Plaintiff
50 cases as plaintiff.
RAH Color Technologies LLC is a privately held, single-owner licensing entity based in Alexandria, Virginia (originally Rochester, New York), formed in 2005 by Dr. Richard A. Holub, a color scientist and named inventor on essentially the entire portfolio. It has no parent, no public ticker, and no disclosed revenue or headcount; its own complaints describe a prior venture, Imagicolor Corporation (1998), that failed to commercialize, after which RAH was created as "a vehicle for an on-going licensing program." It is best characterized as a non-practicing entity / patent-holding licensor rather than an operating company — it does not make, sell, or service products.
Patent portfolio and technology. RAH holds roughly 27–35 issued U.S. patents (plus foreign counterparts) in digital color management. The families, with priority dates back to February 26, 1996, cover: (1) networked "system for distributing and controlling color reproduction at multiple sites" (e.g., U.S. 6,995,870; 7,729,008; 7,710,560; 8,416,444), (2) "methods and apparatus for calibrating a color display" (e.g., U.S. 7,104,648; 8,279,236), (3) color-printer calibration (U.S. 7,280,251), and (4) color calibration of color image rendering devices (U.S. 9,894,340; 10,560,676). Asserted technology centers on ICC-profile processing, gamut mapping, and remote/soft proofing.
Litigation posture. The case data show 50 suits as plaintiff against 7 defendant-side appearances — the classic NPE signature. Nearly every tracked matter is RAH asserting its portfolio; the seven "defendant" entries are Adobe IPRs (IPR2019-00627/-00628/-00629) and an EFI declaratory-judgment action, not affirmative counter-suits. RAH historically filed in plaintiff-friendly or home venues (N.D. Illinois, W.D.N.Y., and E.D. Texas Sherman Division for its 2020 Microsoft complaints), with many cases consolidated for pretrial into MDL No. 2874 in the Northern District of California.
Notable matters. Prominent defendants include Microsoft, Adobe, Xerox, Eastman Kodak, Heidelberger Druckmaschinen, Dalim Software, Quad/Graphics, Samsung, Fujifilm, Ricoh, Agfa, X-Rite, and Seiko Epson. RAH states it has licensed the portfolio to several large color-imaging manufacturers plus multiple end users; outside counsel has included Global IP Law Group and Merzbach Law Office. Outcomes and validity findings for specific patents are not summarized here.
Watchlist
Email-only, free, anonymous. We'll notify you when RAH Color Technologies LLC files another patent-infringement lawsuit. One-click unsubscribe from any alert.
Microsoft suit indexed under US 7,791,761 by Docket Alarm; the complaint excerpt emphasized the '870, '008 and '802 patents. The '761 association is based on aggregator indexing rather than claim-by-claim confirmation. Voluntarily dismissed March 11, 2020.
RAH Color Technologies LLC asserted U.S. Patent 7,729,008 against Microsoft Corp. in the Sherman Division of the Eastern District of Texas; outcome not verified.
RAH Color Technologies LLC sued Microsoft Corporation in E.D. Tex. Sherman Division. The case is listed in Google Patents' litigation record for the '288 patent, and docket snippets expressly show the '008 patent. RAH filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on March 11, 2020, and the docket reflects the case as disposed.
RAH Color Technologies LLC asserted U.S. Patent 7,729,008 against Eastman Kodak Co.; the case was dismissed by agreement on 2019-05-16.
The '704 patent was named as one of the patents-in-suit, along with the '870, '897, '008, '340, etc. The outcome was not confirmed in the material reviewed; filed in the same 2019 wave as the Adobe IPRs.
Complaint asserts '870 among the patents-in-suit.
The '704 patent was among the asserted RAH patents in this coordinated litigation. The case was transferred by MDL Conditional Transfer Order to the N.D. California.
RAH Color Technologies LLC filed suit against Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG in the Northern District of Illinois. The action was transferred to the Northern District of California as a tag-along to MDL No. 2874 under case number 3:19-cv-00517, and the Illinois docket closed.
RAH Color Technologies LLC sued Xerox Corporation in the Western District of New York, asserting eight patents including US 8,537,357. The case closed in December 2018 and was centralized into MDL No. 2874 in the Northern District of California.
MDL No. 2874 consolidated RAH Color Technologies LLC's infringement actions against Adobe, Xerox, and others with Electronics For Imaging's declaratory-judgment action. The NPE Litigation Database lists the MDL as involving U.S. Patent 7,710,560; final judgment was entered on September 27, 2021, and the MDL docket closed July 26, 2022.
Part of In re RAH Color Technologies LLC Patent Litigation (MDL No. 2874); the '761 patent was asserted here along with three related patents. Complaint filed January 31, 2018 and served February 1, 2018. Dismissed by joint stipulation on September 27, 2021.
First Amended Complaint asserts '870 among five patents. Metadata labels court Michigan Eastern, but complaint and JPML show E.D. Wis. before Judge J.P. Stadtmueller.
RAH's W.D.N.Y. action against Xerox appears in MDL-related proceedings and lists 7,280,251 as asserted per the Google Patents family record. Final disposition is not confirmed.
Named in the First Amended Complaint among eight Patents-in-Suit, including the '444 patent. RAH's pre-suit notice letter included claim charts for the '870, '008, and '444 patents. Consolidated into the MDL; final merits disposition of the '444 count was not confirmed.
RAH Color Technologies LLC asserted U.S. Patent 7,729,008 against Xerox Corp. The MDL lists an N.D. Ill. origin docket 1:17-cv-06813; the W.D.N.Y. case was dismissed by agreement on 2019-10-15.
RAH asserted the '704 patent, which was one of six patents in the original complaint and one of eight in the amended complaint. RAH alleged Xerox had knowledge of the '704 at least from a February 26, 2015 claim-chart letter. The N.D. Illinois case was closed in September 2018, consistent with transfer/consolidation to the W.D. New York action.
First Amended Complaint before Judge Amy J. St. Eve asserts '870 among eight patents.
Google Patents listed the '546 patent as asserted against Samsung Electronics Co. in N.D. Ill. The narrative could not independently verify the '546 cause of action and notes the retrieved complaint excerpt focused on the '802 and '236 patents and SEC mobile devices, so the listing is treated with caution.
RAH alleged that Quad/Graphics's use, manufacture, or importation of QG Accused Print Workflow Systems, including QG Print Servers with EFI Fiery print server, Command Workstation, and Color Profiler Suite, infringed the '704 patent. The case was transferred to the E.D. Wisconsin.
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.
RAH Color Technologies LLC sued R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting seven patents including US 8,537,357. The terminal disposition was not captured from the retrieved sources.
RAH Color Technologies LLC asserted U.S. Patent 7,729,008 against R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. Outcome not verified in the narrative.
RAH Color Technologies LLC's complaint expressly listed the '546 patent among seven patents-in-suit against R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. The case was resolved and was not part of the later MDL.
RAH Color Technologies LLC sued R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company in the Northern District of Illinois; the '314 patent was one of seven asserted patents. The outcome was not confirmed in the narrative.
The '704 patent was named as one of seven patents-in-suit. Outcome was not confirmed in the sources retrieved, but the case is generally reported as settling.
Complaint asserts '870 among seven patents-in-suit.
RAH Color Technologies LLC asserted U.S. Patent 7,729,008 against Ricoh Americas Corp. (Ricoh USA, Inc.). The case was litigated at least through a 2016 E.D. Pa. pleading-standards opinion; final outcome was not verified.
RAH sued Ricoh in E.D. Pa. asserting eight U.S. patents, with 7,280,251 among them. The court granted RAH's motion to dismiss Ricoh's fourteen invalidity and non-infringement counterclaims under Twombly/Iqbal with leave to amend; RAH later described the litigation as resolved by February 2017, but final terms are not confirmed.
RAH alleged that Ricoh's Pro C651EX/C751/C901, MP C-series and other products with EFI Fiery controllers and Color Profiler Suite infringe claims 29, 30, 32, 34 and 35 of the '704 patent. The court dismissed all fourteen of Ricoh's invalidity and non-infringement counterclaims. The litigation was later referred to as resolved.
RAH's 2015 suit against Ricoh Americas Corp. and others, referenced in EFI's declaratory-judgment complaint; asserts '870 and outcome not confirmed.
RAH Color Technologies LLC asserted the '546 patent against Ricoh Americas Corp., Ricoh Co. Ltd., and Ricoh USA Inc. The case produced a published pleading-standards opinion and was terminated/closed on or about Feb. 16, 2017.
RAH Color Technologies LLC sued X-Rite, Inc. in the Western District of Michigan, asserting U.S. Patent 7,715,052 (the '052 patent) as part of ten RAH patents-in-suit and alleging infringement by X-Rite products including ColorMunki and i1 product lines. The case was voluntarily dismissed by stipulation, with the dismissal order entered on March 5, 2015.
Patent infringement suit involving US 7,791,761. Defendants filed counterclaims in April 2011; the specific disposition was not confirmed.
RAH Color Technologies LLC sued Seiko Epson Corp. and affiliated Epson entities in the Western District of New York. The case was identified as the first worldwide family litigation filed and was closed, with resolution consistent with licenses RAH later admitted to California-based Epson entities.
RAH Color Technologies sued Seiko Epson and related Epson entities; earliest identified '870 suit; outcome not confirmed.
RAH Color Technologies LLC asserted the '546 patent against Seiko Epson Corp. and affiliated Epson entities. Defendants filed answers/counterclaims in 2011, and the case closed without a reported merits judgment.
RAH Color Technologies suit against X-Rite. The complaint listed US 7,791,761 among ten patents-in-suit, but the exact filing date and disposition were not confirmed, and the complaint was not independently matched to this docket in a single source.
The '444 patent was listed among the Patents-in-Suit. RAH alleged Ricoh failed to respond substantively to a licensing offer dated October 20, 2014. Settlement likely, but outcome was not confirmed.
The '444 patent was named among the Patents-in-Suit; the Kodak complaint listed '444 as Exhibit 5. A related W.D.N.Y. case number 6:19-cv-06112 also appears. No final disposition was confirmed.
RAH Color Technologies LLC sued Quad/Graphics, Inc., originally in the Northern District of Illinois and later in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, asserting patents including US 8,537,357. The First Amended Complaint named five patents ('870, '897, '008, '704, and '357), and the case was referenced in later PTAB proceedings.
RAH Color Technologies LLC asserted U.S. Patent 7,729,008 against Quad/Graphics, Inc. The docket is 2:18-cv-00087; EFI's second amended complaint references a 2017-06-30 Quad suit. Outcome not verified.
RAH Color Technologies LLC asserted U.S. Patent 7,729,008 against Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG; the case was dismissed by agreement on 2019-07-23.
RAH Color Technologies LLC asserted U.S. Patent 7,729,008 against Dalim Software GmbH. The case was transferred from N.D. Ill. to N.D. Cal. and dismissed by joint stipulation on 2021-09-27.
Google Patents listed the '546 patent in this S.D. Ill. case, but the defendant, filing date, and outcome could not be confirmed from the sources retrieved.
Docket listed on the '288 patent's Google Patents litigation record. RAH Color Technologies LLC is plaintiff, but the defendant, exact filing date, and outcome could not be confirmed in the narrative.
Listed in '870 patent's litigation metadata; defendant not confirmed.
Per Stanford NPE database, RAH asserted '870 against Fujifilm Holdings Corp. et al.
Asserted '870, '444, and '704; transferred into MDL No. 2874 by Conditional Transfer Order.
Asserted '870; transferred into MDL No. 2874 by Conditional Transfer Order.