A federal jury in Marshall, Texas, has sided with Stratasys in the first of two patent suits it filed against Bambu Lab, finding that Bambu infringed four Stratasys patents and that the infringement was willful. According to The Texas Lawbook's report on the case, the jury also found that the defendants failed to prove the patents invalid. The September 18, 2026 verdict carries an award of about $27.6 million in past damages, and Bambu has said it will seek post-trial review and appeal.

What the Jury Decided

The case, numbered 2:24-cv-00644 in the Eastern District of Texas and presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap according to The Texas Lawbook, went to a jury after a one-week trial, per 3D Printing Industry. Three findings stand out:

  • Infringement: four Stratasys patents were found infringed.
  • Willfulness: the jury found the infringement willful.
  • Validity: the defendants failed to prove the patents invalid.

The damages figure is reported as $27 million by The Texas Lawbook and as roughly $27.6 million by 3D Printing Industry and TCT Magazine, which is consistent with rounding. 3D Printing Industry specifies that the award is for past damages only and that final judgment is still pending. None of the three sources reports an injunction or any ruling on future sales; 3D Printing Industry notes that Stratasys' statement did not say whether it will seek one.

The Patents and the Defendants

3D Printing Industry identifies the four patents as US 9,421,713, which it describes as covering purge towers; US 7,555,357, extrusion-based layered deposition; and US 9,168,698 and US 10,556,381, both concerning force detection at the extruder or tool head. The Texas Lawbook describes the four more generally, as covering methods for manufacturing 3D-printed parts, a heated build platform and system, a 3D printer with force detection, and building 3D objects. The two outlets use different vocabulary, and we have not been able to reconcile the descriptions patent by patent.

The defendants, per 3D Printing Industry, are Shanghai Lunkuo Technology Co. Ltd., Tuozhu Technology Limited, Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co. Ltd. and Bambulab Ltd. The Texas Lawbook names three defendants: Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology, Shanghai Lunkuo Technology and Bambu Lab. It lists Stratasys counsel from McDermott Will & Schulte, Wilson Sonsini, Miller Fair Henry, The Dacus Firm and Nelson Mullins, with Fish & Richardson representing Bambu. It reports that neither side responded to its requests for comment.

How the Case Narrowed

The verdict is the endpoint of a considerable winnowing. 3D Printing Industry reports that the original complaints, filed in August 2024, alleged ten patents. By trial, TCT Magazine says, Stratasys had asserted five. Four of those were found valid and infringed. The fifth, US 9,592,660, had been found invalid by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Stratasys won on the patents it took to the jury, but the path from ten patents to five to four matters when reading the headline.

Two Suits, One Verdict

This is the first of two patent infringement cases Stratasys has brought against Bambu Lab. TCT Magazine reports that the second case has not yet been set for trial. One jury result does not decide the companion case, which the sources do not describe in detail.

The litigation also has a European front. TCT Magazine notes that the Unified Patent Court's Hague Local Division dismissed Stratasys' preliminary injunction application on April 24, 2026, holding that Bambu does not infringe the European counterpart patent, EP2964450. Per Bambu, as TCT reports it, that patent is in the same family as US 9,421,713, one of the patents in the Texas verdict. It is a separate proceeding and does not decide the Texas result, but outcomes so far have not all gone one way.

What Each Side Is Saying

Bambu's public response is measured and procedural. As quoted by TCT Magazine: "While we respect the judicial process, we disagree with the verdict reached in this case. The law provides Bambu with the right to seek post-trial review and to appeal, and Bambu intends to avail itself of these legal processes." 3D Printing Industry quotes the company as saying it disagrees with the verdict, and expects post-trial motions and an appeal.

Stratasys, in the statement TCT quotes, said it "greatly appreciates the jury's careful consideration of this case" and that it "remains focused on delivering cutting-edge technologies to customers and protecting the intellectual property that underpins our innovation." Neither statement, as reported, addresses the willfulness finding. We could not retrieve a Stratasys release or a docket entry, so the case number, judge and party statements here are attributed to the outlets that reported them.

What We Do Not Know

Several questions are open, and the sources do not answer them:

  • Whether the court will enter final judgment as the jury found, and what post-trial motions do to it.
  • What an appeal would cover and how long it would take. Bambu says it intends to seek review, but no schedule has been reported.
  • What the willfulness finding means in practice for the amount Bambu ultimately owes. The sources report the $27.6 million figure and say nothing about enhancement.
  • When, or how, the second case will proceed.

What It Means for Makers

If you own a Bambu printer, nothing in the reporting suggests your machine is affected today. The award is money damages for past conduct, judgment is not yet final, and no source mentions a sales ban or any restriction on existing printers.

What is worth watching is the technology involved. Purge towers, force detection at the tool head and heated build platforms are features makers know well, and many machines in the hobbyist market rely on them. The verdict does not say which specific products were found to infringe, at least in the sources we reviewed, and we will not guess. What it does show is that a jury in this venue was willing to find willful infringement on patents covering everyday FDM mechanics, and that the validity defense did not succeed at trial.

The practical advice is modest. Follow the post-trial motions and the appeal. Watch for the scheduling of the second case. And read patent litigation coverage the way you would read a print profile: the specifics matter more than the summary. A verdict is not a final judgment, and an appeal can change the picture.

Sources