Continuous Composites v. Markforged: CFR 3D Printing Patent Battle Ends in Settlement
Continuous Composites asserted five patents covering continuous fiber reinforcement 3D printing against Markforged’s Mark Two, Onyx Pro, X5, X7, and FX20 printer lines. After a jury verdict and a $19,075,441 supersedeas bond, the parties settled with prejudice — closing a 1,192-day Delaware District Court dispute.
A $19M bond, a jury verdict, then settlement: CFR printing IP resolved
Continuous Composites, Inc. filed suit in the District of Delaware on July 7, 2021, asserting infringement of five US patents — US11173660B2, US9987798B2, US10759109B2, US9511543B2, and US10744708B2 — against Markforged, Inc.’s continuous fiber reinforcement (CFR) 3D printers, specifically the Mark Two, Onyx Pro, X5, X7, and FX20 product lines. The asserted patents cover core aspects of printing with continuous fiber strands embedded in polymer matrices, a technology that underpins industrial-grade additive manufacturing.
The case proceeded through full litigation, culminating in a jury verdict recorded by the Court on April 24, 2024. Markforged posted a $19,075,441 supersedeas bond to stay enforcement pending post-trial motions under Rules 50 and 59. Before those motions were resolved, the parties reached a mutual settlement. The stipulated dismissal, filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and closed October 11, 2024, dismissed all claims and defenses with prejudice, deemed the jury judgment satisfied, and released the bond in full.
The 1,192-day duration — spanning full discovery, claim construction, and trial — suggests the parties exhausted conventional litigation before agreeing commercial terms. The bond amount of just over $19 million is publicly recorded, providing a rare data point on the financial stakes, though the precise settlement consideration is not disclosed. The ‘deemed satisfied’ language applied to the jury judgment, combined with a mutual cost-bearing provision, is consistent with a negotiated resolution that avoided further appellate uncertainty for both sides.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 1192 days
1,192 days — above the median duration for multi-patent infringement trials in D. Del.
Dismissed with prejudice after jury verdict: what the settlement terms mean
Rule 41 dismissal with prejudice after a recorded jury verdict
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal with prejudice is a consensual, final termination — neither party may re-litigate these claims. Critically, the stipulation also deems the prior jury judgment ‘satisfied,’ extinguishing any outstanding enforcement rights tied to that verdict. The supersedeas bond is simultaneously discharged. This structure is typically used when parties settle after a verdict but before post-trial motions are fully resolved.
Res judicata bars re-filingContinuous Composites secures a ‘deemed satisfied’ judgment and exits cleanly
The ‘deemed satisfied’ language applied to the jury judgment suggests Continuous Composites received value in the settlement consistent with, or in lieu of, the verdict award. A with-prejudice dismissal prevents Markforged from later arguing the claims were not resolved on the merits. Continuous Composites retains its patent portfolio intact and free to assert against other CFR 3D printing competitors, as the settlement is party-specific.
Portfolio remains enforceableMarkforged avoids appellate risk but exits with prejudice
By settling, Markforged avoided the cost and uncertainty of pursuing Rules 50 and 59 post-trial motions and potential Federal Circuit appeal of the jury verdict. The $19,075,441 bond is fully discharged. However, the with-prejudice dismissal and ‘deemed satisfied’ judgment mean Markforged cannot relitigate validity or infringement of these five patents in this context. Any future design-around strategy must be pursued independently of this proceeding.
Bond discharged; no appealCFR 3D printing IP landscape: settlement signals robust patent value
A settlement reached only after a jury verdict and a $19M+ bond strongly signals that Continuous Composites’ CFR patent portfolio carries meaningful commercial leverage. Competitors in the continuous fiber reinforcement additive manufacturing space — including those developing industrial composite printers — should treat these five patents as active enforcement risks. The outcome is consistent with a patent holder willing to litigate to verdict and license only on favourable terms.
High enforcement signal for CFR sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Continuous Composites, Inc. | Company | Continuous fiber reinforcement 3D printing IP licensor — holder of US11173660B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Markforged, Inc. | Company | Markforged, Inc. — industrial 3D printer manufacturer (Mark Two, Onyx Pro, X5, X7, FX20)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew G. Strickland | Attorney | Counsel for Continuous Composites, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher J. Higgins | Attorney | Counsel for Continuous Composites, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Griffin Schoenbaum | Attorney | Counsel for Continuous Composites, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Hala S. Mourad | Attorney | Counsel for Continuous Composites, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jessica Blau | Attorney | Counsel for Continuous Composites, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kelly E. Farnan | Attorney | Counsel for Continuous Composites, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Pengweixi Sun | Attorney | Counsel for Continuous Composites, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Richard J. Uberto , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Continuous Composites, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Valerie A. Caras | Attorney | Counsel for Continuous Composites, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Vann Pearce | Attorney | Counsel for Continuous Composites, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William B. Dyer , III | Attorney | Counsel for Continuous Composites, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fox Rothschild LLP | Law Firm | Representing Continuous Composites, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Richards, Layton & Finger, PA | Law Firm | Representing Continuous Composites, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Calvin E. Wingfield, Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Markforged, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Grace P. Truong | Attorney | Counsel for Markforged, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Indra Neel Chatterjee | Attorney | Counsel for Markforged, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jacqueline Genovese Bova | Attorney | Counsel for Markforged, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jenevieve N. Nutovits | Attorney | Counsel for Markforged, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael C. Ting | Attorney | Counsel for Markforged, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rodger Dallery Smith , II | Attorney | Counsel for Markforged, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Travis J. Murray | Attorney | Counsel for Markforged, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP | Law Firm | Representing Markforged, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Maryellen Noreika | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated dismissal references a Judgment Following Jury Verdict entered April 24, 2024, without disclosing the verdict amount — though Markforged’s $19,075,441 bond provides a strong proxy for the damages figure at stake. The ‘deemed satisfied’ characterisation of the jury judgment is legally significant: it forecloses any argument that the underlying verdict remains enforceable, while avoiding a formal satisfaction-of-judgment filing. The mutual cost-bearing provision, unusual where a jury has already found in favour of one party, suggests both sides made concessions in the settlement negotiations.
US11173660B2 — Continuous fiber reinforcement 3D printing system
US11173660B2 (application US17/301639) is the lead asserted patent and covers continuous fiber reinforcement 3D printing — a process in which continuous strands of structural fiber (such as carbon or fibreglass) are co-deposited with a polymer matrix during additive manufacturing. The application dates of the co-asserted family members span from 2013 (US9511543B2, app. US13/975300) to 2019 (US10744708B2, US10759109B2), indicating Continuous Composites has been building this portfolio over nearly a decade of CFR technology development.
The strategic significance of this portfolio lies in its coverage of foundational CFR printing methodology rather than product-specific design. Patents that claim the core process of continuous fiber deposition create broad blocking positions against any manufacturer using that technique — regardless of machine form factor. Markforged’s named products (Mark Two, Onyx Pro, X5, X7, FX20) are commercially prominent CFR printers, and the fact that all five patents survived to jury trial without being invalidated at summary judgment or through IPR suggests robust claim scope. Competitors in aerospace-grade composite printing, industrial tooling, and structural parts production should treat this family as a live enforcement risk.
Should you run an FTO against US11173660B2 and the Continuous Composites portfolio?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or commercialising 3D printers that use continuous fiber reinforcement — embedding carbon fibre, fibreglass, or similar strands within a polymer matrix during printing — should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against this five-patent portfolio. The Markforged case demonstrates that Continuous Composites is an active enforcer willing to litigate to jury verdict. Product teams working on CFR printheads, multi-axis fiber deposition, or in-situ consolidation processes face the highest exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map claim scope across all five asserted patents simultaneously, identify prior art gaps, and flag design-around opportunities before product launch. Eureka’s claim chart generation and patent family visualisation tools allow you to trace how the portfolio has evolved from the 2013 priority date through the 2021 ‘660 patent, helping pinpoint which process steps or hardware configurations carry the greatest infringement risk.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11173660B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar CFR and additive manufacturing patent disputes in US federal courts
Cases involving continuous fiber reinforcement and composite 3D printing patents litigated in US district courts, including Delaware — comparable assertion strategies and jury outcomes.
What this case signals for the CFR 3D printing IP landscape
A full trial, a $19M bond, and a post-verdict settlement: Continuous Composites v. Markforged sets a clear precedent for how contested CFR printing IP is valued.
Continuous Composites’ portfolio proved trial-ready — and valuable
Securing a jury verdict before settling is a strong signal of patent quality and litigation resolve. Other CFR 3D printing players — including those in aerospace, automotive, and industrial tooling — should assess exposure to US11173660 and the four co-asserted patents before expanding composite printing product lines.
The $19M bond quantifies the financial floor of CFR patent risk
Markforged’s supersedeas bond of $19,075,441 is a rare public data point on CFR printing patent damages. Companies designing or marketing continuous fiber reinforcement printers can use this figure as a risk-benchmarking reference when assessing potential infringement exposure or licensing negotiation leverage.
Continuous v Markforged — key questions answered
Continuous Composites asserted five US patents: US11173660B2, US9987798B2, US10759109B2, US9511543B2, and US10744708B2. All cover aspects of continuous fiber reinforcement (CFR) 3D printing technology. The ‘660 patent was the lead asserted patent named in the stipulated dismissal.
The case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on October 11, 2024, following a mutual settlement. A jury verdict had previously been entered on April 24, 2024. The jury judgment was deemed satisfied, and Markforged’s $19,075,441 supersedeas bond was discharged.
The accused products were Markforged’s Mark Two, Onyx Pro, X5, X7, and FX20 3D printers — all of which use Markforged’s Continuous Fiber Reinforcement (CFR) printing process, which embeds continuous fibre strands within a polymer matrix during additive manufacturing.
Markforged posted a supersedeas bond of $19,075,441 issued by Swiss Re Corporate Solutions America Insurance Corporation (Bond No. 2357053) to stay enforcement of the jury judgment while post-trial motions under Rules 50 and 59 were pending. The bond amount is a public proxy for the damages at stake. It was fully discharged upon settlement.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal is party-specific and resolves claims only between Continuous Composites and Markforged. The five asserted patents remain in force and enforceable against third parties. Companies manufacturing CFR 3D printers using continuous fiber deposition methods should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against this portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.