Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

3D Printing, Intellectual Property and Innovation Policy

  • Article
  • Published:
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) printing technologies differ from traditional molding and casting manufacturing processes in that they build 3D objects by successively creating layers of material on top of each other. Rooted in manufacturing research of the 1980s, 3D printing has evolved into a broad set of technologies that could fundamentally alter production processes in a wide set of technology areas. This article investigates how 3D printing technology has developed over the last few decades, how intellectual property rights have shaped this potential breakthrough innovation and how 3D printing technologies could challenge the system of intellectual property rights in the future. Patent protection seems to have played an important role in the industrial 3D printing sector. In the newly emerging personal 3D printing sector, the intellectual property system faces new challenges. Developers of personal 3D printing systems and services have to cope with large-scale infringement by end-consumers, a situation well known from digital content technologies. At the same time, the expiration of key patents on 3D printing has arguably contributed to a flourishing ecosystem of open source 3D printer hardware and software. As in other areas of innovation policy, the role of the intellectual property system in fostering innovation in 3D printing technologies is a complex one. It played a beneficial role in some instances (sometimes intended and sometimes unintended), and it may have played a neutral or detrimental role in other instances. Studying the progress of 3D printing technologies thereby also informs us about the intricate relationship between intellectual property and innovation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. While the term “3D printing” has gained much popularity in recent years, the more accurate term for the broad set of technologies of interest is “additive manufacturing.” In a narrow sense, 3D printing refers to processes that extend normal inkjet printing technology into the third dimension by sequentially depositing material onto a powder bed with a standard or custom-made inkjet print head. However, the term is also used nowadays to describe the broader set of technologies which all have in common that they create 3D objects by adding layers of material on top of each other. This article will follow a general trend and use the terms “3D printing” and “additive manufacturing” interchangeably.

  2. See ASTM International, Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing Technologies, West Conshohocken (2012); Wohlers Associates, Wohlers Report (2015): 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing State of the Industry (2015), pp. 32–42, available at: http://www.wohlersassociates.com/2015report.htm; Bechthold, Fischer, Hainzlmaier et al., 3D Printing: A Qualitative Assessment of Applications, Recent Trends and the Technology’s Future Potential (2015), pp. 10–12, available at: http://www.e-fi.de/fileadmin/Innovationsstudien_2015/StuDIS_17_2015.pdf.

  3. Bechthold, Fischer, Hainzlmaier et al., supra note 2, p. 13.

  4. Bechthold, Fischer, Hainzlmaier et al., supra note 2, p. 67.

  5. Bechthold, Fischer, Hainzlmaier et al., supra note 2, pp. 29–35; Lipson and Kurman (2013), pp. 105–138; Li (2014), p. 282.

  6. Li et al. (2014), p. 322.

  7. For nineteenth century examples of photo-sculpture and topography, see Bechthold, Fischer, Hainzlmaier et al., supra note 2, p. 6.

  8. U.S. Patent No. 4,041,476, issued Aug. 9, 1977. Other inventors explored the use of layered molding processes to create such objects; see, e.g., U.S. Patent No. 4,247,508, issued Jan. 27, 1981. In the 1980 s, R&D activities concerning 3D printing technologies intensified considerably. In 1981, Hideo Kodama of the Japanese Nagoya Municipal Industrial Research Institute presented a method to create 3D plastic models by exposing liquid photo-hardening polymer to ultraviolet rays; Kodama (1981), p. 1770.

  9. U.S. Patent No. 4,575,330, issued Mar. 11, 1986.

  10. E.g., U.S. Patent No. 5,121,329, issued June 9, 1992; U.S. Patent No. 5,340,433, issued Aug. 23, 1994.

  11. In 1986, Carl Deckard filed a patent on selective sintering processes which enabled the use of materials other than polymers (e.g. metals and thermoplastics) for 3D printing purposes; see U.S. Patent No. 4,863,538, issued Sept. 5, 1989. The company he founded (Nova Automation, later renamed DTM Corporation) was acquired by 3D Systems in 2001. And in 1987, Michael Feygin filed a patent on sheet lamination in which a laser cuts thin sheets of paper or other material into a desired shape and then layers of such shapes are added on top of each other; see U.S. Patent No. 4,752,352, issued June 21, 1988. In the 1990s, companies started to use 3D printing technologies for prototyping purposes.

  12. Amon et al. (1998), p. 656.

  13. Beck et al. (1992), p. 272.

  14. U.S. Patent No. 5,204,055, issued Apr. 20, 1993; U.S. Patent No. 5,387,380, issued Feb. 7, 1995.

  15. Bechthold, Fischer, Hainzlmaier et al., supra note 2, pp. 15–17.

  16. Lemley (2015), p. 460.

  17. Rayna and Striukova (2014), pp. 9–11; Ghilassene, L’impression 3D: Impacts Economique et Enjeux Juridiques, Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle (2014), pp. 9–11, available at: http://www.inpi.fr/fileadmin/mediatheque/pdf/OPI/l__impression_3D_sept_2014.pdf.

  18. Wittbrodt et al. (2013), p. 713.

  19. Kreiger and Pearce (2013), p. 1511; Bechthold, Fischer, Hainzlmaier et al., supra note 2, pp. 79–84; Lipson and Kurman (2013), pp. 197–215.

  20. Wohlers Associates, supra note 2, p. 65.

  21. Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation, Gutachten zu Forschung, Innovation und technologischer Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands (2015), p. 73, available at: http://www.e-fi.de/fileadmin/Gutachten_2015/EFI_Gutachten_2015.pdf.

  22. Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation, supra note 21, pp. 71, 75.

  23. Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation, supra note 21, pp. 75–76.

  24. Wohlers Associates, supra note 2, p. 65.

  25. See Bechthold, Fischer, Hainzlmaier et al., supra note 2, pp. 51–61.

  26. Wohlers Associates, Wohlers Report 2014: 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing State of the Industry (2014), p. 130, available at: http://www.wohlersassociates.com/2014report.htm.

  27. Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation, supra note 21, p. 74, note 266.

  28. http://www.reprap.org.

  29. Jones et al. (2011), p. 177.

  30. Open source slicer programs, such as Slic3R and Cura, convert STL descriptions of an object into so-called “G-code” file instructions tailored to specific 3D printers. They are often included in 3D printing client software such as Repetier-Host. Autodesk operates an open platform for 3D printing processes named Spark.

  31. Lerner and Tirole (2002), p. 197.

  32. Jong and Bruijn (2013), p. 45.

  33. The marketplace Shapeways, for example, was founded in 2008 as a spin-off from Royal Philips Electronics. The company operates a large 3D printing facility in Long Island City, NY. It shipped one million 3D-printed parts in 2012; see McKinsey Global Institute, Disruptive Technologies (2013), p. 109, available at: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/business_technology/disruptive_technologies. In 2014, the company featured nearly 500,000 3D objects, and 23,000 shop owners and product designers from 133 different countries; see Mansee, Shapeways in 2014: A Year in 3D Printing and What’s Next for 2015 (Dec. 29, 2014), http://www.shapeways.com/blog/archives/19390-shapeways-in-2014-a-year-in-3d-printing-and-whats-next-for-2015.html.

  34. Thingiverse now features over 460,000 design files and is widely used by the RepRap and related communities.

  35. M3D raised $3.4 million, Formlabs $2.9 million and WobbleWorks $2.3 million on Kickstarter for 3D printing-related projects; see Wikipedia, List of Highest Funded Crowdfunding Projects (2016), available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_funded_crowdfunding_projects.

  36. On this concept, see Samuelson (2016).

  37. Lipson and Kurman (2013), p. 48; Bechthold, Fischer, Hainzlmaier et al., supra note 2, pp. 37, 70; Pearce (2012), p. 131.

  38. Hippel (2005).

  39. Benkler (2002), p. 369; Kostakis and Papachristou (2014), p. 434.

  40. U.K. Intellectual Property Office, 3D Printing: A Patent Overview (2013), p. 10, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/3d-printing-a-patent-overview.

  41. U.K. Intellectual Property Office, supra note 40, p. 19. The study by the U.K. Intellectual Property Office has also identified 3D printing-related patents with the most forward citations, which can be used as a measure of patent quality. These patents are held by MIT, the University of Texas system, and Object Geometries Ltd.; see id., pp. 25–26.

  42. Gridlogics, 3D Printing: Technology Insight Report (2014), p. 9, available at: http://www.patentinsightpro.com/techreports/0214/Tech%20Insight%20Report%20-%203D%20Printing.pdf. Differences in both studies are most likely a result of different search and identification strategies, which are complicated by the fact that, for a long time, no specific subclass for 3D printing technologies existed in international patent classifications.

  43. U.K. Intellectual Property Office, supra note 40, pp. 3, 17.

  44. U.K. Intellectual Property Office, supra note 40, pp. 13–14; Gridlogics, supra note 42, p. 11; Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation, supra note 21, pp. 76–77.

  45. This may be because many of the materials that are used by 3D printers are not developed especially for 3D printers. Rather, they are general-purpose materials that could be covered by broader patents. Identifying such patents through patent searches is difficult, as their description may not include any reference to 3D printing technologies. Another reason is that these materials have often been used by other industries for many years. This lack of novelty could limit the importance of patents. However, patents on 3D printing raw materials may become more important as raw printing materials become more diverse and as advanced printing materials are modified for use in 3D printers. In addition, 3D printer manufacturers may have a strategic interest in protecting raw printing material with intellectual property rights in order to monopolize the secondary market for printing supplies (see infra, at 4.1).

  46. Wohlers Associates, supra note 26, p. 194.

  47. On the implications for 3D printing, see Desai and Magliocca (2014), pp. 1716–1717.

  48. WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Patents, Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights: Private and/or Non-commercial Use, Document SCP/20/3 (2013), available at: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/patent_policy/en/scp_20/scp_20_3.pdf.

  49. For a discussion of U.S. patent law, see Wilbanks (2013), p. 1147. For a discussion of U.K. patent law, see Mendis (2013), pp. 155, 160–161. For a discussion of German patent law, see Bechtold (2007).

  50. Mendis (2013), pp. 165–167; Dasari (2013), pp. 279, 288–305; Li et al. (2014), pp. 325–328; Mendis and Secchi, A Legal and Empirical Study of 3D Printing Online Platforms and an Analysis of User Behavior (2015), pp. 7–15, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/421546/A_Legal_and_Empirical_Study_of_3D_Printing_Online_Platforms_and_an_Analysis_of_User_Behaviour_-_Study_I.pdf.

  51. Mendis (2013), pp. 163–165.

  52. Desai and Magliocca (2014), pp. 1705–1709; Dasari (2013), pp. 288–305; Mendis (2014), pp. 265, 269–273; Li et al. (2014), pp. 325–328; Mendis and Secchi, supra note 50, pp. 7–15.

  53. However, the scope of the reproduction right differs across countries in this respect. In the U.K., for example, the Supreme Court’s decision in Lucasfilm Ltd. v. Ainsworth , [2011] 3 WLR 487, could suggest that three-dimensional reproductions of a 3D design file may not infringe copyright if the design is not used to create an object principally for its artistic merit. For an extensive analysis, see Mendis (2014), pp. 273–274; Mendis (2013), p. 166; Li et al. (2014), pp. 327–328. For a discussion of U.S. law, see Dasari (2013), pp. 305–315.

  54. Mendis (2014), p. 275–276.

  55. Mendis (2013), p. 167.

  56. For a discussion under EU and U.K. copyright law, see Mendis (2013) and (2014); Li et al. (2014); Mendis and Secci, supra note 50, pp. 7–15. For a discussion under U.S. copyright law, see Dasari (2013).

  57. For a discussion under U.K. law, see Mendis (2014), pp. 273–274. Recent case law from the European Court of Justice is increasingly harmonizing originality standards across European copyright law, however. In the context of 3D printing, see Li et al. (2014), pp. 327, 328; Mendis (2014), p. 274.

  58. Landes and Lichtman (2003), p. 113.

  59. Mendis (2013), p. 159.

  60. Wu (2005), p. 278; Lemley and Reese (2004), p. 1345.

  61. Desai and Magliocca (2014), pp. 1713–1719; Doherty (2012), p. 353; Brean (2013), p. 773; Li et al. (2014), pp. 330–331; Ballardini et al. (2015), pp. 850, 857–865.

  62. U.S. Patent No. 5,597,520 (issued on Jan. 28, 1997). The parties settled the lawsuit in 2014, see Wohlers Associates, supra note 2, p. 96.

  63. Lemley and Reese (2004).

  64. Desai (2014), p. 1469; Desai and Magliocca (2014); Depoorter (2014), p. 1483.

  65. Depoorter (2014); Lemley (2015), pp. 499–502.

  66. U.S. Patent No. 8,286,236, issued Oct. 9, 2012. On DRM in general, see Bechtold (2004), p. 323.

  67. Ghilassene, supra note 17, pp. 15–17.

  68. Mendis (2014); Desai and Magliocca (2014).

  69. According to news reports, 3D printer manufacturer 3D Systems achieved a margin of 73 % on materials, while only achieving 36 % on its printers, see Powley, Rise of 3D Printing Machines, Financial Times Online (FT.com), April 11, 2015.

  70. Hovenkamp et al. (2015), § 13.3d; Bechtold (2007), p. 79 et seq.

  71. Desai and Magliocca (2014), p. 1712.

  72. Jong and Bruijn (2013), p. 50.

  73. See also Lemley (2015), pp. 502–503.

  74. Wohlers Associates, supra note 26, p. 14.

  75. See supra, at 2.2.

  76. See also Hornick and Roland, Many 3D Printing Patents Are Expiring Soon (2013), available at: http://3dprintingindustry.com/2013/12/29/many-3d-printing-patents-expiring-soon-heres-round-overview; Bechthold, Fischer, Hainzlmaier et al., supra note 2, p. 7.

  77. Lipson and Kurman (2013), pp. 231–234; West and Kuk, Proprietary Benefits from Open Communities (2014), p. 8, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2544970; Bechthold, Fischer, Hainzlmaier et al., supra note 2, pp. 8, 39, 42; Campbell et al. (2012), p. 257.

  78. Bechthold, Fischer, Hainzlmaier et al., supra note 2, p. 37; West and Kuk, supra note 77, p. 7.

  79. West and Kuk, supra note 77, pp. 6, 25.

References

  • Amon C, Beuth J, Weiss L et al (1998) Shape deposition manufacturing with microcasting. J Manuf Sci Eng 120:656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballardini R, Norrgård M, Minssen T (2015) Enforcing patents in the era of 3D printing. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 10:850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechtold S (2004) Digital rights management in the United States and Europe. Am J Comp Law 52:323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechtold S (2007) Die Kontrolle von Sekundärmärkten. Baden-Baden

  • Beck S, Prinz F, Siewiorek D et al (1992) Manufacturing mechatronics using thermal spray shape deposition. In: Proceedings of the solid freeform fabrication symposium, Austin, p 272

  • Benkler Y (2002) Coase’s penguin, or Linux and the nature of the firm. Yale Law J 112:369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brean D (2013) Asserting patents to combat infringement via 3D printing. Fordham Intellect Prop Media Entertain Law J 23:773

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell I, Bourell D, Gibson I (2012) Additive manufacturing. Rapid Prototyp J 18:255, 257

  • Dasari H (2013) Assessing copyright protection and infringement issues involved with 3D printing and scanning. AIPLA Q J 41:279

    Google Scholar 

  • Depoorter B (2014) Intellectual property infringements & 3D printing. Hastings Law J 65:1483

    Google Scholar 

  • Desai D (2014) The new steam. Hastings Law J 65:1469

    Google Scholar 

  • Desai D, Magliocca G (2014) Patents, meet napster: 3D printing and the digitization of things. Georget Law J 102:1691

    Google Scholar 

  • Doherty D (2012) Downloading infringement. Harv J Law Technol 26:353

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovenkamp H, Janis MD, Lemley MA (2015) IP and Antitrust. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones R, Haufe P, Sells E et al (2011) RepRap: the replicating rapid prototyper. Robotica 29:177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jong R, Bruijn E (2013) Innovation lessons from 3-D printing. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 54:45

    Google Scholar 

  • Kodama H (1981) Automatic method for fabricating a three-dimensional plastic model with photo-hardening polymer. Rev Sci Instrum 52:1770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostakis V, Papachristou M (2014) Commons-based peer production and digital fabrication. Telemat Inform 31:434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreiger M, Pearce J (2013) Environmental life cycle analysis of distributed three-dimensional printing and conventional manufacturing of polymer products. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 1:1511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landes W, Lichtman D (2003) Indirect liability for copyright infringement. J Econ Perspect 17:113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemley M (2015) IP in a world without scarcity. N Y Univ Law Rev 90:460

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemley M, Reese A (2004) Reducing digital copyright infringement without restricting innovation. Stanf Law Rev 56:1345

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner A, Tirole J (2002) Some simple economics of open source. J Ind Econ 50:197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li P (2014) 3D bioprinting technologies: patents, innovation and access. Law Innov Technol 6:282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li P, Mellor S, Griffin J et al (2014) Intellectual property and 3D printing: a case study on 3D chocolate printing. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 9:322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipson H, Kurman M (2013) Fabricated: the new world of 3D printing. Wiley, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendis D (2013) “The Clone Wars”: Episode 1. Eur Intellect Prop Rev, pp 155

  • Mendis D (2014) ‘Clone Wars’ Episode II. Law Innov Technol 6:265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce J (2012) Building research equipment with free, open-source hardware. Science 337:131

    Google Scholar 

  • Rayna T, Striukova L (2014) The impact of 3D printing technologies on business model innovation. In: Benghozi P-J et al (eds) Digital enterprise design and management. Springer Publishing, Heidelberg, p 127

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson P (2016) Freedom to tinker. In: Harhoff D and Lakhani KR (eds) Revolutionizing innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p 217

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hippel E (2005) Democratizing innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilbanks K (2013) The challenges of 3D printing to the repair-reconstruction doctrine in patent law. George Mason Law Rev 20:1147

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittbrodt B, Glover A, Laureto J et al (2013) Life-cycle economic analysis of distributed manufacturing with open-source 3-D printers. Mechatronics 23:713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu T (2005) Copyright’s communications policy. Mich Law Rev 103:278

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Bechtold.

Additional information

This article is based on a report that was commissioned by the World Intellectual Property Organization for its World IP Report 2015: “Breakthrough Innovation and Economic Growth”. The author would like to thank Devan Desai, Carsten Fink and Intan Hamdan, as well as the participants in a WIPO workshop held in Geneva in February 2015 and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and feedback. David Rüetschi and Azar Sang Bastian provided excellent research assistance.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bechtold, S. 3D Printing, Intellectual Property and Innovation Policy. IIC 47, 517–536 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-016-0487-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-016-0487-4

Keywords

Navigation