Untitled case

I'll research this case across multiple sources.

Case overview: RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Xerox Corp., No. 3:18-cv-07464-SI (N.D. Cal.)

Parties and procedural posture. Plaintiff RAH Color Technologies LLC is an Alexandria, Virginia limited liability company managed by Dr. Richard A. Holub, the named inventor on essentially every patent it asserts; the company was formed in 2005 expressly as "a vehicle for an on-going licensing program" for Dr. Holub's color-management inventions, which he began patenting in the mid-1990s after an unsuccessful commercialization attempt (see RAH's own background allegations, reproduced in the IPR2019-00627/00628/00629 papers: ptacts.uspto.gov). That makes RAH a classic individual-inventor-started licensing entity — Stanford's NPE database tags it with both "individual-inventor-started" and "product company" categories (npe.law.stanford.edu). Defendant Xerox Corporation is the operating-company accused infringer. Docket 3:18-cv-07464 was filed 12/12/2018 in the Northern District of California and assigned to Senior Judge Susan Illston; RPX records it as closed 10/15/2019, with 8 patents-in-suit and 71 accused products (RPX Insight). Note the caption history: RAH's Xerox suit originated in the Northern District of Illinois (No. 1:17-cv-06813, Judge Amy J. St. Eve), where Xerox moved to transfer to California, and the W.D.N.Y. tag-along No. 6:18-cv-06746 was also in play; all were pulled into MDL No. 2874, In re RAH Color Technologies LLC Patent Litigation, 3:18-md-02874-SI, before Judge Illston (Justia docket; MDL docket). I could not verify from a primary docket entry the exact instrument by which 3:18-cv-07464 closed on 10/15/2019 (dismissal vs. consolidation) — RPX's closure date is the best available source.

The accused technology and the asserted patents. The accused instrumentalities are Xerox's commercial digital-printing color-management stack: EFI Fiery-based "Accused Print Servers" (EX/CX Print Servers, Command WorkStation, FreeFlow Core), digital presses (iGen, Versant) with the Automated Color Quality Suite and inline spectrophotometers/full-width arrays, and — most relevant to the '251 patent — MatchAssure and IntegratedPLUS Automated Color Management (complaint analysis at Ex Parte). The '251 patent, U.S. 7,280,251 B1, "System and Method for Calibrating Color Printers" (issued Oct. 9, 2007, to Holub/RAH), claims a method of processing color data: communicating with color-capable rendering devices, collecting color reproduction data relative to a reference, and sharing that data between devices over a network "for the purpose of matching color reproductions"; asserted claims 9, 19, 20 and 21 target MatchAssure's patch-chart measurement, profile generation and network distribution of profiles, with claim 21 specifically covering matching "black utilization" (GCR strategy) between devices (claim text and infringement allegations at RPX litigation document 12817805). The other seven patents in the Xerox action are siblings from the same 1996-priority "System for Distributing and Controlling Color Reproduction at Multiple Sites" family — the '909, '870, '897, '008, '444, '357 and '704 patents — which claim multi-site color reproduction, ICC-profile-based gamut transformation, and chromatic adaptation/gamut-descriptor functionality. RAH's infringement theory across the campaign is essentially standard-compliance infringement: that products implementing ICC v4 profiles (including the "chad" chromatic-adaptation tag and the perceptual reference medium gamut) practice the claims — a theory defendants attacked on the ground that the ICC specification does not require the features RAH attributes to it.

Why it matters. Three things make this docket notable. (1) Serial licensing campaign against an entire industry: RAH sued or was sued by Adobe, EFI, Xerox, Kodak, Dalim, Heidelberger, Ricoh, Seiko-Epson and Microsoft, and claims licenses with 11 major manufacturers plus 13 end-user licensees — an unusual profile for an inventor-owned PAE, and one that generated a jurisdictional sideshow in Electronics for Imaging, Inc. v. RAH Color Technologies LLC, No. 3:18-cv-01612 (N.D. Cal.) (Judge William H. Orrick), over whether RAH's California licensing contacts supported specific jurisdiction (Casetext). (2) MDL centralization in N.D. Cal.: the JPML consolidated the Xerox, Adobe, EFI, Kodak, Dalim and Heidelberger actions before Judge Illston under 42 U.S.C. § 1407 — venue mattered both because Xerox successfully pushed for California and because centralization gave one court control of claim construction across a dozen parallel suits; the MDL closed with final judgment on 9/27/2021. (3) PTAB linkage: Adobe (and others) filed IPRs including IPR2019-00627, -00628 and -00629 against the '444 and sibling patents, and IPR2019-00646 against the '761; on September 10, 2019 Judge Illston stayed the MDL proceedings in light of those IPR institutions, which is likely the operative event behind the autumn 2019 closure of the Xerox case (RAH's own account, in its Microsoft complaint, Docket Alarm). Xerox's willfulness exposure was framed around knowledge dating to RAH's February 26, 2015 claim charts for the '251, '897 and '704 patents, sent after Xerox's January 21, 2015 statement that it "does not desire a license."

Sourcing caveats: the identity of 3:18-cv-07464 as the Xerox action, the judge, and the 12/12/2018 filing date come from RPX and are consistent with the MDL record; the precise docket entry closing the case on 10/15/2019, the terms of any settlement, and whether any IPR was instituted specifically against the '251 patent are not verified in the sources I could reach and should be confirmed against PACER before being relied on.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with identifying the parties and docket.

Case identified: RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Xerox Corp., 3:18-cv-07464 (N.D. Cal., Judge Illston). Let me get the docket and procedural history.

The Xerox case has a complex transfer history. Let me pull the N.D. Cal. docket and MDL outcome.

I'll research this case's docket and counsel.

Bottom line

Case 3:18-cv-07464 is RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Xerox Corporation (N.D. Cal., Judge Susan Yvonne Illston; filed 12/12/2018; closed 10/15/2019), one of the tag-along actions coordinated in In re: RAH Color Technologies LLC Patent Litigation, MDL No. 2874, No. 3:18-md-02874-SI. The sole plaintiff is RAH Color Technologies LLC (Alexandria, VA), Dr. Richard A. Holub's licensing vehicle; the '251 patent ("System and Method for Calibrating Color Printers") is among the eight patents asserted in that action (RPX Insight docket page, https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/candce-[335845](/patent/335845)-rah-color-technologies-v-xerox; '251 identified in the Xerox complaint's claim-chart history, ¶ 31).

RAH's representation was entirely in-house/portfolio counsel from one firm — Global IP Law Group, LLC (Chicago) — the same team that ran all of the MDL 2874 cases and the Adobe IPRs. No separate N.D. Cal. "local counsel" firm is confirmed on the 7464 docket (Pretrial Order No. 1 in the MDL expressly waived the L.R. 11-3 local-counsel requirement).

Counsel of record for plaintiff RAH Color Technologies LLC

Not counsel of record: Kristina Martin (kmartin@giplg.com) appears throughout the IPR service correspondence as Global IP's litigation-support/paralegal contact, not as an attorney of record; Dr. Richard A. Holub is RAH's owner/manager and inventor (client representative).

Sourcing caveats

• I could not pull the 7464 docket sheet directly (PACER paywalled; CourtListener RECAP has no public docket for this number). Appearances above are corroborated from (a) the MDL 2874 CMC transcript of Apr. 4, 2019 (Ex. 1038 in IPR2019-00646), (b) the N.D. Cal. attorney listing for companion No. 3:18-cv-03277-SI, (c) PTAB filings in IPR2019-00627/28/29/46, and (d) the MDL Joint Preliminary Status Report signed by Berten as "Attorney for Plaintiff, RAH Color Technologies LLC" (Ex. 2012, IPR2019-00646).
• Nothing suggests any RAH appearance was sealed; the MDL protective order covers discovery material, not counsel appearances.
• The 7464 action is the coordinated/transferred Xerox matter (the Xerox suit was originally filed Sept. 20, 2017 and also docketed as W.D.N.Y. No. 6:18-cv-06746 before centralization); the docket closed 10/15/2019, but I did not locate the specific dismissal/settlement order, so the reason for closure should be confirmed against the docket before being stated as fact.
• Defendant Xerox was represented by Perkins Coie (James F. Valentine, Christopher G. Hanewicz, Andrew N. Klein, Wing H. Liang — 3150 Porter Dr., Palo Alto) and, per the MDL transcript, Ward Greenberg (Eric J. Ward, Rochester, NY); Valentine was also designated liaison counsel in the transferee court (Order of 4/8/2019).

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

Counsel of record — Defendant Xerox Corporation, No. 3:18-cv-07464-SI

Important threshold caution: I was able to confirm Xerox's litigation counsel from primary-adjacent sources (the April 4, 2019 MDL case-management transcript and the predecessor Illinois docket), but I could not retrieve the actual docket sheet for 3:18-cv-07464 itself (PACER is paywalled; the RPX and Ex Parte docket pages for the case list an attorney field that is not publicly rendered). Everything below should be verified against the 3:18-cv-07464 docket and the MDL docket, 3:18-md-02874-SI, on PACER before reliance.

Procedural note that affects where appearances live

3:18-cv-07464 is not a case Xerox's counsel newly appeared in. It is the MDL member docket for RAH's Xerox action, which traveled N.D. Ill. No. 1:17-cv-06813 (Judge St. Eve) → W.D.N.Y. No. 6:18-cv-06746 → N.D. Cal. MDL No. 2874, docketed as 3:18-cv-07464 on 12/12/2018. The Justia docket for the W.D.N.Y. case shows Xerox filings carried over "[Transferred from ilnd on 10/17/2018]" (Justia); the MDL transcript lists "18-cv-7464" among the related cases before Judge Illston (Exhibit 1038, IPR2019-00646). Because of that chain, Xerox's appearance was made in the Illinois case and continued by operation of the transfer.

1. Lead counsel — Eric J. Ward

Note: the Ex Parte docket page for 3:18-cv-07464 confirms the case, 12/12/18 filing date, closed status and Judge Illston, but its "Attorney" field could not be retrieved (Ex Parte).

2. Of counsel / co-counsel at Ward Greenberg — Heidi S. Martinez (probable, not confirmed)

The Illinois transfer papers included a "Declaration of Heidi S. Martinez" filed with Xerox's reply in support of its motion to transfer (Dkt. 38, 4/16/2018) (Justia docket). Declarations of this kind are typically executed by a member of the moving party's outside-counsel team, which suggests she was on the Ward Greenberg Xerox team — but the docket snippet does not state her firm, and I could not confirm she entered an appearance in 3:18-cv-07464. Treat as unverified; do not cite as counsel of record without a PACER check.

3. Local counsel in N.D. Cal. — not verified

I found no N.D. Cal.-admitted local counsel identified for Xerox in this case. The UniCourt aggregation of the MDL-related docketing shows a Xerox-filed "MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice … filed by Xerox Corporation" (Dkt. #9) with Eric J. Ward listed among the case's attorneys (UniCourt) — consistent with a New York attorney seeking PHV admission, which under N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 11-3 would require a designated local counsel, but the identity of that designee is not established by any source I could reach. This is the single biggest gap in the picture and the thing to pull from PACER first.

4. In-house counsel (Xerox Legal Department) — named in RAH's pleadings, not appearances

RAH's complaint chronicles Xerox's in-house patent counsel as the recipients of its licensing demands; these individuals are not counsel of record but are the client-side contacts:

• Mark Costello — Vice President and General Patent Counsel (received RAH's 3/27/2014 letter and claim charts).
• Gary Cohen — Senior Patent Counsel (responded 4/10/2014; 2/26/2015 claim charts for the '251, '897 and '704 patents were sent to him).
• Robert Hutter — Senior Patent Counsel (Xerox's substantive positions, 5/28/2015 onward).
• Andrew Post and Joseph Calibria — declarants in support of Xerox's transfer motion (Dkt. 31, Attachments 1–2); likely Xerox personnel, but their titles are not stated in the snippet.

Source: RAH's complaint allegations reproduced at RPX litigation document 12817805.

5. Attribution warning — counsel who are not Xerox's

Later MDL filings name James Valentine, Christopher Hanewicz and Andrew Klein as "Defendant Attorney[s]" at the April 30, 2021 case-management conference (UniCourt MDL docket, Dkt. 153). All three are Perkins Coie attorneys representing Adobe Inc. in No. 3:18-cv-03277-SI (see the attorney list in Adobe's docket, reproduced as [Exhibit 2024 in IPR2019-00628](https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2019-00628/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8416444/docs/05