The complaint

The case is SprintRay, Inc. v. Asiga Pty Ltd., No. 1:26-cv-01367 (D. Del.), filed October 23, 2026. SprintRay, a California corporation based in Los Angeles, sues Asiga Pty Ltd., which the complaint describes as an Australian company based in Alexandria, New South Wales, that designs and manufactures stereolithography and digital light processing (DLP) 3D printers, and Asiga America, Inc., a Delaware corporation based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, which the complaint alleges, on information and belief, imports, distributes, and sells Asiga's printers in the United States. Venue is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) for Asiga America as a Delaware corporation and under 28 U.S.C. 1391(c)(3) for Asiga Pty as a foreign company. The complaint is signed by Philip A. Rovner of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP and also lists Lisa Kobialka, Christina M. Finn, and Aaron M. Frankel of Brown Rudnick LLP, pro hac vice to be filed.

The patents

The asserted patents are U.S. Patents 8,110,135, 8,815,143, 8,845,316, 8,862,260, 10,894,355, 11,679,555, 12,576,588, and 12,583,180. The '588 and '180 patents issued on March 17 and March 24, 2026. The '135, '143, '316, and '260 patents issued to Envisiontec GmbH and the '355 patent to Global Filtration Systems; the '555, '588, and '180 patents issued to SprintRay. USPTO assignment records show Envisiontec GmbH assigning the '135, '143, '316, and '260 patents to SprintRay in an assignment executed November 4, 2025 (Reel/Frame 72924/0874), and an assignment of the '355 patent to SprintRay executed September 26, 2025 (Reel/Frame 73005/0747). The complaint alleges that all rights in each patent have been assigned to SprintRay, which it says is the sole owner.

Claim 1 of the '135 patent covers a process that projects radiation through an imaging unit of discrete pixels onto a material containing a filler and a binder, varying energy density within the image by controlling pixel gray or color values so that, with a reflecting or scattering filler, the boundary region of the image receives less energy density than the inner region. Claim 1 of the '143 patent covers supplying solidification energy to a cross-section according to a first bitmap mask and again according to a second bitmap mask that is a partial mask within the first. Claim 1 of the '260 patent covers a device whose image forming unit projects a first set of pixels and then a second set at a position shifted relative to the first.

Claim 1 of the '316 patent covers a device with an energy supply, an object carrier, a material carrier, a sensor that outputs a signal indicating a separation force, and a controller that adjusts a build parameter during the build based on that signal, including a parameter for the object carrier's distance from the building plane. Claim 1 of the '355 patent covers a multi-layer assembly in which a rigid or semi-rigid translucent solidification substrate in a frame is connected to a film assembly with a film in a frame.

The last three patents claim layered assemblies for a printer's resin reservoir. Claim 1 of the '555 patent covers a substrate assembly with a first layer of permeable film that holds a photosensitive liquid in the reservoir cavity, a second layer below it, and a third layer of permeable substrate between them. Claim 1 of the '588 patent covers a similar assembly whose film holds the liquid above the projection lens of a stereolithography projector, with a semi-transparent third layer adapted to enhance a surface finish and held detachedly between the other two layers. Claim 1 of the '180 patent covers a reservoir assembly with a frame, a film layer, and a semi-transparent third layer held without an adhesive between the film and a second layer.

The accused products and the counts

The complaint accuses Asiga's Ultra, Max 2, Max X Plus, PRO 4K, and PRO 4K XL printers, which it says all use Asiga Composer software, together with resin tray assemblies including the UltraGLOSS and Endurance trays. It alleges that Asiga launched the Max 2 and, on information and belief, the Ultra at the Chicago Midwinter Meeting in March 2024. Sixteen counts allege direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) and induced and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b) and (c) of each patent, citing at least claim 1 of each. SprintRay alleges that it marks its printers through a patents web page and alleges, on information and belief, that Asiga knows of the patents because Asiga told SprintRay it was "very familiar" with patents in SprintRay's portfolio.

The relief sought

SprintRay asks for judgments of direct, induced, and contributory infringement of each patent, a preliminary and permanent injunction under 35 U.S.C. 283, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty, a judgment that the infringement has been willful at least from the filing of the complaint, an exceptional-case finding with costs and attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, an accounting, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. SprintRay demands a jury trial.

Other SprintRay suits

SprintRay is also the plaintiff in SprintRay, Inc. v. Shenzhen Anycubic Technology Co. Ltd., No. 1:26-cv-00175 (D. Del.), filed February 17, 2026, and Sprintray, Inc. v. Shining 3D Technology, Inc., No. 4:26-cv-06026 (N.D. Cal.), filed June 18, 2026.

What to watch next

Watch for service on Asiga Pty in Australia, an answer or Rule 12 motion, and whether SprintRay moves for a preliminary injunction.