All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 Managing IP is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Sources say the Supreme Court’s decision to take on Sky v SkyKick puts uncertainty back into the mix, just when IP owners thought they knew what was what
Charles Feng, partner at East & Concord in Beijing, explains why filing for a trademark early is still a brand’s best bet
Counsel at IBM, Novartis, BMS and four other companies delve into whether the new Section 101 bill addresses their concerns
Clearance searches are especially important when counsel can’t rely on the USPTO’s opinion before key deadlines, say sources
VLSI case halted in Delaware; Netflix sues Bridgerton rip-off; Ex-GSK scientist escapes damages; US Copyright Office debuts new software; Abbvie scores Humira patent thicket win; Russia tables bill on illegal blocking of copyrighted content
An England and Wales High Court judgment over a disclosure error shows why law firms must never play a distant role when advising clients
Italy is in pole position to replace London as a central division host but must weather a political storm first
The senator’s proposed Section 101 legislation would cut down on exceptions to patent eligibility in the US
Ken Korea, founder of Colev Law and former head of US IP at Samsung, sets out the problems with anti-suit injunctions and the problem of getting rid of them
Thom Tillis and Patrick Leahy introduced a bill that would evaluate the need for recording examiner interviews, among other measures
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree