Short Summary
Stratasys, Inc. sought provisional measures against Bambulab GmbH before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) alleging infringement of European Patent EP 2 964 450, which relates to additive manufacturing methods for printing 3D parts with purge towers. The dispute concerned BambuLab's H2C 3D printer, which Stratasys claimed infringed the patent. The Court dismissed the application, finding that (indirect) infringement could not be established with the required certainty, and ordered Stratasys to pay Bambulab EUR 112,000 in costs.
Detailed Summary
This case concerns an application for provisional measures (R.211 RoP) filed by Stratasys, Inc., a US-based 3D printer manufacturer, against Bambulab GmbH, part of a Chinese-headquartered 3D printer group, before the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court (Case No. UPC-CFI-305/2026).
The patent at issue, EP 2 964 450 (EP450), is owned by Stratasys and titled 'Additive manufacturing method for printing three-dimensional parts with purge towers.' It was granted on 26 August 2020, based on an international application from 24 February 2014 claiming priority from 8 March 2013. After opposition proceedings, the patent was maintained in amended form (B2 version), published on 8 May 2024. The patent contains fifteen method claims, with independent claim 1 directed to a method involving purge towers in extrusion-based 3D printing.
The allegedly infringing product is the BambuLab H2C 3D printer, launched for the European market at the Formnext trade fair in Frankfurt (18-21 November 2025). Stratasys obtained a sample of the H2C through external counsel, which was delivered on 16 December 2025 and forwarded to Stratasys in the USA. Technical examination, including printing tests, was completed on 21 January 2026. The testing involved printing a 'TestTowerV1' part using the H2C with Bambu Studio software, examining the use of multiple nozzles, different materials (PLA and PETG), and the printing of a prime tower.
Stratasys argued that the H2C infringed EP450, including through indirect infringement. Bambulab contested the infringement allegations. The Court provisionally assessed the case and found that, even assuming the patent was valid, Stratasys could not establish (indirect) infringement with the required certainty. The Court therefore dismissed the application.
Regarding costs, the parties agreed on an interim costs award of EUR 112,000 in favor of Bambulab as the prevailing party, which the Court confirmed as the ceiling for a case valued at EUR 1,000,000. The Court ordered Stratasys to pay this amount to Bambulab within two weeks of a detailed payment request, and declared the order directly enforceable. The order is subject to appeal within 15 calendar days of service pursuant to Art. 73(2)(a) UPCA and R. 220.1(c), 224.1(b), and 211.6 RoP.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before The Hague - Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Stratasys, Inc. vs Bambulab GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Audi AGvsNetwork System Technologies LLC.
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Audi AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. Audi had appealed a Court of First Instance decision denying its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST). After NST filed its Statement of response, Audi sought permission to file additional pleadings to correct certain facts submitted by NST regarding its market behavior. The Court of Appeal allowed the request, finding Rules 35 and 36 RoP applicable mutatis mutandis in appeal proceedings and that Audi's request was sufficiently reasoned.
ALD France S.A.SvsNanoval GmbH & Co . KG
Anordnung
ParTec AGvsLenovo Global Technology Germany GmbH, Lenovo (Deutschland) GmbH, and Lenovo Group Limited
ParTec AG, proprietor of EP 3 743 812 B1 relating to dynamic allocation of heterogeneous compute resources, sought provisional measures against three Lenovo entities for alleged indirect infringement of method claim 1 based on Lenovo's marketing of an NVIDIA-integrated stack featuring the Expert Parallel Load Balancer (EPLB). The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected the application, holding that ParTec failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and did not provide a detailed and substantiated account of the relevant market situation prior to the entry of the allegedly infringing product onto the market.
Nicoventures Trading Limited – Request for Access to Written Pleadings and Evidence (UPC_CoA_5/2025, APL_289/2025)vsEx Parte
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 498 115, citing its direct interest as a party to parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings against the same patent. Juul Labs and NJOY objected, arguing the request was overly broad and risked undermining confidentiality. The Court of Appeal granted access to the specifically identified documents already in the casefile, subject to redaction of personal data and a condition prohibiting Nicoventures from filing or distributing the pleadings with other courts until the appeal is closed, while dismissing the remainder of the request.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonvsASUSTek Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an application for panel review under Rule 333 RoP filed by Ericsson regarding the confidentiality regime for its licensing documents in patent infringement proceedings involving EP3076673. Ericsson sought an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime to prevent Asustek's employees from accessing sensitive licensing data involving Asustek's competitors. The Milan Local Division Panel dismissed the application, finding Ericsson failed to provide concrete factual evidence of an actual risk of antitrust violations, but granted leave to appeal to allow the Court of Appeal to set a standard on this issue.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.