Stratasys v Bambulab (CFI, 24 April 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 24 April 2026 (UPC_CFI_305/2026), The Hague Local Division dismisses Stratasys’ application for provisional measures against Bambulab under EP 2 964 450, on an additive manufacturing method using purge towers, directed at BambuLab H2C 3D printers. The panel holds that the feature « layer by layer » requires horizontal layers of a single material, which the H2C prime tower does not have, and does not rule on urgency or validity. Stratasys is ordered to pay costs, set by agreement between the parties at EUR 112,000. The order shows that an application may fail on the construction of a single feature added during prosecution.

Facts and procedure

Stratasys, proprietor of the patent as maintained in amended form by the EPO Opposition Division, alleges indirect infringement of claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 to 13 in France, Germany and the Netherlands. The H2C was launched in Europe at the Formnext fair (18 to 21 November 2025). A test purchase was delivered on 16 December 2025 and testing completed on 21 January 2026 (paragraphs 4 and 5). Bambulab brought a revocation action before the Paris Central Division on 12 December 2025, and the application for provisional measures was filed on 28 January 2026 (paragraph 10). The hearing took place on 1 April 2026, unannounced online participants were excluded and remote note-taking by third parties was refused (paragraph 21).

The applicable law

Under Rule 211.2 RoP and Article 62(4) UPCA, the applicant must show that it is more likely than not that it is entitled to sue and that the patent is infringed. It bears the burden of presenting and proving the facts (paragraph 16). The claim is construed under Article 69 EPC and the Court of Appeal’s NanoString case law, the description and drawings serving as aids, from the skilled person’s perspective (paragraph 28).

Question

Does the prime tower generated by the H2C printer, which places several materials side by side in the same plane, print a purge tower « in a layer by layer manner » within the meaning of feature 1.4.1?

Decision

The panel adopts Bambulab’s reading: in light of the context, Figure 6 and paragraphs [0057] and [0058], each purge operation creates a new horizontal layer of a single material, and a tower placing materials side by side in the same plane falls outside the claim (paragraphs 30 to 35), Stratasys had itself given a similar interpretation to the examiner (paragraph 36). The prime tower can be treated as a purge tower (paragraphs 37 and 38), but its boundary line and layers combining red and blue support material rule out layer by layer printing of a single material (paragraphs 39 to 41). As equivalence was not argued, infringement is not more likely than not. Urgency and validity are provisionally assumed (paragraph 42). Costs follow the event (Article 69 UPCA) and the agreed amount, equal to the ceiling for a value of EUR 1,000,000, is declared directly enforceable (paragraphs 43 to 45).

Key points for practice

• A feature added during prosecution is construed in light of the description and of statements made to the examiner (paragraphs 30 and 36).
• The provisional measures judge may stop at the lack of likely infringement without examining urgency or validity (paragraphs 17 and 42).
• An agreement between the parties on costs allows them to be fixed immediately in the order, with direct enforceability (paragraphs 43 to 45).
• Practical point: where literal infringement rests on a broad reading of a feature added during prosecution, it is prudent to plead equivalence in the alternative from the outset of the provisional measures application.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 31, 32(1)(c), 62(4), 69 and 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9, 115, 118.8, 206.2, 209.1, 211.1, 211.2, 211.6, 220.1 and 224.1

European Patent Convention

Art. 69

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 9(3)

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 4

Case law cited

NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, Amazon v InterDigital, Court of Appeal, 30 March 2026, Kodak v Fujifilm, Court of Appeal, 14 October 2025, EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal, G 1/24

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.