<ul>
<li>Porosity control</li>
<li>Seam hiding</li>
<li>Dissolvable supports</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Porosity Control</strong> - The ability of a 3d printer to produce a variable infill rate (e.g. 20%) is covered by a Stratasys utility patent.</p>
<p><strong>Seam Hiding</strong> - The ability of a 3d printer to start printing from a different point on the perimeter such that no seam appears on the printed part, is covered by a Stratasys utility patent.</p>
<p><strong>Dissolvable supports</strong> - The ability of a 3d printer to print with 2 (or more) filaments such that one of the filaments, acting as support material (or scaffolding), can be removed by sustained immersion in water, is covered by a Stratasys utility patent.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.afinia.com/wp-content/uploads/Afinia-Response-Stratasys-Complaint.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Defendant Microboards Technology, LLC d/b/a Afinia's answer to Plaintiff's complaint for patent infringement; Affirmative Defenses; Counterclaims; and Demand for Jury Trial</a></p>
<p>I could not find a URL with the original Stratasys case, but I saved a copy back when it first came out. The document seems to be behind paywalls now. You can reference it as :</p>
<p><a href="https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Minnesota%20District%20Court/case/0%3A13-cv-03228" rel="nofollow noreferrer">CASE 0:13-cv-03228-DWF-JJG</a></p>
<p>UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-12T11:18:16.557Z
could you link the stratasys complaint too? the answer is impossible to read without the complaint itself
Trish
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-12T13:47:07.723Z
Interesting... I've seen the dissolvable supports thing for a while now, with support in several slicers. I've never had problems with visible seams, either. But the porosity control sounds intersting, where a model could be more hollow towards the center, and use more infill as you approach the top layer so that top doesn't need to bridge as much.
Joel Coehoorn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-12T13:57:24.200Z
Now we know why PVA material is so expensive... :)
0scar
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-12T14:02:23.100Z
Let's hope Chinese engineers show their usual lack of empathy towards patent holders.
towe
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-10T15:14:48.277Z
2023-07-09T23:18:55.953Z
2023-07-09T23:18:55.953Z
user77232
<p>What are some relatively simple improvements to FDM 3D printers that cannot be sold however because they are under patent?</p>

<p>I know a heated build chamber is one such thing: According to the RepRap Wiki <a href="https://reprap.org/wiki/Heated_Build_Chamber" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Heated_Build_Chamber</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The disclosure on how to fabricate a heated build chamber might also be illegal as it is protected by patent.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So I wonder if there are similar "simple" FDM printer upgrades for which it currently would be forbidden to sell (or even promote?) parts due to patent infringement.</p>

<p>This is exactly the question I am interested in. This is not about a specific printer. A heated build chamber is a simple upgrade that would benefit pretty much any FDM printer. I am interested in other relatively simple upgrades which you won't find on most commercial 3D printers despite their simplicity for the reason that the feature is patented.</p>

<p>What other simple improvements are there, that are protected by patents?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-08T20:52:19.673Z
The edit still does not make it answerable. From [help] center: `Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.` There could be a lot of patents out there limiting selling. What would be gained when you know the list if you don't know what to upgrade? It would be better to state your problem so that people can recommend viable upgrades for your problem, rather then speculate on what you could have used instead.
0scar
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-09T00:09:18.323Z
"The disclosure on how to fabricate a heated build chamber might also be illegal as it is protected by patent" is nonsense. The patent **is the disclosure** of how to do it.
R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-09T00:56:22.470Z
@R but I guess if you explain the process on your website and by that drive traffic to your site you’re also making use of the patented invention, at least that’s how I understood that phrase..
matthias_buehlmann
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-09T05:52:58.193Z
As far as I know, "heated build chamber" in general is not patented. What is patented it a specific implementation of it, where the motors are outside the build chamber and not exposed to the heat.
Tom van der Zanden
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-06-12T14:00:03.197Z
`The disclosure on how to fabricate a heated build chamber might also be illegal as it is protected by patent.`
That's the exact opposite of how patents work.
towe
<legal>
Low hanging fruit improvements to FDM printers that are patented
matthias_buehlmann
# Low hanging fruit improvements to FDM printers that are patented

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-06-07)

What are some relatively simple improvements to FDM 3D printers that cannot be sold however because they are under patent?

I know a heated build chamber is one such thing: According to the RepRap Wiki [Heated\_Build\_Chamber](https://reprap.org/wiki/Heated_Build_Chamber):

> The disclosure on how to fabricate a heated build chamber might also be illegal as it is protected by patent.

So I wonder if there are similar "simple" FDM printer upgrades for which it currently would be forbidden to sell (or even promote?) parts due to patent infringement.

This is exactly the question I am interested in. This is not about a specific printer. A heated build chamber is a simple upgrade that would benefit pretty much any FDM printer. I am interested in other relatively simple upgrades which you won't find on most commercial 3D printers despite their simplicity for the reason that the feature is patented.

What other simple improvements are there, that are protected by patents?

**Tags:** legal

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: The edit still does not make it answerable. From [help] center: `Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much.` There could be a lot of patents out there limiting selling. What would be gained when you know the list if you don't know what to upgrade? It would be better to state your problem so that people can recommend viable upgrades for your problem, rather then speculate on what you could have used instead.  
> **username_2**: "The disclosure on how to fabricate a heated build chamber might also be illegal as it is protected by patent" is nonsense. The patent **is the disclosure** of how to do it.  
> **username_0**: @R but I guess if you explain the process on your website and by that drive traffic to your site you’re also making use of the patented invention, at least that’s how I understood that phrase..  
> **username_3**: As far as I know, "heated build chamber" in general is not patented. What is patented it a specific implementation of it, where the motors are outside the build chamber and not exposed to the heat.  
> **username_4**: `The disclosure on how to fabricate a heated build chamber might also be illegal as it is protected by patent.` That's the exact opposite of how patents work.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2019-06-10. Score: 2

* Porosity control
* Seam hiding
* Dissolvable supports

**Porosity Control** - The ability of a 3d printer to produce a variable infill rate (e.g. 20%) is covered by a Stratasys utility patent.

**Seam Hiding** - The ability of a 3d printer to start printing from a different point on the perimeter such that no seam appears on the printed part, is covered by a Stratasys utility patent.

**Dissolvable supports** - The ability of a 3d printer to print with 2 (or more) filaments such that one of the filaments, acting as support material (or scaffolding), can be removed by sustained immersion in water, is covered by a Stratasys utility patent.

[Defendant Microboards Technology, LLC d/b/a Afinia's answer to Plaintiff's complaint for patent infringement; Affirmative Defenses; Counterclaims; and Demand for Jury Trial](http://www.afinia.com/wp-content/uploads/Afinia-Response-Stratasys-Complaint.pdf)

I could not find a URL with the original Stratasys case, but I saved a copy back when it first came out. The document seems to be behind paywalls now. You can reference it as :

[CASE 0:13-cv-03228-DWF-JJG](https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Minnesota%20District%20Court/case/0%3A13-cv-03228)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: could you link the stratasys complaint too? the answer is impossible to read without the complaint itself  
> **username_7**: Interesting... I've seen the dissolvable supports thing for a while now, with support in several slicers. I've never had problems with visible seams, either. But the porosity control sounds intersting, where a model could be more hollow towards the center, and use more infill as you approach the top layer so that top doesn't need to bridge as much.  
> **username_1**: Now we know why PVA material is so expensive... :)  
> **username_4**: Let's hope Chinese engineers show their usual lack of empathy towards patent holders.  

---

