Continuous Composites, Inc. v. Markforged, Inc.

  • Court: United States District Court, Delaware (Wilmington)
  • Case number: 1:21cv998
  • Filed: July 7, 2021
  • Judge: Judge Maryellen Noreika
  • Case type: 830 Patent
  • Cause: 35:1 Patent Infringement

Parties Involved

  • Plaintiff: Continuous Composites, Inc
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Kelly E. Farnan | Jessica Blau | Hala S. Mourad | Richard J. Uberto, Jr. | William B. Dyer, III | Christopher J. Higgins | Pengweixi Sun | Vann Pearce
    • Expert Witnesses for Plaintiff: Dr. Tim A. Osswald | W. Todd Schoettelkotte  
  • Defendant: Markforged, Inc.
    • Counsel for Defendant: Rodger Dallery Smith, II | Travis J Murray | Calvin E. Wingfield, Jr. | Grace P. Truong | Indra Neel Chatterjee | Jacqueline Genovese Bova | Jenevieve N. Nutovits | Michael C. Ting
    • Expert Witnesses for Defendant: Ken Gall | Lynne J. Weber, Ph.D. | Carla S. Mulhern 

Verdict Information

  • Verdict date: April 11, 2024
  • Total damages awarded to Plaintiff: $17,341,310.00

About the Case


Continuous Composites, Inc. (“Continuous Composites” or “Plaintiff”) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Markforged, Inc. (“Markforged” or “Defendant”), alleging violations of four patents (“Asserted Patents”) related to continuous fiber additive manufacturing technology, also known as 3D Printing. Continuous Composites pioneered and developed continuous fiber 3D printing (CF3D) technology and secured patents predating Markforged’s commercial entry into the field.

Continuous Composites alleged that Markforged directly infringed their patents by manufacturing, selling, and promoting 3D printers that utilized continuous fiber composite printing processes (“CFR process”). This included products such as Mark Two, Onyx Pro, X5, and X7 printers, integrating matrix materials with continuous fiber reinforcements like carbon fiber and Kevlar.

The lawsuit asserted that Markforged had been aware of Continuous Composites’ patents since at least July 1, 2021, when notified of the infringement through detailed claim charts. Despite this notice and alleged knowledge, Markforged purportedly continued its infringing activities, encouraging end-users through programs like Markforged University and providing instructional materials on how to use the accused products for CFR process printing.

Continuous Composites further claimed that Markforged’s actions constituted direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. Section 271(a), indirect infringement under Section 271(b), and contributory infringement under Section 271(c). They argued that Markforged’s conduct had caused significant damages, including reputational harm and loss of goodwill, for which monetary compensation alone would be inadequate.


Continuous Composites had suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s infringement of the Patents. This infringement had caused Continuous Composites irreparable harm for which there was no adequate legal remedy, including customer confusion, harm to reputation, and loss of goodwill. Therefore, Continuous Composites sought both preliminary and permanent injunctions against Defendant’s further infringement.

Defendant’s infringement had been deliberate and willful, showing disregard for Continuous Composites’s patent rights. This intentional and knowing infringement qualified Continuous Composites for increased damages under 35 U.S.C. Section 284, along with attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. Section 285.


Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Continuous Composites demanded a trial by jury on all issues triable. Continuous Composites sought the following relief:
Firstly, a judgment declaring that the Defendant had infringed the Asserted Patents.

Secondly, a judgment confirming that Defendant had willfully infringed one or more claims of the Asserted Patents.

Thirdly, Continuous Composites demanded both preliminary and permanent injunctions against Defendant. This injunction aimed to prevent Defendant from:

  • a. continuing acts of infringement of the Asserted Patents,
  • b. making, using, selling, and/or importing infringing products, including any colorable imitation thereof, and
  • c. otherwise infringing the Asserted Patents.

Fourthly, Continuous Composites sought a judgment awarding all damages sufficient to compensate for Defendant’s infringement, and in no event less than a reasonable royalty for Defendant’s infringement, including all pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law.

Fifthly, a judgment awarding Continuous Composites treble damages under 35 U.S.C. Section 284 due to Defendant’s willful conduct.

Sixthly, a judgment and order determining that this case constituted an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. Section 285, and awarding Continuous Composites its reasonable attorneys’ fees and taxable costs incurred in prosecuting this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Section 285.

Finally, Continuous Composites prayed for such additional relief in law and equity as the Court deemed just and proper.

Jury Verdict

On April 11, 2024, the Delaware jury unanimously delivered the verdict in favor of the Plaintiff Continuous Composites. The jury awarded $17,341,310.00 for the infringement of claim 4 of the ‘660 Patent committed by the Defendant.

Court Documents:

Available upon request