At your service
The accelerated adoption of turnkey solutions in additive manufacturing (AM) is a trend that has been predicted to increase. Moshe Molcho looks at how certain options can help OEMs adopt AM and examines the current offering of AM turnkey solutions
Over the last couple of decades, the digitization of our world has rapidly increased. From an age of globalization and just-in-time, we are now entering an age of justin- case and localization. A key trend emerging for the coming decade is aaS – as a Service – or XaaS – Everything as a Service. In certain industries, the aaS revolution has been happening for over a decade. In software, for example, SaaS (Software as a Service) has been gaining ground for two decades and the recent pandemic has turned even the most adamant traditionalists toward SaaS/Cloud and away from on-premise (installed) software. Over the years, we have seen other XaaS adoption emerging such as Hardware-aaS and Insurance-aaS, both quite prevalent recently following Covid-19. AM turnkey solutions are essentially AM as a Service (AMaaS). However, AMaaS is quite different than your (soon to be) run-of-the-mill Manufacturing-aaS (MaaS) because of AM’s effects on the supply chain. AMaaS solutions must also address digital supply chains, not just manufacturing – making them even more holistic: from part selection through adaptation and selling to fulfilment. From globalization to digital localization
Brands are now turning to local and distributed manufacturing coupled with potential backup/emergency digital supply chains. Both the move to e-commerce and the move to local distributed manufacturing are trends well served by AM. However, answering these needs with AM requires a lot of expertise and, since the AM industry is so fragmented, OEMs must now piece together an end-toend holistic solution from a variety of vendors of machines, process software, IP protection, consistency and tracking, post processing, and e-commerce. They must do all this while also looking for the best of breed for each category and hiring experts or service providers to do the work. This is a tall order. OEMs that have in house AM experience and have, or expect to have, a very large AM footprint can take on this task and create their own in-house solution. But what about those OEMs that are not in AM yet or are not sure how big their footprint will be? In other manufacturing technologies, many turnkey providers and contract manufacturers provide companies solutions for everything. The same is true for AM. Many OEMs struggle to integrate AM into existing processes as they seek to start but with low investment, especially in the current volatile times. Turnkey solutions enable them to start quickly and leanly, while also helping them connect various important building blocks such as, engineering services, material knowledge process integration, e-commerce and many more. Companies like Replique – a venture in Fortune 500 material company, BASF’s Chemovator – offer a turnkey service to industrial OEMs that want to enter AM. Replique provides an industrial endto- end platform for decentralized manufacturing of spare parts which integrates easily into existing processes. The company also has mechanisms to protect IP, monitor quality of produced parts, and provide worldwide order fulfilment. An OEM can start simple at no cost until a part is being sold. According to Replique, IP protection, consistency enforcement, and tracking parts are important elements to include in a turnkey solution since the IP of an OEM is one of its most valuable assets and needs to be protected by any industrial solution. Furthermore, quality parameters are to be tightly monitored when it comes to industrially used parts where OEMs guarantee their clients a certain quality. The quality comes from a combination of AM experience, understanding the industry’s requirements, and tracking to monitor that everything is executed as planned each and every time. While LEO Lane can provide IP protection, consistency enforcement and tracking, it is up to the turnkey solutions to provide the rest using in-house expertise and custom applications. Given this description, it is no wonder that turnkey solutions typically emanate from two kinds of expertise: that in a specific industry or that in AM and digital supply chains. Keeping an expert at hand
In some cases, industry expertise starts with a company that puts together a solution because of a need it sees for itself. The company is then able to offer and provide parts to its own customers in a similar manner. Given customer demand, there are joint ventures and start-ups that, from day one, are aimed only at the industry from which they came. In the maritime industry, for example, Thyssenkrupp & Wilhelmsen established a joint venture for just this purpose in 2020. The companies say this venture brings the benefits of AM technology to shipping firms by reducing the cost of spare parts, lead times and environmental footprint. In such cases, expertise can be applied repeatedly for various OEMs rather than having each OEM develop it independently, which would be inefficient both in terms of time and cost. Deep sector expertise can come from the people behind the solution or from the companies the venture is associated with, like in the case of the Thyssenkrupp-Wilhelmsen joint venture. Some of the required expertise that is extremely important for correct AM production is not sector specific – such as mater ial expertise. Large material companies have entered the AM industry and have developed strong AM materials expertise that can be leveraged for turnkey solutions. All this expertise can help in many of the steps offered by turnkey solutions. A good is example is the aforementioned Replique, which picks the parts and appropriate materials, converts the parts to AM-ready digital form, creates and operates a portal for selling them, and handles the AM production and logistics once the par t is ordered. Such a set up can also help in understanding customer specific needs. By being closely connected to BASF’s engineering, material knowledge and expertise in servicing industrial clients from different verticals for decades, the company understands the needs of many applications. Additionally, the company is able to provide simulation tools and in-house knowledge since BASF is also printing parts in its own production facilities. The bottom line is…
For those OEMs considering additive manufacturing but not sure where or how to start, turnkey solutions offer a simpler introduction to the wonders of AM. In other manufacturing technologies, contract manufacturing and turnkey services are thriving, which bodes well for the prospects of the AM turnkey providers beyond just the initial foray into the technology. This is a trend that will lik ely intensify and it will be interesting to see from up close ho w things play out for these ventures. Moshe Molcho
Moshe Molcho is Co-Founder and CEO at LEO Lane, an Israel-based business which, via its cloud-based SaaS solution, helps companies to safely use digital inventories and protect their IP by enforcing a consistent, repeatable, secure and trackable digital supply chain for additive manufacturing.

At your service

#48 Additive Insight: Dr Lee-Bath Nelson on AM, IP and distributed manufacturing
2 December 2020
You need Flash and JavaScript installed and enabled to play this audio file. On this week's episode of Additive Insight, TCT speaks to Dr Lee-Bath Nelson, Co-founder and VP Business at additive manufacturing software as a service company LEO Lane . Since its founding in 2014, LEO Lane has been developing cloud based solutions which control, protect, and track 3D printed products and files. Read more:
On this episode we discuss increasing IP challenges as additive moves further into production, how the pandemic has forced companies to think more urgently about how they’re protecting their 3D printable part data, a how heightened attention on the benefits of distributed manufacturing have emphasised the need for products like LEO Lane. This episode is brought to you in association with Ultimaker. Considering an in-house 3D printing solution with industrial-grade material options and trusted software employed by 2 million users? Request a quote  here . ×

#48 Additive Insight: Dr Lee-Bath Nelson on AM, IP and distributed manufacturing

0 Shares
LEO Lane , an Israeli firm that offers intellectual property protection to the additive manufacturing industry, uses algorithms to regulate the use of clients’ designs. The company responds to a growing concern about safeguarding intellectual property across the AM sector, which is defined by its decentralization and the consequent transmission of electronic data. Electronic data is inherently difficult to regulate: it does not recognize borders. Enforcing copyright, trademark or patent infringement involves costly legal proceedings; LEO Lane designs its service to prevent litigation. LEO Lane’s service
The service prevents litigation by controlling an intellectual property holder’s design through LEO’s terms of use. Companies and individuals who wish to have their designs remotely printed or licensed to a foreign printer sign up for LEO’s web service. LEO’s software safeguards the client’s intellectual property by acting as a gatekeeper. LEO protects its clients’ privacy and rights by only requiring a critical piece of a design, which is encoded into a limited edition object (hence the term ‘LEO’). The client’s product requires that piece to function correctly. LEO communicates the missing design element from its cloud service to a local printer, which completes the design, thus authorizing replication. The client can then count the number of times that a product is printed and bill the printer accordingly. Printers, moreover, can easily use LEO Lane’s software on most available print systems. LEOs are relatively small files that can be read in various printer formats. LEO Lane’s software is compatible with partner systems from Materialise , SAP , Accenture, Shapeways , GE and Autonomous Manufacturing . LEO’s software also secures product design against human error. The LEO encodes design specifications. These details are immutable on the printer-side: the designer can, for example, specify permissible material types, compatible AM technology, permitted scaling and the number of items printed in a run from a single LEO file. These restrictions give designers control over all aspects of production. Designers can monetize their intellectual property with ease. LEOLane’s privacy protection process and related features
A wider look at industrial regulation
The effect of LEO’s cloud service is to use international software-as-service-agreements as a form of regulation. This approach is endemic in the media industry, and SaaS contracts have grown in lockstep with the industry. The public cloud services market has grown more than four-fold since 2009. It is expected to grow by another third between now and 2022. The AM sector, however, has not yet taken SaaS up to facilitate knowledge transfer. SaaS has the potential to regulate large swaths of an industry because terms of service are contracts that bind users to companies’ conditions. These conditions become the heart of regulation, while companies become gatekeepers that adjudicate compliance and disputes. Facebook and Twitter are examples of large companies able to regulate large user bases; LEO’s approach is more personable, but the concept at work is similar. The contract that opens users to use LEO’s software for knowledge transfer requires users to submit to LEO’s rules. a
This kind of requirement is, to be sure, reasonable in a commercial exchange. Taking a broader view of the requirement’s effect on an industry suggests a push-and-pull between SaaS providers and clients. Providers channel legal and moral rules into the industry, which ensures a measure of fair play. Clients governed by these schemes may demand, much like citizens of a republic, different rules to suit an industry or segment. Providers with a sufficiently large client base go a step further to define their industries’ knowledge sharing through their rules. The difficulty, if one must be pointed out, in SaaS regulation is that legal agreements are only vehicles for regulation. The software implements companies’ rules, which means that companies must be particularly attuned to clients’ concerns. Indeed, the key to knowledge transfer is trust between each player in the transfer chain. LEO builds trust by ensuring that its service is secure, and its customers feel secure. The company offers to sign non-disclosure agreements with corporate clients after preliminary discussions about service options. These two-way contracts exist apart from LEO’s terms of use. They protect LEO’s proprietary algorithm and clients’ designs and trade secrets. Takeaways
Contracts, especially international contracts, move business forward. When enough contracts are administered by a single company, the company becomes a focal point for business interests. These points frequently arise in the provision of software or computing platforms. They are, to boot, an indispensable part of the AM ecosystem. Decentralized knowledge transfer needs flexible gatekeepers to guarantee property rights and quality. LEO Lane is an example of a flexible gatekeeper. Its cloud service builds privacy, discretion and control into intellectual property distribution. In so doing, it curries favor with industry partners like its printing partner systems. As the industry grows, LEO and other service providers will begin to serve as points of reference for industry protection standards. Clients may notice this movement; governments and international organizations like the World Intellectual Property Organization may also at some point take heed to craft more formal standards.

Software as a service: LEO Lane and contractual regulation of 3D designs

3dpbm
0 120 4 minutes read
Data privacy protection engages a web of concerns not easily remedied by legal solutions
0 Shares
Two jurists in the United Kingdom flagged the need for enhanced privacy protections in the additive manufacturing space. The scholars, professors Annika Jones and James G. H. Griffin, released an article in the European Journal of Law and Technology that examines international law’s regulation of 3D printing. Their work uses interviews with representatives from Chinese 3D printing companies. The authors’ focus on international law, however, belies their examination of Chinese companies because the international norms to which they refer are largely European- and American-based. The article focuses, moreover, on digital and physical watermarks—a branch of intellectual property law that is better regulated in more general terms. The article raises a host of important questions that 3D printing companies need to resolve as additive manufacturing becomes more mainstream. Privacy protections are one branch of regulation that printers need to address. Intellectual property and copyright protection are a second, sometimes competing, branch that merits protection. Establishing a balance between privacy protections and intellectual property concerns requires government and industry dialogue, which the authors point up. The authors’ focus on international regulation rightly acknowledges AM’s global significance. Their proposals lean heavily in favor of the consumer, with a focus on state infringement of consumer privacy:
(i) that recognition of the potential for digital watermarks to invade privacy is recognized in relevant treaties on copyright law and under the international human rights law framework; (ii) that a code of conduct is established that promotes privacy through self regulation of watermarking and 3D printing, and (iii) that a regulatory body is established to provide guidance and oversight. These proposals go beyond 3D printing to address wider intellectual property issues in international law. They generally relate to the ongoing discussion regarding big data, with much of the emphasis placed on FAANG (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google) companies capable of monetizing wide swaths of electronic data via artificial intelligence applications. Governments are, of course, also implicated, for they fall directly under international law. The authors’ main concern is 3D printing watermarking, where a physical imprint is left on an object. Watermarking is, of course, a far older concept used by papermakers to show provenance. The authors problematize watermarking as a novel way to track printed objects:
These are technologies that enable the tracing of products that users ‘want’ to be traced. However, it is also necessary to consider technologies that are used to trace content that people do not want to have traced. These are the technologies used by States for surveillance purposes and technologies used by computer coders to be able to break into computer systems. This focus on tracking watermarked data assumes economies of scale. Governments and large data centers can trace watermarks through large data sets. The authors flag this potential in their piece while noting up digital rights management law. Digital rights manage software watermarks in a copyright setting; 3D printing may use digital rights management to control the copyright of CAD files. Printing, however, moves beyond this kind of fingerprinting technology when a watermark appears on a printed object. Overview of Watermark3D’s privacy protection process
A broader issue in this vein is that companies specialize in watermarking and securing 3D printed objects and files using proprietary technology. Watermark3D, for example, markets technology that allows manufacturers to secure their STL electronic designs and their manufacturer objects using watermarks. The company provides a free service for up to ten electronic files a day, or 50 a month. LEOLane goes a step further. The company provides a custom electronic file format and a cloud service. Users can track their data while also building a shared pool of AM watermarks. The larger the pool, the better AM intellectual property can be protected. Identify3D offers a similar service. These services are self-contained digital repositories that grow, much like web indexing tools like Google’s search feature, as users open their property to the services. There is, to be sure, nothing inherently wrong with this model. Digitally tracing objects through proprietary cloud systems creates efficiency as Industry 4.0 gets underway. These services’ efficiency is also their legal threat: data about watermarks contains its own value that, if sold, improperly stored or transferred in a merger, can create monopolistic data clusters, like Google. LEOLane’s privacy protection process and related features
Such data clusters can lead to concerns about privacy protection. The authors perceive danger in the widespread use of watermarks because watermarks become a data point that allows passive tracking. A fundamental legal and human rights rule is that users be able to consent to data collection. Consent is a difficult concept in data collection and privacy relating to printed objects because collecting a large enough dataset relies on indirect data collection. Collection begins with the manufacturer, but must continue to the end-user for legal protection to matter or become necessary. If end-users are not directly affected, their privacy rights are not necessarily impacted. The authors acknowledge this difficulty, but it is one that escapes efficient legal regulation in an international regime that relies on personal rights:
a digital watermark can be used to construct data about the use of an object, but a user may not have consented to (or even been aware of) the watermark. Information is not collated directly from the user as such, but from the object. The object data can then be stored and observed subsequently, in the same way as a Google search is carried out in relation to websites. This makes the legal regulation of data protection problematic. Regulating privacy is a competitive issue that, as the authors propose, requires international and company-specific regulation. The Chinese companies interviewed for this study recognized their ability to track end-user data or competitors’ ability to do the same. Such recognition evokes the competitive forces that push and pull companies away from and toward tracking objects. Consumers generally do not want to see their activities tracked; companies realize greater efficiencies when tracking objects. Self-regulation in this context is difficult to achieve. The value proposition for companies does not necessarily exist and will depend on each company’s socio-political circumstances. Establishing an international regulatory authority for 3D printing privacy protections and the like similarly risks uneven application. Enforcing and recommending international solutions requires state and industry stakeholders’ buy-in across jurisdictions—a notoriously difficult solution, especially when sharp geopolitical divisions are re-forming between permanent members of the United Nations’ Security Council, especially on issues of internet regulation, IP piracy and the digital economy. The three proposed solutions—recognition of digital watermarks as a privacy issue in international instruments; companies’ self-regulation; and creating a regulatory body—are, in this author’s opinion, difficult of application. They remain, however, meritorious contributions to a budding inter-jurisdictional debate. Lawyers, lawmakers, and industry experts will need to examine these issues in much more depth, with a focus (again, in this author’s opinion) on national regulation capable of binding corporations through national enforcement mechanisms. This article is part of a series on law and additive manufacturing. If you or your company has experience with this or other legal issues, please tell us about your experience by emailing adam@3dpbm.com.

Jurists flag the need for greater privacy protections in 3D printing

LEO Lane is designed to protect the quality and quantity of AM parts. Each time I meet with Dr Lee-Bath Nelson of LEO Lane I never quite know where our conversation is going to end up. A seasoned high-tech executive, the Co-founder and VP Business of the additive manufacturing (AM) software company is so knowledgeable on the many pockets of AM technology, our annual meetings at various trade events can, and often do, span the challenges of data protection in aerospace to the 3D printed jewellery worn on her wrist. But, even Nelson admits, there is still much to learn and it can often be found by stepping outside of the AM bubble. "I always say to people that, you know your water bottles? They're not going to be 3D printed," Nelson tells TCT at the recent Formnext trade show. "But you know what my 24-year-old daughter said about that? "Why do we need water bottles?" Her way of thinking is, why does it have to stay the way it is? She, for example, has her one bottle of water that she refills. So, are we really going to need so many water bottles if everybody goes around with their own? Probably not. So, it might be that instead of that you have your customised water bottle, it's comfortable for you to hold and maybe customised to your grasp. Then it's not so far-fetched." It's one of several anecdotes offered by Nelson around how AM is changing the way we think during a discussion on the latest developments the company is bringing to boost AM quality control, IP protection and virtual inventories . Founded in Israel in 2014, LEO Lane is a cloud-based software as a service company designed to control the quality and quantity of additive parts. Product or part files can be securely turned into LEO files - or Limited Edition Object - which are controlled down to the minutia of how, where and how many times the object is produced. The objective, contrary to this industry's penchant for the word "disrupt" is to do just the opposite. "We want to be seamless," Nelson explains. "We don't want to disrupt people, we don't want to disturb them. We don't want to make them do things they don't want to do in a way they don't. We want them to keep doing what they're doing and we'll just help them. We're here to make it better without disrupting." For example, LEO Lane does not hold on to those files, quashing any concerns around IP, crucial for the large-scale industrial companies needing to ensure parts are protected from tampering throughout the supply chain . The same can be said of those smaller scale customers such as designers who need confidence in the tactility of a product which is being manufactured remotely. "IP Protection doesn't always have to be about preventing your enemies from taking action or it doesn't always have to be combative. It could just be, I want it intact," Nelson says. "It's protected, it's preserved and then I can just use it and know that every time it will be the same." ×
LEO Lane enforces quality control throughout distributed additive manufacturing. Using the example of the water bottle inviting different perspectives, you could argue that same thinking has been mirrored in the way LEO Lane has assembled its leadership team. As co-founders you have software engineer and ex VC Nelson, CEO Moshe Molcho with a wealth of experience in enterprise software, and Tessa Blokland, an accomplished editor and educator. Blokland joins our conversation on the Formnext booth and it's clear to see where her expertise in the design world is lending itself to broaden the horizons of where LEO Lane might be applied. "You have your design iterations but then you have absolute control, you send or you print it yourself and you know [what] it looks like, what it feels like, the colour, the shininess of the material," Blokland says of the current design to market workflow. "But when you send it away, and maybe unprotected, then you know for sure that somebody will mess it up. " 
Blokland, who has spent 15 years working with design students at the Design Academy Eindhoven, which she summarises as helping students to "get to know the design business but in a way that you earn money" is a self-confessed idealist who was drawn to AM by its sustainability promises. Nelson approached Blokland in 2014 to join the start-up and on the show floor, it's interesting just to sit and listen to the two interact and debate their different points of view. "Together we make a great mixture with Lee Bath with her knowledge on the business side, Mosche with his coding experience and me … I'm not a designer but I know the designer and I know how important is for designers to have something in your mind, to make it in the right materials and the right colour and the right shaping," Blokland said. "LEO Lane was, for me, the solution to keep your intellectual property and to be the owner of your products and to have it distributed worldwide." The biggest update LEO Lane is working on right now is around workflow. The goal is to deliver IP protection, consistency and repeatability enforcement throughout the multi-step lifecycle of an AM product from design to distribution. According to Nelson, the software "increases the end results, repeatability, reliability, brand reputation and of course lowers all the risks that stop projects." LEO Lane works in parallel to the current workflow products on the market so that users can continue with the software they are comfortable with, reinforcing this non-disruptive mantra. To qualify this, Nelson offers the example of 3D printed footwear where the wearer can readily get a scan of their foot to create a midsole that is completely unique to their anatomy and needs. You may think a file such as this, which is really only beneficial to one specific person, wouldn't be at risk but Nelson cautions that even the slightest change in design could render the product useless. ×

"We don't want to disrupt people" - LEO Lane on controlling the additive manufacturing workflow

AMFG provides automation software for low-volume, high-mix manufacturing operations across various industries. The company offers solutions for quote and order management, real-time planning, material requirements planning (MRP), autonomous workflows, shop floor control, and inventory management. AMFG's software integrates with ERP, PLM, and CAD systems, as well as providing machine connectivity to create an integrated manufacturing platform. AMFG was formerly known as RP Platform. It was founded in 2014 and is based in London, United Kingdom.

AMFG

It is successful , he said , because of the strength of the partnership between Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee and Wisconsin Women 's Business Initiative Corp. and the perseverance of the program 's participants .

Photo by Analise Pruni/NNS.
Financial Education Class Helps Poorer Residents » Urban Milwaukee

SAP operates as an enterprise application and business artificial intelligence (AI) company within the technology sector. The company offers a suite of solutions integrating various aspects of organizations, including workforce, financials, customer relations, and supply chain management, into an integrated system. The solutions aim to assist businesses across different sectors. It was founded in 1972 and is based in Walldorf, Germany.

LEO Lane

Zend Technologies

Panaya

Companies offering tech-enabled marketing and advertising services.

Ad Tech

Other Investors

LEO Lane is a company that controls, protects, and tracks product files for Additive Manufacturing within the technology sector. Their offerings include a Software as a Service (SaaS) solution that allows brands to manage product quality and quantity while adopting distributed and on-demand manufacturing processes. This solution maintains control over the manufacturing process and allows brands to produce and manage virtual inventories. It is based in Tel Aviv, Israel.

Date
Round	Other Investors
Amount
Investors	TheTime
Valuation	$XXM
Revenue	0 FY undefined
Sources

First funding
Last Funding
Investor	TheTime
Rounds	1 Other Investors
Board Seats
Type	Venture Capital
Location	Israel

How VCs Use CB Insights

Professional Services

Platform Overview

LEO Lane

Investors Count

Funding, Valuation & Revenue

LEO Lane Investors