Evolving Legal Landscape of 3D Printing: IP Challenges and the Right to Repair Movement

3D printing, a technology based on additive manufacturing, has been closely linked with the Maker Movement, a social initiative focused on sharing and developing design files. Initially, the consumer 3D printing revolution aimed to place a 3D printer in every home. However, this vision has largely fallen short.

MakerBot, a pioneering home 3D printing company, faced significant controversies over its shifting intellectual property (IP) policies. This led to disenchantment within the open source maker community and alienation of its user base. Bre Pettis, former head of MakerBot, reflected that “the open-source community cast us out of heaven.” Eventually, MakerBot was acquired by Stratasys, a leading 3D printing company, and underwent restructuring.

Other key players in the consumer 3D printing ecosystem also faced financial difficulties. TechShop, a chain of membership-based DIY workshops, declared bankruptcy. Maker Media, publisher of Make Magazine and organizer of maker festivals in the United States, entered administration. Dale Dougherty, founder of Make Magazine, has since attempted to revive the venture through Make Community LLC.

While personal 3D printing has not met early expectations, industrial 3D printing has gained momentum. It has become integrated with robotics and Big Data in advanced manufacturing sectors. Significant investments have been made in metal 3D printing, particularly by transportation companies. Health-related applications, including dental 3D printing, medical 3D printing, and bioprinting, have also seen experimental growth.

As 3D printing technology advances, legal disputes and policy developments have emerged. The book "3D Printing and Beyond" explores key IP issues related to copyright, design, trademark, patent law, trade secrets, and regulatory questions. It also examines the role of open licensing models in 3D printing.

Early fears of widespread copyright infringement akin to Napster have not materialized, but several copyright-related conflicts have arisen. For instance, Augustana College in the United States objected to 3D scanning of Michelangelo statues, despite these works being in the public domain. HBO challenged Fernando Sosa’s 3D printed Iron Throne iPhone deck, and singer Katy Perry contested Sosa’s 3D printed Left Shark, although the latter was later reinstated on Shapeways’ platform. The estate of artist Marcel Duchamp also raised concerns over 3D printed chess pieces inspired by his work.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (DMCA) notice and takedown system has been applied to 3D printing platforms. Companies like Shapeways have expressed concerns about how this regime affects intermediaries in the 3D printing ecosystem.

Debates have also focused on technological protection measures in copyright law related to 3D printing. The United States Copyright Office has recognized a narrow exception for such measures concerning 3D printing feedstock.

The rise of 3D printing has fueled the right to repair movement, which advocates for consumer rights to repair and modify products. In the European Union, the Ecodesign Directive (Directive 2009/125/EC) has been instrumental in promoting repair rights and supporting the circular economy.

In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission held a workshop in July 2019 titled “Nixing the Fix: A Workshop on Repair Restrictions.” However, significant divisions remain between IP holders and right-to-repair advocates. Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has proposed right-to-repair legislation aimed at benefiting farmers.

Australia has seen notable legal developments, including the 2019 Federal Court case GM Global Technology Operations LLC v S.S.S. Auto Parts Pty Ltd, which tested design law in the context of repair rights. The Australian Treasury is exploring policy options for sharing repair information in the automotive sector. Additionally, ACT Consumer Affairs Minister Shane Rattenbury has called for right-to-repair reforms at the Consumer Affairs Forum involving Australian and New Zealand ministers. Federal Minister Michael Sukkar has requested an investigation by the Australian Productivity Commission.

Canada is also advancing right-to-repair legislation at provincial and federal levels. Laura Tribe, Executive Director of Open Media, emphasized empowering consumers to own and control their devices.

3D printing challenges trademark law and related legal regimes such as passing off, personality rights, character merchandising, and trade dress. The legal dispute over Katy Perry’s Left Shark trademark application exemplifies these complexities.

In bioprinting, Advanced Solutions Life Sciences filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Biobots Inc. over the use of the registered trademark “Bioassemblybot” for 3D bioprinting and tissue fabrication.

Patent activity in 3D printing has steadily increased, as highlighted in WIPO’s 2015 World Intellectual Property Report on Breakthrough Innovation and Economic Growth. Specialist industrial 3D printing companies like 3D Systems and Stratasys have amassed substantial patent portfolios. Major manufacturers such as GE and Siemens, along with IT companies like Hewlett Packard and Autodesk, are also significant patent holders in additive manufacturing.

The evolving legal landscape surrounding 3D printing reflects the technology’s maturation and its disruptive impact on traditional IP frameworks and consumer rights globally.