disclaimer, I am not an expert in patent litigation but have been involved in and hold several patents) also, hold my beer and watch this.
Having read the claims on both patents (US2023/11813789B2, US1997/5653925A) , it still seems pretty sus to me on both sides of the fence.
The basic concept of of the geometric layer pattern is identical in the claims and illustrations in both patents, but the expired patent mentions this in the context of "density" and "porosity", while the newer patent describes the identical process for for the effect of interlayer adhesion. This -might- be enough to make a meaningful distinction.
The new patent fills in a little bit more detail on the process, and is much more narrow in scope.
But...the expired patent claims -do- specifically mention strength in terms of density in claim 6: "the pressurizing Supply source is adjusted to provide a porosity in the article of between 1% and 9%, so as to form an article of a strength sufficient to maintain the integrity of the article."
Claim 6 refers to claim 3 which refers back to the primary claim of modifying density through the feed pressure and geometric distribution (specifically brick-like, as depicted in figure 2 - preferred embodiment) deposition of the filament.
In all, it is surprising to me that the patent was granted as is. I have had filings rejected for much weaker similarities to existing art when basing a patent on new applications of existing processes... and this is arguably not even a new application.
The described process (hexagonal or brick-like bead geometry) is identical to the process shown in figure 2 of the expired patent and described in the preferred embodiment.
What is missing from the expired patent is a specific claim on the geometry of the preferred embodiment given in figure 2. This could be construed in a sense to say that the preferred embodiment itself was not the subject of the patent, i guess?
In any rate, the 2023 patent clearly does not describe any actual innovation, but rather an attempt to lock down a competitive advantage by locking everyone else out of an invention that has been clearly documented since 1997 and released into the public domain for 6 years prior to this patent.
Although the patent holder appears to be using the patent in a proprietary, in house process, this still smacks a bit of troll dung.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that there was exactly zero innovation here, and the patent applicant was clearly aware of the prior art, perhaps even being inspired by ambitious nonspecificity of the expired patent. His figures 1 and 2 (the primary basis of the new patent) could just have well been lifted directly from the Stratasys patent.
This might be one for the courts. What we need is someanon to fork slic3r with this feature added and dump it on torrent.
So there's two uses for patents. One is to keep others from doing what you're doing. The second is to keep anyone else from getting a patent on it, and then using it to keep you from doing what you're doing.
This could be (currently) used in the second way. ("Defensive" patent, as it is sometimes called.)
The problem is that patents can change hands, and in the hands of a troll, this patent could be a problem.
Having read the claims on both patents (US2023/11813789B2, US1997/5653925A) , it still seems pretty sus to me on both sides of the fence.
The basic concept of of the geometric layer pattern is identical in the claims and illustrations in both patents, but the expired patent mentions this in the context of "density" and "porosity", while the newer patent describes the identical process for for the effect of interlayer adhesion. This -might- be enough to make a meaningful distinction.
The new patent fills in a little bit more detail on the process, and is much more narrow in scope. But...the expired patent claims -do- specifically mention strength in terms of density in claim 6: "the pressurizing Supply source is adjusted to provide a porosity in the article of between 1% and 9%, so as to form an article of a strength sufficient to maintain the integrity of the article."
Claim 6 refers to claim 3 which refers back to the primary claim of modifying density through the feed pressure and geometric distribution (specifically brick-like, as depicted in figure 2 - preferred embodiment) deposition of the filament.
In all, it is surprising to me that the patent was granted as is. I have had filings rejected for much weaker similarities to existing art when basing a patent on new applications of existing processes... and this is arguably not even a new application.
The described process (hexagonal or brick-like bead geometry) is identical to the process shown in figure 2 of the expired patent and described in the preferred embodiment.
What is missing from the expired patent is a specific claim on the geometry of the preferred embodiment given in figure 2. This could be construed in a sense to say that the preferred embodiment itself was not the subject of the patent, i guess?
In any rate, the 2023 patent clearly does not describe any actual innovation, but rather an attempt to lock down a competitive advantage by locking everyone else out of an invention that has been clearly documented since 1997 and released into the public domain for 6 years prior to this patent.
Although the patent holder appears to be using the patent in a proprietary, in house process, this still smacks a bit of troll dung.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that there was exactly zero innovation here, and the patent applicant was clearly aware of the prior art, perhaps even being inspired by ambitious nonspecificity of the expired patent. His figures 1 and 2 (the primary basis of the new patent) could just have well been lifted directly from the Stratasys patent.
This might be one for the courts. What we need is someanon to fork slic3r with this feature added and dump it on torrent.