Defendant
1 case as defendant.
I'll verify the company's profile with some searches.
Overview. Ricoh Company, Ltd. (TYO: 7752; U.S. ADR RICOY) is a Japanese multinational technology company headquartered in Ōta-ku, Tokyo. It was established on February 6, 1936 as Riken Kankoshi Co., Ltd., the sensitized-paper division of Rikagaku Kogyo, and adopted the Ricoh name in the 1960s. Ricoh is publicly listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. For the fiscal year ended March 31, 2026, it reported consolidated net sales of ¥2,608.3 billion and 75,635 consolidated employees, serving roughly 200 countries and regions (ricoh.com/about/facts; FT markets profile).
Products / operations. Ricoh is a diversified operating company, not a licensor shell. Its core business remains office printing — multifunction printers (MFPs), copiers, laser printers, and related consumables and maintenance services. Adjacent lines include commercial and industrial printing equipment and production presses, thermal and inkjet technologies, digital cameras, and industrial/optical components. Since 2020 Ricoh has positioned itself as a "digital services company," selling managed IT services, process automation, and workplace-experience services alongside its devices (Ricoh Integrated Report 2025; ricoh.com/about/at-a-glance).
Litigation posture. The tracked data shows Ricoh as a defendant in 1 case and plaintiff in 0 — the profile of an operating company being targeted, not a patent assertion entity. The single tracked suit is RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Ricoh (E.D. Pa.). Venue there reflects the plaintiff suing Ricoh's U.S. affiliate in its home district (Ricoh Americas, Malvern, PA) rather than a plaintiff-friendly NPE forum such as the Eastern District of Texas.
Case context. In RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Ricoh Americas Corp., No. 2:15-cv-05203 (E.D. Pa., filed Sept. 17, 2015; closed Feb. 16, 2017), RAH — a Virginia LLC managed by inventor Dr. Richard A. Holub and described in related litigation as a non-practicing entity — asserted color-management and color-reproduction patents (including the '870, '251, '008, '546, '444, '704, and '314 patents) against Ricoh's printers and color-management software. Ricoh counterclaimed for invalidity and non-infringement. A 2016 ruling, 194 F. Supp. 3d 346, addressed Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards for patent counterclaims and is frequently cited. RAH filed at least ten similar suits against Adobe, Xerox, X-Rite, Seiko Epson, and Quad/Graphics.