DCT

6:18-cv-06746

RAH Color Tech LLC v. Xerox Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: RAH Color Technologies LLC (Commonwealth of Virginia)
- Defendant: Xerox Corporation (State of New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Global IP Law Group, LLC
Case Identification: 1:17-cv-06813, N.D. Ill., 02/23/2018
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant conducts substantial business, has committed acts of infringement, and maintains a regular and established place of business within the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s digital printing systems, print servers, and associated color management software infringe eight U.S. patents related to distributing and controlling color reproduction across multiple devices and sites.
Technical Context: The technology relates to color management systems, which are essential in the professional printing and graphic arts industries for ensuring that colors are reproduced consistently and accurately across different devices, such as monitors, proofers, and printing presses.
Key Procedural History: The complaint details extensive pre-suit correspondence, alleging that Plaintiff first notified Xerox of potential infringement of the '870, '008, and '444 patents with detailed claim charts on March 27, 2014. Additional notices and claim charts for other patents-in-suit allegedly followed in 2015. The complaint also notes that Plaintiff has licensed its patent portfolio to numerous major manufacturers in the color imaging and printing industries and mentions prior resolved litigation against Ricoh.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1996-02-26	Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2000-03-28	U.S. Patent 6,043,909 Issued
2001-11-12	Alleged date of Xerox's knowledge of the '909 Patent
2006-02-07	U.S. Patent 6,995,870 Issued
2007-10-09	U.S. Patent 7,280,251 Issued
2007-12-25	U.S. Patent 7,312,897 Issued
2010-06-01	U.S. Patent 7,729,008 Issued
2013-04-09	U.S. Patent 8,416,444 Issued
2013-09-17	U.S. Patent 8,537,357 Issued
2014-03-27	Xerox allegedly notified of '870, '008, and '444 Patents
2014-06-24	U.S. Patent 8,760,704 Issued
2015-02-26	Xerox allegedly notified of '251, '897, and '704 Patents
2018-02-23	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 6,995,870 - "System for Distributing and Controlling Color Reproduction at Multiple Sites"

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of maintaining uniform color quality across a network of geographically distributed production sites, where variations in printing machinery, substrates, and operator skill make consistent color reproduction difficult ('870 Patent, col. 1:18-43). This problem is significant for "just-in-time" manufacturing and industries like advertising that rely on accurate color fidelity ('870 Patent, col. 1:44-54).
The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a networked system where different rendering devices (e.g., presses, proofers) can produce colors that "appear substantially the same" ('870 Patent, Abstract). It achieves this using a "Virtual Proof" data structure that contains color transformation information derived from calibration data specific to each device ("node") on the network, as well as user-selected color preferences ('870 Patent, col. 9:1-24). This system allows for accurate remote proofing and quality control across disparate devices.
Technical Importance: This system was designed to facilitate decentralized printing workflows by providing a common framework for color communication and control, thereby reducing waste and the need for physical press checks to approve color quality ('870 Patent, col. 2:20-33).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent method claim 34 (Compl. ¶47).
Claim 34 breaks down into the following essential elements:
- Providing a computer interface for a user to select a plurality of sites with color devices.
- Communicating between the selected sites via a network interface.
- Providing transformation information to convert input color data to output color data, such that the colors produced by the different devices appear substantially the same.
- The transformation information must comprise both information relating the color gamuts of the different devices to each other and user preferences for color reproduction.
The complaint also asserts dependent claims 39 and 43 in separate counts (Compl. ¶¶68, 78).

U.S. Patent No. 7,729,008 - "System for Distributing and Controlling Color Reproduction at Multiple Sites"

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: This patent, from the same family as the '870 patent, focuses on specific technical challenges in color rendering, such as accurately modeling color formation for multi-colorant (e.g., CMYK) systems and compensating for different viewing conditions between devices like monitors and printers ('008 Patent, col. 4:10-20).
The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for color rendering that stores and utilizes tonal transfer curves and color transformations derived from calibration data expressed in device-independent units ('008 Patent, Abstract). A key feature is the use of a "chromatic adaptation transform," which is a specific type of color transformation designed to compensate for changes in viewing conditions, such as the difference in white point between a monitor and a printed page ('008 Patent, col. 4:63-66).
Technical Importance: The explicit inclusion of a chromatic adaptation transform addresses a critical nuance in color management, aiming for perceptual matching that accounts for how human vision adapts to different ambient lighting and media white points, which is essential for accurate "soft proofing" on a monitor.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent method claim 28 (Compl. ¶87).
Claim 28 breaks down into the following essential elements:
- Displaying a menu of selections for a user to select color reproduction preferences.
- Storing in memory tonal transfer curves, color image data, and one or more color transformations.
- These stored curves and transformations are at least partly based on calibration data in device-independent units of color.
- At least one of the color transformations is a chromatic adaptation transform that can be used to compensate for changes in viewing conditions.
The complaint also asserts dependent claims 30, 31, 37, and 39 (Compl. ¶¶103, 114, 123, 132).

Multi-Patent Capsules

Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,416,444, "System for Distributing and Controlling Color Reproduction at Multiple Sites," issued April 9, 2013.
Technology Synopsis: The '444 Patent claims a system for controlling color reproduction. It focuses on the specific data structures stored in memory, requiring a file-based system with a header to access a "gamut filter" (to determine if colors are within a device's range) and a "chromatic adaptation transform" (for different viewing conditions) (Compl. ¶141).
Asserted Claims: Independent claim 11 is asserted (Compl. ¶141).
Accused Features: The "Xerox Accused Color Print Servers," including CX Print Server and FreeFlow Core software, are alleged to infringe by storing and using ICC v.4-compliant profiles that contain the claimed gamut filter and chromatic adaptation transform structures (Compl. ¶¶144-150).
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,760,704, "System for Distributing and Controlling Color Reproduction at Multiple Sites," issued June 24, 2014.
Technology Synopsis: The '704 Patent claims apparatuses and methods for color reproduction in a networked, server-based environment. The technology integrates the use of light-sensitive instruments (e.g., cameras, sensors) incorporated into rendering devices (e.g., printing presses) to provide on-line color measurements for calibration and quality control (Compl. ¶¶194, 211, 253).
Asserted Claims: Independent claims 11, 17, and 29 are asserted (Compl. ¶¶194, 211, 253).
Accused Features: The "Xerox Accused Color Server Systems," "Accused Color Press Systems," and "Accused Color Rendering Systems" are alleged to infringe. These systems include Xerox's FreeFlow Core servers and digital presses (like the Versant 2100) that are equipped with integrated measurement tools like inline spectrophotometers or full-width arrays (Compl. ¶¶195, 212, 255).
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,537,357, "System for Distributing and Controlling Color Reproduction at Multiple Sites," issued September 17, 2013.
Technology Synopsis: The '357 Patent claims a specific method for measuring color. The method involves illuminating a surface, collecting reflected light with a spectrograph, processing the data against a reference, storing the data with time-of-measurement information in a database, displaying information about the grayness of a color, and communicating the data over a network (Compl. ¶298).
Asserted Claims: Independent claim 8 is asserted (Compl. ¶298).
Accused Features: The "Xerox Accused Color Measurement Systems," which include digital presses with integrated full-width arrays or inline spectrophotometers and associated software like ACQS and FreeFlow Core, are alleged to perform the claimed measurement and data handling steps (Compl. ¶¶299-305).
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,043,909, "System for Distributing and Controlling Color Reproduction at Multiple Sites," issued March 28, 2000.
Technology Synopsis: An early patent in the family, the '909 Patent claims a method for controlling color reproduction across a network of nodes, each with a rendering device. The method involves providing a shared data structure, providing common input image data to each node, and then using node-specific calibration data to transform and render the image so that colors appear substantially the same across different devices, including at least one printing press and one proofer device (Compl. ¶334).
Asserted Claims: Independent claim 36 is asserted (Compl. ¶334).
Accused Features: The "Xerox Accused Color Measurement Systems," which combine networked presses with software like FreeFlow Core and ACQS to manage color workflows and ensure consistency across different presses, are alleged to practice the claimed method (Compl. ¶¶335-338).
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,280,251, "System and Method for Calibrating Color Printers," issued October 9, 2007.
Technology Synopsis: The '251 Patent claims a method for processing color data to match color reproductions between devices. The method involves communicating with devices, collecting color reproduction data relative to a device-independent reference (e.g., industry-standard colors like GRACoL), and sharing this data over a network to create matching color profiles (Compl. ¶361).
Asserted Claims: Independent claim 9 is asserted (Compl. ¶361).
Accused Features: The "Xerox Accused Color Matching Systems," specifically the Xerox MatchAssure software, are alleged to infringe by connecting to printers, printing and measuring color patch charts based on industry standards, and creating and sharing profiles to harmonize color output (Compl. ¶¶362-364).
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,312,897, "System for Distributing and Controlling Color Reproduction at Multiple Sites," issued December 25, 2007.
Technology Synopsis: The '897 Patent claims a computer-readable medium with a program that provides a user-facing control system for processing color images. The program provides screens for a user to select one or more sites, control color data conversion based on user preferences, and verify the color reproduction against a reference expressed in device-independent units (Compl. ¶398).
Asserted Claims: Independent claim 61 is asserted (Compl. ¶398).
Accused Features: The "Xerox Accused Automated Color Management Systems," including Xerox IntegratedPLUS software, are alleged to infringe by providing a graphical user interface that allows users to connect to remote printers, create color profiles based on user preferences, and verify color output against predefined specifications (Compl. ¶¶399-402).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies a broad range of Xerox products and systems, grouped into several categories: "Accused Print Servers" (e.g., EFI Fiery servers with Command Workstation), "Accused Color Print Servers" (e.g., CX Print Server, FreeFlow Core), "Accused Color Press Systems" (e.g., digital presses with Automated Color Quality Suite), and others that encompass hardware like digital presses (e.g., iGen, Versant series) and associated software suites (e.g., MatchAssure, IntegratedPLUS) (Compl. ¶¶51, 143, 212, 255, 362, 399).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused instrumentalities collectively provide comprehensive color management and workflow automation for digital printing. Their alleged functionality includes providing graphical user interfaces to manage print jobs across networked devices, using standardized ICC color profiles to define device capabilities, performing color space transformations, calibrating devices using integrated sensors (such as inline spectrophotometers and full-width arrays), and allowing users to set color preferences (Compl. ¶¶53-60, 215-218, 238, 262). The complaint alleges that Xerox promotes these features as providing accurate color measurement and management, a key capability in the competitive commercial printing market (Compl. ¶44).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 6,995,870 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 34)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
providing an interface operable at a computer through which the user is able to select a plurality of sites having one or more color input or output devices;	The Command WorkStation software provides a graphical user interface that displays print servers and their associated printers on a network, allowing a user to select and connect to them.	¶53	col. 46:41-49
communicating between said sites through a network interface at said sites; and	The Command WorkStation software communicates with the selected print servers and printers over the network.	¶53	col. 9:1-5
providing information for transforming input color image data into output color image data... such that colors produced by the color devices appear substantially the same... wherein said information for transforming comprises information relating the color gamuts of different ones of said color devices to each other and user preferences for color reproduction...	The Accused Print Servers use a color management system with ICC profiles to translate colors. The profiles contain device gamut information, and the system uses an intermediate gamut representation (PRMG) to map colors between devices. The servers also include features like a profile editor and GCR options for user preferences.	¶¶54-60	col. 9:8-24

U.S. Patent No. 7,729,008 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 28)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
displaying on the display a menu of selections which enable a user to select at least user preferences for color reproduction; and	The Command WorkStation software provides a graphical user interface that allows a user to choose various color settings and preferences, such as color profiles and gray component replacement options.	¶89	col. 46:41-49
storing in memory at least tonal transfer curves... and one or more color transformations... at least partly in accordance with calibration data in device-independent units of color... and at least one of said... color transformations is a chromatic adaptation transform useable to compensate for change in viewing conditions.	The EX Computer stores ICC v.4-compliant profiles, which include tonal transfer curves and color transforms. It also generates and stores calibration curves based on measurements from calibration devices, which use device-independent color units (e.g., Lab*). The ICC profiles allegedly include a chromatic adaptation transform (identified by a "chad" tag) to convert color values between viewing conditions.	¶¶90-95	col. 4:63-66

Identified Points of Contention

Scope Questions: A potential point of dispute may be the interpretation of the term "site" in the '870 Patent. The complaint alleges that selecting a networked "print server" meets this limitation. The court may need to decide whether a "site," in the context of the patent, requires a distinct geographical or physical location, or if a logical node on a network, such as a server, qualifies.
Technical Questions: A key technical question for the '870 Patent is whether using a standardized intermediate reference gamut (the PRMG) as alleged in the complaint (Compl. ¶57), constitutes "providing information relating the color gamuts of different ones of said color devices to each other." The analysis will question whether this indirect relation through a common standard meets the claim language, as opposed to a direct, pairwise relation between the specific device gamuts. For the '008 Patent, the analysis will question what evidence shows that the accused chromatic adaptation transform is used to "compensate for change in viewing conditions," a dynamic function, rather than performing a single, static conversion between two predefined conditions (e.g., monitor to print).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"appear substantially the same" ('870 Patent, claim 34)

Context and Importance: This term defines the required outcome of the claimed method and is central to the infringement analysis. As a qualitative and functional limitation, its construction will determine the standard of proof required to show infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its inherent subjectivity makes it a likely point of contention, governing whether minor, measurable color differences between outputs from different devices fall inside or outside the claim's scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the goal in perceptual terms, stating the common language of color is "based on the internationally accepted Standard Observer which quantifies color in terms of what normal humans see" ('870 Patent, col. 3:1-6). This may support a construction based on perceptual similarity to a human observer, rather than strict colorimetric identity.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description discloses complex processes for calibration, mathematical modeling of colorant mixture, and verification using color measurement instruments in device-independent color spaces ('870 Patent, FIG. 5; col. 21:1-22:21). This may support a narrower construction requiring that the color similarity be objectively verifiable and within a specific, measurable tolerance.

"chromatic adaptation transform useable to compensate for change in viewing conditions" ('008 Patent, claim 28)

Context and Importance: This term defines a specific technical component of the claimed method. Infringement will depend on whether the accused ICC profiles' "chad" tag performs this function. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute could hinge on whether the accused feature is merely "useable for" this purpose or if it must be shown to be actively used to compensate for changes in conditions during the accused process.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language "useable to compensate" may support a broader interpretation that only requires the transform to have the inherent capability of compensating for different viewing conditions, regardless of whether a user actively changes those conditions during a single session. The specification's general discussion of soft proofing acknowledges the different viewing environments of monitors and hard copy ('008 Patent, col. 4:51-62).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The phrase "compensate for change" could be construed more narrowly to require a dynamic process where the system adapts to different or changing viewing environments, not just a one-time, static conversion from a source viewing condition (e.g., a camera's) to a destination's (e.g., a printer's).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement of infringement across all asserted patents. The basis for these allegations is that Xerox provides its customers with products along with "extensive training and technical guides, product data sheets, demonstrations, software and hardware specifications, installation guides, and other forms of support" that allegedly instruct and encourage end-users to operate the products in a manner that directly infringes the patent claims (Compl. ¶¶63, 73, 82, etc.).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Xerox's purported pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit. It is alleged that Xerox received notice letters with claim charts for the '870, '008, and '444 patents as early as March 27, 2014, and for several other patents-in-suit by February 26, 2015, but continued its allegedly infringing activities (Compl. ¶¶27, 31, 406-407).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

A core issue will be one of system versus standard: does the implementation of an industry-standard color management framework, such as the ICC profile system, necessarily practice the specific, integrated methods claimed in the patents? The court will likely have to determine whether Xerox's use of standardized tools that contain elements like gamut descriptions and chromatic adaptation transforms constitutes performance of the patented systems, or if the patents claim a specific architecture and process flow not inherent in the use of such standards.
A key technical question will be one of functional implementation: does the complaint provide sufficient evidence that the features of the accused products perform the specific functions required by the claims? For example, the case may turn on whether the "chromatic adaptation transform" in Xerox's products is merely a static converter between predefined white points or if it is used to dynamically "compensate for change in viewing conditions" as the claim requires.
A central dispute will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms rooted in the patents' specific embodiments, such as "site" or "information relating the color gamuts... to each other," be construed broadly enough to read on the alleged functionality of modern, networked print servers that use a common, standardized intermediate color space for gamut mapping?