Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc.

Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc. The Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the PTAB's final written decision in IPR2022-01416 without opinion. No legal reasoning was provided. The Rule 36 affirmance leaves the PTAB's IPR ruling intact but provides no precedential or persuasive guidance on the underlying patent-law issues, which remain unknown from the face of the judgment. Affirmed The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's final written decision in IPR2022-01416 via a one-word Rule 36 judgment with no written opinion. The underlying substantive issues decided by the PTAB are not disclosed in the judgment; the technology area and specific invalidity grounds are not stated in the extracted text. The panel consisted of Chief Judge Moore and Circuit Judges Stoll and Stark. Because this is a nonprecedential Rule 36 affirmance, it carries no binding or persuasive weight on any legal question. Counsel of record included MoloLamken LLP and Fitch Even for appellant Slingshot Printing, and Morgan Lewis for appellees Canon U.S.A. and Canon Inc. Rule 36 affirmance non-precedential remand Rule 36 affirmance non-precedential Rule 36 affirmance non-precedential