US 7195341

I'll verify the patent details and search for any CAFC 2026 docket activity for US Patent 7,195,341.

Let me search for the specific CAFC litigation and IPR dockets associated with this patent to determine their status.

I have verified the patent details against the authoritative full-text page provided and corroborating sources, including the CAFC's April 23, 2026 decision in the appeal of IPR2022-01414. Here is the summary.

US Patent 7,195,341 B2 — Concise Summary

Note on sources: I could not directly query the USPTO Patent Center/assignment database in this environment; bibliographic data below is confirmed against the Google Patents record for US7195341, USPTO-linked filings, and the CAFC/PTAB records for IPR2022-01414 and Appeal No. 24-1956. The CAFC record expressly confirms the patent number and claims at issue, so there is no risk of confusion with a similar number.

Bibliographic data

• Title: Power and ground buss layout for reduced substrate size
• Patent / Application: US 7,195,341 B2 (Application No. 10/956,939)
• Filing date: September 30, 2004
• Issue date: March 27, 2007
• Inventors: David G. King; Kristi M. Rowe
• Original assignee (at grant): Lexmark International Inc. (Lexington, KY)
• Current assignee per assignment chain: Slingshot Printing LLC (Lexmark → Funai Electric Co., Ltd., 2013 → Slingshot Printing LLC, 2019)
• Legal status: Expired – Lifetime (adjusted expiration noted as 2025-06-18); a division, US 7,344,227 B2, exists (filed 2007-02-20, issued 2008-03-18)
• Litigation context: Claims 1–5 and 8 were challenged in IPR2022-01414 (Canon U.S.A., Inc. et al. v. Slingshot Printing LLC). PTAB Final Written Decision (Apr. 9, 2024): claims unpatentable as obvious over Torgerson (US 6,412,917) and Bruce (US 7,240,997). The Federal Circuit affirmed in a nonprecedential opinion on April 23, 2026 (Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-1956).

Abstract

A semiconductor substrate for a micro-fluid ejection device. The substrate includes plurality of micro-fluid ejection actuators disposed adjacent a fluid supply slot in the semiconductor substrate. A plurality of power transistors, occupying a power transistor active area of the substrate, are disposed adjacent the ejection actuators and are connected through a first metal conductor layer to the ejection actuators. An array of logic circuits, occupying a logic circuit area of the substrate, is disposed adjacent the plurality of power transistors and is connected through a polysilicon conductor layer to the power transistors. A power conductor and a ground conductor for the ejection actuators is routed in a second metal conductor layer. The power conductor overlaps at least a portion of the power transistor active area of the substrate and the ground conductor overlaps at least a portion of the logic circuit area of the substrate.

Independent claims overview

The patent has 8 claims total. Claim 1 is the sole free-standing independent claim; claims 2–7 depend from claim 1, and claim 8 is a further apparatus claim ("A micro-fluid ejection head comprising the substrate of claim 1"). The method embodiment described in the specification was pursued in the division (US 7,344,227), not in this patent.

Claim 1 (independent — apparatus): A semiconductor substrate for a micro-fluid ejection device comprising:

1. A columnar array of micro-fluid ejection actuators adjacent a fluid supply slot;
2. A columnar array of power transistors adjacent the actuators, connected to the actuators through a first metal conductor layer, and occupying a "power transistor active area";
3. A columnar array of logic circuits adjacent the power transistors, connected to the power transistors through a polysilicon conductor layer, and occupying a "logic circuit area";
4. A power conductor for the actuators routed in a second metal conductor layer, overlapping at least part of the power transistor active area; and
5. A ground conductor for the actuators routed in the second metal conductor layer, overlapping at least part of the logic circuit area.

In plain language: the invention shrinks printhead chip width by stacking the power and ground bus conductors (in a second metal layer) over circuit regions that previously were not available for bus routing — the power bus over the power-transistor area and the ground bus over the logic area — while keeping interconnections to just two metal layers plus polysilicon, so bus size (and resistance) is not sacrificed to achieve a smaller substrate.

Dependent claims (plain-language):

• Claim 2: The ejection actuators are heater resistors.
• Claim 3: The substrate contains at least three fluid supply slots with associated actuators, power transistors, logic, and conductors.
• Claim 4: The power transistors are field effect transistors (FETs).
• Claim 5: The logic circuits are primitive address logic, predrive circuits, data registers, or combinations thereof.
• Claim 6: A columnar array of temperature sense resistors (TSRs) sits between the power-transistor column and the actuator column.
• Claim 7: The TSRs comprise a non-metal TSR material (enabling the power bus in the second metal layer to run over them).
• Claim 8: A micro-fluid ejection head incorporating the substrate of claim 1.

Uncertainty caveats

• I did not pull the live USPTO PAIR/Patent Center record directly; the assignment chain (Slingshot Printing LLC as current owner) is from Google Patents' assignment-event log and litigation records, which I consider reliable but not a primary USPTO extract.
• The CAFC opinion (Apr. 23, 2026) and PTAB FWD confirm that only claims 1–5 and 8 were at issue in the IPR; claim validity as to claims 6–7 was not part of that proceeding.
• The exact expiration basis ("Expired – Lifetime," with an adjusted expiration date of 2025-06-18) is per the Google Patents status field; I did not independently verify the terminal-disclaimer/term-adjustment math against USPTO records.

I'll search for litigation involving US Patent 7,195,341 across the relevant dockets.

I have good data on the IPR and CAFC appeal. Now let me search the specific district court dockets listed for this patent.

I have identified the key dockets. Let me now verify the final dispositions of the district court cases and check for any other litigations involving this patent.

Based on my searches, here is the litigation picture for US Patent 7,195,341 B2 ("Power and ground buss layout for reduced substrate size"). Note: the task states a current date of April 26, 2026, but some fetched results are dated later (July 2026); where that occurs I flag it. All patent numbers below are interpreted literally as given.

Litigation involving US Patent 7,195,341

1. Slingshot Printing LLC v. HP Inc. — No. 6:19-cv-00549 (W.D. Tex.)

• Plaintiff: Slingshot Printing LLC
• Defendant: HP Inc.
• Jurisdiction / court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division (later transferred to Austin); Judge Alan D. Albright
• Case number: 6:19-cv-00549
• Filing date: September 20, 2019
• Patents asserted: The '341 patent was one of ten asserted (also 6,213,587; 6,575,563; 6,676,246; 6,786,575; 7,018,012; 7,290,864; 7,410,246; 7,484,823; and 7,559,629), per the complaint (Docket No. 1).
• Status/outcome: Case was transferred from the Waco docket to Austin ("Case transferred to Austin. No further filings allowed in Waco case"). HP filed related IPR petitions (e.g., IPR2020-01659, which terminated March 2021 after a joint motion following settlement). The final disposition of the district case was not confirmed in my search results; UniCourt listed it as "Pending" as of late 2019, and I could not verify the terminal order. Outcome: not fully confirmed — likely resolved by settlement/transfer-related disposition, but I could not verify a final judgment.

2. Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., Canon Solutions America, Inc., et al. — No. 2:22-cv-00123 (E.D.N.Y.) ("Slingshot I")

• Plaintiff: Slingshot Printing LLC
• Defendants: Canon U.S.A., Inc.; Canon Solutions America, Inc. (and related Canon entities, with Canon Inc. identified as corporate parent)
• Jurisdiction / court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip); judges assigned over time included Joan M. Azrack, then Hector Gonzalez, then Nusrat J. Choudhury, with Magistrate Judge Lee G. Dunst (PacerMonitor current listing: Judge Choudhury / Magistrate Dunst)
• Case number: 2:22-cv-00123
• Filing date: January 7, 2022
• Patents asserted: 7,152,951; 7,195,341; 7,559,629; and 7,938,523 (per Canon's Answer, which admits the '341 patent is among the "Patents in Suit")
• Status/outcome: Stayed December 1, 2022, pending resolution of IPR2022-01414 (and related IPRs) covering all asserted claims. PacerMonitor lists the case as terminated in 2024 (termination date displayed as "?? 31, 2024" — month masked in the retrieved record, consistent with entry of final disposition after the PTAB's April 9, 2024 Final Written Decision). The precise termination order (dismissal with/without prejudice or settlement) was not confirmed in my searches. Outcome: terminated 2024; specific final order not independently verified.

3. Canon U.S.A., Inc. and Canon Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLC — IPR2022-01414 (PTAB)

• Petitioner: Canon U.S.A., Inc. and Canon Inc.
• Patent owner / respondent: Slingshot Printing LLC
• Tribunal: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (application no. 10/956,939; patent 7,195,341)
• Proceeding number: IPR2022-01414
• Filing date: August 23, 2022
• Claims challenged: 1–5 and 8
• Status/outcome: Institution granted April 13, 2023. Final Written Decision (April 9, 2024): claims 1–5 and 8 held unpatentable as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,412,917 (Torgerson) and U.S. Patent No. 7,240,997 (Bruce). Patent owner (Slingshot) appealed to the Federal Circuit.

4. Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc. (and Canon Inc.) — No. 24-1956 (Fed. Cir.)

• Appellant: Slingshot Printing LLC
• Appellees: Canon U.S.A., Inc. (and Canon Inc.)
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Case number: 24-1956
• Filed: June 11, 2024 (Notice of Appeal from IPR2022-01414)
• Status/outcome: Affirmed April 23, 2026 (nonprecedential per Justia's opinion dated 04/23/2026). The Federal Circuit rejected Slingshot's three arguments (Torgerson's disclosure of the polysilicon conductor-layer connection, motivation to combine Torgerson and Bruce, and alleged APA insufficiency of the Board's analysis) and affirmed the PTAB's obviousness ruling. Net effect: claims 1–5 and 8 of the '341 patent stand invalid as obvious. (The Recycler independently confirms the CAFC affirmed the invalidation.) Note: a later IPWatchdog article dated July 16, 2026 — after the stated current date — describes a separate CAFC affirmance involving other Slingshot patents (7,290,864; 7,484,823; 7,594,708) in appeals 25-1032/25-1033; those do not involve the '341 patent and are listed only to avoid confusion.

Summary table

Caveats

• I could not pull live PACER dockets directly; district-court termination orders for 6:19-cv-00549 and 2:22-cv-00123 were not confirmed in detail (PacerMonitor's termination date for the E.D.N.Y. case was partially masked in the retrieved snippet). If you need the precise final orders (e.g., dismissal with prejudice vs. settlement), they should be pulled from PACER.
• The IPR and CAFC outcomes are well documented and corroborated by PTAB records (ipverse.greyb.com), the Justia CAFC opinion for 24-1956, and press coverage.
• My searches did not surface any other district-court litigations naming the '341 patent beyond the HP and Canon matters above (e.g., no separate suits against Brother, Epson, etc. appeared), and Google Patents' litigation index for this patent lists the same four matters (W.D. Tex. 6:19-cv-00549; E.D.N.Y. 2:22-cv-00123; IPR2022-01414; Fed. Cir. 24-1956).

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on US 7,195,341: IPR2022-01414 (Canon U.S.A., Inc. & Canon Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLC). It is not settled and not denied — it was instituted on all challenged claims, resolved in a Final Written Decision holding claims 1–5 and 8 unpatentable, and that decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on 2026-04-23. The bottom line for a defendant: every claim of the patent that was tested is dead — and because the only untested claims (6–7) depend from canceled claim 1, the patent has no surviving enforceable claim of any practical value.

Flag on the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block: The USPTO ODP-derived block states "no AIA trial proceedings … as of the most recent ingest." That is an ingest lag, not reality. Multiple independent public sources (USPTO PTACTS docket documents, the PTAB docket aggregators, the CAFC opinion, and the Federal Circuit's own opinion list) unambiguously confirm IPR2022-01414, filed 2022-08-23. Treat the structured block as stale.

IPR2022-01414 — Canon U.S.A., Inc. & Canon Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (pre-AIA § 103)
• Filed: 2022-08-23
• Status: "Final Written Decision – Appealed" (docket aggregator status) — i.e., trial phase terminated by FWD on 2024-04-09; patent owner appealed; CAFC affirmed 2026-04-23. No settlement occurred.
• Judge panel: The Final Written Decision was authored by APJ Mitchell G. Weatherly (per Patexia's docket summary). Aggregator listings also associate APJs Jo-Anne M. Kokoski, Josiah C. Cocks, Frances L. Ippolito, Christopher L. Ogden, and John D. Hamann with the docket — some of those judges sat on the parallel Canon IPRs against other Slingshot patents, so the exact three-judge panel for this FWD should be confirmed from the FWD signature block in PTAB E2E. (I could not verify the signature page directly.)
• Petition grounds (claims 1–5 and 8):
  • Ground 1: Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Torgerson (US 6,412,917, "Energy Balanced Printhead Design") + Bruce (US 7,240,997).
  • Ground 2: Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Furukawa (JP 1996-108536 A) + Torgerson.
  • Supporting evidence included the Declaration of Stephen F. Pond, Ph.D. (Ex. 1007); patent owner responded with Steven J. Dietl as its expert (Ex. 2003).
• Institution decision: Granted 2023-04-13 — the Board instituted review of all challenged claims (the CAFC expressly notes "[t]he Board instituted review of all of the challenged claims"). The Board rejected in the institution decision patent owner's early arguments that Torgerson lacks a polysilicon connection between logic circuits and power transistors.
• Final Written Decision (2024-04-09): Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 — all challenged claims — held unpatentable as obvious over Torgerson + Bruce (Ground 1). The Board found Torgerson teaches logic circuits connected to power transistors through a polysilicon layer (crediting Canon's expert that "as a practical matter … it's necessary that Torgerson's polysilicon gate fingers … extend to its logic circuits"). On the ground-conductor limitation, the Board agreed Torgerson alone does not teach "placing a ground conductor in the second metal layer in [an] overlapping relationship with at least a portion of the logic circuit area," but found a skilled artisan would have been motivated to implement Bruce's second-metal-layer ground bus in Torgerson — both references being "from the same field of endeavor as the '341 patent," with Bruce's approach "one of a finite number of known, predictable solutions" driven by design need/market pressure to reduce substrate size. The Board then reviewed Canon's arguments and evidence on the remaining limitations of claim 1 and dependent claims 2–5 and 8 and found obviousness shown by a preponderance. (Whether the FWD separately reached Ground 2 — Furukawa + Torgerson — after deciding Ground 1 is not confirmed from the sources I could access; the Ground 2 combination was fully briefed and argued at the 2024-01 hearing, but the CAFC's affirmance rests on Ground 1 only.)
• Settlement / termination: No settlement. The trial phase terminated with the FWD on 2024-04-09. Patent owner did not concede; it appealed.
• Appeal: Yes — Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-1956 (Fed. Cir.), Patent Owner's Notice of Appeal filed 2024-06-11. Slingshot raised three issues: (1) Torgerson does not disclose logic circuits connected to power transistors through a polysilicon conductor layer; (2) the Board erred on motivation to combine Torgerson + Bruce; and (3) the Board's analysis of remaining limitations was insufficient under the APA. In a nonprecedential opinion dated 2026-04-23, the Federal Circuit affirmed, holding the Board's polysilicon finding supported by substantial evidence (rejecting Slingshot's "inherency not pleaded" and "rewriting the FWD" arguments), the motivation-to-combine finding supported by substantial evidence (Torgerson and Bruce are same-field references, and Bruce's second-metal ground bus was one of a finite number of predictable solutions), and the Board's remaining-limitations analysis adequate under the APA.
• Defensive value: Claims 1–5 and 8 are unpatentable — finally and on appeal. Under 35 U.S.C. § 318(b), the Director is required to cancel those claims once the appeal is exhausted (I could not independently verify that the certificate of cancellation has already posted, but the CAFC mandate should have issued well before 2026-09-03). Dependent claims 6–7 were never individually challenged, but both depend from claim 1 and cannot survive its cancellation. Any infringement theory built on claim 1 — or on claims 2–8 that incorporate it — is now essentially sanction-bait, and the patent expired 2025-06-18 in any event, capping any conceivable damages at pre-expiration conduct.

Strategic summary

Canceled vs. sustained vs. untested — the effective map of 7,195,341. The IPR petition challenged claims 1–5 and 8 (the entire claim chain that matters: claim 1 is the sole independent substrate claim; claims 2–7 depend from it; claim 8 is the printhead claim incorporating claim 1's substrate). The PTAB held all challenged claims (1–5, 8) unpatentable as obvious over Torgerson + Bruce, and the CAFC affirmed on 2026-04-23. Claims 6–7 (temperature-sense-resistor features) were not separately litigated, but because they depend from claim 1, they have no independent validity once claim 1 is canceled. So there is no claim of the '341 patent that a plaintiff can assert with a straight face today: claims 1–5 and 8 are invalidated on the merits, claims 6–7 fall with claim 1, and the patent is expired (2025-06-18 adjusted expiration), so no injunction and only time-barred pre-expiration damages could ever be at issue.

Estoppel landscape. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel binds Canon U.S.A., Canon Inc., and their privies in the parallel E.D.N.Y. litigation (Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00123) and any other forum: Canon cannot re-raise in district court any ground it raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2022-01414 — that covers the Torgerson, Bruce, and Furukawa art and all obvious combinations among them. For a new defendant who is not Canon's privy, no estoppel attaches from this IPR, but the practical reality is that the art that killed the patent is now public record: the strongest § 102/§ 103 case (Torgerson + Bruce, and the alternative Furukawa + Torgerson path) is fully developed, with expert declarations and a CAFC affirmance to cite. A non-party defendant can also simply move to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings citing the FWD and the affirmed cancellation obligation.

Pattern signals. The Canon IPRs were not an isolated strike: Canon ran a coordinated multi-patent IPR campaign against Slingshot's printhead portfolio (the same week's CAFC output included affirmance of PTAB obviousness findings on Slingshot's 7,290,864 and 7,484,823/7,594,708 patents). Slingshot (the Lexmark → Funai → Slingshot chain) has defended aggressively but unsuccessfully — it opposed institution, fought through a full trial with expert testimony, and appealed the FWD to the CAFC, losing at every stage on this patent. The earlier HP assertion (6:19-cv-00549, W.D. Tex., reassigned 2:20-00187) ended in a stipulated dismissal with prejudice in 2021 — consistent with a monetization campaign that is now largely defanged by IPR. Unified Patents appears only as a litigation-data aggregator in the record, not as a petitioner here.

Recommended next steps

• If you are Canon (or a privy): You are estopped from re-litigating the IPR grounds in the E.D.N.Y. case, but you don't need to — cite the FWD (IPR2022-01414, Paper, 2024-04-09) and the CAFC affirmance. Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-1956, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Apr. 23, 2026): "we affirm the Board's determination that claims 1–5 and 8 of the '341 patent are unpatentable." Opinion PDF: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1956.OPINION.4-23-2026_2681303.pdf (Justia mirror: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/24-1956/24-1956-2026-04-23.html). Ask the district court to enter judgment / dismiss with prejudice now that the FWD is final.
• If you are any other defendant receiving a demand letter citing 7,195,341: The patent expired 2025-06-18, and claims 1–5 and 8 have been held unpatentable in a final, CAFC-affirmed FWD. Confirm in PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov) that the certificate of cancellation under 35 U.S.C. § 318(b) has issued; if it has, the patent's claims no longer exist and the demand is moot. If a certificate has not yet posted, the FWD + affirmance still foreclose any viable theory on claims 1–5 and 8, and claims 6–7 (dependent on claim 1) cannot stand.
• If you are evaluating a new IPR (non-Canon defendant, patent already expired, and pre-2025 damages threatened): the estoppel-free ground is strong but the window is effectively closed by the prior FWD — a petitioner can rely on the same Torgerson/Bruce combination, and the PTAB's prior unpatentability findings plus the CAFC affirmance make a second petition nearly costless to win, though § 315(e)(2) does not bar you since you weren't a party.
• Verify before filing: (1) the exact three-judge panel and the Ground 2 (Furukawa) disposition, if any, from the FWD itself in PTAB E2E; and (2) the posting date of the certificate of cancellation. Neither was independently confirmable from the sources available to me, but neither affects the bottom line — the patent's enforceable claim set is gone.

Inventors

• David G. King — Engineer at Lexmark International, Inc. (Lexington, KY) at the time of filing; named assignor to Lexmark on reel 015869/0340. Lexmark's inkjet printhead development group.
• Kristi M. Rowe — Engineer at Lexmark International, Inc. at the time of filing; named assignor on the same reel.

Both inventors assigned their rights to Lexmark on the filing date itself (2004-09-30), consistent with normal employed-inventor practice. I have no data indicating either inventor departed Lexmark within 12 months of filing, so I will not infer a departure pattern.

Original assignee

Lexmark International, Inc. (Lexington, KY) is the entity named on the issued patent. Lexmark was a major inkjet-printer OEM and did ship products embodying the claims — the '341 patent covers the driver/logic chip layout inside Lexmark's thermal inkjet printhead cartridges, and Lexmark manufactured those cartridges through 2012–2013. Current status: still operating as a private imaging company; taken private in 2016 by a consortium (Apex Technology/PAG), now under Ninestar-group ownership. Critically, Lexmark exited the inkjet business in 2012–2013 and sold its inkjet technology and patent portfolio (~1,500+ US/foreign assets, ~$100M) to Funai Electric Co., Ltd.

Assignment timeline

Verification caveat: I could not pull the USPTO Assignment Center records directly in this environment, so the reel/frame numbers below come from the USPTO-echoed legal-event log on Google Patents (reels 015869/0340, 030416/0001, 048745/0551). Those three events are corroborated by RPX/Unified Patents and press coverage of the Lexmark→Funai→Slingshot chain. Correspondent-of-record names are not shown on the Google Patents legal-event log and could not be retrieved here — verify each entry at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ by patent number 7195341 before relying on correspondent analysis.

• 2004-09-30 (executed) / recorded 2004-09-30 — Reel 015869/0340

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: David G. King; Kristi M. Rowe
  • Assignee: Lexmark International, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable in this environment
  • Context: Standard employed-inventor assignment at filing; conveys the application (then 10/956,939) to Lexmark.

• 2013-04-01 (effective) / recorded 2013-05-14 — Reel 030416/0001

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Lexmark International, Inc.; Lexmark International Technology, S.A.
  • Assignee: Funai Electric Co., Ltd.
  • Correspondent: not retrievable in this environment
  • Context: Portfolio sale accompanying Lexmark's exit from inkjet — Funai paid ~$100M for Lexmark's inkjet-related technology and more than 1,500 US/foreign patent assets; this is the single largest ownership event in the chain.

• 2019-03-29 (effective) / recorded 2019-03-29 — Reel 048745/0551

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Funai Electric Co., Ltd.
  • Assignee: Slingshot Printing LLC (Maryland LLC)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable in this environment
  • Context: Transfer-to-asserter — Funai conveyed more than 100 US inkjet assets to newly formed Slingshot Printing LLC, which began suing HP ~10 weeks later (see NPE signals below).

No other assignments, security agreements, mergers, or name changes are recorded on the Google Patents legal-event log for this patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7195341
    2004 : Filed by Lexmark inventors
    2007 : Patent issued to Lexmark
    2013 : Lexmark sells portfolio to Funai
    2019 : Funai assigns to Slingshot LLC
         : Slingshot sues HP in Texas
    2024 : PTAB finds claims unpatentable
    2026 : CAFC affirms PTAB decision

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. Reel 048745/0551 (recorded 2019-03-29) moved the patent from Funai Electric, an operating consumer-electronics/OEM manufacturer, to Slingshot Printing LLC, a Maryland LLC with no inkjet products in commerce. RPX's Patent Market/Patent Watch (June 12, 2019) describes Slingshot as a "recently formed NPE" that received "more than 100 US assets from Funai" that year.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. RPX expressly labels Slingshot Printing LLC an NPE asserting former Lexmark patents; Unified Patents' litigation database logs Slingshot as plaintiff in W.D. Texas case 6:19-cv-00549 (this patent) and later Eastern District New York and CAFC matters. Slingshot does not sell products; its sole business is asserting the acquired Funai/Lexmark inkjet portfolio.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. The correspondent-of-record names on reels 015869/0340, 030416/0001, and 048745/0551 could not be retrieved in this environment. No recurrence finding can be made without pulling the Assignment Center records; this is the one signal to verify manually at assignmentcenter.uspto.gov.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. The chain has only two post-issuance links (2013 and 2019), spaced ~6 years apart — not the <24-month churn of chained LLCs typical of cascading transfers. The Lexmark→Funai→Slingshot sequence is a portfolio sale plus a single downstream carve-out, not a shell ladder.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — present. The Slingshot assignment was recorded 2019-03-29; Slingshot filed its first HP infringement suit naming former Lexmark patents on 2019-06-11 (W.D. Tex. 6:19-cv-00549, which the Unified Patents log links to this patent). That is roughly 10 weeks — well inside the 6-month window — and the assignment gave Slingshot clean standing to sue.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Lexmark's 2013 transfer was a negotiated portfolio divestiture following its strategic exit from the inkjet business, not a Chapter 7/11 asset sale. (Funai's own later financial difficulties post-date its 2019 transfer of this patent out of the chain and are irrelevant to this patent's record.)

7. Privateering — present. RPX reported that "assignment records suggest that Funai might hold an economic interest in Slingshot's litigation," i.e., the operating company (Funai) transferred the patents to an NPE that asserts against competitors (HP) while Funai retains a financial stake. The June 2019 HP suits targeted HP inkjet cartridges and printers that competed with the Lexmark-derived inkjet technology Funai had licensed and then monetized.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain terminates at Slingshot Printing LLC, an assertive NPE, not at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. Inverse of a defensive-aggregation outcome.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The patent moved from an operating company (Funai) to a productless Maryland LLC (Slingshot Printing LLC) on reel 048745/0551, recorded 2019-03-29; RPX and Unified Patents both identify Slingshot as an NPE; and Slingshot filed its first infringement suit naming this patent family within ~10 weeks of the transfer (W.D. Tex. 6:19-cv-00549, filed 2019-06-11), with RPX reporting indicia that Funai retained an economic interest — a privateering structure. That is four corroborating signals (shell-entity transfer, known asserter, pre-litigation transfer, privateering), all anchored to specific reel/frame and litigation records rather than naming alone. The one unverified element is correspondent recurrence, which requires a manual lookup at the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 7195341; confirm reel/frame 015869/0340, 030416/0001, and 048745/0551).

I've reached the search-step limit, so I'll now compile the prior-art analysis from the authoritative patent record (the face-of-patent citation list embedded in the full text you provided) plus the live-search verifications I completed on the closest references (US6309053B1, US6422676B1, US6554404B2, US6575562B1, US20030011658A1/US6616268B2, US4887098A, US5144341A). References I could not open in full are flagged as "title/record-level only."

Prior-Art Analysis — US 7,195,341 B2 (7195341)

A. Legal frame and scope

• Applicable statute: The application was filed September 30, 2004, well before the AIA's March 16, 2013 effective date. Anticipation is therefore assessed under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)/(b)/(e).
• Critical date for § 102(b): September 30, 2003 (one year before filing). Every face-of-patent citation published before that date is at least § 102(b) art; later-published U.S. patents/applications (e.g., US6726311B2, published 2004-04-27) are still § 102(a)/(e) art because their effective filing dates precede 2004-09-30.
• Claims at issue: Claim 1 (sole independent claim) requires, in combination: (a) a columnar array of ejection actuators adjacent a fluid-supply slot; (b) a columnar array of power transistors adjacent the actuators, connected to them through a first metal conductor layer, occupying a "power transistor active area"; (c) a columnar array of logic circuits adjacent the power transistors, connected to them through a polysilicon conductor layer, occupying a "logic circuit area"; (d) a power conductor in a second metal conductor layer overlapping the power transistor active area; and (e) a ground conductor in the second metal conductor layer overlapping the logic circuit area. Claims 2–7 are dependent; claim 8 is a micro-fluid ejection head incorporating the claim-1 substrate.
• Anticipation standard: One reference, alone, must disclose every limitation, expressly or inherently. For the reasons below, no single face-of-patent citation is a clean § 102 anticipation of claim 1 as I read them; the closest references each miss at least one of the distinguishing features (the polysilicon logic-to-FET interconnect and/or the second-metal ground bus over the logic area, rather than over the FET active area). Several references are credible § 102 candidates against specific dependent claims.

B. Closest references (highest relevance to claim 1 and its dependent claims)

1. US6309053B1 — Hewlett-Packard Co. (Torgerson, Joseph M.; Hurst, David M.)

• "Ink jet printhead having a ground bus that overlaps transistor active regions"
• Filed 2000-07-24 (US09/621,922); published 2001-10-30 → § 102(b)/(e) art. (Verified via EP1303412A1 family record and Justia.)
• Description: A slot-fed thermal inkjet printhead with columnar arrays of ink drop generators, columnar arrays of FET drive circuits, and a ground bus that partially overlies the FET active regions (drains/sources/gates) to shrink die width. Ground bus width varies along the column to equalize parasitic resistance; drain/source electrodes can share the ground-bus metallization layer.
• Claim mapping: Directly reads on claim 1 limitations (a), (b) (columnar FET array adjacent generators), and conceptually on the "bus overlapping an active area" idea of (d). However, the overlap taught is a ground bus over transistor active regions — the opposite of claim 1's split (power bus over the power-transistor area and ground bus over the logic area) — and it does not teach a polysilicon layer interconnecting logic circuits to the FETs. It is therefore not a complete anticipation of claim 1 on my reading. It is the strongest face-citation for claim 4 (FETs) and, with a heater-resistor embodiment, claim 2; it also supports claim 8 if combined with a nozzle plate (but § 103, not § 102). Note that this patent shares an inventor family with the art later used in IPR2022-01414.

2. US6422676B1 — Hewlett-Packard Co.

• "Compact ink jet printhead"
• Filed 2001-06-19 (US09/883,398); published 2002-07-23 → § 102(b)/(e) art. (Verified via Google Patents family record and WO2002102597A3.)
• Description: Continuation-lineage companion to US6309053B1; discloses a compact slot-fed printhead layout of ink drop generators and ground busses with FET drive circuit arrays, with the ground bus arranged to overlie the FET drive circuit region to conserve substrate area.
• Claim mapping: Same analysis as US6309053B1 — strong for claims 2, 4, 8 aspects; does not disclose the polysilicon logic-to-FET interconnect or ground-over-logic placement of claim 1.

3. US20030011658A1 → issued as US6616268B2 — Lexmark International, Inc. (Parish, George Keith)

• "Power distribution architecture for inkjet heater chip"
• Filed 2001-04-12; published 2003-01-16; issued 2003-09-09 → § 102(b)/(e) art. (Verified via Justia and FreePatentsOnline.)
• Description: A Lexmark heater chip in which a polysilicon layer is selectively masked/etched to form at least one input for each driving transistor and plural polysilicon electrical connections, with a single metallization providing the power and ground distribution; power and ground sides of the chip are in opposing relation with transistors between them. The stated goal is eliminating the second/third metal layer.
• Claim mapping: This is the face-citation closest to claim 1 limitation (c) — polysilicon-layer interconnection to the gates/inputs of the power transistors — and to claim 4 (transistors) and claim 5-type logic (address lines to gates). It also bears on claims 2 and 8. Missing for § 102 anticipation of claim 1: it affirmatively teaches away from a second metal power/ground layer (single-metal architecture), so it does not disclose second-metal power and ground conductors over the transistor and logic areas, respectively.

4. US20030210301A1 — Xerox Corp.

• "Polysilicon feed-through fluid drop ejector"
• Filed 2002-05-08; published 2003-11-13 → § 102(a)/(e) art (within one year of filing, so § 102(b) may not apply; § 102(a)/(e) does).
• Description (title/record level): Uses polysilicon as a feed-through conductor in a drop ejector — relevant to the patent's general proposition that polysilicon interconnects can be tolerated where timing is not critical.
• Claim mapping: Potentially relevant to the polysilicon-conductor concept in claim 1 limitation (c), but directed to a different function (feed-through of drive signals, not logic-to-FET interconnection in a two-metal bus-over-circuit layout). Not a § 102 anticipation of claim 1 on the record.

5. US5144341A — Xerox Corp.

• "Thermal ink jet drivers device design/layout"
• Filed 1991-04-26; published 1992-09-01 → § 102(b) art. (Verified via Google Patents citation record.)
• Description: Driver device design/layout for thermal inkjet heads — arranging drive transistors relative to heaters for density/space efficiency.
• Claim mapping: General background for claim 1 limitations (a)–(b); no showing of the polysilicon logic interconnect or the specific two-metal bus-over-circuit split. Not an anticipation of claim 1; weak-to-moderate for claims 2 and 4.

6. US4887098A — Xerox Corp.

• "Thermal ink jet printer having printhead transducers with multilevel interconnections"
• Filed 1988-11-25; published 1989-12-12 → § 102(b) art. (Verified via Google Patents citation record.)
• Description: Early disclosure of multilevel interconnections to printhead transducers.
• Claim mapping: Bears generally on the multi-level conductor stack concept (first metal / second metal / polysilicon) in claim 1, but does not disclose the claimed placement of power and ground busses over the transistor and logic areas. Not an anticipation.

C. Complete face-of-patent citation table (all 33 listed references)

Dates below are the priority (filing) and publication dates shown in the authoritative Google Patents record for 7195341. "§ 102 potential" is stated conservatively; a full anticipation finding would require element-by-element proof from the reference text, which for most of these I have not opened in full.

Note on two extra entries that appear in the "Patent Citations (36)" sub-list: US5030971B1 is the 2000 reexamination certificate of #6, and US6153114A is a member of the #15 (US5883650/US6239820) family — not independent art.

D. Bottom line

1. No single face-of-patent citation is a clean § 102 anticipation of claim 1 based on what the records disclose. The claim's combination — first-metal actuator-to-transistor interconnect + polysilicon logic-to-transistor interconnect + second-metal power bus over the power-transistor active area + second-metal ground bus over the logic area — is not shown in any one cited document.
2. The two most dangerous single references are:
   • US6309053B1 / US6422676B1 (HP): disclose a bus overlapping the FET active area — the direct conceptual ancestor of the invention (the patent's own Fig. 7 "prior art" description), but with the ground bus over the transistor area, not the logic area, and with no polysilicon logic interconnect.
   • US20030011658A1 / US6616268B2 (Lexmark/Parish): discloses the polysilicon gate-input interconnection concept closest to limitation (c), but in a single-metal architecture.
3. Dependent-claim § 102 candidates: Claim 2 (heater resistors) — US6309053, US6422676, US6616268; Claim 3 (≥3 slots) — US5469199 (widest multi-slot architecture); Claim 4 (FETs) — US6309053, US6422676, US5144341; Claim 5 (primitive address logic/predrive/data registers) — US5644342, US6575562, US6616268; Claims 6–7 (TSR column; non-metal TSR) — no face citation appears to disclose a TSR column between the power transistors and actuators in the claimed arrangement; Claim 8 — same as claim 1 (no single-reference anticipation).
4. Litigation context flag (from earlier sections): In IPR2022-01414 the PTAB and Federal Circuit (aff'd Apr. 23, 2026) found claims 1–5 and 8 obvious (§ 103) over Torgerson US 6,412,917 and Bruce US 7,240,997 — references that are not among the 7195341 face-of-patent citations. That outcome underscores that the killing combination required two references (obviousness), consistent with my conclusion that no single face citation anticipates claim 1.

Confidence caveats: Full-text verification was possible only for the handful of references listed in Section B and item D(2) above. Descriptions of the remaining references rest on their titles, dates, and assignees as printed in the 7195341 record plus domain knowledge, and an element-by-element anticipation showing would require reading each reference in full.