For whatever reason, certain pieces of technology can have a difficult time interacting with the physical world. Anyone who has ever used a printer or copier can attest to this, …read more

The eufyMake E1 looks like a game-changer for crafting pros.

PVA filament is an interesting filament type, for the reason that while it can be printed with any FDM printer, it supposedly readily dissolves in water, which is also the …read more

Never made a zine? Haven’t made one since 1999? We made one, and so can you.

For quite some time now, Marlin has been the firmware of choice for any kind of custom 3D printer, with only Klipper offering some serious competition in the open-source world. …read more

Start crafting quality cosplay props with minimal post-processing.

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.

Researchers from the US-based University of Massachusetts Amherst (UMass), in collaboration with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Department of Mechanical Engineering, have applied cold spray to repair the deteriorating “Brown Bridge” in Great Barrington, built in 1949. The project marks the first known use of this method on bridge infrastructure and aims to evaluate its effectiveness as a faster, more cost-effective, and less disruptive alternative to conventional repair techniques. “Now that we’ve completed this proof-of-concept repair, we see a clear path to a solution that is much faster, less costly, easier, and less invasive,” said Simos Gerasimidis, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “To our knowledge, this is a first. Of course, there is some R&D that needs to be developed, but this is a huge milestone to that,” he added. The pilot project is also a collaboration with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MassTech), the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration. It was supported by the Massachusetts Manufacturing Innovation Initiative, which provided essential equipment for the demonstration. Members of the UMass Amherst and MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering research team, led by Simos Gerasimidis (left, standing). Photo via UMass Amherst. Tackling America’s Bridge Crisis with Cold Spray Technology Nearly half of the bridges across the United States are in “fair” condition, while 6.8% are classified as “poor,” according to the 2025 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure. In Massachusetts, about 9% of the state’s 5,295 bridges are considered structurally deficient. The costs of restoring this infrastructure are projected to exceed $190 billion—well beyond current funding levels.  The cold spray method consists of propelling metal powder particles at high velocity onto the beam’s surface. Successive applications build up additional layers, helping restore its thickness and structural integrity. This method has successfully been used to repair large structures such as submarines, airplanes, and ships, but this marks the first instance of its application to a bridge. One of cold spray’s key advantages is its ability to be deployed with minimal traffic disruption.  “Every time you do repairs on a bridge you have to block traffic, you have to make traffic controls for substantial amounts of time,” explained Gerasimidis. “This will allow us to [apply the technique] on this actual bridge while cars are going [across].” To enhance precision, the research team integrated 3D LiDAR scanning technology into the process. Unlike visual inspections, which can be subjective and time-consuming, LiDAR creates high-resolution digital models that pinpoint areas of corrosion. This allows teams to develop targeted repair plans and deposit materials only where needed—reducing waste and potentially extending a bridge’s lifespan. Next steps: Testing Cold-Sprayed Repairs The bridge is scheduled for demolition in the coming years. When that happens, researchers will retrieve the repaired sections for further analysis. They plan to assess the durability, corrosion resistance, and mechanical performance of the cold-sprayed steel in real-world conditions, comparing it to results from laboratory tests. “This is a tremendous collaboration where cutting-edge technology is brought to address a critical need for infrastructure in the commonwealth and across the United States,” said John Hart, Class of 1922 Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at MIT. “I think we’re just at the beginning of a digital transformation of bridge inspection, repair and maintenance, among many other important use cases.” 3D Printing for Infrastructure Repairs Beyond cold spray techniques, other innovative 3D printing methods are emerging to address construction repair challenges. For example, researchers at University College London (UCL) have developed an asphalt 3D printer specifically designed to repair road cracks and potholes. “The material properties of 3D printed asphalt are tunable, and combined with the flexibility and efficiency of the printing platform, this technique offers a compelling new design approach to the maintenance of infrastructure,” the UCL team explained. Similarly, in 2018, Cintec, a Wales-based international structural engineering firm, contributed to restoring the historic Government building known as the Red House in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. This project, managed by Cintec’s North American branch, marked the first use of additive manufacturing within sacrificial structures. It also featured the installation of what are claimed to be the longest reinforcement anchors ever inserted into a structure—measuring an impressive 36.52 meters. Join our Additive Manufacturing Advantage (AMAA) event on July 10th, where AM leaders from Aerospace, Space, and Defense come together to share mission-critical insights. Online and free to attend.Secure your spot now. Who won the2024 3D Printing Industry Awards? Subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletterto keep up with the latest 3D printing news. You can also follow us onLinkedIn, and subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry Youtube channel to access more exclusive content. Featured image shows members of the UMass Amherst and MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering research team, led by Simos Gerasimidis (left, standing). Photo via UMass Amherst.

Microsoft offered up a fairly light Patch Tuesday release this month, with 68 patches to Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office. There were no updates for Exchange or SQL server and just two minor patches for Microsoft Edge. That said, two zero-day vulnerabilities (CVE-2025-33073 and CVE-2025-33053) have led to a “Patch Now” recommendation for both Windows and Office. (Developers can follow their usual release cadence with updates to Microsoft .NET and Visual Studio.) To help navigate these changes, the team from Readiness has provided auseful  infographic detailing the risks involved when deploying the latest updates. (More information about recent Patch Tuesday releases is available here.) Known issues Microsoft released a limited number of known issues for June, with a product-focused issue and a very minor display concern: Microsoft Excel: This a rare product level entry in the “known issues” category — an advisory that “square brackets” or [] are not supported in Excel filenames. An error is generated, advising the user to remove the offending characters. Windows 10: There are reports of blurry or unclear CJK (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) text when displayed at 96 DPI (100% scaling) in Chromium-based browsers such as Microsoft Edge and Google Chrome. This is a limited resource issue, as the font resolution in Windows 10 does not fully match the high-level resolution of the Noto font. Microsoft recommends changing the display scaling to 125% or 150% to improve clarity. Major revisions and mitigations Microsoft might have won an award for the shortest time between releasing an update and a revision with: CVE-2025-33073: Windows SMB Client Elevation of Privilege. Microsoft worked to address a vulnerability where improper access control in Windows SMB allows an attacker to elevate privileges over a network. This patch was revised on the same day as its initial release (and has been revised again for documentation purposes). Windows lifecycle and enforcement updates Microsoft did not release any enforcement updates for June. Each month, the Readiness team analyzes Microsoft’s latest updates and provides technically sound, actionable testing plans. While June’s release includes no stated functional changes, many foundational components across authentication, storage, networking, and user experience have been updated. For this testing guide, we grouped Microsoft’s updates by Windows feature and then accompanied the section with prescriptive test actions and rationale to help prioritize enterprise efforts. Core OS and UI compatibility Microsoft updated several core kernel drivers affecting Windows as a whole. This is a low-level system change and carries a high risk of compatibility and system issues. In addition, core Microsoft print libraries have been included in the update, requiring additional print testing in addition to the following recommendations: Run print operations from 32-bit applications on 64-bit Windows environments. Use different print drivers and configurations (e.g., local, networked). Observe printing from older productivity apps and virtual environments. Remote desktop and network connectivity This update could impact the reliability of remote access while broken DHCP-to-DNS integration can block device onboarding, and NAT misbehavior disrupts VPNs or site-to-site routing configurations. We recommend the following tests be performed: Create and reconnect Remote Desktop (RDP) sessions under varying network conditions. Confirm that DHCP-assigned IP addresses are correctly registered with DNS in AD-integrated environments. Test modifying NAT and routing settings in RRAS configurations and ensure that changes persist across reboots. Filesystem, SMB and storage Updates to the core Windows storage libraries affect nearly every command related to Microsoft Storage Spaces. A minor misalignment here can result in degraded clusters, orphaned volumes, or data loss in a failover scenario. These are high-priority components in modern data center and hybrid cloud infrastructure, with the following storage-related testing recommendations: Access file shares using server names, FQDNs, and IP addresses. Enable and validate encrypted and compressed file-share operations between clients and servers. Run tests that create, open, and read from system log files using various file and storage configurations. Validate core cluster storage management tasks, including creating and managing storage pools, tiers, and volumes. Test disk addition/removal, failover behaviors, and resiliency settings. Run system-level storage diagnostics across active and passive nodes in the cluster. Windows installer and recovery Microsoft delivered another update to the Windows Installer (MSI) application infrastructure. Broken or regressed Installer package MSI handling disrupts app deployment pipelines while putting core business applications at risk. We suggest the following tests for the latest changes to MSI Installer, Windows Recovery and Microsoft’s Virtualization Based Security (VBS): Perform installation, repair, and uninstallation of MSI Installer packages using standard enterprise deployment tools (e.g. Intune). Validate restore point behavior for points older than 60 days under varying virtualization-based security (VBS) settings. Check both client and server behaviors for allowed or blocked restores. We highly recommend prioritizing printer testing this month, then remote desktop deployment testing to ensure your core business applications install and uninstall as expected. Each month, we break down the update cycle into product families (as defined by Microsoft) with the following basic groupings:  Browsers (Microsoft IE and Edge); Microsoft Windows (both desktop and server); Microsoft Office; Microsoft Exchange and SQL Server;  Microsoft Developer Tools (Visual Studio and .NET); And Adobe (if you get this far). Browsers Microsoft delivered a very minor series of updates to Microsoft Edge. The  browser receives two Chrome patches (CVE-2025-5068 and CVE-2025-5419) where both updates are rated important. These low-profile changes can be added to your standard release calendar. Microsoft Windows Microsoft released five critical patches and (a smaller than usual) 40 patches rated important. This month the five critical Windows patches cover the following desktop and server vulnerabilities: Missing release of memory after effective lifetime in Windows Cryptographic Services (WCS) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network. Use after free in Windows Remote Desktop Services allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network. Use after free in Windows KDC Proxy Service (KPSSVC) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network. Use of uninitialized resources in Windows Netlogon allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network. Unfortunately, CVE-2025-33073 has been reported as publicly disclosed while CVE-2025-33053 has been reported as exploited. Given these two zero-days, the Readiness recommends a “Patch Now” release schedule for your Windows updates. Microsoft Office Microsoft released five critical updates and a further 13 rated important for Office. The critical patches deal with memory related and “use after free” memory allocation issues affecting the entire platform. Due to the number and severity of these issues, we recommend a “Patch Now” schedule for Office for this Patch Tuesday release. Microsoft Exchange and SQL Server There are no updates for either Microsoft Exchange or SQL Server this month.  Developer tools There were only three low-level updates (product focused and rated important) released, affecting .NET and Visual Studio. Add these updates to your standard developer release schedule. Adobe (and 3rd party updates) Adobe has released (but Microsoft has not co-published) a single update to Adobe Acrobat (APSB25-57). There were two other non-Microsoft updated releases affecting the Chromium platform, which were covered in the Browser section above.