Overview of intellectual property topics related to additive manufacturing. Includes a case study pertaining specifically to turbofan jet engine turbine blades and how to best protect novel design techniques.

1. Andrew Wilhelm IP in AM 17 November 2020
ENGM 6700 Vanderbilt University Page 1 of 6
Additive Manufacturing in the Aerospace Sector:
An Intellectual Property Case Study
Written By:
Andrew J. Wilhelm
Instructed By:
Professor Yiorgos Kostoulas
Vanderbilt School of Engineering
Division of General Engineering

2. Andrew Wilhelm IP in AM 17 November 2020
ENGM 6700 Vanderbilt University Page 2 of 6
Introduction
Additive manufacturing (AM) has evolved into a revolutionary innovation, spanning many
industries. First developed in the 1980s, early designs used ultraviolet light to harden layers of
light-sensitive polymers [1]. This became known as stereolithography (SLA) and led the way for
a more common type of three-dimensional printing, or fused deposition modeling (FDM). FDM is
able to extrude thermoplastic materials by constructing them layer by layer [1]. During a similar
time period, a manufacturing-oriented process known as selective laser sintering (SLS) was also
developed. This works by fusing finely ground metal into various objects based on a computer-
generated model. While these AM methods were useful for low-volume production, the high cost
limited widespread adoption until the early 2010s. At this time, a better understanding of the
technology enabled broader use in industry [2]. As the price for AM fell, realization of potential
applications caused a rush for novel discovery. Relevant companies have been forced to consider
implications of this growth and how to best incorporate it into future business strategies. This
places a priority on securing intellectual property (IP) rights for new AM techniques. These rights
have proven complex to obtain as a number of legal hurdles face this type of invention. To get a
better understanding of the legal landscape, an investigation of IP theory and an example case
study assist in illustrating current statutes.
IP Theory
Beginning the discussion on IP theory, it is necessary to understand the process flow of
AM. This typically follows a six-step procedure, of which the first three deal with a computer
aided design (CAD) model [3]. Once the model is created, and properly encoded, it can be printed
from a compatible machine. The next step involves removing items from the printer, which can
require specialized equipment for large-scale applications. Last is post-processing of the object
and varies per industry specifications. Breaking down common AM methodologies yields insight
into critical areas regarding IP. The CAD model is a core component of any given product. Along
with this, the printing process and machine also have an influence on technology success. Forming
the final product, the post-processing method is the final piece of effective AM. Provided this
overview, securing IP rights for these components is necessary to protect inventors. Current legal
precedence, and potential shortcomings, are expanded to define the current state of the law.
Possibly the largest aspect of AM, CAD models associated with specific products are
valuable to IP right holders. As previously noted, when defining the process, the first three steps
involve these models. With this in mind, copyright safeguards are evaluated. CAD models can be
considered an expression of work, similar to drawings, sculptures and music compositions [4]. A
copyright is very effective at discouraging reproduction of specified models, as well as digital
scans of the product. Along with this, protections extend to the “build” files used by printing
devices as they are derivative works of a copyrighted object [4]. However, the idea-expression
dichotomy causes some limitations [5]. IP holders must establish a distinction between expression
of the idea and the idea itself. When looking at CAD models with utilitarian aspects, this becomes
more complex. Objects with functional elements that dominate design characteristics will struggle
to acquire a copyright [4]. Furthermore, ideas with few representations are subject to merger
doctrine restrictions [5]. This ideology is highlighted in the Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian
legal case. The proceeding found that a jeweled bee brooch could not be copyrighted as there is

3. Andrew Wilhelm IP in AM 17 November 2020
ENGM 6700 Vanderbilt University Page 3 of 6
little difference between the idea and expression. For AM, created products must be unique,
artistic, and easily described by a number of different means to ensure copyright protections. If
this is not possible, an alternative form of IP is needed, specifically a utility patent. Utility patents
remove idea-expression dichotomy concerns, covering both the expression and the underlying
idea. The critical factor for this IP is proving an “inventive concept” [4]. While CAD models
mostly satisfy this, acquiring patents for “build” files may be difficult. Legal precedence regarding
an “inventive concept” is established by Alice Corp v. CLS Bank [6]. In this case, it was
determined that computer-implemented risk management software was not patentable. In order to
acquire these safeguards for “build” files, the court set forth a two-part test evaluating patentability
of software processes. First, the claim must be directed to, or based upon, an abstract idea. If it is
difficult to find this relationship, it is likely the claim is an abstract idea itself, rather than an
implementation of said idea. Once this is satisfied, the idea must be proved as an “inventive
concept” outside the abstract idea [6]. For “build” files, proving an improvement to existing
printing processes, or problems, may be difficult.
Considering “build” files for the printing process, discussion transitions to IP protections
available for printing machines. Expanding on the previously described “inventive concept” for
these files, an argument is made for the printing device itself. If advancements are found to improve
the process, whether it be faster or higher quality printing, it is more likely to qualify for a utility
patent. More importantly, the printing methodology can lead the way for a product-by-process
claim [4]. This type of patent is defined by the process used to construct a specific item. While
these claims seem ideal for AM, they pose a pitfall for IP right holders due to prior art concerns
[7]. If prior art obviously defines, or anticipates, the object created, the patent is not valid. This is
particularly restrictive when a new technology is used to create an old device [4]. Claims are
awarded based on the product and are independent of the process used for manufacture. AM
companies should consider this carefully when servicing industries with large amounts of prior art.
In these conditions, it will be difficult to secure rights to items created.
The last aspect of AM is post-processing and the final product. An innovative post-
processing methodology is easily protected by traditional process patents. This is a vital
component of AM as a reduction in material waste improves overall efficiency [8]. Evaluating
safeguards available to the product itself, a weakness is the doctrine of repair and reconstruction
[4]. Should the object avoid any prior art described in the aforementioned product-by-process
description, this doctrine presents a further concern. Under law “repair” of a patented product is
allowed, while “reconstruction” is viewed as infringement [9]. Ambiguity between the concepts
has ramifications on the AM industry. Under certain conditions, it is acceptable for the
reproduction of replacement parts for patented devices. The point at which the reproduction is
considered a “reconstruction” is not clearly defined, and has been left largely uncontested [4].
Following evaluation of IP theory for AM, it is necessary to identify difficulties enforcing
the described legal standings. While an array of IP strategies can be implemented to secure various
areas of AM, the protection allotted is still elusive in infringement suits. Considering the CAD
models, related files are the most exposed due to the rise of digital file-sharing sites. As it would
be cost prohibitive to pursue every direct infringer downloading protected files, the site itself is
the most viable litigation candidate [4]. However, these sites are viewed as indirect parties to
potential patent infringement. For successful indirect infringement claims, inventors must provide

4. Andrew Wilhelm IP in AM 17 November 2020
ENGM 6700 Vanderbilt University Page 4 of 6
proof of intent to distribute patented inventions, which is difficult to establish. Protecting models
with copyrights has similar concerns. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act does provide better
safeguards, but only slightly. In hand with enforcing IP rights for CAD files, the doctrine of repair
and reconstruction convolutes those of the final product [4]. Litigation proving product
reconstruction rather than repair is costly and time consuming. Ultimately, this leaves a number of
patented AM goods essentially unprotected from infringement.
Case Study
To support the described IP theory, a case study of AM in the aerospace sector is included
in the discussion. This involves jet engine manufacture, more specifically turbine blade
development. A critical design parameter of a jet engine is the turbine inlet temperature [10].
Efficiency of the engine is dependent of this variable, which increases with respect to temperature.
The highest thermal conditions tolerated by the inlet turbine blades become the limiting factor for
this efficiency. Existing manufacturing processes for turbine blades have reached maturity, only
marginally improving operational abilities year over year. Recently, aerospace companies have
incorporated AM methodologies to improve the thermal strength of current materials. AM enables
more complex blade configurations, which allows for a transverse cooling system not achievable
with subtractive manufacturing [10]. Given the potential for radical advances, relevant companies
must consider the IP concerns and include strategies to protect inventions.
An example of these efforts is found by analyzing business changes at The Boeing
Company. This organization has become a large part of the AM industry, with over 20 printing
sites worldwide [11]. Creating AM devices in commercial aviation, space and defense divisions,
it has also established a significant original equipment manufacturer (OEM) network. Recently,
Boeing announced a partnership with Assembrix Ltd, a cloud-based service provider focusing on
industrial AM [11]. The Assembrix software solution offers a secure means of sending AM design
files to relevant parties without risk of interception, corruption or decryption. Given this stance on
safeguarding IP reveals part of the strategy being implemented by Boeing. Any type of patent
requires full public disclosure of the technology. Concerns over design interception would carry
little weight if they were already patented. It is likely that more obscure trade secret protections
are in use here. Not previously discussed as a method of securing AM techniques, trade secrets
overcome the uncertainties, difficulties and expenses incurred for a patent [4]. This predictable,
cost-effective type of IP is ideal for AM. However, the drawback of trade secrets is the possibility
of proprietary disclosures and misappropriation. Proving this misappropriation can be difficult and
protections granted are less robust than those of patents [4]. With the Assembrix partnership,
Boeing is taking the necessary steps for confidentiality. Reducing OEM, and employee, access to
the decrypted CAD files makes IP loss much more unlikely.
In conjunction with trades secrets, aspects of turbine blades can also take advantage of
design patents. While securing utility patents is difficult for certain applications, most products
created through AM satisfy design patent requirements. A European variation of this is known as
a Registered Community Design, which has a slightly broader scope [12]. Both classifications of
IP focus on the look and shape of the design, rather than usefulness. AM allows for changes to
turbine blade configuration, improving transverse cooling [10]. The distinct differences over prior
art point to novel subject matter. Adding this type of IP to the portfolio layers protections, even

5. Andrew Wilhelm IP in AM 17 November 2020
ENGM 6700 Vanderbilt University Page 5 of 6
without considering utilitarian aspects. Although, in the case of turbine blades, it is likely the
innovation meets requirements for a utility patent. As previously noted, attaining a utility patent
requires full disclosure of all functional details. It has stronger protections but exposes more to the
public. A design patent provides the opportunity to disguise useful aspects as ascetic features. Only
pursuing a design patent covers the turbine blade shape but does not detail why the shape has ideal
functional characteristics. When considering IP strategy, this is a convenient way to guard the
invention without revealing operational capabilities.
Combining ideal types of IP for turbine blade AM, a business plan for relevant companies
is established. While prices have decline recently, AM has historically been an expensive process
and is best facilitated by third party providers. Electing not to vertically integrate turbine design
companies with OEMs is the most cost-effective route. This places heavy demand on IP safeguards
ensuring all products are properly licensed. Following the example set in place by Boeing,
encrypting files associated with designs best limits access to valuable IP components. When
partnering with OEMs, IP gets much more exposure to possible infringers. Reducing, or
eliminating, this through controlled file transfers significantly mitigates this risk. To further
strengthen the IP position, encrypted blade configurations can also be protected by design patents.
These do not require disclosure of functional components, limiting information given to the public.
A business model built around licensing different OEMs places more burden on protecting IP.
Additional steps should be taken to overcome copyright limitations previously described. This
would grant a supplementary form of IP, reducing dependence on the weaker trade secret category.
Conclusion
In conclusion, obtaining IP rights in the AM market is a complex procedure that varies
between industries. As demonstrated by the turbine blade case study, current strategies mostly
involve a combination of trade secrets and design patents. This is driven by lagging standards in
copyright and utility patent protections. While these forms of IP allot strong security, underdefined
legal statutes make dependence on these risky. Until shortcomings are addressed, the AM industry
looks to minimize as much public exposure as possible. The largest threat to IP in this realm is the
illicit distribution of associated CAD design files. Regardless of the type of IP used, keeping these
files off of file-sharing websites is a high priority. Identifying and prosecuting these infringers is
costly and time consuming. Safeguards put in place by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act serve
as the best way to protecting CAD files. However, these rights may not extend to designs with
functional aspects. Until this limitation is removed from copyright protections, the methodology
utilized by Boeing is an exemplar IP strategy. This includes keeping the designs as trade secrets
and only communicating related files over encrypted networks. The paragon is a good example to
follow when attempting to enter the AM market.

6. Andrew Wilhelm IP in AM 17 November 2020
ENGM 6700 Vanderbilt University Page 6 of 6
References
[1] T. Wohlers and T. Gornet, “History of Additive Manufacturing,” 2014. Accessed: Nov.
21, 2020. [Online].
[2] L. E. J. Thomas-Seale, J. C. Kirkman-Brown, M. M. Attallah, D. M. Espino, and D. E. T.
Shepherd, “The barriers to the progression of additive manufacture: Perspectives from UK
industry,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 198, pp. 104–118, Apr.
2018, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.02.003.
[3] My 3D Concepts LLC, “How 3D Printing Works.,” 2017.
http://my3dconcepts.com/explore/how-3d-printing-works/ (accessed Nov. 21, 2020).
[4] B. J. Vogel, “Intellectual Property and Additive Manufacturing / 3D Printing: Strategies
and Challenges of Applying Traditional IP Laws to a Transformative Technology,” 2016.
[Online].
[5] T. Dagne, T. W. Dagne, and C. Dubeau, “3D Printing and the Law: Are CAD Files
Copyright-protected?,” Apr. 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340964297.
[6] D. Tysver, “Software Is Patentable,” Bitlaw, 2020. https://www.bitlaw.com/software-
patent/patentable.html (accessed Nov. 21, 2020).
[7] United States Patent and Trademark Office, Product-by-Process Claims. 2020.
[8] W. Shih and S. Chai, “The LEGO Group: Publish or Protect?,” Mar. 2013. [Online].
Available: www.hbsp.harvard.edu/educators.
[9] D. Kelly, “Refurbishing Patented Products-When Does Permissible Repair Become
Infringing Reconstruction?” Accessed: Nov. 21, 2020. [Online].
[10] L. Magerramova, B. Vasilyev, and V. Kinzburskiy, “NOVEL DESIGNS OF TURBINE
BLADES FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING,” Jun. 2016.
[11] A. Fiorentino, “Boeing virtualizes, secures additive manufacturing across supply chain
with Assembrix,” SAE International, Jun. 20, 2018.
https://www.sae.org/news/2018/06/boeing-virtualizes-secures-additive-manufacturing-
across-supply-chain-with-assembrix (accessed Nov. 21, 2020).
[12] Barker Brettell, “EU vs US designs,” Sep. 2018. https://euro-
ip.com/content/uploads/2018/09/EU-vs-US-designs.pdf (accessed Nov. 21, 2020).