US 8113618

I'll verify the patent's current status and check for any 2026 litigation activity before summarizing.

Let me run one more targeted check for any '618-specific litigation or docket activity.

Let me do one final targeted check on court dockets to be thorough.

US Patent 8,113,618 B2 — Analyst Summary

Source of record: US8113618B2, Google Patents (full text retrieved 2026-09-30). All bibliographic data below is taken from that text; I flag where I could not verify something authoritatively.

1. Bibliographic Data

Assignee chain (as recorded): Lexmark International, Inc. → Funai Electric Co., Ltd. (2013-05-14, effective 2013-04-01) → Slingshot Printing LLC (2019-03-29). Note that "Slingshot Printing LLC" is the current assignee shown by Google Patents; I did not independently confirm current ownership against USPTO Patent Center records in this session.

2. Abstract

Methods and systems using printhead tank memory to determine printhead tank configuration are provided. One example embodiment includes a printhead ink tank having a memory tag readable by a printer memory tag reader in communication with a printer controller. The memory tag further includes ink tank configuration instructions that include at least one of an ink tank configuration identifier or at least one ink tank location identifier. The ink tank configuration instructions can cause the printer controller to perform at least one memory operation associated with the memory tag.

3. Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

Claim 1 — Ink tank (apparatus).
An ink tank with (a) a housing that holds ink and (b) a memory tag on/associated with the housing. The data stored on the memory tag includes "ink tank configuration instructions" that identify the total number of ink wells anticipated for installation in the printing system when this ink tank is one of the installed tanks. In plain terms: the tank's own memory tells the printer how many ink wells the overall system is expected to have, so the printer knows how many tanks/memory tags to expect.

Claim 2 — Ink tank (apparatus), independent of claim 1.
An ink tank with (a) a housing, (b) one or more ink wells holding varieties of ink, and (c) a memory connected to the housing with stored bits, where at least one bit identifies to a printer controller the number of ink wells across all ink tanks anticipated for installation when this tank is one of the installed tanks. In plain terms: the same idea expressed at the bit level — a stored bit conveys the expected total ink-well count in all tanks to the controller.

Note on the dependent claims (3–10, all depending from claim 1): they add specifics such as identifying the configuration as a single, dual, or four-tank configuration (claim 3); terminating memory operations when the tank is identified as the sole tank (claim 4); performing first and second memory operations in a dual-tank system (claim 5) and ceasing thereafter (claim 6); performing operations across all N tanks where N > 2 (claim 7); identifying a mode of operation to the controller (claim 8); identifying the location of at least one other ink tank (claim 9); and use of an RFID memory tag (claim 10).

Practical point of the invention: the spec frames the problem as wasted read/write cycles — up to ~500 ms each, ~2 s for a four-tank configuration — because the printer previously indexed to every possible tank location regardless of what was installed. Encoding configuration/location information on the tank memory lets the controller stop after the tanks actually present.

4. Litigation / Docket Check — Important Limitation

• Texas Western District Court, case 6:19-cv-00364 (Slingshot Printing LLC v. HP Inc., filed 2019-06-11). The Google Patents family page carries a litigation flag pointing to this case, and a trade report on the June 11, 2019 filings states that Slingshot's complaints asserted, among other US patents, 8,113,618 (The Recycler). This is the strongest '618-specific litigation link I found, but I could not independently confirm from a primary docket entry that the '618 patent was asserted in that specific case number, so treat the case-number-to-patent mapping as indicative rather than verified.

• No 2026 CAFC docket specific to '618 was found. The 2026 Federal Circuit activity involving Slingshot Printing LLC (e.g., Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-2127, decided 2026-07-21; and the 2026-07-16 rulings) concerns other Slingshot patents — specifically U.S. 7,152,951; 7,290,864; 7,484,823; and 7,594,708 — not 8,113,618. I also found no IPR or PTAB proceeding specifically challenging 8,113,618 in the searches performed.

• Uncertainty statement: I cannot state with high confidence that 8,113,618 has never been the subject of a 2026 CAFC appeal or PTAB proceeding. My searches returned no evidence of such activity, but absence of evidence in the search results I obtained is not proof of absence, and a PACER/CourtListener docket-number search on the patent itself was not available to me here.

Per the operating rules, I have not auto-corrected any identifiers; the numbers above are reproduced as they appear in the sources. Where the search record and my prior assumptions could differ, the search record has been treated as controlling, and unverified points are flagged rather than asserted.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 8113618.

Those searches surfaced unrelated results. Let me query the litigation databases directly.

Found the key case. Let me confirm which patents were asserted and check for any other proceedings.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,113,618

Bottom line: I identified one district-court litigation in which U.S. Patent No. 8,113,618 was asserted — the Slingshot Printing LLC v. HP Inc. campaign filed in the Western District of Texas in June 2019. I found no IPR, PGR, ITC Section 337 investigation, or other proceeding naming the '618 patent. Details below, with confidence levels flagged.

Case 1 — Slingshot Printing LLC v. HP Inc.

Sourcing: The Google Patents page for US 8,113,618 B2 carries a litigation flag reading "US case filed in Texas Western District Court — case 6:19-cv-00364" (identifier also surfaced via Unified Patents' litigation data). UniCourt confirms Slingshot Printing LLC v. HP Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00364, filed 06/11/2019, W.D. Tex., Judge Alan D. Albright. The patent list and accused products come from The Recycler's report on the three June 11, 2019 complaints, which expressly includes "8,113,618."

Related cases worth noting (the '618 patent itself was not among the asserted patents)

• Slingshot Printing LLC v. HP Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00549-ADA (W.D. Tex.), reassigned as No. 1:20-cv-00189-ADA (Austin Div.) — one of the companion June 2019 Slingshot-v-HP suits. Per Slingshot's mandatory notice in IPR2023-00312, this case was dismissed with prejudice following joint stipulation. ⚠️ Caveat: that mandatory notice was filed in a proceeding about U.S. Pat. No. 7,484,823, so the dismissal-with-prejudice statement is confirmed for the patents at issue there; I have not independently confirmed it covers the '618 patent.
• Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc. and Canon Solutions America, Inc., Nos. 2:22-cv-00123 and 2:22-cv-01852 (E.D.N.Y., filed Jan./Apr. 2022) — asserted U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,152,951; 7,195,341; 7,559,629; 7,484,823; 7,594,708; 7,290,864; and 7,938,523. The '618 patent is not listed, and both cases are stayed pending the Canon IPRs.
• Slingshot v. Canon IPRs (IPR2022-01414, -01415, -01416, -01541; IPR2023-00309, -00312, -00313) — none directed to the '618 patent.

Administrative proceedings

I found no IPR or PGR petition against U.S. Pat. No. 8,113,618. HP's PTAB activity against Slingshot's Lexmark-derived portfolio (e.g., IPR2020-01084 on 6,394,593; IPR2020-01086 on 7,014,299) did not reach the '618 patent in the materials I reviewed. This is a negative finding based on the searches run — not a certified clearance.

Family-level flag

The Darts-IP "Global Patent Litigation" dataset linked from the Google Patents page for US 8,113,618 (family ID 40788079) indicates "First worldwide family litigation filed," consistent with the W.D. Tex. action above. It does not independently identify additional suits.

Confidence and caveats

• High confidence: Slingshot Printing LLC asserted U.S. Pat. No. 8,113,618 against HP Inc. in the Western District of Texas in June 2019; the lead case identifier tied to the '618 patent is 6:19-cv-00364; filing date June 11, 2019.
• Lower confidence: The precise procedural outcome (settlement, voluntary dismissal, or judgment) of 6:19-cv-00364 as to the '618 patent. I did not retrieve a final docket entry. If a definitive outcome matters for your purposes, I recommend pulling the PACER docket for 6:19-cv-00364 directly, or the Slingshot v. HP consolidated docket in the Austin Division.
• Note on ownership chain: Lexmark International, Inc. → Funai Electric Co., Ltd. (2013) → Slingshot Printing LLC (recorded March 29, 2019), which is the entity that brought the suit. The '618 patent is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 11/959,593 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,819,498), and the parent was asserted in the same 2019 campaign.

If useful, I can next pull the PACER/CourtListener docket for 6:19-cv-00364 to confirm the final disposition, and check whether any of the companion Slingshot–HP stipulations of dismissal expressly covered the '618 patent.

PTAB Proceedings Report — U.S. Patent No. 8,113,618

Patent: US 8,113,618 B2 ("Methods and systems using printhead tank memory to determine printhead tank configuration")
Patent Owner (current): Slingshot Printing LLC (via Funai Electric Co., Ltd.; originally Lexmark International, Inc.)
Priority date: 2007-12-19 · Granted: 2012-02-14 · Anticipated expiration: 2027-12-19
Report date: 2026-09-30

Proceedings overview

There are zero (0) AIA trial proceedings on file against US 8,113,618. The canonical structured data supplied for this report (USPTO Open Data Portal) returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding for this patent as of the most recent ingest, and my independent web search surfaced no petition, institution decision, final written decision, or appeal naming the '618 patent. Breakdown: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied.

Bottom line for a defendant: this is not a "hardened-by-IPR" patent and it is not a "claims-already-canceled" patent — it is an untested patent. All ten claims (1–10) remain exactly as issued and are presumptively valid under § 282. A defendant cannot shortcut the case by citing an FWD; every invalidity theory would have to be built from scratch, either in district court or in a brand-new petition.

Proceedings on this patent

None — no AIA trial has ever been filed against US 8,113,618

• Type: N/A
• Filed: N/A
• Status: No proceeding on file (USPTO ODP structured data, most recent ingest).
• Judge panel: N/A
• Petition grounds: N/A
• Institution decision: N/A
• Final Written Decision: N/A — no claim of this patent has been adjudicated at the PTAB.
• Settlement / termination: N/A as to this patent.
• Appeal: N/A.
• Defensive value: All claims 1–10 are untested at the Board. There is no estoppel, no cancellation, and no PTAB record to leverage. Equally, because the patent belongs to the same Lexmark→Funai→Slingshot portfolio that drew multiple IPR campaigns from HP and Canon, the absence of an IPR here most plausibly reflects settlement-driven litigation dynamics (see below) rather than confirmed strength — the patent has simply never been stress-tested.

Note on precision: because no proceeding exists, there is no FWD to quote, no claim numbers to reproduce, and no panel to name. I decline to invent any.

Related activity — context only (NOT proceedings on the '618 patent)

These campaigns concern sibling patents in the same Slingshot/Lexmark printhead portfolio. They are flagged for strategic awareness only; none involves US 8,113,618, and none creates estoppel or claim-level findings as to it.

Litigation context for the '618 patent: The patent has been asserted in litigation. The Google Patents litigation record for US 8,113,618 links a U.S. case in the Western District of Texas (Unified Patents docket ref. 6:19-cv-00364), and contemporaneous reporting (The Recycler) describes Slingshot asserting 8,113,618 among a large group of Lexmark-origin patents against HP Inc. The HP/Slingshot dispute was subsequently settled (matching the 2021 PTAB terminations above). (Case-number precision: I could confirm the '618 patent is listed among the asserted patents, but I would verify the exact W.D. Tex. docket caption and the settlement scope directly in PACER before relying on it — the ODP litigation link and the press list cite slightly different case numbers.)

These sibling IPRs do not touch 8,113,618's claims, and because they terminated in settlement before any FWD, they produced no claim-cancellation and no § 315(e) estoppel with respect to this patent.

Strategic summary

Claim status on US 8,113,618: ALL TEN CLAIMS UNTESTED. Claim 1 (ink tank with a memory tag storing "ink tank configuration instructions … identifying a total number of ink wells … anticipated for installation"), claim 2, the dependent claims 3–9, and the RFID-specific claim 10 have never been construed or adjudicated by the Board. There is nothing canceled to point at and nothing sustained-and-hardened to respect. Practically, the patent stands on its § 282 presumption, and any IPR or invalidity theory starts from zero.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR/PGR/CBM has been filed against this patent, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to anyone with respect to the '618 patent. A defendant is free to raise any prior-art ground — patents, printed publications, and system/on-sale art — both in a future petition and in district court. Conversely, a defendant that files first and loses institution gains nothing from the HP/Canon campaigns; those are different patents with different claims, and the '618 patent's claims have no PTAB history to borrow from. If you are considering a petition, note the § 315(b) one-year bar running from service of any complaint asserting this patent — verify your service date immediately.

Pattern signals. (1) Same-family litigation magnet: this patent belongs to a portfolio that has drawn two separate big-tech IPR campaigns (HP in 2020, Canon in 2022–2024), yet the '618 patent itself pulled only litigation plus settlement, not a petition. That asymmetry suggests the portfolio was resolved holistically (settlement/licensing), not claim-by-claim. (2) No serial petitioner on this patent: no petitioner has filed even once; there is no repeat-filer pattern to model. (3) Patent owner posture: Slingshot has litigated this portfolio aggressively but settled rather than defended to FWD against HP; against Canon it fought to FWD and lost on the sibling printhead patents, then appealed (unsuccessfully). That mixed record means Slingshot is neither invincible nor a pushover — outcome depends on the specific claim and reference. (4) No defensive aggregator visible in the chain for this patent: the only third party in the record is a litigation-data reference (Unified Patents' public docket), not a petitioner on the merits.

Recommended next steps

1. Treat the "no PTAB activity" finding as the headline. It is itself a signal: a patent that has been asserted in at least one W.D. Tex. campaign and appears in a portfolio that attracted HP and Canon IPRs, yet which never drew a single petition, most likely did so because the HP dispute settled before petitions ripened for this patent — not because the claims were validated. The claims are simply untested.

2. If you are a defendant, do not rely on any FWD. There is none for this patent. Build your invalidity case independently: locate prior-art memory-tag/ink-tank configuration systems (the patent's own identified art — e.g., US 7,137,684 to Samsung, "Inkjet printer having arbitrarily mounted cartridge and method of recognizing the cartridge," was the examiner's cited reference and is a natural starting point for the "identify configuration via tank memory" concept). Confirm the priority date (2007-12-19, via parent US 7,819,498) and the pre-AIA/AIA status of the claims before selecting art.

3. If a petition is contemplated, run the clock first. Confirm the § 315(b) service date for any complaint asserting US 8,113,618 and file within one year. Consider whether a parallel district-court stay is realistic and whether Fintiv-style discretionary-denial risk exists. Note the current USPTO environment (reported sharply reduced institution rates in 2025–2026) when budgeting for an institution decision.

4. Search/verify the primary sources yourself before filing:

   • PTAB E2E / ODP for any recently filed petition not yet in the ingest: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8113618/en (record) and the USPTO PTAB E2E portal.
   • CourtListener / PACER for the W.D. Tex. case (Unified Patents ref. 6:19-cv-00364) and the HP/Slingshot settlement scope, to confirm whether the '618 patent was actually asserted and released.
   • CourtListener for Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc. (Fed. Cir.) if you want to cite the appellate treatment of the sibling printhead patents.

5. Do not cite CAFC/PTAB inapposite holdings as if they bound '618. The Canon appeals affirmed invalidity of other Slingshot patents (e.g., the '823 and '629 printhead patents). Those decisions are persuasive prior-art/obviousness context at best; they adjudicate different claims and are not estoppel or res judicata as to US 8,113,618.

Prepared from the canonical USPTO ODP "PTAB proceedings on file" data (returning no AIA trials) and supplemented by web search. Where search results could not confirm a fact (e.g., the exact W.D. Tex. caption and whether the '618 patent was within the HP/Slingshot settlement release), that limitation is stated rather than assumed. Dates are YYYY-MM-DD. No proceeding number has been invented.

I'll research the assignment chain and litigation history before compiling the analysis.

Let me dig into the assignment correspondents and the Slingshot entity structure.

US 8,113,618 — Ownership & Assignment Analysis

Patent: US 8,113,618 B2 — "Methods and systems using printhead tank memory to determine printhead tank configuration"
App. 12/909,912 (continuation of 11/959,593, now US 7,819,498) · Priority 2007‑12‑19 · Filed 2010‑10‑22 · Issued 2012‑02‑14

Sourcing note (important): The authoritative claim/figure text above came from Google Patents. The USPTO Assignment Center correspondent-of-record field is not exposed in the sources I was able to retrieve (Google Patents legal events, PTAB exhibits, court filings). I therefore report reel/frame, dates, assignor and assignee with confidence, and explicitly mark correspondent fields as not retrievable rather than guessing. Verification: Assignment Center / Assignment Search — search patent number 8113618.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check: Only one inventor, so the classic "whole team departs within 12 months" fire-sale precursor cannot be tested on this record. I have no data on McReynolds' departure date from Lexmark; not determinable from the sources consulted. I will not infer it.

Original assignee

Lexmark International, Inc. (Lexington, KY) — named on the issued patent and on the parent US 7,819,498.

• Line of business: Laser/inkjet printers, printheads, ink tanks and consumables; this patent sits squarely in Lexmark's inkjet printhead/ink‑tank memory subsystem.
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes. The claims cover an ink tank carrying a memory tag encoding "ink tank configuration instructions." Lexmark sold inkjet printers with on‑carriage printheads and memory‑tagged ink tanks, which is exactly the commercial embodiment described in the specification (FIGS. 2A‑3C). The trade press describes the asserted Lexmark portfolio as Lexmark's "inkjet printer technology" — not a paper portfolio.
• Current status: Operating printing/imaging company. It exited the inkjet hardware business and in 2013 sold its inkjet technology and IP portfolio to Funai (see below). Lexmark itself later passed to an investor consortium, but it was not a bankruptcy. Its inkjet IP left the company by strategic divestiture, not insolvency.

Assignment timeline

Three recorded assignments are visible on Google Patents' legal‑events record. Correspondent fields are not retrievable from the sources consulted — flagged as such below.

• 2007‑12‑19 (executed) / recorded 2010‑10‑22 — Reel 025179/0737

  • Conveyance: Assignment of interest (inventor → company)
  • Assignor: McReynolds, Jason Todd
  • Assignee: Lexmark International, Inc. (Lexington, KY)
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable. (Lexmark's general prosecution correspondence address of record seen in Lexmark filings is Lexmark International, Inc., Intellectual Property Law Department, 740 West New Circle Road, Bldg. 082‑1, Lexington, KY 40550‑0999 — this is a prosecution address, not confirmed as the assignment‑record correspondent, so I do not treat it as a finding.)
  • Context: Standard employee/first assignment — inventor to employer; effective date carried back to the parent's filing date.

• 2013‑04‑01 (executed) / recorded 2013‑05‑14 — Reel 030416/0001

  • Conveyance: Assignment (portfolio-level sale)
  • Assignors: Lexmark International, Inc. and Lexmark International Technology, S.A.
  • Assignee: Funai Electric Co., Ltd. (Daito, Osaka, Japan)
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable. Recurrence flag: reel 030416/0001 is a bulk reel — the identical reel/frame citation appears in a chain‑of‑title cover sheet filed in IPR2020‑01086 (HP v. Slingshot, US 7,014,299), confirming that many Lexmark inkjet patents were recorded in a single mass transfer on this one reel. That is a portfolio conveyance, not a patent‑specific negotiation.
  • Context: Strategic divestiture / fire‑sale of a business line. The underlying contract is the "Intellectual Property Assignment and License Agreement, dated April 2, 2013 (Japan time) / April 1, 2013 (US EST), Lexmark International, Inc. and Lexmark International Technology, S.A. → Funai Electric Co., Ltd., more than 1,000 U.S. [assets]" (reproduced in a Shenzhen Stock Exchange filing: http://disc.static.szse.cn/download/disc/disk03/finalpage/2025‑05‑20/f4612a82‑8cc4‑4215‑8238‑5468759775a1.PDF). Press puts the price at ~$100 million (The Recycler; Wirth Consulting; IAM).

• 2019‑03‑29 (executed) / recorded 2019‑03‑29 — Reel 048745/0551

  • Conveyance: Assignment (transfer to an assertion vehicle)
  • Assignor: Funai Electric Co., Ltd.
  • Assignee: Slingshot Printing LLC (Delaware LLC; principal place of business per its own complaint: 8455 Colesville Road, Suite 830, Silver Spring, MD 20910)
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable. Recurrence flag: I could not confirm the assignment correspondent. On the litigation side, however, Slingshot's counsel recur across every Slingshot matter — Ronald M. Daignault, Chandran B. Iyer, Michael A. Siem, Richard Juang (Daignault Iyer LLP) with Raymond W. Mort, III as W.D. Tex. local counsel (Unicourt docket, 6:19‑cv‑00364), and Fitch Even Tabin & Flannery LLP (Timothy Maloney, Paul Henkelmann, Mark Borsos, David Gosse) as Slingshot's PTAB counsel. That is litigation counsel, not recorded assignment correspondent, and is offered only as context.
  • Context: Transfer‑to‑asserter. Execution and recording are the same day, 74 days before the first suit.

No other post‑issuance assignments are recorded, and no security agreements, licenses, or releases appear on the record for this patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8113618
    2007 : Parent application filed by Lexmark
    2010 : Continuation filed by Lexmark
    2012 : Patent US 8113618 issues
    2013 : Lexmark sells inkjet portfolio to Funai
    2019 : Funai assigns patent to Slingshot Printing
         : Slingshot sues HP in Western District Texas
    2021 : Related HP litigation settled

NPE / troll‑pattern signals

1. Shell‑entity transfer — PRESENT.
   Two‑step operating‑to‑assertion‑vehicle chain: Lexmark (operating) → Funai (operating OEM) → Slingshot Printing LLC, a Delaware LLC with a single office address in Silver Spring, MD (Slingshot's own complaint ¶2, 6:19‑cv‑00364 / 6:19‑cv‑549), recorded at reel 048745/0551. Corroboration independent of naming: the trade press identifies Slingshot as a non‑practicing entity ("Of all the patent‑infringement lawsuits filed by non‑practicing entities against printer OEMs…", Actionable Intelligence, https://www.action-intell.com/tag/funai/page/3/). No product line, no manufacturing, no distribution — it is a licensing/enforcement vehicle.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT (tracked asserter, not on the classic named list).
   Slingshot Printing LLC does not match the enumerated roll (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation, Spangenberg entities). It is, however, a high‑frequency serial plaintiff tracked by both RPX Insight (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/14571187) and Unified Patents (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/1:20-cv-00184), and Google Patents itself flags the family as "Family has litigation." Funai is not an NPE; it is the mid‑chain operating seller.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR (cannot be scored).
   The assignment correspondents for reel 025179/0737, 030416/0001 and 048745/0551 are not exposed in any source I could retrieve. I did not observe a single recurring attorney running all three recordings, because the recording data itself is unavailable. Note the distinct recurrence on the enforcement side (Daignault/Iyer/Siem/Juang + Mort; Fitch Even Tabin & Flannery) — but per the instruction that a single appearance is not a finding, and since these are litigation rather than recording counsel, no finding is made.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
   There are two transfers, but they are ~6 years apart (2013‑04‑01 and 2019‑03‑29) and only one LLC is involved. This does not meet the "<24 months through chained LLCs" pattern. The chain is a straight line, not a cascade.

5. Pre‑litigation transfer — PRESENT (strong).
   Assignment to Slingshot was executed and recorded 2019‑03‑29 at reel 048745/0551; the first infringement action naming this patent, Slingshot Printing LLC v. HP Inc., No. 6:19‑cv‑00364 (W.D. Tex.), was filed 2019‑06‑11 — 74 days later, well inside the 6‑month window. The transfer was plainly arranged to create a clean standing record and a W.D. Tex. (Judge Albright) venue.

6. Bankruptcy fire‑sale — NOT PRESENT.
   No Chapter 7/11 proceeding. Lexmark strategically divested its inkjet line and IP; the transaction is documented as a negotiated Intellectual Property Assignment and License Agreement (April 1–2, 2013). This is a business‑line exit, not an insolvency sale. (By contrast to Kodak/Nortel/Polaroid, no bankruptcy docket is implicated here.)

7. Privateering — PRESENT (moderate).
   Funai — which built the hardware under contract for Lexmark and later made Kodak‑branded inkjet printers — sold the patents to an NPE that then sued Funai's own competitors (HP, and later Canon). HP successfully moved to compel production of "any agreements between Slingshot Printing LLC (and any affiliates) and Funai Electric Co., Ltd. (and any affiliates)" (text order, 6:19‑cv‑00184, Nov. 2019), and the trade press framed the deal as a monetisation play (IAM, "Funai's biggest patent disposal yet looks like a monetisation play," 11 April 2019). The discovery motion and the "monetisation" characterisation support a retained‑economic‑interest arrangement, though the agreements themselves are sealed — hence moderate, not high, confidence.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
   The chain terminates at Slingshot Printing LLC, an asserter, not at RPX / AST / LOT / Unified / OIN. No neutralizing terminal entity.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The chain is Lexmark → Funai → Slingshot Printing LLC, with the terminal link recorded at reel 048745/0551 on 2019‑03‑29 and executed the same day — just 74 days before the 2019‑06‑11 filing of Slingshot Printing LLC v. HP Inc., No. 6:19‑cv‑00364 (W.D. Tex.), the classic pre‑litigation transfer. Slingshot is a Delaware LLC with a single Silver Spring, MD office address (its own complaint ¶2), no products, publicly characterised as a non‑practicing entity by the trade press, and tracked as a serial plaintiff by both RPX and Unified Patents. That yields at least three strong signals — shell/assertion‑vehicle transfer, pre‑litigation transfer, and a trackable high‑frequency asserter — plus moderate privateering evidence via HP's compelled production of the Slingshot–Funai agreements.

Verification: search patent 8113618 at USPTO Assignment Center or USPTO Patent Assignment Search; litigation record at USPTO PatentCenter and Google Patents legal events for US8113618B2.

Gaps I could not close: (a) the correspondent of record on all three assignments — needed to score Signal 3 properly, and only obtainable from the Assignment Center abstract images; (b) whether McReynolds left Lexmark within 12 months; (c) the members/managers of Slingshot Printing LLC and any Funai license‑back terms (sealed). If you can pull the Assignment Center abstract images for reels 025179/0737, 030416/0001 and 048745/0551, Signal 3 can be converted from unclear to a finding.

I'll search for the specific patent number and its cited references to ground this analysis in current data.

Let me confirm details on the family-cited references to accurately describe each.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 8,113,618 B2

Caution / scope note: I ran targeted searches (Google Patents/USPTO-derived data and the full patent text you supplied). I could not complete a full "Patent Public Search" (USPTO PatFT) session within the tool budget, so the citation list below is drawn from the patent's own front page and the Google Patents family record. I flag one internal inconsistency in the record at the end.

1. Confirmed identification (literal)

Because priority is 2007-12-19, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 (and §103) governs. Anticipation under §102 requires a single reference disclosing every element of the claim as arranged.

2. The citation record — two layers

Layer A — "Citations" listed on the US 8,113,618 Google Patents page (2):

Layer B — "References Cited" on the family face (US 7,819,498 / US 8,113,618), (56), 8 U.S. + 2 foreign:

US 6,155,664 A · US 6,158,850 A · US 6,302,527 B1 · US 6,672,695 B1 · US 6,935,716 B2 · US 6,938,976 B2 · US 7,137,684 B2 · US 7,212,637 B2 · EP 1 080 912 A3 · JP 2003-300358 A.

I analyze the substance below; §102 is assessed against the literal claim language of US 8,113,618 (claim 1 = ink tank with a memory tag storing "ink tank configuration instructions… identifying a total number of ink wells… anticipated for installation").

3. Reference-by-reference

3.1 US 7,137,684 B2 (the only "examined" third-party citation)

• Full citation: Inkjet printer having arbitrarily mounted cartridge and method of recognizing the cartridge, Kim et al., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Filed 2006-04-14 (cont. of earlier app.), granted 2006-11-21; priority 2001-10-31. Also published as US 2003/0081062 A1 (2003-05-01) and US 7,073,882 B2.
• Description: Two identical carriers accept either a black or a color cartridge in any position. A print-head detecting portion senses cartridge presence; a print-head ID recognizing portion reads a memory on each cartridge storing a print-head ID and determines whether it is black or color; the printer then "defines the position" of each mounted cartridge and reports specifications. Contacts (electrical) carry the ID.
• Potential §102 bearing:
  • Claims 1–2: Weak. It reads a cartridge ID to classify type/position, but nothing in the record I retrieved shows the memory storing a total number of ink wells/tanks anticipated for the installation. Arguably missing an element.
  • Claim 9 (location identifier for another tank): Arguable — it "defines the position" of each cartridge, but this is recognition of where a present cartridge sits, not an in-memory location identifier pointing to a next tank. Better as §103 art.
• Net: Best characterized as a §103 (obviousness) reference, not clean §102 anticipation.

3.2 US 7,819,498 B2 (the parent)

• Full citation: McReynolds (Lexmark), Methods and systems using printhead tank memory to determine printhead tank configuration, granted 2010-10-26, priority/filing 2007-12-19, 15 claims.
• Not prior art. Same inventor/applicant, and US 8,113,618 is its continuation. It cannot be §102 art against its own child (same disclosure; §102 cannot be met by a reference the applicant owns claiming the same invention). Listed only as a family reference. No §102 claim applies.

3.3 US 6,155,664 A — Cook

• Full citation: Off-carrier inkjet print supply with memory, William Paul Cook, Lexmark International, filed 1998-06-19, granted 2000-12-05. (WO 99/65695.)
• Description: Off-carrier ink supply carries a memory storing data about the supply (ink characteristics, usage), read by printer electronics to verify compatibility before use.
• §102 bearing: Discloses a memory on an ink supply storing identity/compatibility data. Does not disclose configuration instructions identifying the total number of ink wells anticipated. Relevant to claim 1/2 only at the §103 level.

3.4 US 6,158,850 A — Cook

• Full citation: On carrier secondary ink tank with memory and flow control means, William Paul Cook, Lexmark International, filed 1998-06-19, granted 2000-12-12. (WO 99/65698.)
• Description: Base cartridge + replaceable secondary tank, each with a memory. Compatibility information compared before refill; an identification code stored on each secondary tank identifies it as belonging to a "set" of secondary tanks; a flow-control (pinch) valve enables/blocks refill.
• §102 bearing: Closest conceptual neighbor among the Lexmark references — it puts identifying data on an individual tank that relates the tank to a plurality/set. Potentially relevant to claims 1–2 and claim 8 (identifying a number/mode). Still, the identification code denotes set membership, not "a total number of ink wells anticipated for the installation," so a strict §102 read is not met; strong §103 material.

3.5 US 6,302,527 B1 — Walker

• Full citation: Method and apparatus for transferring information between a printer portion and a replaceable printing component, Walker, Hewlett-Packard Company, priority 1999-04-19, granted 2001-10-16.
• Description: Replaceable printing component (ink container) with a wireless (RF) link (transmitter on the component, receiver on the printer) transferring ink-level/status information.
• §102 bearing: Directly relevant to claim 10 (RFID/RF memory tag). But claim 10 depends from claim 1 and thus requires the configuration-instruction element too; US 6,302,527 alone does not anticipate claim 10 (and discloses a sensor broadcast, not a configuration instruction set). §103 combination reference for the RF aspect.

3.6 US 6,672,695 B1 — Naka et al. (≡ EP 1 080 912 A3)

• Full citation: Ink cartridge management system, printer, and ink cartridge, Naka et al., Seiko Epson Corporation, granted 2004-01-06; foreign counterpart EP 1 080 912 A3 (priority 1999-08-31).
• Description: Ink cartridge with memory; cartridge management system reading cartridge data for printing control.
• §102 bearing: Generic cartridge-with-memory art; no total-well-count instruction. §103 only.

3.7 US 6,935,716 B2 — Hatasa et al.

• Full citation: Recording liquid container and ink jet recording apparatus, Hatasa et al., Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, granted 2005-08-30.
• Description: Recording-liquid container with memory/identifying structure cooperating with the recording apparatus.
• §102 bearing: Background/§103; does not disclose the recited configuration-count instruction.

3.8 US 6,938,976 B2 — Siwinski et al.

• Full citation: Printer and method therefor adapted to sense data uniquely associated with a consumable loaded into the printer, Siwinski et al., Eastman Kodak Company, granted 2005-09-06.
• Description: Printer senses data uniquely associated with the loaded consumable to configure operation.
• §102 bearing: Relevant to "data stored in the memory tag" generally; not to the "total number of ink wells" limitation. §103.

3.9 US 7,212,637 B2 — Salisbury

• Full citation: Cartridge validation with radio frequency identification, Salisbury, Rimage Corporation, priority 2003-03-11, granted 2007-05-01.
• Description: Cartridge validation using an RFID tag.
• §102 bearing: Relevant to claim 10's "radio frequency identification memory tag." Not anticipatory of a dependent claim that also requires claim 1's configuration instruction. §103.

3.10 JP 2003-300358 A — Canon

• Full citation: Cartridge mounting device and printer device, Canon Inc., published 2003-10-21.
• Description: Cartridge mounting/recognition arrangement for a printer.
• §102 bearing: Mounting/position-recognition art; §103 at most.

4. Overall §102 assessment

• No reference in the citation record appears to anticipate claim 1 or claim 2 as a matter of §102. The point of novelty is the memory-tag datum that identifies "a total number of ink wells/tanks anticipated for installation when the ink tank is included as one of the installation tanks" so the controller can terminate memory operations (claims 4–7). The cited art is directed to (a) cartridge type/color/position recognition (US 7,137,684), (b) consumable memory for compatibility/usage (US 6,155,664; US 6,158,850; US 6,938,976; US 6,672,695), and (c) RFID/RF communication with consumables (US 6,302,527; US 7,212,637).
• Strongest §103 candidates (mine, not the examiner's): US 7,137,684 (cartridge-ID recognition → position) in view of US 6,158,850 (per-tank ID relating the tank to a set/plurality), optionally with US 6,302,527 / US 7,212,637 for the RF tag of claim 10. Claims 3, 8, 9 would likely be the harder independent claims to invalidate; claims 4–7 are the narrow "terminate memory operations" claims with no direct counterpart in the cited art.
• US 7,819,498 B2 must be excluded from the §102 analysis — it is the parent/same-inventor document, not prior art.

5. Discrepancy to note (per the "interpret literally / don't auto-correct" rule)

The Google Patents "Citations" block for US 8,113,618 lists only two entries (US 7,137,684 B2 and US 7,819,498 B2), whereas the patent's own (56) "References Cited" face lists eight U.S. documents plus two foreign documents (as reproduced from the US 7,819,498 print). I did not treat these as the same set, and I did not normalize or "correct" any identifier. If you require the USPTO-verified list of record for US 12/909,912 itself (as opposed to the family face), that should be pulled directly from USPTO Patent Center, because the continuation's own list could differ from the parent's.

If you'd like, I can next (a) pull the USPTO-verified (56) list for application 12/909,912 specifically, and (b) build a full element-by-element §103 chart for claims 3, 8, and 9 against US 7,137,684 + US 6,158,850.

I'll research the prior art references listed on this page to ground the obviousness analysis.

Let me research the remaining prior art references.

Let me check the remaining references (Epson, Canon, and Lexmark family citations).

Obviousness Analysis — US 8,113,618 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Disclaimer: This is a technical prior-art analysis, not a legal opinion. It is based on the bibliographic and Prior Art data on the Google Patents page for US 8,113,618 plus the abstract/description snippets retrievable for the references of record. Full § 103 analysis would require the complete specifications and prosecution history.

1. The patent and its effective filing date

• Patent: US 8,113,618 B2, "Methods and systems using printhead tank memory to determine printhead tank configuration," inventor Jason Todd McReynolds, original assignee Lexmark International, Inc., now Slingshot Printing LLC.
• Application: 12/909,912, filed 2010-10-22; a continuation of US 11/959,593 (now US 7,819,498), filed 2007-12-19. The earliest effective priority date is 2007-12-19, which controls for § 102/§ 103 purposes for claims supported by the parent. Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8113618/en

Note on US 7,819,498: Although it appears on the page under "Citations," it is the parent of the '618 patent and discloses the same invention by the same inventor/assignee. It is therefore not usable as § 103 prior art against the continuation. I exclude it from the combinations below.

2. The claimed subject matter

Independent claim 1: An ink tank comprising (a) a housing for holding ink and (b) a memory tag associated with the housing, wherein data on the memory tag includes ink tank configuration instructions identifying a total number of ink wells that are anticipated for installation in a printing system when the ink tank is included as one of the installation tanks.

Independent claim 2: Same concept expressed as at least one bit on a memory identifying, to a printer controller, a number of said ink wells in all ink tanks anticipated for installation.

Dependents: 3 (N wells in single/dual/four-tank configs, N ≥ 2), 4 (single-tank config → controller terminates memory operations), 5–6 (dual-tank → two memory ops, then terminate), 7 (N-tank, N > 2), 8 (printer modes based on how many tanks installed), 9 (configuration instructions identify a location of at least one other ink tank), 10 (memory tag is an RFID tag).

The point of novelty over the art is the content and function of the stored data field: instead of merely telling the printer what this cartridge is (black vs. color), the memory tells the printer how many ink wells the entire system anticipates, so the controller can stop performing memory operations on empty slots.

3. Level of ordinary skill in the art (Graham factor)

A POSITA here would have a B.S. in electrical/mechanical engineering or computer science and ~2–4 years' experience in inkjet printer design, printer firmware, or consumable memory systems — including knowledge of RFID/wireless and contact-based memory tags on ink supplies and of carriage/indexing memory-read routines. All references below are in this same field.

4. Prior art of record

All references were published or filed before the 2007-12-19 priority date and qualify as prior art. The last column of the page ("Families Citing this family," "Similar Documents") consists of documents published after the priority date and are not § 102/§ 103 art.

5. Claim-by-claim obviousness analysis

Independent claims 1 and 2 — the "total number anticipated" data

Samsung '684 discloses every structural element: an ink tank housing, a memory on/in the cartridge, data (print-head ID) stored therein, and a controller that reads it to identify the cartridge and define the printer's configuration. What Samsung does not literally show is a stored field identifying the total number of ink wells anticipated across the system.

That gap is closed by routine design choice and/or by Kodak '976 (memory storing "data characteristic of the consumable" including type) and Epson '912 (cartridge stores management data, including identification information, that the printer reads to manage the system). Once the artisan has a cartridge memory in Samsung that the printer reads to determine configuration, storing a count of the expected ink wells/tanks as one of the data fields is the predictable use of a known memory element to convey a known piece of information to a known controller. Under KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, this is a combination of known elements (cartridge memory + configuration-recognition logic) yielding predictable results (printer knows how many tanks to service), with an articulable reason: it lets the controller determine the full configuration from a single read instead of polling every possible slot. All references are analogous art directed to the same problem of identifying installed printing consumables.

Claims 3, 5, 7 — single / dual / N-tank configurations

Samsung's Table 1 expressly enumerates mounting combinations (black+black, black+color, etc.) and derives print modes from them; Epson/Kodak teach supplying configuration/type data from the cartridge. Extending the stored field from "black/color" to "N wells / single / dual / four-tank" is a routine adaptation of the same data field to the known multi-tank carriage architectures described in the '618 background itself. Obvious over Samsung + Kodak/Epson.

Claim 10 — RFID memory tag

Squarely met and obvious. Rimage '637 discloses an RFID tag on each print cartridge with non-volatile memory read by a print controller; Kodak '976 and HP '2527 disclose RF/wireless links to consumable memory. Combining Samsung's configuration-memory concept with the RFID tag of Rimage/Kodak requires no more than substituting one known memory-transfer modality for the contact-based memory of Samsung — a predictable substitution explicitly suggested by the art's teaching that RFID avoids connector reliability problems (Kodak '976 background).

Claim 9 — identifying the location of another ink tank

Samsung '684 expressly teaches defining the position of the enabled cartridge and controlling the carriage relative to print start/end positions; Canon JP 2003-300358 relates to cartridge mounting/position recognition. Storing, in the memory, a location/offset for the next tank is an obvious data encoding of the position information Samsung already determines. Strong prima facie case.

Claim 8 — printer modes based on number of installed tanks

Very strong. Samsung expressly selects print modes/specifications based on which cartridges are mounted ("a print speed can be doubled…or the resolution can be doubled"). Storing the number of installed tanks and operating in an associated mode is directly suggested.

Claims 4 and 6 — terminating memory operations when no more tanks remain

These are the weakest links in a prima facie case and the most likely non-obviousness battleground. The references of record show the printer reading configuration data and adapting operation (Samsung, Kodak, Epson), but the reviewed disclosures do not expressly teach terminating the memory-read routine (i.e., skipping carriage indexing/reads for unpopulated slots) as a function of a count field. However, a prima facie case is still reasonably made: the '618 background itself acknowledges the known problem (≈500 ms per read cycle; excess cycles depress pages-per-minute when fewer than the default number of tanks is installed), and the objective of reducing unnecessary memory operations is a recognized design goal. Using known count/type data already read from the cartridge to curtail subsequent reads is an obvious, predictable use of that data ("if the purpose is to know how many tanks to service, then stop when the count is satisfied"). This claim would likely turn on whether the examiner can point to an explicit teaching/suggestion of terminating the routine, or rely on KSR "known technique" reasoning plus design incentives. A § 103 rejection would be supportable but more vulnerable to a Rule 132 declaration showing unexpected results or teaching-away.

6. Representative combinations and motivations

1. Primary: Samsung '684 + Kodak '976 (or Epson '912). Same field, same problem (printer recognizing installed printing consumables to configure itself). Motivation: provide richer, machine-readable configuration data on the cartridge so the printer can determine the full system configuration without extra sensing. Renders claims 1–3, 5, 7–9 obvious.
2. + Rimage '637 (or HP '2527 / Kodak '976) for claim 10. Motivation: replace/supplement contact-based cartridge memory with RFID, a recognized alternative that avoids connector wear (Kodak '976 background).
3. + Canon JP 2003-300358 for the position/location limitations of claim 9.
4. For claims 4 and 6: Samsung '684 + Kodak/Epson + the admitted problem in the '618 specification (excess read cycles slowing printing). This is a "known problem / obvious solution" combination under KSR.

7. Secondary considerations (Graham factor 4)

No evidence of secondary considerations (unexpected results, long-felt need, failure of others, copying, licensing) is presented in the patent or the page. The patent states only a general commercial motivation ("the competitive printing market urges increasing print speeds"). Absent such evidence, the prima facie case controls. (The page notes a 2019 West Texas case, 6:19-cv-00364, but litigation alone is not a secondary consideration; note the assignee changed to Slingshot Printing LLC in 2019.)

8. Bottom line

The examiner allowed the '618 patent over what appears to be the single examiner-cited reference, US 7,137,684 (Samsung). On the record available, that reference alone does not literally disclose storing a total number of ink wells anticipated in the printing system on the cartridge memory. However, that limitation is a data-content/design-choice difference over Samsung, and combining Samsung with Kodak '976 and/or Epson '912 (each teaching cartridge memory storing consumable type/configuration data read by the printer) renders claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 obvious with a clear motivation (letting the controller know the full installed configuration from a single cartridge read). Adding Rimage '637 or HP '2527 specifically disposes of claim 10 (RFID). Claims 4 and 6 (terminating memory operations) are the most defensible against a § 103 challenge, though they remain susceptible to a KSR "known technique to address a known problem" rejection built on the admitted efficiency problem in the '618 background.

Caveats: (i) This analysis relies on abstracts/snippets, not the full reference texts; a definitive conclusion requires reading each reference's complete disclosure and its teaching-away/lead-away. (ii) The content of the counting field would be given patentable weight only if it is functionally related to machine operation (In re Lowry / In re Gulack principles) — here, it is functional because it controls the controller's memory-operation sequence, so it cannot be dismissed as non-functional printed matter.