The amended complaint

The case is SprintRay, Inc. v. Shining 3D Tech Co. Ltd. and Shining 3D Technology, Inc. in the Northern District of California. SprintRay filed its original complaint on June 18, 2026, as No. 4:26-cv-06026. After a July 9, 2026 reassignment entry on the docket, the case is captioned in the San Jose Division as No. 5:26-cv-06026-BLF, and SprintRay filed its First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, False Advertising, and Unfair Competition there on November 2, 2026. The amended complaint is now the operative pleading.

SprintRay is a California corporation based in Los Angeles that, according to the complaint, builds 3D printing products for dental professionals, including its Pro 55S, Pro 95S, Pro 2, and Midas printers. Shining 3D Tech Co. Ltd. is described as a Chinese company based in Hangzhou, Zhejiang, that designs and makes SLA and DLP 3D printers. Shining 3D Technology, Inc. is described as a California corporation based in San Leandro, California, which the complaint alleges, upon information and belief, imports, distributes, markets, and sells the printers in the United States. Venue is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) for the patent counts against the California company, under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2) for the remaining counts against it, and under 28 U.S.C. 1391(c)(3) for the Chinese company.

What changed from the original complaint

The original complaint asserted U.S. Patents 10,894,355, 11,633,910, 11,679,555, 12,576,588, and 12,583,180. The amended complaint asserts nine patents: 7,783,371, 7,894,921, 8,126,580, 8,815,143, 10,894,355, 11,548,224, 11,633,910, 12,576,588, and 12,583,180. The '555 patent is no longer among the asserted patents. The amended complaint also adds the Ceramix Nano capsule printer as an accused product and adds three counts over FCC equipment authorization statements about that printer.

The patents

The '371, '921, and '580 patents are each titled Device and Method for Producing a Three-Dimensional Object by Means of Mask Exposure, and issued on August 24, 2010, February 22, 2011, and February 28, 2012. The '143 patent, Method for Producing a Three-Dimensional Object by Means of Mask Exposure, issued on August 26, 2014. The '355 and '910 patents, each titled Resin Solidification Substrate and Assembly, issued on January 19, 2021 and April 25, 2023. The '224 patent, Apparatus, System, and Method for Use in Three-Dimensional Printing, issued on January 10, 2023. The '588 patent, Reservoir with Substrate Assembly for Reducing Separation Forces in Three-Dimensional Printing, issued on March 17, 2026, and the '180 patent, Reservoir Assembly for Enhancing a Surface Finish of a 3D-Printed Object, issued on March 24, 2026. The '224, '588, and '180 patents name SprintRay as applicant and assignee. USPTO assignment records show assignments of the '371, '921, '580, '143, '355, and '910 patents to SprintRay recorded in 2025. The complaint alleges that all right, title, and interest in each asserted patent has been assigned to SprintRay and that SprintRay is the sole owner of each.

The complaint cites at least claim 1 of each patent. Claim 1 of the '371 patent covers a device with an imaging unit of discrete imaging elements and a controller, where each element projects radiation onto a location on the exposed surface of the material based on a scaled gray scale or color value, and each value is based on a measured light intensity at a selected location, or one interpolated from measured values. Claim 1 of the '580 patent covers a similar device in which each scaled intensity value is based on a compensation light intensity value and on the degree of overlap between the surface location and a graphic depicting the object.

Claim 1 of the '921 patent covers a device with an imaging unit of discrete pixels and at least one of a computer unit, an IC, and a software implementation that controls exposure of a cross-section of the material according to multiple successive raster masks, or bitmaps. Claim 1 of the '143 patent covers a method that supplies 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 '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. Claim 1 of the '910 patent covers a multi-layer system of the same kind in which a surface of the film is adjacent to and in non-adhesive contact with a surface of the translucent substrate.

Claim 1 of the '224 patent covers a reservoir assembly with a top frame whose cavity holds a photosensitive liquid, a permeable tensioned film stretchily coupled to the cavity's aperture, a bottom frame with a transparent or semi-transparent rigid substrate that registers with the top frame, and a media layer between the film and the substrate, with the film detached from and suspended above the media layer. Claim 1 of the '588 patent covers a substrate assembly for a printer reservoir with a film that holds the liquid above the projection lens of a stereolithography projector, a second layer below it, and a semi-transparent third layer adapted to enhance a surface finish and held detachedly between the two. Claim 1 of the '180 patent covers a reservoir assembly with a frame, a film layer, and a semi-transparent third layer adapted to enhance a surface finish and held without an adhesive between the film and a second layer.

The accused products

The complaint accuses the AccuFab-F1 and AccuFab-CEL printers with their HyperClear and Standard resin tanks, and the Ceramix Nano, together with related components, accessories, and AccuWare software. It describes the F1 as a DLP printer, the CEL as an LCD printer with a chip-on-board UV-LED light source, and the Ceramix Nano as a capsule-based DLP printer that Shining 3D markets for chairside dental use. The '371, '921, '580, and '143 counts accuse all three printers. The '355 and '910 counts accuse the F1 and CEL with HyperClear or Standard trays, and the '224, '588, and '180 counts accuse the F1 and CEL with HyperClear trays.

For the '371 patent, the complaint alleges that SprintRay is informed and believes that the printers use a two-step light uniformity verification and light intensity correction process and apply a compensation mask that assigns darker grayscale values to center pixels and brighter values to edge pixels. It alleges that the F1 and CEL are always sold with at least a Standard tank and are not designed to operate with third-party tanks.

Knowledge and willfulness

The complaint alleges that the two companies have long known each other in the dental industry, that SprintRay's co-founder told Shining 3D's chief executive about SprintRay's patents and products in late 2025, that Shining 3D representatives toured SprintRay's facility and exhibition hall in China on April 18, 2026, and that Shining 3D hired several SprintRay employees. It alleges that Shining 3D launched the Ceramix Nano in June 2026 in competition with SprintRay's Midas printer and, on information and belief, knew of the asserted patents or deliberately chose not to investigate them. It alleges that Shining 3D received actual notice of the originally asserted patents no later than July 6, 2026, and continued to provide AccuWare software, application guides, and resin compatibility guidance after the original complaint.

The complaint also alleges that Shining 3D filed a protective letter with a German court on or about October 16, 2026 addressing European Patent No. EP 1 849 586 B1, that SprintRay sued Shining 3D on that patent in the Munich Regional Court I on or about October 23, 2026, and that SprintRay sued Shining 3D in the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court on Chinese patents CN101063811B and CN101063812B on or about August 26, 2026.

The FCC claims

The last three counts concern the Ceramix Nano. The complaint alleges that the printer is a composite radio-frequency device under Part 15 of the FCC rules, with a Wi-Fi transmitter and digital electronics. It alleges that Shining 3D launched the printer on or about June 18, 2026, that SprintRay bought a U.S.-market unit on or about June 19 and received it on or about June 26, and that the unit bore FCC ID 2AMG4-NANO and a statement that it complies with Part 15. It alleges that the FCC did not issue grants of certification under that FCC ID until August 1, 2026, for the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz transmitters, and, upon information and belief, that Shining 3D still has not obtained authorization for the device's unintentional-radiator and digital-device functions.

The counts

Counts I through XVIII allege direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) and indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b) and (c), patent by patent, of the '371, '921, '580, '143, '355, '910, '588, '180, and '224 patents. Count XIX alleges false advertising under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(B). Count XX alleges unfair competition under Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code 17200 et seq. Count XXI alleges false advertising under Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code 17500.

The relief sought

SprintRay asks for judgments of direct, induced, and contributory infringement of each asserted 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 original complaint, an exceptional-case finding with costs and attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, and an accounting with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On the false advertising and unfair competition counts, it asks for judgments under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(B) and Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code 17200 and 17500, Shining 3D's profits and SprintRay's damages with enhancement under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a), corrective advertising costs, delivery up and destruction of materials bearing the FCC statements under 15 U.S.C. 1118, restitution under Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code 17203 and 17535, and an exceptional-case award of attorneys' fees under 15 U.S.C. 1117(a). SprintRay demands a jury trial.

Related PTAB petitions

In petitions dated and served October 30, 2026, Shining 3D Tech Co., Ltd. and Shining 3D Technology, Inc. asked the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute inter partes review of the '355 patent (IPR2027-00029) and the '910 patent (IPR2027-00030).

What to watch next

Watch for Shining 3D's answer or Rule 12 motion directed to the amended complaint. Also watch for the Board's decisions on whether to institute IPR2027-00029 and IPR2027-00030.