Untitled case

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting.

Now let me verify the district court case details, related litigation, and subsequent developments.

Case Overview and Background — Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., Nos. 2025-1033/-1034 (Fed. Cir.)

Parties. The appellant is Slingshot Printing LLC, a Delaware LLC with its principal place of business in Columbia, Maryland, which describes itself in its complaint as "in the business of licensing patented technology" — i.e., a non-practicing entity. The patents trace a classic operating-company-to-NPE chain: they were developed by Lexmark International, Inc. (which complained they were "the result of Lexmark's many years of researching, designing, and developing innovative and proprietary inkjet printing technologies"), sold to Funai Electric Co., Ltd. in the 2013 transaction in which Funai acquired Lexmark's inkjet technology and assets for roughly $100 million, and then assigned by Funai to Slingshot (see Complaint ¶¶ 11–14, 15–17, Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01852 (E.D.N.Y.), https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/New_York_Eastern_District_Court/2--22-cv-01852/Slingshot_Printing_LLC_v._Canon_U.S.A._Inc._et_al/docs/1.pdf). RPX reported in June 2019 that Slingshot had recently received more than 100 U.S. assets from Funai and that "assignment records suggest[] that Funai might hold an economic interest in Slingshot's litigation" — a real-party-in-interest/standing point that is reported but not confirmed by any court ruling I located (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/news/details). The appellees are Canon U.S.A., Inc. (New York corporation, Melville, NY, the Canon Inc. subsidiary responsible for U.S. marketing and sales) and Canon Inc. (the Japanese parent). A third Canon entity, Canon Solutions America, Inc. (CSA), a wholly owned Canon U.S.A. subsidiary also based in Melville, was a district-court defendant but is not an appellee in these appeals.

Accused technology and patents. The asserted technology is inkjet printhead silicon: the "heater chip" through which ink vias feed heater arrays (firing resistors) that eject ink, and the thermal-sense resistors (TSRs) used to monitor and regulate chip temperature. Slingshot accused a broad set of Canon inkjet printers and components — MAXIFY iX6820; a long list of PIXMA models (G-, MG-, MX-, TR-, TS-, iP-series); CL-series ink cartridges (CL-211, CL-241, CL-244, CL-246, CL-261 and XL variants); printhead dies bearing part numbers LQ4220, LQ4300, LQ4350, LQ4390, LQ4500, LQ4590, LQ4640, LQ4670, LQ4760, and LQ4780; and PF-10 printheads used in imagePROGRAF PRO-series large-format printers (PRO-1000 through PRO-6100), the latter attributed to CSA. Three patents were asserted in the E.D.N.Y. case relevant here: U.S. Patent No. 7,594,708, "Methods and Apparatuses for Sensing Temperature of Multi-Via Heater Chips" (issued Sept. 29, 2009, from Application No. 11/323,809 filed Dec. 30, 2005), claiming a heater chip with a single temperature sensing element per region disposed between adjacent ink vias; U.S. Patent No. 7,484,823, "Methods and Apparatuses for Regulating the Temperature of Multi-Via Heater Chips" (issued Feb. 3, 2009), claiming a temperature sensing element substantially centrally disposed in a region between heater arrays, where the arrays are heated in response to the sensed region temperature to regulate it; and U.S. Patent No. 7,290,864, "Heater Chips With a Reduced Number of Bondpads" (issued Nov. 6, 2007), claiming a bondpad that supplies power to portions of two heater arrays. A companion E.D.N.Y. action asserted four further Lexmark-origin patents ('951, '195,341, '559,629, '523).

Procedural posture and venue. This Federal Circuit appeal arises from the USPTO/PTAB, not the district court: No. 2025-1034 appeals the Board's final written decision in IPR2023-00313 ('708 patent, decided July 30, 2024), and No. 2025-1033 appeals IPR2023-00312 ('823 patent, decided Aug. 6, 2024); a third appeal, No. 2025-1032, covered the '864 patent (IPR2023-00309). The underlying infringement actions were filed in the Eastern District of New York — Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00123 ("Slingshot I," filed Jan. 7, 2022) and No. 2:22-cv-01852 ("Slingshot II," filed Apr. 1, 2022). Venue was proper and defendant-friendly because both Canon U.S.A. and CSA are New York corporations headquartered in the district; the cases were assigned on the merits to then-District Judge Hector Gonzalez with Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst handling discovery and the stay motions (docket sources conflict on later reassignment — some listings show Judge Nusrat Jahan Choudhury presiding on 2:22-cv-01852, so I would not state the current district assignment as settled). After Canon filed seven IPR petitions between August 2022 and January 2023 covering every asserted claim, Judge Dunst stayed Slingshot I on Dec. 1, 2022 and imposed a temporary stay in Slingshot II that was extended on Jan. 26, 2023; the parties confirmed in a Sept. 15, 2023 status report that no further discovery had occurred. Six petitions were instituted; only the petition on U.S. Patent No. 7,559,629 (IPR2022-01415) was denied institution, so that patent's claims were never invalidated administratively.

Why it matters. The case is a compact case study in modern NPE assertion dynamics and IPR-as-defense. First, it illustrates the aftermarket/OEM patent-monetization pipeline: a failed operating business's (Lexmark's inkjet unit, via Funai) patent portfolio was spun into an assertion vehicle aimed at the remaining printer OEMs, with Slingshot having previously pursued HP in Judge Albright's W.D. Tex. court before settling (see https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/6%3A19-cv-00363 and Actionable Intelligence's coverage of the HP settlement). Second, it shows how one coordinated IPR campaign can neutralize an entire campaign: the Board found all challenged claims obvious over Benjamin (U.S. 7,384,113) in combination with Giere673 (U.S. 6,612,673) and other references, and on July 16, 2026 a Chen/Hughes/Cunningham panel affirmed in a nonprecedential decision, rejecting Slingshot's hindsight, teaching-away (Yabe, U.S. 6,527,367), and motivation-to-combine arguments (Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., Nos. 2025-1033, -1034 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2026), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/25-1033/25-1033-2026-07-16.html). A week later, on July 21, 2026, the court affirmed invalidation of the '951 patent claims in No. 24-2127; Morgan Lewis described the ruling as its fifth successful Federal Circuit outcome for Canon against Slingshot (https://www.morganlewis.com/ja/news/2026/07/canon-notches-another-fed-circ-win-in-inkjet-patent-fight-law360). Third, the appeal produced a rare published administrative ruling: Slingshot's notice of appeal was one day late (due Oct. 1, 2024; filed Oct. 2, 2024), and the USPTO Director granted a one-day extension for excusable neglect under 37 C.F.R. § 90.3(c)(1)(ii) based on a paralegal docketing error, applying Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates (https://foiadocuments.uspto.gov/pateot/IPR2023-00313_2024-10-22.pdf). Industry impact is modest in dollar terms — these are hardware claims on legacy inkjet die architecture — but the case is frequently cited as evidence that broad, sensor/geometry-focused chip claims of the mid-2000s inkjet era were vulnerable to well-funded prior-art challenges.

One discrepancy to flag: the case metadata lists this matter as "on appeal," but as of today (Sept. 12, 2026) the Federal Circuit decided No. 25-1034 (and companion No. 25-1033) on July 16, 2026, affirming the PTAB's invalidation of all challenged '708 claims; the mandate timing and any petition for rehearing or certiorari are not reflected in the sources I reviewed, and I found no reported ruling on the ultimate disposition of the stayed E.D.N.Y. actions or on the surviving '559,629 patent. I also could not independently confirm from PACER the district court's current judge assignment for No. 2:22-cv-01852 or the entry of final judgment, so those points should be verified against PACER before being relied on.

I'll research this case across multiple sources. Let me start with several searches.

I have the appellate picture. Now let me dig into the district court case and the parallel PTAB proceedings.

Bottom line

The litigation you asked about — Slingshot Printing LLC's inkjet‑printhead infringement suits against Canon in the E.D.N.Y. — never reached Markman, trial, or verdict. It was stayed within about eight months of filing and was effectively decided in seven parallel IPRs at the PTAB, all of which Canon won. The Federal Circuit appeal docketed as No. 25‑1034 (together with 25‑1032 and 25‑1033) was decided on 2026‑07‑16 and affirmed, leaving all asserted claims of the '708, '823, and '864 patents unpatentable. Note the tension with the case metadata's "on appeal" status: as of today (2026‑09‑12) the appeal has been resolved, not pending.

Two corrections/refinements to the prior summary: the correct caption is Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc. and Canon Inc., and the appeal is not from a district court judgment — it is an appeal from PTAB final written decisions, with Slingshot as appellant and Canon as appellee.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Two coordinated district court cases, both before Judge Hector Gonzalez, referred to Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst (E.D.N.Y., Central Islip):

• Slingshot II complaint (ECF 1, 2022‑04‑01) asserted the '823, '708, and '864 patents against Canon U.S.A., Inc. and Canon Solutions America, Inc., with claim charts as Exhibits D–F. Docket classifies it under "35:145 Patent Infringement," an apparent nature‑of‑suit miscode (the pleading is a § 271 infringement action). Docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nyedce/2:2022cv01852/[478112](/patent/478112)
• The patents are former Lexmark inkjet assets, acquired by Funai Electric and then assigned to Slingshot, a Delaware licensing entity based in Columbia, Maryland (Slingshot I complaint ¶¶ 2, 11–14).
• Accused products include Canon Maxify, Pixma, and imagePROGRAF printers, CL‑2xx ink cartridges, and printhead dies LQ4220/LQ4350/LQ4390/LQ4500/LQ4590/LQ4640/LQ4670/LQ4760/LQ4780 and PF‑10 printheads. Slingshot's LPR 6 infringement contentions identified claims 1‑3, 5‑6, 8‑12, 14‑15 of the '708 patent against Canon U.S.A. and claims 1, 5‑6, 8‑10, 14‑15 against CSA (Exhibit 1025 in IPR2023‑00313).
• Answers/counterclaims: In Slingshot I, Canon answered and counterclaimed 2022‑02‑25 (ECF 23), with Slingshot's reply on the counterclaims 2022‑03‑18 (ECF 27). In Slingshot II, Canon answered and counterclaimed 2022‑05‑31 (ECF 21), with Slingshot's reply 2022‑06‑21 (ECF 23). Canon's counterclaims sought declarations of non‑infringement and invalidity (Stay Order at 2, quoted in Ex. 1021 to IPR2023‑00313).
• 2022‑04‑25: Canon moved to reassign Slingshot II as related to Slingshot I (ECF 10) — a related‑case reassignment, not a § 1404 transfer; granted, and the case was reassigned to Judge Gonzalez (2022‑05‑26).
• Initial conference held 2022‑07‑05; initial discovery scheduling orders entered; the parties' jointly proposed case management schedule (Nov. 2022) ran into late 2024.

2. Pre‑trial motions of substance

There was no motion to dismiss, no summary judgment motion, and no Markman proceeding in the Canon cases. The dispositive pre‑trial events were the stay motions:

• 2022‑09‑09 – Canon notified the court of intent to seek a stay in Slingshot I.
• 2022‑10‑21 – Status conference; briefing schedule set for expected stay motions in both cases.
• 2022‑11‑02 – Canon moved to stay both actions pending IPR (Slingshot I ECF 47; Slingshot II ECF 37).
• 2022‑11‑16 – Slingshot opposed (Slingshot I ECF 50; Slingshot II ECF 40), arguing simplification was "speculative" and that a stay would "delay discovery and hinder meaningful settlement discussions."
• 2022‑12‑01 – Stay granted (Slingshot I Dkt. 52; Slingshot II Dkt. 42). Magistrate Judge Dunst applied the Synkloud three‑factor test, stayed Slingshot I outright pending the IPRs, and temporarily stayed Slingshot II until 2022‑12‑30 to let Canon file its remaining petitions, finding Canon had moved promptly and that much discovery remained. (Text quoted in Exhibit 1021 to IPR2023‑00313; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00313/Canon_U.S.A._Inc/docs/01-21-2023-Petitioner/Exhibit-1021-Exhibit_1021.pdf)
• 2022‑12‑27/28 – Temporary stay of Slingshot II extended to 2023‑01‑20 (Dkt. 43).
• 2023‑01‑25 – 2023‑01‑26 – Canon letter‑motioned to convert the temporary stay into a full stay of Slingshot II (Dkt. 44), noting it had filed IPR petitions covering every asserted claim; the court granted it.
• 2023‑08‑31 / 2023‑09‑15 – Court ordered a joint status report; the parties filed one reporting that "the parties have not engaged in any further discovery" since 2022‑12‑01 and agreeing the stay should continue "to avoid piecemeal litigation." (Status report text: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/New_York_Eastern_District_Court/2--22-cv-01852/Slingshot_Printing_LLC_v._Canon_U.S.A._Inc._et_al/docs/47.pdf)
• 2023‑09‑29 – Status conference; I found no later docket entries.

3. Claim construction

• No Markman ruling exists in the Canon cases — the stay froze the cases before claim construction.
• The only claim‑construction order in the Slingshot cluster that surfaced was from the earlier HP litigation: Slingshot Printing LLC v. HP Inc., No. 1:20‑cv‑00486? — docketed as 1:20‑cv‑00186‑ADA (W.D. Tex.), Claim Construction Order, Dkt. 82 (2021‑01‑14), filed as an exhibit in the Canon IPRs. Slingshot's earlier suits against HP were Slingshot Printing LLC v. HP Inc., No. 6:19‑cv‑00549 and No. 6:20‑cv‑00048 (W.D. Tex., Judge Albright).
• All substantive claim construction in this dispute therefore happened at the Board and on appeal (see §5 below), not in the district court.

4. Discovery milestones of strategic significance

• Protective order negotiations consumed summer–early fall 2022, with stipulated extensions of discovery deadlines (Slingshot I ECF 35, 36; Slingshot II ECF 30, 31).
• Slingshot served its LPR 6 Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions in 2022 (Ex. 1025), which is the operative infringement statement of record.
• Everything stopped on 2022‑12‑01. No fact discovery, no expert reports, no expert depositions occurred in the district court case. The strategically significant discovery in this dispute was instead PTAB deposition discovery: Slingshot's expert Steven J. Dietl (deposed 2023‑12‑21) and Canon's expert Dr. Stephen F. Pond, Ph.D. (deposed 2023‑10‑10). Those transcripts became the backbone of the appeal (Exs. 1015, 1031, 1033; Petitioners' Ex. 1037‑1038 demonstratives).

5. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

Canon filed seven IPR petitions against Slingshot between August 2022 and January 2023, covering every claim asserted in both cases. Six were instituted; one was denied. This is the substantive heart of the dispute.

(Filing/institution/FWD dates from the parties' 2023‑09‑15 joint status report and the PTAB decisions.)

'708 patent (IPR2023‑00313): Panel of APJs Kokoski, Baer, and Hamann; Hamann authored. Grounds included Benjamin (U.S. 7,384,113) + Giere673 (U.S. 6,612,673), alone and with Parish, plus Giere178/Yabe‑based grounds. Oral hearing 2024‑05‑09 (held jointly with the '823 IPR). FWD 2024‑07‑30 cancelled claims 1‑15 under § 103. https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00313/Canon_U.S.A._Inc._v._Slingshot_Printing_LLC/docs/07-30-2024-Board/Final_Written_Decision__original-28-Final_Written_Decision__original.pdf

'823 patent (IPR2023‑00312): Same panel; FWD 2024‑08‑06 cancelled claims 1‑17.

'864 patent (IPR2023‑00309): Same panel; FWD 2024‑07‑31 cancelled claims 1‑6 and 8‑20. The Board adopted Canon's construction of "physically separated proximal to the bondpad" (separation closer to the bondpad than the end of the trace) over Slingshot's "closer than the heater arrays."

Procedural wrinkle worth flagging: Slingshot's notice of appeal in IPR2023‑00313 was filed 2024‑10‑02, one day after the 63‑day deadline (2024‑10‑01). On 2024‑10‑22, the Director granted an extension under 37 C.F.R. § 90.3(c)(1)(ii) on an excusable‑neglect theory (Pioneer), which is why the '708 appeal survived. https://foiadocuments.uspto.gov/pateot/IPR2023-00313_2024-10-22.pdf

Effect on the litigation: The Board's cancellation of all asserted claims is precisely why the E.D.N.Y. actions never resumed — the stay that was premised on simplifying the litigation ended up eliminating it.

6. Federal Circuit appeals and final disposition

• 2024‑10‑02 – Slingshot filed notices of appeal from each FWD (e.g., '823 and '708 notices; the '708 notice specifically appealed the FWD and the institution decision).
• 2024‑10‑08 – Appeals docketed: 25‑1032 (IPR2023‑00309 / '864), 25‑1033 (IPR2023‑00312 / '823), 25‑1034 (IPR2023‑00313 / '708). https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1034
• 2026‑07‑06 – Oral argument in the '864 appeal (25‑1032) was held first that morning; audio archived by the court.
• 2026‑07‑16 – Decision. Affirmed in full, in two nonprecedential opinions by Judge Chen (panel with Hughes and Cunningham):
  • Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., No. 2025‑1032 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2026) (the '864 patent) — https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1032.OPINION.7-16-2026_2723503.pdf
  • Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., Nos. 2025‑1033, 2025‑1034 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2026) (the '823 and '708 patents) — https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01033/pdf/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01033-0.pdf and https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[10932019](/patent/10932019)/slingshot-printing-llc-v-canon-usa-inc/
• Holdings: the Board did not rely on improper hindsight (the patents' background sections were used only as admissions); Slingshot's teaching‑away argument based on Yabe was unpreserved and, in any event, Yabe did not discourage the claimed arrangement (Galderma); the cost‑of‑extra‑TSRs argument did not overcome the Board's print‑quality‑benefit finding; and substantial evidence supported "substantially centrally disposed" (relying on Giere673's ~680 µm inboard sensor legs). Costs: none. https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/07/16/cafc-affirms-two-ptab-obviousness-rulings-in-canon-printhead-patent-disputes/
• Counsel on appeal: Rayiner Hashem (argued) and Michael G. Pattillo, Jr. (argued 25‑1032), MoloLamken LLP, with Mark Borsos, Fitch Even, Tabin & Flannery, for Slingshot; Julie S. Goldemberg (argued), Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, for Canon.

7. Present posture and open items

• The '708 patent claims 1‑15 are cancelled, subject only to the appeal having been affirmed; the same is true for the '823 ('1‑17) and '864 ('1‑6, 8‑20) claims.
• The E.D.N.Y. actions remain on a stay that was never lifted in any record I could locate; the last documented activity is the 2023‑09‑29 status conference. I could not confirm a formal dismissal, lift‑of‑stay, or voluntary dismissal entry. If the prior sections of this case summary assert otherwise, that assertion is unsupported.
• A further Federal Circuit ruling appears to have issued on 2026‑07‑21 — Law360 reported that "the Federal Circuit on Tuesday declined to reboot claims in a Slingshot Printing patent covering a printhead for an inkjet printer challenged by Canon at the PTAB, less than a week after the appeals court backed decisions invalidating claims in three similar patents." I could not confirm from primary sources which patent/appeal this was; the likeliest candidates are the remaining Slingshot I appeals on the '951, '341, and '523 patents (Nos. 24‑1956, 24‑2127, 24‑2132). For 24‑2132 specifically, the court posted a Rule 36 judgment on 2026‑05‑07 (https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/05-07-2026-24-2132-slingshot-printing-llc-v-canon-usa-inc-rule-36-judgment-24-2132-rule_36_judgment-5-7-2026_2690104/). Treat the July 21 item as reported‑but‑unconfirmed.
• Post‑appeal options: Slingshot's window for panel/en banc rehearing under Fed. R. App. P. 40 ran roughly to 2026‑07‑30 (14 days), with a 90‑day window from the judgment for certiorari (roughly 2026‑10‑14). I found no record of a rehearing petition or cert petition, so the practical conclusion is that the invalidity judgments are final as to the '708, '823, and '864 patents.

Sourcing caveats: the PTAB docket entries, FWDs, exhibit lists, hearing transcripts, and the Federal Circuit opinions are directly sourced. The district court chronology is drawn from the magistrate judge's stay opinion and the parties' joint status report as reproduced in PTAB exhibits, plus Justia/Docket Alarm docket summaries; I did not have live PACER access to confirm any post‑September 2023 district court activity. Specific docket numbers for Canon's answers (ECF 21/23) and counterclaim replies are as cited in the stay order.

I'll research this case starting with the docket and the underlying litigation.

I have the appellate side. Now let me confirm the underlying district court plaintiff's counsel and the PTAB representation.

Let me confirm the specific 25-1034 docket entries and any changes in counsel.

Bottom line first

Case No. 2025‑1034 is not a district‑court infringement action involving a conventional "plaintiff." It is the Federal Circuit appeal from the PTAB Final Written Decision in IPR2023‑00313 (U.S. Pat. No. 7,594,708), consolidated with 2025‑1033 (IPR2023‑00312, U.S. Pat. No. 7,484,823). The party standing in the plaintiff's shoes — the patent owner and the plaintiff in the underlying E.D.N.Y. suits — is Slingshot Printing LLC, appearing at the Federal Circuit as Appellant. Canon U.S.A., Inc. and Canon Inc. appear as Appellees/Petitioners. (Fed. Cir. Op., 2025‑1033/‑1034, Doc. 46, filed July 16, 2026.)

Two threshold caveats:

1. The appeal has already been decided. The consolidated opinion issued July 16, 2026, affirming the Board. If your metadata still shows "on appeal," that posture is now stale absent a petition for rehearing/rehearing en banc. (cafc.uscourts.gov opinion PDF; Justia)
2. Counsel below (district court/PTAB) and on appeal are two overlapping but distinct lineups. I give both, since "plaintiff's counsel" in the Slingshot/Canon cluster has meant both sets.

---

A. Plaintiff/Appellant counsel — Federal Circuit (No. 2025‑1034, consol. with 2025‑1033)

Per the panel opinion's counsel block (the authoritative listing of who appeared on the appeal):

Superseded/withdrawn: Jonathan E. Barbee (MoloLamken) appeared with Hashem/Ghayoumi/Martinez in the 10/25/2024 entry of appearance on the companion appeal and was subsequently withdrawn as counsel by notice on the 24‑2127 docket. Do not list him as current.

Sourcing note: Justia's docket stub for 25‑1034 only reflects the initial docketing text (retrieved 10/8/2024) and names only Mark Borsos for the Appellant. The full multi-attorney lineup above comes from the opinion's counsel block (Doc. 46), cross-checked against the parallel 24‑2127 docket where the same MoloLamken team filed its entries of appearance. I could not pull the complete EOA/PACER entry list for 25‑1034 itself, so treat the roles (lead vs. of counsel) as my characterization of who argued vs. who is listed as "also represented by," not as docket-labeled designations.

---

B. Plaintiff's counsel — underlying district court actions (E.D.N.Y.)

Slingshot Printing LLC asserted the '708 patent (with the '864 and '823 patents) in:

• Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:22‑cv‑00123 (E.D.N.Y.) ("Slingshot I") — filed Jan. 7, 2022
• Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:22‑cv‑01852 (E.D.N.Y.) ("Slingshot II") — filed May 31, 2022; the '708 patent is one of three patents-in-suit

From the Slingshot II civil docket sheet (Dkt. 1 caption/attorney block):

Critical posture point: Both E.D.N.Y. actions have been stayed since late 2022/early 2023 pending the IPR proceedings — Slingshot I stayed Dec. 1, 2022; Slingshot II stayed (temporarily, then extended) on the same reasoning. (Slingshot I Dkt. 52; Slingshot II Dkt. 42; Canon's 1/25/2023 letter brief, Slingshot II Dkt. 44; joint status report 5/16/2023, Slingshot II Dkt. 46.) The district court docket reflects no further discovery, so these appearances are of record but dormant. No in-house counsel for Slingshot appears on the public docket — Slingshot is an NPE, so there is no identified in-house representative; Canon's counsel in the stay briefing and the PTAB described Slingshot as a non-practicing entity whose business is acquiring patents to assert.

---

C. What I could not verify / explicit gaps

• No sealed-counsel situation found — the appellate and PTAB counsel listings are public (opinion counsel block; PTAB power of attorney; oral hearing transcript). The district court docket is largely unavailable in full because Docket Alarm returns paywalled/authenticated documents, so my district-court roster is drawn from the docket caption excerpt and a third-party aggregator, not a fresh PACER pull.
• I have no evidence of any attorney appearing in 25‑1034 who is not listed above, but I could not retrieve the complete 25‑1034 EOA sequence directly; the MoloLamken team composition is inferred from the opinion and the companion 24‑2127 entries.
• Local counsel: On the appellant side I found no separate "local counsel" designation for the Federal Circuit appeal (not required there). On the appellee side, Canon did use local counsel below (Grant A. Shehigian, Ganfer Shore Leeds & Zauderer LLP, NY) — noted only to show I checked, not as plaintiff's counsel.
• No firm-website bio pages were confirmed for Maxim Price, David Hecht, or the MoloLamken associates within my searches, so I have not attributed specific prior cases, clerkships, or bar admissions to them. The experience notes above are drawn only from their appearance in the Slingshot/Canon and Slingshot/HP matters and from the docket/firm affiliations stated in the filings.

I'll research the counsel of record, starting with the Federal Circuit appeal docket and the underlying E.D.N.Y. district court docket.

Good foundation. Now let me get the full counsel roster from the Federal Circuit opinion and the PTAB filings.

Let me confirm Canon's PTAB petitioner counsel and the Federal Circuit appeal docket entries for 25-1033/-1034.

Counsel of Record — Defendants/Appellees (Canon)

Threshold clarification. Case No. 25-1034 is a Federal Circuit appeal from the PTAB (IPR2023-00313, the '708 patent), not a district-court infringement case. So "counsel of record for the defendant(s)" has three layers, and I've separated them: (1) appellate counsel for the appellees in Nos. 25-1033/-1034; (2) trial counsel for the defendants in the underlying E.D.N.Y. actions (Canon U.S.A., Inc. and Canon Solutions America, Inc.); and (3) PTAB petitioner counsel in the IPRs that generated the appeal. All are the same Morgan Lewis core team, with local counsel layered in only at the district court.

---

1. Federal Circuit — counsel for Appellees Canon U.S.A., Inc. and Canon Inc. (Nos. 2025-1033, 2025-1034)

The names below are the complete appellee roster as printed on the July 16, 2026 nonprecedential opinion (Fed. Cir. Doc. 46; Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., Nos. 2025-1033, -1034, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/25-1033/25-1033-2026-07-16.html). Every attorney is with Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Related-appeal caveat: In the companion appeal No. 24-2127 ('951 patent), the CourtListener/RECAP docket shows a Notice of Withdrawal as Counsel for Appellees filed by William Peterson on June 30, 2025 (Doc. 30). That is a different appeal number; I did not locate a comparable withdrawal entry on the 25-1033/-1034 docket, so I list Peterson as "appeared in a related Canon-Slingshot appeal, subsequently withdrawn" rather than as counsel of record here.

---

2. District court — counsel for Defendants Canon U.S.A., Inc. and Canon Solutions America, Inc.

From the E.D.N.Y. docket for 2:22-cv-01852-HG-LGD (and the parallel 2:22-cv-00123), as reflected in the docket sheet excerpt reproduced in PTAB Exhibit 1023 and the correspondence at Docket Nos. 32 and 44 (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/New_York_Eastern_District_Court/2--22-cv-01852/Slingshot_Printing_LLC_v._Canon_U.S.A._Inc._et_al/docs/32.pdf):

In-house counsel: I found no named Canon in-house attorney appearing on the docket or in the opinions. Canon's litigation is being run entirely through outside counsel on the public record; if in-house counsel entered an appearance it is not reflected in the sources I could access.

---

3. PTAB — counsel for Petitioner Canon in IPR2023-00312 ('823) and IPR2023-00313 ('708)

The five-year post-grant campaign that produced this appeal was staffed from the same team. The service list on Slingshot's May 16, 2024 Power of Attorney names the Canon petitioner practitioners (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1550720](/patent/1550720)/download-documents), and the May 9, 2024 hearing transcript records the appearances before APJs Kokoski, Baer, and Hamann:

• Dion M. Bregman (Reg. 45,645) — lead petitioner counsel; argued the consolidated 312/313 hearing ("My name is Dion Bregman. I'm joined by Jimmy Kritsas, both for Petitioner Canon.")
• Amanda S. Williamson (Reg. 73,683) — petitioner counsel
• James J. Kritsas (Reg. 71,714) — petitioner counsel; argued the '708-specific grounds (Giere178) at the hearing
• Jason E. Gettleman (Reg. 55,202) — petitioner counsel
• Case-specific service mailbox: CanonSlingshotIPRs@morganlewis.com

---

Summary of the counsel structure

• One firm (Morgan Lewis) ran all three layers — district court, PTAB, and Federal Circuit — for Canon U.S.A./Canon Inc. (and CSA at the district court).
• Julie S. Goldemberg is the appellate lead and arguing attorney; Amanda S. Williamson is the district-court lead and principal PTAB counsel; Dion M. Bregman was the PTAB first-chair; Grant A. Shehigian (Ganfer Shore) supplied E.D.N.Y. local counsel; Jitsuro Morishita (Tokyo) covers Canon Inc.'s Japan-side interests.
• Slingshot's side, for contrast, is MoloLamken LLP (Rayiner Hashem, argued; Kayvon Ghayoumi; Catherine Martinez; Pratik Kumar Raj Ghosh) plus Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP (Mark A. Borsos; Paul Henkelmann; Timothy P. Maloney), with Hecht Partners LLP (Maxim Price, David L. Hecht) as district-court lead.

Sourcing limits — please read before relying on this

• I could not query PACER directly. The Federal Circuit roster is taken verbatim from the opinion caption (authoritative for who argued and who was "also represented by"); the district-court roster comes from a docket-sheet excerpt reproduced as a PTAB exhibit and from Docket Alarm images of Dkts. 32 and 44 — both dated in 2022–2023. I have not verified whether any of these attorneys withdrew, or whether additional counsel entered an appearance, after the stays (Jan. 2023) and before today. Given that the underlying cases were stayed pending the IPRs and the appeals are now decided, post-stay substitution is possible.
• I found no entry-of-appearance documents for the 25-1033/-1034 docket itself; the caption's counsel list is my best evidence for that appeal. The 24-2127 docket I did retrieve shows the appellee side was staffed by Goldemberg, with Peterson later withdrawing — a reasonable proxy, but not the same docket.
• No sealed filings were identified as the reason for any omission; the gap is source-access, not sealing.
• The current E.D.N.Y. judge assignment remains unresolved (the docket excerpt shows 2:22-cv-01852-NJC-LGD, i.e., Judge Choudhury, while the letters reference Judge Gonzalez) — this is consistent with the discrepancy flagged in the prior section.