Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2019. Issue 2 (44)


D. E. Bogdanov, Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ORCID: 0000-0002-9740-9923
ResearcherID: P-9117-2015
Articles of «Scopus» & «Web of Science»:       ---
Requisites: Bogdanov D. E. Tekhnologiya 3D-pechati kak trigger chetvertoy promyshlennoy revolyutsii: novye vyzovy pered pravovoy sistemoy [3D Printing Technology as a Trigger for the Fourth Industrial Revolution: New Challenges to the Legal System]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Juridicheskie nauki – Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2019. Issue 2. Pp. 238–260. (In Russ.)4 DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2019-44-238-260
DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2019-44-238-260

Introduction: recent rapid developments in technology suggest the arrival of a new technological revolution, ‘the Fourth Industrial Revolution’. One of the main drivers of this revolution is 3D printing technology, which transforms social existence and changes the vision of human capabilities and limits. This technology poses serious challenges to the legal system, which lags behind scientific and technological progress in its evolution. Law makers and law enforcers will soon have to answer the questions put by the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Purpose: to identify and analyze the key challenges posed by 3D printing technology to the Russian civil law in the upcoming era of ‘techno-determinism’; based on the analysis made, to formulate conclusions aimed at improving the current legislation and its practical application. Methods: dialectical, formal logic, functional and other general scientific research methods, as well as special juridical methods: comparative legal and formal legal. Results: the article considers the main civil problems caused by the development of 3D printing technology, in particular: quality assurance and ensuring safety of products manufactured using 3D printing technology, including foods; ensuring compensation for massive harm when the tortfeasor is unidentifiable; patent law digitalization; changes in information intermediaries’ liability standards. Conclusions: the problems of safety and labeling of food products manufactured using three-dimensional printing technology should be addressed in a similar way to genetically modified foods. In foreign civil law, effective tools have already been developed to ensure equitable compensation for harm in situations involving its massive infliction to the public at large, when the tortfeasor identity is unknown (or there are many potential tortfeasors). The model of alternative liability (causation) can be used in the future when harm is caused by goods manufactured using 3D printing technology. It is necessary to establish liability in solidum both with regard to persons who have manufactured the final product with hazardous properties using 3D printing technology, and those who have manufactured the appropriate components for printing, which have predetermined the final product properties hazardous to consumers health. The scope of patent protection needs to be revised, since the exclusive right to an invention, utility model or industrial design shall be extended to their implementation in the form of a three-dimensional digital model. Creation of a digital model in itself shall be considered to be a use of the object of patent law. Overall liability for proactive monitoring of downloadable content to prevent placement of counterfeit 3D digital models shall be imposed on information intermediaries. It is advisable to construct a strict (no-fault) standard of information intermediaries’ liability for the placed content.

Keywords: 3D printing technology; patent law; exclusive right; consumer rights protection; tort; liability; causal relationship; information intermediary
  download the full-version article
References: 1. Akhobekova R. A., Zagorodnaya A. A., Naumov V. B. Problemy pravovogo regulirovaniya trekhmernoj pechati [Legal Issues of 3D Printing]. Zakon – Zakon. 2017. Issue 4. Pp. 90–102. (In Russ.).
2. Gavrilov E. P., Eremenko V. I. Kommentarij k chasti chetvertoj Grazhdanskogo kodeksa Rossijskoj Federacii [Commentary on Part Four of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation]. Мoscow, 2009. 973 p. (In Russ.).
3. Dzhermakyan V. Yu. Kommentarij k glave 72 «Patentnoe pravo» Grazhdanskogo kodeksa RF (postatejnyj). 4-e elektronnoe izd., pererab. i dop. [Commentary on the Chapter 72 "Patent Law" of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (article by article). 4th electronic ed., revised and enlarged]. Access from the legal reference system "СonsultantPlus". (In Russ.).
4. Sukhareva A. E. Nekotorye voprosy okhrany intellektual'nykh prav pri sozdanii ob"ektov putem 3D-pechati [Selected Issues of IP Rights Protection in Course of the Creation of Objects by 3D-Printing]. Vestnik grazhdanskogo prava – Civil Law Review. 2018. Issue 1. Pp. 23–49. (In Russ.).
5. Trakhtengerc L. A. Ispol'zovanie zapatentovannogo izobreteniya tret'imi licami v proektnoj dokumentacii ne otnositsya k dejstviyam, kotorye mogut byt' kvalificirovany kak narushenie prav obladatelej patenta [The Use of the Registered Invention by Third Parties in the Project Documentation Does not Apply to Actions that Can Be Qualified as a Violation of the Rights of Patent Holders]. Kommentarij sudebnoj praktiki / otv. red. K. B. Yaroshenko [Commentary on Judiciary Practice; ed. by K.B. Yaroshenko]. Мoscow, 2017. Issue 22. (In Russ.).
6. Chujko N. A. Primenenie principa predostorozhnosti pri razreshenii spora o torgovle genno-modificirovannymi produktami v ramkakh VTO [Application of Precautionary Principle when Settling a Dispute on Trade of Genetically Modified Products within the WTO]. Pravo VTO – WTO Law. 2016. Issue 1. Pp. 47–56. (In Russ.).
7. Alkandari M. H. 3D Printing: Law & Challenges (May 1, 2017). Available at: https://ssrn. com/abstract=3193501 (In Eng.).
8. Ballardini R. M., Norrgård M., Minssen T. Enforcing Patents in the Era of 3D Printing. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 2015. Vol. 10. Issue 11. (In Eng.).
9. Beck James M., Jacobson Matthew D. 3D Printing: What Could Happen to Product Liability when Users (and Everyone Else in between) Become Manufacturers. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology. 2017. Vol. 18. Issue 1. Pp. 143–150. (In Eng.).
10. Behrenes Mark A., Anderson William L. The "Any Exposure" Theory: An Unsound Basis for Asbestos Causation and Expand Testimony. Southwestern University Law Review. 2008. Vol. 37. Pp. 479–510. (In Eng.).
11. Brean D. H. Patent Enforcement in Cyberterritories (April 12, 2018). Cardozo Law Review. 2018. Vol. 40. (Forthcoming). Available at: (In Eng.).
12. Chenglin L. Socialized Liability in Chinese Tort Law. Harvard International Law Journal. 2018. Vol. 59. Pp. 16–44. (In Eng.).
13. Desai D. R., Magliocca G. N. Patents, Meet Napster: 3D Printing and the Digitization of Things. Georgetown Law Journal. 2014. Vol. 102. Issue 6. (In Eng.).
14. Doherty D. Downloading Infringement: Patent Law as a Roadblock to the 3D Printing Revolution. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology. 2012. Vol. 26. Issue 1. Pp. 353–373. (In Eng.).
15. Dubuisson Th. 3D Printing and the Future of Complex Legal Challenges: The Next Great Disruptive Technology Opportunity or Threat? (October 23, 2014). Available at: abstract=2718113 (In Eng.).
16. Endros B. A. "GMO": Genetically Modified Organism or Gigantic Monetary Obligation? The Liability Scheme for GMO Damage in United States and the European Union. Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review. 2000. Vol. 22. Pp. 453–462. (In Eng.).
17. Frosio G. F. The Death of 'No Monitoring Obligations': A Story of Untameable Monsters. JIPITEC. 2017. Vol. 8. (In Eng.)
18. Geistfeld M A. The Doctrinal Unity of Alternative Liability and Market-Share Liability. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 2006. Vol. 155. P. 500. (In Eng.).
19. Gifford D. G. The Challenge to the Individual Causation Requirement in Mass Products Torts. University of Maryland School of Law. Legal Studies Research Paper. No. 2005-34. Available at: http: // (In Eng.).
20. Greene Ch. T. Determining Liability in Asbestos Cases: The Battle to Assign Liability Decades after Exposure. American Journal of Trial Advocacy. 2008. Vol. 31. Pp. 571–573. (In Eng.).
21. Holbrook T. & Osborn L. Digital Patent Infringement in an Era of 3D Printing. University of California, Davis Law Review. 2015. Vol. 48. Pp. 1319–1385. (In Eng.).
22. Holbrook T. R. Boundaries, Extraterritoriality, and Patent Infringement Damages. Notre Dame Law Review. 2017. Vol. 92. Issue 4. Pp. 1745–1794. (In Eng.).
23. Holbrook T. R. Extraterritoriality and Digital Patent Infringement. Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Digital Technologies; ed. by T. Aplin. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., 2018. (In Eng.).
24. Hornick J. 3D Printing and IP Rights: The Elephant in the Room. Santa Clara Law Review. 2015. Vol. 55. Issue 4. Pp. 801–818. (In Eng.).
25. Jones M. A. Textbook on Torts. 8th ed. Oxford University Press, 2007. 608 p. (In Eng.).
26. Joob B., Wiwanitkit V. Estimation of Cancer Risk Due to Exposure to Airborne Particle Emissions of a Commercial Three-dimensional Printer. Indiana Journal of Medicine Pediatric Oncology. 2017. Vol. 38. P. 409. (In Eng.).
27. Kennedy E. J., Giampetro-Meyer A. Gearing Up for the Next Industrial Revolution: 3D Printing, Home-Based Factories, and Modes of Social Control. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal. 2015. Vol. 46. Issue 4. Pp. 955–988. (In Eng.).
28. Kuczerawy A. The Power of Positive Thinking: Intermediary Liability and the Effective Enjoyment of the Right to Freedom of Expression. JIPITEC. 2017. Vol. 8. Pp. 226–237. (In Eng.).
29. Lipson H., Kurman M. Fabricated: The New World of 3D Printing. Indiana: John Willey & Sons Inc., 2013. 320 p. (In Eng.).
30. Li P., Mellor S., Griffin J., Waelde C., Hao L. and Everson R. Intellectual Property and 3D Printing: a Case Study on 3D Chocolate Printing. Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice. 2014. Vol. 9 (4). Pp. 322–332. (In Eng.).
31. Little R. K. Guns Don't Kill people, 3D Printing Does? Why the Technology is a Distraction from Effective Gun Controls. Hastings Law Journal. 2014. Vol. 65. (In Eng.).
32. Lupton D., Turner B. Both Fascinating and Disturbing': Consumer Responses to 3D Food Printing and Implications for Food Activism. Digital Food Activism. 1st ed.; ed. by Tanja Schneider, Karin Eli, Catherine Dolan, Stanley Ulijaszek. Routledge, 2018. 234 p. (In Eng.).
33. Mendis D. «The Clone Wars» – Episode 1: The Rise of 3D Printing and Its Implications for Intellectual Property Law – Learning Lessons from the Past? European Intellectual Property Review. 2013. Vol. 35 (3). Pp. 155–169. (In Eng.).
34. Oberdiek J. Philosophical Issues in Tort Law. Philosophy Compass. 2008. № 3/4. Pp. 734–748. (In Eng.).
35. Osborn L. Regulating Three-Dimensional Printing: The Converging Worlds of Bits and Atoms. San Diego Law Review. 2014. Vol. 51. (In Eng.).
36. Overwalle G. van, Leys R. 3D Printing and Patent Law: A Disruptive Technology Disrupting Patent Law? International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law. August 2017. Vol. 48. Issue 5. Pp. 504–537. (In Eng.).
37. Polley J. Safety Standards Aim to Rein in 3D Printer Emissions. ACS Central Science. 2018. Vol. 4. Pp. 134–135. (In Eng.).
38. Robinson G. O. Multiple Causation in Tort Law: Reflections on the DES Cases. Vanderbild Law Review. 1982. Vol. 68. (In Eng.).
39. Rosenberg D. The Causation Connection in Mass Exposure Cases: A "Public Law" Vision of the Tort System. Harvard Law Review. 1984. Vol. 97. Pp. 849–868. (In Eng.).
40. Schwartz V. E., Behrens M. A. Asbestos Litigation: The Endless Search for a Solvent Bystander. Widener Law Journal. 2013. Vol. 23. Pp. 59–61. (In Eng.).
41. Snider Ml. Asbestos and Additive Manufacturing: Addressing Early Concerns Surrounding Manufacturing 3D-Printing Technology Using Asbestos Litigation as a Model (February 27, 2019). Available at: (In Eng.).
42. Tran J. L. 3D-Printed Food. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology. 2016. Vol. 17. (In Eng.).
43. Tran J. L. Press Clause and 3D-Printing. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property. 2016. Vol. 14. Pp. 75–80. (In Eng.).
44. Ullrich C. Standards for Duty of Care? Debating Intermediary Liability from a Sectoral Perspective. JIPITEC. 2017. Vol. 8. Pp. 111–127. (In Eng.).
45. Wright R. W. Causation in Tort Law. Ca¬lifornia Law Review. 1985. Vol. 73. (In Eng.).
46. Xiang Lee, Jigang Jin. Concise Chinese Torts Law. Springer, 2014. 327 p. (In Eng.).
47. Yanisky-Ravid Sh., Kwan K. S. 3D Printing the Road Ahead: The Digitization of Products when Public Safety Meets Intellectual Property Rights – A New Model. Cardozo Law Review. 2017. Vol. 38. Issue 3. Pp. 921–958. (In Eng.).
48. Zweigert K., Kotz H. An Introduction to Comparative Law. Oxford University Press, 1998. 708 p. (In Eng.).
Received: 17.03.2019
Financing: The research was carried out with the financial support of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research as part of the research project No.18-29-14027mk 'The concept of legislative regulation of genomic research in the field of creation and use of bioprinted human organs'
The Perm State University
614990, Perm, street Bukireva, 15
+7 (342) 2 396 275
ISSN 1995-4190 ISSN (eng.) 2618-8104
ISSN (online) 2658-7106
DOI 10.17072/1995-4190
(с) Editorial board, 2010
The magazine is registered in Federal Agency of supervision in sphere of communication and mass communications.
The certificate on registration of mass media ПИ № ФС77-33087 from September, 5th, 2008
The certificate on reregistration of mass media ПИ № ФС77-53189 from Marth, 14th, 2013

The magazine is included in List ВАК and in the Russian index of scientific citing

The founder & Publisher: the State educational institution of the higher training
“The Perm State University”.
Publishing 4 times a year