In what started as a straightforward article about the speedy 3D printing technology featured on Nexa3D’s NX1 Kickstarter has suddenly developed into a mess of patent infringement claims. Diego Castanon, from the Vancouver-based NewPro3D, came to us (and the Nexa3D Kickstarter forum) to claim that Nexa3D had stolen their patented technology and filed it as their own in Italy, six months later. Nexa3D’s Co-founder, Andrea Denaro, was quick to respond by suggesting that Castanon is lying and attempting to disrupt both their Kickstarter and the development of their NX1 3D printer. Both sides seemed to have a resin-based technology similar to Carbon3D’s CLIP technology, but Castanon is claiming that Nexa3D knowingly copied NewPro3D’s patented technology and even submitted identically written patents applications for it, as well.
A video from NewPro3D.
Thus far, no definitive proof has been offered by either side to convince me that one is out to get the other, but both Diego Castanon and the Nexa3D team seem to have interesting theories on why the other is out to get them. Castanon, who approached me via e-mail after reading our coverage on the NX1 Kickstarter, was enraged to see what he says is his patented technology receiving thousands of dollars in crowdfunding for what he claims was his idea. Castanon even sent me a copy of his PCT registration. I wasn’t able to find the document publicly online, but I’m not sure that means his claims aren’t true. Still, he seemed to have no doubt that Nexa3D was infringing upon his patent and promising Kickstarter funders a product they could never legally offer.
A video from Nexa3D.
But Nexa3D has a different view on the matter, claiming that Castanon is likely being backed by a major company trying to stop Nexa3D from releasing their own advanced technology at such an affordable price. They also say that they have their own patent pending, and have thoroughly followed every patent law on the way to creating their Kickstarter. Denaro’s confidence that Castanon and NewPro3D are out to destroy the Nexa3D campaign stems from the fact that these attacks have come out of nowhere on a public online forum, after Nexa3D had been openly working on the technology for some time. Additionally, Denaor says that Castanon has not attempted to contact Nexa3D to directly confront the patent issue, which the Nexa3D Co-founder says they would be more than happy to do.
Nexa3D’s parent company Thelyn SRL sent us this official statement on the matter: “The statements that were made about Thelyn are false. Thelyn has its own patent pending, has not copied any other patents filed by third parties and takes intellectual property rights very seriously. It is possible that such third parties may very well be infringers to our technology.”
One issue with what Castanon suggests as evidence of infringement is that the patent he sent to me (and also posted publicly online) didn’t at all allude to the specific 3D printing technology at hand, and only featured had a patent number that I could not locate online. To gain online access to the actual details of this patent, authorization typically granted to patent lawyers is required. Although I reached out to a patent lawyer that Castanon claims is working on his case, I was unable to reach him at his office and am still waiting for a return call. Nonetheless, here is the allegedly registered Patent Cooperation Treaty provided to me by Castanon.
He also claimed that, after calling Nexa3D out for copying his technology, they changed the description of their technology on marketing materials to “patent pending”, which he feels proves that they own no part of what they’re selling. Regardless of whether Castanon and NewPro3D had invented the technology first or not, Nexa3D has seen a successful start to their NX1 Kickstarter, offering a printer that is indeed nicely marketed and also looks very well-developed and functional.
For now the issue remains unsolved, and both parties are pretty incensed at one another. Both claim to have dedicated years to developing their technologies, and still no proof other than Castanon’s initial claims has been presented that shows that Nexa3D intentionally or actually infringing upon NewPro3D’s patent. Perhaps it’s all one big misunderstanding? The two systems presented by Nexa3D and NewPro3D are not only similar to each other, but they both also seem to replicate the already proven Carbon3D CLIP technology, so it’s feasible to think both were developed in completely different parts of world unknowingly in the same time frame.
A video of Carbon3D’s technology.
But I’ll leave the verdict up to these two companies and international patent law. I can only hope that the truth is out soon, so that we can continue supporting reinvented and improved upon 3D printing technology.
UPDATE: After reading our coverage of this dilemma, Nexa3D co-founder Andrea Denaro wished to add this statement in their defense against Castanon’s accusations:
“Let’s assume that the international patent office decides in 2018 (this is the time range, years) that one of us is using exactly the same technology registered from the other: from that date, and only from that date, or we find an agreement or the loser has to stop using it. But until that date, as we both followed a regular process, every earned dollar remains to who made it.”
UPDATE 2: Statement of clarification from Castanon and NewPro3D on their stance:
“We have not used words such as stolen or called anyone a thief or a spy nor have we stated to own a patent or that we have been robed.
Our claim and concern is just a logical and very simple one, please read slowly and understand each word we choose:
We have prior art and description of a method which is now being offered on Kickstarter to collect funds by some one who is not us.
Our statement can’t be more condensed then that, that alone is our statement. And it is complete.
Individuals who are not informed about what the legal terms are for ownership, published patent and patent applications, are being misled, involuntary, we assume, to invest on objects or ideas which might have other owners at the end, How is that possible? It should not be permitted to collect funds based on the assumption to others that you own something when in reality you don’t own it or at least not yet or that you may or may not…OK? that is as fair as I can put it.
Yes we can complaint about the patent system, it does take too long, but some of us comply because that is law today and we can’t live in anarchy because it create a mess.
We were not the last ones in a situation like this one and I believe we are not the first ones either. We are not against anybody in particular and even less against crowd funding, but please readers, some common sense, some ethics need to be applied, this is no correct. Kickstarter should not be allow to collect funds for people or companies, without legal proof of ownership, real legal proof.
We find it irresponsible from Nexa3D and their inventors to claim ownership by declaring that they possess a Published Patent, then provide a Publishing date for such Patent and then it ends up being a request for patent day… not the same thing correct? Request is NOT granting… so requesting patent is NOT granting a Patent…. like saying I got in to Harvard School…just because you sent a request to go to Harvard School does not mean you can now publicly say “I go to Harvard”, when all you did was send a request…
Readers and investors need to understand that if a prior art exists then a patent will not be granted and if a patent is not granted what will happen to the funds obtained? And to the reputation of such technique?
A court order will recall all assets, but who will heal the damaged given to the technology? The technology it self suffers from credibility because it is tied to an event such as I describe here ?
Owning a patent is owning an idea or product, filling for a patent is just a local request, it does not provide ownership, it’s not right to go out there and claim ownership and request funds, this has been the heart of the matter. Is even worse when your request is only local , that is only in Italy…what about the rest of the planet?
A local request for filling in one country is extremely limited search… the PCT application on the other hand is worldwide. Requesting a PCT does not give you ownership but at least you are requesting it worldwide and we did with a priority date of April ,2015
We have been extremely surprised by terms being used to describe the process because the similarity of terms and process and description have extreme coincides as “almost a clone”, with our technique, yes but this does not prove anything to us other then our prior art technique is being used.
For those who request drawings we have better provided videos but please consider that we are not kick-stater guys, we were not taking that route, it is not necessary in our best company interest to provide complete drawings and schematics, our company’s goals do not necessarily go along with disclosing everything we do and how we do it. We have been forced to publish our videos to show the tech population that indeed we had this thing working for a while, months before to be precise. The same goes for our website.
It is misfortune, yes it is, but it is the truth. For patentability priority is king, it’s kind of first comes first served, it is not about having a great lawyer or ten for that matter… the patent officer will receive the request by date priority.
I hope this clears it all out and the readers understand our surprise and our concern, a technique previously registered by us being offered by a company which claimed to have a published patent which they in fact did not have.
Leave A Comment