US 11167464

I'll search for this specific patent number across USPTO and litigation sources.

Let me search for CAFC 2026 docket activity and the specific claim set for this patent.

Let me confirm the full independent claim text for the '464 patent and check for any Federal Circuit appeal activity.

US Patent 11,167,464 — Analyst Summary

Quick findings

I located authoritative records for US 11,167,464 B2 and confirm the identifier literally as issued. Note on scope of search: I found no Federal Circuit (CAFC) 2026 docket captioned to this patent. The only appellate-adjacent proceeding I can confirm is a PTAB IPR that was denied institution in October 2025. I flag below where I could not fully verify.

Bibliographic data (confirmed)

Continuity chain (per the specification and USPTO records):

• 16/796,122 is a continuation of 16/153,224 (filed Oct. 5, 2018 → issued as US 10,569,466)
• → continuation of 14/992,127 (filed Jan. 11, 2016 → US 10,093,061)
• → continuation of 14/064,974 (filed Oct. 28, 2013 → US 9,233,504)
• → benefit of provisional 61/719,874 (filed Oct. 29, 2012), which supplies the 2012-10-29 priority date.

⚠️ Data-quality note: Stratasys's counterclaim pleading (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-00465, Doc. 23, ¶78) states the '464 patent issued "On October 27, 2015." That is incorrect in the filing (apparently carried over from the '698 patent text) and conflicts with the USPTO/Google Patents record of November 9, 2021. I treat Nov. 9, 2021 as authoritative here.

Abstract

"A supply of build material such as a spool or cartridge is instrumented with a data tag that includes information about the build material. A three-dimensional printer can read the information from the tag and determine how to use the build material during fabrication of a three-dimensional object."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The '464 patent has three independent claims: 1, 12, and 19. Claims 1 and 19 are method claims; claim 12 is a system claim. The '464 claim set is distinguishable from its sibling '466 patent in that it adds a diagnostic-test step between determining an operational parameter and actually printing.

Claim 1 — Method (the "read → determine → test → print" loop)

1. Read data from a tag on a supply of build material using a tag sensor that is in communication with the printer's controller — the data includes at least one property of the build material.
2. Determine an operational parameter of the fabrication process from that data, where the parameter is at least one of: build platform temperature, build volume temperature, infill requirement, rafting requirement, support structure requirement, or cooling requirement.
3. Perform a diagnostic test to determine whether that operational parameter is suitable for the printer.
4. Only if the parameter passes the test, control the printer with the controller according to that parameter to fabricate the object.

Claim 12 — System (apparatus counterpart to claim 1)
A system including: a three-dimensional printer; a coupling adapted to receive a supply of build material; a processor configured to determine an operational parameter from the tag data and to perform the suitability diagnostic test (same enumerated parameter list); and a controller configured, when the parameter is suitable per the test, to control the printer according to that parameter to fabricate the object.

Claim 19 — Method (second, narrower method claim)
Claim 19[a] recites "reading first data from a tag included on a supply of a build material using a tag sensor associated with a three-dimensional printer, the first data related to the build material…" The use of "first data" implies the claim continues with a second data-reading or correlating step (e.g., reading additional data or a lookup/combination step before the diagnostic-test and print steps).

⚠️ Uncertainty: I was unable to retrieve the complete verbatim text of claim 19 from an authoritative source in this session. Claim 1 and claim 12 are quoted essentially verbatim from PTAB/IPR and district-court filings; claim 19 is only partially confirmed. If exact claim 19 wording matters, it should be pulled directly from the USPTO Patent Center/patent images.

Enforcement and post-grant activity

PTAB — IPR2025-00585 (Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v. Stratasys, Inc. et al.)

• Filed: February 6, 2025
• Challenged patent: US 11,167,464 (respondent application 16/796,122; Tech Center 1700)
• Petitioners asserted claims 1, 12, and 19 were unpatentable
• Status: Institution DENIED / proceeding terminated October 6, 2025 (Google Patents labels this "Not Instituted – Merits")
• Counsel noted: Petitioner — Michael Hawkins et al.; Respondent/Patent Owner — Brian Oaks et al.

District court litigation

• E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00645 and 2:25-cv-00465 (Stratasys v. Bambu entities) — Stratasys asserts the '464 patent (claims 1, 12, and 19) alongside US 10,569,466 and other patents against BambuLab X1C, X1E, P1S, P1P, A1, and A1 mini printers (RFID-based Automatic Material System).
• W.D. Tex. 1:24-cv-01511 (BambuLab USA, Inc. v. Stratasys, Inc.) — declaratory-judgment action challenging, inter alia, non-infringement of the '464 patent (Count IV).
• Reported outcome: a jury verdict of approximately $27.6 million in Stratasys's favor against Bambu (reported 2026). I could not independently confirm the verdict details, which patent(s) drove the damages, or any post-trial motions.

Federal Circuit: ❌ I found no CAFC 2026 docket naming US 11,167,464. Because the IPR2025-00585 was denied institution, there is no final written decision to appeal in that proceeding; any CAFC activity in this family would more likely arise from the consolidated Texas district-court litigation. I cannot rule out a newly docketed appeal that is not yet indexed — this should be verified directly against the CAFC docket (PACER/CM-ECF) before being relied upon.

Analyst's note on interpretation

A frequent non-infringement theory in the litigation targets the "diagnostic test" limitation — BambuLab contends its products do not "perform a diagnostic test to determine whether the operational parameter is suitable for the three-dimensional printer," which is the '464-specific hook that distinguishes it from the parent '466 patent's claim 1. Practitioners construing the '464 claims should look to the specification's discussion of "preliminary diagnostic tests" (e.g., whether build-material diameter, pellet size, or viscosity is appropriate for the printer), which is the intrinsic support for that term.

I'll search litigation-tracking sources for this specific patent number.

Found several leads. Let me dig into the specific cases.

I have substantial detail. Let me confirm the trial outcome and the specific role of the '464 patent.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 11,167,464

Bottom line: Yes — U.S. Patent No. 11,167,464 ("Tagged build material for three-dimensional printing," originally assigned to MakerBot Industries LLC, now owned by Stratasys, Inc.) is at the center of the ongoing Stratasys v. Bambu Lab patent war in the Eastern District of Texas. It is asserted in the second of two consolidated infringement actions and is also the subject of a Bambu-filed declaratory judgment action and an unsuccessful PTAB inter partes review petition. I found no litigation involving the '464 patent other than the Stratasys/Bambu Lab dispute, and no case in which the '464 patent itself has reached judgment — the September 2026 jury verdict covered four different patents.

1. District Court Litigation

Note on consolidation: On Oct. 22, 2024, the court consolidated 2:24-cv-00644 and 2:24-cv-00645 for all pretrial issues. The transferred DJ action (2:25-cv-00465-JRG) was later added as a companion member case.

2. PTAB Proceeding Directly on the '464

Bambu filed a wave of IPRs against Stratasys's asserted patents (Dec. 2024–Feb. 2025). Notably, the PTAB did invalidate claims of U.S. 9,592,660 and U.S. 8,562,324, but it declined to institute on the '464.

3. Outcome / Current Status — Specific to the '464

• No infringement judgment has been entered on the '464. The first jury trial (verdict Sept. 17, 2026, E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.) involved only the four 644-case patents — U.S. 9,421,713; 7,555,357; 9,168,698; and 10,556,381 — and none of those is the '464. The jury found all four valid and infringed, found the infringement willful, and awarded ~$27.6 million in past damages. Bambu has announced it will seek post-trial review and appeal.
• The '464 case (2:24-cv-00645) has not been tried; Stratasys reportedly stated the second case "does not yet have a trial date."
• In the consolidated E.D. Tex. proceedings, Bambu moved for summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. 10,569,466 and 11,167,464 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Dkt. No. 175). That motion was among numerous pretrial motions terminated by the court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 1–2, 2026 (Dkt. No. 401).
• Earlier, on May 8, 2025, the court granted Stratasys leave to amend its infringement contentions to correct the priority dates for U.S. 9,168,698; 10,556,381; 10,569,466; 11,167,464; 8,747,097; and 8,562,324 (Dkt. No. 52), with reciprocal leave for Bambu to amend invalidity contentions.
• On May 29, 2025, the court denied Bambu's motion to dismiss for failure to join BambuLab USA as an indispensable party (Dkt. No. 53).
• Farther afield, the parallel European dispute involves EP2964450 (same family as U.S. 9,421,713) — not the '464. The UPC Hague Local Division denied Stratasys's preliminary injunction against the Bambu H2C printer on April 24, 2026, and Bambu has separately initiated European revocation proceedings. (Bambu has also reportedly invalidated a Chinese family member of the '713 patent.)

4. Summary Table for the '464 Itself

Caveats and Sourcing

• Date discrepancy: Your prompt states the current date as April 26, 2026, but the search sources reflect events through late September 2026 (e.g., the Sept. 17, 2026 jury verdict and a Sept. 24–28, 2026 law-firm press release). I am reporting the search results as the ground truth per your instruction, but flag this so you can reconcile the timeline. If your operative date is in fact April 2026, the trial verdict and the July 2026 order would be post-dated relative to your date.
• "Outcome/status" precision: The $27.6M figure is a jury verdict on past damages, not a final judgment; the court has not entered final judgment, enhancements for willfulness, or any injunction, and Bambu's appeal rights remain open.
• Case-caption/party note: The E.D. Tex. docket occasionally references the party as "Shenzhen Touzhu" (a variant spelling) alongside "Tuozhu." I have not altered identifiers.
• Sources:
  • Google Patents record for US11167464 (family litigation links & IPR2025-00585): https://patents.google.com/patent/US11167464/en
  • IPR2025-00585 case page: https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2025-00585
  • E.D. Tex. docket / filings (2:24-cv-00644 and -645, 2:25-cv-00465): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69028070/stratasys-inc-v-shenzhen-tuozhu-technology-co-ltd/
  • Complaint in 2:24-cv-00645: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69028066/1/stratasys-inc-v-shenzhen-tuozhu-technology-co-ltd/
  • Order granting leave to amend contentions (Dkt. 52): https://www.courtlistener.com:443/docket/69028070/52/stratasys-inc-v-shenzhen-tuozhu-technology-co-ltd/
  • Motion to dismiss (Dkt. 38): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.[232140](/patent/232140)/gov.uscourts.txed.232140.38.0.pdf
  • Transfer/consolidation discussion: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1557241](/patent/1557241)/download-documents?artifactId=N_2wZXCVtWb8hgkT_9io6p8LY89jD1iaGs7hmlWbJLTBfvRDQt04z_U
  • Verdict (E.D. Tex., Sept. 17, 2026): https://3dprint.com/[333013](/patent/333013)/stratasys-wins-27-6m-in-patent-case-against-bambu-lab/ ; https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/new-update-in-stratasys-v-bambu-lab-patent-infringement-action-[254833](/patent/254833)/ ; https://www.mcdermottlaw.com/news/mcdermott-wins-27-6m-jury-verdict-for-stratasys-in-patent-trial/
  • Jury verdict form (exhibit): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69028070/340/12/stratasys-inc-v-shenzhen-tuozhu-technology-co-ltd/
  • July 2, 2026 Memorandum Opinion & Order (Dkt. 401): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69028070/401/stratasys-inc-v-shenzhen-tuozhu-technology-co-ltd/
  • IP-NAVI dispute record (W.D. Tex. DJ case): https://www.ip-navi.or.kr/ipnavi/dispute/daily/dailyDetailPopup.navi?newsSeq=[218198](/patent/218198)

If you want, I can pull the docket-level detail on each summary-judgment ruling concerning the '464 (e.g., the § 101 motion, Dkt. 175) or the specific asserted claims of the '464 (the verdict form lists claims 1 and 12).

I'll start by reconciling the structured ODP block (which says "no AIA trial proceedings") against the litigation/PTAB data visible in the patent's own Google Patents record (which flags IPR2025-00585), then search for claim-level details.

I have the key proceeding. Let me dig into the institution decision reasoning and check for any companion IPRs on this family.

Let me pull the specific institution decision and check for any companion/second petition on the '464 patent.

PTAB Proceedings on US 11,167,464 ("the '464 Patent") — Tagged build material for three-dimensional printing

Data-integrity note up front. The canonical "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP) states: "The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest." That is contradicted by both the patent's own Google Patents record — which flags "PTAB case IPR2025-00585 filed (Not Instituted - Merits)" — and by three independent aggregators (RPX, ipverse, ex-parte). Per the governing instructions, I treat the ODP block as the default but flag the proceeding web search surfaced. I was unable to retrieve the actual Board decision document before my search budget was exhausted, so some fields below are marked [unverified] rather than filled in. Nothing here is invented.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding is documented on this patent — IPR2025-00585 — and it was DENIED INSTITUTION (2025-10-06); that is 1 proceeding total, 0 active trials, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained on the merits, 0 settlements, 1 institution denial. Bottom line for a defendant today: no claim of the '464 patent has ever been canceled, narrowed, or sustained by the Board — the patent is completely untested at the PTAB, and no § 315(e) estoppel attaches. That cuts both ways: there is no "dead claim" to exploit, but there is also no freedom to build an infringement demand on a hardened, PTAB-validated claim — the validity fight for this patent has simply never happened at the Board. A well-resourced alleged infringer (Bambu Lab, through Fish & Richardson) already tried and failed to get a foot in the door, which is a meaningful caution flag against assuming an IPR is a cheap kill.

IPR2025-00585 — Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v. Stratasys, Inc. et al.

• Type: Inter Partes Review (IPR of US 11,167,464 B2, Tech Center 1700)
• Filed: 2025-02-06 (confirmed by RPX and ipverse; Google Patents lists it as filed)
• Status: "Not Instituted - Merits" (Google Patents / Unified Patents PTAB portal) = "Institution Denied" (ipverse), Institution Decision Date 2025-10-06 (RPX and ipverse agree). The "Merits" tag indicates the denial was on the substance of the grounds rather than a discretionary/Fintiv denial — but [unverified against the face of the decision].
• Judge panel: Christopher L. Ogden, Lilan Ren, Mitchell G. Weatherly [unverified — sourced only from the third-party aggregator ex-parte.com; I could not confirm against the Board's decision caption]
• Petition grounds: Not confirmed. The sources I could reach confirm only that the petition was "against claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,167,464." I will not guess the challenged claim numbers, references, or statutory basis (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112). For context, in the consolidated E.D. Tex. case Stratasys asserts claims 1 and 12 of the '464 patent, and Bambu's invalidity contentions target those claims — but that is litigation, not the petition.
• Institution decision: Denied — 2025-10-06. I could not retrieve the panel's reasoning. Do not treat any explanation as established.
• Final Written Decision: None. No FWD issued — institution was denied, so the Board never adjudicated the patentability of any claim.
• Settlement / termination: N/A — denial of institution ends the proceeding without a merits outcome; there was nothing to settle.
• Appeal: No FWD → no Federal Circuit appeal available on the merits. Whether the petitioner sought Director Review of the denial is unknown to me and should be checked (a denial under § 314(a) is reviewable by the Director, not the CAFC on the merits).
• Defensive value: Because institution was denied, the '464 patent emerges unstained and un-estopped — an accused infringer can still raise any § 102/§ 103 ground at the Board, including the grounds Bambu raised. But the denial signals that a bare "tagged-material" invalidity theory did not clear the reasonable-likelihood threshold in the eyes of the panel that reviewed this petition; a new IPR should be built on materially better art and a tighter claim-mapping than the first attempt.

Litigation context (for the defensive-value read, not a PTAB outcome): The '464 patent was asserted in Stratasys, Inc. v. Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co. Ltd., consolidated Lead Case No. 2:24-cv-00644-JRG (E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap) and Member Case 2:24-cv-00645-JRG, against Bambu Lab printers/apps (X1/P1/A1 series, AMS with RFID spool readers). See the docket on CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69028070/stratasys-inc-v-shenzhen-tuozhu-technology-co-ltd/. A jury verdict reported in late September 2026 found infringement of four Stratasys patents with willfulness and roughly $27.6M in damages [reported by Chinese business press; verdict as to the '464 claims specifically not confirmed by me]. Notably, the petitioner filed a broad Sotera-style stipulation (2025-04-08) offering to drop the IPR grounds in district court if institution were granted — a standard Fintiv-defense move — yet institution was still denied, which is consistent with a merits-based denial.

Companion IPRs on sibling patents (pattern evidence, not this patent): Bambu/Tuozhu filed a coordinated campaign against the Stratasys consumer-3D-printing portfolio, including:

• IPR2025-00438 — US 10,569,466 (the '466 patent; the '464's parent, "Tagged Build Material"), challenging claims 1-5, 7-13, 16-20 over Loughran, Dubois, Jazayeri, Menchik and others (per Stratasys's Preliminary Response).
• IPR2025-00321 — US 9,421,713 (purge tower) — instituted; the '713 patent was reported to have survived ("PTAB maintained validity").
• IPR2025-00531 — US 9,168,698 (force detection).
• Plus IPR petitions on further Stratasys patents (e.g., '354, '097-related) in the same campaign.

Strategic summary

Claim status on the '464 patent: all claims are UNTESTED at the PTAB. No claim was canceled and no claim was sustained, because IPR2025-00585 never instituted and produced no Final Written Decision. There is therefore no "dead-claim" list to hand a defendant and no surviving-claim list blessed by the Board. The only claim-level activity is in district court, where Stratasys asserts claims 1 and 12. Any statement that the Board "validated" or "invalidated" claims of this patent is unsupported — the reported PTAB "maintained validity" outcome in the press concerned the '713 purge-tower patent, not the '464.

Estoppel landscape: none — the field is wide open. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only after an instituted IPR reaches a final written decision. An institution denial triggers no estoppel whatsoever. Consequently, a defendant today retains every § 102/§ 103 ground — including the ground(s) Bambu raised in IPR2025-00585 — and may bring them at the Board and/or in district court. The petitioner's 2025-04-08 stipulation was expressly conditioned on institution ("If IPR is instituted in IPR2025-00585…"), so it never took effect and does not constrain anyone. The practical consequence: no one is estopped, but by the same token no one has a merits ruling to leverage — the invalidity question for the '464 is genuinely open.

Pattern signals. (1) Same petitioner, portfolio-wide campaign: Bambu Lab/Tuozhu is a serial IPR filer against Stratasys, filing coordinated petitions across at least four and possibly nine Stratasys patents spanning six families — this was a strategic parallel-battlefield effort, not an isolated challenge. (2) No defensive aggregator in the chain: the "Unified Patents" reference on the Google Patents page is a data source (Unified's PTAB and litigation portal), not a petitioner — the real party in interest is Shenzhen Tuozhu (Bambu Lab). Do not describe this as a Unified Patents challenge. (3) Patent owner posture: Stratasys is litigating aggressively in E.D. Tex. and is not using the PTAB; there is no PTAB-appeal track record to assess because no FWD ever issued here.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant facing the '464: You are not estopped and no claim is dead. Do not concede validity, and do not assume the '464 is "hardened" — the PTAB has never ruled on it. Because IPR2025-00585 was denied institution on the merits (per the "Not Instituted - Merits" tag), a new petition must be demonstrably stronger on the art and claim-mapping than the first. Pull the 2025-10-06 institution decision and its exhibits first (the denial should reveal exactly which limitations the panel found Petitioner failed to show); then decide whether to file a second, better-grounded IPR or litigate validity in court. Verify, too, whether the petitioner has filed a Director Review request on the denial — that is the only live appellate-style path this proceeding could still travel.
• Verify the primary records yourself (I could not, within budget): the Board's decision is public via USPTO PTAB E2E / the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's Decisions page (search proceeding IPR2025-00585), and the case file is mirrored at the Unified Patents portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-00585), RPX (https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/ptab/18641-shenzhen-tuozhu-technology-v-stratasys-incorporated-ipr-of-464), and ipverse (https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2025-00585). Confirm: challenged claim numbers, Grounds, panel composition, and denial rationale.
• No active trial calendar to track. There is no institution → no 1-year FWD clock, no oral hearing, no due date. If any second petition is filed on the '464, the milestones to diary are: PO Preliminary Response (~3 months), institution decision (statutory 6 months from the petition's filing under § 314(b)), and if instituted, the FWD by the statutory 1-year trial deadline.
• Where there is no PTAB activity, say so plainly: aside from this one denied petition, there is no other AIA trial history on US 11,167,464. The absence of any instituted IPR is itself informative — this patent has been aggressively asserted in the Bambu litigation, yet no challenger has yet persuaded the Board to open a trial, so an IPR-based defense should be treated as real but unproven, not routine.

Confidence and provenance. Confirmed by multiple independent sources: existence of IPR2025-00585, petitioner/patent-owner identities, filing date (2025-02-06), denial status, and institution-decision date (2025-10-06). Not confirmed by me (flag before relying): the judge panel, the grounds/challenged claims, and the denial's reasoning — I did not reach the underlying decision document. The ODP canonical block reports zero proceedings, which conflicts with the sources above; treat that as an ingestion lag and verify against PTAB E2E.

I'll research the assignment record, ownership, and litigation history for US 11167464.

Let me dig into the assignment records and litigation details.

Let me search for the specific assignment reel/frame records and the recording correspondent.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 11,167,464 B2

Patent: "Tagged build material for three-dimensional printing"
App. No. 16/796,122 (filed 2020-02-20) · Issued 2021-11-09 · Priority 2012-10-29
Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 11167464) and https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html

Data-quality note (read first): Google Patents' legal-event feed exposes the parties, dates, and conveyance types for this patent's recorded assignments, but it does not expose reel/frame numbers or the recording correspondent. My live searches of the Assignment Center and its indexing mirrors did not return the underlying reel/frame images before my research budget was exhausted. The dates and party names below are from the Google Patents legal-event record (which is derived from the USPTO assignment record); reel/frame and correspondent fields are marked "not retrieved" rather than guessed. The one place I can name a firm with confidence is the prosecution agent of record, which is a different field from the assignment correspondent.

Inventors

Basis for employer: All five are recorded as assigning to MakerBot Industries, LLC in the 2020-02-21 assignment entries (see timeline). Inventors Douglas appears on one recorded assignment; Moschella, Buel, Steiner, and Jennings appear together on a second recorded assignment the same day — a normal practice of grouping inventor signatures into two reels.

Unusual-pattern check — not present / not determinable: I found no evidence that any inventor departed MakerBot within 12 months of the 2012/2013 priority filing, and I could not determine individual employment end-dates from the sources retrieved. This means I cannot flag (or clear) a pre-fire-sale departures pattern. The corporate event that followed (Stratasys acquiring MakerBot in Aug 2013, ~10 months after the priority filing) was a stock-for-stock acquisition of the whole company, not a portfolio sale triggered by inventor attrition.

Original assignee

MakerBot Industries, LLC — Brooklyn, New York (One MetroTech Center). Named as original assignee on the issued patent.

• Primary line of business: Design, manufacture, and direct-to-consumer/retail sale of desktop fused-deposition ("FDM") 3D printers and the thermoplastic filament consumables they run on (Replicator, Replicator 2, Replicator 2X, later Digitizer scanner). Founded 2009; FY2012 revenue $15.7M; ~22,000 printers sold by 2013.
• Shipped a product embodying the claims: Yes, plausibly. The claims are directed to a build-material supply (spool/cartridge) instrumented with a data tag read by the printer to auto-configure print parameters. MakerBot's business was precisely desktop printers + proprietary tagged filament spools, and the assignment record places the inventors inside MakerBot. (Claim-to-product mapping is a merits question; I state the commercial fit, not an infringement conclusion.)
• Current status: Acquired / absorbed. Stratasys Ltd. (NASDAQ: SSYS) acquired MakerBot in an all-stock deal (~$403M + up to ~$201M earn-out) that closed 2013-08-15; MakerBot ran as a separate Stratasys subsidiary. In 2022 Stratasys combined the MakerBot business with Ultimaker (NPM Capital-backed) into the "UltiMaker" joint venture. The patent rights themselves did not go to the JV — they were assigned to Stratasys, Inc. on 2022-07-19. MakerBot Industries, LLC is not dissolved, but it is no longer the owner of this patent and is no longer the operating desktop-printer entity of record.

Current owner: Stratasys, Inc. (the U.S. operating subsidiary of Stratasys Ltd.), confirmed by the 2022-07-19 assignment and by the parties' stipulation in litigation that "Stratasys is the owner of the Asserted Patents and has standing to bring suit."

Assignment timeline

Reel/frame values below are "not retrieved." Dates and party names are from the Google Patents legal-event record; verify the reel/frame and correspondent at the Assignment Center before relying on them.

• 2020-02-20 (application filed) / recorded 2020-02-21 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment (inventor → applicant)
  • Assignor: Ariel Douglas
  • Assignee: MakerBot Industries, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Ordinary inventor assignment perfecting title to the applicant for this continuation, filed one day after the 2020-02-20 application.

• 2020-02-20 (application filed) / recorded 2020-02-21 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment (inventor → applicant)
  • Assignors: Anthony D. Moschella; William B. Buel; Robert J. Steiner; Aric Lynn Jennings
  • Assignee: MakerBot Industries, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved; flag: this is the second of two same-day MakerBot recordings — if the correspondent on both entries is identical, it is the same filing agent handling the whole inventor group, but that is expected on a single application and is not, on its own, an NPE tell.
  • Context: Ordinary inventor assignment, same batch as above.

• Executed 2022-07-19 / recorded 2022-07-19 — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: MakerBot Industries, LLC
  • Assignee: STRATASYS, INC. (Minnesota)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Internal reorganization / intragroup consolidation. MakerBot's patent estate was moved up to the Stratasys, Inc. operating entity in the same window as the MakerBot↔Ultimaker combination (announced 2022-05-12; Stratasys contributed MakerBot's assets to the JV but retained this patent family). This is the chain-assembling step for the later assertion campaign.

Prosecution agent of record (separate field, provided for context): Westman, Champlin & Koehler, P.A. (Minneapolis, MN), per the patent's attorney/agent-of-firm listing. This is a general-practice IP firm serving an operating company; it is not a known NPE filing mill, and I cannot confirm it appears as the assignment correspondent without the reel images.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11167464
    2012 : Priority filing by MakerBot
    2013 : Nonprovisional filed
         : Stratasys acquires MakerBot
    2020 : Continuation application filed
         : Inventors assign to MakerBot
    2021 : Patent issues as US 11167464
    2022 : Assigned to Stratasys Inc
    2024 : Stratasys sues Bambu Lab in Texas
    2025 : Bambu files IPR against the patent
    2026 : East Texas jury awards 27 6 million

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The only post-issuance transfer is MakerBot Industries, LLC → Stratasys, Inc. (recorded 2022-07-19). Stratasys, Inc. is the U.S. operating subsidiary of a NASDAQ-listed manufacturer that sells FDM printers and materials; it is not a licensing-only "IP/Holdings/Ventures" vehicle, and the source entity (MakerBot) was itself a product company. No registered-agent-service address or single-purpose Texas/Delaware LLC appears in the chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. Neither MakerBot Industries, LLC nor Stratasys, Inc. matches any public NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities, etc.). Stratasys is a long-standing operating manufacturer.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT ASSESSABLE. The recording correspondent is not exposed in the sources I could retrieve, so I cannot confirm or refute recurrence. I decline to infer from the prosecution firm (Westman Champlin & Koehler) alone — a single appearance is expressly not a finding, and I have no reel data to establish repetition.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. Two inventor→MakerBot recordings on a single day (2020-02-21) plus one intragroup transfer in 2022 is a typical chain, not a rapid series of LLC-to-LLC hops through nominees. No shared-correspondent cascade is visible.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT (timing). The 2022-07-19 assignment precedes the earliest Stratasys v. Bambu Lab filing (~2024-08) by roughly two years, well outside the 6-month assertion-arming window. The transfer consolidated title inside the corporate family rather than racing a complaint.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11 proceedings by MakerBot or Stratasys are implicated; the transfer was an intragroup reorganization tied to the UltiMaker JV, not a distressed sale.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. Stratasys is the real party in interest, asserting its own patents in its own name: it is plaintiff in E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00645 (asserting '464, claims 1 and 12) and 2:24-cv-00644, with a related W.D. Tex. action (1:24-cv-01511). The defendants (Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology, Shanghai Lunkuo Technology, Tuozhu Technology Ltd., BambuLab Ltd. — "Bambu Lab") are direct desktop-3D-printer competitors. This is classic operating-company vs. competitor litigation, the inverse of privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator (chain terminus) — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at Stratasys, Inc., an operating manufacturer — not RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. Note: a Unified Patents-branded PTAB data feed surfaces on this patent's page, but that is a data-source attribution, not ownership; the IPR2025-00585 petition (filed ~2025-02-06, not instituted on the merits) was brought by the Bambu Lab defendants as a defensive validity challenge, not by Unified as assignee. So there is anti-NPE activity around the patent, but the patent was not neutralized by defensive aggregation.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The ownership chain is MakerBot Industries, LLC → Stratasys, Inc. (recorded 2022-07-19), where Stratasys, Inc. is the U.S. operating arm of NASDAQ-listed Stratasys Ltd., an established FDM 3D-printer and materials manufacturer — so the current owner both ships products in the relevant market and is the real party in interest. Stratasys is the plaintiff of record asserting claims 1 and 12 of the '464 in E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00645 against direct competitor Bambu Lab, and the parties stipulated that "Stratasys is the owner of the Asserted Patents and has standing to bring suit." None of the NPE tells lands: no shell LLC, no listed-asserter assignee, no bankruptcy sale, no pre-suit 6-month transfer, and no defensive-aggregator terminus. Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search 11167464) — confirm the two 2020-02-21 inventor reels and the 2022-07-19 MakerBot→Stratasys reel, whose numbers I could not retrieve.

I'll research US Patent 11167464 and its prior art citations through targeted searches.

I'll dig deeper into the specific prior art references cited against this patent.

The PTAB IPR petition reveals specific prior art references. Let me investigate these and the full citation record.

Prior Art Analysis — US Patent 11167464

1. Patent Identification (verbatim from the authoritative record)

Continuity chain: US 16/796,122 ← US 16/153,224 ← US 14/992,127 (US 10,093,061) ← US 14/064,974 (US 9,233,504) ← prov. 61/719,874. A later continuation US 17/516,974 issued as US11780143B2.

2. Important Methodology / Confidence Note

I was able to retrieve the authoritative patent text and the live PTAB challenge record, but I was not able to retrieve the complete, verbatim "References Cited (56)" table from the front face of US11167464 in this session. I will therefore clearly separate:

• (A) References I can confirm are being asserted against this exact patent — from the PTAB proceeding (highest confidence), and
• (B) References I could not verify — which I will flag rather than fabricate.

I will not invent patent numbers. Where a reference number was not confirmed, I say so explicitly.

3. The Most Relevant Prior Art — IPR2025-00585 (Unified Patents)

The single most relevant and current prior-art record for US11167464 is PTAB Case IPR2025-00585, filed by Unified Patents (status per the record: "Not Instituted – Merits"). This is the authoritative, adversarial prior-art mapping for this patent. The petition and patent-owner response cite the following references:

(A-1) "Dubois"

• Role in the challenge: Asserted in Ground 1A.
• Characterization in the record: "Dubois teaches a printer-centric framework in which a data-processing unit/database selects optimum parameters as a function of…" material. The patent owner distinguished it because Dubois "doesn't really talk about clients and networks" and "doesn't address tags."
• Potentially anticipates: The base independent claim (Claim 1 of the asserted set), which requires the printer to read tag data and receive operational parameters.
• §102 note: According to the owner's argument, Dubois alone lacks the tag and networked client limitations — meaning it is arguably stronger as a §103 combination reference than as a standalone §102 anticipation, unless it discloses reading material parameters that control the printer.
• ⚠️ I could not confirm Dubois' exact patent/publication number; the record identifies it only by inventor name.

(A-2) "Napadensky" (Exhibit 1006)

• Role in the challenge: Relied upon by the Petitioner to support the proposition that "slices specify a selection of build material," i.e., material assignment at the slice level.
• Notice: The patent owner objected that Napadensky is not part of the asserted Ground 1A/1B combination, calling into question whether it was properly combined.
• Potentially anticipates: The dependent claims governing selection of one of two build materials for a slice/build (e.g., the claim requiring "receiving a selection of one of the first build material and the second build material … for use in fabricating the object").
• §102 note: Best characterized as a §103 secondary reference for the multi-material-selection limitations; on its own it likely does not anticipate the tag-reading claims.
• ⚠️ Number not confirmed in-session; "Napadensky" is consistent with the Objet Geometries inventor lineage in multi-material polyjet printing, but I will not assert a specific patent number without verification.

(A-3) "Loughran"

• Role in the challenge: Co-asserted with Dubois in Ground 1A ("the claimed client-received selection between two tagged supplies" via "Loughran or Dubois").
• Potentially anticipates: Claim 5 and claims 3–4 (the two-supply / two-tag architecture with client selection).
• §102 note: The Petitioner's theory is a combination of Loughran + Dubois; the owner disputes that either discloses "receiving" a client selection. Again, a §103 posture.
• ⚠️ Number not confirmed in-session.

Summary of IPR posture: The asserted theory is a §103 obviousness combination (Loughran + Dubois, with Napadensky for slice-level material selection), not a clean §102 anticipation. The Board has not instituted the IPR on the merits as of the record.

4. Litigation Context (same technology, different forum)

US11167464 is one of the patents asserted by Stratasys against Bambu Lab and affiliates:

• Texas Western District Court, case 1:24-cv-01511
• Texas Eastern District Court, case 2:24-cv-00645
• Texas Eastern District Court, case 2:25-cv-00465

Reported subject matter: "wireless connection to the 3D printer and filament marking using RFID tags for material identification" (paired with US10569466B2). These records corroborate the claimed scope (tagged/RFID build-material identification), which is the touchstone for prior-art relevance.

5. References I Could NOT Attribute with Confidence

During searches, a "Patent Citations (6)" list containing:

• US5303141A (1991-01-03, IBM) — closed-loop extrusion nozzle positioning
• US6129872A (1998-08-29, Jang) — colorful three-dimensional object
• US6629011B1 (2000-07-17, Stratasys) — autoinitialization in a three-dimensional modeling machine
• US7625198B2 / US7939003B2 (2004-08-11, Cornell Research Foundation)

…appeared under the page for US10556381 ("Three-dimensional printer with force detection") — a different patent in the same MakerBot/Stratasys portfolio. I could not confirm these belong to US11167464's own front-face citation table, so I am NOT mapping them to US11167464's claims. If you need them confirmed, they should be pulled directly from the USPTO PatentCenter "References Cited" for US 16/796,122.

6. Recommended Next Steps for a Definitive §102 Mapping

To produce a court/PTAB-grade anticipation chart you would need to:

1. Pull the verbatim "References Cited" (56) list from USPTO PatentCenter for application 16/796,122 (not yet retrieved here).
2. Retrieve the full IPR2025-00585 petition and exhibits (EX1001 = the patent; EX1006 = Napadensky; plus the Loughran and Dubois exhibits) to obtain their exact patent/publication numbers and dates.
3. Map each reference element-by-element against the asserted independent claim (the networked tag-reading claim: printer reads tag → provides tag data to a client over a network → receives operational parameters → fabricates).

Bottom Line

• Patents/IDs were interpreted literally; no numbers were auto-corrected.
• The most relevant prior art for US11167464 is the set asserted in IPR2025-00585: Dubois, Napadensky (Ex. 1006), and Loughran.
• These are being applied in a §103 obviousness framework rather than as standalone §102 anticipation; the owner specifically argues each reference is missing a key claim limitation (tags; networked client selection).
• I could not, in this session, confirm the complete examiner citation table or the exact patent numbers for Dubois/Loughran/Napadensky — this is an explicit limitation, and those identifiers should be verified against the IPR exhibits and PatentCenter before being relied upon.

I'll gather the prior-art citations and claim text for US 11,167,464 before analyzing.

The search surfaced IPR petitions and claim text. Let me pull the actual claim set and the prior-art citation list for this patent.

Let me retrieve the actual "Prior Art"/citation tables (References Cited and Cited By) for this patent family.

Preliminary note on sources and one important gap

What the "Prior Art section" of the fetched page actually contains. The Google Patents page supplied to me for US 11,167,464 B2 contains only three prior-art-related data points:

• Prior art keywords: tag; build material; data; dimensional printer; dimensional
• Prior art date: 2012-10-29
• Anticipated expiration: 2033-10-28

The fetched page does not include the "References Cited" / "Cited By" tables that are normally present on Google Patents, and it does not include the granted claim text. I therefore supplemented it with (a) the PTAB/IPR record for this patent family, which identifies the art actually being asserted against the '464 patent, and (b) the citation table appearing on the related Stratasys document US 2011/0121476 A1, where US 11,167,464 B2 appears as a citing/cited document. Where I could not verify a reference number or date, I say so rather than supplying one.

Claim text caveat. The only claim text I could retrieve is the claim set reproduced in the PTAB petition record for this family (petition download at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1557401/). That record states: "Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 12, and 19 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed reference numerals…" and gives:

1. a A method comprising: reading data from a tag included on a supply of a build material using a tag sensor in communication with a controller of a three-dimensional printer, the data including at least one property of the build material; [b] determining an operational parameter of a fabrication process using the three-dimensional printer based upon the data, the operational parameter including at least one of a build platform temperature, a build volume temperature, an infill requirement, a rafting requirement, a support structure requirement, and a cooling requirement; [c] performing a diagnostic test to determine whether the operational parameter is suitable for the three-dimensional printer; and d when the operational parameter is [suitable] … (text truncated in the retrieved document).

I flag this as unverified against the patent's own claim listing. If the granted claim 1 differs (for example, if the "diagnostic test" and "build platform temperature" language sits in a different continuation, such as US 10,569,466 B2), the element-by-element mapping below must be re-run. I state this explicitly rather than papering over it.

1. Governing law, priority, and the applicable § 103 standard

Priority. The '464 patent issued 2021-11-09 from App. No. 16/796,122 filed 2020-02-20, which is a continuation of App. No. 16/153,224 (filed 2018-10-05, issued as the '466 patent), which is a continuation of 14/992,127 (filed 2016-01-11, now US 10,093,061), which is a continuation of 14/064,974 (filed 2013-10-28, now US 9,233,504), claiming benefit of 61/719,874 (2012-10-29). The page confirms prior art date 2012-10-29.

Because the earliest application in the chain was filed before March 16, 2013, the claims are entitled to a pre-AIA effective filing date, and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) governs, with § 102(a)/(b)/(e) defining what is prior art. Practically, this means:

• Only art published or filed before 2012-10-29 (or otherwise qualifying under § 102(a)/(b)/(e)) can be used.
• Any reference published after October 29, 2012 is not available. This is a real constraint: several of the most on-point later references in this space (e.g., Leimbach-type "automatically selected build materials" disclosures and HP/Stratasys material-data-unit publications from 2014–2016, such as the one that cites US 9,233,504 B2 in its own search report) post-date the critical date and cannot be used in a § 103 combination, though they are useful as evidence of the state of the art's trajectory. I will not build grounds on them.

Standard. Under Graham v. John Deere and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., the question is whether the differences between the claim and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art ("POSITA") at the critical date. For a pre-AIA case, the classic teaching–suggestion–motivation test applies, but KSR makes clear that the motivation need not be explicit in the references; it may come from market forces, design incentives, common sense, the "finite number of identified, predictable solutions," and the ordinary creativity of the skilled artisan. MPEP 2144 sets out the recognized rationales: combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; simple substitution of one known element for another; use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way; applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement; "obvious to try"; design incentives/market forces; and obviousness of a particular parameter within the disclosed range.

Level of ordinary skill. Given the field (FDM/extrusion 3D printing for both industrial and consumer desktop machines as of 2012), a POSITA would be a person with a bachelor's degree in mechanical, electrical, or computer engineering (or equivalent) and roughly 2–4 years of experience in additive manufacturing machine design or control, or equivalent work experience. This person would be familiar with (i) filament spools/cartridges and their handling hardware, (ii) embedded controllers, (iii) RFID/barcode/optical sensing, and (iv) the process-parameter dependencies of FDM (extruder temperature, platform/chamber temperature, infill, rafts, supports, cooling).

One litigation-history fact worth weighing. The page's litigation block records PTAB case IPR2025-00585 filed — "Not Instituted (Merits)", i.e. a third party (per the page's petitioner data, Unified Patents) challenged a family member and the Board declined to institute. Also recorded are the Bambu Lab declaratory-judgment/infringement actions in W.D. Tex. (1:24-cv-01511) and E.D. Tex. (2:24-cv-00645, merged as 2:25-cv-00465). A denial of institution is not a merits adjudication of validity, but it is at least a signal that the art as packaged by that petitioner did not present a strong enough case to trigger trial. I factor that into my confidence assessment in § 6 below.

2. The prior art that is actually in the record

The references identified in the PTAB petition record for this family (petition download .../1557430/..., which contains the Petitioner's overviews with exhibit numbers) are:

I have verified the existence and described content of these references from the petition record and, for Batchelder, from the fact that US 11,167,464 B2 appears in the citation/similar-document table of US 2011/0121476 A1 on Google Patents. I have not independently verified Dahlin's, Pax's, Mark's, or Wang's publication dates or numbers, and I will not assert them. This matters because every § 103 ground below is date-sensitive.

Not usable (post-critical-date). The 2014–2016 material-identification publications (e.g., the HP-family "data unit for build material identification" document whose own citation list includes US 9,233,504 B2, a member of this same family), the Leimbach-type "automatically selected build materials" publications from 2014, and the 2016 Stratasys "Platen planarizing" documents surfaced in the search are all after 2012-10-29 and cannot support a § 103 combination against these claims. They are only useful as background showing where the field was heading.

3. Element-by-element mapping of claim 1

Using the claim-1 text reproduced above:

Key observation: limitation [b]'s enumerated parameter list is the crux, because the list mixes (i) machine thermal parameters (build platform temperature, build volume temperature, cooling) and (ii) toolpath/model-architecture parameters (infill, rafting, support structure). No single one of the identified references clearly teaches all of these driven by tag data. That is precisely the kind of limitation that invites a two-reference combination, and it is also precisely the kind of limitation that a patent owner will argue is not obvious — because the "operational parameter" is drafted as a Markush-style "at least one of" group, so only one member need be met.

4. Proposed § 103 grounds

Ground 1 — Batchelder alone (or Batchelder in view of the knowledge of a POSITA)

Theory. Batchelder teaches a consumable material (filament spool / cartridge) carrying an encoded marking; a sensor assembly on the additive manufacturing system reads that marking; the read data includes material properties and processing parameters; and the system's controller uses that data to control the build process (and to verify that the correct/authorized material is loaded). That discloses a and, at minimum, the "operational parameter determined based upon the data" of [b], plus the verification behavior that reads on [c] as a diagnostic, and d.

Residual gap. Whether Batchelder expressly ties tag data to build platform temperature, build volume temperature, or a cooling requirement (as opposed to extrusion temperature and general material identity). If it does not, Ground 1 fails on [b] and must be combined.

Assessment. I would expect Ground 1 to carry a, [c] (as authentication/validation), and d, but to be weak on the specific parameter species of [b]. Because [b] is a disjunctive "at least one of" list, the patent owner's exposure depends on whether any listed member is taught — and build platform temperature is the single most likely member to be found in the art, since an FDM machine with a heated build platform (which the '464 specification itself describes at col. 2, ¶ thermal element 130) would naturally have that platform temperature set as a function of material.

Ground 2 — Batchelder + Pettis (primary proposed combination)

References. Batchelder (US 2011/0121476 A1) as the material-tagging/reading reference; Pettis (networked 3D printing environment; described in the record as being on the face of the '774 patent) as the printer-controller/parameter-generation reference.

Mapping.

• [b]: Batchelder (material data → material-dependent machine parameters) in view of Pettis, which teaches a printer controller that receives a model and produces machine-ready fabrication instructions including print-architecture decisions (supports, rafts, infill, layer parameters), and that manages printer configuration. Build platform temperature and build volume temperature are within the control domain of the controller in either reference; the enumerated list is met if any one member is present.
• [c]: Batchelder's verification/authentication of consumable identity vs. machine; alternatively the ordinary pre-print check.

Motivation to combine (explicit).

1. Same field, same problem. Both are three-dimensional printing systems. Batchelder addresses what material is loaded and what it needs; Pettis addresses how the printer converts a model into a build. Setting a printer's thermal and toolpath parameters from material data is the direct point of intersection. Same-field combination is the paradigm case under MPEP 2144.01.
2. Art-recognized problem. The '464 specification's own background states the problem: "the three-dimensional printer controller may need at least a basic set of characteristics of the build material to determine operation" and "[t]here remains a need for methods and systems for the automatic detection and acquiring of three-dimensional printer build material characteristics." Both references address that same need, which is powerful evidence of motivation.
3. Predictable result. Reading an identifier and looking up a stored parameter table is a deterministic, non-experimental operation. There is no unpredictability in the combination — only routine implementation. KSR's "predictable results" rationale applies squarely.
4. Market forces / design incentive. The '464 patent is a MakerBot-family filing (MakerBot Industries, later assigned to Stratasys). Consumer desktop printing as of 2012 was characterized by non-expert users who could not be expected to hand-enter process parameters; automating parameter selection from a tagged spool reduces support burden, print failures, and user error — a recognized commercial driver. KSR expressly sanctions this rationale.
5. Finite, identified solution set. A POSITA seeking to use material data would choose among a small number of known machine parameters (temperature, feed rate, cooling) — the very parameters the specification lists. In re Aller / MPEP 2144.05: optimization of disclosed parameters is routine.

Ground 3 — Dahlin + Batchelder (+ Pettis)

Theory. Dahlin (filament spool with a circuit monitoring data concerning the filament) supplies the tag-on-spool + reader + filament-data architecture; Batchelder supplies the material-parameters-to-machine-control link and encoding/sensor variety (RFID, optical, etc.); Pettis supplies the controller-side parameter generation.

Value of this ground. This is the natural "two-ended" obviousness case: the container-side invention (a spool that carries data) is squarely Batchelder/Dahlin art, and the machine-side invention (a controller that sets parameters) is squarely Pettis art. The '464 claim is the junction of the two — reading tag data and gating fabrication on a derived parameter. Where the invention resides in the junction of two known subsystems, KSR and MPEP 2144.02 (simple substitution / use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way) support the combination.

Motivation. Dahlin's monitoring circuit exists to enable the rapid-prototyping system to know what is loaded; Batchelder's encoding exists for the same purpose in an additive-manufacturing context; combining them with a controller that consumes the data is the whole point of instrumenting a spool. A spool that reports filament data but is never used by the machine would be an inoperative, pointless combination — the "why would you do it otherwise" argument cuts strongly in favor of obviousness here.

Ground 4 — Batchelder/Pettis + Pax (and/or Wang) for the material-identity-specific branch of claim 1

Theory. Pax teaches a 3D printer using multiple colors of build material — necessarily, a printer that must know which material/color is loaded and behave accordingly. Wang teaches a print-service platform, useful for the networked-determination branch of the specification (where parameter determination occurs at a print server or remote resource, as described in the '464 specification's networked-environment passages). These are secondary references for the "which material am I using, and therefore how do I set up" branch.

Motivation. A multi-material/multi-color machine cannot function without material identification; the identification is what Pax's machine needs, and the parameter-setting taught by Batchelder is the known way to supply it.

Ground 5 — Any of the above plus a diagnostic-test reference

Limitation [c] ("performing a diagnostic test to determine whether the operational parameter is suitable") is the most likely place for a patent owner to find daylight, because it sounds like a positive-recitation step. The counters are:

1. The specification itself (col. 15:54-58) describes the diagnostic as checking "whether the diameter of the build material, size of a build material pellet, build material fluid viscosity, or the like is appropriate for the three-dimensional printer" — i.e., a routine compatibility check keyed to the material data already being read. When a limitation is disclosed only as a routine engineering check in the specification, the Federal Circuit and the Board routinely treat it as within the ordinary skill level. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-21.
2. Authentication/verification in Batchelder (verifying the consumable is correct/authorized for the machine) is a suitability determination performed before printing — functionally the same act recited in [c].
3. A "diagnostic test" that merely confirms a value is within a known operable range is the classic "obvious to try" / "obvious design choice" scenario.

5. The overall § 103 argument, stated affirmatively

Putting the grounds together, the strongest single articulation is:

Claim 1 is obvious over Batchelder in view of Pettis (Ground 2), and alternatively over Dahlin in view of Batchelder and Pettis (Ground 3).

The reasons:

1. Every element is disclosed, and the only question is the join. Batchelder/Dahlin: tagged consumable + sensor + material data + controller. Pettis: printer controller that derives fabrication parameters. The claim recites the junction.
2. The motivation is documented in the reference field and in the patent's own background. Automating material-dependent printer configuration was an expressly recognized need.
3. The combination is a predictable, deterministic data-lookup, not an experiment. No teaching away; no unexpected result; no criticality in the enumerated parameter list (it is an open-ended "at least one of" group).
4. KSR permits the enumerated-parameter limitation to be met by any one known parameter, and the specification itself concedes parameter selection based on material type is routine ("the data tag may identify a type of build material and the controller may calculate a suitable extruder temperature based on the type. Similarly, the controller may calculate other operational parameters such as build platform temperature, feed rate, cooling parameters, build chamber heating parameters").
5. Secondary considerations appear unavailable or weak. The '464 claims are a continuation of a 2013 filing, so any commercial-success story is tied to the entire MakerBot product line rather than to the claimed tag-reading feature; nexus would be difficult to establish. There is no evidence in the record of a long-felt-but-unmet need that was actually solved by the claim as opposed to by the broader commercial product; and copying/licensing evidence is not apparent from the record.

6. Counterarguments a patent owner would raise, and how they fare

7. Bottom line

• Dahlin + Batchelder + Pettis, and Batchelder + Pettis, are the combinations with the best chance of establishing obviousness of claim 1 if the granted claim 1 is the text I retrieved (tag-reading + tag-data-derived operational parameter + diagnostic + fabrication). The motivation to combine is unusually well documented here: same field, same recognized problem, predictable implementation, and a documented market push toward automated consumer-printer configuration.
• Batchelder alone probably disposes of limitations a, [c], and d but is likely short on the specific parameter species of [b], so a combination is needed, or the patent owner will anchor on [b].
• Every ground must be date-checked against 2012-10-29. Batchelder (published 2011-05-26) is safely before. Dahlin, Pax, Mark, and Wang publication dates could not be verified from my retrieved sources and must be confirmed before any of them is used.
• The denial of institution in IPR2025-00585 is a meaningful negative signal about how a forum has reacted to at least one obviousness challenge to this family, and a district court facing a Bambu-style invalidity case would weigh it.
• Confidence: I am high-confidence on the legal framework, the priority analysis, the identity and general content of Batchelder, and the structure of the obviousness attack. I am medium-confidence on the exact granted claim-1 text (retrieved from a PTAB petition, not the patent's own claim listing) and low-confidence on the identifiers, dates, and exact disclosures of Dahlin, Pax, Mark, and Wang, which I have deliberately not fabricated. If the granted claim 1 departs from the text I used — for example, if the diagnostic-test and platform-temperature language is actually in US 10,569,466 B2 rather than the '464 — the element mapping above must be re-run and my conclusions could change.

Sources used: the fetched Google Patents page for US 11,167,464 B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US11167464/en); PTAB petition documents https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1557430/ and .../1557401/; the Google Patents page for US 2011/0121476 A1; and the litigation/PTAB data recorded on the fetched page (IPR2025-00585; W.D. Tex. 1:24-cv-01511; E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00645 and 2:25-cv-00465).