Case 1:21-cv-00998-MN Document 37 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 586
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`CONTINUOUS COMPOSITES, INC., a
`Delaware corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`MARKFORGED, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`C.A. No. 21-998 (MN)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff CONTINUOUS COMPOSITES, INC. (“Continuous Composites” or “Plaintiff”)
`
`brings this action for patent infringement against Defendant, MARKFORGED, INC.
`
`(“Markforged” or “Defendant”), on information and belief, and alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement. Plaintiff Continuous Composites
`
`develops continuous fiber additive manufacturing (also called “3D printing”) technology that
`
`uses a continuous fiber and matrix in the printing process. Continuous Composites has been and
`
`continues to be a pioneer in developing continuous fiber 3D printing (CF3D®) with high-
`
`performance materials and was the earliest developer of CF3D. It has been awarded numerous
`
`patents for its innovative technology, including the patents at issue in this action.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant makes, uses, sells, and offers to sell continuous fiber composite 3D
`
`printers that infringe Continuous Composites’s patented inventions without Continuous
`
`Composites’s permission and without compensating Continuous Composites for the use of
`
`Continuous Composites’s patented innovations. The patents at issue in this action claim priority
`
`back to 2012, predating both Defendant’s founding and the release of Defendant’s first
`
`commercially available continuous fiber composite 3D printer several years later.
`
`1
`
`Page 1 of 27
`
`Markforged Ex. 1019
`Markforged v. Continuous Composites, IPR2022-01218
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00998-MN Document 37 Filed 02/24/22 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 587
`
`3.
`
`This lawsuit is brought by Continuous Composites to end Defendant’s
`
`unauthorized and infringing activities including, making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or
`
`importing into the United States products and/or components that incorporate Continuous
`
`Composites’s patented inventions, or inducing others to do so, without Continuous Composites’s
`
`permission and without compensating Continuous Composites; and to recover damages adequate
`
`to compensate Continuous Composites for Defendant’s unlawful and infringing actions.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Continuous Composites is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 215 E. Lakeside Ave., Coeur d’Alene,
`
`ID 83814.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Markforged is a Delaware corporation organized under
`
`the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 85 School Street,
`
`Watertown, MA 02472.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`This civil action for patent infringement arises under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq., including pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. This Court has subject
`
`matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`7.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Markforged. On information and belief,
`
`Markforged has systematic and continuous contact with this forum at least because it is a
`
`Delaware corporation, conducts business in this judicial district, and resides in Delaware.
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because Markforged is a
`
`Delaware corporation and, therefore, resides in this district.
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 27
`
`Markforged Ex. 1019
`Markforged v. Continuous Composites, IPR2022-01218
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00998-MN Document 37 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 588
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`9.
`
`Continuous Composites is the owner of the patents at issue in this action: U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 9,511,543 (the “’543 Patent”); 9,987,798 (the “’798 Patent”); 10,744,708 (the “’708
`
`Patent”), 10,759,109 (the “’109 Patent”); and 11,173,660 (the “’660 Patent”) (collectively, the
`
`“Asserted Patents”).
`
`10.
`
`On December 6, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued the ’543 Patent entitled “Method and Apparatus for Continuous Composite Three-
`
`Dimensional Printing.” A copy of the ’543 Patent is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`11.
`
`Continuous Composites owns all substantial right, title, and interest in the ’543
`
`Patent, and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof, including past
`
`infringement.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`The claims of the ’543 Patent are valid and enforceable.
`
`On June 5, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued the ’798 Patent, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Continuous Composite Three-
`
`Dimensional Printing.” A copy of the ’798 Patent is attached as Exhibit 2.
`
`14.
`
`Continuous Composites owns all substantial right, title, and interest in the ’798
`
`Patent, and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof, including past
`
`infringement.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`The claims of the ’798 Patent are valid and enforceable.
`
`On August 18, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued the ’708 Patent, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Continuous Composite Three-
`
`Dimensional Printing.” A copy of the ’708 Patent is attached as Exhibit 3.
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 27
`
`Markforged Ex. 1019
`Markforged v. Continuous Composites, IPR2022-01218
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00998-MN Document 37 Filed 02/24/22 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: 589
`
`17.
`
`Continuous Composites owns all substantial right, title, and interest in the ’708
`
`Patent, and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof, including past
`
`infringement.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`The claims of the ’708 Patent are valid and enforceable.
`
`On September 1, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued the ’109 Patent, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Continuous Composite Three-
`
`Dimensional Printing.” A copy of the ’109 Patent is attached as Exhibit 4.
`
`20.
`
`Continuous Composites owns all substantial right, title, and interest in the ’109
`
`Patent, and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof, including past
`
`infringement.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`The claims of the ’109 Patent are valid and enforceable.
`
`On November 16, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued the ’660 Patent, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Continuous Composite Three-
`
`Dimensional Printing.” A copy of the ’660 Patent is attached as Exhibit 5.
`
`23.
`
`Continuous Composites owns all substantial right, title, and interest in the ’660
`
`Patent, and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof, including past
`
`infringement.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`The claims of the ’660 Patent are valid and enforceable.
`
`Defendant competes with Continuous Composites in the continuous fiber 3D
`
`printing industry.
`
`26. Markforged manufactures, markets, sells, and uses several 3D printers that use a
`
`3D printing technique Defendant refers to as a Continuous Fiber Reinforcement (CFR) process
`
`(the “Accused Products”). The Accused Products extrude a matrix (e.g., Onyx™, Onyx FR™,
`
`Onyx FSD™, nylon) in liquid form together with a continuous fiber reinforcement (carbon fiber,
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 27
`
`Markforged Ex. 1019
`Markforged v. Continuous Composites, IPR2022-01218
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00998-MN Document 37 Filed 02/24/22 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: 590
`
`Kevlar®, HSHT fiberglass, fiberglass) to “3D print” or generate objects, such as industrial parts
`
`or rapid prototypes. Examples of the Accused Products include Defendant’s Mark Two, Onyx
`
`Pro, X5, X7, and FX20 printers. The Accused Products are Defendant’s flagship products and,
`
`on information and belief, are the primary contributors to Defendant’s historical revenue.
`
`27.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant instructs users of the Accused Products to
`
`operate the Accused Products to generate objects using the CFR process. For example,
`
`Defendant’s
`
`website
`
`advertises
`
`a
`
`“Markforged
`
`University”
`
`(e.g.,
`
`at
`
`https://markforged.com/markforged-university) which Defendant describes as a “comprehensive
`
`additive training program for modern manufacturing” and where visitors can “Get Certified” for
`
`using the Accused Products. On information and belief, Defendant—through at least resources
`
`available from the Markforged University—provides instruction to those seeking certification on
`
`how to use the Accused Products to generate objects using the CFR process. In addition, on
`
`information and belief, Defendant provides user and service manuals providing instructions on
`
`how to operate the Accused Products to generate parts or objects using the CFR process.
`
`28.
`
`On information and belief, third parties including manufacturers, engineers, and
`
`other customers of Defendant have used and continue to use the Accused Products as directed by
`
`Defendant. For example, Defendant’s website (e.g., at https://markforged.com/industries/)
`
`indicates that leaders in the aerospace, automotive, consumer packaged goods, education and
`
`research, electronics manufacturing, energy, federal and defense, industrial equipment, medical,
`
`and product development industries use Defendant’s products, which include the Accused
`
`Products.
`
`29.
`
`On information and belief, critical components of the Accused Products, including
`
`at least the fiber extruder, and including the clutched drive roller of the extruder, as well as the
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 27
`
`Markforged Ex. 1019
`Markforged v. Continuous Composites, IPR2022-01218
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00998-MN Document 37 Filed 02/24/22 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: 591
`
`angled fan and the heater inside the print head, have substantially no other use other than to
`
`generate parts or objects using the CFR process.
`
`30. Markforged has been on notice of the ’543, ’798, ’708, and ’109 Patents since at
`
`least July 1, 2021. On that date, Continuous Composites sent a letter to Markforged of its
`
`infringement of the ’543, ’798, ’708, and ’109 Patents through it making, using, selling, offering
`
`to sell, and/or importing of the Accused Products (including the Mark Two, Onyx Pro, X5 and
`
`X7 printers), or its acts in inducing others to do so. The July 1, 2021 notice included claim charts
`
`detailing Markforged’s infringement of the four ’543, ’798, ’708, and ’109 Patents that are
`
`identical, or substantially identical, to Exhibits 6-9.
`
`31.
`
`On February 11, 2022, Continuous Composites sent a letter to Markforged
`
`notifying it of its infringement of the ’660 Patent through it making, using, selling, offering to
`
`sell, and/or importing of the Accused Products, or its acts in inducing others to do so. The
`
`February 11, 2022 notice included a claim chart detailing Markforged’s infringement of the ’660
`
`Patent that is identical, or substantially identical, to Exhibit 10.
`
`32.
`
`On July 2, 2021, counsel for Markforged sent a response to Continuous
`
`Composites’s July 1, 2021 notice letter. The July 2 response stated that “based upon our current
`
`knowledge, we think that any claim of infringement is frivolous.” The July 2 response further
`
`stated that “we continue to study the issue” and that Markforged “will continue to investigate the
`
`patents you have identified and respond appropriately.” The July 2 response continued by stating
`
`that “Markforged is amenable to a meeting to discuss” Continuous Composites’s allegations and
`
`that “a discussion between Markforged and Continuous Composites may be useful to better
`
`understand these issues and determine the best path forward for our respective companies.” The
`
`July 2 response offered to meet after July 15, 2021.
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 27
`
`Markforged Ex. 1019
`Markforged v. Continuous Composites, IPR2022-01218
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00998-MN Document 37 Filed 02/24/22 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 592
`
`33.
`
`On July 5, 2021, counsel for Continuous Composites responded to Markforged’s
`
`July 2 letter requesting a telephone discussion to “further discuss Continuous Composites’s
`
`expectations for the parties’ negotiations” and indicated that if “Markforged is unwilling to talk
`
`in that timeframe, or if that call makes clear that negotiations are unlikely to be fruitful, then
`
`Continuous Composites will initiate litigation expeditiously.”
`
`34.
`
`On July 6, 2021, counsel for Markforged sent a response to Continuous
`
`Composites’s July 5, 2021 letter stating that “there is no merit to Continuous Composites’
`
`claims.” The letter continued by stating that while Markforged “remains willing to meet” it could
`
`not “do so until on or after July 15, 2021.” The letter also stated that “[i]f Continuous Composites
`
`chooses to file a complaint prior to a meeting, Markforged will defend itself against this baseless
`
`lawsuit[.]” The letter further attached a disclosure Markforged filed that day with the United
`
`States Securities and Exchange Commission “disclosing your letter and Markforged’s view that
`
`any claims asserted in that letter are without merit.” That filing with the SEC stated that “[b]ased
`
`on Markforged’s and its outside counsel’s review to date of Continuous Composite’s claims,
`
`Markforged believes that its Continuous Fiber Composite 3D Printers do not practice the claims
`
`of these four related patents.”
`
`35.
`
`Accordingly, Markforged had sufficient time to meaningfully analyze the ’543,
`
`’798, ’708, and ’109 Patents and Continuous Composites’s claims of infringement before the
`
`filing of the Original Complaint. Notwithstanding Markforged’s claims that it does not infringe,
`
`however, Markforged never (and still has not) identified any basis for its purported belief that it
`
`does not infringe the Asserted Patents. To the contrary, upon information and belief and as
`
`supported by the allegations of this Second Amended Complaint, Markforged knows (and has
`
`known since at least July 1, 2021 for the ’543, ’798, ’708, and ’109 Patents and at least February
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 27
`
`Markforged Ex. 1019
`Markforged v. Continuous Composites, IPR2022-01218
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00998-MN Document 37 Filed 02/24/22 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 593
`
`11, 2021 for the ’660 Patent, if not sooner) that it, its products, and its customers infringe the
`
`Asserted Patents.
`
`36.
`
`On July 7, 2021, Continuous Composites initiated the present action by filing a
`
`complaint alleging Markforged infringed the Asserted Patents (the “Original Complaint”). The
`
`Original Complaint included claim chart exhibits detailing Markforged’s infringement, which are
`
`identical to Exhibits 6-9. The Original Complaint also included allegations that Markforged
`
`induced others to infringe claims of the ’543, ’798, ’708, and ’109 Patents by encouraging acts
`
`of direct infringement through teaching others—including its customers and end users—to use
`
`the Accused Products in a manner that Markforged knew and knows infringes the ’543, ’798,
`
`’708, and ’109 Patents, by, for example, instructing those end-users or customers how to generate
`
`parts or objects using the CFR process through the Markforged University, user and service
`
`manuals,
`
`and/or
`
`YouTube
`
`videos
`
`(e.g.,
`
`those
`
`available
`
`at
`
`https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCg90L1Q_pjC4faYedwVAyRw). The Original Complaint
`
`also alleged Markforged contributes to the direct infringement of claims of the ’543, ’798, ’708,
`
`and ’109 Patents by others—including its customers and end users—by providing discrete,
`
`material components of the Accused Products to its customers for installation or replacement
`
`including at least the fiber extruder and the print head of the Accused Products, which are not
`
`suitable for any substantial non-infringing use.
`
`37.
`
`On July 7, 2021, counsel for Continuous Composites sent a letter attaching the
`
`Original Complaint and exhibits to Markforged. The July 7 letter stated that “Continuous
`
`Composites’s management is willing to meet with Markforged’s management on July 15th as
`
`requested in [Markforged’s] July 2nd letter” and that “Continuous Composites is willing to meet
`
`at [Markforged’s] Boston office.”
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 27
`
`Markforged Ex. 1019
`Markforged v. Continuous Composites, IPR2022-01218
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00998-MN Document 37 Filed 02/24/22 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: 594
`
`38.
`
`On July 9, 2021, counsel for Markforged sent a brief response to Continuous
`
`Composites’s July 7, 2021 letter stating that in “light of Continuous Composites’ filing of a
`
`complaint, Markforged is considering whether a meeting still makes sense. In any event, even if
`
`we were to agree to a meeting, we cannot meet on July 15th.”
`
`39.
`
`On August 8, 2021, Continuous Composites’s counsel received an email notifying
`
`it that Markforged had retained new counsel. The August 8 email—sent by new counsel—offered
`
`to “chat next week” to “get a sense of [Continuous Composites’s] views of this dispute.”
`
`40.
`
`On August 10, 2021, counsel for Markforged and counsel for Continuous
`
`Composites held a teleconference to discuss the Original Complaint, the parties’ respective
`
`positions, and the potential for future discussions.
`
`41.
`
`On August 16, 2021, counsel for Markforged sent counsel for Continuous
`
`Composites an email stating that Markforged was not interested in meeting unless Continuous
`
`Composites dismissed the present action.
`
`42.
`
`Despite Markforged being on notice of its infringement since the July 1, 2021 and
`
`the July 7, 2021 filing date of the Original Complaint for the ’543, ’798, ’708, and ’109 Patents,
`
`and being on notice of its infringement since February 11, 2022 of the ’660 Patent, and despite
`
`Markforged having adequate opportunity and sufficient time to meaningfully analyze the
`
`Asserted Patents and either stop its infringing behavior or discuss a resolution with Continuous
`
`Composites before the filing of this Second Amended Complaint, Markforged has not changed
`
`its infringing acts or ceased inducing or contributing to the infringement of others.
`
`43.
`
`From at least July 1, 2021 to the date Continuous Composites filed this Second
`
`Amended Complaint, Markforged has continued to directly infringe claims of the Asserted
`
`Patents by using, making, selling, offering to sell and/or importing the Accused Products,
`
`inducing others to infringe claims of the Asserted Patents through teaching and encouraging
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 27
`
`Markforged Ex. 1019
`Markforged v. Continuous Composites, IPR2022-01218
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00998-MN Document 37 Filed 02/24/22 Page 10 of 27 PageID #: 595
`
`others to use the Accused Products in a manner that infringes claims of the Asserted Patents (e.g.,
`
`through Markforged University, user or service manuals, and/or YouTube videos), and
`
`contributing to the infringement of claims of the Asserted Patents by providing discrete, material
`
`components of the Accused Products to its customers, including at least the fiber extruder and
`
`the print head of the Accused Products, that are not suitable for any substantial non-infringing
`
`use.
`
`44.
`
`In addition to the above notice, on information and belief, Markforged has known
`
`of Continuous Composites, its patent applications, and its technology since at least February 13,
`
`2015. On that date, Markforged submitted an Information Disclosure Statement to the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in pending patent application Serial No.
`
`14/575,077 citing U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2014/0061974, the pre-grant publication of the ’543
`
`Patent.
`
`45. Markforged has cited the pre-grant publication of the ’543 Patent (i.e., U.S. Pat.
`
`App. Pub. No. 2014/0061974) in no less than 31 of its other patent applications, including
`
`applications that eventually issued as U.S. Pat. Nos. 11,065,861; 11,014,305; 10,953,610;
`
`10,953,609; 10,821,662; 10,717,228; 10,696,039; 10,682,844; 10,611,082; 10,603,841;
`
`10,434,702; 10,259,160; 10,099,427; 10,076,876; 10,076,875; 10,040,252; 10,016,942;
`
`9,956,725; 9,815,268; 9,694,544; 9,688,028; 9,579,851; 9,539,762; 9,370,896; 9,327,453;
`
`9,327,452; 9,186,848; 9,186,846; 9,156,205; 9,149,988; 9,126,367.
`
`46.
`
`In June 2018, Continuous Composites’s Director of Intellectual Property, Ryan
`
`Stockett, was invited to and attended Markforged’s anniversary party in Boston, MA. Mr.
`
`Stockett spoke with Mr. Gregory Mark, Mr. David Benhaim and other executives, VPs and
`
`engineers of Markforged about Continuous Composites’s patented and propriety technology.
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 27
`
`Markforged Ex. 1019
`Markforged v. Continuous Composites, IPR2022-01218
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00998-MN Document 37 Filed 02/24/22 Page 11 of 27 PageID #: 596
`
`47.
`
`Since then, Continuous Composites has attempted to engage in a business
`
`discussion with Markforged about licensing Continuous Composites’s patents only to be
`
`dismissed or ignored by Markforged.
`
`48.
`
`For example, on June 21, 2018, Mr. Stockett emailed Messrs. Mark and Benhaim
`
`saying that he “enjoyed discussing some of the similarities” between Continuous Composites’s
`
`patented technologies and Markforged’s technology. Mr. Stockett also offered to meet with
`
`Messrs. Mark and Benhaim to “talk about potential future relationships.” Mr. Stockett received
`
`no response to his June 21, 2018 email.
`
`49.
`
`On December 16, 2018, Mr. Stockett sent another email to Messrs. Mark and
`
`Benhaim where he offered to show both around Continuous Composites’s facility and “discuss
`
`potential licensing opportunities.” Mr. Stockett received no response to his December 16, 2018
`
`email.
`
`50.
`
`On March 5, 2021, Continuous Composites CEO Tyler Alvarado emailed Mr.
`
`Mark attempting to schedule a call to “have a brief discussion on potential collaboration.” Mr.
`
`Alvarado received no response to his March 5, 2021 email.
`
`51.
`
`On March 8, 2021, Mr. Alvarado sent a LinkedIn message to Markforged CEO
`
`Shai Terem attempting to schedule a call to “have a brief discussion on potential collaboration.”
`
`Mr. Alvarado received no response to his March 8, 2021 message.
`
`52.
`
`On information and belief, due to Markforged’s sophistication with intellectual
`
`property and patent matters, Markforged’s knowledge of the application leading to the ’543
`
`Patent and its related patents (including the Asserted Patents), Mr. Stockett’s conversations with
`
`Messrs. Mark and Benhaim and other Markforged employees concerning the similarities between
`
`Continuous Composites and Markforged’s technologies, Mr. Stockett’s offer to discuss “potential
`
`licensing opportunities,” and Mr. Alvarado requests to discuss “potential collaboration,”
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 27
`
`Markforged Ex. 1019
`Markforged v. Continuous Composites, IPR2022-01218
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00998-MN Document 37 Filed 02/24/22 Page 12 of 27 PageID #: 597
`
`Markforged would have investigated, analyzed, and conducted a preliminary analysis of
`
`Continuous Composites’s patents (including the ’543, ’798, ’708, and ’109 Patents) and the
`
`claims of those patents. Markforged’s statements in its July 2 and July 6 correspondence to
`
`Continuous Composites and July 6 filing with the SEC (that is, the two business days after
`
`Continuous Composites sent the Notice Letter) that it had assessed whether its products infringed
`
`the ’543, ’798, ’708, and ’109 Patents are further evidence that Markforged had conducted an
`
`analysis of these patents and their claims before July 1, 2021.
`
`53.
`
`Accordingly, even before July 1, 2021, Markforged had actual knowledge of
`
`Continuous Composites’s patents, including at least the ’543, ’798, ’708, and ’109 Patents, and
`
`of Markforged’s infringement of them. At minimum Markforged willfully blinded itself to the
`
`existence of Continuous Composites’s patent claims and Markforged’s infringement of them.
`
`COUNT I
`
`DEFENDANT’S INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PAT. NO. 9,511,543
`
`54.
`
`Continuous Composites incorporates by reference and realleges the foregoing
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`55.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has directly infringed and continues to
`
`directly infringe each and every element of at least claims 17, 20, 21, 24, 25, and 27 of the ’543
`
`Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by, using in
`
`the United States without authority the Accused Products that perform the CFR process. A claim
`
`chart detailing examples of Defendant’s infringement is attached as Exhibit 6.
`
`56.
`
`Defendant has indirectly infringed, and continues to indirectly infringe, the ’543
`
`Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by actively, knowingly, and intentionally inducing infringement
`
`by others, such as end-users or customers of the Accused Products, with knowledge of the ’543
`
`Patent and with knowledge that others (including Defendant’s customers and end users) will use
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 27
`
`Markforged Ex. 1019
`Markforged v. Continuous Composites, IPR2022-01218
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00998-MN Document 37 Filed 02/24/22 Page 13 of 27 PageID #: 598
`
`the Accused Products to 3D print objects using the CFR process in a manner that directly
`
`infringes, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’543
`
`Patent. Defendant had and has the specific intent to encourage the acts of direct infringement by
`
`teaching (including Defendant’s customers and end users) to use the Accused Products in a
`
`manner that Defendant knew and knows infringes the ’543 Patent, by, for example, instructing
`
`those end-users or customers how to generate parts or objects using the CFR process through the
`
`Markforged University, user and service manuals, and/or YouTube videos (e.g., those available
`
`at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCg90L1Q_pjC4faYedwVAyRw).
`
`57.
`
`Defendant contributes to direct infringement of the ’543 Patent by others
`
`(including its customers and end users) under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), including by providing discrete,
`
`material components of the Accused Products to its customers for installation or replacement.
`
`Components of the Accused Products provided by Defendant to others include at least the fiber
`
`extruder and the print head. Said components have been especially made or especially adapted
`
`by Defendant for use in infringement of the ’543 Patent, and are not suitable for any substantial
`
`non-infringing use as their purpose is using the CFR process to manufacture parts or objects using
`
`continuous fiber materials.
`
`58.
`
`Defendant received actual notice of its infringement of the ’543 Patent at least as
`
`early as July 1, 2021 and have continued to make, use, sell, offer to sell and/or import the Accused
`
`Products, and/or induce others to do so, and/or contribute to infringement by others. Even before
`
`July 1, 2021, Defendant had actual knowledge of the ’543 Patent or at minimum willfully blinded
`
`itself to the existence of the ’543 Patent and Defendant’s infringement.
`
`59.
`
`For the same reasons that Defendant knows its own acts infringe the ’543 Patent,
`
`Defendant also knows that its customers and end users’ use likewise infringes the Asserted
`
`Patents. Defendant has been aware of the Asserted Patents and its customers and end users’
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 27
`
`Markforged Ex. 1019
`Markforged v. Continuous Composites, IPR2022-01218
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00998-MN Document 37 Filed 02/24/22 Page 14 of 27 PageID #: 599
`
`infringing activities since at least July 1, 2021, but certainly no later than the filing of the Original
`
`Complaint, yet Defendant still continues its own infringing activity as well as its inducement and
`
`contributory infringement by its customers and end users as of the filing date of this First
`
`Amended Complaint. On information and belief, Defendant has been aware of the ’543 Patent
`
`and that the activities of its customers and end users constituted infringement, or at minimum
`
`willfully blinded itself to these facts, even before the filing of the Original Complaint, as stated
`
`above.
`
`60.
`
`Continuous Composites has suffered, and continues to suffer, damages as a result
`
`of Defendant’s infringement of the ’543 Patent. The extent of damage suffered by Continuous
`
`Composites and caused by Defendant is not yet known, but the damage is substantial and will be
`
`determined at trial.
`
`61.
`
`In addition, Continuous Composites and Defendant are direct competitors in an
`
`emerging market where technology is a key differentiator. On information and belief, Markforged
`
`will continue its infringing activities damaging Continuous Composites unless and until enjoined
`
`by this Court. Indeed, Markforged has continued its infringing activities for months after it was
`
`notified of its infringement and after Continuous Composites filed the Original Complaint. Due
`
`to Defendant’s infringement, Continuous Composites has suffered, is suffering, and will continue
`
`to suffer irreparable injury for which Continuous Composites has no adequate remedy at law,
`
`including but not limited to customer confusion, harm to reputation, and loss of goodwill.
`
`Continuous Composites is therefore entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction against
`
`Defendant’s further infringement.
`
`62.
`
`Defendant’s infringement of the ’543 Patent after learning that Continuous
`
`Composites developed and patented CF3D technology has been, and continues to be, willful,
`
`deliberate, and in disregard of Continuous Composites patent rights. Defendant’s intentional,
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 27
`
`Markforged Ex. 1019
`Markforged v. Continuous Composites, IPR2022-01218
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00998-MN Document 37 Filed 02/24/22 Page 15 of 27 PageID #: 600
`
`knowing, and willful infringement entitles Continuous Composites to increased damages under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 285.
`
`COUNT II
`
`DEFENDANT’S INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PAT. NO. 9,987,798
`
`63.
`
`Continuous Composites incorporates by reference and realleges the foregoing
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`64.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has directly infringed and continues to
`
`directly infringe each and every element of at least claims 1, 13, 14, and 18 of the ’798 Patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by using in the
`
`United States without authority the Accused Products that perform the CFR process. A claim
`
`chart detailing examples of Defendant’s infringement is attached as Exhibit 7.
`
`65.
`
`Defendant has indirectly infringed, and continues to indirectly infringe, the ’798
`
`Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by actively, knowingly, and intentionally inducing infringement
`
`by others, such as end-users or customers of the Accused Products, with knowledge of the ’798
`
`Patent and with knowledge that others (including Defendant’s customers and end users) will use
`
`the Accused Products to 3D print objects using the CFR process in a manner that directly
`
`infringes, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’798
`
`Patent. Defendant had and has the specific intent to encourage the acts of direct infringement by
`
`teaching (including Defendant’s customers and end users) to use the Accused Products in a
`
`manner that Defendant knew and knows infringes the ’798 Patent, by, for example, instructing
`
`those end-users or customers how to generate parts or objects using the CFR process through the
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 27
`
`Markforged Ex. 1019
`Markforged v. Continuous Composites, IPR2022-01218
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-00998-MN Document 37 Filed 02/24/22 Page 16 of 27 PageID #: 601
`
`Markforged University, user and service manuals, and/or YouTube videos (e.g., those available
`
`at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCg90L1Q_pjC4faYedwVAyRw).
`
`66.
`
`Defendant contributes to direct infringement of the ’798 Patent by others
`
`(including its customers and end users), including by providing discrete, material components of
`
`the Accused Products to its customers for installation or replacement. Components of the
`
`Accused Products provided by Defendant to others include at least the fiber extruder and the print
`
`head. Said components have been especially made or especially adapted by Defendant for use in
`
`infringement of the ’798 Patent, and are not suitable for any substantial non-infringing use as
`
`their sole purpose is using the CFR process to manufacture parts or objects using continuous fiber
`
`materials.
`
`67.
`
`Defendant received actual notice of its infringement of the ’798 Patent at least as
`
`early as July 1, 2021 and have continued to make, use, sell, offer to sell and/or import the Accused
`
`Products, and/or induce ot