Intrepid Automation, Inc. v. 3D Systems Corporation
3:24-cv-02262
S.D. Cal.Mar 5, 2025Background
- Intrepid Automation ("Intrepid") and 3D Systems are competing manufacturers of 3D printing systems.
- Several Intrepid founders previously worked for 3D Systems; 3D Systems has ongoing trade secret litigation against Intrepid.
- Intrepid claims 3D Systems's PSLA 270 3D printer system infringes Intrepid's patents (the '301 and '511 patents), which relate to using multiple projectors in 3D printing.
- In December 2024, Intrepid sued 3D Systems for patent infringement, alleging the PSLA 270 is a copy of Intrepid's Range printer.
- Intrepid moved for expedited discovery on the PSLA 270 and any similar systems in development, to inform whether it should seek a preliminary injunction against 3D Systems.
- 3D Systems filed motions to dismiss and to stay the litigation, both pending at the time of this decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expedited discovery for the PSLA 270 printer | Needed to determine if preliminary injunction warranted | Not justified; discovery unnecessary and burdensome | Granted expedited discovery only as to PSLA 270 |
| Expedited discovery for other printer systems | Necessary to assess infringement and potential injunction | Overbroad, not tailored to the injunction question | Denied; discovery limited to PSLA 270 only |
| Burden of expedited discovery on defendant | Requests are narrowly tailored, not overly burdensome | Significant burden; Intrepid can purchase printer | No undue burden; ordering production and inspection |
| Necessity of buying the PSLA 270 for inspection | Physical inspection preferable to $100,000 purchase | Intrepid can buy PSLA 270, making discovery unneeded | Declined to require purchase; inspection under Rule 34 |
Key Cases Cited
- Synopsys, Inc. v. AzurEngine Techs., Inc., 401 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (standard for good cause in expedited discovery)
- Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (expedited discovery appropriate when need outweighs prejudice)
- Am. LegalNet, Inc. v. Davis, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1063 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (narrow tailoring required for expedited discovery in injunction context)