Case Explained: SLINGSHOT PRINTING LLC v. CANON U.S.A., INC

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-16

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decisions finding claims 1–17 of U.S. Patent No. 7,484,823 and claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,594,708 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious. The court applied a standard of review where factual findings are assessed for substantial evidence and the legal conclusion of obviousness is reviewed de novo. The court rejected Slingshot’s arguments that the Board relied impermissibly on hindsight, noting the Board used the patent’s background section only to establish what was known in the art rather than as improper post-hoc reasoning. The court also held that Slingshot failed to raise an argument regarding “teaching away” by reference Yabe4 against the specific combination of references (Benjamin and Giere673) relied upon by the Board, and further determined that Yabe4 did not constitute a teaching away even if considered. Regarding motivation to combine, the court found substantial evidence supporting the Board’s conclusion that the benefit of more accurate temperature measurement for print quality outweighed Slingshot’s asserted cost concerns. Additionally, the court upheld the Board’s finding that the prior art combination taught the temperature sensor to be “substantially centrally disposed” within the region based on expert testimony regarding the equidistant placement of sensor legs. As a result of this affirmation, the challenged patent claims remain unpatentable, and Canon U.S.A., Inc.’s inter partes review petitions successfully invalidated the asserted portions of both patents. No costs were awarded to either party.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.