Abstract
Additive manufacturing has emerged as a transformative technology that will play a significant role in the future. Also broadly known as 3D printing, additive manufacturing creates 3D objects by incrementally adding successive layers of materials. Whereas traditional manufacturing requires materials and customized components, molds and machinery, additive manufacturing merely requires materials and a 3D printer. Without the need for expensive customization, the entrance barriers for additive manufacturing are drastically lower than those for conventional manufacturing; overhead and maintenance costs are reduced, allowing for smaller, flexible and competitive business models. The decentralized market for production is also a decentralized market for piracy. In traditional manufacturing, the copying of a design can be readily traced to a source because an infringer would require an infrastructure for fabrication and a marketing platform for sales. However, in the decentralized additive manufacturing environment, there is neither a need for a specific infrastructure nor a marketing platform. This chapter focuses on legal solutions available to intellectual property owners in the United States for blueprints, objects and processes used in additive manufacturing. Also, it establishes a baseline for the current federal protection environment and outlines the principal issues encountered in protecting intellectual property.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brean, D.: Asserting patents to combat infringement via 3D printing: It’s no "use," Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, vol. 23(3), pp. 771–814 (2013)
Brody, P., Pureswaran, V.: The New Software-Defined Supply Chain, IBM Institute for Business Value, Somers, New York (2013), http://www-935.ibm.com/services/multimedia/The_new_software-defined_supply_chain_Exec_Report.pdf
Burk, D., Lemley, M.: Policy levers in patent law, Virginia Law Review, vol. 89(7), 1575–1696 (2003)
Cohen, J.: A right to read anonymously: A closer look at "copyright management in cyberspace," Connecticut Law Review, vol. 28, pp. 981–1039 (1996)
Depoorter, B.: Intellectual property infringements and 3D printing: Decentralized piracy, Hastings Law Journal, vol. 65, pp. 1483–1504 (2014)
Desai, D., Magliocca, G.: Patents, meet Napster: 3D printing and the digitization of things, Georgetown Law Journal, vol. 102, pp. 1691–1720 (2014)
Doherty, D.: Downloading infringement: Patent law as a roadblock to the 3D printing revolution, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, vol. 26, pp. 353–373 (2012)
Holbrook, T.: Liability for the threat of a sale: Assessing patent infringement for offering to sell an invention and implications for the on-sale patent ability bar and other forms of infringement, Santa Clara Law Review, vol. 43(3), pp. 751–822 (2003)
Holbrook, T., Osborn, L.: Digital patent infringement in an era of 3D printing, University of California Davis Law Review, vol. 48, pp. 1319–1385 (2014)
Lemley, M., Reese, R.: Reducing digital copyright infringement without restricting innovation, Stanford Law Review, vol. 56, pp. 1345–1434 (2004)
Lessig, L.: Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace (Version 2.0), Basic Books, New York (2006)
Murray, M.: Copyright, originality and the end of the scenes a faire and merger doctrines for visual works, Baylor Law Review, vol. 58, pp. 779–860 (2006)
U.S. Court of Appeals (Federal Circuit), In re Beauregard, Federal Reporter (Third Series), vol. 53, pp. 1583–1584 (1995)
U.S. Court of Appeals (Federal Circuit), HollyAnne Corporation v. TFT Inc, Federal Reporter (Third Series), vol. 199, pp. 1304–1310 (1999)
U.S. Court of Appeals (Federal Circuit), Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corporation, Federal Reporter (Third Series), vol. 532, pp. 1318–1330 (2008)
U.S. Court of Appeals (Federal Circuit), CyberSource Corporation v. Retail Decisions Inc, Federal Reporter (Third Series), vol. 654, pp. 1366–1377 (2011)
U.S. Court of Appeals (First Circuit), Matthews v. Freedman, Federal Reporter (Third Series), vol. 157, pp. 25–29 (1998)
U.S. Court of Appeals (First Circuit), Johnson v. Gordon, Federal Reporter (Third Series), vol. 409, pp. 12–26 (2005)
U.S. Court of Appeals (Second Circuit), Polaroid Corporation v. Polarad Electronics Corporation, Federal Reporter (Second Series), vol. 287, pp. 492–498 (1961)
U.S. Court of Appeals (Second Circuit), Kieselstein-Cord v. Accessories by Pearl Inc, Federal Reporter (Second Series), vol. 632, pp. 989–999 (1980)
U.S. Court of Appeals (Second Circuit), Brandir International, Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Company, Federal Reporter (Second Series), vol. 834, pp. 1142–1152 (1987)
U.S. Court of Appeals (Second Circuit), L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder, Federal Reporter (Second Series), vol. 536, pp. 486–494 (2006)
U.S. Court of Appeals (Seventh Circuit), Hard Rock Cafe Licensing Corporation v. Concession Services Inc, Federal Reporter (Second Series), vol. 955, pp. 1143–1152 (1992)
U.S. Court of Appeals (Seventh Circuit), Ty, Inc. v. Perryman, Federal Reporter (Third Series), vol. 306, pp. 509–515 (2002)
U.S. Court of Appeals (Seventh Circuit), Pivot Point v. Charlene Products Inc, Federal Reporter (Third Series), vol. 372, pp. 913–934 (2004)
U.S. Court of Appeals (Tenth Circuit), Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Federal Reporter (Third Series), vol. 528, pp. 1258–1272 (2008)
U.S. Court of Appeals (Third Circuit), Educational Testing Services v. Katzman, Federal Reporter (Second Series), vol. 793, pp. 533–547 (1986)
U.S. Department of Commerce, Trademark Litigation Tactics and Federal Government Services to Protect Trademarks and Prevent Counterfeiting, Report to Congress, Washington, DC (2011). uspto.gov/ip/TMLitigationReport_final_2011April27.pdf
U.S. District Court (Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division), Harvester, Inc. v. Rule Joy Trammell+Rubio, LLC, Federal Supplement (Second Series), vol. 716, pp. 428–447 (2010)
U.S. District Court (Northern District of California), Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. MAPHIA, Federal Supplement, vol. 857, pp. 679–691 (1994)
U.S. District Court (Northern District of Illinois, Eastern District), Oak Industries, Inc. v. Zenith Electronics Corporation, Federal Supplement, vol. 687, pp. 369–396 (1988)
U.S. District Court (Southern District of New York), Demetriades v. Kaufmann, Federal Supplement, vol. 698, pp. 521–531 (1988)
U.S. House of Representatives (94th Congress, Second Session), Copyright Law Revision, House Report no. 94–1476, Washington, DC (1976). copyright.gov/history/law/clrev_94-1476.pdf
U.S. House of Representatives (101st Congress, Second Session), Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act, House Report no. 3990, Washington, DC (1990). thomas.loc.gov/cg-bin/query/z?c101:H.R.3990.IH:
U.S. Senate (79th Congress, Second Session), Providing for the Registration and Protection of Trade-Marks Used in Commerce to Carry Out the Provisions of Certain International Conventions, Senate Report no. 1333, Washington, DC (1946)
U.S. Supreme Court, Machine Company v. Murphy, United States Reports, vol. 97, pp. 120–126 (1878)
U.S. Supreme Court, Leeds & Catlin Company v. Victor Talking Machine Company, United States Reports, vol. 213, pp. 325–337 (1909)
U.S. Supreme Court, Deepsouth Packing Company, Inc. v. Laitram Corporation, United States Reports, vol. 406, pp. 518–534 (1972)
U.S. Supreme Court, Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories, United States Reports, vol. 456, pp. 844–864 (1982)
U.S. Supreme Court, Sony Corporation of America v. Universal Studios Inc, United States Reports, vol. 464, pp. 417–500 (1984)
U.S. Supreme Court, Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats Inc, United States Reports, vol. 489, pp. 141–168 (1989)
U.S. Supreme Court, Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, United States Reports, vol. 499, pp. 340–364 (1991)
U.S. Supreme Court, Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Company, United States Reports, vol. 520, pp. 17–42 (1997)
U.S. Supreme Court, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd, United States Reports, vol. 545, pp. 913–966 (2005)
U.S. Supreme Court, Microsoft Corporation v. AT&T Corporation, United States Reports, vol. 127, pp. 1746–1763 (2007)
U.S. Supreme Court, Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., United States Reports, vol. 131, pp. 2060–2074 (2011)
U.S. Supreme Court, Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies,Inc., Supreme Court Reporter, vol. 134, pp. 2111–2120 (2014)
U.S. Supreme Court, Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc., Supreme Courts Reports, vol. 135, pp. 1920–1932 (2015)
Yampolskiy, M., Andel, T., McDonald, J., Glisson, W., Yasinsac, A.: Intellectual property protection in additive layer manufacturing: Requirements for secure outsourcing, Proceedings of the Fourth Program Protection and Reverse Engineering Workshop, article no. 7 (2014)
M. Yampolskiy, L. Schutzle, U. Vaidya and A. Yasinsac, Security challenges of additive manufacturing with metals and alloys, in Critical Infrastructure Protection IX, M. Rice and S. Shenoi (Eds.), Germany, pp. 169–183 (2015)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing
About this paper
Cite this paper
Brown, A., Yampolskiy, M., Gatlin, J., Andel, T. (2016). Legal Aspects of Protecting Intellectual Property in Additive Manufacturing. In: Rice, M., Shenoi, S. (eds) Critical Infrastructure Protection X. ICCIP 2016. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 485. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48737-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48737-3_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-48736-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-48737-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)