Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, involves plaintiff Intrepid Automation, Inc., a Delaware corporation based in San Diego, CA, and defendants 3D Systems Corporation and 3D Systems, Inc. (collectively, "3DS"), both operating companies in the 3D printing industry. Intrepid Automation is an operating company focused on developing and manufacturing high-speed 3D printers, while 3D Systems is a well-established global leader in additive manufacturing solutions.

The core of the dispute centers on allegations that 3D Systems' PSLA 270 multiprojection DLP printer infringes Intrepid's patents. Specifically, Intrepid asserts U.S. Patent No. 11,338,511, which broadly covers additive manufacturing systems and methods, particularly related to multiprojection technology with geometric correction and edge blending, crucial for precise and efficient 3D printing. The case is presided over by District Judge Andrew G. Schopler and Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner. The Southern District of California is a common venue for intellectual property disputes, and its local rules and patent pilot program may influence case management and efficiency, though no specific unique impact on this case's outcome can be definitively stated without further information.

This case is notable due to several factors. It represents an ongoing legal battle between two direct competitors in the 3D printing space, highlighted by a related trade secrets case (3D Systems, Inc. v. Wynne et al., 3:21-cv-01141-AGS-DDL) already pending in the same district. This suggests a deeper, more contentious relationship beyond a single patent dispute. Furthermore, the complaint explicitly states that an Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01241) has been initiated against U.S. Patent No. 11,338,511 by 3D Systems, Inc., indicating a parallel challenge to the patent's validity at the USPTO. This IPR linkage adds a layer of complexity to the litigation, as the outcome of the PTAB proceeding could significantly impact the district court case. The alleged infringement involves 3DS's new PSLA 270 printer, which 3DS announced as a product intended to "redefine the marketplace," suggesting the technology at issue is commercially significant within the additive manufacturing industry.

The patent infringement litigation between Intrepid Automation, Inc. and 3D Systems Corporation, case number 3:24-cv-02262, has seen several key legal developments since its filing.

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed (2024-12-04): Intrepid Automation, Inc. filed a complaint with a jury demand against 3D Systems Corporation and 3D Systems, Inc., alleging willful patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,014,301 and 11,338,511. Intrepid asserts that 3D Systems' PSLA 270 printer system is a "knockoff" of Intrepid's Range printer system and employs Intrepid's multiprojection technology. The case was assigned to Judge Roger T. Benitez and Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard, although later documents indicate District Judge Andrew G. Schopler and Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner as the presiding judges.
• Motion to Dismiss (2024-12-04): 3D Systems Corporation and 3D Systems, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss Intrepid's complaint. This motion argued that Intrepid's claims lacked sufficient evidence and factual support.
• Response to Motion to Dismiss (2024-12-04): Intrepid Automation, Inc. filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss.
• Ex Parte Motion to Expedite Early Discovery (2024-12-04): Intrepid Automation, Inc. filed an ex parte motion to expedite early discovery. This motion aimed to gather information to determine whether to seek a preliminary injunction.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Stay Pending IPR (Filed before 2025-01-10): 3D Systems moved to stay the patent case pending a determination of IPR2025-01241 and IPR2025-01242. A hearing for this motion was set for November 5, 2025.
• Order Denying Motion to Dismiss (2025-07-15): District Judge Andrew G. Schopler denied 3D Systems' motion to dismiss. The court found that Intrepid's complaint contained sufficient factual allegations to plausibly state a claim for patent infringement.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• IPR Filings (2025-07-08 and 2025-07-17): 3D Systems Corporation and 3D Systems, Inc. filed two Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions against Intrepid Automation's patents:
  • IPR2025-01241: Challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,014,301, filed on July 8, 2025.
  • IPR2025-01242: Challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,338,511, filed on July 17, 2025.
    The '511 patent discloses a method for additive manufacturing using multiple image projectors with specific digital filters for improving printing resolution. The grounds for unpatentability in IPR2025-01242 included anticipation by the Shkolnik patent and obviousness over Sekine in view of Greene.
• Patent Owner's Request for Discretionary Denial (Filed before 2025-01-10): Intrepid Automation, Inc. filed a request for discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-01242, arguing against the fairness of allowing 3DS to challenge patents it had previously claimed an ownership interest in and citing incomplete overlap of invalidity issues with the district court case.
• PTAB Decisions on Institution (2025-11-20): Both IPR2025-01241 and IPR2025-01242 were among the proceedings that completed discretionary review and were to be reviewed for merits and non-discretionary considerations by the Director of the USPTO.
• IPR Status (as of 2026-05-13): IPR2025-01241 is currently listed as "Trial Document" with a "Petitioner's Status Report and Update" filed on May 13, 2026. The outcome of the institution decision for either IPR is not explicitly stated in the provided search results as of the current date, but they were being reviewed for merits.

Current Posture:
The case is active, with ongoing IPR proceedings that could significantly impact the district court litigation. The district court denied 3D Systems' motion to dismiss, indicating the patent infringement claims will proceed. A motion to stay pending the IPR outcomes was filed, with a hearing scheduled for November 5, 2025. The related trade secrets case (3:21-cv-01141-AGS-DDL) also remains ongoing, with a final pretrial conference for Intrepid's counterclaims scheduled for November 21, 2025, and a potential jury trial in Summer 2026 if 3DS's motion for reconsideration is granted.

Plaintiff Intrepid Automation, Inc. is represented by attorneys from Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, and potentially by local counsel.

Here are the details of the counsel of record representing Intrepid Automation, Inc.:

• Joseph L. Fogel

  • Role: Lead Counsel (pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP
  • Note: Mr. Fogel filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Intrepid Automation, Inc. in December 2024.

• Jeffrey J. Catalano

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP (implied by association with Joseph L. Fogel and other docket entries)
  • Note: Mr. Catalano has filed declarations in support of pro hac vice admissions in related patent matters, indicating his involvement in patent litigation.

• Marty B. Ready

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Appears to be associated with Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP based on docket entries.
  • Note: Marty B. Ready was added as an attorney for Intrepid Automation, Inc. on December 4, 2024.

• John Moy

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP
  • Note: Also listed as Respondent Counsel for Intrepid Automation, Inc. in the related IPR2025-01242 proceeding.

• Anne Potiker

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP (likely local counsel)
  • Note: Ms. Potiker has filed various notices and summons returns on behalf of Intrepid Automation, Inc.

While "Fish & Richardson" is a prominent IP law firm with a San Diego office and extensive patent litigation experience, and "Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP" is also a well-known patent litigation firm, the docket entries and related PTAB information for this specific case consistently list Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, and Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, as representing Intrepid Automation, Inc.

Defendants 3D Systems Corporation and 3D Systems, Inc. are represented by the following counsel:

Lead Counsel:

• David J. Tsai

  • Firm: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, San Francisco, CA. He is also co-head of Pillsbury's Taiwan practice.
  • Experience: Mr. Tsai is a first-chair trial lawyer focusing on intellectual property and complex commercial litigation, including patent, trade secret, trademark, and copyright disputes. He has experience preparing and prosecuting U.S. electrical engineering patent applications, drafting patentability and non-infringement opinions, and filing inter partes review (IPR) petitions. He has been quoted in The New York Times and Law360 and frequently writes and lectures on patent law. He has defended a global networking communications company in a patent infringement dispute, securing a favorable settlement.

• Kevin S. Prussia

  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP (WilmerHale), Boston, MA. He is a partner in the firm's Litigation/Controversy Department and a member of the Intellectual Property Litigation and Trial Practice Groups.
  • Experience: Mr. Prussia is an experienced litigator and trial lawyer with significant experience representing life sciences and technology companies in intellectual property and patent litigation. His practice includes strategic counseling, opinion work, litigation, and post-grant proceedings, including IPRs. He has trial experience in several district courts and appellate experience before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

• Nathan R. Speed

  • Firm: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., Boston, MA. He is a shareholder and heads the firm's Appellate Practice.
  • Experience: Mr. Speed is a trial and appellate lawyer focusing on complex patent litigation and post-grant matters. He has argued numerous appeals at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and managed over 50 matters before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). He represents clients in federal district courts across the country and the International Trade Commission (ITC), and has litigated cases involving a wide range of technologies, including 3D printing.

Local Counsel:

• Emily Burkhardt Vicente

  • Firm: Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, San Diego, CA.
  • Experience: Ms. Vicente has been added as an attorney for 3D Systems Corporation and 3D Systems, Inc. in this case. Wilson Elser's Intellectual Property & Technology Practice litigates breach of contract and licensing disputes, copyright, trademark, and patent infringement, and trade secrets.

• Christopher T. Varas

  • Firm: Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Seattle, WA, and Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience: Mr. Varas is a partner and co-chair of Kilpatrick's Trademark & Copyright Team. While primarily specializing in trademark, copyright, and rights of publicity disputes, his broader practice includes intellectual property litigation.

Note on firm Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP:
Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP is also listed in various expert witness directories as counsel for 3D Systems Corporation in this case, and in related IPR proceedings (IPR2025-01241 and IPR2025-01242) against Intrepid Automation's patents. However, the publicly available docket information (specifically the complaint) does not explicitly list attorneys from Smith, Gambrell & Russell as appearing for 3DS in the district court case at this time.