Plaintiff

Adobe Inc.

6 cases as plaintiff.

Cases
6
Active
0
6 closed
Filed
2019–2023
Top venue
PTAB
3 cases
Also appears as a defendant in 8 cases → View as defendant

Company profile

Adobe Inc. (NASDAQ: ADBE) is a multinational public software company headquartered in San Jose, California. Founded in December 1982 by John Warnock and Charles Geschke, the company has grown to more than 31,000 employees worldwide and reported annual revenue of approximately $23.8 billion for its 2025 fiscal year. Adobe is a major developer of software for creating and publishing a wide range of digital content.

Adobe's operations are centered around three main cloud-based subscription platforms. The Adobe Creative Cloud is a suite of applications for graphic design, video editing, and web development, including flagship products like Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere Pro, and InDesign. The Adobe Experience Cloud offers products for digital marketing, advertising, analytics, and e-commerce. The Adobe Document Cloud provides services for creating, editing, and signing digital documents, anchored by Adobe Acrobat and the Portable Document Format (PDF).

In patent litigation, Adobe is an operating company that is primarily a defendant. The provided data shows the company as a defendant in all three tracked cases and as a plaintiff in none. This pattern indicates that Adobe is targeted by patent assertion entities rather than initiating patent litigation itself. The cases are filed in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Delaware and the Northern District of California, which are common venues for patent disputes.

The tracked cases against Adobe have been brought by entities that are active patent litigants. The plaintiffs Datonics LLC and Intent IQ, LLC are related advertising technology companies that have filed numerous infringement suits against major technology firms. The plaintiff Datacloud Technologies LLC has been identified by industry sources like Unified Patents and RPX as a non-practicing entity (NPE) associated with the monetization firm IP Investments Group. The patents in these cases appear to relate to digital advertising and cloud infrastructure technologies, which are core to Adobe's Experience Cloud and other web-based services.

Watchlist

Get alerted when Adobe Inc. sues again.

Email-only, free, anonymous. We'll notify you when Adobe Inc. files another patent-infringement lawsuit. One-click unsubscribe from any alert.

Filing activity

2019: 5 cases5'19'20'21'222023: 1 case'23
Cases filed per year with Adobe Inc. as plaintiff.

Adobe Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC

final written decision — all challenged claims unpatentable
Docket:
IPR2019-00712
Filed:
2019-02-27
Terminated:
2020-08-17
Patents:8929442

Adobe Inc. filed an inter partes review against Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC. The PTAB instituted review and issued a final written decision on Aug. 17, 2020 holding all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 8,929,442 unpatentable.

Adobe Inc. v. RAH Color Technologies LLC

final
Docket:
IPR2019-00646
Filed:
2019-02-01
Terminated:
2020-10-08
Patents:7791761

Inter partes review of US 7,791,761. Challenged claims 7–11, 13, and 15; instituted September 4, 2019. Final Written Decision on October 8, 2020 held claims 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13 unpatentable, and Adobe did not show claim 15 unpatentable.

Adobe Inc. v. RAH Color Technologies LLC

final written decision; RAH prevailed
Docket:
IPR2019-00628
Filed:
2019-02-01
Terminated:
2020-08-31
Patents:8416444

Inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,416,444 B2. Claims 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 26, and 27 were challenged. The Board determined that Petitioner did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable.

Adobe Inc. v. RAH Color Technologies LLC

final written decision; RAH prevailed
Docket:
IPR2019-00627
Filed:
2019-02-01
Patents:7729008

Adobe Inc. petitioned for inter partes review of claims 28–33 and 36–38 of U.S. Patent 7,729,008. The PTAB instituted review on 2019-08-20 and issued a final written decision finding that petitioner did not prove those claims unpatentable; RAH prevailed.