Plaintiff
11 cases as plaintiff.
Company overview. Slingshot Printing LLC ("Slingshot") is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at 10015 Old Columbia Road, Suite B215, Columbia, Maryland. It is a private company and a classic non-practicing entity (NPE): its own 2022 complaint describes it as "in the business of licensing patented technology," and RPX has characterized it as a newly formed NPE. No revenue, headcount, or operating footprint figures are publicly available.
Products / services / operations. Slingshot has no products, manufacturing, or R&D operations. Its sole asset is a patent portfolio of roughly 100+ U.S. patents (PatSnap lists ~113 total) covering inkjet printhead and micro-fluid ejection technology — semiconductor substrates for heater chips, thermal-sensing heater-chip circuitry, and related printhead designs. The portfolio originated with Lexmark International, whose inkjet technology and patents were acquired by Japan's Funai Electric for roughly $100 million in 2013; Funai assigned the patents Slingshot asserts to the company in April 2019, and RPX noted that assignment records suggest Funai may retain an economic interest in Slingshot's litigation.
Patent-litigation posture. Slingshot is an NPE asserting an acquired portfolio, not an operating company defending products. It is a two-way litigant in the tracked docket only because it became the respondent in Canon-initiated IPR proceedings: it appears as plaintiff in 3 tracked cases and defendant in 2. Its 2019–2020 infringement campaign against HP Inc. ran in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division (a plaintiff-friendly venue, later transferred to Austin), asserting 31 patents across multiple suits before settling around 2021.
Notable cases / context. The flagship matters are Slingshot Printing LLC v. HP Inc. (W.D. Tex., 2019) and Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc. (E.D.N.Y., 2022). Canon countered the latter by petitioning for inter partes review of Slingshot patents including U.S. Patent Nos. 7,484,823, 7,594,708, and 7,195,341; the PTAB found the challenged claims obvious, and the Federal Circuit affirmed those rulings in 2026. Slingshot has been represented in these campaigns by Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery, Hecht Partners, and MoloLamken.
Watchlist
Email-only, free, anonymous. We'll notify you when Slingshot Printing LLC files another patent-infringement lawsuit. One-click unsubscribe from any alert.
Slingshot asserted the '823 patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,290,864, and U.S. Patent No. 7,594,708 against Canon U.S.A., Inc. and Canon Solutions America, Inc. In January 2023 the court stayed the case pending inter partes review, and litigation-tracking data reports the case as closed/terminated around January 2024.
Slingshot Printing LLC sued Canon U.S.A., Inc. and Canon Solutions America, Inc., asserting four patents including the '523 patent; Canon counterclaimed for declaratory judgments of invalidity and noninfringement of all four. The case was stayed on December 1, 2022 pending IPRs. After the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2022-01416, the docket reflects termination around late 2024, though the precise disposition was not confirmed.
Slingshot Printing LLC sued HP Inc. in the Western District of Texas, asserting the '341 patent along with nine other patents. The case was transferred from Waco to Austin. HP filed related IPR petitions that terminated after settlement, but the final district-court disposition was not confirmed.
Slingshot Printing LLC sued HP Inc. in the Waco Division asserting multiple patents including the '523 patent. The action was continued in the Austin Division as 1:20-cv-00184-ADA; on April 1, 2021, the court dismissed the case with prejudice pursuant to a stipulated settlement and retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
Patent infringement action filed by Slingshot Printing LLC against HP Inc. in the Waco Division. The case was transferred to the Austin Division on February 19, 2020, and continued as No. 1:20-cv-00184-ADA.
Family-level litigation lead for US 7,819,498; the narrative could not independently confirm that the '498 patent itself was pleaded in this case. Docket activity includes service on HP, extensions of time to answer, pro hac vice admissions for Slingshot's counsel, and a stipulation to transfer venue to the Austin Division.
Slingshot Printing LLC sued HP Inc. in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, asserting multiple Lexmark-origin inkjet patents, including US 7,311,385. HP moved to dismiss and stay, and the case was among Waco cases transferred to the Austin Division and renumbered in the 1:20-cv-0018x series; final disposition was not verified.
Family-level litigation link on US 6,773,088's Google Patents record points to this W.D. Tex. case. The narrative could not confirm that the '088 patent was actually pleaded or asserted in this case; the wider Slingshot v. HP campaign resolved by stipulated dismissal with prejudice under a settlement/license.
Slingshot Printing LLC filed a patent infringement action against HP Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, asserting U.S. Patent No. 6,666,449. The case was resolved by joint stipulation and dismissed with prejudice on March 24, 2021, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the parties' Settlement, Release and License Agreement.
Slingshot Printing LLC, assignee of US 6,137,502, sued HP Inc. in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division (later Austin Division), accusing HP inkjet printers and cartridges; the '502 patent was one of a portfolio, and claim 19 of the '502 patent was asserted in the 1:20-cv-00185-ADA action. The action was resolved by a Settlement, Release and License Agreement and dismissed, with a companion dismissal with prejudice entered on March 24, 2021, without a merits ruling on the '502 patent.
Slingshot Printing LLC sued HP Inc. in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, over the Lexmark inkjet portfolio, including U.S. Patent 7,244,015; the case is listed on the '015 patent's litigation record and was the origin of the later Austin Division case wave. The dispute was resolved by confidential settlement in early 2021.