US 12240249

I'll search for authoritative records on this patent number and any 2026 CAFC/USPTO activity.

Let me search for 2026 litigation activity and the actual claim text.

Let me verify the ITC investigation and get the exact claim text.

US Patent 12,240,249 B2 — "Board, Liquid Accommodation Container, and Printing System"

Note on date: Your prompt says today is April 26, 2026, but my authoritative system date is 2026-09-30, and the search results below reference ITC events dated as late as 2026-09-29. I've reported events through September 2026 as found.

1. Bibliographic data (as recorded)

Sources: Google Patents page for US12240249B2 (fetched 2026-09-30); PatentLeaderboard inventor listings (confirming the same three inventors on 12240249, 2025-03-04).

Family note: The '249 patent is one of a cluster of sibling continuations/related grants covering the same disclosure, including US 12,240,248 ("the '248 patent") and US 12,246,539 ("the '539 patent"), as well as US 11,535,038; 9,370,934; and 8,764,172 referenced in the same litigation.

2. Abstract

Uncertainty flag: the abstract text was not returned in the authoritative Google Patents text I retrieved, so I will not quote one verbatim. Substantively, the disclosure is directed to a board (and a liquid accommodation container and printing system incorporating it) whose terminals carry contact portions arranged to meet corresponding apparatus-side terminals when mounted, with a particular staggered/asymmetric geometric layout of the contact portions around a first virtual line, and in which the data terminal is usable to detect a short circuit with at least one of the clock, reset, and power-source terminals.

3. Independent claims — plain-language overview

Claim 1 — the "board" claim (well grounded)

Claim 1 (the "first aspect" language of the disclosure/application) recites a board mountable in a printing apparatus that has a printhead, an accommodation section with a liquid introduction portion feeding the printhead, and multiple apparatus-side terminals. The board has a base member, a device on the base member, and five terminals each electrically coupled to the device and each having a contact portion:

• data (data contact portion), clock, reset, power-source, and ground.

Key limitations, in plain language:

1. Short-circuit detectability. The data terminal is configured so that it can be used to detect whether the data terminal is shorted to at least one of the clock, reset, and power-source terminals. (The spec also says the data terminal is used to detect whether the container is properly mounted.)
2. Projection geometry. In plan view, using two orthogonal lines — a first virtual line and a second virtual line — each contact portion position is orthogonally projected onto the second virtual line. All projection positions must be different from one another, and the first virtual line must pass through the midpoint between the two farthest-apart projection positions.
3. Two regions. The first virtual line splits the base member into a first region and a second region. The first region must contain at least the data, clock, reset, and power-source contact portions; the second region must contain at least the ground contact portion — i.e., all four signal/power contacts on one side, ground alone on the other side.
4. Asymmetry. The pattern of contacts in the first region must be asymmetrical to the pattern in the second region with respect to the first virtual line. (The spec adds that none of the contact portions lie on the first virtual line itself.)

The spec elaborates preferred sub-features not necessarily in claim 1: two staggered rows (row R1 = clock, power-source, ground; row R2 = data, reset); projection ordering, from the −X direction, of clock → data → power-source → reset → ground; the ground contact portion closest to the first virtual line; and a minimum spacing of Wa/2 between the ground contact and the nearest first-region contact, where Wa is the distance from ground to the farthest first-region contact.

Claim 7 — the second independent claim (partially grounded)

What I can ground: In ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1452, Epson asserted and prevailed on claims 1 and 7 of the '249 patent (see §4). So claim 7 is a second independent claim of this patent.

What I cannot ground with confidence: I did not retrieve the verbatim issued text of claim 7. Given (a) that the disclosure is described as covering "a board, a liquid accommodation container, a printing system, and a use of the board or the liquid accommodation container," and (b) that claim 1 is the board claim, the most likely subject matter for claim 7 is either the liquid accommodation container (a body accommodating liquid, a liquid supply portion, a device, and the same five-terminal arrangement with the same first-virtual-line/asymmetry limitations) or the printing system (printhead + accommodation section + container with the same terminal-layout limitations). I am flagging this as an inference, not a verified fact — I do not have authoritative claim-7 text.

4. Litigation — ITC (2026) — this is the material 2026 development

The '249 patent has been litigated, and it is the subject of an exclusion order:

• Investigation: Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof II, Inv. No. 337-TA-1452 (USITC).
• Complainants: Epson America, Inc.; Epson Portland, Inc.; Seiko Epson Corporation.
• Instituted: June 17, 2025 (complaint filed May 13, 2025), 90 FR 25644-45.
• Asserted patents: US 8,764,172; 9,370,934; 11,535,038; 12,240,248; 12,240,249.
• Asserted claims: claims 1 and 7 of each patent (including the '249 patent). Between Dec 2025 and Jan 2026 the Commission terminated the investigation as to various other claims, including claims 2, 8, 13–15, and 20–22 of the '249 patent — leaving claims 1 and 7 in the case.
• March 24, 2026: ALJ initial determination (Order No. 16) granting Epson's motion for summary determination of violation, with a Recommended Determination of a GEO, CDOs, and a 100% bond.
• August 13, 2026: Commission final determination — violation found, general exclusion order (GEO) issued prohibiting importation of products infringing claims 1 and 7 of the five patents, and cease and desist orders against Mountain Peak, Inc. and Straightouttaink, LP. Investigation terminated. Published at 91 FR 53424–53425 (Aug. 18, 2026).

Sources: USITC notice PDF (https://www.usitc.gov/system/files?file=secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337_1452_notice08132026sgl.pdf); Federal Register republication (https://regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2026/08/18/2026-16811.html); The Recycler (https://therecycler.com/posts/usitc-issues-epson-ink-cartridge-exclusion-order/); China trade-remedy notices tracking the same docket.

Also listed on Google Patents: a second US ITC case, 337-TA-3828, is listed under this patent's litigation links. I did not independently verify that record, and I flag that 337-TA-3828 is a much older-style investigation number, so this entry may be a database artifact rather than a current case. I am reporting it literally as listed rather than correcting it.

5. CAFC 2026 dockets — no result found

I searched for a Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2026 docket naming US 12,240,249 and found nothing. To be explicit and avoid fabricating: I found no CAFC 2026 appeal docketed for this patent. Two caveats:

• A Commission determination of this type is appealable to the Federal Circuit under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(c) (60-day window after the determination), so an appeal of the 337-TA-1452 determination could still be filed or could exist but not be indexed in the sources I could reach.
• My search coverage of CAFC dockets was limited to web search; I do not have direct PACER/CM-ECF docket access.

6. Uncertainty summary

If you need the verbatim issued claims (including claim 7) and the abstract, the authoritative sources are the USPTO PatentCenter/Patent Public Search record for application 18/908,045 and the printed patent document itself, which I could not open directly within this session.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 12240249. Let me start with the sources you mentioned and the leads already visible in the patent record.

Good initial leads. Let me dig deeper into the ITC cases, the second docket number shown in the record, and any parallel district court actions.

Summary

US Patent 12,240,249 ("the '249 patent") has been asserted in one known litigation: U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1452, Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof II. No district court action or Federal Circuit appeal specifically asserting the '249 patent was located in my searches.

I also confirmed that the second ITC docket number that appears on the Google Patents record for this patent (337-TA-3828) is not a separate case — it is the pre-institution "temporary"/provisional investigation number that was later formalized as 337-TA-1452.

⚠️ One important flag on your date

You state the current date is April 26, 2026. However, the search results I retrieved include ITC documents and press notices through September 29, 2026, and the patent record was fetched 2026-09-30. I have reported the full record as reflected in those sources; if you are working from an April 2026 cut-off, the final determination described below (August 2026) would post-date your file.

Case 1 — ITC Section 337 Investigation

Patents asserted in 337-TA-1452 (five): U.S. 8,764,172 ('172); 9,370,934 ('934); 11,535,038 ('038); 12,240,248 ('248); 12,240,249 ('249).
Source: https://www.usitc.gov/system/files?file=secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337_1452_notice08132026sgl.pdf

Respondents named (per ITC institution notice, https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2025/er0612_67166.htm):

• Dongguan Ocbestjet Digital Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a Ocbestjet (Guangdong, CN)
• Ocbestjet Printer Consumables (HK) Co., Ltd. d/b/a Ocbestjet (Hong Kong)
• Tatrix International China Co., Ltd. (Guangdong, CN)
• Luozhi Trading Co., Ltd. (Guangdong, CN)
• Shenzhen Hongxinyuan E-Commerce Co., Ltd. d/b/a Jianjai, d/b/a Vi-US (CN)
• Shenzhen Kaizhen Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a PayForLess (CN)
• Zhuhai Zhenyang Electronics Co., Ltd. d/b/a Oinkwere (CN)
• Shangrao Shixuan E-Commerce Co., Ltd. d/b/a Inkgo (Jiangxi, CN)
• Zhuhai Hengyunda Electronics Co., Ltd. d/b/a Upriin (CN)
• Zhuhai Rongtaida Electronics Co., Ltd. d/b/a Hookink (CN)
• Zhuhai Shi Wei Tai Electronics Co., Ltd. d/b/a Ondula-A (CN)
• Zhuhai Yixing Electronics Co., Ltd. d/b/a Greenjob USSOP (CN)
• Mei Jin Technology HK Co. d/b/a YBFeir, d/b/a MJing (Hong Kong)
• ZhuHai MeiJiAn Trading Co., Ltd. d/b/a HaloFox (CN)
• Qiong Wang d/b/a 7-magic (CN)
• Shen Zhen Sailing Technology Limited d/b/a Triple-Color (CN)
• Zhuhai Shuofeng E-commerce Co., Ltd. d/b/a super-ink-club (CN)
• Zhuhai Bowang Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a office-print-club (CN)
• Mountain Peak, Inc. d/b/a Billiontree Technology USA, Inc., d/b/a Toner Kingdom (City of Industry, CA, US)
• Straightouttaink, LP d/b/a discountinkllc, d/b/a einkshop2014, d/b/a Inkpro, d/b/a inkprousa (San Jose, CA, US)

The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII) was also a party.

Key procedural milestones specific to the '249 patent

• Sept. 15, 2025 – Order No. 8: Tatrix, Luozhi, Zhenyang, Hengyunda, Rongtaida, Shi Wei Tai, Yixing, Bowang, Mei Jin, Mountain Peak, and Straightouttaink found in default (unreviewed Nov. 17, 2025).
• Dec. 3, 2025 – Order No. 10: Ocbestjet Dongguan, Ocbestjet HK, Kaizhen, ZhuHai MeiJiAn, and Shuofeng found in default (unreviewed Dec. 22, 2025).
• Dec. 11, 2025 – Order No. 11: Shenzhen Hongxinyuan, Shangrao Shixuan, Shen Zhen Sailing, and Qiong Wang terminated on withdrawal of complaint (unreviewed Jan. 8, 2026).
• Dec. 18, 2025 – Order No. 12 (unreviewed Jan. 20, 2026): investigation terminated as to claims 2, 8, 13–15, and 20–22 of the '249 patent (and specified claims of the other four patents). Claims 1 and 7 remained asserted.
• Mar. 24, 2026 – Order No. 16: ALJ granted Epson's motion for summary determination of a violation of Section 337; Recommended Determination proposed a GEO, CDOs against Mountain Peak and Straightouttaink, and a 100% bond.
• May 8, 2026 – Commission ordered partial review limited to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement; no review of the remainder. 91 FR 25921–23 (May 12, 2026).
• Aug. 13, 2026 – Commission affirmed (with supplemental analysis) the domestic-industry economic prong finding; issued GEO + CDOs; 100% bond; investigation terminated.
  Sources: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-08-18/pdf/2026-16816.pdf ; https://internationaltradetoday.com/article/2026/08/17/itc-issues-general-exclusion-order-on-ink-cartridges-2608170011 ; https://therecycler.com/posts/usitc-issues-epson-ink-cartridge-exclusion-order/

On the "337-TA-3828" docket number

The Google Patents record for US 12,240,249 lists two ITC litigation links: 337-TA-1452 and 337-TA-3828. A Chinese government IP-watch source explains that Epson filed two complaints on May 13, 2025 bearing the temporary investigation numbers 337-TA-3827 and 337-TA-3828, which were formalized upon institution as 337-TA-1451 and 337-TA-1452 respectively. It expressly attributes to 337-TA-3828 the same five patents as 337-TA-1452: 8,764,172; 9,370,934; 11,535,038; 12,240,248; 12,240,249.
Source: https://dippc.dg.cn/zscqzx/c100334/[202509](/patent/202509)/357e5fcc7ec240588e24c9f7de8f0fef.shtml

Conclusion: 337-TA-3828 is the same matter as 337-TA-1452, not separate litigation.

Negative findings / cautions

1. Companion investigation 337-TA-1451 does NOT involve the '249 patent. Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof I (Inv. No. 337-TA-1451; provisional No. 337-TA-3827) asserted U.S. 8,540,347; 9,061,508; 11,535,037; 11,820,150; and 12,246,539. It likewise ended in a GEO and CDOs (Commission determination published Sept. 29, 2026, 91 FR 61436). It is a related Epson campaign but a different patent set — do not attribute it to the '249 patent.
   Sources: https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2025/er0612_67164.htm ; https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-09-29/html/2026-19847.htm
2. No district court case (e.g., E.D. Tex., D. Del., C.D. Cal., or N.D. Cal.) asserting U.S. 12,240,249 was found in my searches. The Google Patents litigation field for this patent lists only ITC cases plus a Darts-IP "first worldwide family litigation" family link (family 81325126) — the latter is a paywalled aggregator rather than a case.
3. No CAFC appeal of 337-TA-1452 was located. The GEO/CDO became final 60 days after issuance absent Presidential disapproval (19 U.S.C. § 1337(j)); any appeal of the Commission's final determination would run from that final determination.
4. Limitations: I did not have PACER, Docket Navigator, Lex Machina, or Darts-IP access in this session, and my search for a district court action was cut short. The absence of a district court finding should be treated as "not located," not as definitive proof that none exists. The Unified Patents litigation portal and PACER should be checked directly for any co-pending district court or appeal involving U.S. 12,240,249.

Patent identification (for the record)

• US 12,240,249 B2 — "Board, liquid accommodation container, and printing system"
• Inventors: Shuichi Nakano, Yasuhiko Kosugi, Jun Sato
• Assignee: Seiko Epson Corporation
• Application No. 18/908,045; filed 2024-10-07; granted 2025-03-04; pub. US2025/0033367A1
• Priority: 2021-12-28, from JP2021-214139 (JP7176610B2) and JP2021-214129 (JP7176609B2)
• Anticipated expiration (per Google Patents): 2042-04-11
• Asserted claims in 337-TA-1452: claims 1 and 7

I'll start by checking the structured PTAB data and then probing the web for any proceedings the ODP may not have indexed.

Let me probe the ITC/litigation links flagged on the patent and check for near-family IPRs.

Key finding emerging: this patent appears in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1452. Let me verify the patent identity and hunt for any PTAB filings.

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings on file for US 12,240,249. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my independent web searches (patent number, petitioner-side, and ITC-driven angles) surfaced nothing at the PTAB — no petition, no institution decision, no Final Written Decision, no appeal. The bottom line for a defendant is therefore not "the patent has been narrowed and is safe to attack" and not "the patent is hardened by surviving IPRs" — it is that the '249 patent's validity has never been adjudicated by the PTAB or by any court on a contested record. The only adjudication of record is a Section 337 investigation in which claims 1 and 7 were found infringed — but that determination came on summary determination after most respondents defaulted, so no invalidity defense was ever tested. Treat the patent as untested, not as either fortified or wounded.

Because the structured PTAB block is the canonical source and it is empty, the sections below cover (a) the absence of PTAB activity and (b) the one live adjudicative proceeding a defendant actually needs to know about — ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1452 — flagged clearly as not a PTAB proceeding.

PTAB proceedings

None. No IPR, PGR, or CBM petition has been filed against US 12,240,249 as of 2026-09-30.

• Structured source (USPTO ODP): no AIA trial proceedings indexed.
• Web-search corroboration: no petition, institution decision, FWD, or CAFC appeal found under the patent number, the family (US 12,240,248 / US 11,535,038), or the ITC respondents' names.
• Consequences: there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel against anyone, no claim has been canceled or confirmed by the Board, and no IPR-based invalidity theory is foreclosed. Any estoppel argument you face will have to come from elsewhere (e.g., IPRs on sibling family members, if any exist — none surfaced here).

Note one factual wrinkle worth verifying in E2E: the Google Patents litigation block lists an ITC docket as "337-TA-3828," while the Commission's own Federal Register notices index the two 2025 Epson cartridge investigations as 337-TA-1451 and 337-TA-1452. The "3827/3828" numbers appear in secondary reporting as the complaint-stage docket codes. Do not cite "337-TA-3828" as an instituted investigation number.

Non-PTAB proceeding of record (flagged — not an AIA trial)

ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1452 — Certain Ink Cartridges and Components Thereof II (Epson v. 20 respondents)

• Type: Section 337 investigation, U.S. International Trade Commission — not an IPR/PGR/CBM. This patent has never been before the PTAB.
• Filed: 2025-05-13 (complaint by Epson Portland, Inc.; Epson America, Inc.; Seiko Epson Corp.); instituted 2025-06-12; notice published 2025-06-17 at 90 FR 25644–45.
• Status: Terminated — violation found; general exclusion order (GEO) and cease-and-desist orders issued. Commission final determination 2026-08-13; published 2026-08-18 at 91 FR 53424.
• Patent in suit: US 12,240,249 ("the '249 patent") — this patent — together with US 8,764,172, US 9,370,934, US 11,535,038, and US 12,240,248 (the '249 patent's sibling from the same 2021-12-28 JP priority family).
• Statutory basis / grounds: Section 337(a)(1)(B) infringement. No invalidity holding — validity was not litigated to judgment (see below).
• Institution decision: instituted 2025-06-12 as to the asserted claims; no claim-level institution analysis comparable to a PTAB institution decision exists, because the Commission does not "institute on grounds."
• Claim-level disposition (verbatim from the Commission's notice): the GEO prohibits importation of products infringing "claims 1 and 7 of each of" the five asserted patents, including the '249 patent. Separately, on 2026-01-20 the Commission terminated the investigation as to — among others — "claims 2, 8, 13-15, and 20-22 of the '249 patent" (Order No. 12 of 2025-12-18, unreviewed). On 2026-01-08 it terminated four respondents (Shenzhen Hongxinyuan, Shangrao Shixuan, Shen Zhen Sailing, Qiong Wang).
• Key procedural event: On 2026-03-24, the ALJ issued the initial determination (Order No. 16) granting Epson's motion for summary determination of a violation, plus a recommended determination on GEO/CDO and a 100% bond. A large bloc of respondents had already been found in default (Commission notice of 2025-11-17 declining review of ALJ Order No. 6 on default).
• Settlement / termination: several respondents were terminated or defaulted; no public settlement terms for the '249 patent specifically. Many of the 20 respondents are Chinese e-commerce entities that did not appear.
• Appeal: none reported as to the '249 patent. (The related 2012-era Epson cartridge ITC litigation was appealed as Ninestar Technology Co. v. ITC, but that is a different patent family and is not an appeal of this patent.)
• Defensive value: the '249 patent carries a finding of infringement on claims 1 and 7 and a GEO — a serious remedy exposure — but that finding rests on a default-driven summary determination, not an adversarial merits trial. Its validity is completely untested. A defendant should not read the ITC win as evidence the claims are strong on the merits.

Strategic summary

Claim status. No claim of US 12,240,249 has been canceled by any tribunal. Claims 1 and 7 are CONFIRMED-LIVE in the sense that they were the asserted claims and were found infringed in 337-TA-1452 — the Commission expressly issued the GEO as to "claims 1 and 7 of ... the '249 patent." Claims 2, 8, 13-15, and 20-22 were UNTESTED but withdrawn from the ITC investigation by Epson (terminated 2026-01-20); withdrawal is not invalidation, so those claims remain intact and available to Epson in a future case. Every other claim is likewise untested. Because the patent issued 2025-03-04 and the ITC record does not reflect any claim being held invalid, do not assume any narrowing through adjudication — there is none. (The terminated-claim list up to claim 22 implies the patent has at least 22 claims.)

Estoppel landscape. With zero PTAB proceedings, there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel and no Board-based estoppel bar on any ground. Every prior-art ground is still on the table for a defendant: § 102/§ 103 over art that Epson cited in prosecution (including the JP-family art the ITC respondents never raised), § 112 written-description/enablement theories as to the contact-portion projection limitations (see the "middle MP," first/second virtual line, and row/staggered-arrangement limitations), and any on-sale/public-use theory. The practical warning is the § 315(b) one-year clock: if your entity was served with the ITC complaint in this investigation (service on respondents occurred in connection with the 2025-06-12 institution), the Board generally treats service of a Section 337 complaint alleging infringement as triggering the one-year bar. If you were not served in that investigation, you have a clean runway — but confirm your specific service date and entity before relying on it, as this is a fact-specific and evolving question.

Pattern signals. There is no repeat petitioner on this patent (there are no petitioners). No defensive aggregator — neither Unified Patents nor RPX appears to have filed a challenge on the '249 patent; Unified's only footprint here is litigation-database indexing of the Epson ITC complaint. Epson is not an aggressive PTAB appellant on this family because its PTAB footprint is nil; instead Epson is the aggressor, running a coordinated two-front ITC campaign: 337-TA-1451 (Certain Ink Cartridges I — US 8,540,347, 9,061,508, 11,535,037, 11,820,150, 12,246,539; GEO reported issued 2026-09-29) and 337-TA-1452 (this patent family; GEO 2026-08-13). Taken together, Epson has secured general exclusion orders covering ten US patents against aftermarket ink cartridges. That is a strategic posture a defendant must price into any defense.

Recommended next steps

1. There is no PTAB FWD to quote or rely on. Nothing has been canceled or confirmed by the Board, so no "the troll's claim 1 is dead" argument exists for this patent. Do not cite one.
2. Attack the ITC finding's foundation, not its existence. The 2026-08-13 GEO as to claims 1 and 7 rests on an ALJ summary determination (Order No. 16, 2026-03-24) after defaults. If you are being asserted in district court or in a follow-on ITC action, the default-laden record gives you a strong argument that the prior adjudication has little or no preclusive weight against you and that validity remains wide open. Request and review the full Order No. 16 and the ID/RD on EDIS: https://edis.usitc.gov (Institution notice: https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2025/er0612_67166.htm; Final determination: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/08/18/2026-16811/certain-ink-cartridges-and-components-thereof-ii-notice-of-a-commission-determination-finding-a; Commission notice PDF: https://www.usitc.gov/system/files?file=secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337_1452_notice08132026sgl.pdf).
3. File an IPR — the window is open if you were not served. Because the patent is completely untested at the PTAB and no estoppel attaches, an IPR on claims 1 and 7 (and the withdrawn-but-live claims 2, 8, 13-15, 20-22) is the highest-leverage move. Statutory timing: institution decision within 6 months of a complete petition; FWD within 12 months of institution (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)); no extensions absent good cause. Confirm your § 315(b) service date first.
4. Watch the sibling patents. US 12,240,248 and US 11,535,038 share the '249 family's disclosure and were asserted in the same ITC action. A validity determination on one may be persuasive across the family, and the withdrawn '249 claims remain a re-assertion risk.
5. Run a fresh E2E / PTAB docket check before filing anything. My searches covered the patent number, the family, and the ITC respondents; a petition could have been filed in the last few weeks and not yet indexed. Absence of PTAB activity is itself a signal here: a patent Epson is actively asserting in a $multi-million ITC campaign has, so far, attracted no IPR — which usually means (a) the defendants are offshore e-commerce sellers who default rather than litigate, and (b) the first sophisticated defendant to show up has a genuine first-mover opportunity.

Confidence and caveats. I am highly confident in the "no PTAB proceedings" conclusion (two independent sources agree) and in the ITC facts, which come from Commission and Federal Register documents. I am not confident about the total claim count of the '249 patent beyond the ≥22 implied by the terminated-claim list, and I have not verified whether a § 315(b) bar attaches to any particular entity — verify both against the patent's printed claims and your own service records before acting.

I'll research the assignment record for US 12,240,249 across the USPTO Assignment Center and cross-referenced sources.

Good leads. Let me pull the specific assignment record for this patent and its application.

Let me query the USPTO assignment API and cross-reference sources directly.

Assignment Record Reconstruction — US 12,240,249 B2

Access note (important): I could not open the USPTO Assignment Center / Assignment Search result page for this patent within this session's tooling, and no search result returned a reel/frame number tied to application 18/908,045 or to patent 12,240,249. That is a retrieval limitation, not a finding of "no record." What follows separates (a) what is grounded in retrieved sources from (b) what is explicitly unverified. I have not invented reel/frame numbers.

Inventors

Sources: HT Syndication / US Fed News issue notice (Alexandria, Mar. 5, 2025) listing the three inventors and residences; PatentLeaderboard inventor pages (https://www.patentleaderboard.com/seiko-epson/shuichi-nakano/15257 and https://www.patentleaderboard.com/seiko-epson/yasuhiko-kosugi/25146).

Pattern notes:

• All three residences (Shiojiri and Matsumoto, Nagano Prefecture) are in Epson's headquarters/manufacturing corridor — consistent with salaried Epson R&D employees, not outside assignors.
• No departure pattern. Both Nakano and Kosugi show large, continuing Seiko Epson portfolios (50 and 63 patents), including grants dated after the '249 patent issued. There is no evidence that any inventor left Epson within 12 months of filing — the classic pre-fire-sale signal is absent. This is a career-inventor roster, not a distressed one.
• Naming caveat: a "Shuichi Nakano" also appears as an assignor on a different Epson matter (US app. 17/516,754, "Print Head," patent 11,820,134, assignment reel 57989/639). That is a different application; do not treat it as an assignment link for the '249 chain. It is noted only because a same-named inventor recurs across Epson print-head/cartridge filings.

Original assignee

Seiko Epson Corporation (Tokyo, Japan) — named as assignee on the face of the issued patent.

• Source: HT Syndication / US Fed News, Mar. 5, 2025: "United States Patent no. 12,240,249, issued on March 4, was assigned to SEIKO EPSON Corp. (Tokyo)." Cross-confirmed by Google Patents, which lists Seiko Epson Corp as both Original Assignee and Current Assignee.
• Primary line of business: Operating manufacturer — inkjet printers and consumables (printheads, ink cartridges), plus wearables, projectors, and precision devices. Publicly listed (TSE: 6724).
• Product embodying the claims: Yes. The claimed "board" is the contact-terminal PCB on an Epson ink cartridge; the claimed system is the Epson printer + cartridge pair. Epson's own cartridge line practices the disclosure, and the spec's contact portion cp / apparatus-side terminal architecture maps to Epson's genuine cartridge interface.
• Current status: Operating. No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition events located. Epson is the active complainant in the ITC campaign described in the previously generated litigation section (Epson Portland, Inc.; Epson America, Inc.; Seiko Epson Corp. as complainants in Inv. No. 337-TA-1452).

Assignment timeline

Plainly stated: I could not verify any recorded assignment (reel/frame) for US 12,240,249 or application 18/908,045 from the Assignment Center in this session. No retrieved source surfaced a reel/frame, a conveyance type, or a correspondent of record for this patent.

What the retrieved record does show:

• Google Patents legal events for US12240249B2 list only: priority claimed from JP2021214139A / JP2021214129A (2021-12-28); application filed by Seiko Epson Corp (2024-10-07); publication of US20250033367A1 (2025-01-30); grant (2025-03-04). No "AS" (assignment) event appears. No post-issuance transfer is indexed.
• Current Assignee = Original Assignee = Seiko Epson Corporation — i.e., the title never moved to a third party.
• The application is a continuation (app. 18/908,045, filed 2024-10-07, claiming priority through the 2021-12-28 JP filings; the corresponding PCT filing date is 2022-04-14, evidenced by the Brazilian family member BR 11 2023 021310-0, which carries (22) 14/04/2022 and (30) 28/12/2021 JP 2021-214129; JP 2021-214139). Epson's standard employee-inventor assignment language covers "continuations-in-part, continuations, divisions…" — so any assignment recorded for the parent would reach this continuation by its own terms. I did not verify that parent assignment record.

Consequence for this analysis: there is no assignment chain to reconstruct — no second link, no re-assignment, no security interest, no release, no change of name. That absence is the substantive finding: the original operating-company assignee still owns the patent outright.

Correspondent of record: not determinable from retrieved sources. I decline to name a correspondent. For context only (not a finding on this chain): Epson's recorded US assignments historically show a small set of recurring prosecution/recording firms — Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (e.g., legacy reels 017431/0184 and 016714/0757) and Global IP Counselors, LLP (reel 57989/639). Both are high-volume operating-company firms; a recurrence there would not by itself be an NPE signal.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12240249
    2021 : JP priority applications filed by Seiko Epson
    2022 : PCT application filed
    2024 : US continuation 18/908/045 filed
    2025 : Patent 12240249 granted to Seiko Epson
         : Epson files ITC complaint against importers
         : USITC institutes investigation
    2026 : Commission finds violation
         : General exclusion order issued

Diagram reflects the family filing chain and the assertion events discussed below. It intentionally omits a "recorded assignment" node because none could be verified.

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Additional anti-NPE observation (not a listed signal, offered as context): the '249 sits in a thick continuation family ('248, '539, and others sharing the 2021-12-28 priority). Selective claim termination before the Commission (claims 2, 8, 13–15, 20–22 of the '249 dropped; claims 1 and 7 maintained) is a usual operating-company litigation-management move, not an aggregation pattern.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Seiko Epson Corporation is both the original assignee named on the face of US 12,240,249 and the listed current assignee, with no recorded post-issuance assignment or transfer indexed in the retrieved record and no second link of any kind in the chain (Google Patents legal events for application 18/908,045 show filing, publication, and grant only — no "AS" event). Epson is an operating manufacturer whose own ink cartridges and printers embody the claimed board/terminal architecture, and it asserted claims 1 and 7 of this patent in its own name and through its own operating subsidiaries in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1452 against competing cartridge importers — the textbook operating-company-versus-competitor posture, with none of signals 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 present. The one gap is evidentiary, not substantive: I could not verify the reel/frame or correspondent of record, so the "repeat correspondent" signal is unclear rather than absent.

Verification link: USPTO Assignment Center — search patent number 12240249 (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) or the legacy interface (https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Anyone running diligence on this patent should pull the reel/frame directly from those sources, since I could not open them in this session.

Confidence: High that the patent remains with Seiko Epson and that no NPE chain exists. Low-to-moderate on the specific reel/frame and correspondent of record, which I could not retrieve and have deliberately not fabricated.

I'll research the prior-art citations for US 12,240,249. Let me search the USPTO record and Google Patents citation data.

Let me retrieve the citation list from patent databases.

Let me try to access the patent's citation table directly.

Direct answer to the search request — and a hard limitation I must flag first

I searched for the citation record of US 12,240,249 B2 (application 18/908,045) across Google Patents, Justia, FreePatentsOnline, PatentGuru, and general web sources. I was not able to retrieve the front-page "References Cited" / "Patent Citations" table for this specific patent within this session. That table is the exact thing you asked me to analyze "each patent citation" from, so I want to be explicit rather than dress up inference as a verified list:

I do not have a verified, itemized list of the references cited on US 12,240,249 B2. Any claim-by-claim §102 mapping I produced from what I did retrieve would be fabricated. I will not do that.

What I can give you is (a) exactly where that list lives and how to pull it in one step, (b) the closest prior art I could independently identify from the record's own related-document and family data, and (c) the §102 framework that actually governs here — which, importantly, knocks out several of the "obvious" candidates.

1. Where the real citation list is (authoritative, one-step)

Analytical point you should carry forward: references listed on a U.S. patent front page are a mixed bag — examiner-cited (PTO-892, meaning the examiner considered them) and applicant-cited (IDS, self-disclosure). Appearing on the list does not mean the reference was applied against any claim, and Epson's IDS practice is to cite its own large cartridge-board family broadly. So "most relevant prior art" and "cited on the face of the '249" are two different sets, and the second is frequently over-inclusive.

2. Prior art identified from the record itself (flagged by confidence)

These come from the family/related-document data and the art field, not from a verified front-page citation list. I label each accordingly.

A. Same-family Seiko Epson documents — likely present on the front page, and likely disqualified as §102 art

§102 consequence (this is the key point): none of these are good anticipation art against the '249.

• JP 7176609/7176610 — the priority applications themselves. Filed 2021-12-28, i.e. not publicly available before the critical date (so no §102(a)(1)), and foreign applications are not §102(a)(2) art (only U.S. patents, U.S. application publications, and WIPO/PCT publications qualify).
• US 11,535,037 / 11,535,038 — U.S. patents with the same effective filing date (2021-12-28). §102(a)(2) requires "effectively filed before" the critical date; a same-day filing does not qualify. They also published after the critical date, so no §102(a)(1). Independent of that, the §102(b)(2)(A)/(C) exceptions (subject matter obtained from the inventor; common ownership/obligation of assignment) would remove them.
• Companion '248 / '539 — same analysis; same inventors (Nakano, Kosugi, Sato) and same assignee, and their AIA §102(a)(2) dates are not earlier.

So if these appear on the '249's front page (very likely, as IDS material), they are not the "most relevant prior art" in a validity sense. They are the family, not the art.

B. Earlier Epson cartridge-board art — the genuinely relevant candidates (medium confidence as to being cited; higher confidence as to being the right field)

These appeared as closely associated documents to US 12,240,249 in the records I retrieved:

These are the references I would actually pull first if I were doing the invalidity work. The '249's asserted independent claims (1 and 7) turn on (i) a five-terminal set with no dedicated coupling-detection terminal, and (ii) a specific asymmetric/staggered contact-projection geometry across a midline with ground alone on one side. That is a narrow, incremental improvement over Epson's own prior board layouts — which is exactly why the closest art is Epson's own pre-2021 board patents, not third-party art.

C. Applicant-admitted background art in the '249 specification itself

The Google Patents "Definitions" extract for the '249 recites, as acknowledged background:

• "the terminal group includes five memory terminals and four mounting detection terminals including a terminal to which a high voltage higher than a power source voltage is applied" and those mounting-detection terminals "are arranged at the four corners of the terminal group so as to surround the memory terminals"; and
• "a storage device … outputs a response signal for notifying that the storage device is coupled to a host device … via any of a reset terminal, a clock terminal, and a data terminal," with the host "determin[ing] whether or not the storage device is coupled … without using a terminal dedicated for coupling detection."

This second admission is materially damaging framing for claim 1's first limitation — the concept of detecting coupling through the data/clock/reset terminals rather than a dedicated detection terminal is expressly acknowledged as known. Whether that rises to anticipation depends on the reference, but the applicant has conceded the general technique. This admission is a §102/§103 anchor that is on the face of the patent, independent of the citation list.

3. The §102 framework that actually applies (so the citation list can be used correctly)

• Critical date: 2021-12-28 (earliest claimed priority; two JP applications). Post-AIA §102 applies.
• §102(a)(1) — patents, printed publications, public use/on-sale, or otherwise available to the public before 2021-12-28.
• §102(a)(2) — U.S. patents, U.S. application publications, and WIPO publications effectively filed before 2021-12-28. (Foreign national applications do not count.)
• §102(b)(1)/(b)(2) exceptions — most importantly (b)(2)(A) (subject matter obtained from the inventor) and (b)(2)(C) (common ownership), which neutralize the same-family Epson documents in §2.A.

Claims at issue: per the prior sections, the independent claims are 1 (board) and 7 (independent; subject matter previously flagged as inferred). Claims 2, 8, 13–15, and 20–22 were terminated from ITC 337‑TA‑1452 in Dec 2025/Jan 2026, so a validity analysis targeted at the litigation would focus on claims 1 and 7 — but note that a front-page citation analysis covers the whole patent, not just asserted claims.

Anticipation standard: §102 requires a single reference disclosing every limitation arranged as in the claim. Given that claim 1 recites the projection-position identity requirement, the midpoint-of-two-farthest-projections requirement, the region split, and the asymmetry requirement, plus the short-circuit-detectability functional limitation, a clean single-reference anticipation is unlikely. The realistic attack is §103 over an Epson board patent (terminal geometry) in view of a coupling-detection reference — but that is a conclusion that must be run against the actual claim text and the actual reference list, neither of which I have verbatim.

4. Contradictions / corrections against the earlier sections

1. Date conflict (restated, unresolved): the current task states the date is April 26, 2026; my authoritative system date is 2026-09-30, and the record I fetched references ITC events through 2026-09-29. The earlier sections flagged this too. Any "current" legal-status statement here is bounded by that.
2. Claim 7: the earlier section rated claim 7's identity as independent as high confidence (ITC asserted "claims 1 and 7") but its subject matter as low confidence / inferred. Nothing I found in this round changes that — I still do not have verbatim claim 7 text, and I am not going to assume it is the liquid-accommodation-container claim or the printing-system claim.
3. Abstract: earlier section declined to quote the abstract because it wasn't in the fetched authoritative text. I did now find an abstract in a syndicated USPTO-derived item (HT Syndication, 2025-03-05) reading: "In a board that includes a plurality of contact portions that are arranged to contact corresponding apparatus-side terminals when the board is mounted in a printing apparatus, some contact portions are disposed in a first region, and the remaining contact portions are disposed in a second region. The some contact portions include a first contact portion, a second c…" — secondhand and truncated mid-sentence. I am reporting it as a lead, not as the verified abstract; the authoritative text should still be confirmed against the printed patent.

5. What I recommend as the next single action

Pull the PTO-892 and SB/08 for application 18/908,045 from USPTO Patent Public Search or PatentCenter. That separates examiner-cited art (the legally meaningful set) from Epson's bulk IDS. Then run the §102/§103 analysis above against claims 1 and 7 verbatim and the references disclosed in §2.B, prioritizing US 2007/0149044 A1 and US 7,967,415 B2. If you can supply those documents, or paste the front-page "References Cited" listing, I can produce the reference-by-reference citation, date, description, and claim-mapping table you asked for — with each entry grounded rather than inferred.

I'll research the prior art cited on this patent's face, since the supplied full text was truncated before any "References Cited" section.

Let me dig into the family's cited prior art, including the EPO search-report citations for the equivalent EP filing.

Let me try to surface the actual cited-reference lists (front page / ISR) and any post-grant challenges.

Scope note before the analysis (please read first)

1. The "Prior Art section" you asked me to use is not in the supplied text. The full patent text you pasted is truncated mid-sentence in the description (it ends at "…as a response target to the re"), and it contains no "References Cited," "Patent Citations," "Information Disclosure Statement," or front-page citation list. The Google Patents capture you provided also omits the front-page bibliography block that would normally carry the 892 references. I therefore cannot report a verified list of the references of record on the '249 patent, and I will not invent one. What follows is built from (a) the applicant-admitted prior art expressly named in the specification's Background, which is in your text (via the family member's parallel text), and (b) contemporaneous same-field documents whose disclosures I could verify from search-report and full-text records. Every reference below is labelled with its source and its verification status.

2. Date flag (carried forward, not resolved). Your task states "Current Date: April 26, 2026." My system date is 2026-09-30, and the record already includes the 2026-08-18 Commission determination (91 FR 53424) and the 2026-09-29 companion-investigation notice. Nothing in this analysis depends on the April-vs-September 2026 distinction except the litigation-status discussion in §8.

3. Threshold caveat that materially limits any §103 opinion here. No IPR/PGR appears to have been filed against the '249 patent, and in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1452 twelve-plus respondents defaulted and the remainder either defaulted or were terminated on withdrawal; the case ended on summary determination (Order No. 16, 2026-03-24) and a general exclusion order. That means no adjudicated obviousness record exists for claims 1 and 7 — there is no PTAB institution decision, no claim-construction order on the geometric limitations, and no comparator prior-art finding. My analysis is therefore predictive, not evidentiary.

1. Deconstructing claim 1 into §103-readable limitations

From the claim/aspect language in your text, claim 1 breaks into four independent technical requirements:

Critical drafting observation for the obviousness question: L4(a)–(c) is drafted in projection/arithmetic terms rather than in structural terms (no "row," no "staggered," no "offset"). The spec's own prose immediately translates it into the ordinary design vocabulary: "a so-called staggered arrangement…," "two rows," "the ground contact portion is located on the other outermost side." That translation matters enormously under §103, because it means the claim covers what the art already called a staggered contact-portion layout — and the Federal Circuit treats pure spatial rearrangement of known parts, absent an unexpected result, as obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–17, 421 (2007); In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960) (mere rearrangement of parts); MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).

2. The grounded prior-art references

2.1 Applicant-admitted prior art named in the specification (highest confidence — it is in the patent's own text)

The specification itself frames the gap it purports to fill: "WO 2012/029311 and JP-A-2011-170740 do not mention short-circuit detection between the memory terminals." That sentence is a gift to a §103 challenger, because it concedes (i) both references are in the same field and combinable with the invention, and (ii) the only asserted gap is short-circuit detection — which is addressed in a large body of independent art (§2.2).

2.2 Short-circuit / mounting-detection prior art in the identical field

Explicitly NOT prior art (flagged to avoid an error): DE 20 2022 002 803 U1 (the German utility-model counterpart claiming priority to JP 2021-214129 and JP 2021-214139) is a family member of the '249 patent itself, not prior art. Its text is nevertheless useful because it corroborates the claimed response-signal protocol (first and second response signals on the data terminal while clock pulses are received). I use it only as corroboration of claim scope. Similarly, AR 125693 B1 (Argentine counterpart, priority JP 2021-214129/214139, inventors Nakano/Kosugi/Sato, published 2026-05-06) is a family member, not art — but its claim 1 is a "liquid container" claim reciting the same first-through-fifth-terminal projection/asymmetry limitations, which indirectly corroborates the earlier section's inference that a container-type independent claim exists in this family.

Unverified lead, flagged as such: the earlier Epson grants asserted alongside the '249 in 337-TA-1452 — US 8,764,172 (2014) and US 9,370,934 (2016) — pre-date the 2021-12-28 priority date and are therefore potentially §102/§103 art in the same field, but I did not verify their disclosures in this session and do not rely on them below.

3. Combination A — the primary obviousness theory

WO 2012/029311 + JP-A-2011-170740 + {EP 2 295 251 A1 or US 8,814,332 B2 or US 2009/0085939 A1}

Motivation to combine (the four strongest grounds):

1. Same field, same problem, same components. All four references are ink-jet cartridge electrical-interface documents. Where "the subject matter… is in the same field of endeavor… and the references are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem," KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, and combination is presumed proper. The specification's own Background confirms both admitted references are in the field and combinable with the invention.
2. The deletion of terminals is explicitly taught by one reference. JP-A-2011-170740 teaches coupling detection through the data (or clock or reset) terminal "without using a terminal dedicated for coupling detection." A POSITA reading WO '311 (which achieves mounting detection with four dedicated mounting-detection terminals at the four corners) and JP '740 together would have a concrete, articulated reason to remove the four dedicated detection terminals and rely on the data terminal — reducing a nine-terminal group to five. Reducing terminal count reduces board area, contact-spring count, cost, and the number of possible misalignments, all recognized printer-design objectives (cf. EP 2 727 733, which is wholly about alignment/contact reliability and abrasion during insertion).
3. The claimed layout is the residual geometry after that deletion. Once the four corner detection terminals are gone, the five remaining memory terminals occupy the interior positions of the prior layout, whose end positions are occupied by the terminal at the row end — and the ground terminal is the natural end occupant (as in US 8,690,280, where ground 270 sits among the storage terminals while detection terminals occupy the outer positions). The claimed "ground alone across the first virtual line" is thus a mechanical consequence of subtracting known terminals from a known footprint, i.e., a mere rearrangement of parts.
4. Short-circuit detection is a known, predictable add-on with a known placement rationale. Every one of EP 2 295 251, US 8,814,332 and US 2009/0085939 teaches short-circuit detection by placing a detection terminal/short-detection terminal relative to the signal terminals to detect contamination- or liquid-induced shorts. A POSITA who had just eliminated the dedicated detection terminals would have every reason to repurpose the data terminal for short detection — exactly as US 2009/0085939 already shows a short-detection scheme reported through the memory-interface lines, and as EP 2 295 251 shows short detection allocated to a designated terminal within the terminal group. Combining known techniques to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("[t]he criterion… is not merely whether each of the elements… is old, but whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious").

4. Combination B — an independent, alternative theory

US 8,690,280 B2 + US 8,814,332 B2 + JP-A-2011-170740

• US 8,690,280 supplies the entire board architecture of L1/L2/L4: a cartridge board with a five-terminal storage-device group (reset, clock, power, ground, data), staggered upper/lower rows, contact-portion adjacencies, end-of-row placement, and storage terminals interposed between paired detection terminals.
• US 8,814,332 supplies L3 outright: a short-circuit detector + short-circuit-detection terminals, with the container-side storage terminals surrounded by the detection terminals, and a detection voltage above VDD (mirroring WO '311's "high voltage higher than the power source voltage").
• JP-A-2011-170740 supplies the reason to collapse the nine-terminal layouts of both Epson references to the recited five terminals, by moving coupling detection onto the data/clock/reset terminal.

Why this combination is arguably stronger than Combination A: US 8,690,280 and US 8,814,332 are both granted U.S. patents in the identical art, so their status as §102(b) art as of a 2021 priority date is unambiguous and their disclosures are fully enabling. The only element requiring combination (rather than direct reading) is the substitution of short detection for overvoltage/mounting detection, and that substitution is taught as a predictable, known technique.

5. Motivation analysis — the doctrinal frame

Any validity challenge would be decided on these five points, so they are where the invention's fate would turn:

6. Where the claim-1 case is weakest — the genuinely non-obvious candidates

I would be doing you a disservice to present this as a clean invalidity case. Four real problems:

1. The projection formalism has no antecedent in the art. No grounded reference (and, so far as I can find, no search report) expresses contact layout as (i) orthogonal projection onto a second virtual line, (ii) all projection positions distinct, and (iii) the first virtual line bisecting the two extreme projection positions. Requirements (ii) and (iii) are jointly stronger than "staggered": bisecting the extremes forces a specific centered geometry that a designer need not have chosen. An examiner must still articulate why a POSITA would have centered the group on the midpoint of the extreme projections rather than on a supply-port axis or a board edge. The spec itself supplies the answer and therefore the vulnerability: it states that, in plan view, "the central axis of the liquid supply port overlaps the first virtual line C 1" while "the contact portion cp is not arranged to overlap the central axis of the liquid supply port." That is a design choice justified by symmetry of the board about the supply port — a rationale an examiner can adopt for §103 purposes.
2. The claim links geometry to a detection function. L3 + L4 together arguably define a functional relationship: the layout exists so that the data terminal can exhibit a detectable, distinguishable response depending on whether it is shorted to clock, reset, or power-source. If the three short scenarios produce different, identifiable signatures because of the claimed spacing/ordering, the non-obviousness argument writes itself (and is precisely an "unexpected result"/"new function" argument: MPEP § 716.02). This is the strongest non-obviousness position and I cannot resolve it on the record available. The specification's detailed timing charts (FIGS. 11A–20C; first and second response signals) are directed to mounting detection, not to distinguishing which terminal is shorted — which cuts against there being a spacing-dependent short-signature, and thus favors obviousness.
3. Projection-based claiming creates indefiniteness/enablement exposure rather than invalidity. It is worth flagging that the arithmetic framing in L4(a)–(c) may raise §112(b) concern (what is the boundary of "asymmetrical" in projection terms?). But this is a different invalidity theory than §103 and should not be conflated with it.
4. The "ground alone in the second region" limitation is the least supported by the art I verified. In the art I could verify, the terminal isolated at a row end tends to be a detection terminal (WO '311: mounting-detection terminals at four corners; US 8,690,280: mounting-detection terminals 250/290 at the outermost positions; US 8,814,332: storage terminals surrounded by attachment/short-detection terminals). The art therefore teaches isolating detection terminals — not the ground terminal. To reach claim 1, a challenger must supply a reason to relocate the isolation role onto ground once the detection terminals are deleted. That reason exists (JP '740's terminal-count reduction + the anti-short rationale that ground adjacent to signals is the short-path the invention is trying to detect), but it is an inferential step, not a directly taught one. Expect claim 1 to survive or fall on that single step.

7. Claim 7 and the dependent claims

• Claim 7: your prior-generated section correctly notes claim 7 was asserted (and prevailed upon) in 337-TA-1452 but that its verbatim text was not retrieved. The AR 125693 B1 family publication I located strengthens the earlier inference: that counterpart's independent claim 1 is a liquid-container claim reciting "un cuerpo de recepción de líquido… una porción de suministro de líquido… un dispositivo; y una pluralidad de terminales" with the identical first-through-fifth-terminal projection and asymmetry limitations, and the publication states "Siguen 26 Reivindicaciones." That is consistent with the container/system independent claims of this family being co-extensive in scope with claim 1 on the geometry and short-detection limitations. Consequence: the §103 analysis above applies almost verbatim to claim 7 — a container or printing-system claim that adds only the liquid body/supply portion/printing head and accommodation section, all of which are in WO '311, JP '740 and US 8,690,280. If anything, claim 7 is more vulnerable than claim 1, because the added elements (liquid body, supply port, printhead, accommodation section) are purely conventional, and a system claim that merely aggregates known hardware with a known board offers fewer non-obviousness footholds.
• Claims 2, 8, 13–15, and 20–22 of the '249 were withdrawn from the ITC investigation (Order No. 12 (Dec. 18, 2025), unreviewed Jan. 20, 2026; 91 FR 53424). I infer these are dependent claims reciting the spec's preferred features (two-row/staggered layout; projection ordering clock→data→power-source→reset→ground; ground closest to the first virtual line; Wa/2 minimum spacing from ground to the nearest first-region contact; distance relationships Dan/Dbn/Den/Ddn/Den). These are the claims most exposed to §103, because:
  • Ordering a set of terminals along a row in a chosen sequence is the canonical arbitrary/design-choice case;
  • "Ground nearest the first virtual line" and "data projected between power-source and clock" are the natural stagger produced by two rows, and are expressly disclosed as staggered arrangements in US 8,690,280 and EP 2 295 251 ("form one or multiple rows… at an end of one row");
  • The Wa/2 spacing recites a numerical range. Ranges are obvious where the art discloses the range or the optimum is a result-effective variable discoverable by routine experimentation. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955). A challenger would argue Wa/2 is merely "far enough apart that a short between ground and the signal terminals is detectable," a design tradeoff with no criticality evidenced in the spec.
  • Epson's withdrawal of exactly these claims from the ITC is at least consistent with a decision not to subject its narrowest/broadest-drift claims to adjudication — but it is not evidence of invalidity, and I want to be explicit that I am drawing an inference, not a finding.

8. Secondary considerations (objective indicia) — and why they are weak here

9. Bottom line

1. A competent §103 challenge to claim 1 exists, and it is a real one — but it is not a slam dunk. The strongest theory is WO 2012/029311 (nine-terminal corner-detection layout, five memory terminals) + JP-A-2011-170740 (coupling detection via the data/clock/reset terminal, expressly without a dedicated coupling-detection terminal) + a short-detection reference (EP 2 295 251 A1, US 8,814,332, or US 2009/0085939). The patent's own Background supplies the field, the combinability, and the conceded gap ("neither mentions short-circuit detection between the memory terminals").
2. The claim element that most resists the challenge is the requirement that the ground terminal, and only the ground terminal, occupies the second region of the base member, coupled with the bisect-the-extremes projection rule. All the verified art isolates detection terminals at row/group extremities, not ground. A challenger must take the inferential step of reassigning the isolation role to ground upon deleting the dedicated detection terminals.
3. Claim 7 and the system/container independent claims are, on the available (indirect) evidence, more vulnerable than claim 1, because their added elements (liquid body, supply port, printhead, accommodation section) are entirely conventional.
4. The dependent claims (2, 8, 13–15, 20–22 per the ITC record) are the most exposed on a ranges/ordering/arbitrary-selection theory — In re Aller, In re Boesch — but I have not seen their issued text and this is a scope-based inference, not a claim-by-claim reading.

10. What you must obtain to make this a real opinion (my limits, stated plainly)

On the fact that no one has yet tried: the absence of any IPR, and the fact that every respondent in 337-TA-1452 defaulted or withdrew, means the '249 patent's claims have never been tested against any prior-art combination. The 2021-12-28 priority date means § 102(a)(2) art (post-2021-12-28 filings) is largely unavailable, narrowing the challenger's universe; conversely, the § 315(b)/§ 315(a) one-year and civil-action bars for the ITC respondents are now largely spent, so a new post-grant challenger (not a privy of a respondent) is the likely future venue for any §103 test, in district court rather than the PTAB.

Confidence: High on the content of WO 2012/029311 and JP-A-2011-170740 as applicant-admitted prior art (quoted from the specification's Background); high on EP 2 295 251 A1, US 8,814,332, US 8,690,280, US 2009/0085939 and EP 2 727 733 disclosures (primary full-text sources); moderate on the claim-1 limitation chart as a proxy for issued claim text; low/inferential on claim 7's subject matter and on the content of claims 2, 8, 13–15 and 20–22; negative only (not proof of absence) on the existence of any PTAB proceeding; and not established at all is the '249 patent's actual front-page prior-art list.