The World of 3D Printing vs. IPR

Have you ever seen, or heard of, printed ears? Or printed hearts? Well, these may sound like something out of a Isaac Asimov novel, but 3D printing has made them our reality. Additive manufacturing, also known as 3D printing, is the technique of creating three-dimensional solid items from a computer file. Using 3D printed software or a 3D scanner, the object to be printed is digitally formatted in the digital file. Computer-aided design (CAD) files are the most common type of digital file. Using special software, the CAD file is then sent to a 3D printer, which converts the digital model into a physical thing. Human tissues, spaceship components, and, more controversially, working firearms are all possible applications of the technique.

The 1980s saw a boom in the 3D printing market. It was largely for industrial application. However,  many of these early technologies’ patent protections have expired. It has rekindled interest in their potential to revolutionise manufacturing supply chains. Consumers now have access to low-cost, high-performance 3D printers, which has fueled great expectations for what the technology can accomplish. But what are the implications for intellectual property (IP) of the growing usage of this quickly changing and potentially transformational technology?

Copyright 

It’s up for debate whether it should be classified as a literary or aesthetic work. Computer programmes, tables, and compilations, including computer databases, are included under Section 2(o) of the Indian Copyright Act (see here). A diagram, map, chart, or plan, an engraving, photograph, a work of architecture, or any other work of creative workmanship is defined as an artistic work under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act. Those who claim that it should be classified as a literary work argue that a CAD file is essentially a set of instructions for a printer on how to build each layer of a design and thus should be protected in the same way that a set of code in a computer programme is. The problem with defining it as a literary work is that CAD is nothing more than a collection of facts. The organisation, system, strategy, or method for doing a certain thing or procedure is not protected by copyright. Those who claim that the CAD file should be classified as an artistic work compare it to a blueprint or a technical drawing, arguing that the designs contained in the CAD files do not govern how the printer runs, but rather supply instructions that the printer’s software follows.

Patent 

The widespread availability of low-cost 3D printers will make it easier for anyone to copy even patented products. Even patented objects could be downloaded as CAD files from online markets by anyone with personal 3D printers. This could result in a slew of patent infringements. From a practical standpoint, it would be difficult for the patent owner to defend his or her rights against so many persons, especially if they are located in another country. As a result, the personal 3D printing business may reach the same fork in the road as other digital industries, ranging from software and online development to music and film.

It is possible that patentes would face several challenges for proving indirect infringement like:

• Who uploaded the CAD file of the object?
•  How do they prove that the person knew the object was patented? 
• What can they do to prove someone actually used the CAD file? It’s possible that some files will only be browsed and not used.

It would be tough to verify that the graphical interface of a device (i.e. the CAD file) is genuinely a constituent of the infringed technology.

Design 

A 3D printer works by printing a “design” that is developed using specialised software or 3D scanners. As a result, design rights could be utilised to protect non-functional 3D printed creations. Designs made with a 3D Printer, on the other hand, may not fall under the legal definition of a design as defined by Section 2(d) of the Designs Act 2000. (see here). Designs are defined in Section 2(d) of the Designs Act as any shape, configuration, pattern, or other aspect of an industrial process. However, creating an object with a personal 3D Printer will not be regarded as an “industrial process,” as the court interprets “industrial process” to be a large-scale operation.

Trademark

Trademark infringement may become more likely as a result of 3D printing, just as it has in the case of patents. Using a trademark for personal or non-commercial activities, on the other hand, will not be regarded as “use in commerce” and thus will not be pursued as trademark infringement. With the introduction of 3D printing, it is quite possible that the word “usage in commerce” will be revisited. It would also be interesting to investigate if the use of a trademark for non-commercial purposes might still be prohibited under the heading of trademark dilution.

Conclusion

In today’s society, 3D printing is truly a boon for our people. However, in the light of Intellectual property laws, it is truly detrimental to the intellectual property rights of an individual. Who protects their work, that is a product of perhaps years of research and hard work? 3D printing still has a long way to go, in terms of technology and research. The technology, in itself, is fascinating. However, as 3D unfolds in front of our eyes, it raises various questions of legal liability, assurance of quality, and so on. 

While our current IP laws are not restrictive, nor is it obsolete, they still have a long way to go. We should not shun away 3D printing simply because it raises questions of law. In fact, we should embrace it as the technology of tomorrow. In order to welcome new technology, we, as a society, should accept such scientific advances with open arms. As society evolves, so should our law. With certain minor changes to include such new technologies within the ambit of IP rights, creators of both 3D and non-3D, should be protected.