Slingshot Printing v. Canon USA — Three-Patent Inkjet Infringement Suit
Slingshot Printing LLC filed suit against Canon U.S.A., Inc. and Canon Solutions America, Inc. in the Eastern District of New York, asserting three US patents covering inkjet printing technology against Canon’s TR4520, Maxify iX6820, Pixma G4210 printers and associated ink cartridges. The case saw counsel changes on the plaintiff side before closing in January 2024.
Three-patent inkjet IP dispute against Canon ends quietly in NY
Slingshot Printing LLC initiated this patent infringement action on 1 April 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Case No. 2:22-cv-01852). The plaintiff asserted three issued US patents — US7290864B2, US7484823B2, and US7594708B2 — against Canon U.S.A., Inc. and its subsidiary Canon Solutions America, Inc. The accused products include the Canon TR4520, Maxify iX6820, and Pixma G4210 printer models, as well as CLI-261 and CL-211 ink cartridges.
The case was closed on 31 January 2024, with the basis of termination recorded as ‘Other’ — a classification that does not indicate a merits ruling, voluntary dismissal with or without prejudice, or a formal settlement on the public docket. The case record also reflects a mid-litigation withdrawal of two plaintiff attorneys (David A. Gosse and Brian P. Herrmann of Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP) following their departure from that firm, with representation continuing under Hecht Partners LLP and remaining Fitch Even attorneys.
The approximately 21-month duration and ‘Other’ termination basis suggest the matter may have resolved through a confidential agreement or procedural mechanism not fully reflected in the public record. The counsel transition on the plaintiff side — involving two law firms simultaneously — is consistent with complex licensing or enforcement campaigns where IP boutiques and litigation firms collaborate. What drove the final resolution, and whether any licensing terms were reached, remains unknown from the public record.
Filing to filing in 670 days
Duration: filed April 2022, closed January 2024 — approximately 21 months
Full party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Slingshot Printing, LLC | Company | IP enforcement entity — holder of US7290864B2, US7484823B2, and US7594708B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Canon U.S.A., Inc. | Company | Canon U.S.A., Inc. and Canon Solutions America, Inc. — US subsidiaries of Canon Inc., JapanSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Lawrence Hecht | Attorney | Counsel for Slingshot Printing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Amanda S. Williamson | Attorney | Counsel for Canon U.S.A., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Grant Alan Shehigian | Attorney | Counsel for Canon U.S.A., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason Evan Gettleman | Attorney | Counsel for Canon U.S.A., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Unassigned | Chief Judge | New York Eastern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The document recorded as the verdict is a procedural motion for withdrawal of counsel, not a substantive ruling. It confirms that David A. Gosse and Brian P. Herrmann departed Fitch Even and sought removal from the docket, with Hecht Partners LLP and remaining Fitch Even attorneys continuing for Slingshot. This filing carries no implication for the merits of the infringement claims — it is an administrative record of representation change, typical in multi-year litigation where attorney mobility is common.
US7290864B2, US7484823B2 & US7594708B2 — Inkjet Printing Systems
The three patents at issue — US7290864B2 (App. No. 11/241079), US7484823B2 (App. No. 11/324167), and US7594708B2 (App. No. 11/323809) — form a closely related family of inkjet printing system patents. Their shared application number prefixes and sequential filing structure suggest a common inventive lineage, likely covering fluid ejection mechanisms, cartridge interface design, or ink delivery architectures. All three are issued utility patents and were asserted as covering Canon’s both hardware and consumable product lines.
In the inkjet printing sector, patents covering core ejection and cartridge interaction mechanisms carry significant strategic weight because they can be asserted across an entire product ecosystem — from entry-level consumer printers to commercial devices — and against both OEM and compatible cartridge manufacturers. The breadth of Canon products named in this action (spanning three distinct printer lines and two cartridge SKUs) is consistent with patents that claim methods or structures fundamental to how inkjet systems operate, rather than peripheral design features.
Should your team run an FTO against US7290864B2, US7484823B2 & US7594708B2?
Any organisation designing, manufacturing, or importing inkjet printers or compatible ink cartridges for the US market should treat these three patents as priority FTO targets. The Slingshot v. Canon action demonstrates that this portfolio has been asserted against consumer and commercial product lines simultaneously — meaning even mid-tier or niche inkjet products may fall within claim scope. Compatible cartridge makers are particularly exposed given the explicit naming of CLI-261 and CL-211 cartridge products.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US7290864B2, US7484823B2, and US7594708B2 against your product specifications and flag potential design-around opportunities before you reach market. Ongoing claim monitoring across the application family — including any continuations sharing the 11/241079, 11/324167, or 11/323809 priority chains — helps your team stay ahead of enforcement activity before it reaches the complaint stage.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7290864B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar inkjet patent infringement cases in US district courts
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the inkjet printing IP landscape
Three simultaneous patent assertions against a major OEM’s product lines highlight ongoing enforcement pressure in the inkjet consumables space.
Inkjet consumable patents remain active enforcement targets
Slingshot’s assertion of three patents across both printer hardware and ink cartridges signals that foundational inkjet IP — particularly around fluid ejection and cartridge interface mechanisms — continues to attract enforcement activity. OEMs and compatible cartridge manufacturers operating in this space should treat these patent families as live risk vectors, not legacy filings.
Broad product sweeps amplify settlement leverage
By naming consumer, prosumer, and commercial Canon products simultaneously, Slingshot maximised exposure across multiple business units. This multi-line strategy is a recognised enforcement tactic that increases defendant settlement motivation — particularly when accused products include high-volume consumables like CLI-261 and CL-211 cartridges that generate recurring revenue.
Slingshot v Canon — key questions answered
Slingshot Printing LLC asserted three patents: US7290864B2, US7484823B2, and US7594708B2. All three relate to inkjet printing systems and share closely linked application numbers, suggesting a common inventive family. They were asserted against Canon’s TR4520, Maxify iX6820, Pixma G4210 printers and CLI-261 and CL-211 ink cartridges.
The case was closed on 31 January 2024 with a basis of termination recorded as ‘Other’ — meaning no public dismissal order, verdict, or settlement agreement appears on the docket. This classification typically indicates a confidential resolution or administrative closure. The specific terms, if any, are not disclosed in the public record.
The accused products named in the case include the Canon TR4520, Maxify iX6820, and Pixma G4210 printers, as well as CLI-261 and CL-211 ink cartridges. The product sweep spans consumer and commercial printer lines alongside high-volume consumable cartridges, suggesting a broad infringement theory targeting core inkjet mechanisms.
The motion for withdrawal filed in the case explains that David A. Gosse and Brian P. Herrmann departed from Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP. Their withdrawal was a firm-departure-driven administrative matter, not a strategic change. Representation of Slingshot continued without interruption under remaining Fitch Even attorneys Timothy P. Maloney and Mark A. Borsos, alongside Hecht Partners LLP.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Case No. 2:22-cv-01852) on 1 April 2022. It is a first-instance district court action. The Eastern District of New York is a frequently used venue for patent infringement suits involving consumer electronics and technology products sold in the New York region.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.