Malaysia: What’s next for 3D printing?

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Malaysia: What’s next for 3D printing?

3D printing technology has been in the market for several decades and was originally invented in the 1980s. The recent development however which affects IP and other legal issues is that 3D printers are now accessible to consumers and retail for as low as $1,000, while industrial 3D printers can print highly intricate and complex objects which are fully assembled, complete with moving parts or hinges.

What would be interesting to examine is the impact of 3D printing on the protection of tangible IP. Would the impact be analogous to what downloads and file sharing did to digitally stored IP such as music? Computer-aided design (CAD) files of products are easily downloaded and shared. As the technology becomes cheaper and the variety in printing materials expands, independently printing useful objects would become more common for smaller players and consumers. This along with the ability to share CAD files may pose a threat to IP owners.

Some companies have opted to adapt rather than fight the rise of 3D printing. Hasbro for example opened up its IP to allow fans to have almost total control over how they design products from the My Little Pony line. By teaming up with Shapeways, a 3D printing service provider, Hasbro is able to navigate through product liability issues and retain control over the quality of the products being 3D printed, while allowing customers to have a fully customised experience.

Earlier this year, Lowe's Innovation Labs opened a hardware store which allows customers to 3D print replacement parts and décor products with full customisation. Customers are also able to 3D scan and reproduce their own items that are no longer in production.

Fighting rather than embracing the effects of 3D printing would be a difficult task. As a preliminary issue, the basic question on who owns the 3D printed work needs to be answered under copyright laws of the relevant local jurisdiction – would it be the person who conceptualises the design, the one who creates the CAD file or the one who operates the printer? There would also be the practical issue of enforcement which would be analogous to those faced by the media and entertainment industry in the 1990s with the rise of the internet and the ability to virally replicate digitised content.

IP owners and creators need to start thinking about how their products fit in the 3D printing landscape, particularly for consumer-facing businesses. Whether they wish to share their IP or tighten controls, additional steps need to be taken to ensure that they are prepared.

Hong-Sze_Chen-100

Chew Kherk Ying

Chen Hong Sze


Wong & PartnersLevel 21, The Gardens South Tower, Mid Valley City, Lingkaran Syed Putra59200 Kuala LumpurMalaysiaTel: +603 2298 7888Fax: +603 2282 2669www.wongpartners.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The new outfit, Ashurst Perkins Coie, will bring together around 3,000 lawyers across 23 countries
In the seventh episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Out, a network for LGBTQAI+ professionals and their allies
Sara Horton, co-chair of Willkie’s IP litigation group, reflects on launching the firm’s Chicago office during a global pandemic, and how she advises young, female attorneys
Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
Gift this article