former 3D Systems Principle Systems Architects Ben Wynne (CEO) and Ivan Chousal (Chief of Staff), has also accused its competitor of corporate espionage. The lawsuit claims that a former 3D Systems employee deceitfully sought a job at Intrepid to gain access to confidential technology secrets, which were later used to develop the PSLA 270.Filed in the United States District Court Southern District of California, Intrepid has requested a jury trial. It is seeking a ruling confirming its patents are valid, a ban preventing 3D Systems from selling the PSLA 270, compensation for damages, and legal fee reimbursement. If an injunction against 3D printer sales is not granted, Intrepid hopes to receive a compulsory, ongoing license fee from the defendants.3D Systems has filed a motion to dismiss the patent infringement suit, arguing that Intrepids claims lack sufficient evidence and factual support to proceed in court. In its legal response, 3D Systems described the case as a desperate attempt by the plaintiff to deflect attention away from its alleged theft of 3D Systems trade secrets. The South Carolinian firm added Intrepid is remarkably claiming that it owns the trade secrets incorporated into its patent filings.3D Systems headquarters in Rock Hill, South Carolina. Photo via CBRE Group.Intrepid Automation v. 3D Systems Intrepid accuses 3D Systems of infringing on two US patents, 11,014,301 and 11,338,511, which protect its multi-projection DLP 3D printing technology. The former describes resin 3D printing using multiple image projectors rather than a single light source. These projectors create a composite image over a resin pool, simultaneously curing layers of material.Intrepids 11,338,511 patent focuses on methods for aligning and blending multiple projected images. It outlines digital filters and adjustments, such as irradiance masks, gamma correction filters, warp correction filters, and blending bars. These are designed to ensure high accuracy, smooth surfaces, and fast printing speeds.Intrepids patent infringement allegations center around its Range 3D printer, a DLP system with a sizeable 760 x 660 x 560 mm build volume. Equipped with six light engines, it enables simultaneous, multi-projection additive manufacturing. Marketed as delivering next-level throughput, the Range is said to achieve 3 to 10 times faster production than competing resin 3D printers. According to the plaintiff, 3D Systems new PSLA 270 employs the same patented techniques.The lawsuit claims that as soon as Intrepids founders (Wynne, Chousal, Christopher Tanner, Jamie Etcheson, and Robert Mueller) left 3D Systems to form the company in 2017, their former employer began to monitor patent filings by Intrepid. It is alleged that, in January 2021, former 3D Systems employee Evan Kuester visited Intrepid under the pretense of a job interview. According to the plaintiff, Kuester signed an NDA and was shown the companys confidential products and testbeds, including a proof of concept for a DLP multi-projection print engine with six projectors.Following his visit, Kuester allegedly requested additional technical information through text message exchanges with Intrepid. He reportedly asked, Do you have a way to generate a rough build for that large format machine? This was allegedly followed by, Am I allowed to know an approximate mm per hour build speed? Kuester is then said, according to the lawsuit, to have revealed Intrepids secrets to 3D Systems, which is accused of using his insider information and the companys patents to develop its PSLA 270.Intrepid also accuses the 3D printer manufacturer of filing a baseless trade secret misappropriation lawsuit in May 2021 to stall business growth and prevent it from securing funding. This litigation reportedly allowed 3D Systems to access not-yet-commercially available systems and trade secrets during the pre-trial discovery process, according to Intrepid. 3D Systems, on the other hand, alleges that its trade secrets were stolen first by Intrepids founders when they left the company in 2017, before being patented, and used in competing DLP 3D printers.Intrepid Automations Range 3D printer. Image via Intrepid Automation.3D Systems challenges patent infringement allegationsIn their motion to dismiss, the lawsuits defendants, 3D Systems Corporation and 3D Systems Inc., argue that Intrepids patent infringement claim is meritless and should not survive the pleading stage.They argue that both of the plaintiffs patents require a specific set of four filters to function, including an irradiance mask, gamma adjustment mask, warp correction filter, and edge blending bars. If even one filter is missing, the defendants assert in the legal document, there cannot be a finding of infringement.According to 3D Systems, the plaintiffs complaint does not properly demonstrate that the PSLA 270 contains all four filters. They argue the complaint failed to assert any factual allegations relating to at least an irradiance mask configured to normalize irradiance and a warp correction filter configured to provide geometric correction, in combination with a gamma adjustment mask and an edge blending bar.Instead, the motion argues that Intrepid broadly asserts the PSLA 270 infringes on the patents because they utilize 3D Systems edge blending and calibration trade secret. However, The Rock Hill-based company states that this technology existed before the plaintiffs patents, and was stolen by Intrepid.The defendants also argued that Intrepids additional infringement theories, including allegations of corporate espionage, are not backed up by evidence and advance nothing more than conclusory statements. As such, the defendants argue, This bare pleading is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.3D Systems PSLA 270. Image via 3D Systems.3D printing legal battles intensify2025 has already seen its fair share of 3D printing lawsuits. A US District Court is considering whether to allow litigation to proceed in Fortis Advisors LLCs lawsuit against Stratasys.Fortis, the San Diego-based investment advisory firm representing the former shareholders of Origin Laboratories, Inc., initiated the suit last October. Stratasys is accused of withholding $40 million in earn-out payments from its $100 million acquisition of Origin, a DLP technology startup. The companys shareholders claim that Stratasys delayed product launches, misrepresented the timing of the earn-out period, and excluded key revenue streams to avoid paying the agreed-upon amount.Led by CEO and co-defendant Yoav Zeif, Stratasys requested a stay on the litigation, arguing that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires arbitration to resolve overlapping factual issues. The plaintiff opposes this request, accusing the Israeli 3D printer manufacturer of procedural brinksmanship and gamesmanship to delay the litigation. Fortis accused Stratasys of attempting to avoid a merits-based adjudication of the non-arbitrable claims at any cost.January 2025 saw 3D printed military drone manufacturer Firestorm Labs sue its competitor RapidFlight in an intellectual property dispute. Based in San Diego, Firestorm alleges that RapidFlight falsely accused its Tempest drone of infringing on two patents relating to airframe structures with multiple 3D printed sections.The plaintiff claims that its drone-making rival failed to compete on price, performance, and capabilities, leading it to use unsupported threats in an attempt to bully Firestorm out of the industry. Firestorm is seeking a court declaration that it has not infringed the patents in question. It also hopes to receive compensation for legal fees and additional financial relief.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 Intrepid Automations logo 3D printed on the Range 3D printer. Photo via Intrepid Automation.