Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, case number 2:24-cv-00645, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The plaintiff is Stratasys, Inc., an industrial 3D printing OEM, and the defendants include Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co., Ltd., Tuozhu Technology Limited, Bambulab Ltd., Beijing Tiertime Technology Co. Ltd., and Beijing Yinhua Laser Rapid Prototyping and Mould Technology Co. Ltd.. The defendants are primarily Chinese companies associated with the "Bambu Lab" brand of 3D printers. This case has recently been consolidated with a related case (2:24-CV-00644-JRG) into a single case under No. 2:25-cv-00465-JRG, with the defendants agreeing to the consolidation.

Stratasys alleges that the defendants' 3D printers, specifically the Bambu Lab X1C, X1E, P1S, P1P, A1, and A1 mini models, infringe ten of its patents, which cover common 3D printing features such as purge towers, heated build plates, tool head force detection, and networking capabilities. U.S. Patent 8,562,324, specifically, relates to "Networked three-dimensional printing" and describes devices and methods for using networked three-dimensional printers, including web-based servers to provide a single point of access for remote users to manage distributed content and fabrication resources. Stratasys is seeking a ruling of infringement, financial damages, and an injunction to prevent the sale of the allegedly infringing products.

The case is being heard by U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The Eastern District of Texas is a well-known venue for patent litigation, often referred to as a "rocket docket" due to its reputation for moving cases quickly to trial, and it has local rules specific to patent cases that are often perceived as favoring patentees. This venue's popularity among patent plaintiffs is attributed to several factors, including a relatively rapid litigation timetable which can pressure defendants to settle, and historical jury pools that were reportedly sympathetic to plaintiffs in patent cases. The notability of this case stems from a major player in the industrial 3D printing space, Stratasys, asserting its intellectual property against emerging Chinese competitors in the desktop 3D printer market, particularly Bambu Lab, which has gained significant traction. The case is also notable for its linkage to multiple inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the USPTO, including IPR2025-00354 challenging patent '324, where Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. is the petitioner against Stratasys, Inc.. Despite these IPR challenges, the district court has not issued a stay in the litigation.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Patent Infringement Litigation 2:24-cv-00645

This patent infringement lawsuit, originally filed as 2:24-cv-00645 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, involves Stratasys, Inc. (Plaintiff) asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,562,324, among others, against several defendants including Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co., Ltd., Bambu Lab Limited, and Tuozhu Technology Limited (collectively, "Defendants" or "Bambu Lab entities"). The case centers on alleged infringement related to 3D printing technologies.

Chronological Developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings (2024-08-08)

Stratasys, Inc. initiated the lawsuit on August 8, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The complaint in case 2:24-cv-00645 specifically asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,562,324, titled "Networked three-dimensional printing," along with other patents. This case was filed concurrently with a related case, 2:24-cv-00644, asserting different patents. Stratasys sought a jury trial, financial damages, and an injunction against the sale of allegedly infringing 3D printers.

In response to the complaints, the Bambu Lab entities, including Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co., Ltd., Bambu Lab Limited, and Tuozhu Technology Limited, were named as defendants. Summons were issued, and Bambu Lab USA, a subsidiary with its sole place of business in Austin, Texas, was involved in the service of process for some defendants.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join Indispensable Party (2024-12-09): The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuits on December 9, 2024, arguing that Bambu Lab USA, Inc., the U.S.-based subsidiary responsible for sales, was an indispensable party that Stratasys had failed to name in the original litigation. They contended that venue over Bambu Lab USA would be improper in the Eastern District of Texas and suggested that the cases should be dismissed in favor of a parallel declaratory judgment action filed by Bambu Lab USA in the Western District of Texas (1:24-cv-01511), where a complete adjudication between all parties could occur.
• Denial of Motion to Dismiss (May 2025): U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied Bambu Lab's motion to dismiss in May 2025. The court ruled that the cases properly targeted the named defendants and that Bambu Lab USA was not essential to the dispute, suggesting that any misnaming could be addressed at the summary judgment stage rather than through dismissal.
• Consolidation of Cases (June 2025): Both parties agreed to consolidate lead case 2:24-CV-00644-JRG and member case 2:24-CV-00645-JRG into a single lead case, 2:25-cv-00465-JRG. Stratasys filed the request in late May 2025, which Bambu Lab did not oppose, effectively waiving its rights under 35 U.S.C. § 299(a). The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, ordered Bambu Lab to confirm its agreement in writing, which it did on June 12, 2025.

Discovery Milestones

• Second Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions (2024-12-17): Stratasys, Inc. filed its Second Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions on December 17, 2024, pursuant to Local Patent Rules. These contentions were based on publicly available information and were subject to supplementation as discovery progressed. Stratasys explicitly stated that its investigation was ongoing and discovery was in progress, reserving the right to amend its disclosures.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

As of the current date, no specific Markman hearing or claim construction order has been publicly reported for the consolidated case 2:25-cv-00465 or its predecessors, 2:24-cv-00644 and 2:24-cv-00645. Stratasys's infringement contentions from December 2024 indicated that they reserved the right to amend contentions in light of the claim construction process or order.

Trial Events

The district court trial in the consolidated case was originally scheduled to begin on June 1, 2026. However, based on the median time-to-trial statistics for Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, the actual trial date was expected to be in July 2026. As of today's date (June 15, 2026), there is no public record of the trial having commenced or concluded.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (IPR2025-00311)

• IPR Petition Filed (2025-01-21): Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., along with Bambu Lab Limited, Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co. Ltd., Tuozhu Technology Limited, and Bambu Lab USA, Inc., filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR2025-00311) against claims 1, 3–11, and 17–22 of U.S. Patent No. 8,562,324 on January 21, 2025. Stratasys, Inc. was identified as the Patent Owner.
• Institution of IPR (2025-06-18): On June 18, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted an inter partes review for claims 1, 3–11, and 17–22 of U.S. Patent No. 8,562,324. The PTAB declined to exercise its discretion to deny the petition under the Fintiv factors, noting that while the district court had not issued a stay, the petitioners had stipulated that they would not pursue the same grounds of invalidity against the '324 patent in the district court litigation if the IPR was instituted.
• Related IPRs: The parties also noted other related IPRs challenging patents involved in the litigation, specifically IPR2025-00257, IPR2025-00321, and IPR2025-00354.

Final Disposition or Present Posture

The patent infringement litigation, now consolidated under 2:25-cv-00465-JRG, remains active in the Eastern District of Texas. The trial was anticipated in July 2026. A final written decision in the IPR proceeding IPR2025-00311 would typically be due within one year of institution, around June 2026, which is close to or before the expected trial date. There has been no public report of a settlement, dismissal, or judgment as of June 15, 2026.

Plaintiff's Counsel Identified in Stratasys Patent Infringement Case 2:24-cv-00645

Stratasys, Inc. (also referred to as Stratasys Ltd. in filings) is represented by a team of intellectual property litigators from McDermott Will & Emery LLP, and potentially by local counsel from The Dacus Firm and Ward, Smith & Hill. Key attorneys who have filed notices of appearance for the plaintiff include Aashish Gautam Kapadia, Brian W. Oaks, and Syed Kamil Fareed.

The following counsel have been identified:

• Aashish Gautam Kapadia

  • Role: Partner, likely lead or co-lead counsel.
  • Firm: McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Austin, TX.
  • Note on experience: Represents clients in patent litigation, post-grant trials, and patent prosecution across various technologies, including computer hardware, software, and telecommunications. He has a background in electrical and computer engineering.

• Brian W. Oaks

  • Role: Partner, likely lead or co-lead counsel.
  • Firm: McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Austin, TX.
  • Note on experience: Focuses on intellectual property law with an emphasis on patent post-grant trials (leading over 200 IPRs and PGRs), patent litigation in federal courts, and patent portfolio development and management. His litigation experience spans internet technologies, complex software, and telecommunications.

• Syed Kamil Fareed

  • Role: Partner.
  • Firm: McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Austin, TX.
  • Note on experience: Specializes in patent litigation, patent prosecution, IP licensing, and trade secret litigation, with prior experience at Baker Botts and Vinson & Elkins.

Additionally, while specific attorneys were not named in the available public search results, Stratasys is also represented in its U.S. federal district court intellectual property litigation by:

• The Dacus Firm, P.C.

  • Role: Local Counsel (common in Eastern District of Texas cases).
  • Firm: The Dacus Firm, P.C. (Office location not specified, but typically based in the Eastern District of Texas for local counsel roles).
  • Note on experience: The firm is identified as co-counsel for Stratasys in federal district court IP litigation.

• Ward, Smith & Hill

  • Role: Local Counsel (common in Eastern District of Texas cases).
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill. (Office location not specified, but typically based in the Eastern District of Texas for local counsel roles).
  • Note on experience: The firm is identified as co-counsel for Stratasys in federal district court IP litigation.

Based on the available web search results, Joseph H. Chu and Christopher H. Carter are not listed as counsel of record for the plaintiff Stratasys, Inc. in this specific case (2:24-cv-00645).

In the patent infringement case originally filed as 2:24-cv-00645 in the Texas Eastern District Court, and now consolidated under Case No. 2:25-cv-00465-JRG, the defendants are Bambu Lab, Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co., Ltd., and Tuozhu Technology Limited.

Based on available information, Joshua A. Griswold is representing the defendants in related Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes review (IPR) proceedings (e.g., IPR2025-00532), where the defendants in the district court case are the petitioners challenging Stratasys's patents. It is highly probable that he and his firm also represent the defendants in the consolidated district court litigation.

Here is the identified counsel:

• Name: Joshua A. Griswold
• Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from IPR representation and firm leadership)
• Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, Texas office
• Experience Note: Joshua Griswold is a principal and the managing principal of Fish & Richardson's Dallas office. His practice encompasses patent disputes in U.S. District Courts and at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, as well as strategic counseling and IP licensing. He has a background as a mechanical engineer and extensive experience in various mechanical, electrical, and software innovations.