Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.s.a., Inc., Canon Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 H ASHEM , MoloLamken LLP, Washington, DC,
argued for appellant. Also represented by K AYVON
G HAYOUMI; CATHERINE MARTINEZ, P RATIK K UMAR RAJ
G HOSH , New York, NY; MARK BORSOS , Fitch, Even, Tabin
& Flannery LLP, Chicago, IL.
J ULIE S. G OLDEMBERG, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Philadelphia, PA, argued for appellees. Also represented
by MARIA D OUKAS , A MANDA SCOTT W ILLIAMSON, Chicago,
Case: 25-1033 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 07/16/2026

-- 1 of 5 --

SLINGSHOT PRINTING LLC v. CANON U. S. A., INC. 2
IL; J ASON EVAN G ETTLEMAN, Palo Alto, CA; J ITSURO
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: 2 Filed: 07/16/2026

-- 2 of 5 --

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 Benjamin2 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).
D ISCUSSION
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: 3 Filed: 07/16/2026

-- 3 of 5 --

SLINGSHOT PRINTING LLC v. CANON U. S. A., INC. 4
Slingshot also claims that Yabe4 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: 4 Filed: 07/16/2026

-- 4 of 5 --

SLINGSHOT PRINTING LLC v. CANON U. S. A., INC. 5
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1033 Document: 46 Page: 5 Filed: 07/16/2026

-- 5 of 5 --