HP Multi Jet Fusion: An IP Perspective

Authored by John F. Hornick

A Class by Itself

On October 29, 2014, HP rocked the 3D printing industry by announcing that its long-awaited 3D printer will be at least ten times faster than the competition because it fuses an entire layer at the same time, and will make stronger and more durable parts, at substantially lower cost. According to HP, 3D printing 1000 gears with its proprietary Multi Jet Fusion process takes only three hours, compared to 83 hours with Material Extrusion machines. Expected to hit the market in 2016, HP's machines, which are built on its Thermal Inkjet 2D printer technology, do not fit squarely into any of the seven categories of 3D printing processes recognized by the International ASTM. HP seems to combine as many as four types of 3D printing processes: Binder Jetting, Material Jetting, Powder Bed Fusion, and possibly (but probably not) Directed Energy Deposition (DED). But Multi Jet Fusion also seems to do something more. According to HP's white

paper, one x-moving carriage of the machine seems to jet materials to form a bed, after which a second, y-moving carriage with an array of thousands of tiny nozzles jets "chemical agents" onto the layer—at a rate of 30 million drops per second—followed by a shot of energy from the first carriage that fuses the layer while more material is deposited.

Although HP says "[t]he layering and energy processes are combined in a continuous pass of the second carriage," the energy does not seem to fuse the layer until after the chemical agents are jetted by the other carriage, so this process probably does not involve DED. However, because the system is modular and the order of these steps can be varied for particular applications, it is possible that the machine could do DED too.

The proprietary chemical agents are more than the binders of Binder Jet machines. In fact, they may not be binders at all. Instead, they are for fusing (which seems to be different from binding), detailing, coloring, and transforming the build material on the voxel level. As HP says, its machines have the "discretion of drops," 30 million of them per second. Unfused material in the bed serves as support, as in Powder Bed Fusion. Parts do not appear to need post-build steps, such as heat treatment or infiltration to increase part density. HP says its machines are modular and scalable, and will deliver fully functional, final parts with sharp edges, smooth surfaces, and accuracy, detail, color, and material characteristics (including texture, strength, translucency, elasticity, and electrical and thermal properties that are continuously variable through the part) not seen before in 3D printing.

Who Should Be Worried?

As part of HP's October 29 announcement, it showed that parts built with its machine are strong by using a chain link, built of thermoplastic with Multi Jet Fusion, to lift the weight of a car. Although its parts clearly are strong, HP's Multi Jet Fusion should not be an immediate threatto metal Powder Bed Fusion companies, like Arcam and EOS, because the customers who buy their machines need or want metal parts. But HP expects that its machines will eventually make metal parts too. So metal Powder Bed Fusion companies have a bit more time to develop innovative processes that maintain their competitive edge without violating HP's IP rights.

Multi Jet Fusion also should not be a near-term threat to DED companies like Optomec for the same reason, and because DED appears to be better suited to certain applications, like parts repair (especially in situ repairs), than Multi Jet Fusion, at least as it stands today.

But companies doing Binder Jetting, Material Extrusion, Material Jetting, Powder Bed Fusion of plastics, Vat Photopolymerization, and possibly Sheet Lamination may face a serious and immediate threat from Multi Jet Fusion, to varying degrees. Although HP's machines will not hit the market until 2016, potential customers know they are coming and could delay purchases until the HP machines are available.

HP foresees its 3D printing platform becoming an industry standard. If it can truly print better parts faster and for less money per part, if its machines truly will be within reach of "small businesses," and because it is fostering an "open collaboration" platform for materials and software, its technology could eclipse existing technologies. This could have several results for the incumbent 3D printer makers: failure, consolidation, licensing of HP's technology (especially if it becomes a standard), and innovation.

A Game Changer Among Game Changers

3D printing is a game changing technology. HP's machine is a game changer among game changers and is likely to force incumbent 3D printer makers to spend big R&D dollars, right away, to attempt to meet or beat HP's proprietary technology.

HP's entry into the industrial 3D printing arena is a good example of how IP rights work. To date, there has not been much litigation over IP rights in the 3D printing space. The reason is that although the major players compete for sales of 3D printers in general, the processes used by their machines, and their applications, are mostly different so they may not compete directly. Some players have also licensed other players to use their technology. The industry also is not yet large enough to support the degree of IP litigation common in many big industries. The result has been an industry in which the major players peacefully coexist and rarely sue each other for infringement of patents or other IP rights.

HP's Multi Jet Fusion is also very different from the processes used by the other 3D printer makers. However, HP's technology may not be able to coexist peacefully with the other 3D printer makers, or vice versa, because HP's technology appears to be a major innovation that will force the other printer makers to try to develop innovative processes that keep pace with, or exceed, HP's technology. Although the other 3D printer makers will try to avoid infringement by "designing around"—or dodging—HP's patents, HP probably will sue for patent infringement if it believes that any of the other manufacturers' attempts to innovate step on its toes. The result will be that the other 3D printer makers will develop innovative technology, some of which may infringe HP's rights and some of which may not. Thus, HP's patents will give it a competitive edge and force the other companies to innovate.

Hints About HP's IP

HP's FAQs say that Multi Jet Fusion "leverages decades of HP experience and intellectual property" in its 2D printing Thermal Inkjet technology. In this case, "intellectual property" means patents, proprietary know-how and trade secrets, and software copyrights. Of main concern to competitors will be HP's patents because patents can be violated simply by practicing their claims. By contrast, trade secrets can be violated only if competitors come to possess and use them wrongfully and software copyrights can be violated only if competitors obtain access to, and copy, HP's source code.

The fact that HP is partly relying on "decades" of 2D printing IP means that some of the relevant patents may be old or expired, or close to expiring. Because some of the relevant patents may have expired—or may expire soon—the other companies in the 3D printing space are likely to start taking a close look at those patents, to see if and when they can start using that technology. But of course HP has certainly filed new patent applications to cover new aspects of Multi Jet Fusion. No other 3D printer makers will be able to use HP's new patented technology (or patents that still have some life in them) without a license. Some manufacturers may challenge HP's patents and applications, using various procedures available under the patent laws.

3D Printing Patent Wars

In my lectures¹ and articles,² I have predicted eventual 3D printing patent wars that rival the smart phone patent wars. Until now, there has been no catalyst to set off that powder keg. Multi Jet Fusion may be such a catalyst. Except for possibly challenging HP's existing patents, the wars will not come immediately, but could result from efforts by 3D printing incumbents to avoid HP's patents. To avoid infringement and to compete with Multi Jet Fusion, the incumbents have several options: (1) use the technology of expired HP patents, but none of HP's patented technology, (2) design around HP's patents in ways that do not infringe and obtain their own patents that can be used offensively and defensively, (3) challenge HP's patents, (4) innovate in directions entirely different from Multi Jet Fusion, but with its benefits, and patent such technology, (5) take licenses under HP's patents, if it will grant them, or (6) a combination of the above. These options may be easier said than done.

HP's Multi Jet Fusion is well along in its development and, as HP says, it has decades of experience with the technological approach it has adopted. At the moment, the incumbents appear to be at a disadvantage in this regard and they do not have a lot of time to catch up.

Endnotes

¹ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoIjUKlwFkA&feature=c4-overview&list=UUvbZlA0jAOHiPQ_sttrY0hw.

² http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/3dp.2013.0005.

Copyright © Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm's clients.