There has been a new update to the ongoing Stratasys v. Bambu Lab patent infringement lawsuit.  Both parties have agreed to consolidate the lead and member cases (2:24-CV-00644-JRG and 2:24-CV-00645-JRG) into a single case under Case No. 2:25-cv-00465-JRG.  Industrial 3D printing OEM Stratasys filed the request late last month. According to an official court document, Shenzhen-based Bambu Lab did not oppose the motion. Stratasys argued that this non-opposition amounted to the defendants waiving their right to challenge the request under U.S. patent law 35 U.S.C. § 299(a). On June 2, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, ordered Bambu Lab to confirm in writing whether it agreed to the proposed case consolidation. The court took this step out of an “abundance of caution” to ensure both parties consented to the procedure before moving forward. Bambu Lab submitted its response on June 12, agreeing to the consolidation. The company, along with co-defendants Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co., Ltd., and Tuozhu Technology Limited, waived its rights under 35 U.S.C. § 299(a). The court will now decide whether to merge the cases. This followed U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s decision last month to deny Bambu Lab’s motion to dismiss the lawsuits.  The Chinese desktop 3D printer manufacturer filed the motion in February 2025, arguing the cases were invalid because its US-based subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, was not named in the original litigation. However, it agreed that the lawsuit could continue in the Austin division of the Western District of Texas, where a parallel case was filed last year.  Judge Gilstrap denied the motion, ruling that the cases properly target the named defendants. He concluded that Bambu Lab USA isn’t essential to the dispute, and that any misnaming should be addressed in summary judgment, not dismissal.        A Stratasys Fortus 450mc (left) and a Bambu Lab X1C (right). Image by 3D Printing industry. Another twist in the Stratasys v. Bambu Lab lawsuit  Stratasys filed the two lawsuits against Bambu Lab in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, in August 2024. The company claims that Bambu Lab’s X1C, X1E, P1S, P1P, A1, and A1 mini 3D printers violate ten of its patents. These patents cover common 3D printing features, including purge towers, heated build plates, tool head force detection, and networking capabilities. Stratasys has requested a jury trial. It is seeking a ruling that Bambu Lab infringed its patents, along with financial damages and an injunction to stop Bambu from selling the allegedly infringing 3D printers. Last October, Stratasys dropped charges against two of the originally named defendants in the dispute. Court documents showed that Beijing Tiertime Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Yinhua Laser Rapid Prototyping and Mould Technology Co., Ltd were removed. Both defendants represent the company Tiertime, China’s first 3D printer manufacturer. The District Court accepted the dismissal, with all claims dropped without prejudice. It’s unclear why Stratasys named Beijing-based Tiertime as a defendant in the first place, given the lack of an obvious connection to Bambu Lab.  Tiertime and Stratasys have a history of legal disputes over patent issues. In 2013, Stratasys sued Afinia, Tiertime’s U.S. distributor and partner, for patent infringement. Afinia responded by suing uCRobotics, the Chinese distributor of MakerBot 3D printers, also alleging patent violations. Stratasys acquired MakerBot in June 2013. The company later merged with Ultimaker in 2022. In February 2025, Bambu Lab filed a motion to dismiss the original lawsuits. The company argued that Stratasys’ claims, focused on the sale, importation, and distribution of 3D printers in the United States, do not apply to the Shenzhen-based parent company. Bambu Lab contended that the allegations concern its American subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, which was not named in the complaint filed in the Eastern District of Texas. Bambu Lab filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the case is invalid under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. It argued that any party considered a “primary participant” in the allegations must be included as a defendant.    The court denied the motion on May 29, 2025. In the ruling, Judge Gilstrap explained that Stratasys’ allegations focus on the actions of the named defendants, not Bambu Lab USA. As a result, the official court document called Bambu Lab’s argument “unavailing.” Additionally, the Judge stated that, since Bambu Lab USA and Bambu Lab are both owned by Shenzhen Tuozhu, “the interest of these two entities align,” meaning the original cases are valid.   In the official court document, Judge Gilstrap emphasized that Stratasys can win or lose the lawsuits based solely on the actions of the current defendants, regardless of Bambu Lab USA’s involvement. He added that any potential risk to Bambu Lab USA’s business is too vague or hypothetical to justify making it a required party. Finally, the court noted that even if Stratasys named the wrong defendant, this does not justify dismissal under Rule 12(b)(7). Instead, the judge stated it would be more appropriate for the defendants to raise that argument in a motion for summary judgment. The Bambu Lab X1C 3D printer. Image via Bambu Lab. 3D printing patent battles  The 3D printing industry has seen its fair share of patent infringement disputes over recent months. In May 2025, 3D printer hotend developer Slice Engineering reached an agreement with Creality over a patent non-infringement lawsuit.  The Chinese 3D printer OEM filed the lawsuit in July 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division. The company claimed that Slice Engineering had falsely accused it of infringing two hotend patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,875,244 and 11,660,810. These cover mechanical and thermal features of Slice’s Mosquito 3D printer hotend. Creality requested a jury trial and sought a ruling confirming it had not infringed either patent. Court documents show that Slice Engineering filed a countersuit in December 2024. The Gainesville-based company maintained that Creaility “has infringed and continues to infringe” on both patents. In the filing, the company also denied allegations that it had harassed Creality’s partners, distributors, and customers, and claimed that Creality had refused to negotiate a resolution.   The Creality v. Slice Engineering lawsuit has since been dropped following a mutual resolution. Court documents show that both parties have permanently dismissed all claims and counterclaims, agreeing to cover their own legal fees and costs.  In other news, large-format resin 3D printer manufacturer Intrepid Automation sued 3D Systems over alleged patent infringement. The lawsuit, filed in February 2025, accused 3D Systems of using patented technology in its PSLA 270 industrial resin 3D printer. The filing called the PSLA 270 a “blatant knock off” of Intrepid’s DLP multi-projection “Range” 3D printer.   San Diego-based Intrepid Automation called this alleged infringement the “latest chapter of 3DS’s brazen, anticompetitive scheme to drive a smaller competitor with more advanced technology out of the marketplace.” The lawsuit also accused 3D Systems of corporate espionage, claiming one of its employees stole confidential trade secrets that were later used to develop the PSLA 270 printer. 3D Systems denied the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss the case. The company called the lawsuit “a desperate attempt” by Intrepid to distract from its own alleged theft of 3D Systems’ trade secrets. 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 a Stratasys Fortus 450mc (left) and a Bambu Lab X1C (right). Image by 3D Printing industry.

Ethan Hunt and the IMF team race against time to find a rogue artificial intelligence (why is AI always the bad guy now if films? ) that can destroy mankind. AI, IMF & VFX: A Mission Worth Rendering In the latest episode of The VFXShow podcast, hosts Matt Wallin, Jason Diamond, and Mike Seymour reunite to dissect the spectacle, story, and seamless visual effects of Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning. As the eighth entry in the franchise, this chapter serves as a high-stakes, high-altitude crescendo to Tom Cruise’s nearly 30-year run as Ethan Hunt,  the relentless agent of the Impossible Mission Force. Cruise Control: When Practical Meets Pixel While the narrative revolves around the existential threat of a rogue AI known as The Entity, the real heart of the film lies in its bold commitment to visceral, real-world action. The VFX team discusses how Cruise’s ongoing devotion to doing his own death-defying stunts, from leaping between bi-planes to diving into the wreckage of a sunken submarine,  paradoxically increases the importance of invisible VFX. From seamless digital stitching to background replacements and subtle physics enhancements, the effects work had to serve the story without ever betraying the sense of raw, in-camera danger. Matt, Jason, and Mike explore how VFX in this film plays a critical supporting role, cleaning up stunts, compositing dangerous sequences, and selling the illusion of globe-spanning chaos. Whether it’s simulating the collapse of a Cold War-era submarine, managing intricate water dynamics in Ethan’s deep-sea dive, or integrating AI-driven visualisations of nuclear catastrophe, the film leans heavily on sophisticated post work to make Cruise’s practical stunts feel even more grounded and believable. The team also reflects on the thematic evolution of the franchise. While the plot may twist through layers of espionage, betrayal, and digital apocalypse, including face-offs with Gabriel, doomsday cults, and geopolitical brinkmanship,  it is not the team’s favourite MI film. And yet, they note, even as the story veers into sci-fi territory with sentient algorithms and bunker-bound AI traps, the VFX never overshadows the tactile performance at the film’s centre. Falling, Flying, Faking It Beautifully For fans of the franchise, visual effects, or just adrenaline-fueled cinema, this episode offers a thoughtful cinematic critique on how modern VFX artistry and old-school stuntwork can coexist to save a film that has lost its driving narrative direction. This week in our lineup is (or are they really??) Matt Wallin *            @mattwallin    www.mattwallin.com Follow Matt on Mastodon: @[email protected] Jason Diamond  @jasondiamond           www.thediamondbros.com Mike Seymour   @mikeseymour             www.fxguide.com. + @mikeseymour Special thanks to Matt Wallin for the editing & production of the show with help from Jim Shen.

Image of the Archbishop of Canterbury's letters to the Bishop of Winchester on the subject of Ela Fitzpayne, from the register of John de Stratford. Reproduced with permission of Hampshire Archives and Hampshire County Council. (Image Credit: Register of John de Stratford. Reproduced with permission of Hampshire Archives and Hampshire County Council.)NewsletterSign up for our email newsletter for the latest science newsEspionage, sex, public humiliation, murder — these may sound like tropes straight out of Game of Thrones, but they’re actually all elements of a nearly 700-year-old cold case in England. After analyzing Medieval letters and records, a research team from the Cambridge University Institute of Criminology’s Medieval Murder Maps project may have found the killer of a priest. However, this priest may not have been so innocent. A new paper published in Criminal Law Forum takes a deeper look at this 14th-century cold case.Tracing a Medieval MurderThe Medieval Murder Maps project uses interactive maps of three English cities, London, Oxford, and York, during the Medieval period. Throughout the cities are the locations of various deaths and murders. Each location has a story associated with it, directly from written records and coroners' reports at the time. Some of these stories are full of intriguing twists and turns.The Cambridge research team analyzed over 100 murders from texts, translated from Latin, from that period, and used a coding method to separate the deaths into different categories, including time (day, week, month), motivation, weapon used, victim, and location. From this information, one of the deaths the team found most interesting was the murder of John Forde in 1337.A Medieval Lover to Murderer From the letters and texts the team analyzed, they pieced together the events that led up to Forde’s death. Forde was a priest living in London when he was murdered on a busy street. But what possible reason would someone have to want to murder a priest? The motive, according to the research team, was likely revenge. According to Manuel Eisner, one of the study’s authors, the murder may have been an act of revenge by noblewoman Ela Fitzpayne. According to the records, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Simon Mepham, had enacted penance on Fitzpayne after it was discovered that Forde had been her lover. A letter written by Archbishop Mepham accused Fitzpayne of adultery with Forde and possibly others. Her penance was to take a barefoot walk of shame across Salisbury Cathedral. Eisner also found a document that suggested Fitzpayne, her husband, and John Forde sent a gang to rob a church priory and took the livestock for ransom. It’s possible that during this time, Forde found himself in bed with Fitzpayne, before betraying her to the Archbishop Mepham. Commissioned Murder Possibly betrayed by her former lover and sentenced to walks of shame that were to take place once a year for seven years,  Fitzpayne would have none of it. On an early evening on a busy London street, near St. Paul’s Cathedral, three men attacked Forde. One slit his throat while the others stabbed him in the gut. Witnesses claim that the murderers were Fitzpayne’s brother and two of her former servants. “We are looking at a murder commissioned by a leading figure of the English aristocracy. It is planned and cold-blooded, with a family member and close associates carrying it out, all of which suggests a revenge motive,” said Eisner in a press release.Cold Case RevealedAccording to letters from Archbishop Mepham, Fitzpayne was led by the devil and a “spirit of pride.”“The archbishop imposed heavy, shameful public penance on Ela, which she seems not to have complied with, but may have sparked a thirst for vengeance,” said Eisner in a press release. “Not least as John Forde appears to have escaped punishment by the church.” When Archbishop Mepham died in 1333, Fitzpayne waited four years before enacting her revenge, and in 1337, Forde was killed. Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:A graduate of UW-Whitewater, Monica Cull wrote for several organizations, including one that focused on bees and the natural world, before coming to Discover Magazine. Her current work also appears on her travel blog and Common State Magazine. Her love of science came from watching PBS shows as a kid with her mom and spending too much time binging Doctor Who.1 free article leftWant More? Get unlimited access for as low as $1.99/monthSubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In1 free articleSubscribeWant more?Keep reading for as low as $1.99!SubscribeAlready a subscriber?Register or Log In