Opening Word document…

Patent trolls limits the development of 3D printing

Apoorv Kulkarni 23. Member of the National Research Council of Canada. “Patent Parasites: Non-Inventors Patenting Existing Open-Source Inventions in the 3-D Printing Technology Space.” MDPI. 11-6-2023. https://www.mdpi.com/2411-5134/8/6/141 //

This patent could be used by the patent owner (that is, a 3-D printing manufacturing company) or sold sometime in the future to non-practicing entities (e.g., patent trolls) to limit the technical development of materials for 3-D printing. To prevent this from occurring, an open-source algorithm [73] has been developed to retain materials in the 3-D printing commons by obstructing (i) broad patent claims (e.g., the example list of thermoplastics in this case study), (ii) vague and generic claims (e.g., all organic materials or materials containing carbon), (iii) formulaic patent claims (e.g., in the example patent such as those covering both aqueous and non-aqueous fluids), and (iv) combinatorial claims (e.g., in case study patent “combinations or copolymers thereof”). The open-source 3-D printing material algorithm obstructs making obviousness clearer for patent examiners and lawyers because the idea (or so-called intellectual property) can be easily generated by a simple algorithm. For an example of the obviousness of prior art, let us consider a hypothetical situation of a material-constrained world where only three materials exist: sugar, cocoa, and peanut butter [73]. To make a candy product, a company cannot patent any combination of the mentioned materials as the material combination can be seen as obvious and thus non-patentable. Similarly, selecting from larger material options and patenting any material combinations falling under thermoplastic polymers for 3-D printing should not be allowed.

Sign in to recut, update, or save this card.