Defendant
3 cases as defendant.
I'll research Fujifilm Holdings Corp. to verify its profile.
Let me verify the litigation context.
Company overview. FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation (TSE: 4901; US ADR: FUJIY) is a Japanese holding company headquartered at Tokyo Midtown, 9-7-3 Akasaka, Minato-ku, Tokyo. It was established January 20, 1934, and became a holding company on October 1, 2006, when the former Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. transferred operations to FUJIFILM Corporation. It is publicly listed and not a subsidiary. Per the company's own profile, consolidated employees totaled 73,526 and FY2025 revenue was ¥3,357.0 billion (258 consolidated subsidiaries).
Products / services. Fujifilm operates four reporting segments: Healthcare (medical imaging systems such as CT/MRI, endoscopes and ultrasound, bio CDMO contract manufacturing, iPS cell and drug-discovery support, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and supplements); Electronics (semiconductor process materials, CMP slurries, display and image-sensor materials, data-archive tape); Business Innovation (digital multifunction printers, office and business solutions, cloud services, graphic communications including production printers and inkjet printheads); and Imaging (Instax instant systems, color film, digital cameras, broadcast/industrial lenses, projectors). This is a large operating company, not a patent-assertion entity.
Patent-litigation posture. In the tracked data, Fujifilm appears only as a defendant (0 plaintiff cases, 3 defendant cases) — the profile of an operating company defending against third-party assertions rather than an aggressor. All three tracked entries are variants of a single 2017 suit, RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Fujifilm Holdings Corp. et al., filed April 18, 2017 in the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:17-cv-02924), naming Fujifilm Holdings, Fujifilm Holdings America and Fujifilm North America. Plaintiff RAH Color Technologies is a Virginia LLC managed by inventor Dr. Richard A. Holub; a federal court described it as a "non-practicing entity that licenses and enforces the patents of its sole member," and Stanford's NPE database classifies it as individual-inventor-started.
Notable cases / context. RAH asserted eight color-management patents (including the '870, '251, '897, '008, '444, '704, '546 and '314 patents) against Fujifilm's printing, prepress and digital-camera products. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss in January 2018 and granted transfer of venue out of the Northern District of Illinois. The same portfolio was asserted against Adobe, Xerox, Quad/Graphics, X-Rite, Samsung, Heidelberger and others, with several cases later centralized in MDL No. 2874 (N.D. Cal.); Adobe filed IPRs against related RAH patents. No outcome of the Fujifilm matter is verifiable from the tracked data.
RAH Color Technologies LLC asserted the '546 patent and related patents against Fujifilm Holdings Corp. et al. in N.D. Ill.; the case is confirmed in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database.
RAH Color Technologies LLC sued Fujifilm entities in the Northern District of Illinois; the '314 patent was one of eight asserted patents. The outcome was not confirmed in the narrative.
Per Stanford NPE database, RAH asserted '870 against Fujifilm Holdings Corp. et al.