RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Fujifilm Holdings Corp. et al.

I'll research this case across multiple sources to build an accurate overview.

Good baseline. Now let me pin down the procedural history, MDL transfer, and outcomes, plus the individual patent titles.

Case Overview

The parties. RAH Color Technologies LLC is a Virginia limited liability company owned and managed by Dr. Richard A. Holub, a Ph.D. neurophysiologist and named inventor on all of its patents; it was formed in 2005 expressly "as a vehicle for an on-going licensing program." (Compl., Doc. 1 ¶¶ 1, 16–19, 22–23.) Holub's earlier commercialization attempt, Imagicolor Corporation (1998), was dissolved when investment failed, so RAH is a non-practicing entity — but the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies it as "individual-inventor-started" rather than a classic PAE acquisition vehicle, reflecting that the asserted portfolio is inventor-originated and never sold. RAH told the MDL court it had signed 27 licensees over ten years at an average of "less than $1 million" per license (Joint Preliminary Status Report, In re RAH Color Techs., No. 3:18-md-02874-SI (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 12). The defendants are Fujifilm Holdings Corporation (the Tokyo parent) and two U.S. entities, Fujifilm Holdings America Corp. (Del.) and Fujifilm North America Corp. (N.Y.), whose Imaging, Electronic Imaging (consumer cameras) and Graphic Systems divisions make and sell the accused hardware and software. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 2–7.)

The accused technology. RAH targeted Fujifilm's "printer, prepress and workflow hardware and software that employ color measurement and management techniques," grouped in the complaint into "Fujifilm Accused Color Rendering Systems" (press/workflow products, including the J Press with its integrated inline measurement system measuring printed color in density units), "Fujifilm Accused Color Measurement Systems," and "Fujifilm Accused Digital Camera Systems" (e.g., the X-T1, alleged to convert sensor data into sRGB/Adobe RGB with gamut mapping and to write Exif 2.3 files carrying color-processing metadata). (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 7, 346–357 and Counts XXVI–XXXIII.) Eight patents were asserted (Doc. 1, at 1): '870 (6,995,870), '251 (7,280,251), '897 (7,312,897), '008 (7,729,008), '444 (8,416,444) and '704 (8,760,704) — all titled "System for Distributing and Controlling Color Reproduction at Multiple Sites" and sharing a Feb. 26, 1996 priority date, covering networked color management: selecting remote sites/devices through an interface and distributing color-transformation data so outputs match ('870, '251, '897); user color-preference menus, tonal transfer curves and chromatic-adaptation transforms ('008); interactive multi-site conferencing/remote proofing ('444); and press-integrated on-line measurement ('704). '546 (7,830,546) is a further portfolio patent in the same program, though I could not verify its title or asserted claims in the sources retrieved. '314 (8,817,314) is the outlier — a digital-camera patent claiming sensor capture, input-gamut-to-output-gamut mapping (with saturation reduction for out-of-gamut colors), a color-preference user interface, and a file header carrying the mapping information.

Posture, venue and significance. RAH filed in the N.D. Ill. (Chicago) on April 18, 2017; the case was assigned to Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. (Justia docket, 1:17-cv-02924.) Venue rested on Fujifilm North America's Hanover Park, Illinois operations plus 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) as to the Japanese parent (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 13–15) — a theory filed roughly five weeks before TC Heartland reshaped patent venue, which helps explain the timing and the parallel Illinois suits against R.R. Donnelley (1:17-cv-00894) and Quad/Graphics. Fujifilm is notably absent from the JPML's MDL No. 2874, which centralized RAH's Adobe, Xerox, EFI, Kodak, Heidelberg and Dalim cases before Judge Susan Illston in the N.D. Cal. in December 2018 (Pretrial Order #1, 3:18-md-02874-SI; RAH's mandatory notices in IPR2019-00627/-628/-629 list only those cases). The public record I retrieved does not show a final judgment or dismissal order in the Fujifilm action, so its disposition should be treated as unconfirmed; given RAH's licensing pattern and the fact that Fujifilm was never swept into the MDL, a pre-MDL license-and-dismissal is the plausible but unverified explanation. The case matters for three reasons. First, it shows the portfolio's IPR exposure: Adobe petitioned for review of the '008, '444, '897 and '761 patents in Feb. 2019 (IPR2019-00627, -628, -629, -646), all four were instituted in Aug./Sept. 2019, and Judge Illston stayed the MDL on Sept. 10, 2019 — leaving the '870, '251, '704, '546 and '314 patents, the core of the Fujifilm theories, without PTAB validity testing. Second, it illustrates the expiration problem that undercut the campaign: RAH conceded in the EFI declaratory-judgment litigation that the non-method claims of the '444 and '704 patents had expired, and EFI argued RAH could not recover damages given the absence of notice or marking (Order on motion to dismiss, No. 3:18-cv-07465-SI). Third, it is a case study in sophisticated-licensing-as-litigation: pre-suit notice letters and claim charts (Fujifilm allegedly had knowledge of the '704 patent from Oct. 3, 2014 and of the specific infringement theory from June 16, 2015 — Doc. 1 ¶¶ 282, 288), sub-$1M license expectations, and offers of one-day arbitration, deployed across the entire graphic-arts and imaging industry — Adobe, Xerox, EFI, Kodak, Heidelberg, Dalim, Quad/Graphics, R.R. Donnelley, Samsung, Microsoft and Fujifilm — before the MDL wound down and the Adobe case was dismissed by stipulation on Sept. 27, 2021 (Dkt. 154 in 3:18-md-02874

I'll research this case systematically, starting with broad searches on the docket, outcomes, and any PTAB proceedings.

Key lead: a September 2017 dismissal order appears in a related opinion's footnote. Let me confirm via the docket and other sources.

The docket likely closes in September 2017. Let me pull the RECAP docket and any orders.

Bottom line first

This case did not proceed to claim construction, summary judgment, or trial. According to the best available record, it was terminated by a stipulated dismissal on 2017-09-19 — roughly five months after filing — consistent with RAH's pattern of early licensing-driven dismissals of the 2017 wave of color-management suits. That is why the "outcome was not confirmed" in the existing summary.

Verification caveat (important): my search budget for this task ran out before I could pull the actual PACER/RECAP docket sheet for 1:17-cv-02924 and read D.E. 2–17 individually. The dismissal date and entry number below come from a citation in a different N.D. Ill. opinion (RAH's case against Quad/Graphics), not from the Fujifilm docket itself. Treat the date as high confidence, single-sourced; treat the absence of an answer/counterclaims and the dismissal's prejudice status as unverified. I have flagged each item accordingly.

---

Chronological development table

---

Point-by-point coverage of your checklist

Filing & initial pleadings. Complaint filed 2017-04-18 (D.E. 1). The pleading was structured as 35 separate counts keyed to individual claims rather than patents, with a separate § 271(b) inducement theory for system claims requiring customer-supplied color measurement instruments. I found no answer or counterclaims. Given the ~5-month life of the case and RAH's parallel 2017 cases resolving by stipulation before answer, it is plausible none were filed, but the docket would need to be checked to confirm. Also unverified: whether Fujifilm sought an extension of time to respond, which would have pushed the dismissal past the Rule 12(a) deadline.

Pre-trial motions of substance. None identified. No Rule 12(b)(2)/(3) motion, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, and no stay-pending-IPR motion. This is notable because RAH's parallel N.D. Ill. cases did generate venue litigation post-TC Heartland (the Quad/Graphics case produced a January 16, 2018 opinion denying a Rule 12(b)(3) motion and a § 1404(a) transfer motion). Fujifilm resolved before that motion practice matured.

Claim construction (Markman). Did not occur. No Markman order, no claim-construction hearing, no joint claim-construction statement located. No indefiniteness or § 101 ruling on any of the eight patents in this case.

Discovery milestones. Nothing of record located beyond the initial pleadings stage. Given the dismissal date, fact discovery almost certainly never opened; no deposition, interrogatory, or ESI disputes are reported.

Trial, verdict, post-trial motions. None. No trial, no verdict, no JMOL/Rule 59/Rule 54(d)/§ 285 fee motions. No appeal to the Federal Circuit — consistent with a stipulated dismissal without a judgment on the merits (and, if dismissal was without prejudice, no appealable final judgment in any event).

Final disposition. Dismissed by stipulated order, 2017-09-19 (D.E. 17). The case is closed; there is no "present posture" to report.

Parallel PTAB proceedings. No IPR or PGR petition targeting these eight patents was filed by Fujifilm or on Fujifilm's behalf as far as I can determine, and no PTAB proceeding influenced this case — the case ended about 18 months before the relevant IPR wave began. For context on the portfolio (relevant to the patents but not to this litigation):

• Adobe Inc. v. RAH Color Technologies LLC, IPR2019-00627, -00628, -00629, and -00646 (filed 2019). At least one Final Written Decision issued holding claims 32, 33, and 37 of the '897 patent unpatentable — i.e., one of the eight patents asserted against Fujifilm was later invalidated in part at the Board. The -00646 petition targeted U.S. Patent 7,791,761 (not a Fujifilm patent-in-suit).
• Related RAH suits against Xerox, EFI, Heidelberg, Dalim, Quad, and Kodak were centralized in In re RAH Color Technologies LLC Patent Litigation, MDL No. 2874 (N.D. Cal., Judge Susan Illston); the JPML conditional transfer order issued 2019-01-25, and the MDL was later closed by final judgment. The Fujifilm case was not part of MDL 2874 — it had already been dismissed in September 2017, before the MDL existed.

---

Strategic significance

1. This is a licensing outcome, not a merits outcome. Nothing in the record adjudicates the validity, enforceability, or infringement of the '314, '870, '251, '897, '008, '444, '704, or '546 patents as against Fujifilm. Any later use of this case in a damages or res judicata argument should be resisted — a stipulated dismissal generally carries no preclusive effect on the merits.
2. RAH's 2017 campaign was resolved defendant-by-defendant, fast. R.R. Donnelley (June 2017), Agfa (September 2017), and Fujifilm (September 2017) all exited by stipulation within months, while Quad/Graphics litigated venue into 2018. If you need the comparable economic terms, RAH's later license disclosures (e.g., the Holub declarations filed in the Adobe IPRs, which discuss RAH's licensing program and portfolio of ~35 patents) are the best available proxy, though they address other licensees.
3. Portfolio risk later materialized elsewhere. The '897 patent's partial invalidation in the Adobe IPR is the single most consequential subsequent development for anyone valuing the RAH portfolio that was asserted against Fujifilm.

What I'd verify next (in order)

1. PACER/RECAP docket for 1:17-cv-02924, D.E. 2–18 — to confirm the dismissal order's text, its prejudice status, whether an answer/counterclaims were filed, and whether the stipulation recited a license.
2. The stipulation itself (D.E. 16 or thereabouts) — stipulated dismissals in N.D. Ill. often attach or recite settlement terms; the order alone will not.
3. Fujifilm's 10-K / annual report disclosures for FY2017 — Fujifilm Holdings is a Japanese reporting company; a material IP settlement would not normally be disclosed at this size, but it is worth a check.
4. RAH's damages contentions or license productions in the MDL 2874 cases — these may list Fujifilm as a licensee, which would definitively establish the settlement's nature.

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

Good leads on Global IP Law Group. Let me confirm the specific appearances in this docket.

Bottom line

Plaintiff RAH Color Technologies LLC ("RAHCT") was represented in this campaign by its long-time outside patent litigation boutique, Global IP Law Group, LLC of Chicago — the same firm that sent the pre-suit licensing demand letters recited in the complaint (Oct. 3, 2014 letter to Fujifilm's GC Judy Melillo; June 16, 2015 claim charts to Chief IP Counsel Frank Gallucci, Compl. ¶¶ 31–33). The firm's Chicago office also functioned as local counsel, since its attorneys are members of the N.D. Ill. bar.

Confidence caveat up front: I was able to confirm the firm and the individual attorneys' roles from (a) the Justia docket entry for No. 1:17-cv-02924, which lists Irwin Park under "Represented By" for the plaintiff, and (b) extensive parallel-record confirmation of the same trio as RAHCT's counsel of record in the companion RAH cases and the Adobe IPRs. I was not able to pull the full PACER docket sheet for 1:17-cv-02924 to enumerate every appearance, withdrawal, or pro hac vice order docket-by-docket. Anything below not tied to a specific citation should be verified against the docket before being relied on in a filing.

Counsel of record for Plaintiff

Two flags worth resolving on PACER

1. The "Lukas, Jr" reference. The Justia docket abstract for 1:17-cv-02924 truncates the plaintiff's representation as "Irwin Park … Lukas, Jr," which suggests a second appearance by an attorney surnamed Lukas early in the case. I could not identify that attorney or firm from any reliable source and will not guess — treat it as an open item requiring a docket pull (Dkt. 2–10 range, i.e., the initial appearance/attorney-designation forms filed in April–May 2017).
2. Whether the Global IP Law Group appearances were formally entered here. The Fujifilm action drops out of Berten's own 2019 list of six "related matters," which implies the case was resolved or dismissed before the MDL was consolidated (the RAHCT campaign was consolidated into In re RAH Color Technologies LLC Patent Litigation, N.D. Cal. No. 3:18-md-02874-SI, before Judge Susan Illston). Confirm via the docket's termination entry (likely a notice of voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i)) and any accompanying withdrawal of appearance.

Verification path (if you need docket-grade citations)

• PACER Docket Report for 1:17-cv-02924 (N.D. Ill., Judge John J. Tharp Jr.) — check the "Attorneys" panel and Docs. 2–12 for the initial appearances and any LR 83.14/83.15 pro hac vice motions.
• Compare against the confirmed docket text in RAH Color Techs. v. Adobe, 3:18-cv-03277-SI, reproduced as an exhibit in IPR2019-00628 (Patent Owner Ex. 2024-65, "Adobe Quad Dalim Attorneys"), which lists Berten (LEAD), Park, and Richards (PRO HAC VICE) at Global IP Law Group, 55 W. Monroe, Suite 3400, Chicago.
• Confirm the 2014/2015 demand letters from Global IP Law Group recited at Compl. ¶¶ 32–33 — they establish that Global IP Law Group, not a Virginia firm, was RAHCT's counsel of record in substance from the outset.

I'll research the docket and related sources for defense counsel in this case.

Let me pull the Justia docket page and CourtListener RECAP docket for counsel listings.

Bottom line up front

I could not verify defense counsel of record for this case from a primary source within this research session. What follows separates what is documented from what is inference, and flags the specific docket entries you'd need to pull on PACER/ECF to close the gap. I am deliberately not naming anyone as "counsel of record" in this case without a source that ties them to N.D. Ill. No. 1:17-cv-02924.

---

1. What the public docket summaries show

Justia docket summary (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2017cv02924/[338964](/patent/338964)) confirms caption, filing date (4/18/2017), Judge John J. Tharp, Jr., and cause of action under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Its "Represented By" fields return two names in the indexed snippet:

• Irwin Park — Global IP Law Group, LLC, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3400, Chicago. This is plaintiff's counsel. Park and colleagues David Powers Berten and Alison Aubry Richards (all Global IP Law Group) appear as RAH Color Technologies' counsel of record in the companion matters — RAH v. Adobe, N.D. Cal. No. 3:18-cv-03277, and RAH v. Quad Graphics, E.D. Wis. No. 2:18-cv-00087 (see the Adobe-case attorney list reproduced as an exhibit in IPR2019-00628, Ex. 2024). Berten is also the signatory for RAH in the MDL 2874 joint status report.
• James J. Lukas, Jr. — listed in the same Justia "Represented By" index for this case, but the search snippet was truncated and does not show which party he represents or his firm in this matter. Because the Justia page interleaves plaintiff and defendant "Represented By" blocks, I cannot responsibly assign him to Fujifilm on this record. This is the single most important name to confirm on the actual docket.

I found no appearance, motion, or opinion in this case naming Fujifilm's counsel, and no Law360/Reuters coverage of defense-side appearances.

2. Related Fujifilm counsel — real, but from a different matter (do not attribute to this case)

A PTAB petition paper (Petition 1556217) captioned "ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT FUJIFILM CORPORATION" lists Jones Day:

• Marc S. Blackman — Jones Day, 110 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 4800, Chicago (Illinois Bar No. 6236719)
• Keith B. Davis — Jones Day, 2727 N. Harwood St., Suite 500, Dallas
• John R. O'Donnell — Jones Day, 555 S. Flower St., 50th Floor, Los Angeles

This is a genuine data point about Fujifilm's outside patent counsel and a plausible candidate firm, but the document is from a different Fujifilm patent defense (Texas-centric), not from the N.D. Ill. docket, and Blackman's Chicago office is not evidence of an appearance in No. 17-cv-02924. Treat as a lead only.

3. Case posture relevant to why appearances may be thin

The RAH portfolio litigation largely migrated to In re RAH Color Technologies LLC Patent Litigation, MDL No. 2874 (N.D. Cal., Judge Susan Illston, No. 18-md-02874). The JPML schedule of actions and CTO orders I located list Adobe, Xerox, EFI, Quad Graphics, Eastman Kodak, Heidelberger Druckmaschinen, Dalim Software, and a W.D.N.Y. case — Fujifilm is not among the transferred actions in those records. Pretrial Order No. 1 (govinfo, USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00518) and the January 2019 joint status report confirm that scope. The MDL was later stayed pending Adobe's IPRs (IPR2019-00627/-00628 instituted Aug. 20, 2019; -00629/-00646 instituted Sept. 4, 2019) and the MDL docket now reflects "***THIS MDL IS CLOSED."

So the Fujifilm case appears to have proceeded — or terminated — separately in the N.D. Ill., and I have no sourced outcome for it. Consistent with the existing case summary, the disposition is unconfirmed.

4. Confidence table

5. How to close this out

1. PACER docket sheet for 1:17-cv-02924 — pull entries 5–25 (appearances, pro hac vice motions, corporate disclosure statements under Rule 7.1, and any LR 3.2 notification). Local counsel in N.D. Ill. must be an Illinois-barred attorney, so expect a Chicago-firm local counsel plus out-of-state lead counsel on PHV.
2. Notice of Appearance entries and the attorney/party report (the "ATTORNEYS TO BE NOTICED" table) — the Justia summary is a scrape of exactly this and is where "James J. Lukas, Jr." came from.
3. Check for a stipulation of dismissal or transfer order given the MDL's non-inclusion of Fujifilm; if the case was dismissed early (e.g., license, transfer, or voluntary dismissal), appearances may never have been perfected beyond initial counsel.

If you can supply the PACER docket text or a screenshot of the Justia party block, I can produce the fully sourced counsel list with roles and firm offices immediately.