Stratasys, Inc. v. Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co. Ltd. et al.

Stratasys, Inc. initiated this patent infringement lawsuit in August 2024 against Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co. Ltd., Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co., Tuozhu Technology Limited, and Bambu Lab Ltd. The plaintiff, Stratasys, Inc., is a well-established American-Israeli manufacturer and operating company specializing in industrial 3D printers, software, and materials for polymer additive manufacturing. The defendants, collectively associated with Bambu Lab, represent a rapidly emerging consumer tech company from Shenzhen, China, known for designing and manufacturing desktop fused filament fabrication (FDM) 3D printers. Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co. Ltd. is identified as the brand registration owner for Bambu Lab. The core of the dispute centers on allegations that Bambu Lab's popular 3D printer models, including the X1C, X1E, P1S, P1P, A1, and A1 mini, infringe on Stratasys's intellectual property. Specifically, the case at issue pertains to U.S. Patent No. 9,592,660, titled "Heated Build Platform and System For Three-Dimensional Printing Methods," which broadly covers the integration of a heated build platform to facilitate 3D printing with high-temperature thermoplastics.

The litigation is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, under case number 2:24-cv-00644-JRG, presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This case was later consolidated into 2:25-cv-00465-JRG in June 2025. The Eastern District of Texas is a well-known venue for patent disputes, often favored by patent holders due to its experience with complex intellectual property cases and its reputation for efficient, plaintiff-friendly dockets.

This lawsuit is particularly notable given the competitive landscape of the 3D printing industry. Stratasys, a pioneer in additive manufacturing and fused deposition modeling (FDM) technology, has historically protected its innovations through an extensive patent portfolio. Bambu Lab, founded in 2020, has quickly disrupted the market by offering affordable, high-performance 3D printers, rapidly gaining significant market share in the entry-level segment and surpassing long-standing competitors. The case highlights the tension between established industry leaders and aggressive new entrants in a burgeoning technological field. Parallel legal actions have also been observed, with Stratasys pursuing similar claims in Europe, and Bambu Lab actively challenging the validity of asserted patents by citing prior art, including contributions from the open-source community. The outcome of this litigation could significantly impact market dynamics, technological innovation, and Bambu Lab's product offerings and sales within the U.S.

Key Legal Developments in Stratasys, Inc. v. Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co. Ltd. et al.

This patent infringement litigation, originally filed as 2:24-cv-00644-JRG, has seen several significant developments since its inception, including consolidation with other cases, a denied motion to dismiss, claim construction proceedings, and ongoing parallel inter partes reviews (IPRs). The case is currently active with a trial scheduled for June 2026.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

Stratasys, Inc. initiated the lawsuit in August 2024, filing two separate complaints (2:24-cv-00644-JRG and 2:24-cv-00645-JRG) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The complaints alleged infringement of multiple patents related to 3D printing technology, including U.S. Patent No. 9,592,660, concerning heated build platforms. The initial defendants included Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co. Ltd., Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co., Bambu Lab Ltd., Tuozhu Technology Limited, Beijing Tiertime Technology Co. Ltd., and Beijing Yinhua Laser Rapid Prototyping and Mould Technology Co. Ltd. However, Stratasys later dropped charges against Beijing Tiertime Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Yinhua Laser Rapid Prototyping and Mould Technology Co., Ltd. in October 2024, with all claims dismissed without prejudice.

A discovery order was issued in case 2:24-cv-00644-JRG on December 2, 2024, outlining initial disclosures and deposition limits, including 90 hours for party witnesses and 70 hours for non-party depositions.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

In February 2025, Bambu Lab filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuits, arguing they were invalid because its U.S.-based subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, was not named in the original litigation. This motion was denied by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on May 29, 2025. Judge Gilstrap ruled that Stratasys' allegations properly targeted the named defendants and that Bambu Lab USA was not an essential party, noting that both Bambu Lab USA and Bambu Lab are owned by Shenzhen Tuozhu, aligning their interests. The court further suggested any misnaming issues should be addressed at summary judgment rather than dismissal.

The cases (2:24-cv-00644-JRG and 2:24-cv-00645-JRG) were consolidated into Case No. 2:25-cv-00465-JRG in June 2025. Stratasys filed a motion to consolidate in late May, which Bambu Lab did not oppose, thereby waiving its rights under 35 U.S.C. § 299(a). The consolidation was officially ordered after Bambu Lab confirmed its agreement on June 12, 2025.

On November 12, 2025, District Judge Rodney Gilstrap issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the Defendants' Opposed Motion for Leave to Amend Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. No. 95).

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

A Markman Hearing was set for October 15, 2025, before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. As of today's date (June 15, 2026), the outcome of this hearing, including any claim construction order, has not been publicly detailed in the provided search results.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

Beyond the initial discovery order from December 2, 2024, the search results indicate ongoing discovery. Stratasys's Second Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, dated December 17, 2024, noted that Stratasys's investigation was ongoing and discovery was in progress. Stratasys also reserved the right to amend its contentions based on claim construction, Bambu Lab's contentions, and further discovery, including source code production. It was also mentioned that Stratasys had taken the position that it does not intend to rely on the assertion that its own products practice the claimed invention. When pressed for discovery into its practicing products, Stratasys demanded that Bambu identify any such products under the Artic Cat framework, but Stratasys later failed to present evidence that it met its marking obligations for the '698 patent.

Trial Events

A jury selection is scheduled for June 1, 2026, before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

Several parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings have been filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging Stratasys's patents. These include:

• IPR2025-00311: Filed by Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. against U.S. Patent No. 8,562,324. A Sur-Reply was submitted by Stratasys on January 30, 2025, arguing against the petitioner's claims of invalidity.
• IPR2025-00438: Filed by Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. against Stratasys, Inc., with the last filing on May 1, 2026.
• IPR2025-00531: Filed by Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. against U.S. Patent No. 9,168,698. The petitioner argued against discretionary denial, highlighting that the '698 patent is part of a "complex and diverse" multi-patent litigation.
• IPR2025-00532: Filed by Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. against Stratasys, Inc. et al. on February 4, 2025, relating to U.S. Patent No. 7,625,198.

These IPRs are actively challenging the validity of patents asserted by Stratasys in the district court litigation. The existence of these parallel proceedings suggests a strategy by Bambu Lab and related entities to invalidate the patents in question, potentially impacting the scope or viability of Stratasys's infringement claims in the district court. The scheduled trial date in the district court (June 1, 2026) exists alongside these ongoing IPRs, indicating that the court is proceeding with the infringement case while the validity challenges are separately addressed at the PTAB.## Key Legal Developments in Stratasys, Inc. v. Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co. Ltd. et al.

This patent infringement litigation, originally filed as 2:24-cv-00644-JRG, has seen several significant developments since its inception, including consolidation with other cases, a denied motion to dismiss, claim construction proceedings, and ongoing parallel inter partes reviews (IPRs). The case is currently active with a jury selection scheduled for June 1, 2026, and a trial thereafter.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

Stratasys, Inc. initiated the lawsuit in August 2024, filing two separate complaints (2:24-cv-00644-JRG and 2:24-cv-00645-JRG) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The complaints alleged infringement of multiple patents related to 3D printing technology, including U.S. Patent No. 9,592,660, concerning heated build platforms. The initial defendants included Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co. Ltd., Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co., Bambu Lab Ltd., Tuozhu Technology Limited, Beijing Tiertime Technology Co. Ltd., and Beijing Yinhua Laser Rapid Prototyping and Mould Technology Co. Ltd. However, Stratasys later dropped charges against Beijing Tiertime Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Yinhua Laser Rapid Prototyping and Mould Technology Co., Ltd. in October 2024, with all claims dismissed without prejudice.

A discovery order was issued in case 2:24-cv-00644-JRG on December 2, 2024, outlining initial disclosures and deposition limits, including 90 hours for party witnesses and 70 hours for non-party depositions.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

In February 2025, Bambu Lab filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuits, arguing they were invalid because its U.S.-based subsidiary, Bambu Lab USA, was not named in the original litigation. This motion was denied by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on May 29, 2025. Judge Gilstrap ruled that Stratasys' allegations properly targeted the named defendants and that Bambu Lab USA was not an essential party, noting that both Bambu Lab USA and Bambu Lab are owned by Shenzhen Tuozhu, aligning their interests. The court further suggested any misnaming issues should be addressed at summary judgment rather than dismissal.

The cases (2:24-cv-00644-JRG and 2:24-cv-00645-JRG) were consolidated into Case No. 2:25-cv-00465-JRG in June 2025. Stratasys filed a motion to consolidate in late May, which Bambu Lab did not oppose, thereby waiving its rights under 35 U.S.C. § 299(a). The consolidation was officially ordered after Bambu Lab confirmed its agreement on June 12, 2025.

On November 12, 2025, District Judge Rodney Gilstrap issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the Defendants' Opposed Motion for Leave to Amend Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. No. 95).

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

A Markman Hearing was set for October 15, 2025, before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. As of today's date (June 15, 2026), the outcome of this hearing, including any claim construction order, has not been publicly detailed in the provided search results.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

Beyond the initial discovery order from December 2, 2024, the search results indicate ongoing discovery. Stratasys's Second Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, dated December 17, 2024, noted that Stratasys's investigation was ongoing and discovery was in progress. Stratasys also reserved the right to amend its contentions based on claim construction, Bambu Lab's contentions, and further discovery, including source code production. It was also mentioned that Stratasys had taken the position that it does not intend to rely on the assertion that its own products practice the claimed invention. When pressed for discovery into its practicing products, Stratasys demanded that Bambu identify any such products under the Artic Cat framework, but Stratasys later failed to present evidence that it met its marking obligations for the '698 patent.

Trial Events

A jury selection is scheduled for June 1, 2026, before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

Several parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings have been filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging Stratasys's patents. These include:

• IPR2025-00311: Filed by Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. against U.S. Patent No. 8,562,324. A Sur-Reply was submitted by Stratasys on January 30, 2025, arguing against the petitioner's claims of invalidity.
• IPR2025-00438: Filed by Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. against Stratasys, Inc., with the last filing on May 1, 2026.
• IPR2025-00531: Filed by Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. against U.S. Patent No. 9,168,698. The petitioner argued against discretionary denial, highlighting that the '698 patent is part of a "complex and diverse" multi-patent litigation.
• IPR2025-00532: Filed by Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. against Stratasys, Inc. et al. on February 4, 2025, relating to U.S. Patent No. 7,625,198.

These IPRs are actively challenging the validity of patents asserted by Stratasys in the district court litigation. The existence of these parallel proceedings suggests a strategy by Bambu Lab and related entities to invalidate the patents in question, potentially impacting the scope or viability of Stratasys's infringement claims in the district court. The scheduled trial date in the district court (June 1, 2026) exists alongside these ongoing IPRs, indicating that the court is proceeding with the infringement case while the validity challenges are separately addressed at the PTAB.

Stratasys, Inc. is represented by the following counsel of record in Stratasys, Inc. v. Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00644-JRG:

• Aashish Gautam Kapadia

  • Role: Counsel of Record
  • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Experience Note: Kapadia focuses on complex intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and other technology disputes.

• Michael J. Newton

  • Role: Counsel of Record (Partner)
  • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Experience Note: Newton is a partner in Alston & Bird's Intellectual Property Litigation Group with significant experience in complex patent infringement litigation and counseling, having litigated in federal courts across numerous districts, including the Eastern District of Texas, and handled investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission. He has represented clients in matters involving semiconductors, telecommunications, security, consumer electronics, and medical devices.

• Brian W. Oaks

  • Role: Counsel of Record
  • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Experience Note: Oaks's practice involves intellectual property litigation, including patent, trademark, and copyright infringement cases.

• Joseph T. Jaros

  • Role: Counsel of Record (Partner)
  • Firm: Rakoczy Molino Mazzochi Siwik LLP, Chicago, IL
  • Experience Note: Jaros has nearly two decades of complex litigation experience, including managing Hatch-Waxman litigation matters involving pharmaceutical technologies, and earlier in his career represented clients in patent infringement, trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and trade secret misappropriation cases.

• Demetri G. Zervas

  • Role: Counsel of Record (Partner)
  • Firm: Rakoczy Molino Mazzochi Siwik LLP, Chicago, IL
  • Experience Note: Zervas focuses on intellectual property litigation, particularly in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, with extensive experience in Hatch-Waxman cases.

• Darren S.C. Platt

  • Role: Counsel of Record (Partner)
  • Firm: Rakoczy Molino Mazzochi Siwik LLP, Chicago, IL
  • Experience Note: Platt's practice includes patent litigation, inter partes review proceedings, and intellectual property counseling, particularly in the electrical engineering and computer science fields.

• J. Mark Miller

  • Role: Local Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm: Jackson Walker LLP, San Antonio, TX
  • Experience Note: Miller has over 40 years of experience in intellectual property law, including prosecuting patents and trademarks, negotiating IP agreements, and litigating dozens of disputes. He focuses his practice on counseling, transactions, and litigation concerning intellectual property (patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets), franchise, license, and antitrust matters.

• Eric J.F. Johnson

  • Role: Local Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm: Jackson Walker LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Experience Note: Johnson's practice includes intellectual property and technology licensing agreements, and he has experience representing clients in various corporate and commercial matters. While other Eric Johnsons have extensive patent litigation experience, specifically Eric J.F. Johnson at Jackson Walker is involved in intellectual property and technology transactions.

This information is based on attorney appearances in the case as cited in legal filings and firm profiles.

The defendants in Stratasys, Inc. v. Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co. Ltd. et al. (consolidated under Case No. 2:25-cv-00465-JRG) are represented by counsel from Fish & Richardson P.C. and Steckler Wayne & Love.

The following attorneys represent Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co., Ltd., Bambulab Limited, and Tuozhu Technology Limited:

• David M. Barkan

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Redwood City, CA.
  • Experience Note: David Barkan is an experienced intellectual property litigator, and his firm, Fish & Richardson P.C., is well-known for its patent litigation practice.

• Carl E. Bruce

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX.
  • Experience Note: Carl Bruce is an attorney at Fish & Richardson P.C., a firm recognized for its work in patent litigation.

• Thomas H. Reger, II

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX.
  • Experience Note: Thomas Reger is an attorney with Fish & Richardson P.C., which handles numerous intellectual property disputes.

• Aaron P. Pirouznia

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX.
  • Experience Note: Aaron Pirouznia is an attorney at Fish & Richardson P.C., a prominent firm in patent litigation.

• Michael A. Vincent

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX.
  • Experience Note: Michael Vincent is an attorney practicing at Fish & Richardson P.C., a firm active in patent infringement cases.

• Brandon S. Avers

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX.
  • Experience Note: Brandon Avers is an attorney with Fish & Richardson P.C., involved in patent disputes.

• Gregory P. Love

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Steckler Wayne & Love, Henderson, TX.
  • Experience Note: Gregory Love is an attorney with Steckler Wayne & Love, a law firm in Texas.