The case, numbered 1:22-cv-01676, concerns three Artec patents covering aspects of three-dimensional scanning technology. Artec alleges that certain Creality products, including the CR-Scan 01 and CR-Scan Lizard, infringe those patents.

The litigation has progressed through claim construction, summary judgment, and expert discovery. As of early September 2026, no final liability judgment or damages award has been entered, and a jury trial remains scheduled for January 2027, with a pretrial conference set for 24 September.

In April 2026 the Court issued a summary-judgment ruling. Creality obtained a finding of no literal infringement under one of the three patents (the ’357 patent).

However, the Court made clear that Artec’s claims under all three patents would proceed to trial: literal infringement claims under the ’656 and ’129 patents, and, to the extent Artec asserts it, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents for the ’357 patent.

This April 19 memorandum directed the parties to file a joint letter indicating the number of trial days needed for Plaintiff’s claims related to the ’656 Patent, the ’129 Patent, and, to the extent Plaintiff asserts infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’357 Patent.

From the Court’s perspective and from Artec’s position, therefore, all three patents remain in the case.

On 23 July 2026 the Court delivered a significant evidentiary ruling on the parties’ damages experts. It granted Artec’s motion to exclude the testimony of Creality’s damages expert, Adam Falconer, while denying Creality’s motion to exclude Artec’s damages expert, Christopher DeBaere.

The Court found that Falconer’s reasonable-royalty analysis rested on an unreliable foundation. He had used profit-sharing payments under a cooperation agreement between Creality and its co-defendant as the baseline for a royalty rate.

That agreement was, however, neither a patent licence nor comparable to a hypothetical negotiation over the patents in suit. The Court described the analysis as fundamentally flawed.

As a result, Artec retains expert support for its damages case, while Creality cannot rely on the excluded analysis.

This evidentiary asymmetry is meaningful. Once claims survive summary judgment and proceed toward trial, damages often become the central practical battleground.

A party that proceeds without a viable damages expert faces greater difficulty limiting potential exposure, whether through a reasonable royalty calculation, arguments against willfulness, or other remedies. The July ruling therefore strengthens Artec’s position on quantum even though liability has not yet been decided.

In August 2026 Creality filed motions seeking to strike or narrow Artec’s reliance on the doctrine of equivalents (including under the ’357 patent) and its claims of willful infringement, which can support enhanced damages.

Artec opposed this doctrine-of-equivalents motion on 28 August. Its opposition on willfulness is due on 4 September.

No rulings have been issued on these motions, and the issues are expected to remain for trial. They do not constitute a victory for Creality.

The July expert ruling, in fact, opens the door to closer scrutiny of Creality’s disclosures to Hong Kong investors. In its prospectus for seeking a public listing in Hong Kong dated May 2026 (the “Prospectus”), Creality described a U.S. patent dispute involving the relevant patents and products, noted the April summary-judgment outcome, and characterised potential liability as immaterial.

Creality cited limited historical sales of the accused scanners, product cessation, a supplier indemnity, and legal advice.

The Prospectus did not name Artec or the case number and incorrectly described the forum as a “New York State Court.”

After public criticism around the public offer period of the IPO, Creality issued a clarification in early June stating that the matter had already been disclosed and would not have a material adverse impact.

Subsequent release of Creality’s first interim results for 2026 as a listed company continued to treat the litigation as immaterial and reported no material subsequent events after 30 June 2026, even though the July expert ruling had intervened.

Creality’s claim of non-materiality rests on two main pillars: limited sales volume and the assessment of its litigation counsel. Both can be examined in light of later developments.

The July 23 order excluded Creality’s damages expert after finding his reasonable-royalty analysis fundamentally flawed because it relied on a non-arm’s-length intra-defendant agreement that lacked a royalty rate. At the same time, the Court denied Creality’s motion to exclude Artec’s damages expert.

If the analysis underlying Creality’s own damages position has been ruled unreliable, the weight that can be placed on related materiality assessments is open to question. Creality has not issued a follow-up voluntary announcement addressing this development.

In addition, the litigation counsel whose assessment underpinned the original non-materiality conclusion no longer represent Creality and Jimuyida. A new counsel appeared for the defendants on 11 August 2026.

Assessments prepared by the former counsel, though, at least warrant re-evaluation, particularly once their damages expert has been excluded from the case.

Materiality is not a static concept frozen at the moment the Prospectus was dated. Low historical revenue from particular products is a relevant quantitative factor, but it is not the sole measure of exposure when claims under all three patents remain alive for trial, damages evidence has become asymmetric, and potential remedies include royalties, enhanced damages, or injunctive relief.

Qualitative considerations such as the strategic role of scanning technology, possible reputational effects, management time, the strength and recoverability of any indemnity, and the Company’s broader intellectual-property and platform strategy also form part of a proper assessment.

Transparency requires more than the presence of a paragraph in a lengthy listing document, especially the Prospectus. It requires specific, accurate, balanced, and timely information that enables investors to evaluate the risk as circumstances change.

None of the foregoing predicts the eventual outcome of the trial or establishes that the litigation will prove financially material.

Creality continues to contest liability, validity, and the scope of available theories. The Court has not found infringement. Yet the procedural record is clear: the Court has directed that claims under all three patents proceed to trial, Artec maintains its theories including the doctrine of equivalents on the ’357 patent, and the damages-expert field has shifted in Artec’s favour.

For a company that listed in Hong Kong only weeks earlier and that continues to emphasise innovation in scanning and related ecosystems, the difference between a risk that is mentioned somewhere and a risk that is explained with sufficient specificity and currency remains worth examining.

Intellectual-property disputes in technology sectors are often complex, cross-border, and slow-moving. Their potential impact can be difficult for non-specialist investors to assess from sparse or anonymised prospectus language.

When later court rulings change the risk profile, boards, audit committees, sponsors, and auditors face a renewed obligation to consider whether earlier conclusions still hold.

Clear and updated disclosure is the mechanism through which markets price risk and allocate capital. In that light, the July expert ruling in the Artec case is less a final chapter than a reminder that litigation risk, once raised, rarely remains static, and neither should the information provided to investors.