RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corporation

I'll research this case systematically across docket sources, PTAB records, and industry coverage.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and related litigation.

Key discovery: there were two Microsoft suits. Let me dig into the docket detail, the asserted patents, and the broader RAH Color litigation/IPR picture.

The complaint in 4:20-cv-00176 asserted the '870, '897, '008, '802 and '288 patents — not the '761. Let me verify the second suit's patents, the dismissal mechanics, and whether any later Microsoft action followed.

Bottom line

This was not a litigated case. It was a two-filing, pleadings-only episode that never got past the complaint. RAH Color Technologies filed against Microsoft in the Sherman Division on 2020-03-05, voluntarily dismissed six days later (2020-03-11) with no appearance by Microsoft, then refiled an essentially identical complaint in the Marshall Division on 2020-03-24 (No. 2:20-cv-00088, Judge Gilstrap), which it again voluntarily dismissed on 2020-06-01 (order 2020-06-02). There was no answer, no counterclaim, no motion practice, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, and no appeal. The only substantive legal developments bearing on the case were outside it — the Adobe-filed IPRs and the N.D

I'll search several angles for press coverage of this case.

Let me try more targeted news angles before concluding.

Let me check a few final angles, including trade/legal press and the companion case.

Press coverage: essentially none found

I was unable to find any news or analysis coverage of RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 4:20-cv-00176 (E.D. Tex.). Searches on the case caption, the party names, the asserted patent number ('761), the plaintiff's principal Dr. Richard A. Holub, and combinations with Law360, Bloomberg Law, Reuters, IPWatchdog and similar outlets returned no articles from any of those publications or from any mainstream or trade outlet. Every hit was either a court-record aggregator or a primary filing: Docket Alarm's docket trackers for 4:20-cv-00176 and the companion Marshall Division case 2:20-cv-00088, Justia's docket page, UniCourt's docket summary, RPX Empower's litigation profile, and the complaint text itself via RPX Insight. None of these is journalism, and I found no analyst note, executive statement, or industry-reaction piece discussing the suit.

The absence of coverage is itself consistent with the record reflected in those aggregators: the case was filed March 5, 2020 and RAH filed a notice of voluntary dismissal six days later (docket entry 6, March 11, 2020), before any motion practice, scheduling order, or ruling that would ordinarily generate a story. A second, near-identical RAH–Microsoft suit was filed in Judge Gilstrap's Marshall Division on March 24, 2020 (2:20-cv-00088) and voluntarily dismissed by June 1, 2020, likewise without generating press. I found no reported damages figure, settlement term, or market-impact estimate anywhere — and no indication in any source I located that a settlement was disclosed.

Two caveats worth flagging for the file. First, the other "RAH Color Technologies" activity that does surface in searches — the Adobe IPRs (IPR2019-00627/-00628/-00629 and IPR2019-00646 on the '761 patent), and MDL No. 2874 consolidating the Xerox, Adobe, Heidelberger, Dalim, Kodak and EFI disputes in N.D. Cal. — appears in PTAB papers and court filings, not in press accounts I could find; I would not characterize any of it as media coverage without a specific article. Second, because I could not locate a single published article, I cannot supply the outlet-attributed, linked claims the assignment calls for; doing so here would mean inventing sources, so I have not. If real coverage exists, it is most likely behind a Law360 or Bloomberg Law paywall that my searches did not surface, or in a Texarkana/ Sherman-area legal-briefs column, and a targeted Westlaw/Lexis news-database or Law360 party-page check would be the way to confirm.

Sources

• 160. Upon information and belief, Microsoft's customers (including developers and OEMs) and/or end users have directly infringed...
• Search court records on patent:(7791761)
• 203. Microsoft infringes claim 24 of the '802 Patent when it makes, imports, uses, sells and offers for sale the Microsoft Accus...
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
• RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 2:20-cv-00088 (E.D.Tex.) - Track Docket
• RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corporation - This case was last updated from U
• Docket updates for RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 2:20-cv-00088 - Docket updates for RAH Color Technologies LLC v
• 2:20-cv-00088 - RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corp
• Cases
• 4:20-cv-00176 | RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corporation | RPX Empower
• 35. On December 11, 2018, Global IP contacted Steven Fricke of Microsoft by email to provide an update on the RAH Color Technolo...
• Microsoft Federal Litigation Filings

I'll research this. Let me start with docket-level searches.

Key docket finding: only one filer signature appears. Let me identify her firm and check the complaint's signature block.

Now let me look for the complaint's signature block and any co-counsel or local counsel designations.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff RAH Color Technologies LLC

Bottom line: Exactly one attorney appears as counsel of record on this docket — Alison Aubry Richards of Global IP Law Group, LLC (Chicago). She signed every filing in the six-day life of the case. No local counsel, no additional appearances, and no defendant-side appearance ever appeared on this docket.

Counsel table

Docket basis for the designation. The retrieved docket for RAH Color Techs. LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 4:20-cv-00176 (E.D. Tex., D. Judge Sean D. Jordan) shows every filing attributed to "(Richards, Alison)": Dkt. 1 (Complaint, filed 3/5/2020), Dkt. 2 (Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure), Dkt. 3 (Notice of Related Cases), Dkt. 4 (Jury Demand), Dkt. 5 (AO 120 form), and Dkt. 6 (Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, filed 3/11/2020). Justia's party table for the companion refiling lists her as the plaintiff's "Represented By" attorney. (Justia docket; UniCourt)

Why there is no local counsel and no pro hac vice motion. Ms. Richards is herself admitted to the E.D. Tex. bar (her firm bio lists the Eastern, Western and Northern Districts of Texas among her admissions), so she did not need to move pro hac vice or designate local counsel — and no such motion or designation appears on the docket. Her firm bio is at giplg.com/professionals/alison_aubry_richards.

Other Global IP Law Group personnel on the RAH account (not shown appearing here)

These attorneys are part of RAH's regular trial team in the parallel RAH matters, but I found no appearance, signature, or pro hac vice application by them on the 4:20-cv-00176 docket:

• David Berten — founding member, Global IP Law Group, Chicago. Listed as counsel for RAH in the N.D. Cal. Adobe action and appeared for RAH at the MDL case-management conference (transcript lists Global IP Law Group "BY: DAVID BERTEN, ESQ., ALISON AUBRY RICHARDS, ESQ., IRWIN PARK, PH.D., ESQ.").
• Irwin Park, Ph.D. — same firm; same MDL/Adobe appearances; technical/patent background.

Their absence here is consistent with the case's collapse: plaintiff voluntarily dismissed on March 11, 2020, six days after filing, before any scheduling order, PHV deadline, or defense appearance. RAH then refiled against Microsoft in the Marshall Division, No. 2:20-cv-00088 (filed 3/24/2020, Judge Gilstrap), and dismissed that case on June 1–2, 2020 — again with Ms. Richards as the sole filing attorney. (Justia docket 2:20-cv-00088)

Sourcing caveats

• Counsel identification rests on the docket text/reporter attributions (Justia, CourtListener/RECAP, UniCourt, Docket Alarm), which consistently show only Richards. I could not open the native PDFs of Dkt. 1–6, so I cannot confirm whether the complaint's signature block named Berten or Park as additional counsel of record alongside Richards; the freely indexed text of the complaint (via RPX Insight) stopped before the signature page. Treat the "sole counsel" finding as docket-level, not signature-block-level.
• No filings in this case were sealed; there simply were only six filings, and no attorney appearance forms, because the case terminated before appearances were required to be perfected.
• The docket mirrors reflect a last retrieval of March 11, 2020; a fresh PACER pull would be the authoritative check for any post-dismissal withdrawal or substitution entries.

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this short-lived case, plus the companion Marshall Division case.

Let me pull the full docket sheets to confirm whether any defendant appearance was ever filed.

Let me check whether any Microsoft counsel appears anywhere in the docket metadata, and whether the dispute was refiled elsewhere with appearances.

Bottom line

No attorney ever appeared for Microsoft in this case — there is no defendant's counsel of record to identify.

The docket in No. 4:20-cv-00176 contains six entries, every one of them filed by the plaintiff. Microsoft never filed an answer, a Rule 12 motion, a corporate disclosure statement, a notice of appearance, or a pro hac vice application, and no attorney signed anything on its behalf. The case was dismissed six days after filing, on the plaintiff's unilateral notice, before any defense appearance.

What the record actually shows

Docket for 4:20-cv-00176 (assigned to District Judge Sean D. Jordan, Sherman Division), per Justia's docket and UniCourt's entry-by-entry listing:

The only attorney identified anywhere in the case's party/attorney metadata is Alison Aubry Richards, counsel for the plaintiff RAH Color Technologies. UniCourt's "Attorney/Law Firm Details" block lists a single entry — "Plaintiff Attorney: Alison Aubry Richards" — and no defendant-side attorney. Justia's docket likewise shows only Richards as "Represented By." I did not independently verify her firm affiliation from a firm website; treat that as unsourced if you need it for the file.

Nothing is sealed, and there is no indication of a sealed appearance: the docket's six entries are all public, and the case closed before the Rule 12(a) answer deadline could have run (60–90 days depending on service/waiver).

Companion Marshall Division case — same result

The near-identical refiling, RAH Color Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:20-cv-00088 (E.D. Tex., Judge Rodney Gilstrap, filed 3/24/2020), also shows no Microsoft appearance. Its nine docket entries, per Docket Alarm and CourtListener, consist of plaintiff's complaint, corporate disclosure statement, notice of related cases, jury demand, AO 120 (entries 1–5); the magistrate-judge referral notice and case assignment (4/15/2020, 3/25/2020); plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal (entry 6, 6/1/2020); Judge Gilstrap's order of dismissal (entry 7, 6/2/2020); the AO 120 termination form (entry 8); and a 2021 letter to counsel (entry 9). No answer, motion, or appearance by Microsoft appears in that docket either — the case was likewise resolved without the defendant ever appearing.

Names in the complaint that are not counsel

The complaint narrative identifies several Microsoft personnel — Jim Ross, Carl Brandt, and Geoffrey Hoggard — in connection with RAH's pre-suit licensing correspondence (e.g., the April 23, 2015 contact by RAH's then-counsel Global IP Law Group, and the December 2018 follow-up with "Steven Fricke of Microsoft"). These are Microsoft business/licensing contacts recited as notice evidence under the knowledge/awareness allegations; they are not attorneys of record and should not be listed as counsel. Similarly, the complaint names RAH's own prior licensing counsel (David Berten of Competition Law Group; Global IP Law Group LLC) — plaintiff-side, not defense.

Why there's nothing more to find

A defense-side counsel roster can only come from an appearance, a motion signature block, a Rule 26(f) report, or a protective order — none of which exists in either E.D. Tex. case. Anyone asserting that a specific firm (e.g., Microsoft's usual E.D. Tex. outside counsel) was "counsel for Microsoft" in No. 4:20-cv-00176 would be inferring from Microsoft's general litigation roster, not from this docket. I have not done so, because it would mean naming attorneys who never entered an appearance here.

Verification path if you need a negative confirmed on the record: pull the full PACER docket report for both cases and check the "Attorneys" / "Leaders" section of the PACER docket header — for case 176 it should show only Richards; for case 088, same. A Lexis/Westlaw "attorney appearances" filter on the docket will return nothing on the defense side.

One flag on the case metadata

This is consistent with, and reinforces, the earlier section's caveat: both Microsoft suits were filed and abandoned so quickly that they generated no counsel activity and no press. There is also no evidence in either docket of a disclosed settlement term — Microsoft's non-appearance and RAH's voluntary dismissal without prejudice (with no stipulation signed by defense counsel) suggest RAH withdrew before service rather than resolving the dispute on paper. If the file needs to characterize the dismissal, "dismissed on plaintiff's notice, defendant never appeared" is the accurate formulation.