Fantasia Trading v. Slice Engineering: 3D Printer Patent Settled in 260 Days
Fantasia Trading, LLC brought a patent infringement action against Slice Engineering, LLC in the Western District of Washington, asserting US11660810B2 in connection with the AnkerMake M5C 3D printer. The parties reached a settlement, and the court dismissed all claims with prejudice in under nine months — with no costs awarded to either side.
3D Printer Patent Dispute Ends in Confidential Settlement
On September 13, 2023, Fantasia Trading, LLC filed an infringement action against Slice Engineering, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, before Judge Kymberly K. Evanson. The case centred on US11660810B2 and its alleged infringement in connection with the AnkerMake M5C 3D printer — a consumer-facing fused deposition modelling device positioned in the competitive desktop 3D printing market.
The case closed on May 30, 2024, when counsel notified the court of a settlement. Judge Evanson ordered all claims dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any party. A dismissal with prejudice means Fantasia Trading cannot re-file the same claims against Slice Engineering — the resolution is final and binding. Any pending motions were stricken and trial dates vacated, consistent with a fully concluded dispute.
At 260 days, the resolution is notably swift for patent litigation, suggesting the parties may have reached a commercial agreement relatively early in discovery. The terms of the settlement remain confidential, as is typical in dismissed-with-prejudice patent cases. It is unknown from the public record whether a licensing arrangement, product modification, or financial payment formed part of the resolution, leaving the strategic outcome ambiguous for outside observers.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 260 days
260 days — resolved well under the typical 2–3 year district court patent trial timeline
Dismissed with prejudice: what the settlement resolution means for both parties
Dismissed with prejudice means no second bite at the apple
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for procedural purposes — Fantasia Trading cannot re-file these specific infringement claims against Slice Engineering arising from the same patents and products. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice, which preserves the right to re-sue, this order permanently closes the door on these particular claims. The 60-day reopening window applies only if the settlement itself is not consummated.
Permanent bar on re-filingFantasia Trading exits with confidential terms — no public win recorded
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Fantasia Trading has relinquished future litigation leverage over these specific claims against Slice Engineering. However, this does not mean Fantasia received nothing — settlement terms are confidential and may include a licence fee, royalty stream, or product design change. The absence of a costs award suggests a mutual concession framework rather than a capitulation by either side.
Settlement terms undisclosedSlice Engineering avoids a merits ruling — but at undisclosed cost
Slice Engineering secured a with-prejudice dismissal, meaning no court will formally find that its products infringed US11660810B2 based on this action. That is commercially valuable — it avoids an injunction, damages award, or public finding of infringement. However, the confidential settlement may have required Slice Engineering to make a payment or modify the AnkerMake M5C product, details that are not ascertainable from the public record.
No merits finding on infringementUS11660810B2 remains live — third-party 3D printer makers take note
Because the case settled without any validity or infringement ruling, US11660810B2 retains full legal force and presumption of validity. Other desktop 3D printer manufacturers and component suppliers — particularly those competing in the AnkerMake product space — remain exposed to the same patent. The swift resolution may signal that Fantasia Trading is pursuing an active licensing or enforcement programme and is willing to settle efficiently.
Patent validity unchallengedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Fantasia Trading, LLC | Company | IP holding and trading company — holder of US11660810B2 covering 3D printer technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Slice Engineering, LLC | Company | Slice Engineering, LLC — manufacturer and supplier of components and hardware for 3D printingSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brandi Buehn Balanda | Attorney | Counsel for Fantasia Trading, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Edwin Hill Wheeler | Attorney | Counsel for Fantasia Trading, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael William Vella | Attorney | Counsel for Fantasia Trading, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | CROSS-BORDER COUNSELOR LLP | Law Firm | Representing Fantasia Trading, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | FENNEMORE CRAIG PC (SEA) | Law Firm | Representing Fantasia Trading, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher V. Carani | Attorney | Counsel for Slice Engineering, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John D. Denkenberger | Attorney | Counsel for Slice Engineering, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Philipp Ruben | Attorney | Counsel for Slice Engineering, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Christensen, O’Connor, Johnson, Kindness PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Slice Engineering, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY LTD | Law Firm | Representing Slice Engineering, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Kymberly K. Evanson | Judge | Washington Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s dismissal order reflects a standard settlement closure in the Western District of Washington. The phrase ‘dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any party’ confirms two things: the plaintiff cannot re-litigate these claims, and neither side received a cost award — consistent with a negotiated compromise. The 60-day reopening provision is a standard protective mechanism in case the settlement agreement fails to close, but does not affect the finality of the dismissal if the settlement is consummated.
US11660810B2 — 3D printer hardware technology covering the AnkerMake M5C
US11660810B2 (application number US17/100506) is a U.S. utility patent asserted in the context of the AnkerMake M5C, a consumer and prosumer desktop 3D printer using fused deposition modelling. The patent covers aspects of 3D printer hardware design and functionality. Its enforcement in this case signals that the claimed innovations are considered commercially relevant to competitive desktop 3D printing products currently on the market.
For the 3D printing sector, the significance of US11660810B2 lies in its unchallenged status post-litigation. Because no court has construed its claims or ruled on validity, the patent’s full scope remains legally intact. Competitors producing or sourcing hardware for FDM-based 3D printers — particularly those with products functionally comparable to the AnkerMake M5C — face genuine exposure, especially given Fantasia Trading’s demonstrated willingness to enforce.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11660810B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing desktop FDM 3D printers — or key components thereof — should assess its exposure to US11660810B2. The patent has never been invalidated or narrowed by a court, and this case demonstrates that the holder is actively willing to enforce it in U.S. federal court. The product at the centre of the dispute, the AnkerMake M5C, is a widely available consumer device, suggesting the claimed features are present in mainstream hardware configurations.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US11660810B2 against your product specifications, flag overlapping prior art, and identify continuation or divisional applications in the same patent family that may present additional risk. For in-house IP teams and R&D leaders building next-generation 3D printer hardware, running a targeted FTO before product launch is strongly advisable given this litigation signal.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11660810B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar 3D Printer Patent Infringement Cases in U.S. District Courts
Patent infringement disputes involving 3D printing and additive manufacturing hardware in U.S. district courts — comparable enforcement actions and outcomes.
What this case signals for the 3D printing IP landscape
A swift, confidential settlement leaves US11660810B2 fully intact — and signals continued enforcement risk across the desktop 3D printer sector.
US11660810B2 survived without a validity challenge on the record
The case closed before any claim construction ruling or validity determination. Competitors in the desktop 3D printing space cannot point to this litigation as evidence that the patent is weak or narrow — it emerged entirely unscathed, preserving Fantasia Trading’s ability to assert it again against different defendants.
260-day resolution suggests an active enforcement playbook
Patent cases in the Western District of Washington rarely close this quickly unless one party moves to settle early. The speed, combined with a with-prejudice dismissal, is consistent with a pre-negotiated licensing framework rather than a contested dispute. Other 3D printer companies should treat this as an indicator of an organised enforcement programme, not a one-off filing.
Fantasia v Slice — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice following a settlement notified to the court on May 30, 2024. No costs were awarded to either party. The dismissal is final — Fantasia Trading cannot re-file the same claims against Slice Engineering. Settlement terms are confidential and not disclosed in the public record.
Fantasia Trading asserted US11660810B2 (application number US17/100506) against Slice Engineering. The patent relates to 3D printer hardware technology and was asserted in connection with the AnkerMake M5C desktop 3D printer. The patent’s claims were never construed or ruled upon by the court, as the case settled before any merits determination.
A dismissal with prejudice permanently bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same patent infringement claims against the same defendant. It is a final resolution. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice, the plaintiff cannot revive the action. However, it does not constitute a finding that the patent is invalid or not infringed — it simply ends the litigation between these specific parties.
No. The case settled and was dismissed with prejudice before any court ruling on validity or infringement. US11660810B2 retains its full presumption of validity under U.S. patent law. The patent remains a live enforcement risk for other manufacturers in the 3D printing sector whose products may overlap with its claims.
The case lasted 260 days, from filing on September 13, 2023 to closure on May 30, 2024. This is notably faster than the average U.S. district court patent case, which typically takes two to three years to reach trial. The swift resolution is consistent with early-stage settlement negotiations, though the specific drivers are not disclosed in the public record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.