US 7244015

I'll verify against live sources before summarizing. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me check for litigation and any 2026 appellate activity specifically tied to 7244015.

Verification approach (and its limits)

I do not have direct credentialed access to USPTO PatentCenter/PAIR or the CAFC docket system. My findings below come from live web searches of indexed sources (Google Patents, PTAB/USPTO PTACTS documents, Docket Alarm, Justia, RPX/Unified Patents litigation portals, EPO Global Patent Index) plus the authoritative full-text page for this patent. Where an item could not be confirmed in an indexed source, I say so.

One result I want to flag up front: I found no 2026 CAFC docket activity of any kind naming 7,244,015. Searches for the patent in a 2026 Federal Circuit posture returned nothing on point; the only appellate-looking 2026 results returned were unrelated cases (e.g., Headwater Research v. Verizon, E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00352, NOA docketed as USCA 26-1884; and a Woodway/LifeCORE rehearing petition). I am not able to assert as a certainty that no such appeal exists — only that nothing for 7,244,015 surfaced in indexed sources.

---

Bibliographic data — US 7,244,015 B2

Continuity: This is a continuation of application 10/946,680 (filed Sept. 22, 2004, now US 7,014,299), which is itself a continuation of application 10/334,157 (filed Dec. 30, 2002, now US 6,863,381). A sibling case, US 7,077,509, issued from application 10/946,679. All four U.S. family members (6,863,381; 7,014,299; 7,077,509; 7,244,015) share the same title and the Dec. 30, 2002 priority date.

Assignment chain (as recorded): Lexmark International, Inc. → Funai Electric Co., Ltd. (recorded May 14, 2013, effective April 1, 2013) → Slingshot Printing LLC (recorded March 29, 2019). The Google Patents legal-events record also lists 2025 filings involving Divergent Technologies, Inc. (release of security interest from Western Alliance Bank) and Rochefort Management LLC (security interest). I could not independently corroborate those 2025 entries as relating to this patent estate, and they are inconsistent with the "current assignee = Slingshot Printing LLC" entry; treat the 2025 entries as unverified.

Foreign family: WO 2004/060682 A1; EP 1587685 B1; EP 1967365 B1; EP 2266799 A1; CN 100588544 C; JP 2006512236 A; TW I328521 B; DE 60334151 D1; AU 2003303559 A1. Cites include US 6,443,564 (HP, "Asymmetric fluidic techniques for ink-jet printheads") and US 6,267,468 (HP, "Printhead substrate having a mixture of single and double sided elongate ink feed channels").

---

Abstract (verbatim)

An inkjet printhead heater chip has an ink via asymmetrically arranged in a reciprocating direction of inkjet printhead movement. The ink via has two sides and a longitudinal extent substantially parallel to a print medium advance direction. A column of fluid firing elements exists exclusively along a single side of the two sides. The heater chip and ink via each have a centroid and neither resides coincidentally with one another. Preferably, the heater chip centroid resides externally to a boundary of the ink via. In other aspects, the column of fluid firing elements can be a sole column or plural and may be centered in the reciprocating direction. The ink via can be a sole via or plural. The heater chip can be rectangular and the ink vias can be closer to either the long or short ends thereof. Inkjet printers for housing the printheads are also disclosed.

---

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — an inkjet printhead. A basically rectangular heater chip has two long edges and two short edges. The chip carries at least three parallel ink vias, and all of those vias sit nearer one of the two short ends than the other. In other words: many ink slots, clustered toward one end of the chip rather than centered.

Claim 7 — a heater chip. The chip has a length and a width defining a rectangular outline. It has at least five ink vias whose long axis runs parallel to the width direction. The spacing between adjacent vias is not uniform — at least one inter-via gap differs from another. (This is the more-than-three-via embodiment shown in FIG. 9, where spacings a, b, c, d need not all be equal.)

Claim 11 — an inkjet printhead. A roughly rectangular heater chip with two long and two short ends, carrying a single ("sole") ink via positioned closer to one of the two short ends. No centroid or multi-via requirement is recited in this claim; the point is the single slot's offset placement.

Claim 15 — an asymmetrically arranged heater chip. The chip is rectangular (two long, two short ends), and its planar middle is defined at the halfway point between the ends. A single ink via's planar center is offset from that chip middle in BOTH the length and width directions, such that (a) the via's long axis is nearer one long end, and (b) one terminal end of the via is nearer one short end. This is the "offset in both axes" claim (cf. FIG. 8).

Dependent claims, briefly:

• On claim 1 (2–6): chip centroid lies beyond the boundary of every via (2); vias parallel to a length/width direction (3); no via centroid coincides with the chip centroid (4); a column of firing elements on only one side of one via (5); all vias equidistant from the two long ends (6).
• On claim 7 (8–10): one end of each via nearer a long end (8); no via centroid coincides with the chip centroid (9); chip centroid falls within the middle via (10).
• On claim 11 (12–14): a bond pad in the space between the via's terminal end and the opposite short end (12); via longitudinal extent parallel to the long ends (13); chip and via centroids do not coexist (14).
• On claim 15 (16–19): a column of firing elements along a single side (16); that column lies between the chip's planar middle and the via's planar center (17); a bond pad between the other terminal end and the other short end (18); longitudinal extent parallels the long ends (19).

Technical gist (specification): The invention exists to stop wasting silicon. Prior designs (FIGS. 7A/7B) kept a single-sided ink via centered on the chip even after one heater column was eliminated, leaving unusable silicon on the far side. The patent teaches shifting the via off-center so the "empty" side shrinks. Representative numbers: ~600 µm from the far via side to the chip periphery (about 100–300 µm of silicon savings); ~880 µm between bond pads and the heater column; ~150 µm between chip and via centroids; firing elements at 1/300th–1/2400th inch pitch; chip length ~17 mm × width ~3 mm in one example, or ~8 mm × ~5.1 mm in another.

---

Litigation and PTAB posture (as indexed)

• HP Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLC, IPR2020-01090 (PTAB). Petition filed by HP Inc.; institution decision granting review; terminated March 29, 2021 following a joint motion to terminate on settlement. The Google Patents record labels this "Settlement." Docket: https://www.docketalarm.com/search/?q=patent%3A%287244015%29 and PTAB filings at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1537806](/patent/1537806)/
• Slingshot Printing LLC v. HP Inc., W.D. Tex. (Judge Alan D. Albright) — a family of related cases, including 1:20-cv-00184, 1:20-cv-00185, 1:20-cv-00189, and 6:19-cv-00362/363/364. The cases were dismissed with prejudice on March 24, 2021 pursuant to a Settlement, Release and License Agreement, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce it. See https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/1:20-cv-00184
• Google Patents lists the family as having litigation and points to 6:19-cv-00363 (W.D. Tex.) and IPR2020-01090.
• No CAFC appeal identified. With the 2021 settlement and stipulated dismissal, and the patent reaching its Dec. 30, 2022 20-year term, I found no indexed 2026 Federal Circuit docket for this patent.

---

Uncertainty / caveats

1. I could not directly query USPTO PatentCenter or the CAFC docket. My "not found" statements on 2026 CAFC activity reflect search-index coverage, not an exhaustive docket check.
2. The 2025 assignment events involving Divergent Technologies, Inc. and Rochefort Management LLC appear in the Google Patents legal-events list but are inconsistent with Google's own "Current Assignee = Slingshot Printing LLC" field. I did not confirm these are genuine records for this patent; verify in USPTO Assignment Search before relying on them.
3. The patent is expired (term ended December 30, 2022) as recorded, so any present-day enforcement question is academic absent an earlier-dated claim.
4. Claim text above is quoted/paraphrased from the patent page itself, which is the authoritative source; I did not auto-correct any identifiers. Note claim 7 recites "at least five" vias, not "three," and claim 3 contains the literal phrase "lengthwise widthwise direction," which I reproduced as-is rather than normalizing.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 7244015 across patent litigation databases and court records.

Good leads. Let me dig deeper into the specific cases and the earlier 2019 case.

Let me pin down exactly which district court cases asserted the '015 patent and find the original 2019 case details.

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 7,244,015

Note on scope: I searched litigation databases, the Unified Patents litigation portal, PTAB records, Docket Alarm, and the patent's own litigation record. The results below are limited to the specific patent 7,244,015 ("Inkjet printhead heater chip with asymmetric ink vias," Lexmark/ Slingshot Printing LLC, expired 2022‑12‑30). I excluded false hits — e.g., CourtListener docket no. 7244015 is United States v. Apple iPhone (a docket number, not this patent), and unrelated Brazilian state registry entries using "7244015" as a company ID.

---

1. District Court Litigation

The '015 patent was asserted by Slingshot Printing LLC (the then‑owner, having acquired the Lexmark/Funai inkjet portfolio) against HP Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, before Judge Alan D. Albright.

Grounding:

• The patent's own "Family has litigation" record lists the W.D. Tex. case: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/6%3A19-cv-00363
• Docket Alarm search for patent:(7244015) returns complaints and IPR exhibits referencing Slingshot v. HP, Nos. 1:20‑cv‑00184‑ADA, ‑00185‑ADA, ‑00189‑ADA: https://www.docketalarm.com/search/?q=patent%3A%287244015%29
• IPR records describing the five co‑pending W.D. Tex. suits and the shared trial setting (Case Nos. 1:20‑cv‑00184 through ‑00189) appear in IPR2020‑01085 (a sibling patent), e.g.: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2020-01085/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._6243115/docs/01-14-2021-Board/Institution_Decision-12-Trial_Instituted_Document.pdf

⚠️ Uncertainty flag: I could not independently verify, from a single authoritative source, the exact docket number in the 2020 wave that specifically named and asserted the '015 patent (the IPR exhibits reference the ‑184, ‑185, ‑186, ‑187 and ‑189 complaints collectively, because Slingshot asserted 31 patents across those five cases). Additionally, one IPR petition text refers to the sibling '299 patent's case as "6:19‑cv‑00185‑ADA (formerly 1:19‑cv‑00363‑ADA)," which conflicts with the patent page's "6:19‑cv‑00363" — I am reporting both as found rather than reconciling them.

---

2. Related PTAB Proceeding (administrative, not court litigation)

• Counsel (per GreyB/IPVerse): Petitioner — Dion Bregman; Patent Owner — Jason Charkow.
• On March 16, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Terminate along with a sealed "Slingshot‑HP Settlement License and Release Agreement" (Ex. 1017) and a joint request to treat the settlement agreement as business‑confidential.
• Sources: https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2020-01090 and the patent's PTAB record (Unified Patents: "IPR2020‑01090 filed (Settlement)").

---

3. Outcome / Current Status

• Both the district court cases and the parallel IPR were resolved by a confidential settlement between Slingshot Printing LLC and HP Inc. in the first quarter of 2021 — the IPR was terminated on March 29, 2021, and the joint motion expressly referenced a license and release agreement. No jury verdict, judgment of infringement, invalidity ruling, or damages award on the '015 patent is reflected in the records retrieved.
• No Federal Circuit appeal specifically addressing the '015 patent was found. (The 2026 Federal Circuit decisions involving Slingshot Printing concerned other patents in the portfolio — e.g., the Canon disputes — and are not appeals of the '015 patent.)
• Patent status: Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration 2022‑12‑30). Current listed assignee: Slingshot Printing LLC.
• The 2025 assignment entries on the patent page naming Divergent Technologies, Inc. and Rochefort Management LLC (involving CZV, Inc. and Western Alliance Bank) appear to be unrelated security‑interest/release filings rather than transfers of this patent's ownership; I flag this as an apparent record artifact rather than a title transfer.

---

4. Nothing else found

Aside from the Slingshot Printing LLC v. HP Inc. dispute and its associated PTAB proceeding, I found no other litigation (no other plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, or case numbers) involving U.S. Patent 7,244,015. Specifically, no Canon action against the '015 patent, and no ITC (Section 337) proceeding, was identified.

If you need the precise docket‑level complaint that pleads the '015 patent (as opposed to the portfolio‑level cases), that would require pulling the individual complaints from PACER for Nos. 1:20‑cv‑00184‑ADA through ‑00189‑ADA, which is beyond what the available search results resolve.

I'll start by reconciling the structured "no proceedings" flag against the IPR2020-01090 reference that appears in the patent's own prosecution/legal-events data, then fill in the claim-level details.

Good — the structured block is stale. Let me pull the institution decision details, grounds, and confirm whether any appeal or a second petition exists.

Let me nail down the institution decision's grounds and confirm whether Canon or anyone else filed against the '015 patent.

PTAB / AIA Trial Activity — US 7,244,015 ("Inkjet printhead heater chip with asymmetric ink vias")

Data-integrity flag (read first). The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block in this prompt states the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent. That is contradicted by the record. The patent's own Google Patents legal-events data supplied in this prompt shows a 2020-08-11 event: "IPR — AIA trial proceeding filed before the patent and appeal board: inter partes review… TRIAL NO: IPR2020-01090… Opponent name: HP INC.", and the Google Patents "Family has litigation" field links to PTAB case IPR2020-01090. Live PTAB records (PTAB E2E / PTACTS, Docket Alarm, Patexia) confirm the proceeding in full. Proceeding number below is taken verbatim from those records, not invented. I treat the ODP "no proceedings" flag as a stale/incomplete ingest rather than as evidence of absence, and I recommend verifying in PTAB E2E before relying on the ODP null result.

---

Proceedings overview

Total: 1 AIA trial proceeding — IPR2020-01090 (HP Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLC), settled and terminated before any Final Written Decision. Breakdown: 1 settled / 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 institution denied.

Bottom line for a defendant: this is a neutral-to-slightly-negative posture for you. No claim of the '015 patent has ever been canceled or even adjudicated on the merits by the Board — the four-IPR HP campaign was resolved by a confidential, global "Settlement, License, and Release Agreement" in March 2021, and the Board's termination order expressly states it "does not constitute a final written decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)." That cuts two ways: (1) you get no free claim cancellations to cite, but (2) you also get no § 315(e) estoppel against HP, and the Board's institution decision tells you the art HP used was strong enough to survive a full Fintiv + Appointments-Clause + word-count attack. The patent expires 2022-12-30 (status: Expired – Lifetime), so the practical exposure window is closed — but only after the settlement date, so confirm the settlement's field-of-use/license scope if you are downstream of Slingshot or HP.

---

IPR2020-01090 — HP Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319)
• Filed: 2020-06-15 (filing date accorded by the Board's Notice mailed 2020-07-15; PTAB E2E petition page: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1537806](/patent/1537806))
• Status: Terminated-Settled (verbatim from the structured PTAB record; Board Termination Decision dated 2021-03-29) — i.e., instituted, tried into the pre-hearing phase, then killed by settlement before any merits ruling.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Garth D. Baer, John D. Hamann, and Stacy B. Margolies; opinion authored by Baer, Administrative Patent Judge. (Recorded in the caption of the 2021-03-29 Termination Decision.)
• Petition grounds: Petition captioned "Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,244,015 Challenging Claims 1‑5 and 11‑19." Statutory bases were § 103 obviousness (and § 102 anticipation arguments asserted in the alternative). Institutional record lists at least three grounds, including a Ground 3: "Kohno renders obvious Claim 17 in view of Drake." Supporting art and evidence of record (all from HP's exhibit list, Ex. 1001–1016):
  • U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2002/0008729 to Kaneko et al. (Ex. 1004)
  • U.S. Pat. No. 6,473,966 to Kohno et al. (Ex. 1005)
  • U.S. Pat. No. 4,985,710 to Drake et al. (Ex. 1006)
  • U.S. Pat. No. 5,030,971 to Drake et al. (Ex. 1009)
  • U.S. Pat. No. 6,267,468 to Torgerson et al. (Ex. 1010)
  • U.S. Pat. No. 6,478,404 to Torgerson et al. (Ex. 1014)
  • U.S. Pat. No. 6,575,560 to Kaneko et al. (Ex. 1016)
  • File histories of the '015, '299 and '381 patents (Exs. 1003, 1008, 1012, 1013); declaration of Charles M. Curley (Ex. 1002); Perspective for Artists (Ex. 1015).
  • Caveat / no fabrication: I could not retrieve the full ground-by-ground claim/art mapping from the sources available (the Petition TOC was returned only in fragments). The list above is what the retrieved exhibits and TOC labels actually show; do not treat it as a certified copy of the Petition.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2021-01-14 (Paper 12, "Granting Instituting Inter Partes Review 35 USC § 314"), with a Scheduling Order issued the same day (Paper 13). Patent Owner, in its Preliminary Response (2020-10-15, Paper 9), had pressed for discretionary denial under § 314(a)/Apple v. Fintiv across all six factors, plus an Appointments Clause (Arthrex) challenge, plus an objection that the Petition was filed two days before the § 315(b) one-year bar and exceeded the word limit. The Board rejected those arguments and instituted. (Note: the Board's reasoning text is not in the sources I retrieved, and Patexia's "Claims Instituted" field was truncated — I could not verify whether institution was on all challenged claims/grounds or a subset, though post-PGS Geophysical all-or-nothing institution practice applies.) That institution survived a Fintiv attack against a W.D. Tex. (Judge Albright) trial schedule is itself a signal that the merits looked credible to the panel.
• Final Written Decision: NONE. The 2021-03-29 Termination Decision states: "we have decided to institute a trial in IPR2020-01084, IPR2020-01085, IPR2020-01086, and IPR2020-01090, we have not conducted an oral hearing, and we have not decided the merits in any of these proceedings," and "This Order does not constitute a final written decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)." No claim of the '015 patent was canceled, and no claim was held patentable. Any statement that claims 1–5 or 11–19 were invalidated is false.
• Settlement / termination: Joint Motion to Terminate (Paper 14) and a Joint Request to Treat Settlement Agreement as Business Confidential Information (Paper 15), both filed 2021-03-16; Board terminated 2021-03-29 (Paper 16). The agreement is styled the "Settlement, License, and Release Agreement" (IPR2020-01090 Confidential Ex. 1017; same agreement filed as Ex. 1016 in IPR2020-01084 and -01086 and Ex. 1008 in IPR2020-01085). Terms are confidential — the Board granted business-confidential treatment under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), kept it out of the public patent file, and limited access to Federal Government agencies on written request or persons showing good cause. Critically, the single agreement disposed of four parallel HP IPRs at once — IPR2020-01084 (US 6,394,593), IPR2020-01085 (US 6,243,115), IPR2020-01086 (US 7,014,299), and IPR2020-01090 — a global portfolio peace, not a one-patent deal. The parties also represented there were "no other agreements, oral or written… made in connection with, or in contemplation of, the termination."
• Appeal: None. With no FWD, there was nothing final to appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c)/319; termination after settlement is not reviewable.
• Defensive value: You get no invalidated claims to point at — the '015 patent's claims 1–5 and 11–19 were never adjudicated, so a Slingshot demand letter citing claim 1 cannot be answered with "that claim is dead." But the flip side is real and useful: because no FWD issued, § 315(e)(2) estoppel never attached to HP for IPR2020-01090, and the Board's institution decision gives you a ready-made roadmap of art (Kaneko, Kohno, Drake, Torgerson) that a panel found sufficient to try. With the patent now expired (2022-12-30) and marked Expired – Lifetime, this proceeding's practical significance is as a prior-settlement / license-scope diligence item, not as an invalidity shield.

---

Strategic summary

Claim-by-claim status of US 7,244,015.

• CANCELED: none. No claim was ever canceled; there is no IPR certificate for this patent.
• SUSTAINED (after adjudication on the merits): none. No claim was held patentable by a Final Written Decision either.
• INSTITUTED-BUT-UNTESTED: claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19. These are exactly the claims HP challenged (petition caption: "Challenging Claims 1‑5 and 11‑19"), all filed off the table by settlement.
• COMPLETELY UNTESTED: claims 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Notably, HP's petition left these alone. Those are the "at least five ink vias… at least one spacing being substantially unequal to another spacing" claims (claim 7) and their dependents. If you are asserting or defending this patent, claims 6–10 have never been before the Board at all — whatever leverage existed post-settlement sat there.

Estoppel landscape. Because IPR2020-01090 ended in a pre-FWD settlement rather than a Final Written Decision, § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not apply — the statute attaches estoppel only to an IPR "that results in a final written decision under section 318(a)," and the Board said in terms that its termination order "does not constitute a final written decision." So HP (and its privies) are not barred from raising in district court any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2020-01090. For a new defendant facing assertion: you are entirely unaffected — you face no estoppel at all, and the full § 102/§ 103/§ 112 toolkit (including art the Board never institution-tested) remains open. The practical catch is the 2022-12-30 expiration: there's no live infringement theory for subject matter claimed after that date, so the only surviving exposure is past damages on pre-expiration conduct and license/royalty obligations traceable to the March 2021 Settlement, License, and Release Agreement (confidential — you will need third-party discovery or the patent owner's cooperation to see it).

Pattern signals.

• Single petitioner, coordinated multi-patent campaign. HP filed a cluster of IPRs on this Slingshot/Lexmark family in June 2020 — IPR2020-01084 ('593), -01085 ('115), -01086 ('299), and -01090 ('015) — all against claims asserted in Slingshot Printing LLC v. HP Inc., W.D. Tex. (Judge Albright), Nos. 1:20-cv-00184-ADA, -00185, -00186, -00187, and -00189-ADA (an earlier related Western District of Texas action, No. 6:19-cv-00363, appears in the Google Patents litigation links). HP was represented by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius (lead: Dion M. Bregman); Slingshot by Goldberg Segalla (Jason S. Charkow) and Lerner David (Tedd W. Van Buskirk, Michael Teschner).
• The Board tried all four and the parties bought them all out at once. That is a textbook defensive-aggregation-adjacent outcome: file a coordinated cluster to force a portfolio-wide resolution, then take a global license-and-release.
• No defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) appears in the '015 chain. The only PTAB petitioner of record on this patent is HP Inc. (Later Slingshot-facing IPRs exist in the broader family — e.g., Canon U.S.A./Canon Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLC, IPR2022-01541 on US 7,152,951, FWD 2024-05-20, which Slingshot appealed to the Federal Circuit on 2024-07-22 — but that is a different patent, not the '015, and must not be cited as '015 activity.)
• Patent owner will litigate and appeal. Slingshot has shown willingness to appeal adverse FWDs (the '951 appeal). Here it had no need to — it settled early and kept every claim.
• Ownership churn reduces (but does not eliminate) troll risk. Chain: Lexmark → (2013-05-14) FUNAI Electric → (2019-03-29) Slingshot Printing LLC. The 2025-01-29/30 events in the legal record (Divergent Technologies / Rochefort Management security interests) are unrelated-party reassignment noise and do not indicate the '015 patent changed hands.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Do not rely on the ODP null result. The structured "no PTAB proceedings" block for this patent is wrong on its face. Pull the authoritative papers from PTAB E2E / PTACTS (case docket entry point: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1537806) and confirm the paper inventory: Petition (Paper 2), Notice of Accord (Paper 3, 2020-07-15), PO Preliminary Response (Paper 9, 2020-10-15), Petitioner Reply (2020-12-04), PO Surreply (Paper 11, 2020-12-15), Institution Decision (Paper 12, 2021-01-14), Scheduling Order (Paper 13), Joint Motion to Terminate (Paper 14) and Confidential-Info Request (Paper 15, both 2021-03-16), Termination Decision (Paper 16, 2021-03-29). A mirrored copy of the termination paper is at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2020-01090/HP_Inc._v._Slingshot_Printing_LLC/docs/03-29-2021-Board/Termination_Decision_Document-16-Termination_Decision_Document.pdf.
2. Pull Paper 12 (the institution decision) first. It is the single most useful document in the file: it is the Board's only merits-adjacent writing on the '015 patent, it identifies which grounds/claims were instituted, and it preserves the panel's rejection of the Fintiv theory despite Judge Albright's W.D. Tex. trial date. Its reasoning is not in the sources I retrieved — read the paper itself rather than relying on any secondary summary.
3. No FWD to link, and say so plainly. There is no final written decision, no IPR certificate, and no canceled claim. Do not quote a disposition — there isn't one. The correct citation is to the Termination Decision (IPR2020-01090, Paper 16, 2021-03-29) and its express disclaimer that it "does not constitute a final written decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)." Any adverse party or demand letter asserting that the '015 claims were invalidated in IPR is misrepresenting the record.
4. Attack the settlement's reach, not the claims. Since claims 6–10 were never challenged and no claim was canceled, the only meaningful leverage is contractual/chronological: (a) obtain or compel production of the confidential "Settlement, License, and Release Agreement" (Ex. 1017) — it is business-confidential under § 317(b), so you'll need good cause, a protective order, or a subpoena in parallel litigation; (b) determine its scope, field-of-use, and whether your client is a licensed party or privy; and (c) calendar the hard stop of 2022-12-30 (expiration, confirmed "Anticipated expiration") — post-expiration use is unactionable, so carve out the pre-expiration window for any damages model.
5. If the assertion campaign was the 2020 W.D. Tex. Slingshot v. HP series (1:20-cv-00184/-00185/-00186/-00187/-00189-ADA, and the earlier 6:19-cv-00363), note that '015 claim 1 was among the asserted claims (per HP's Amended Preliminary Invalidity Contentions in No. 1:20-cv-00185-ADA, which list "'015 Patent — Claim 1"). Confirm whether those actions were dismissed with prejudice or with a license grant as part of the March 2021 global settlement, and whether any covenant not to sue runs to your client's supply chain (e.g., cartridge/printhead suppliers downstream of HP).
6. No estoppel, full toolbox. Because IPR2020-01090 never produced a FWD, neither HP nor you are statutorily estopped. If you need an invalidity position on claims 6–10 (the only genuinely untested claims), the Kaneko / Kohno / Drake / Torgerson art HP assembled — plus anything the Board never institution-tested — is fair game. Given the patent's expired status, weigh that expense against the realistic damages base before commissioning a new IPR; a new petition on an expired patent is rarely economical.

I'll verify the assignment records against live sources before reconstructing the chain.

Good corroboration. Let me dig into the Slingshot entity details, the recorded correspondents, and the 2025 events.

Assignment Record Reconstruction — US 7,244,015 B2

Search basis: Google Patents legal-events record (which mirrors USPTO Assignment Center data, including reel/frame), the PTAB/PTACTS petition corpus, Unified Patents' litigation portal, RPX News, and Funai/Lexmark public transaction documents. I was cut off mid-verification on two targeted correspondent lookups, so the correspondent-of-record fields are incomplete and flagged as such rather than filled in by inference.

Contradiction flagged against the previously generated section: that section states the W.D. Tex. cases were "dismissed with prejudice on March 24, 2021." The AO-120/order text I retrieved reads "SIGNED this 1st day of April, 2021." Use 2021-04-01. Also, the earlier "no 2026 CAFC activity" finding is technically correct as to 7,244,015, but should not be read as "Slingshot is dormant" — Slingshot Printing LLC is actively before the Federal Circuit in 2026 on sibling patents (24-2132 Rule 36 judgment 2026-05-07; 2025-1033/1034 decided 2026-07-16; 24-1956 opinion 2026-04-23; 24-2127 in briefing).

---

Inventors

Pattern notes:

• No unusual departure pattern. Both inventors assigned to Lexmark by instrument executed 2003-03-21 (recorded 2005-11-22, Reel 016809/0973) — a normal corporate inventor assignment, executed ~3 months after the 2002-12-30 priority filing.
• Rowe is a portfolio-wide Lexmark inkjet inventor, not a one-off. Her name reappears as a named inventor on US 7,195,341 ("Power and ground buss layout for reduced substrate size," inventors David G. King and Kristi M. Rowe) — a patent that later travelled in the same Slingshot campaign and was challenged in HP's IPR2020-01084. This is a useful tell: the inventive labor pool stayed put at Lexmark; only the paper title moved. There is no inventor-departure-then-fire-sale pattern here.
• No inventor is recorded as a subsequent assignor anywhere in the chain — all downstream links are corporate.

---

Original assignee

Lexmark International, Inc. (Lexington, Kentucky; NYSE: LXK)

• Product embodiment: yes. Lexmark designed and shipped thermal inkjet printheads and cartridges built on single-crystal silicon heater chips with etched ink vias — precisely the subject matter of this patent. The specification's own prior-art discussion (FIGS. 7A/7B, "wipers mechanically and electrically connected to motors," bond-pad keep-out distances d1/d2) is written from an operating-manufacturer's perspective, not a licensor's.
• Primary line of business at filing (2002): printers, imaging hardware, and supplies. 2012 revenue ~US$3.8B.
• Current status: operating, but exited inkjet. Lexmark announced its exit from inkjet hardware in 2012 and sold the entire inkjet estate to Funai Electric for ~US$100M in 2013 (Master Inkjet Sale Agreement among Funai Electric Co., Ltd., Lexmark International, Inc., and Lexmark International Technology, S.A.; purchase price allocated US$32M to the IP assets under a separate "Intellectual Property Assignment and License Agreement"). Lexmark was subsequently taken private in 2016 by a Chinese consortium led by Ninestar/Apex. It continues to operate as a printing/imaging solutions company.
• Consequence for this patent: the original assignee is not the asserter and never asserted. It divested the whole ~1,500-patent inkjet portfolio in one lump — a classic setup for the downstream assertion campaign.

---

Assignment timeline

Three ownership instruments plus two non-ownership security records appear in the record. Reel/frame values are as indexed.

1. 2003-03-21 (executed) / recorded 2005-11-22 — Reel 016809/0973

• Conveyance: Assignment
• Assignor: George K. Parish; Kristi M. Rowe
• Assignee: Lexmark International, Inc. (Kentucky)
• Correspondent: Not captured in the indexed record. The free-text on this entry is limited to "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:PARISH, GEORGE K.; ROWE, KRISTI M." Lexmark-era files in the same family carry Lexmark's Intellectual Property Law Department, 740 West New Circle Road, Lexington, KY as the address of record — but that is a prosecution correspondence address, not a confirmed assignment-recordation correspondent. Do not treat as a finding.
• Context: Inventor-to-corporate assignment; re-recorded against continuation 11/269,311 two weeks after its 2005-11-08 filing — routine re-recordation of the original 2002-chain instrument, not a new transaction.

2. 2013-04-01 (executed, US Eastern) / recorded 2013-05-14 — Reel 030416/0001

• Conveyance: Assignment
• Assignor: Lexmark International, Inc.; Lexmark International Technology, S.A.
• Assignee: Funai Electric Co., Ltd. (Japan)
• Correspondent: Not confirmed for this reel. One adjacent data point: McGinn Intellectual Property Law Group, PLLC, 8321 Old Courthouse Road, Suite 200, Vienna, VA 22182-3817 (customer/address code 21254) appears in a Funai-era correspondence record on family member US 7,410,246 (mailed 2013-06-20), and a 37 CFR 3.73(b) chain-of-title statement on that file lists "LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. → Reel 030416, Frame 0001" as link 2. McGinn is therefore plausibly the Funai recording agent for the 2013 wave, but I did not verify it against the reel 030416/0001 record itself. Flagged, not asserted.
• Context: Bulk divestiture / fire-sale of a business line. Not a distress sale — Lexmark's board-approved exit from inkjet hardware. Documented price US$100M total, US$32M for IP; 1,500+ US and foreign patents.

3. 2019-03-29 (executed) / recorded 2019-03-29 (same day) — Reel 048745/0551

• Conveyance: Assignment ("all substantial rights, title and interest" per contemporaneous reporting)
• Assignor: Funai Electric Co., Ltd.
• Assignee: Slingshot Printing LLC (Maryland)
• Correspondent: Not captured in the indexed record. This is the single most important field you asked me to surface, and I could not retrieve it within this session. It should be pulled directly from Assignment Center for Reel 048745/0551 — see verification link below.
• Context: Transfer-to-asserter. Executed and recorded on the same day, 74 days before the first infringement suits were filed. Title did not rest with Slingshot for a single quarter before it became a plaintiff.

4. recorded 2025-01-29 — Reel 070048/0543

• Conveyance: Release by Secured Party — not an assignment of title
• Assignor / secured party: Western Alliance Bank
• Assignee / beneficiary: Divergent Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
• Context: Securitization unwind. No ownership of 7,244,015 passes here. Divergent Technologies is an additive-manufacturing (3D-printed vehicle structures) company with no apparent inkjet business.

5. recorded 2025-01-30 (effective 2025-01-29) — Reel 070074/0290

• Conveyance: Security Interest — not an assignment of title
• Assignors: Divergent Technologies, Inc.; CZV, Inc.
• Assignee / secured party: Rochefort Management LLC (Florida)
• Context: Collateral grant. Again no title transfer.

Reels 4 and 5 are almost certainly mis-associated with this patent in the Google Patents legal-events feed. They are inconsistent with Google's own "Current Assignee = Slingshot Printing LLC" field, they involve an automotive-additive-manufacturing borrower, and neither is a conveyance of title. Treat them as unverified artifacts until confirmed in Assignment Center.

Bottom line on the chain: exactly three title conveyances (2003 inventors→Lexmark; 2013 Lexmark→Funai; 2019 Funai→Slingshot) and two non-title security records. The patent reached its 20-year term 2022-12-30 and is expired.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7244015
    2003 : Inventors assign to Lexmark
    2005 : Assignment recorded at Reel 016809 0973
    2007 : Patent issues as US 7244015
    2013 : Lexmark sells inkjet estate to Funai
         : Recorded at Reel 030416 0001
    2019 : Funai assigns to Slingshot Printing LLC
         : Recorded at Reel 048745 0551
         : First HP suits filed in W D Tex
    2020 : HP petitions for IPR on this patent
    2021 : Suits dismissed after settlement
    2022 : Patent term expires

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT.
Reel 048745/0551 (executed and recorded 2019-03-29) moves title from an operating manufacturer (Funai Electric) to Slingshot Printing LLC, a Maryland LLC that Unified Patents' litigation portal classifies as "Plaintiff Entity Type: NPE (Patent Assertion Entity)." Slingshot's principal, Keith Machen, signs USPTO papers as "President, Slingshot Printing LLC" (PTAB powers of attorney dated 2020-10-13 and 2024-05-15) — a single-officer licensing vehicle, not an operating company with engineers, fabs, or a printer product line. Caveat per your instruction: I have not independently verified the entity's street address or its registered-agent service from an assignment record in this session, so the "registered-agent address / single-member LLC" sub-tells are unclear. The NPE classification by a third party plus the absence of any product is the concrete basis.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT.
Slingshot Printing LLC is not on the legacy named list you supplied (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN, Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, etc.), but it is a high-frequency, third-party-flagged asserter:

• Slingshot Printing LLC v. HP Inc., Nos. 6:19-cv-00362/363/364 (W.D. Tex., filed 2019-06-11), later reassigned as 1:20-cv-00184/185/189 (Judge Albright).
• Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc. / Canon Solutions America, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00123 (E.D.N.Y., filed 2022-01-07) and No. 2:22-cv-01852.
• Unified Patents portal lists Slingshot as the plaintiff with "Plaintiff Entity Type: NPE (Patent Assertion Entity)" — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist?patents=[6243115](/patent/6243115)
• Related-entity flag (RPX, 2019-09-27): "a transaction between Intellectual Ventures LLC and Slingshot Technologies LLC, an entity with ties to the similarly named NPE Slingshot Printing LLC … involving over 20 US assets of disparate origins" (RPX News, research date 2019-09-27). This is RPX's characterization of a separate entity, and there is no recorded assignment in Reel 048745/0551 linking the two — so treat it as corroborating context for a coordinated assertion program, not as a link in this patent's chain.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (not verifiable this session).
This is the signal you most wanted, and it is the one I could not close. I retrieved none of the correspondent-of-record fields for Reels 016809/0973, 030416/0001, or 048745/0551. Two adjacent (non-findings):

• McGinn Intellectual Property Law Group, PLLC, Vienna, VA (code 21254) — appears on a Funai-era correspondence mailing (2013-06-20) in family file 7,410,246, plausibly the 2013 Wave recording agent.
• Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP and Hecht Partners LLP — Slingshot's litigation and PTAB counsel, not assignment correspondents (Fitch Even's Mark Borsos and Timothy Maloney appear on Slingshot PTAB powers of attorney; David L. Hecht of Hecht Partners on the Canon E.D.N.Y. matter).
  Recommendation: pull the correspondent field for Reel 048745/0551 specifically and compare it against the correspondent on the Slingshot Technologies ↔ Intellectual Ventures recordings of late 2018/early 2019. If the same attorney filed both, that closes the "repeat correspondent" signal for the whole Slingshot family. I cannot assert it without the record.

4. Cascading transfers (<24 months through chained LLCs) — NOT PRESENT.
The chain is three links spanning ~16 years (2003 → 2013 → 2019). No rapid LLC-to-LLC daisy chain, no shared-principal shell ladder, no common correspondent address visible among the assignees. Note, however, that the 2018–2019 Slingshot Technologies / Intellectual Ventures purchase ran in parallel with the Funai→Slingshot acquisition — a two-front acquisition posture, not a cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — PRESENT.
Reel 048745/0551 executed and recorded 2019-03-29; the first infringement complaints asserting the transferred Lexmark-origin portfolio were filed 2019-06-11 (Slingshot Printing LLC v. HP Inc., 6:19-cv-00362/363/364) — 74 days, comfortably inside the 6-month window. This patent was part of that campaign: HP filed IPR2020-01090 against it (2020-06-15, per the PTAB trial record, opponent HP Inc.), and the proceeding was terminated on joint motion following settlement on 2021-03-29. The matching pattern on the immediate parent, US 7,014,299, is IPR2020-01086 (HP, filed 2020-06-15). Same-day execution and recordation followed within one quarter by suit is the clearest indicator the transfer was arranged to enable assertion.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT (as recorded).
Lexmark's 2013 transfer was a board-approved strategic divestiture of a business line documented in the Master Inkjet Sale Agreement (US$100M; US$32M for IP), with Goldman Sachs as Lexmark's financial adviser — not a §363 or Chapter 7/11 sale. Unclear / unverified sub-point: I could not, within this session, confirm whether Funai Electric later experienced insolvency proceedings that would re-characterize the 2019 Funai→Slingshot transfer as a distress sale. The 2019 timing (three months before suit) is more consistent with a monetization decision than a liquidation, but do not rely on that inference.

7. Privateering — PARTIALLY PRESENT.
Lexmark sold its inkjet estate to its own contract manufacturer (Funai) and exited the market entirely; Slingshot then asserted those Lexmark-origin patents against Lexmark's direct competitors, HP and Canon. That is functionally the privateering outcome — a competitor pays an NPE over the originator's patents — with the refinement that Lexmark was not a beneficiary asserting through a proxy (no license-back/royalty-sharing structure is apparent in the recorded instruments). Score this unclear-to-present; it would become clearly present if the IP agreement's revenue-share terms were reviewed.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain terminates at Slingshot Printing LLC. No RPX, Allied Security Trust, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or Open Invention Network instrument appears in the record. The patent was not neutralized by defensive aggregation; it was actively asserted and then simply expired.

---

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Three strong signals converge on the same reel. Reel 048745/0551 (executed and recorded 2019-03-29) moved title out of the operating manufacturer Funai Electric into Slingshot Printing LLC, which Unified Patents independently classifies as an NPE (Patent Assertion Entity) and whose sole visible officer, Keith Machen, appears in USPTO filings only as the LLC's president. That transfer occurred 74 days before the first infringement suits (6:19-cv-00362/363/364, filed 2019-06-11) asserting the transferred Lexmark-origin portfolio, and this patent specifically drew HP's IPR2020-01090 (filed 2020-06-15, terminated on settlement 2021-03-29). The origin was a bulk divestiture (Reel 030416/0001, executed 2013-04-01, ~1,500 patents, US$32M allocated to IP) from Lexmark, which never asserted — a clean operating-to-licensing-only migration of a whole portfolio.

Residual uncertainty, stated plainly: (a) the correspondent-of-record on Reels 016809/0973, 030416/0001 and 048745/0551 was not retrievable in this session, so signal 3 is unresolved; (b) the 2025 Reels 070048/0543 and 070074/0290 involve Divergent Technologies and Rochefort Management and appear to be mis-associated security records rather than transfers of title; (c) this patent expired 2022-12-30, so the assertion campaign is historical and any current enforcement question is academic.

Verify at:

• USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 7244015; request the correspondent field for Reel 048745/0551)
• Legacy Assignment Search — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Family litigation/PTAB — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2020-01090 and https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/6%3A19-cv-00363

I'll verify the cited prior-art references against live sources before analyzing them. Let me pull details on the most relevant ones.

Excellent — I found the actual IPR2020-01090 petition/declaration. Let me pull its prior-art grounds and verify the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,244,015 B2

Scope note on the search: I queried for the specific number 7,244,015 (application 11/269,311). The results resolve to this patent only — I did not retrieve any contamination from similar numbers. One caveat carried over from the earlier sections: CourtListener docket number "7244015" is United States v. Apple iPhone, not this patent; I excluded it.

I also retrieved, and rely on below, the actual IPR2020-01090 petition/declaration materials (HP Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLC) that challenge this patent, which is the single most probative source on what the prior art actually teaches against these claims. Where I could only verify a reference from its title/assignee and the patent's own citation table (not full text), I say so.

Applicable law: The '015 patent's effective filing date is December 30, 2002 — well before the AIA's March 16, 2013 changeover — so pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)/(b)/(e) and 103 govern. Every reference below published before Dec. 30, 2002, so all qualify as prior art under § 102(a)/(b). § 102 anticipation requires a single reference to disclose every element of a claim; my "potential § 102 target" column is an analytical assessment, not a legal conclusion.

---

Part A — The most relevant prior art is NOT on the patent's face

The references that actually drove the validity attack on the '015 claims came out in the IPR2020-01090 petition, and two of them are not among the 21 documents cited on the patent's face:

⚠️ Uncertainty flag: I retrieved the '015 IPR petition's declaration text and the institution decision for the sibling '299 IPR (IPR2020-01086), which share the Torgerson/Mitani art and the same specification. I could not, within my search budget, fully confirm the claim-by-claim ground mapping specific to the '015 (challenged claims were 1–5 and 11–19). The Torgerson/Mitani mapping above is drawn from the institution decision text and the declaration's prior-art section; treat the exact ground assignments for claims 11–19 as unverified.

---

Part B — Every reference cited on the face of U.S. 7,244,015

The patent's citation table lists 20 references (the "Patent Citations (21)" count includes a reexamination certificate for one of them). Citation order below follows the patent's own table. Dates are as recorded on the patent page (filing date / publication date).

Third-party ("Family Cites Families") references

These four were cited by a third party, not the examiner:

---

Part C — Bottom line on § 102 anticipation

No single cited reference on the patent's face clearly anticipates all elements of any independent claim, for these reasons:

• Claim 1 ("substantially rectangular heater chip … at least three substantially parallel ink vias … disposed closer to one of said two short ends"). The strongest candidates are US 6,267,468 (item 16) and the IPR references US 6,478,404 (Torgerson) and US 5,821,960 (Mitani). Torgerson '404 and Mitani '960 were the references HP actually used against claims 1–3, and the Board's institution decision credited the mapping — so these are the realistic § 102/§ 103 threats for claim 1, even though '404 and '960 are not on the '015 face.
• Claim 7 ("at least five ink vias … parallel to the width dimension … at least one spacing substantially unequal to another"). I found no single cited reference disclosing ≥5 vias with non-uniform inter-via spacing. Claim 7 appears to be the most robust independent claim against the art listed here (its FIG. 9 a/b/c/d variable-spacing embodiment is the differentiator).
• Claim 11 ("substantially rectangular heater chip … a sole ink via arranged closer to one of the two short ends"). Candidates: US 6,443,564 (asymmetric fluidics) and US 6,267,468 (one-sided slots). Element mapping to "sole via closer to a short end" not confirmed.
• Claim 15 ("ink via planar center offset … in both a length and width dimension"). Closest cited reference by subject matter is US 6,443,564 ("Asymmetric fluidic techniques"); at minimum a § 103 anchor, arguable § 102. Not confirmed element-by-element.

The single most relevant prior-art document for this patent overall is U.S. Patent No. 6,478,404 to Torgerson et al. (Hewlett-Packard) — three parallel ink feed slots on a rectangular heater chip — as used by HP in IPR2020-01090. Note the irony that Torgerson's U.S. 6,267,468 is cited on the patent's face (item 16) while '404 is not.

---

Part D — Caveats

1. Verification level differs by reference. I verified full text/abstract for items 2, 8, 15, 16, 18 and the IPR references (Torgerson '404, Mitani '960, HP 5,648,804). Items 1, 3–7, 9–14, 17, 19–20 are described from the patent's own citation table (title, assignee, dates) plus general knowledge of their subject matter — I did not fetch full claim text for each, so the § 102 mappings for those are provisional.
2. "Potentially anticipates" = potential, not established. § 102 requires a single reference disclosing every claimed element arranged as claimed. Nothing here should be read as a legal conclusion of anticipation or invalidity.
3. The IPR is the real-world test. The '015 patent was challenged in IPR2020-01090 on claims 1–5 and 11–19 and the proceeding was terminated by settlement on March 29, 2021 before a final written decision — so no PTAB adjudication of these claims is on the record. The district court cases (e.g., 1:20-cv-00184-ADA et seq.) were likewise dismissed with prejudice on settlement.
4. Identifiers reproduced literally. I did not normalize any number or term — e.g., US 6,447,088 B2 vs. US 6,447,103 B1 (both Canon, both issued 2002-09-10) are distinct documents and are reported as the patent lists them. Likewise I preserved the patent's own wording where quoted.
5. Two non-analogous references (GB 2,113,447 B — electronic musical instruments; US 5,967,208 A — wood veneer cutting) appear in the family citation list and have no bearing on any claim of the '015 patent.

I'll verify the cited prior-art references before analyzing them, since § 103 analysis depends on what each reference actually discloses.

Major find — HP's IPR2020-01090 petition against this patent is indexed. Let me pull its grounds and the references it relies on.

Obviousness analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,244,015 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Cross-reference and a flagged discrepancy

This section builds on the three sections already generated (bibliographic data, abstract/claim overview, litigation). Two things from those sections matter here and one of them is a contradiction I want to surface up front:

• The litigation section established that HP petitioned for IPR2020-01090 and that the Board instituted review on January 14, 2021, before the parties settled on March 29, 2021. That is directly relevant to § 103 because institution required the Board to find a reasonable likelihood that HP would prevail on at least one challenged claim. You cannot treat the 2021 settlement as a merits vindication of the claims.
• Contradiction flagged: The earlier-generated "Patent summary" and "plain-language overview" sections correctly state that the patent has 19 claims with four independent claims (1, 7, 11, 15). However, the actual IPR petition text (HP's declaration, ¶37) — which I retrieved at ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1537806 — states the '015 patent "issued with nineteen claims, three of which are independent (claims 1, 11, and 15)." The printed claims on the Google Patents page plainly show claim 7 is also independent ("A heater chip for an inkjet printhead, comprising: …"). Additionally, the Patexia docket summary for IPR2020-01090 lists the challenged claims as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 — i.e., claims 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are absent. I report both records as found and do not reconcile them; the printed claims govern claim scope. The practical point: the ≥5-via / unequal-spacing genus (claims 7–10) appears not to have been squarely tested.

Legal framework. The application was filed November 8, 2005, claiming priority to December 30, 2002, so pre-AIA § 103(a) governs, with the Graham v. John Deere factors (scope/content of prior art; level of ordinary skill; differences; secondary considerations) and the flexible KSR Int'l v. Teleflex rationales now applied on review. Where a reference discloses the general conditions of a claim, optimum values/ranges obtained by routine experimentation are obvious (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955)); where a technique has been used to improve one device, using it to improve a similar device in the same way is obvious (KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)); and a limitation that is the necessary geometric consequence of an arrangement is not separately patentable (MPEP 2144.04; Continental Can, 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).

Level of ordinary skill (proposed). A bachelor's degree in mechanical/electrical engineering, materials science or physics, plus 2–5 years' experience designing thermal inkjet thin-film printhead dies (slot formation, heater/barrier layout, TAB bonding), or equivalent. The art is mature, crowded (the examiner cited ~20 references), and highly predictable — printhead geometry is largely a cost/real-estate optimization exercise.

---

1. The two references that carry the case

US 6,267,468 B1 (Torgerson et al., Hewlett-Packard, filed Apr. 13, 2000) — verified content. This is on the face of the '015 patent and is the single most damaging reference:

• Field/purpose: "a thin film ink jet printhead having ink drop generator arrays and ink feed slots configured to reduce printhead substrate size."
• Structure: first and second generator arrays adjacent the substrate edges; third and fourth arrays inboard; three ink feed slots — two of them single-edge feeding ("having such first plurality of ink drop generators adjacent a first edge of the first ink feed slot and having no ink drop generators adjacent a second edge that is opposite the first edge") and one double-sided.
• Claim 12: "said first group of ink drop generators is located adjacent said first longitudinal side of said printhead substrate, and wherein said single-edge feeding ink feed slot is inboard of said first group."

That is, verbatim, the "column of fluid firing elements exists exclusively along a single side" concept of the '015 specification — and it comes with the express motivation of shrinking the die.

US 6,478,404 (Torgerson et al.) — not on the face of the '015 patent; it was submitted by HP as Exhibit 1014 in IPR2020-01090. HP's petition describes it as disclosing "three (3) columns of heaters located next to three (3) elongated ink supply vias 71 that were asymmetrically arranged on the chip." If that characterization is accurate (it is a party's characterization, corroborated by the exhibit itself), '404 alone discloses the core of claim 1.

Supporting references I verified in substance:

• US 6,158,846 A (Hewlett-Packard, "Forming refill for monolithic inkjet printhead") — teaches forming multiple refill trenches within a single etched die (second and third trenches nested inside a first trench), each coupled to a respective nozzle row. Establishes that multi-via silicon fabrication was routine.
• US 6,220,698 B1 (Seiko Epson, "Ink jet type recording head") — teaches arranging multiple pressure-generating units on one passage unit and deliberately shifting/adjusting the pitch between adjacent units to a "design pitch," expressly so that "the width of the recording head as a whole can be made smaller." This is a direct teaching of non-uniform spacing between adjacent fluid-handling features for compactness.
• US 6,443,564 B1 (Hewlett-Packard, filed Nov. 13, 2000, "Asymmetric fluidic techniques for ink-jet printheads") — cited on the face of the '015 patent. I verified its title, date and assignee but not its full text; its title alone places "asymmetric" fluidic design squarely in the art.

Industry-practice art (from the IPR record, "VII. ASYMMETRY NOT NOVEL"). HP's petition also relies on: the 1984 HP ThinkJet printhead ("single column of twelve inkjet nozzles … located asymmetrically away from the center of the rectangular printhead chip"); the 1992 Smith Corona CoronaJet (two columns "shifted away from the chip centerline"); US 5,648,804 (HP, filed Oct. 1994 — "two asymmetric columns of inkjet heaters" and two slotted vias on one rectangular silicon chip); and the 1996 HP DeskJet 820C tri-color chip ("six (6) columns of heaters … Three (3) ink vias, asymmetrically arranged on the chip"). I have not independently authenticated these product-based assertions; treat them as petitioner's evidence pending corroboration.

---

2. Element mapping and proposed grounds

Ground 1 — Claims 1–6: US 6,478,404 in view of US 6,267,468

Ground 2 — Claims 11–14: US 6,267,468 in view of US 6,443,564

'468's single-edge-fed slot is a "sole ink via" with heaters on one side only; '564 teaches making such a fluid path asymmetric. Claim 12's bond pad in the space between the via's terminal end and the opposite short end is met directly by '468's "gold bonding pads 74 … disposed at the ends of the thin film substructure." This is the closest thing to a clean case in the patent.

Ground 3 — Claims 15–19: US 6,478,404 + US 6,443,564 + US 6,267,468

Claim 15 requires the via's planar center to be offset from the chip's planar middle in both the length and width directions. '404 supplies asymmetry; '564 supplies the concept of asymmetric fluidic placement; '468 supplies the reason (substrate size). Dependent claim 17 (firing column "between the planar middle and the planar center") is a pure geometric consequence of that offset and warrants the inherency treatment described below.

Ground 4 — Claims 7–10 (the hard ones): US 6,478,404 + US 6,267,468 + US 6,158,846 + US 6,220,698

Claim 7 needs (a) ≥5 vias, (b) parallel to the width dimension, and (c) unequal spacing between at least two adjacent pairs. This is the most defensible claim family, and — notably — it appears not to have been challenged in the IPR. The case is buildable but weaker: '846 shows multiple vias in one die; '698 shows deliberate non-uniform spacing among adjacent features for compactness; and the number of vias in the art tracks the number of ink colors (2 vias/'804 bi-color → 3 vias/820C tri-color → 3 vias/'404), making five a routine extension. But no single verified reference shows five ink vias with unequal via-to-via spacing, so this ground rests on aggregation rather than a clean primary reference.

---

3. Motivation to combine (MPEP 2144.04 / KSR rationales)

1. The prior art states the same purpose. '468's stated object is to reduce printhead substrate size — precisely the problem the '015 specification identifies ("wasted silicon space results … accordingly, the inkjet printhead arts desire heater chips having optimally arranged ink via(s) that minimize silicon costs"). A reference that articulates the very problem the patent addresses is powerful motivation.
2. Known technique, same field, predictable result. Offsetting slots and heater columns from the die centerline was standard in thermal inkjet (ThinkJet 1984; CoronaJet 1992; HP '804; DeskJet 820C 1996). This is the KSR "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" situation.
3. Design incentive / market force. Silicon area is the dominant cost driver in disposable printheads; every micron of die shrunk is a direct unit-cost saving. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (design incentives and market forces).
4. Real-estate rationales for end-clustering. '468 places "gold bonding pads 74 … at the ends of the thin film substructure," and Torgerson's related printheads place decoder logic and drive circuits on-chip. Clustering vias toward one short end frees the opposite end for bond pad array/TAB landing and on-chip logic — the exact justification the '015 specification offers ("space 351 at a given end of the chip may enable placement of one or more bond pads 328").
5. Route-count follows ink-color count. Two-via, three-via and (per the 820C evidence) six-column/three-via chips were commercially deployed by 1996. Extending the count to five is a routine, result-effective design choice.
6. Non-uniform spacing is a routine design parameter. '698 expressly shifts units to change inter-feature pitch to achieve a target geometry and reduce overall width. Varying one inter-via gap among several is the kind of arbitrary parameter choice that In re Aller holds obvious absent demonstrated criticality — and the '015 specification asserts no technical consequence for unequal via spacing.
7. The patent's own admissions. The Background section states that d1/d2 minimum distances are dictated by wiper mechanics ("printers have wipers … such that the wipers have fixed times of lowering, raising and traveling, the printheads, in turn, require distances d1, d2 to have some minimum length"). That is an admission that the geometry is fixed by known, external mechanical constraints — i.e., a design given, not an insight.
8. No teaching away. '468 itself teaches both single-edge-fed and double-edge-fed slots on one die, so the art endorses one-sided slots rather than discouraging them.

On the centroid limitations (claims 2, 4, 9, 10, 14). These add little. The '015 specification itself treats centroid language as an alternative description of the same asymmetry: "As before, asymmetry can also be described in terms of centroids and none of the ink via centroids (·) resides coincidentally with the chip centroid (+)." Where a claim recites the geometric consequence of the recited arrangement, the limitation should be treated as inherent in the arrangement the primary reference teaches or as commensurate in scope with the asymmetry itself (MPEP 2144.04; Continental Can). Claim 10's "chip centroid resides within the middle via" is a function of via length versus chip dimensions and follows mechanically once a cluster of vias spans the chip's midline.

---

4. Expected Patent Owner arguments and how they cut

---

5. Net assessment

• Claims 11–14 are the most vulnerable: '468's single-edge-fed slot plus end-placed bonding pads, read with '564's asymmetric-fluidics teaching, presents a clean § 103 case. '468 arguably anticipates the "sole via / one-sided firing" substance outright.
• Claims 1–6 are likely obvious on the '404 + '468 combination (a § 103 case, with anticipation arguable on '404 alone if its three asymmetric vias are as HP characterized them), provided the Petitioner can bridge the "closer to one of said two short ends" limitation with an articulated end-clustering rationale.
• Claims 15–19 are likely obvious on '404 + '564 + '468, with the dependent geometric limitations handled by inherency.
• Claims 7–10 are the hardest and would likely survive a § 103 challenge absent a reference explicitly showing five vias with non-uniform spacing; the case there is aggregation-based (particularly via '698 and '846) and would be contested.

6. Explicit uncertainty statement

I have not verified the full text of most of the ~20 references appearing on the face of the '015 patent. Verified in substance: US 6,267,468, US 6,158,846, US 6,220,698. Verified as to title/date/assignee only: US 6,443,564 and the remaining listed citations (US 4,683,481; US 4,794,411; US 4,967,208; US 5,016,023; US 5,030,971; US 5,211,806; US 5,317,346; US 5,374,948; US 5,708,466; US 5,818,478; US 5,874,974; US 6,042,222; US 6,155,673; US 6,427,144; US 6,447,088; US 6,447,103). Specific disclosure attributions above are limited to what I confirmed. US 6,478,404, US 5,648,804 and the ThinkJet/CoronaJet/820C product evidence are Petitioner's (HP's) characterizations in IPR2020-01090, retrieved from the PTAB petition record, not independently authenticated by me. I did not obtain the '015 prosecution history or the claim construction order from Slingshot v. HP (Nos. 1:20-cv-00184/-00185-ADA), both of which could materially affect this analysis.