Litigation

RAH Color Technologies LLC v. X-Rite, Inc.

voluntarily dismissed

1:14-cv-00638

Filed
2014-06-16
Terminated
2015-03-05

Patents at issue (1)

7715052

Defendants (1)

Summary

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.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research this case thoroughly before writing the overview.

Now let me verify the '052 patent's technical content and X-Rite's corporate background.

Case Overview & Background

The parties. RAH Color Technologies LLC is a Virginia limited liability company based in Alexandria, Virginia, formed in 2005 as a licensing vehicle for the inventions of Dr. Richard A. Holub, who owns and manages the company and is the named inventor on all of its assets (Complaint ¶¶ 1, 7; complaint text via RAH's IPR exhibit). RAH does not make or sell products; it is best characterized as an inventor-owned non-practicing entity rather than a university or operating company, though with an unusually substantive technical pedigree — Holub holds a Ph.D. in neurophysiology, worked in color technology at Eikonix/Kodak, Agfa and SuperMac, and led the Technical Association of the Graphic Arts, and RAH told courts it had previously licensed its portfolio to five of the largest color-imaging manufacturers plus 13 end-user licensees. X-Rite, Inc., by contrast, is a genuine operating company: a Michigan corporation headquartered at 4400 44th St. SE, Grand Rapids, founded in 1958, and the leading maker of color measurement and management hardware/software (spectrophotometers

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case across dockets, opinions, and PTAB records.

Good progress on the docket. Now let me pull the full docket, the answer/counterclaims, and check for any PTAB proceedings on the '052 patent.

Bottom line

This was a short, settlement-driven case: filed 2014-06-16 and over by 2015-03-05 — roughly eight and a half months, of which the last three and a half were spent in a court-ordered settlement stay. Nothing was decided on the merits. No motion to dismiss, no motion to transfer, no stay pending IPR, no summary-judgment practice, no Markman/claim construction, no discovery disputes of record, no trial, no judgment, no appeal, and no PTAB proceeding touching the '052 patent during the case's life.

Chronological developments (docket-grounded)

Date Event Source
2014-06-16 Complaint filed (Dkt 1). Ten Holub/RAH patents asserted: '897, '433, '560, '052, '008, '761, '175, '236, '444, '357. Jury demand. Assigned to Judge Robert Holmes Bell, Southern Division (Grand Rapids). Justia docket; complaint text
2014-06-17 Summons issued (Dkt 6); Clerk's report to USPTO of patent action (Dkt 5). Dkt 5–6
2014-06-20 X-Rite served; response due 2014-07-11. Dkt 7
2014-07-02/03 Proof of service filed; First Amended Complaint filed with all ten patents attached (Dkt 8). Dkt 7–8
2014-07-18 Stipulation filed by X-Rite (Dkt 10) — most likely a response-deadline extension following the amended complaint; text not retrievable. Dkt 10
Late July–Aug 2014 Answer and counterclaims filed within docket entries 11–20 (the range not exposed on the public docket summary). X-Rite's counter-claimant status is confirmed by its later filing at Dkt 25; the specific counterclaim counts (presumably DJ of non-infringement and invalidity) are not verifiable from available sources. Inference from Dkt 25 designation — flagged as unverified
2014-10-01 Rule 16 scheduling conference before Judge Bell (transcript at Dkt 21, entered 2014-10-15). Dkt 21
2014-10-17 Clerk letters re mandatory electronic filing to Steven Eric Feldman and Sherry Lee Rollo (Dkt 22–23), reflecting newly admitted (likely pro hac vice) counsel; docket does not identify which side each represented. Dkt 22–23
2014-10-28 RAH's Disclosure of Claims Alleged to be Infringed (Dkt 24) — the case-narrowing disclosure under the scheduling order. Strategically the single most consequential merits filing in the case. Dkt 24
2014-10-30 X-Rite's proof of service of Prior Art Disclosures (Dkt 25). Dkt 25
2014-11-18 Joint motion to stay (Dkt 26) — settlement-driven, not PTAB-driven. Dkt 26
2014-11-19 Order granting in part/denying in part the stay (Dkt 27): all matters stayed 90 days, with a further status conference set for 2015-03-10 if the case had not settled. Dkt 27
2015-02-02 Stipulation of dismissal filed (Dkt 28). Dkt 28
2015-03-05 Order of dismissal entered (Dkt 29), terminating the case. Dkt 29
2015-03-09 Clerk's report to the USPTO Director of determination of the patent action, with the dismissal order attached (Dkt 30). Dkt 30

Primary docket mirror: https://unicourt.com/case/rc-db1

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

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

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff RAH Color Technologies LLC

Bottom line: RAH was represented by its long-time outside patent litigation team, Global IP Law Group, LLC of Chicago — principally Nicholas M. Dudziak and Irwin I. Park, Ph.D., with David P. Berten as the portfolio-wide lead strategist. No in-house lawyer and no Michigan local counsel is identifiable in the accessible docket records for this case. Details and sourcing caveats below.

Attorney Role Firm / Office Note
Nicholas M. Dudziak Counsel of record (primary filer on this docket) Global IP Law Group, LLC, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3400, Chicago, IL 60603 RAH's day-to-day litigation counsel in its 2014–2016 enforcement wave; he filed every substantive plaintiff paper here, including the joint motion to stay (D.I. 26) and the stipulation of dismissal (D.I. 28). Also appeared for RAH in the parallel RAH Color Techs. v. Ricoh Americas case (E.D. Pa. 2:15-cv-05203).
Irwin I. Park, Ph.D. Counsel of record Global IP Law Group, LLC, Chicago, IL Listed by the court's docket as a plaintiff-side attorney of record. Technical/patent-side member of the RAH team; identified on the record as "Irwin Park, Ph.D., Esq." representing RAH in the MDL 2874 proceedings.
David P. Berten Lead counsel for RAH portfolio-wide (relationship/lead role) Global IP Law Group, LLC, Chicago, IL Founder-level name partner at GIPLG and RAH's lead attorney across the color-management campaign (e.g., N.D. Cal. 3:18-cv-03277 and MDL No. 2874, where he is docketed as LEAD ATTORNEY). Caveat: I could not confirm a formal appearance by Berten on this 2014 WDMI docket — the Justia party listing shows only Dudziak and Park.
Alison Aubry Richards Attorney for RAH (later cases) Global IP Law Group, LLC, Chicago, IL Appeared pro hac vice for RAH in the 2018–2019 Adobe/MDL litigation. Not confirmed as an appearance in this 2014 case.

Local counsel: Not identified. W.D. Mich. practice permits out-of-state counsel, and no Michigan firm (e.g., a Grand Rapids firm) appears in the accessible filings for plaintiff. Because I could not pull the full PACER docket sheet (paywalled) — only third-party mirrors — I cannot rule out a local-counsel appearance that isn't captured in those mirrors. I am not going to name one without a source.

In-house: None appeared. RAH is managed by its founder/inventor, Dr. Richard A. Holub, who is not an attorney of record.

Docket grounding

  • Plaintiff's counsel filed and signed the case-dispositive papers: D.I. 24 (Disclosure of Claims, 10/28/2014), D.I. 26 (Joint Motion to Stay, 11/18/2014), D.I. 28 (Stipulation of Dismissal, 2/2/2015) — all attributed to Dudziak, Nicholas on the docket.
  • D.I. 29 (Order granting stipulation to dismiss, 3/5/2015, Judge Robert Holmes Bell); D.I. 30 (Clerk's report to the PTO, 3/9/2015).
  • Party-level attorney listing: Justia docket for RAH Color Techs. LLC v. X-Rite, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-00638 (W.D. Mich.) — plaintiff "Represented By: Nicholas Michael Dudziak; Irwin Inkee Park."
  • Complaint text (ten asserted patents incl. the '052 patent, ColorMunki/i1 product families) reproduced as Exhibit 2222 in Adobe Inc. v. RAH Color Techs. LLC, IPR2019-00628 (PTAB).
  • GIPLG's role confirmed in the MDL 2874 case-management transcript (N.D. Cal., Apr. 4, 2019): "GLOBAL IP LAW GROUP … BY: DAVID BERTEN, ESQ., ALISON AUBRY RICHARDS, ESQ., IRWIN PARK, PH.D., ESQ." for RAH.

Sourcing caveats

  • The attorney listing above is drawn from third-party docket mirrors (Justia, UniCourt) and from RAH pleadings/transcripts reproduced in PTAB exhibits, not from a direct PACER pull. Two clerk letters on the docket regarding mandatory electronic filing (D.I. 22 to Sherry Lee Rollo; D.I. 23 to Steven Eric Feldman, both 10/17/2014) show additional attorneys active in the case, but the mirrors do not state which party they represented, so I have not attributed them to plaintiff.
  • Defense-side counsel (Thomas Hubbard, who filed X-Rite's stipulation and prior-art service) is outside the scope of your question and I have not verified his firm.

Sources: Justia docket, https://dockets.justia.com/docket/michigan/miwdce/1:2014cv00638/78154; UniCourt docket, https://unicourt.com/case/rc-db1-rah-color-technologies-llc-v-x-rite-inc-[512978](/patent/512978); X-Rite complaint as Ex. 2222, IPR2019-00628, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2019-00628/Adobe_Inc._v._RAH_Color_Technologies_LLC/docs/12-13-2019-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2222-Exhibit_2222__Complaint__X_Rite.pdf; MDL 2874 transcript, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2019-00646/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._7791761/docs/04-19-2019-Petitioner/Exhibit-1038-50-Exhibit_1038_Excerpted_Transcript_of_MDL_Case_Management_Conference.pdf; N.D. Cal. 3:18-cv-03277 attorney list, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2019-00628/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8416444/docs/05-21-2019-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2024-65-Exhibit_2024_Adobe_Quad_Dalim_Attorneys.pdf.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll search for the docket and counsel information for this case.

Defense counsel of record — X-Rite, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-00638 (W.D. Mich.)

Sourcing caveat up front. The W.D. Mich. docket for this case (Dkt. 1–30) is only partially reflected in free mirrors (Justia, UniCourt, PlainSite, CourtListener/RECAP). I was able to confirm activity attributable to X-Rite's side on the docket, and the identities of the attorneys whose names appear in those entries, but I could not retrieve the actual appearance forms (Dkt. 3–9 range) or a pro hac vice order in full text, so the lead vs. of counsel designations below are inferred from filing behavior and firm roles rather than read off a caption block. Flagged accordingly. Nothing here is invented; where I'm inferring, I say so.

Attorneys identified

1. Thomas V. Hubbard — local counsel (Grand Rapids)

  • Firm: Drew, Cooper & Anding, P.C., 80 Ottawa Avenue NW, Suite 200, Grand Rapids, MI 49503.
  • Docket basis: Dkt. #25, "PROOF OF SERVICE by counter-claimant X-Rite, Inc., defendant X-Rite, Inc. regarding Prior Art Disclosures (Hubbard, Thomas)" (entered 10/30/2014). He is the only Grand Rapids attorney appearing on X-Rite's behalf in the docket text, which is the classic local-counsel slot in W.D. Mich. practice.
  • Note: Commercial/business litigator admitted in W.D. Mich., E.D. Mich., 6th Cir., and the Federal Circuit (2006); appeared on brief in Venture Industries Corp. v. Autoliv ASP, Inc., 457 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Not a registered patent attorney — consistent with a local-counsel role.

2. Steven Eric ("Steve") E. Feldman — lead / outside patent counsel (inferred)

  • Firm at the time: Husch Blackwell LLP, Chicago, Illinois (he was a partner there 2008–2015; he moved to Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP, 200 West Madison St., Suite 2700, Chicago, as IP Practice Group head and Chicago partner-in-charge in 2015).
  • Docket basis: Dkt. #22/#23 (10/17/2014) are Clerk letters to "attorney Steven Eric Feldman" and "attorney Sherry Lee Rollo" regarding mandatory electronic filing — the standard W.D. Mich. notice sent to attorneys entering an appearance who are not yet registered in the court's CM/ECF. Both entries fall between X-Rite's answer/counterclaims and the close of fact discovery, i.e., at the point defense counsel would be appearing. Neither is plaintiff-side: RAH's filings were signed by Nicholas Dudziak of Global IP Law Group throughout (Dkt. #24, #26, #28).
  • Note: Registered patent attorney (J.D. GWU 1995; B.S. materials science, Northwestern). His practice bio specifically lists "color management equipment and materials, including printing and color pigments, color management software, and hardware" — a direct match to X-Rite's spectrophotometer/ColorMunki/i1 product space. Lead counsel in numerous ANDA cases (Pfizer v. Apotex (Norvasc), Hoffmann-La Roche v. Apotex (Boniva), Actonel); lead counsel for Illinois Tool Works in a patent infringement case.

3. Sherry Lee Rollo — outside patent counsel (inferred)

  • Firm at the time: Husch Blackwell LLP, 120 S. Riverside Plaza, Chicago, IL (now also Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP, Chicago).
  • Docket basis: Same Clerk letters, Dkt. #22/#23 (10/17/2014). Same inference chain as Feldman.
  • Note: Licensed patent attorney (USPTO Reg. No. 61,447; B.S. physics, UT Austin; J.D. John Marshall 2004); Federal Circuit and Supreme Court admissions; ANDA and patent/trade-secret litigator who worked alongside Feldman on the Apotex matters; adjunct faculty at Chicago-Kent teaching Intensive IP Trial Advocacy. Illinois Super Lawyers (IP) repeatedly.

What I could not confirm

  • No in-house X-Rite attorney (e.g., X-Rite/RMK legal department in Grand Rapids) appears by name in any accessible docket text. X-Rite is a Michigan corporation headquartered in Grand Rapids, so in-house participation is plausible but not documented in what I could retrieve — I am not naming anyone.
  • Role labels: I found no docket text designating a "lead attorney" under W.D. Mich. Local Rule 5.1 or a pro hac vice order identifying lead counsel. The lead/of-counsel attribution above is an inference from who signed defense-side filings and who the Clerk noticed for ECF registration.
  • Later counsel: In the 2018–2019 follow-on RAH matters coordinated in MDL No. 2874 (N.D. Cal.), X-Rite's representation should be checked separately — those appearances are not evidence of who appeared in the 2014 Michigan case.

Practical recommendation

To convert these inferences to verified record facts, pull the W.D. Mich. docket images for Dkt. #3–#10 (X-Rite's appearance(s), answer, and counterclaims, including the Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure and any pro hac vice motions) via PACER, and confirm the appearance captions; the stipulation of dismissal (Dkt. #28) and dismissal order (Dkt. #29, Judge Robert Holmes Bell, 3/5/2015) will also carry the signature blocks of record counsel as of termination.