Untitled case

I'll research this case across multiple sources.

Case overview: Adobe Inc. v. RAH Color Technologies LLC, No. 2021‑1067 (Fed. Cir.)

Correction/refinement of the prior summary. This is not a district‑court infringement appeal but an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board final written decision in Adobe's inter partes review campaign against RAH's color‑management portfolio. Notice of appeal was received October 16, 2020 and docketed October 20, 2020 (Fed. Cir. Dkt. 1, per UniCourt's docket extract); oral argument was held September 2, 2021, and the appeal was terminated September 22, 2021 (Fed. Cir. oral‑argument audio page for 2021‑1067; Patexia docket summary, filing 10/20/2020, termination 9/22/2021). One caveat on the patent linkage: the case metadata ties No. 21‑1067 to U.S. Patent No. 7,729,008, but Patexia's PTAB record cross‑references the appeal to the FWD in IPR2019‑00628 (the '444 patent), decided August 19, 2020 — which fits the October 20, 2020 docketing date, whereas the '008 FWD issued in September 2020 (Patexia IPR2019‑00628 summary). I could not retrieve the Federal Circuit's disposition document; a termination three weeks post‑argument with no published opinion is consistent with a Rule 36 summary affirmance, but I have not verified the outcome and you should not treat affirmance as confirmed. Practically, both patents traveled together: IPR2019‑00627 ('008), ‑00628 ('444), ‑00629 ('897) and ‑00646 ('761) were consolidated for a single May 28, 2020 hearing before APJs Ippolito, Engels and Hudalla.

Parties and technology. Appellant Adobe Inc. is the operating software company whose Creative Cloud/Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign/Acrobat product line was accused of infringement; it was represented by Perkins Coie (Christopher L. Kelley, James F. Valentine, Wing H. Liang). Appellee RAH Color Technologies LLC is a small, Virginia‑based patent‑holding and licensing entity — the archetypal individual‑inventor NPE rather than a practicing company. It is owned and managed by Dr. Richard A. Holub, a color scientist (Ph.D., neurophysiology; formerly Eikonix/Eastman Kodak, Agfa, SuperMac; TAGA officer and RIT instructor) who is the named inventor on all of its assets; RAH was formed in 2005 as "a vehicle for an on‑going licensing program" after his earlier commercialization venture, Imagicolor Corporation, was dissolved (RAH complaint background ¶¶ 12–21, reproduced in PTAB exhibits, e.g. [Quad/Graphics amended complaint](https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2019-00628/Adobe_Inc._v._RAH_Color_Technologies_LLC/docs/

I'll research this case systematically across court dockets, PTAB records, and Federal Circuit materials.

Key parties and posture are emerging. Let me pin down the Federal Circuit outcome and the district court docket.

Now let me determine the Federal Circuit disposition and the district court's endgame.

RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Adobe Inc. — Litigation Narrative for U.S. Patent No. 7,729,008

Bottom line up front: U.S. Patent No. 7,729,008 ("System for Distributing and Controlling Color Reproduction at Multiple Sites," inventor Richard A. Holub, assignee RAH Color Technologies LLC) was asserted by RAH against Adobe in the N.D. Cal. MDL. Adobe challenged claims 28–33 and 36–38 in IPR2019-00627 and lost on every challenged claim — the Board's Final Written Decision held Adobe had not shown any of them unpatentable. Adobe appealed, producing Federal Circuit No. 21-1067. I could not verify the disposition of 21-1067, nor the final district-court disposition of the Adobe case; both are flagged below as open items rather than guessed at.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Asserted patents against Adobe: four — the '897, '008, '761 and '444 patents. Accused products: Adobe's "Creative Products," specifically Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign and Acrobat Pro (Creative Cloud Assets and shared-review/annotation features), with infringement theories pleaded under § 271(a) and (b) for claims including 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37 and 41 of the '008 patent. RAH pleaded Adobe's knowledge of the '008 patent since at least 2013-12-19 — the date that anchors any inducement/willfulness theory. (Complaint counts VI–IX, reproduced in RPX litigation documents.)

Not verified: Adobe's answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims are not documented in any source I could retrieve. Given the posture, counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement/invalidity are near-certain, but I will not state them as fact. The N.D. Cal. docket (3:18-cv-03277, Dkts. 1–~50) should be pulled to confirm.

Parallel suits on the same patent family, which shaped the MDL: EFI DJ action (E.D. Va. 1:18-cv-01436); Heidelberg (N.D. Ill. 1:19-cv-00193); Dalim (N.D. Ill. 1:19-cv-00275); Kodak (W.D.N.Y. 6:19-cv-06112); Quad/Graphics (E.D. Wis. 18-cv-00087); and later Microsoft (E.D. Tex. 2020).

---

2. Parallel PTAB proceedings (the decisive track)

On 2019-02-01 Adobe filed four IPR petitions — a coordinated strike against all four asserted patents:

I'll research this appeal and its underlying district court case to identify counsel of record.

Preliminary clarification on party alignment

Case No. 2021‑1067 at the Federal Circuit is captioned Adobe Inc. v. RAH Color Technologies LLC — Adobe is the appellant and RAH is the appellee. The docket entry quoted by aggregators reads "Agency Case Docketed" (received 10/16/2020; docketed 10/20/2020), and Patexia classifies the appeal as "Appeal From PTO," i.e., an appeal from the PTAB's final written decision in IPR2019‑00627 on U.S. Patent No. 7,729,008 (the Board found claims 28–33 and 36–38 not unpatentable). (Unicourt docket summary; Patexia case summary; PTAB FWD, IPR2019‑00627 Paper 124)

The plaintiff in the underlying infringement case is RAH Color Technologies LLC (N.D. Cal. No. 3:18‑cv‑03277‑SI, coordinated in MDL No. 3:18‑md‑02874‑SI, Judge Susan Illston). So "plaintiff's counsel" = RAH's counsel: the same Global IP Law Group team that argued the appeal for the appellee. Both sides are set out below, with RAH's side first.

---

RAH Color Technologies LLC — plaintiff below / appellee on appeal

Source for the district‑court appearance list: RAH's own Exhibit 2024 in IPR2019‑00628, which reproduces the N.D. Cal. attorney list for No. 3:18‑cv‑03277‑SI (Docket Alarm copy), plus the MDL case‑management transcript, Ex. 1038 and the Amended Mandatory Notices.

Also on Global IP Law Group's service distribution for the RAH IPRs (not confirmed as counsel of record in the district court case): Michael Ajay Chandra and Kristina Martin (kmartin@giplg.com, the paralegal/legal‑ops contact who served papers).

Adobe Inc. — defendant below / appellant on appeal (for completeness)

---

Sourcing caveats — please read

1. I could not open the Federal Circuit docket sheet itself (CAFC dockets are behind PACER; the free aggregator mirrors only show entry #1 and the oral‑argument notice). The "appellee attorney = Irwin I. Park / appellant attorney = Christopher L. Kelley" pairing comes from Unicourt's CAFC docket page, not from a primary ECF/CM docket. Treat the specific Federal Circuit Entry‑of‑Appearance filers as high‑confidence but not primary‑source verified.
2. The district‑court counsel list is from a May 2019 snapshot (RAH's Ex. 2024). Later substitutions in 2019–2021 would not appear; the case ended with a stipulated dismissal (Dkt. 155 in 3:18‑cv‑03277‑SI).
3. No sealed materials were involved in identifying counsel — appearances are public — but the parties' briefing in the IPRs and MDL was filed under protective order in places, which is why some filings are public‑version only.
4. Outcome of 2021‑1067 remains unverified. Patexia records a termination date of September 22, 2021, three weeks after the September 2, 2021 oral argument (CAFC audio page). That timing is consistent with a Rule 36 summary affirmance, but I did not find the disposition document and will not state it as fact. This should be confirmed against the CAFC docket or the bound volume of F. App'x before being relied on.
5. Related Appeal No. 2021‑1068 (also Adobe v. RAH, from IPR2019‑00628 on the '444 patent) involves the same counsel on both sides.

I'll research this appeal and the underlying district court case to identify defense counsel of record.

Scope note before the table

The caption in the metadata is neutral, but the alignment of the parties matters here. Federal Circuit No. 21‑1067 is captioned Adobe Inc. v. RAH Color Technologies LLC, and it is an appeal from the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2019‑00627 (U.S. Patent No. 7,729,008) dated August 19, 2020, which held claims 28–33 and 36–38 of the '008 patent not unpatentable (Paper 124, public version). Adobe, the IPR petitioner, is the appellant; RAH is the appellee.

The "defendant" in the underlying infringement case — RAH Color Techs. LLC v. Adobe Inc., No. 3:18‑cv‑03277‑SI (N.D. Cal.), consolidated into In re RAH Color Technologies LLC Patent Litigation, MDL No. 2874 (N.D. Cal., Case No. 3:18‑md‑02874‑SI) — is Adobe Inc. So the appellant‑side counsel below are the defense counsel of record for the defendant. (Appeal docketed 10/20/2020; oral argument held 9/2/2021 per the CAFC audio page; case shown as terminated 9/22/2021 in the Patexia docket summary — the disposition itself is not verified; see the caveats at the end.)

Counsel of record for Adobe Inc. (appellant / defendant below)

Adobe's defense in the district court MDL, in the four Adobe IPRs (IPR2019‑00627, ‑00628, ‑00629, ‑00646), and on the Federal Circuit appeal was handled by a single Perkins Coie LLP team.

In‑house: Adobe presumably had in‑house counsel supervising, but no Adobe in‑house attorney name is verified in the record I could access — I am not naming one.

Appellee side (for contrast, not the "defendant")

RAH Color Technologies was represented by Global IP Law Group, LLC (Chicago): Dr. Irwin I. Park (lead; appellee's counsel of record in No. 21‑1067), David Berten, Alison Richards, and Ragnar Olson. These are the same counsel listed "For PATENT OWNER" in the PTAB orders and are not defense counsel.

Caveats and sourcing gaps

• Federal Circuit docket sheet not directly reviewed. I could not open the CAFC/PACER docket for No. 21‑1067 in this session. The appellant/attorney pairing (Kelley for Adobe; Park for RAH) comes from the PACER‑derived UniCourt docket summary, and the roster composition comes from PTAB orders, service lists, deposition notices and Adobe's privilege log — all consistent, but the specific Entry of Appearance filings in 21‑1067 are not independently confirmed.
• No sealed‑filing issue identified. Nothing indicates Adobe's Federal Circuit appearances were sealed; the PTAB record in the companion IPRs is largely public (only Paper 61 / Patent Owner's Response was filed under seal, later public as Paper 111).
• Outcome unverified. Patexia shows a termination date of September 22, 2021; whether that reflects a Rule 36 summary affirmance, a Rule 42(b) voluntary dismissal (e.g., after settlement or after the MDL resolved), or another disposition is not confirmed by a primary source here. This should be checked against the CAFC docket before the case summary is finalized.
• Later firm changes. Kelley's State Bar listing at Randolph Strategic Consulting LLC postdates the appeal; firm affiliations above reflect the 2019–2021 record.