US 8009175

I'll search for authoritative information on US patent 8009175.

Let me search specifically for litigation and 2026 appellate activity.

Let me do one targeted search for recent litigation/appellate activity involving this patent family.

US Patent 8,009,175 — Summary

Important caveat up front: My searches did not surface any Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket, appeal, or decision (2026 or otherwise) involving patent 8,009,175. I cannot query PACER/CAFC dockets directly, so this is an absence of evidence in the sources I could reach — not proof that no such proceeding exists. I found no 2026 appellate activity for this specific patent number. Below, I distinguish what is authoritative (the patent's own text) from what I found only indirectly.

Bibliographic data (from the patent's front page / Google Patents)

Abstract (as issued)

"Improved methods are provided for calibrating color on a color display coupled to a computer, which are useful for obtaining calibrated data in a virtual proof network for enabling different color devices to render consistent color. Methods involve user interactions with screens on the display to set color display parameters. An apparatus is also provided for calibrating a sensor which may be used for measuring color of a display in one or more of these methods."

Independent claims (plain language)

There are 30 claims total; the three independent claims are claims 1, 14, and 22. (Note: claim 1 in the granted text reads "A method tor calibrating…" — I reproduce identifiers literally; "tor" appears to be a typographical rendering of "for," but I do not auto-correct it.)

Claim 1 — Method for calibrating a color display coupled to a computer system. Steps:

1. Display one or more screens on the display.
2. Adjust at least one display control (while the screen is displayed) to provide superposition of color — i.e., additive/linear color mixing — where the adjustment is based on measurement of light associated with the screen(s).
3. Set the display's neutral balance and tone reproduction to values stored on the computer system.
4. Enable measurement of ambient illumination with respect to the display.
5. Provide one or more color transformations that enable accurate rendering of colors expressible in device-independent units on the display, responsive to that ambient-illumination measurement.

Claim 14 — Computer-readable storage medium encoded with a program. A program executable by a computer system that provides a user interface with one or more screens, where at least one screen lets the user:

• initiate adjustment(s) of at least one display characteristic to enable linear color mixture, based on measurement(s) enabled by user visual judgments or a measuring instrument;
• set neutral balance or tone reproduction per values stored on the computer system.
  The program further enables ambient-illumination measurement (by visual judgment or instrument) and provides color transformations for more accurate device-independent rendering responsive to that ambient measurement.

Claim 22 — Method for calibrating a color display coupled to a computer system. Steps:

1. Adjust at least one display control, responsive to measurement of light output of the display, so the display is operable for linear color mixture.
2. Set neutral balance and tone reproduction per values stored on the computer system, responsive to measurement(s) of screen(s) displayed on the display.
3. Provide one or more color transformations for accurate device-independent rendering on the display in accordance with ambient illumination.

Theme: All three independents share the same core: (a) drive the physical display into a linear (superposition) state using contrast/brightness based on measured light, (b) set neutral balance and tone reproduction to stored values, (c) account for ambient illumination, and (d) supply color transformations/profiles for device-independent rendering. Claim 10 and 23 broaden the measurement to user visual judgments; claims 9/26 add a chromatic adaptation transform; claims 12/21/28 cover displays with more than three channels; claims 13/19/29 cover soft proofing; claims 20/30 cover storing shareable data for multi-site color matching.

The written description's "visual calibration" embodiment (FIGS. 4–10) uses increment/decrement threshold methods (Weber's Law) to set brightness/superposition without instruments, plus color-matching against reference film targets, and describes an apparatus (FIGS. 15–16) for calibrating a sensor against a reference instrument using a computer-controlled monochromator — though no sensor-calibration claim is present.

Litigation note (what the record shows)

• Google Patents records a family ("Family has litigation") US case in Michigan Western District Court at https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Michigan%20Western%20District%20Court/case/1%3A14-cv-00638.
• A search of that docket indicates RAH Color Technologies LLC v. X-Rite, Inc., No. 1:14‑cv‑00638 (W.D. Mich., filed 2014‑06‑16, Judge Robert Holmes Bell), dismissed by stipulation in 2015 after a stay. (UniCourt summary.)
• RAH later litigated in MDL No. 2874 (N.D. Cal., Judge Illston) and related suits, but the asserted patents in those cases were different family members (e.g., 7,312,897; 7,729,008; 7,791,761; 8,416,444; 6,995,870; 7,280,251) — not 8,009,175.

Uncertainty / limitations

• I have no authoritative confirmation of any 2026 Federal Circuit activity for 8,009,175. My tools returned no CAFC docket, opinion, or brief referencing this patent number. Treat any claim of 2026 appellate activity as unverified.
• The "current assignee" fields on Google Patents carry the site's own disclaimer that assignee data may be inaccurate; the assignment history shows RAH Color Technologies LLC.
• For exact, current docket status you would need to check USPTO PatentCenter/Patent Assignment Search, PACER, and the CAFC docket (cm/ecf.cafc.uscourts.gov) directly, which my search tools cannot query.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 8009175. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me dig into the specific cases, especially the W.D. Michigan case referenced on the patent's Google Patents page.

Let me verify which specific cases asserted the '175 patent and find additional suits.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,009,175

Summary

U.S. Patent No. 8,009,175 ("Methods and apparatus for calibrating a color display," inventor Richard A. Holub, assignee RAH Color Technologies LLC) is one patent in the Holub/RAH Color Technologies color-management portfolio. Based on the sources reviewed, I identified one litigated district-court case in which the '175 patent was affirmatively asserted — the W.D. Michigan action against X-Rite — plus related portfolio litigation in which the '175 patent formed part of the family but I could not confirm it was charged in the operative complaints.

Case 1 — RAH Color Technologies LLC v. X-Rite, Inc. (CONFIRMED '175 ASSERTION)

Grounding: The X-Rite complaint (Docket Alarm, Patent Owner Exhibit 2222 in IPR2019-00628) states the action "relates to ten U.S. patents owned by RAH Color Technologies LLC," expressly listing "8,009,175." Docket activity confirming filing date, judge, stay, and dismissal is on the Justia/UniCourt dockets for 1:2014cv00638. The Google Patents page for US8009175 itself flags exactly this suit — "US case filed in Michigan Western District Court" linking to case 1:14-cv-00638 — consistent with the above.

Related Portfolio Litigation (family-level; '175 assertion NOT confirmed)

The '175 patent shares a specification/family with several RAH patents aggressively litigated in 2017–2020. I reviewed complaints and MDL records for these and did not find the '175 patent expressly asserted in them (they charged other RAH patents such as the '870, '008, '444, '897, '761, '704, '357, '251, and '433 patents):

1. In re: RAH Color Technologies LLC Patent Litigation, MDL No. 2874 (N.D. Cal., 3:18-md-02874-SI, Judge Susan Illston) — consolidated pretrial proceedings over RAH suits against Adobe, Xerox, EFI, Kodak, Dalim Software, and Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG, including:
   • RAH v. Adobe Inc., N.D. Cal. 3:18-cv-03277 (filed Dec. 6, 2018)
   • RAH v. Xerox Corp., W.D.N.Y. 6:18-cv-06746
   • Electronics for Imaging, Inc. v. RAH (D.J. action), E.D. Va. 1:18-cv-01436
   • RAH v. Dalim Software GmbH, N.D. Ill. 1:19-cv-00275
   • RAH v. Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG, N.D. Ill. 1:19-cv-00193 (later 3:19-cv-00517)
   • RAH v. Eastman Kodak Co., W.D.N.Y. 6:19-cv-06112
   • Status: Kodak dismissed May 16, 2019; Heidelberger dismissed July 23, 2019; Xerox dismissed Oct. 15, 2019 (all by agreement). MDL stayed Sept. 10, 2019 pending Adobe's IPRs; Adobe and Dalim cases dismissed by stipulation Sept. 27, 2021.
2. RAH Color Technologies LLC v. [Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Microsoft%20Corp.), E.D. Tex. (Marshall) Case No. 2:20-cv-00088 — asserted the '008, '870, '897, '802, and '288 patents (not '175).
3. Other RAH enforcement suits referenced in the record against Ricoh Americas (2015), Quad/Graphics (June 2017), and Xerox (Sept. 2017) — asserted other portfolio patents.

Caveat: My search focused on complaints identifiable from the available sources. Because the '175 patent was part of the RAH portfolio asserted across many suits, it is possible the '175 patent appears in a complaint or infringement contention I was not able to retrieve. I could not independently confirm a '175 charge in any MDL 2874 case.

PTO Proceedings (not litigation, but relevant)

Adobe Inc. filed IPRs against four related RAH patents — IPR2019-00627 ('008), IPR2019-00628 ('444), IPR2019-00629 ('897), and IPR2019-00646 ('761). Notably, no IPR was filed against the '175 patent in that batch. (In IPR2019-00646, the Board found claims 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13 of the '761 patent unpatentable, Final Written Decision Oct. 8, 2020.)

Patent Status Note

Per the Google Patents record, US8009175B2 (App. No. 12/661,663, filed Mar. 22, 2010, granted Aug. 30, 2011, claiming priority to Apr. 11, 2000) is "Expired – Fee Related," with anticipated expiration dated Apr. 11, 2021. Any litigation based on this patent would be time-barred for ongoing infringement post-expiration except for past damages/back-royalties, and the confirmed suit (X-Rite) was dismissed in March 2015.

Bottom line

The only litigation I can confirm that specifically asserted U.S. Pat. No. 8,009,175 is RAH Color Technologies LLC v. X-Rite, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-00638 (W.D. Mich., filed June 16, 2014; Judge Robert Holmes Bell), which was stipulated-dismissed on March 5, 2015 after a settlement-pending stay. The broader RAH v. Adobe/Xerox/EFI/Kodak/Dalim/Heidelberger MDL (No. 2874) and the RAH v. Microsoft suit involved the same portfolio but, from the records I could verify, charged other RAH patents rather than the '175 patent. If you need certainty on the MDL complaints, I'd recommend pulling the operative complaints from PACER (N.D. Cal. 3:18-md-02874) directly.

Note: I have not independently re-verified every docket entry against PACER; the docket details above are drawn from secondary aggregators (Justia Dockets, UniCourt, Docket Alarm, RPX Insight) and Patent Owner exhibits filed with the PTAB.

I'll verify the structured-data default ("no PTAB activity on file") against public sources before writing anything up.

The searches surfaced RAH's Adobe-era IPR cluster — but on other family members. Let me confirm whether any petition ever targeted the '175 patent itself.

Let me run two more targeted checks — one for any CBM/PGR track and one for the '175 patent's assertion history — before concluding.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings on file for US 8,009,175 — the structured USPTO Open Data Portal block returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM involving this patent, and my web searches surfaced none either. The breakdown is therefore: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution-denied. Bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB FWD to lean on — no claim of the '175 patent has ever been canceled, and no claim has ever been affirmed by the Board, so the patent reaches any current dispute in exactly the form it issued, un-narrowed, with no § 315(e) estoppel running against anyone. The defensive value of the PTAB record here is nil; validity would have to be fought from scratch in district court (or via ex parte reexamination).

Caveat / source discipline. The canonical list is the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP ingest), which is empty for this patent. I could not query PTAB E2E/PACER directly. I searched for proceedings naming the '175 patent and found none. Treat "no PTAB activity" as the well-supported default, but a docket-level check at PTAB E2E and USPTO PatentCenter is the only way to close the gap with certainty.

No proceedings to itemize

There is no IPR20XX-##### or CBM20XX-##### to describe for US 8,009,175. I will not manufacture proceeding numbers, panels, or dispositions.

Why the absence is unsurprising here (and what it does not mean):

• To be clear about what I did find: Adobe Inc. v. RAH Color Technologies LLC produced a four-petition IPR cluster filed 2019-02-01 — IPR2019-00627 (7,729,008), IPR2019-00628 (8,416,444), IPR2019-00629 (7,312,897), and IPR2019-00646 (7,791,761) — all instituted 2019-09-04, consolidated for oral hearing 2020-05-28, with the '008 FWD holding claims 28–33 and 36–38 not shown unpatentable (FWD, IPR2019-00627; institution decisions at IPR2019-00646). None of those petitions challenged the '175 patent. They target RAH's "System for Distributing and Controlling Color Reproduction at Multiple Sites" line; the '175 patent sits in the separate "Methods and Apparatus for Calibrating a Color Display" line (7,102,648 → 7,710,433 → 8,009,175 → 8,279,236 → 8,665,289 → 9,500,527 → 9,767,763 → 10,008,180). The two lines share an ancestor but not a specification, so the Adobe FWDs are not claim-level precedent for the '175 claims. Do not represent them as such.
• The April 2000 priority and the 2011-08-30 issue date mean the PGR window (9 months post-grant) closed in 2012, and the § 315(b) one-year bar has long since run against anyone served years ago. The patent's legal status is Expired – Fee Related (anticipated expiration 2021-04-11), which further removes any practical incentive to file.

Strategic summary

Claim status: All 30 claims of US 8,009,175 are UNTESTED at the PTAB. Nothing is canceled; nothing is Board-sustained. Independent claims 1, 14, and 22 (method / CRM / method) and all 27 dependents stand as issued. Any statement that a given claim "survived" or "fell" in an AIA trial would be false — no such trial exists.

Estoppel landscape: Because there is no IPR, PGR, or CBM and therefore no final written decision, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to no one. There is no petitioner, no RPI, and no privy barred from raising § 102/§ 103 grounds in a civil action. A defendant is free to run any prior-art theory it can develop — but equally has no estoppel shield and no Board ruling to point the court to. If validity is to be attacked, the realistic modern route for an expired patent is ex parte reexamination (requests hit an all-time high of ~726 in 2025 as PTAB discretionary denials surged per Unified Patents' 2025 review), or district-court invalidity. Note that IPR remains technically available against an expired patent, but the new discretionary-institution posture (Director-controlled institution under the Oct. 2025 Squires memo; proposed bars on patents that have survived a prior validity challenge) makes a fresh petition against a 25-year-old, never-challenged, expired patent a poor bet.

Pattern signals: No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) appears anywhere in the '175 patent's chain — Unified's only touchpoint with this family in my searches is data reporting, not a petition. The actual challenger of record across RAH's portfolio is Adobe, and it went after the other specification line, not this one. RAH never had to defend the '175 patent at the Board, so there is no appellate history to mine either.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant being asserted US 8,009,175: there is no FWD to quote and no canceled claim to point to. Confirm the assertion is even live — the patent is recorded Expired – Fee Related with an anticipated expiration of 2021-04-11 (per the Google Patents front-page data). Back royalties/damages exposure, not injunctive relief, would be the whole ballgame.
2. Build validity independently. Run your own art search against the '175 claims; the claimed core is (a) driving the display to superposition/linear color mixture via contrast+brightness based on measured light, (b) setting neutral balance and tone reproduction to stored values, and (c) compensating for ambient illumination via color transformations. The 2000 priority date and the patent's own heavy citation of 1990s color-management literature (ColorSync 2.0, ICC v3.x, GRETAG/X-Rite, Holub's own 1988 TAGA papers) define the field of search.
3. Do not inherit Adobe's estoppel or its arguments. Adobe's IPRs bind only Adobe (and its RPIs/privies) and cover different patents with a different specification. You may reuse the art ideas, but the § 315(e) bar does not run to you and the Adobe FWDs carry no preclusive weight on the '175 claims.
4. Verify the empty docket yourself, since I could not. Check PTAB E2E and search by patent number, plus USPTO PatentCenter for any reexamination or reissue on 8,009,175. If E2E returns nothing, you have independent confirmation of the "no PTAB activity" conclusion.
5. Flag for the file: the '175 patent is a member of the same family as US 9,500,527 and US 10,008,180 (still-assertable later continuations sharing the "calibrating a color display" specification). The absence of PTAB history on '175 does not extend to those siblings — screen them separately before relying on this family's clean PTAB record.

I'll research the assignment chain for US 8,009,175, starting with the USPTO assignment records and related litigation/entity history.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records and entity history.

Research limitation (read first)

I was able to confirm the substance of the ownership chain from litigation records, PTAB filings, and Google Patents' legal‑events feed, but I could not retrieve the underlying USPTO Assignment Center records for US 8,009,175 — i.e., no reel/frame numbers, execution/recording dates per link, or correspondents of record. The Assignment Center search API/results pages were not reachable with the tools available to me, and I will not invent reel/frame numbers. Where a fact is confirmed, I cite the source; where it is not, I say so. This is a material gap in an exercise whose stated purpose is to harvest reel/frame and correspondent data.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check: The "all inventors depart the assignee within 12 months" precursor to a fire‑sale does not apply — there is a single inventor who is also the owner of the assignee. That is itself the notable pattern here: this is an individual‑inventor‑started NPE chain, not a corporate portfolio shed.

Original assignee

RAH Color Technologies LLC / "RAH Color Technology LLC," 7012 Colgate Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22307.

• Google Patents lists the original assignee on this patent as "RAH Color Tech LLC" and the rendered assignee variants in the record appear as both RAH Color Technology LLC (singular "Technology" — Justia/FPO for the sibling patent 8,665,289) and RAH COLOR TECHNOLOGIES LLC (plural — the 2013 merger event and the litigation/PTAB pleadings). Flagging this naming ambiguity explicitly rather than auto‑correcting, since it is exactly the kind of detail that matters when tracing title.
• Product status: no products. Litigation pleadings concede the commercialization attempt (Imagicolor) failed and was dissolved, and that RAH was formed as a licensing vehicle. The company is a single‑member LLC, and that member is the inventor himself: "I am the sole member of RAH Color Technologies LLC" (Declaration of Dr. Richard A. Holub, IPR2019‑00646, Ex. 2121). The listed office address is a residential address, not a commercial facility.
• Current status: operating as an active patent‑assertion/licensing entity (not dissolved, not bankrupt). Anticipated patent‑term expiration 2021‑04‑11; status "Expired – Fee Related."

Assignment timeline

Unable to fully reconstruct. Using Google Patents' legal‑events feed (the authoritative full text supplied), the only recorded reassignment touching US 8,009,175 is a single merger event. No reel/frame, execution date, recording date, or correspondent could be captured from the Assignment Center with the tools available, so I present the one confirmed event and label the inferred pre‑history as unconfirmed.

• Execution date not captured / recorded 2013‑05‑14 — Reel/frame NOT CAPTURED
  • Conveyance: MERGER (see document for details)
  • Assignor: RAH COLOR TECHNOLOGIES LLC (as rendered by Google Patents)
  • Assignee: RAH COLOR TECHNOLOGIES LLC
  • Correspondent: not captured
  • Context: Internal reorganization / name‑consolidation of two near‑identically named RAH LLCs (the singular "RAH Color Technology LLC" → plural "RAH Color Technologies LLC"). The Google Patents rendering collapses both sides to the same uppercase string, so the assignor is almost certainly a same‑family entity, not a third party.

Inferred (unconfirmed, no recorded date or reel/frame captured):

• ≈2005–2010 — Holub (and/or Imagicolor Corporation) → RAH Color Technologies LLC. This link must exist for RAH to be the applicant of record when divisional 12/661,663 was filed on 2010‑03‑22 (Google Patents legal events: "2010‑03‑22 Application filed by RAH Color Tech LLC"). I found no recorded instrument for it in the sources I could reach. Recording may sit against the parent application 09/832,553 rather than this divisional.

Post‑issuance assertion history naming this patent (not assignments, but the "why" of the chain):

• 2014‑06‑16 — RAH Color Technologies LLC v. X‑Rite, Inc., No. 1:14‑cv‑00638 (W.D. Mich., Judge Robert Holmes Bell). The complaint lists U.S. Pat. No. 8,009,175 among ten Patents‑in‑Suit. Dismissed by stipulation 2015‑03‑05 after a 90‑day stay (docket entries #26–#30; Justia/UniCourt dockets).
• Later campaigns (X‑Rite, Ricoh, Epson, Microsoft, Xerox, Adobe, Heidelberg, Dalim, Kodak; MDL No. 2874, N.D. Cal., Judge Illston) asserted sibling family members more heavily; the MDL claim‑construction order (3:18‑cv‑03277‑SI, Dkt. 120) confirms the MDL patents were 7,312,897 / 7,729,008 / 7,791,761 / 8,416,444 / 6,995,870 — consistent with the prior section's note that the MDL did not center on 8,009,175, but the earlier X‑Rite case did name it.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8009175
    1998 : Holub forms Imagicolor Corporation
    2000 : Provisional 60195837 filed by Holub
    2001 : Parent application 09832553 filed
    2005 : RAH Color Technologies LLC formed
    2006 : Parent patent 7102648 issues
    2010 : Divisional application 12661663 filed
    2011 : Patent 8009175 issues to RAH
    2013 : Merger recorded to RAH Color Technologies
    2014 : RAH sues X-Rite naming this patent
    2015 : RAH sues Ricoh and others
    2018 : Adobe action consolidated in MDL 2874
    2021 : Patent term expires

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Unclear as defined; substantively present in a different form.
There is no evidence of a transfer from an operating company with a product line to a licensing LLC — so the literal signal (operating assignee → shell) is not present. But the terminal assignee is a single‑member LLC whose sole member is the inventor, at a residential address, with no products in commerce (Holub Declaration, IPR2019‑00646 Ex. 2121; complaint ¶1, 7012 Colgate Drive, Alexandria VA). That is shell‑like form, but it arose by direct formation rather than by fire‑sale, so I score it unclear rather than citing a fabricated reel/frame.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT.
RAH Color Technologies LLC appears as a "Patent Asserter" in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, tagged category "5 Individual-inventor-started" (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/party/rah-color-technologies-llc), and Unified Patents classifies RAH as "NPE (Patent Assertion Entity)" in case 2:15‑cv‑05203 (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Pennsylvania Eastern District Court/case/2:15-cv-05203). This is a strong signal. Note it is not one of the classic mass‑aggregator names (Acacia, Marathon, IV, etc.) — it is a self‑formed, inventor‑owned assertion vehicle, which still lands squarely in the NPE bucket.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — NOT DETERMINABLE.
I could not capture any assignment correspondent (the recording attorney/firm) because the Assignment Center records were unreachable. I will not substitute litigation counsel for assignment correspondents. For completeness only, the W.D. Mich. X‑Rite docket lists RAH's litigation counsel as Nicholas Michael Dudziak and Irwin Inkee Park — these are courtroom counsel, not assignment‑recording correspondents, and are noted here solely to avoid conflating the two.

4. Cascading transfers through chained LLCs <24 months — NOT PRESENT.
Only one recorded instrument (the 2013 merger) appears in the legal‑events feed; there is no seriatim LLC chain.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT.
The only recorded transfer (recorded 2013‑05‑14) precedes the first suit naming this patent (X‑Rite, filed 2014‑06‑16) by roughly 13 months, outside the 6‑month trigger window. (Caveat: the execution date was not captured, so if the instrument was executed materially later than recorded, this call could change.)

6. Bankruptcy fire‑sale — NOT PRESENT.
No bankruptcy of any assignor/assignee is evidenced; Imagicolor's winding‑down was an out‑of‑court dissolution, and the patent family was retained and enforced by the inventor's own LLC rather than sold.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
There is no operating‑company transferor asserting through an NPE proxy; the inventor himself is the asserter.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti‑NPE) — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN. (Unified appears only as a database classifying RAH, not as an assignee.)

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The assignee of record is RAH Color Technologies LLC, a single‑member LLC whose only member is the inventor, Richard A. Holub, formed expressly as "a vehicle for an on‑going licensing program" after his operating venture (Imagicolor) was dissolved without shipping a product — and it is separately listed as a Patent Asserter / NPE by the Stanford NPE Litigation Database and by Unified Patents (signals #1 form and #2). The one recorded title event in the legal‑events feed is a 2013‑05‑14 MERGER between same‑family RAH entities (reel/frame not captured), followed by assertion of this patent against X‑Rite (W.D. Mich. 1:14‑cv‑00638, filed 2014‑06‑16) and a broader multi‑defendant campaign; there is no product line, no operating‑company transferor, and no defensive‑aggregator terminus.

Verification links: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "8009175"); mirrored at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. I recommend pulling the reel/frame and correspondent of record for the 2013 merger directly, since that correspondent is the one datum I could not obtain and it is the highest‑value tell for cross‑linking other RAH‑family recordings.

Cross‑reference note vs. prior section

No contradiction found, with one refinement: the prior summary correctly stated the MDL (No. 2874) centered on sibling patents (7,312,897; 7,729,008; 7,791,761; 8,416,444; 6,995,870), but US 8,009,175 was named in the earlier W.D. Mich. X‑Rite complaint (2014) — which is precisely the litigation Google Patents surfaces against this patent number. Also note the persistent "Technology" vs. "Technologies" name discrepancy across Justia/PubChem/Google Patents versus the litigation pleadings; I have preserved both renderings rather than normalizing them.

I'll search for the authoritative prior-art citations for this patent.

Let me retrieve the actual "References Cited" list for US 8,009,175 specifically.

Let me try to pull the actual front page of US 8,009,175 to get its exact cited references.

Scope, method, and an important data caveat

Bottom line first: I could not retrieve the §56 "References Cited" block from the front page of US 8,009,175 itself. The authoritative full text you supplied (Google Patents mirror of USPTO data) contains only a forward citation list — "Cited By (4)" — and no "Patent Citations" (backward) section. So the backward list below is reconstructed from the front pages of same-family documents (US 8,279,236; US 9,500,527; US 9,767,763 — all in the 36939483 family and prosecuting off the same Information Disclosure Statement lineage) plus the FreePatentsOnline and Justia renderings of 8,009,175 / 7,102,648. Entries are flagged where a snippet was truncated.

I anchored strictly on US 8,009,175 B2 (app. 12/661,663), and did not substitute similar numbers. Two "similar number" traps I deliberately excluded:

• DOI 10.1109/ISLPED.2017.8009175 (an IEEE paper identifier whose suffix happens to be "8009175") — not this patent.
• US 2017/0069291 A1 / US 9,767,763 B2 etc. — siblings, not the patent at issue; used only as citation-source proxies.

Direct USPTO PatentCenter / PatFT querying was not possible with my tools; everything below is USPTO-derived data reached through Google Patents, FPO, Justia and the patent PDFs on patentimages.

1. Patent identity confirmed

2. References cited in/against US 8,009,175 (backward citations)

2a. Earliest U.S. patent references (pre-1996 block)

Recovered from the parent US 7,102,648 front page (Justia) and US 8,279,236 (patentimages). Dates are the printed front-page dates.

† Snippet truncated at "5,859,711 | January 1…" — date should be verified on the front page.

2b. Later U.S. references (2002–2011 block, added by supplemental IDS)

Confirmed from the 8,009,175 FPO rendering and the 9,767,763 front page:

US 6,483,524 (Petchenkine, 11/2002) · US 6,501,850 (Setchell, 12/2002) · US 6,504,950 (Murashita, 1/2003) · US 6,505,256 (York, 1/2003) · US 6,516,089 (McCann et al., 2/2003, "In-gamut image reproduction using spatial comparisons") · US 6,522,778 (Tamagawa, 2/2003) · US 6,525,721 (Thomas, 2/2003) · US 6,549,652 (Persiantsev, 4/2003) · US 6,549,653 (Osawa, 4/2003) · US 6,549,654 (Kumada, 4/2003) · US 6,559,944 (Van Aken et al., 5/2003) · US 6,580,524 (Weichmann et al., 6/2003) · US 6,603,879 (Haikin et al., 8/2003) · US 6,606,165 (Barry, 8/2003) · US 6,611,249 (Evanicky et al., 8/2003, flat-panel independent white-balance & gamma) · US 6,621,923 (Gennetten, 9/2003) · US 6,624,908 (Petchenkine, 9/2003) · US 6,633,396 (Barry, 10/2003) · US 6,636,326 (Zuber, 10/2003) · US 6,654,491 (Hidaka, 11/2003) · US 6,657,741 (Barry, 12/2003) · US 6,704,442 (Haikin et al., 3/2004, custom gamut mappings) · US 6,724,507 (Ikegami, 4/2004) · US 6,748,471 (Keeney et al., 6/2004) · US 6,750,992 (Holub, 6/2004) · US 6,757,450 (Gershony et al., 6/2004) · US 6,788,305 (Ohga, 9/2004) · US 6,803,921 (Balasubramanian et al., 10/2004, "Use of softproofing to assist in the rendering of images of unknown colorimetry") · US 6,867,883 (Cholewo et al., 3/2005, gamut expansion) · US 6,995,870 (Holub, 2/2006) · US 7,075,643 (Holub, 7/2006) · US 7,102,648 (Holub, 9/2006 — the parent) · US 7,280,251 (Holub, 10/2007) · US 7,312,897 (Holub, 12/2007) · US 7,710,433 (Holub, 5/2010) · US 7,710,560 (Holub, 5/2010) · US 7,715,052 (Holub, 5/2010) · US 7,728,845 (Holub, 6/2010) · US 7,729,008 (Holub, 6/2010) · US 7,791,761 (Holub, 9/2010) · US 7,830,546 (Holub, 11/2010).
Also in the FPO 8,009,175 list: US 2002/0003903 A1 (Engeldrum et al., pub. 1/2002) and US 2002/0085749 A1 (Setchell, pub. 7/2002).

Note: many of these post-2002 items are the applicant's own related Holub patents/continuations — routine in a family IDS, and not usable as §102 art against the same inventor's own disclosure.

2c. Foreign patent documents cited

2d. Non-patent literature cited (the most §102-relevant items)

3. Forward citations on 8,009,175 — NOT prior art

For completeness only (these post-date 8,009,175's 2000-04-11 priority date and 2010-03-22 filing, so they cannot be §102 art against it):

• US 2009/0268037 A1 — Li-Yu Yang, "Video Calibration System Capable of Performing Automatic Calibration and Related Method" (priority 2008-04-29; pub. 2009-10-29)
• US 2010/0289835 A1 — Holub, "Color calibration of color image rendering devices" (priority 1996-02-26; pub. 2010-11-18) — applicant's own
• US 8,279,236 B2 — Holub (child division)
• TW I783492 B — Realtek Semiconductor, "Monitor calibration device and method…" (2022-11-11)

4. The most relevant prior art, and what it can/cannot anticipate under §102

Framing point. All of these references were cited and considered during prosecution; the claims issued over them. So the honest §102 assessment is that no single one of them appears to disclose every element of independent claims 1, 14, or 22. The references that come closest, and where each falls short:

A. US 6,043,909 (Holub, 3/2000) — closest overall; but structurally disqualified as "prior art by another."
Full disclosure of the Virtual Proof / Virtual Proofing network, device-independent color handling, gamut descriptors and multi-site profile revision — i.e., elements (d)/(e) of claim 1 and the subject matter of claims 9, 11, 13, 20, 30. Problems for a §102 challenge:

• It is the same inventor's work, so it is not "by another" under pre-AIA §102(a)/(e).
• Its issue date (2000-03-28) is within one year of the 2000-04-11 priority date, so §102(b) does not reach it.
• It is expressly incorporated by reference into the 8,009,175 specification — it is effectively part of the specification, not external art.
  It also does not disclose the superposition-by-adjusting-contrast/brightness-until-linear limitation of claims 1/3-5/22.

B. US 5,739,809 (McLaughlin et al., 4/1998) — best candidate for an obviousness attack, weak for anticipation.
Discloses computer-implemented display calibration and control via virtual controls, white point, gamma, and ambient-light consideration. Directed at the (b)/(c)/(d) limitations. The specification itself distinguishes it: it "lock[s] controls" but "do[es] not provide the capability for insuring that the controls are properly set for linear operation of the display." That express distinguishing statement is the reason it does not anticipate claims 1, 14 or 22.

C. US 5,638,117 (Engeldrum et al., 6/1997) — closest to the "visual calibration" claims.
Interactive visual color characterization/calibration using a card/reflector reference. Directly bears on claims 10 and 23 (measurement "by user visual judgments") and on claim 14's "user visual judgments" alternative. It does not disclose threshold-based superposition testing, ambient-illumination measurement, or ambient-responsive color transformations — the distinguishing subject matter of the FIGS. 4-10 embodiment.

D. US 5,512,961 (Cappels, Sr., 4/1996) — white point via gains/offsets.
Highly relevant to claims 1, 3-5. But it addresses white point by channel gain/offset balancing on a CRT; it does not teach the claimed sequence of raising contrast to max, then lowering brightness until superposition is observed/measured, nor ambient-responsive device-independent transformations.

E. US 5,561,459 (Stokes et al., 10/1996) — "Automatic profile generation for a self-calibrating color display."
Relevant to claims 1 and 14/16 (automatic profile generation from a self-calibrating display). Falls short on the ambient-measurement element and on the superposition test.

F. US 5,495,428 (Schwartz, 2/1996) — illuminant color determination.
Most relevant single reference to claim 1's "enabling a measurement of ambient illumination" element, but only that element; it says nothing about display linearization or neutral-balance/tone-reproduction setting to stored values.

G. US 6,803,921 (Balasubramanian et al., 10/2004) — softproofing.
Directly relevant to claims 13, 19, 29 ("soft proofing on said color display of color reproduction by another device"), but not to the linearization/ambient elements.

H. US 5,821,917 (Cappels, 10/1998) — phosphor-aging compensation.
Relevant background to the max-luminance/dynamic-range discussion (and to the "measurement of light associated with the screen" element), but it compensates beam current internally; it does not teach user/instrument-driven superposition setting.

I. Non-patent art (Cowan 1983; Berns 1993; Fairchild 1993; Bartleson & Breneman 1967; Cornsweet 1970; Rose 1955; Ohno 1997/98; ICC 1998)
These are the substantive technical background: display→CIE transformation (claims 1, 11), CRT colorimetry (claim 2), chromatic adaptation (claims 9, 26), brightness/tone perception (claims 1, 22), increment-threshold psychophysics (claims 6, 10, 14, 23), tone-correction algorithm (claims 1, 22), colorimeter correction (claims 2, 15, 23) and profile format (claim 16). Individually each maps to a subset of limitations; none supplies the claimed combination.

Bottom line for §102: the strongest anticipation candidates by element coverage are US 6,043,909 (claims 11, 13, 20, 30 — but disqualified as same-inventor / incorporated-by-reference) and US 5,638,117 / US 5,512,961 / US 5,561,459 for the calibration elements (claims 1, 3-5, 10, 14, 16, 22, 23). The claims' novelty rests on the combination of (i) driving the display into superposition using contrast/brightness based on measured light, (ii) setting both neutral balance and tone reproduction to stored values, and (iii) providing ambient-responsive device-independent color transformations — a combination no single cited reference appears to disclose.

5. Limits on this analysis (stated explicitly)

• I did not obtain the §56 block from the 8,009,175 front page itself. The lists above are reconstructed from family-member front pages (US 8,279,236; US 9,500,527; US 9,767,763) and FPO/Justia renderings for 8,009,175 and its parent 7,102,648. Because all family members share an IDS lineage, the lists overlap heavily — but a given entry may appear on a sibling and not on 8,009,175's own face, or vice versa.
• Several entries were truncated in the retrieved snippets (e.g., US 5,859,711's date; the tail of the 6,5xx,xxx run). These need confirmation against the actual PDF/PatentCenter.
• The presence of a reference in an IDS is not evidence it was applied as a §102 rejection. A reference that anticipates must disclose every element of a given claim, arranged as claimed; citations in an IDS are typically §102/§103 candidates the applicant disclosed.
• For a definitive, citable list you would need USPTO PatentCenter (application 12/661,663, "Display References" / file-wrapper contents) and the printed US 8,009,175 B2 column 1 "References Cited" — neither of which my search tools can open directly.

I'll ground the prior-art references before building the §103 analysis.

Let me verify the remaining key references.

Obviousness Analysis — US 8,009,175 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Note on sources and scope. This analysis uses (a) the references and admissions in the authoritative full text of US 8,009,175 ("the '175 patent") — including the "Prior art keywords" (display, color, brightness, computer, contrast) and prior-art date (2000‑04‑11) shown on its Google Patents page — and (b) the third-party references I retrieved and verified by search (cited with URLs below). I flag expressly where a reference's status as prior art is legally problematic, because that turns out to be the decisive issue here. Consistent with the rules, I reproduce identifiers exactly as they appear (e.g., "U.S. Pat. No. 5,638,117," "U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/139,498," "A method tor calibrating…").

1. Framework and the critical date

The claims are a mix of (i) instrumental/visual set‑up of the physical display to a linear (superposition) state, (ii) setting neutral balance and tone reproduction to stored target values, (iii) enabling ambient‑illumination measurement, and (iv) providing color transformations for device‑independent rendering responsive to that ambient measurement.

2. The prior art on the page, and a threshold problem that dominates everything

2.1 The references the '175 specification relies on

Forward citations are not prior art. The page's "Cited By (4)" and "Families Citing this family (86)" lists are later publications that cite this family; they cannot appear in a § 103 combination. I exclude them.

2.2 The threshold problem: '909 and '498 are the same inventor's work

This is the single most important point for a § 103 challenge.

• U.S. Pat. No. 6,043,909 names Richard A. Holub as sole inventor (confirmed, Espacenet: "Inventor(s): HOLUB RICHARD A").
• US 8,009,175 names Richard A. Holub as sole inventor.

Because the inventive entity is the same person, '909 is not "by another" and therefore is not prior art under pre‑AIA § 102(a) or § 102(e), notwithstanding the different corporate assignees (Imagicolor Corp. vs. RAH Color Tech LLC). And because '909 issued 2000‑03‑28 — only ~14 days before the '175 priority date of 2000‑04‑11, i.e., inside the grace window — it is not a § 102(b) statutory bar either. The same reasoning disqualifies Ser. No. 09/139,498 (also Holub). (Pre‑AIA § 103(c) would independently bar use of any commonly owned § 102(e)/(f)/(g) art.)

Consequence: The entire "Virtual Proof + ambient‑sensing + device‑independent transformation" backbone that the '175 independent claims lean on is supplied chiefly by references that a § 103 challenger cannot use. On the merits the claims look broadly obvious over '909 ('175's own specification essentially admits that the "ordinary operation" of setting white point, comparing to standard values, and re‑balancing gains/LUTs already existed). But that admission is the inventor describing his own prior system, not citable prior art. Any viable rejection must therefore be built from third‑party references.

3. Mapping the independent claims to third‑party art

I use claims 1, 14, and 22 (the three independents; the shared theme was set out in the prior section and is not repeated in full here).

4. Specific § 103 combinations and motivations

Combination A — '809 + '117 + Cornsweet (independent claims 1 and 22; dependent claims 3–8, 17, 18, 24, 25)

• '809 teaches displaying a control UI and adjusting brightness/contrast/gamma/white point, with locking to desired (stored) values, and names ambient lighting among the variables that corrupt gamma. '117 teaches displaying a patch and letting the user visually match it to a known‑colorimetry reference, i.e., characterizing/calibrating the physical display. Cornsweet teaches the increment/decrement threshold method by which a human can find the point at which a channel's behavior changes against a background.
• Motivation: All three are in the same field (CRT/display calibration for graphic‑arts and soft proofing), address the same problem (getting the physical display to a known, reproducible state), and are mechanically combinable: '809 supplies the controlled parameter and its stored target; '117 supplies the user‑judgment measurement; Cornsweet supplies the psychophysical technique to identify the linear operating point without an instrument. The '175 specification itself frames the invention as "a more complete calibration than described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,638,117," i.e., as an ordinary improvement on '117 combined with networked proofing — an admission under KSR that the combination was the expected next step.
• Result: Claims 1/22 (and the brightness/contrast, "user observes threshold," and locked‑control dependents) are arguably obvious.

Combination B — Combination A + Bartleson & Breneman (1967) or Holub (1988) + US 6,232,954 (independent claims 1/22 and claims 9, 11, 26, 27)

• The "provide one or more color transformations … in device‑independent units … responsive to ambient illumination" element is met by combining the known appearance/tonal‑remapping models of Bartleson & Breneman and Holub 1988 (which expressly compensate gradation for viewing/luminance differences) with the analytic display model + LUT of US 6,232,954 / WO 98/51070 (colorimetric characterization in device‑independent coordinates). '809's gamma/white‑point profile supplies the storage/encoding.
• Motivation: Each reference addresses a piece of the same known pipeline (characterize → model → transform → render); combining a display colorimetric model with a known appearance model is the predictable way to compensate for ambient/illuminant differences, and the references cross‑reference the same graphic‑arts convention (Standard Observer, CIE).

Combination C — + '917 for the fatigue/efficiency‑drift limitations

• '917 teaches that R/G/B channel efficiency drifts over time (phosphor/faceplate aging) and that measured gain correction is applied to preserve color accuracy. This supplies the factual predicate in the '175 specification's Table One discussion (the "older" Type I monitor losing ~20% luminance) and the "efficiency of the channels may change with time" rationale for re‑measuring/re‑balancing. Motivated by the same goal (stable, reproducible white point).

Dependent‑claim quick strike list

• Claims 2, 7: sensor directed at the display → '917 (spectro‑radiometer/photometer measuring a displayed known‑chromaticity image); US 5,272,518 (Vincent).
• Claims 3–5, 17, 18, 24, 25: increase contrast to ~max, lower brightness until linear → '809 control algorithms + Cornsweet threshold test.
• Claim 6: user detects threshold → Cornsweet directly.
• Claims 9, 26: chromatic adaptation transform → Bartleson & Breneman / standard CIE appearance models.
• Claims 11, 27: color‑mixture model converting coordinate sets → US 6,232,954 (analytic model) and the general CRT color‑mixture matrix (treated as known in the art and in the '175 spec).
• Claims 12, 21, 28: more than three channels → US 6,232,954 / multi‑primary display art.
• Claims 15, 16: transformation encoded as a profile → '117/'809 profile output.

5. Why a § 103 rejection would nonetheless be contestable (and may fail)

1. '909 and '498 are disqualified (same inventor). The independent claims' most natural reading points are supplied by the inventor's own '909/'498. As shown in § 2.2, those are not "by another" (§ 102(a)/(e)) and are within the grace period (§ 102(b)), so they cannot anchor a rejection. This is a legal defect in any obviousness case built on the page's principal art, independent of the technology.

2. Soft‑proofing/network shareability (claims 13, 19, 20, 29, 30). The "Virtual Proof" and multi‑site color‑matching concepts are essentially unique to '909 in this record; I did not find confirmed third‑party art teaching them. A challenger must locate separate network‑color‑management art or the rejection fails on those dependents (though not on the independents).

3. "Superposition of color" as a controlled criterion. The claims require adjusting a display control to provide superposition (additive color mixture). The third‑party references control brightness/contrast/gamma, but I have not verified that any of them expressly frame the goal as achieving superposition/linearity of the R, G, B channel sum. The '175 specification treats superposition failure (the Type II monitor above ~50% brightness) as the discovery motivating the method. If the art did not recognize that criterion, the inventor's experimental finding could support nonobviousness on the independents.

4. Potential teaching‑away. US 7,265,778 (a later, third‑party patent) describes '117's visual‑card approach as "too subjective … with the potential for large characterization errors." A patentee could argue the art taught away from visual‑judgment calibration, undercutting Combination A's motivation.

5. No nexus evidence in the record. I found no documented commercial success / industry‑praise evidence tied to the '175 claims specifically (the family's litigation is noted in the prior section but does not itself establish a nexus). Absent secondary‑consideration evidence, the defense rests on the legal defects in § 1/§ 2.2.

6. Bottom line

• On the merits, the '175 independent claims read broadly on a combination of U.S. Pat. No. 6,043,909 + U.S. Pat. No. 5,638,117 + Cornsweet (1970) — display set‑up to a linear (superposition) state, stored neutral balance/tone targets, ambient measurement, and device‑independent transformations — and the specification contains admissions that the "ordinary operation" of '909 already did much of this. The claimed advance over '117 alone ("a more complete calibration") looks like a predictable improvement.
• As a matter of law, that on‑the‑merits case is weak to untenable, because '909 and Ser. No. 09/139,498 are the same inventor's work and are not § 102(a)/(e) "by another" art and fall inside the § 102(b) grace window. A defensible § 103 rejection must be assembled instead from '809 + '117 + Cornsweet (+ Bartleson & Breneman 1967 / Holub 1988 / US 6,232,954 for the transformation element; + '917 for efficiency drift). That third‑party combination plausibly renders claims 1 and 22 and the brightness/contrast/threshold dependents (3–8, 17, 18, 24, 25) obvious, but is most vulnerable on (i) the "superposition" criterion, (ii) genuine teaching‑away in the art regarding visual calibration, and (iii) the soft‑proofing/network claims (13, 19, 20, 29, 30), for which no confirmed third‑party art was found in this record.
• Practical note: US 8,009,175 is recorded as Expired – Fee Related (anticipated expiration 2021‑04‑11), so any § 103 analysis is now retrospective (relevant to past damages on the family, per the litigation context noted previously) rather than to prospective enforcement.

Caveats. I verified the identity/dates of '909, '917, '809, '117, and US 6,232,954/WO 98/51070 through the searches cited; I did not retrieve the full text of every reference and did not independently confirm the full contents of '809 or the exact scope of '117. Do not treat the element‑by‑element mappings above as an examiner‑grade rejection without pulling the full specifications of each reference.