A US jury has awarded Stratasys approximately $27.6 million in past damages after finding that Bambu Lab infringed four 3D printing patents.
The verdict followed a week-long trial in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. According to a statement issued by Stratasys, the jury found that all four patents presented at trial were valid and infringed by the Bambu Lab defendants.
The defendants were Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co. Ltd., Tuozhu Technology Limited, Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co. Ltd. and Bambulab Ltd., collectively referred to in the proceedings as Bambu.
“Stratasys remains focused on delivering cutting-edge technologies to customers and protecting the intellectual property that underpins our innovation,” the company said following the verdict.
Bambu Lab plans to appeal the decision and told 3D Printing Industry, “We appreciate the time and effort of the jury in considering this matter. While we respect the judicial process, we disagree with the verdict reached in this case. The law provides Bambu with the right to seek post-trial review and to appeal, and Bambu intends to avail itself of these legal processes.”
The decision is a significant victory for Stratasys, but it does not conclude the broader dispute. This was the first of two patent infringement cases filed by the company against Bambu Lab.
The jury verdict may also be followed by post-trial motions and an appeal. A final judgment will determine the formal relief awarded by the court. Stratasys’ statement did not indicate whether it will seek an injunction restricting the sale of affected Bambu Lab products.
Four patents found infringed
Stratasys filed two lawsuits against Bambu Lab in August 2024. The original complaints alleged infringement of ten US patents covering technologies used in desktop material extrusion 3D printers.
The four patents considered by the jury cover purge towers, extrusion-based layer deposition and force-detection systems:
US Patent No. 9,421,713, “Additive Manufacturing Method for Printing Three-Dimensional Parts With Purge Towers”
US Patent No. 7,555,357, “Method for Building Three-Dimensional Objects With Extrusion-Based Layered Deposition Systems”
US Patent No. 9,168,698, “Three-Dimensional Printer With Force Detection”
US Patent No. 10,556,381, “Three-Dimensional Printer With Force Detection”
The purge-tower patent broadly concerns printing material into a separate tower during changes between print heads or deposition lines. The ’357 patent concerns generating extrusion paths that fill small voids within printed layers. The ’698 and ’381 patents belong to the same patent family and concern force sensing at the extruder or tool head, including detecting contact with the build platform and identifying deflection or operating errors.
The jury’s award covers past infringement. Stratasys did not disclose how the approximately $27.6 million was divided between the four patents or the individual Bambu entities.
US Patent No. 9,592,660 was also asserted in the original complaint but was not presented to the jury.
Bambu Lab Provides Additional Context
Bambu Lab also pointed to related patent proceedings in Europe and before the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
On April 24, 2026, the Hague Local Division of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Stratasys’s application for preliminary measures against Bambu Lab’s H2C 3D printer. The proceeding concerned European Patent EP2964450, which belongs to the same patent family as US Patent No. 9,421,713.
According to Bambu, the UPC concluded at the preliminary stage that the H2C did not fall within the scope of the European patent. Stratasys did not appeal that ruling, while a separate action brought by Bambu seeking to invalidate the European patent remains pending.
The European ruling does not directly determine the outcome of the US litigation. The proceedings involved different patent claims, accused products and legal standards, while the UPC ruling concerned an application for preliminary measures rather than a final decision in the wider European dispute.
Bambu also highlighted three inter partes review proceedings before the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
The PTAB found challenged claims of US Patent No. 9,592,660, covering heated build-platform technology, unpatentable. Bambu said Stratasys did not appeal that decision.
The Board also found challenged claims of US Patent No. 8,562,324, concerning networked 3D printing, unpatentable. According to Bambu, Stratasys’s request for Director Review was rejected, although the period for an appeal remained open.
Neither patent was among the four considered in the latest jury verdict. US Patent No. 9,592,660 appeared in the original complaint but did not reach the jury, while US Patent No. 8,562,324 forms part of the other Stratasys case.
The PTAB reached a different conclusion concerning US Patent No. 9,421,713, the purge-tower patent considered at trial. The Board found that Bambu had not demonstrated that the challenged claims were unpatentable. Bambu has appealed that decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly identified the four patents considered at trial. The patents were US 9,421,713, US 7,555,357, US 9,168,698 and US 10,556,381. The article has been amended accordingly.
Subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter to keep up with the latest 3D printing news.
Facts Only
* A US jury awarded Stratasys approximately $27.6 million in past damages against Bambu Lab for patent infringement.
* The verdict followed a trial in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division.
* The defendants were Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co. Ltd., Tuozhu Technology Limited, Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co. Ltd., and Bambulab Ltd., collectively referred to as Bambu.
* The jury found that all four patents presented at trial were valid and infringed by the defendants.
* The four infringed patents covered purge towers, extrusion-based layer deposition, and force-detection systems: US Patent Nos. 9,421,713, 7,555,357, 9,168,698, and 10,556,381.
* The jury award covered past infringement; the division of funds among patents was not disclosed.
* US Patent No. 9,592,660 was asserted in the original complaint but was not presented to the jury.
* Bambu Lab plans to appeal the decision.
* Related European proceedings concluded that the H2C printer did not fall within the scope of a European patent concerning US Patent No. 9,421,713.
* The PTAB found challenged claims of US Patent No. 9,592,660 and US Patent No. 8,562,324 unpatentable, though Bambu appealed the latter decision.
Executive Summary
A US jury awarded Stratasys approximately $27.6 million in past damages after finding that Bambu Lab infringed on four 3D printing patents during a trial in the Eastern District of Texas. The verdict followed a week-long trial where the jury determined that all four patents presented were valid and infringed by the defendants, identified as Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co. Ltd., Tuozhu Technology Limited, Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co. Ltd., and Bambulab Ltd., collectively referred to as Bambu. Stratasys stated it remains focused on innovation protection while acknowledging the verdict.
Bambu Lab intends to appeal the decision, expressing disagreement with the reached verdict. The scope of the infringement involved four specific patents related to purge towers, layer deposition, and force-detection systems for 3D printing. Additionally, Bambu highlighted related proceedings in Europe and the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where some claims related to other patents were found unpatentable or subject to further review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Full Take
The narrative frames a specific legal victory for Stratasys rooted in past infringement, juxtaposed with ongoing patent litigation and post-trial appeals. The structure reveals a strategic interplay between domestic jury findings and international/administrative patent challenges. The focus on the four specific patents suggests a careful selection of claims to achieve a favorable result in the US context, contrasting with the broader set of ten patents initially alleged. This bifurcation—a concrete monetary award based on jury perception versus complex administrative patent reviews involving the PTAB and the UPC—highlights the fragmented reality of intellectual property enforcement across jurisdictions.
The pattern observed is the management of legal narrative: presenting a decisive win (the $27.6 million) while simultaneously signaling that the dispute remains open through appeals and other parallel proceedings. The inclusion of information regarding patent invalidation rulings from the PTAB and UPC serves to contextualize the litigation, suggesting that infringement liability does not operate in isolation but interacts with broader patent validity concerns. The implied implication is that tangible financial remedies (jury award) are only one layer of a protracted conflict; the real resilience lies in navigating the overlapping legal systems where technical claims and procedural rulings intersect.
Bridge Questions: If the jury awarded damages based on past infringement, what were the specific criteria used to quantify the value of those infringed technologies versus non-infringing alternatives? How does the disparity between the US court's outcome and the PTAB/UPC findings about patent validity impact the perceived strength or weakness of ongoing enforcement strategies? What are the long-term implications for how technology companies manage IP across globally recognized legal frameworks?