One Technology, Two Rulings: What Bambu Lab's Split US and European Patent Outcomes Teach Chinese Exporters

On September 17, a jury in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas found that four affiliated Bambu Lab entities willfully infringed four Stratasys 3D printing patents and awarded USD 27.6 million in damages, roughly RMB 190 million.

The same patent family wears a different face in Europe. In April this year, the Hague Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) rejected Stratasys's preliminary injunction against a Bambu Lab printer on the ground that the machine did not fall within the scope of protection of European patent EP2964450.

One technology, two major markets: one awards RMB 190 million, the other says "no problem." This has nothing to do with fighting the courts. Patent rights are territorial by nature. Wherever you sell, you must run the numbers separately under that market's rules. That method of calculation is FTO (freedom to operate).

Damages Versus Sales Ban

Hold off on sympathy or applause. Here is a trap I nearly fell into myself: the figures 27.6 million and 82.8 million cannot be added together. The 82.8 million is the treble damages ceiling for willful infringement, equal to 27.6 million multiplied by 3. It is the cap on the same bill, not another pot of money. And both treble damages and a permanent injunction (sales ban) were rejected by the judge.

In other words, Stratasys won the case and won money, but could not force Bambu Lab to stop selling.

That is worth a great deal.

A client once received a demand letter from a US company and asked me how bad things could get. My first question back: are you more afraid of paying damages, or of your products being pulled from the shelves? Most say damages. Only when it reaches that point do they understand that a sales ban is what really hurts. Once goods are distributed and orders are taken, a sales ban means the entire sales network grinds to a halt.

How the Damages Break Down

Across the four patents, the money breaks down as follows: the purge tower patent (US 9,421,713) accounts for USD 14.2 million and was the most disputed; EP2964450, the European patent whose injunction was rejected, belongs to the same family. The extrusion path patent (US 7,555,357) accounts for USD 10.6 million, with a term running to March 2027, only half a year left. The remaining two force-detection patents add up to USD 2.8 million.

What is truly valuable is laying the cards of three markets on the table:

Looking at this table, the conclusion is one sentence: a patent war is a global calculation, not a fixation on winning or losing one city or one battleground. Invalidation results won in the Chinese market can be used to negotiate a global settlement; a European ruling of "no fall within" can be used to argue your technical position before a US court. The territoriality of patents actually gives you room to dismantle block by block and bargain block by block.

Three Steps Before Going Global

Before going global, do three things first:

First, conduct an FTO search in target markets before launch. In the Bambu Lab battle, the cheapest step was actually to map patent risk in each target market before launch. Searching only after being sued is too late.

Second, think through your parent-subsidiary structure. In this case the defendants were four entities: the domestic parent, a Hong Kong company, and affiliates were all pulled in together. Who manufactures, who holds rights, and who sells should be designed separately to avoid dragging in a whole group.

Third, do not overlook copyright exposure from content communities. Bambu Lab's model-sharing community MakerWorld has already faced three copyright lawsuits, from Pop Mart, The Legend of Hei, and Ultraman. While hardware goes global, user-uploaded models are another landmine.

What the Case Really Teaches

This case is not over. The appeal has not concluded, and the second lawsuit has not been scheduled. The first-instance USD 27.6 million is only the first half.

For Chinese companies going global, the real value of this case is not "how much Bambu Lab paid," but that it lays a sheet of paper in front of everyone: the same technical solution carries different risks in different markets, and must be calculated market by market and claim by claim. There is no "one global pass" for patent safety.

By the way, some online claims say this case involved a parallel Section 337 proceeding. That is untrue; no USITC Section 337 investigation has been initiated so far. When looking at cases like this, do not be led astray by clickbait headlines.

In the first half of the year, 3D printer exports reached 3.62 million units and RMB 9.6 billion, roughly doubling year on year. The more aggressive the going-global push, the more unavoidable it becomes to calculate accounts by jurisdiction.

Patent search and analysis is the long-standing core business of Aipunajie Patent Office, and foreign-related layout and overseas enforcement are what Najie has run for years. If you are going global, do the FTO checkup first and pave the road for overseas enforcement.

The next article will discuss something more specific: how to sweep the patent landmines in major markets for the cost of a meal.

Welcome to leave comments in the comment section and share the patent pits you have stepped into while going global.

He Zigang | Intellectual Property Lawyer | Aipunajie · Mili · Najie

This article represents the author's personal views only and does not constitute legal advice. For analysis of specific cases, welcome to leave comments in the comment section.

This article represents only the author's personal views and does not constitute legal advice. For specific case analysis, welcome to contact us.