2026-04-24 - LD The Hague - Stratasys v. Bambulab - UPC-CFI-0000305/2026

ENGLISH: Application for provisional measures dismissed. Claim interpretation of 'layer by layer' presented by applicant in these proceedings at the OH not convincing and not in line with its own earlier assertions (including during prosecution). In view of parties' agreement on the costs, applicant ordered to pay the legal costs of defendant. As R.118.8 is not applicable, the start of two weeks term for payment to be triggered by defendant. Online participation of 'minute takers' not permitted.

LD The Hague (Kokke presiding + JR; Mlakar, van Peursem, Callewaert TQJ) dismissed Stratasys's application for provisional measures against Bambulab's H2C 3D printer concerning EP 2 964 450 B2 (additive manufacturing with purge towers). Applying the R. 211.2 RoP / Art. 62(4) UPCA / Art. 9(3) Directive 2004/48/EC balance-of-probabilities standard (NanoString v 10x UPC_CoA_335/2023), the Court found it more likely than not that the patent is not infringed and therefore did not address validity or urgency. The decisive issue was the construction of feature 1.4.1 ('the purge operations comprising printing at least one purge tower in a layer by layer manner'): the Court adopted Bambulab's narrower reading that 'layer-by-layer' means horizontal layers stacked on top of each other, each layer consisting of a single material (part or support) only — supported by paras [0044], [0047], [0057]-[0058] and Fig. 6 of the patent and confirmed by Stratasys's own statement to the Examiner of 17 August 2017. The H2C prime/purge tower has horizontal layers in which both part and support material appear side by side (within the boundary line) and therefore falls outside feature 1.4.1. Equivalents were not argued. The Court also addressed two procedural points: (i) it disallowed Bambulab's online 'notulisten' / minute takers because the situation differed from the CoA's permission of party-prepared private transcripts of audio recordings under R. 115 RoP (UPC_CoA_12/2026 Amazon/InterDigital, 30 March 2026); (ii) interim cost award of EUR 112,000 (parties' agreement, ceiling for EUR 1,000,000 value) made directly enforceable in the PI order itself — R. 118.8 RoP does not apply (UPC_CoA_699/2025 Kodak v Fujifilm).