Additive Manufacturing 2D Daten für den 3D Druck   03.04.2024

Eine interessante Entwicklung - was weis ein Unternehmen über das Potenzial des eigenen Wissens  und wie können diese im Rahmen eines Transformation Prozesses in strategische Unternehmensentscheidungen eingebunden werden

Think Forward

Spare Parts 3D macht mit AI 2D-Daten für den 3D-Druck zugänglich

von

3Druck.com

-März 29, 2024

Spare Parts 3D macht mit AI 2D-Daten für den 3D-Druck zugänglich (3druck.com)

Viele Firmen verfügen über umfangreiche Bestände an technischen Zeichnungen und Plänen als einzige Produktdokumentation. Eine manuelle Rekonstruktion der 3D-Geometrien ist jedoch sehr aufwendig. Theia digitalisiert diese Altdaten mithilfe von Deep Learning und Computer Vision in Sekundenschnelle.

Das System erkennt in 2D-Zeichnungen automatisch geometrische Formen, Bemaßungen und weitere Metadaten und generiert daraus druckfähige 3D-Modelle. "Die große Herausforderung ist das Verstehen und Interpretieren der Inhalte aus der 2D-Darstellung", erklärt Projektbetreuer Professor Nabil Anwer.

Theia ist in Spare Parts 3Ds Plattform DigiPart integriert, die AI-gestützt 3D-druckfähige Teile identifiziert und Produktionsempfehlungen gibt. Anwender können so Ersatzteillager digitalisieren und lokal vor Ort fertigen lassen. Zielgruppen sind unter anderem Energie-, Verteidigungs- und Schifffahrtsindustrie mit hohem Ersatzteilbedarf.

Zukunft des Verbrennungsmotors: Analyse | autozeitung.de

Bevor wir alle ausschließlich mit Strom fahren, werden wir noch ein paar bemerkenswerte Antriebe erleben, die ihre Kraft aus der Verbrennung von Kraftstoff schöpfen. So sieht die Zukunft des Verbrennungsmotors aus!

Warum VW-Chef Blume am Verbrennerverbot festhalten will - Capital.de

EU Verbrenner-Verbot auf dem Prüfstand? | carwow.de

Seminar Digitalisierung und IoT 21.10 - 26.10.2018

Wir befinden uns bereits mitten im Digitalisierungs-Zeitalter. Dieser Megatrend beeinflusst Unternehmen aller Größen - vom Konzern bis zum Mittelstand und Kleinstbetrieb - und aller Wirtschaftssektoren. Amazon & Co machen es vor: besser, schneller, vielfältiger, meist billiger

Die Erfolgspotenziale und Herausforderungen der Digitalisierung in Unternehmen werden künftig 40 Milliarden Euro jährlich in diesen Bereich investieren. In Zukunft werden alle Unternehmensbereiche in einen digitalen Datenstrom zu integrieren sein:

• Der technologische Fortschritt revolutioniert Geschäftsmodelle, Produktions- und Arbeitsprozesse. Diese können noch effizienter und flexibler gestaltet werden. Das steigert die Produktivität. Stichworte Automatisierung von Arbeitsschritten, Healthcare Industrie 4.0.

• Der digitale Wandel birgt ein hohes Innovationspotenzial. Mit neuen Produkten eröffnen sich neue Geschäftsfelder und Märkte. Die Wertschöpfungskette spannt sich mitunter über mehrere Lieferanten bzw. über den gesamten Globus hinweg.

• Die Führungs- und Steuerungsaufgaben sind komplett zu überdenken. Die Veränderung hin zu Unternehmen mit mehr Selbstorganisation, Kooperation auf Augenhöhe, Vertrauen statt Kontrolle sowie hoher Transparenz und niedriger Hierarchie scheint unaufhaltsam. Stichworte Unternehmenskultur und Organisation 4.0.

Referenten

Professor H. Klech Vienna School of Research and Education

Dr. Peter Armstark CPA

Volkmar Wille r und v wille GmbH

Programm

Sontag 21.10.2018

13:00 - 18:00 warming up and come together

18:00 Dinner

Montag 22.10.2018

09:00 - 12:00 Übersicht Digitalisierung und IoT Referent Volkmar Wille

Vortrag und Diskussion

12:00 14:00 Lunch

14:00 - 17:00 Übersicht Digitalisierung und Healthcare Referent Professor Klech

Vortrag und Diskussion

18:00 Dinner

Dienstag 23.10.2018

09:00 - 12:00 Entwurf der EU zum Urheberrecht 3 D Druck Referent Dr. Armstark

Vortrag und Diskussion

12:00 - 14:00 Lunch

14:00 - 17:00 Entwicklung 3 D Druck Referent Volkmar Wille

Vortrag und Diskussion

18:00 Dinner

Mittwoch 24.10.2018

09:00 -12:00 3 D Druck und Urheberecht Referent Dr. Armstark

12:00 - 14:00 Lunch

14:00 - 17:00 Entwicklung Healthcare und neue Geschäftsmodelle Referent Professor Klech

Vortrag und Diskussion

18:00 Dinner

Donnerstag 25.10.2018

09:00 -12:00 von der Digitalisierung zur digitalen Transformation Referent Volkmar Wille

12:00 - 14:00 Lunch

14:00 - 17:00 Entwicklung M2M und neue Geschäftsmodelle Referent Volkmar Wille

Vortrag und Diskussion

18:00 Dinner

Freitag 26.10.2018

09:00 -12:00 Künstliche Intelligenz Entwicklung und Perspektiven Referent Volkmar Wille

12:00 - 14:00 Lunch

Tagungsort

HOTEL TERME BRISTOL BUJA
I 35031 Abano Terme - Padova - Via Monteortone, 2 - P.I. 00204250286
Tel.+39 049 8669390-Fax +39 049 667910 - e-mail: info@bristolbuja.it - www.bristolbuja.it

Legal Aspects of Protecting Intellectual Property in Additive Manufacturing - 3D Printing

• Published on December 1, 2016

Volkmar Wille

Consultant r und v wille GmbH

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.

1.1 Patents

The patent system was designed to promote the "creation and disclosure" of technological advances by awarding exclusive rights to the use of an invention for 20 years [41]. However, there is a counterbalance. Pursuant to Sections 111 and 112 of Title 35, in exchange for federal protections, inventors must disclose

Brown, Yampolskiy, Gatlin & Andel 67

Table 1. Federal protections.

10 years plus renewals

the data necessary for others "skilled in the art" to create the invention. By protecting creators, thus encouraging innovation, U.S. Congress intended to bring new designs into the public domain [3]. However, not every discovery can be protected by a patent. According to Title 35 of the United States Code, for a design to be patentable, the claimed subject matter must be both novel and non-obvious. The novelty requirement is satisfied under Section 102 when the discovery has been filed prior to any other patent, description in a printed publication or presence in public use or commerce. In order to be deemed non- obvious, Section 103 demands that the differences between the invention to be patented and any previous similar designs must not be obvious "to a person having ordinary skill in the art."

Employing patents to protect 3D-printed objects may prove to be difficult for rights holders. Any party with the infrastructure and blueprints can manu- facture patented designs. Printers for additive manufacturing can be obtained more cheaply than the array of equipment required for traditional manufactur- ing. Additionally, it is not necessary to produce units in bulk to justify costs and third parties can more discretely print patented objects. Efficacious pro- tection, therefore, hinges on the ability of patent law to protect the blueprints. After a party comes to possess a blueprint, infringement becomes trivial.

However, using patents to protect blueprints may not be possible in the current legal framework. Printed matter such as blueprints do not satisfy the requirement for "new and useful" compositions. Although there are cases in which printed matter may be patentable, courts "look to the underlying in- vention" to determine whether or not legal protection should be afforded [16]. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals (Federal Circuit) [13] found that a computer program is protectable under a patent for the process executed by the program instructions. This case does not offer a good precedent for an inference of blueprint patentability because the underlying facts can be easily distinguished.

In the case of a traditional manufactured object, a patent holder obtains pro- tection for the object - not the process by which the object was created. While an improvement to the 3D printing process would be patentable, a blueprint is merely a tool used by an existing process. A blueprint by itself is not novel [6];

68 CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION X

only the underlying object being printed could be patentable [9]. With regard to a utility patent, the blueprint does not possess the protected function; for a design patent, the protected design is on the printed object instead of in the blueprint. Although an argument could be made that protection of a blueprint would be a reasonable proxy for more effective enforcement overall, no standing case law supports this proposition. Nevertheless, patent holders are not com- pletely without recourse for enforcing their rights. As described below, Title 35 details three distinct theories of patent infringement.

Direct Infringement. Section 271(a) describes a direct infringement as the making, using, offering to sell, or selling of a patented invention without au- thorization. For patented subject matter to be made within the understanding of Section 271(a), a court has to determine if the item was operably assem- bled [38]. In the case of 3D printing, using a blueprint produces the patented subject matter and is, therefore, a direct infringement. Printing an object from an altered blueprint may also constitute an infringement if the differences be- tween the original and altered objects are "insubstantial" [43]. The doctrine of equivalents codified in Section 112(f) establishes an infringement when a patented function is performed by an altered design. An altered design that "performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result" constitutes an infringement under this doctrine [36]. Because a patent does not pertain to a blueprint, the sale or distribution of the file does not directly infringe the patent for the underlying object. While a patent infringement does not necessarily require tangible embodiment [8], with- out a supporting legal precedent, there is no basis for a court to infer patent protection for a blueprint file.

In the case of additive manufacturing, a theory of direct infringement is ill suited to combat insider threats. A manufacturer of an object has not commit- ted a direct infringement if the object blueprint was distributed by the licensed party by malice or negligence. This is because at no point does the distribution of the blueprint result in the making, using, offering to sell, or selling of the printed product. Until a court rules that the sale of a blueprint carries the same effect as the sale of a patented invention, a direct infringement claim against the manufacturer would fail; but this theory would not be applicable even if the file was stolen or freely given without obligation [14].

A theory of joint (or divided) infringement may present an alternative ap- proach to hold a manufacturer liable for direct infringement. Joint infringement occurs when the actions of different parties taken together constitute direct in- fringement. To assert a successful claim, the rights holder must show that a single party exerted "control or direction" over the infringing actions [15]. Therefore, to be liable, an additive manufacturer should be able to exercise authority over the third party that prints the unauthorized units. Determining whether or not a manufacturer controls or directs the actions of a third party compels a court to consider the nature and extent of the relationship between the parties [15]. Without lasting engagements or mutual benefits, the inference

Brown, Yampolskiy, Gatlin & Andel 69

of a relationship that gives rise to joint activity is tenuous. In Limelight Net- works, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. [47], the defendant performed some steps outlined in the underlying patent before encouraging its customers to complete the remaining steps. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the level of control and direction employed by Limelight was insufficient to establish joint infringement - although the act of encouragement was sufficient to find inducement [47].

Internet anonymity coupled with an environment that encourages a decen- tralized collection of private infringers significantly threatens patent enforce- ment [7]. Ease of accessibility to resources can give rise to numerous and diverse infringements. Digital copyright owners have struggled to combat In- ternet piracy for nearly 20 years [10]. Whereas digital copyright infringement can occur after a blueprint is downloaded, patent infringement does not occur until the blueprint is used to print the protected design. For an actor who prints a patented invention within the privacy of his/her home, the Fourth Amendment prevents investigators from searching the premises for evidence of infringement without a warrant. Indeed, effective enforcement against all in- stances of private patent infringement for 3D-printed inventions is not possible without diminishing constitutional privacy protections [4].

Keywords

Additive manufacturing 3d printing Intellectual property Legal aspects

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-48737-3_4

Volkmar Wille

Consultant r und v wille GmbH