Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc.

Opinion

Case: 25-1033 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 07/16/2026

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

SLINGSHOT PRINTING LLC, Appellant

v.

CANON U.S.A., INC., CANON INC., Appellees ______________________

2025-1033, 2025-1034 ______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2023- 00312, IPR2023-00313. ______________________

Decided: July 16, 2026 ______________________

RAYINER HASHEM, MoloLamken LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by KAYVON GHAYOUMI; CATHERINE MARTINEZ, PRATIK KUMAR RAJ GHOSH, New York, NY; MARK BORSOS, Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP, Chicago, IL.

JULIE S. GOLDEMBERG, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA, argued for appellees. Also represented by MARIA DOUKAS, AMANDA SCOTT WILLIAMSON, Chicago, Case: 25-1033 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 07/16/2026

IL; JASON EVAN GETTLEMAN, Palo Alto, CA; JITSURO MORISHITA, Tokyo, Japan. ______________________

Before CHEN, HUGHES, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges. CHEN, Circuit Judge. Slingshot Printing LLC (Slingshot) appeals two final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) finding claims 1–17 of U.S. Patent No. 7,484,823 (’823 patent) and claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,594,708 (’708 patent) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 1 Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLC, No. IPR2023-00312, 2024 WL 3678426 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2024) (’823 Patent Decision); Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLC, No. IPR2023-00313, 2024 WL 3585542 (P.T.A.B. July 30, 2024) (’708 Patent Decision). We affirm. BACKGROUND The ’823 and ’708 patents concern the use of tempera- ture sensors to monitor and regulate temperature on a per- thermal region basis in an inkjet printer. Claim 1 of the ’823 patent is representative. It recites, “[a] chip for use with a printing device, comprising,” in part, “region[s]” be- tween “heater array[s],” in which each region contains “a temperature sensing element,” that “is substantially cen- trally disposed with respect to the region” and is “operable to sense a temperature of the region.” ’823 patent at claim 1. The heater arrays “are operable to receive heating re- sponsive to the temperature of the region sensed by the temperature sensing element, . . . wherein the received heating regulates the temperature of the region.” Id.

1 The ’823 and ’708 patents have relevantly similar specifications. For this reason, this opinion will cite to the ’823 patent unless otherwise warranted. Case: 25-1033 Document: 46 Page: 3 Filed: 07/16/2026

SLINGSHOT PRINTING LLC v. CANON U.S.A., INC. 3

Canon U.S.A., Inc. and Canon Inc. (Canon) filed two inter partes review petitions. The first petition challenged claims 1–17 of the ’823 patent, and the second petition chal- lenged claims 1–15 of the ’708 patent. The Board deter- mined all challenged claims would have been obvious in view of Benjamin 2 and Giere673, 3 among other references. ’823 Patent Decision, 2024 WL 3678426, at *14; ’708 Patent Decision, 2024 WL 3585542, at *16. Slingshot appealed the Board’s decision. We have ju- risdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). DISCUSSION Obviousness is a question of law with underlying fac- tual findings. HTC Corp. v. Cellular Commc’ns Equip., LLC, 877 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omit- ted). We review factual findings under the substantial ev- idence standard, while the legal conclusion of obviousness is reviewed de novo. Id. (citation omitted). First, Slingshot asserts that the Board impermissibly relied on hindsight in finding that the combination of the prior art rendered obvious the monitoring and regulating temperature per thermal region limitation. Appellant Br. 39–40. Specifically, Slingshot contends that the Board im- properly relied on the ’823 patent itself, but the Board re- lied on the ’823 patent’s background section solely for admissions regarding what was already known in the art. Further, Slingshot attacks the individual references, when the finding of unpatentability is predicated upon a combi- nation of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted).

2 U.S. Patent No. 7,384,113 (Benjamin). 3 U.S. Patent No. 6,612,673 (Giere673). Case: 25-1033 Document: 46 Page: 4 Filed: 07/16/2026

Slingshot also claims that Yabe 4 teaches away from the claimed invention, Appellant Br. 43–45, but Slingshot did not raise this argument below against the Benjamin- Giere673 combination. See J.A. 439. In any event, Yabe merely states that placing temperature sensors on one side of the heater chip “make[s] it unnecessary to provide the [sensor] on . . . the central portion of each ink supply port.” Yabe col. 15 ll. 51–61. That language does not rise to the level of teaching away. See Galderma Lab’ys, L.P. v. Tol- mar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citation omit- ted). Slingshot argues that a skilled artisan would not be motivated to place Giere673’s thermal sense resistors (TSRs) in Benjamin’s regions because of the costs of addi- tional TSRs and because Benjamin already discloses a way of measuring the temperature of the substrate with one TSR. Appellant Br. 52–54. However, Slingshot fails to reckon with the Board’s finding that the benefit of a more accurate temperature measurement to optimize print qual- ity would outweigh purported cost concerns. ’823 Patent Decision, 2024 WL 3678426, at *10. The Board also reasonably found that the prior art combination taught the temperature sensor to be “substan- tially centrally disposed” within the region. The Board re- lied, in part, on expert testimony that explained that Giere673 taught the legs of the sensor to be “equidistant” and “approximately 680 µm inboard from” the heater ar- rays, making the sensor “centrally disposed.” Id. at *12. CONCLUSION We have considered Slingshot’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

4 U.S. Patent No. 6,527,367. Case: 25-1033 Document: 46 Page: 5 Filed: 07/16/2026

SLINGSHOT PRINTING LLC v. CANON U.S.A., INC. 5

AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.