Untitled case

I'll research this case across dockets, patent records, and NPE-tracking sources.

The docket reveals the defendant's identity. Let me verify party details, the asserted patents' provenance, and any PTAB activity.

Let me nail down the Avycon–Huviron (Korea) relationship, the dismissal terms, and any PTAB challenges.

Case Overview — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Avycon, No. 6:22-cv-00456 (W.D. Tex.)

Parties. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a patent-monetization entity (NPE/PAE), not an operating company — it holds a portfolio of consumer-electronics and imaging patents acquired from Intellectual Ventures' portfolio, and its USPTO assignment records list a Canadian address (560 Baker Street, Suite 1, Nelson, British Columbia), with the May 2019 assignment recorded through Chicago attorney Isaac Rabicoff, who also served as lead plaintiff's counsel here (USPTO assignment abstract for 6,473,527). Cedar Lane was one of the most prolific patent plaintiffs of the 2021–22 period, filing scores of substantially identical complaints against camera, printer and consumer-electronics vendors; one trade report put its campaign at 38 complaints asserting the '527 patent and 46 asserting the '790 patent (The Recycler, Pantum suit). The lone defendant, Avycon, is a U.S. video-surveillance brand headquartered in Irvine, California (16682 Millikan Ave.), founded 2012 and selling IP cameras, HD-analog cameras, NVRs/HVRs and PoE networking gear through distributors (avycon.com; company profile). Avycon traces to Korean CCTV maker Huviron Co., Ltd. (f/k/a Sunkwang Electronics, est. 1991, Bucheon, Gyeonggi-do), and business databases describe Avycon as "formerly known as Huviron"; Huviron established a U.S. branch in 2009–2011, and Avycon Korea was set up in 2020 with Korea chosen as its manufacturing base (asmag Huviron profile; Boannews CEO interview). That Korean parentage explains the KIPO NPE report's description of the defendant as an anonymized Korean company — though I could not find a primary corporate filing confirming the precise Avycon/Huviron ownership structure, so treat that link as strongly indicated rather than documented.

Patents and accused technology. The complaint (Doc. 1, filed 5/5/2022) asserted Cedar Lane's standard three-patent imaging package: U.S. 6,473,527, "Module and method for interfacing analog/digital converting means and JPEG compression means" (issued Oct. 28, 2002; App. 09/324,095 filed June 1, 1999; inventor Chia-Ying Wang; original assignee Mustek Systems Inc. of Taiwan) — a small line-buffer interface that feeds A/D-converted image lines to a JPEG compressor in compression-unit-sized blocks without an external frame memory; U.S. 6,972,790, "Host interface for imaging arrays" — an on-chip interface with a FIFO/line memory and interrupt signaling that decouples a CMOS sensor's streaming output from a host processor's address-based bus; and U.S. 8,537,242, the divisional of the '790 covering the same sensor-to-host bridge (Unified Patents patent page for 6,473,527; complaint analysis of the parallel Cedar Lane pleading). Applied to Avycon, the theory was that its network and HD-analog cameras/recorders incorporate sensor-interface and image-compression architectures covered by those claims; the model-by-model claim charts were filed as complaint exhibits (the '527 chart as Exhibit 4 in the Cedar Lane template), and I did not verify the specific Avycon model numbers accused. A threshold oddity: per Unified Patents, the '527 patent's term expired May 31, 2019 — before Cedar Lane even acquired it — so the '527 count could only support back damages within the 35 U.S.C. § 286 six-year lookback, not ongoing royalty or injunctive relief. I did not independently verify the expiration dates of the '790/'242 family.

Procedural posture and significance. The case was filed in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright, with Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland referred (Docket Alarm docket). Waco mattered enormously in this period: Judge Albright's court was the nation's leading patent venue, with speedy trials and a near-certainty of surviving transfer motions, which is why a Canadian NPE with no Texas ties filed there. The case never reached the merits. Avycon appeared through Neil J. McNabnay and Lance E. Wyatt, Jr. of Fish & Richardson on July 6, 2022, and that same day answered and counterclaimed for declaratory relief (Docs. 7–9); two days later, on July 8, 2022, Cedar Lane filed a joint stipulation of dismissal (Doc. 10), and the AO-120 patent report went to the USPTO on July 12, 2022 (Doc. 11) — a 64-day case lifecycle (Patexia docket). The speed and the joint-stipulation mechanism point to a quick, likely modest, settlement/license rather than a litigated outcome, consistent with Cedar Lane's broader pattern: the same Fish & Richardson team defended Videology Imaging Solutions in Cedar Lane's Delaware suit, which was dismissed with prejudice in March 2022, and other camera and smart-home defendants (Snap One, GoPro, Drift Innovation) exited on similar timelines. The case is therefore notable less for doctrine than as a data point in three trends: the 2021–22 surge of "expired-patent" NPE filings asserting the IV-derived Cedar Lane imaging portfolio against small and mid-size hardware vendors; the concentration of those filings in Waco before Judge Albright, a practice curtailed days later when the court's July 25, 2022 standing order ended single-division filing and randomized new Waco patent cases across the district; and the role of Korean and Taiwanese supply chains (Mustek as original assignee, Huviron/Avycon as the accused) in U.S. surveillance-hardware patent risk.

Sourcing caveats. I confirmed the docket entries, judges, filing/termination dates, plaintiff's counsel, and defense counsel above. I could not verify in this session: (1) the text or prejudice terms of the dismissal order itself (only the July 8 joint stipulation and the July 12 AO-120 report appear in the accessible docket extract); (2) the contents of Avycon's counterclaim beyond its existence; (3) the specific accused Avycon product models; (4) any PTAB proceeding on the '527 — Unified Patents maintains a patent page for it and a May 2022 UP Weekly campaign linked to that page, suggesting defensive-aggregator attention, but I found no petition, institution, or final written decision, so no IPR linkage should be assumed; and (5) the exact corporate relationship between Avycon (Irvine, CA) and Huviron Co., Ltd. (Korea).

I'll research this case across the docket, PTAB, and legal press sources.

Case posture at a glance

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Avycon, No. 6:22-cv-00456-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.), before Judge Alan D. Albright with Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland referred. Filed 2022-05-05; terminated 2022-07-08 — 64 days from complaint to dismissal, with no motion practice, no scheduling order, no discovery, no Markman, and no PTAB proceeding touching this case. The entire substantive record is six docket entries.

A necessary correction to the case metadata up front: the docketed defendant is Avycon, a U.S. video-surveillance supplier headquartered in Irvine, California (founded 2012), not a Korean company. The KIPO NPE report's anonymization as a "Korean company" is not supported by the actual caption. It is possible KIPO classified Avycon by the origin of its OEM supply chain, but on the face of the docket the characterization is inaccurate. Similarly, the case metadata lists only the '527 patent, whereas the complaint asserted three patents — U.S. 6,473,527, 6,972,790, and 8,537,242 (see IPWatchdog's patent filings roundup of 2022-05-12 and the Lexology May 2022 retail litigation report, both of which list all three for case 6:22-cv-00456). The '527 is simply the lead/primary patent in the KIPO database entry.

---

Chronological development

1. Filing and initial pleadings

2022-05-05 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1), with Exhibits 1–6 (the three patents plus claim charts) and civil cover sheet. Filed by Isaac Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC, Cedar Lane's sole outside counsel in this campaign. Jury demand by plaintiff; cause of action 35 U.S.C. § 271. Same-day filings: notice of appearance (Dkt. 2), Rule 7.1 disclosure (Dkt. 3), summons request (Dkt. 4), AO 120 form (Dkt. 5); summons issued (Dkt. 6). Case assigned to Judge Albright and referred to Magistrate Judge Gilliland.

The complaint follows Cedar Lane's template: three counts, one per patent; direct infringement of the '527 (system claim 1 and method claim 8), and direct plus induced infringement of the '790 and '242, with the inducement theory resting on product literature and website materials instructing end users. Notably, the complaint incorporated infringement claim charts by reference without publicly filing them in the versions analyzed in sister cases — the same defect that generated early motion practice against Cedar Lane elsewhere in 2022. The '527 count's central vulnerability is structural: claim 1 is drafted in means-plus-function form ("read control means," "memory means," "output control means"), so under § 112(f) the claim is limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification (read control device 22 and its arrangement with A/D converter 26 and memory 24, per Fig. 2) and equivalents — a narrow construction that a defendant would have pressed at Markman.

2022-07-06 — Avycon responds (Dkts. 7–9). Appearance of Neil J. McNabnay (Dkt. 7); Answer to complaint with jury demand and counterclaims by Lance E. Wyatt, Jr. (Dkt. 8); Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure (Dkt. 9). The counterclaims (10 pages) would have sought declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patents — the standard defensive package. McNabnay is a Fish & Richardson principal in Dallas; the McNabnay/Wyatt pairing appears repeatedly across Cedar Lane's 2022 W.D. Tex. docket (e.g., Cedar Lane v. i3 International, No. 6:22-cv-00631, Dkts. 9–12, filed 2022-09-20), which suggests a coordinated defense engagement. I could not independently verify Wyatt's firm from a primary source and flag that as unsourced.

Strategic significance: Avycon did not seek an extension of time to answer (compare Cedar Lane v. PathPartner, No. 6:22-cv-00124, where three successive extension notices preceded settlement), and it answered with counterclaims rather than a Rule 12 motion. Answering with invalidity counterclaims converts a dismissal into something requiring a negotiated resolution of both sides' claims — a well-known lever for improving settlement posture with a high-volume filer.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None were filed. No motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3)/(6), no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, no summary judgment motion, no motion to sever, no Fintiv-adjacent stay request. The counterclaims in Dkt. 8 never ripened into motion practice — Cedar Lane never even answered them (no answer to counterclaim appears on the docket before termination).

3. Claim construction

The case never reached Markman. Under Judge Albright's then-operative standing order governing patent cases (the March 2022 / April 2022 versions), a scheduling order and a Markman date would not have been set until after the Rule 26(f) conference and the notice of readiness; the case died well before that. Consequently there is no claim construction ruling in this action on "read control means," "memory means," or "output control means," and no Federal Circuit guidance attributable to this case. The § 112(f) issue on the '527 remains judicially untested in this docket.

4. Discovery milestones

None. No Rule 26(f) report, no scheduling order, no initial disclosures, no written discovery, no depositions, no expert reports. Dismissal came two days after the answer — before the earliest possible discovery deadline.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial setting, no verdict, no JMOL / new trial / § 285 fee motions. It follows that there is no fee-shifting determination here — notably, Cedar Lane's campaign was never the subject of an "exceptional case" finding in this matter, and Avycon did not pursue one.

6. Final disposition

2022-07-08 — Joint stipulation of dismissal (Dkt. 10), filed by Cedar Lane through Rabicoff, styled as a "MOTION to Dismiss (Joint Stipulation of Dismissal)" with proposed order, and referred to Magistrate Judge Gilliland. The case was terminated that same day.

2022-07-12 — AO 120 Report on Patent/Trademark sent to the USPTO (Dkt. 11), consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 290 notification of a final decision.

Substantive caveats worth being explicit about:

• The public docket entry does not, on its face, disclose whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, or whether the counterclaims were dismissed with or without prejudice. Cedar Lane's standard practice in this campaign was a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation dismissing plaintiff's claims with prejudice, each side bearing its own costs and fees (see, e.g., the termination text quoted in Cedar Lane v. Bank of America, No. 2:25-cv-01225 (E.D. Tex. 2026-03-12)). The full text of Dkt. 10 is not in the public RECAP collection I could retrieve, so the precise prejudice terms should be verified against PACER before being stated as fact.
• The metadata's "settled" characterization is consistent with the joint stipulation, but no settlement agreement, license, or amount was disclosed; no consent judgment was entered.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings and effect on this litigation

None identified as to this case, and none could have affected it. No IPR or PGR petition was filed against the '527, '790 or '242 in a window that could have influenced a 64-day case, and no stay motion was ever made. The absence of an IPR track is itself strategically notable: Cedar Lane's high-volume, fast-settlement model depended on defendants' rational calculation that an IPR (12–18 months, $300k+) was not worth the expense against a quick, low-value license — precisely the calculus that Judge Albright's W.D. Tex. docket and Fintiv-era discretionary-denial practice reinforced in 2022.

The one relevant PTAB data point in the Cedar Lane portfolio is Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., where the Board's 2021-02-12 final written decision held the asserted independent claim of U.S. 7,173,177 unpatentable. That patent was not asserted here (it belongs to a different, playlist/UI family), but it demonstrates that Cedar Lane's portfolio was pierceable when a defendant funded a unified-defense challenge — and that Cedar Lane's response was to keep individual case values low enough to deter that investment.

Broader campaign context (useful for framing the outcome): Cedar Lane was the top-filing NPE in the United States in 2022, with IAM reporting a 96–98% settlement rate among terminated cases and a strong preference for W.D. Tex. (IAM, 2023-02-13 and 2023-03-20). The '527 and '790 were asserted in dozens of complaints — reporting at the time of the Pantum suit noted roughly 38 complaints on the '527 and 46 on the '790 since Cedar Lane acquired them in May 2019. Avycon is one data point in that pattern, not an outlier. (Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists well over a dozen '527 cases filed in 2022 alone, including Zenitel, Openeye, Motorola Solutions, Ricoh USA, PixArt, Tattile, Moxa, Longse, and others.)

---

Bottom line

This was a template nuisance-value assertion that resolved before any adjudicative event. Cedar Lane filed a three-patent complaint on 2022-05-05 using non-public claim charts; Avycon, represented by McNabnay/Wyatt, answered with invalidity and non-infringement counterclaims on 2022-07-06 rather than moving to dismiss or transfer; the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal two days later on 2022-07-08, and the AO 120 report went to the USPTO on 2022-07-12.

There is no legal precedent, no claim construction, no invalidity holding, and no fee award to take from this docket. Its analytical value is as evidence of a litigation-funding model: short-duration, low-friction filings against small and mid-size hardware sellers, settled at a discount to defense cost, with the '527's § 112(f) means-plus-function exposure never tested because no defendant in this

I'll research the counsel of record for Cedar Lane Technologies in this W.D. Tex. case.

Let me verify the docket details and look for the complaint signature block and any additional plaintiff counsel.

Let me locate the actual docket sheet and complaint to confirm the signature block and check for any other plaintiff counsel.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Short answer: Only one attorney ever appeared for the plaintiff in this case: Isaac P. Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Alexandria, Virginia). There was no local counsel, no co-counsel, and no in-house counsel on the docket. Nothing in this case is sealed — the entire docket is public and only 11 entries long.

---

Docket confirmation

Sources: Patexia docket for 6:22-cv-00456; UniCourt docket; Docket Alarm.

---

The attorney

Isaac P. Rabicoff — Lead counsel (sole counsel of record)

• Firm: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Office: 5680 King Centre Dr., Suite 645, Alexandria, VA 22315 (the firm was previously at 73 W. Monroe St., Chicago, IL)
• Contact of record: isaac@rabilaw.com / (773) 669-4590; USPTO Reg. No. 74,147
• Role: Drafted and signed the complaint, entered his appearance the same day the case was filed (Dkt. 2), handled all filings, and signed the joint stipulation of dismissal. He is the sole lawyer on the plaintiff's side; no second chair, no firm colleague, no local Texas sponsor appeared.
• Experience note: Rabicoff is Cedar Lane's near-exclusive outside counsel and one of the most prolific patent plaintiffs' lawyers in the country — Seyfarth Shaw's "NPE Showcase" identified him as the attorney behind Cedar Lane's W.D. Tex. wave (16 cases in the week of Sept. 12, 2022 alone). He is also a registered patent attorney who has appeared as Patent Owner's lead counsel in PTAB IPR/CBM proceedings (e.g., SportBrain Holdings, IPR2016-01464; Think Computer Corp., CBM2014-00159). Cautionary data point: in Cedar Lane Techs. v. Blackmagic Design, No. 20-cv-01302-VC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2020), Judge Vince Chhabria sanctioned Rabicoff $1,000 and referred him to the N.D. Cal. Standing Committee on Professional Conduct for serial filing without pro hac vice admission; the Committee's Final Report (In re Isaac Rabicoff, No. 20-mc-80206-JD) records his agreed payment of $9,193 in unpaid PHV fees. A later N.D. Cal. order (cited in Cedar Lane v. Blackmagic, N.D. Cal. 2025 filings) repeated similar criticisms.

Sources: JD Supra / Seyfarth NPE Showcase; IPWatchdog author bio; PTAB petition listing Rabicoff as Patent Owner lead counsel, Reg. No. 74,147; N.D. Cal. Standing Committee Final Report / sanctions order; representative Cedar Lane dismissal signature block.

---

What I did not find (explicitly)

• No local counsel: No Texas attorney ever filed an appearance for Cedar Lane in this case. (Contrast the defense side, where Dallas-based Neil J. McNabnay (Dkt. 7) and Lance E. Wyatt, Jr. (Dkt. 8) of Fish & Richardson appeared for Avycon on 07/06/2022 — two days before dismissal.)
• No pro hac vice motion on this docket: The retrieved docket (Dkts. 1–11) contains no PHV application, which suggests Rabicoff was filing as a member of the W.D. Tex. bar rather than on a sponsored admission. I could not independently confirm his W.D. Tex. bar status from a primary source, so treat that as inference, not verified fact.
• No in-house counsel: Cedar Lane (a Canadian NPE; president Greg Benoit, himself a lawyer) has no in-house attorney of record here. Benoit is not counsel of record and did not appear.

---

Two flags on the case metadata

1. Defendant identity. Your metadata describes the defendant as an anonymized Korean company per the KIPO NPE report. The KIPO row (6:22cv456 / US 6,473,527 / settled 2022-07-08) matches this docket exactly. However, the publicly named defendant here is Avycon, which public sources describe as a U.S. video-surveillance company headquartered in Irvine, California. So either KIPO's anonymization is reaching an affiliate/parent relationship, or the KIPO-to-docket mapping by case number, patent, and termination date is coincidental. I could not resolve this; treat the "Korean company" characterization as unverified.
2. Patents asserted. Metadata lists only US 6,473,527. IPWatchdog's May 12, 2022 patent filings roundup lists three patents for 6:22-cv-00456: 8,537,242; 6,473,527; 6,972,790. The '527 patent is the one KIPO tracks, but the complaint likely pleaded all three — worth confirming against Dkt. 1.

Source: IPWatchdog Patent Filings Roundup, May 12, 2022.

I'll research the docket and counsel for this case. Let me start with several searches.

The docket shows the defendant is Avycon (not a Korean entity — I'll flag that discrepancy). Two attorneys appeared. Let me verify their firms and roles.

Both attorneys appear to be at Fish & Richardson (Dallas). Let me confirm via the actual filings and check the defendant entity plus any other appearances.

Bottom line

The defendant in W.D. Tex. No. 6:22-cv-00456 is Avycon (styled in the complaint as "Avycon" — the video-surveillance supplier headquartered in Irvine, California), not a Korean entity. Two attorneys appeared for it, both Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas office — Neil J. McNabnay and Lance E. Wyatt, Jr. No local counsel, no in-house counsel, and no other defense firms entered an appearance before the case was dismissed.

Correction to the prior summary: the KIPO NPE report's characterization of the defendant as an anonymized Korean company is not borne out by the docket. The docket caption and all filings read Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Avycon (W.D. Tex., Waco Div., Judge Alan D. Albright; Mag. J. Derek T. Gilliland). Avycon is a U.S. company (HQ listed at 16682 Millikan Ave., Irvine, CA; established 2012), though it is a Korea-linked supply chain player in video surveillance. I could not resolve whether KIPO anonymized a different Cedar Lane case or simply mis-tagged the nationality; treat the docket as controlling.

Counsel of record for Avycon

1. Neil J. McNabnay — lead counsel

• Appearance: Notice of Attorney Appearance, Dkt. No. 7 (filed July 6, 2022) — the first defense filing, adding McNabnay "on behalf of Avycon."
• Firm / office: Fish & Richardson P.C., 1717 Main Street, Suite 5000, Dallas, TX 75201. Principal.
• Experience note: Longtime Fish patent litigator (J.D., Michigan, 1997; Texas bar since 1997), repeatedly listed in Best Lawyers for Litigation–IP and Litigation–Patent and D Magazine's "Dallas' Best." Deep NPE-defense docket, including Clear With Computers v. Isuzu/Canon/eBay and related "Clear with Computers" suits, Constellation IP v. Travelocity/Sabre, and MHL Tek v. Subaru (Fed. Cir. standing/non-infringement win). He is Fish's routine lead defender in W.D. Tex. NPE cases (e.g., Patent Armory v. Costco, v. Unum Group, v. American Income Life; PNC Bank defense).

2. Lance E. Wyatt, Jr. — attorney of record handling the answer and counterclaim (second/principal-level)

• Appearance: Filed Avycon's Answer to the Complaint with jury demand and a counterclaim against Cedar Lane, Dkt. No. 8, and Avycon's Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement, Dkt. No. 9 (both July 6, 2022) — the docket text records him as "added to party Avycon."
• Firm / office: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX. Principal (elevated at Fish; J.D. magna cum laude, SMU Dedman 2014; B.S. biomedical engineering, Texas A&M 2011).
• Experience note: Patent litigator with W.D. Tex./E.D. Tex./D. Del. trial experience and PTAB post-grant practice; former law clerk to Judge Kara F. Stoll (Fed. Cir.) and Judge Gloria M. Navarro (D. Nev.). Notable win: Global eTicket Exchange v. Ticketmaster (W.D. Tex.) — defense jury verdict of non-infringement defeating a ~$112M damages demand. He is Fish's recurring W.D. Tex. answer-filer in Cedar Lane's NPE campaigns (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Videor E. Hartig GmbH; more recently Cedar Lane v. Alterna Securities).

Roles not present

• Local counsel: none appeared. Fish's Dallas principals acted as counsel of record; W.D. Tex. does not require a separate local-counsel appearance, and no additional firm entered on Avycon's behalf.
• In-house counsel: none appeared of record.
• Of counsel: no separate "of counsel" designation appears on the docket.

Procedural caveat worth noting

Defense counsel's involvement was extremely short-lived: appearances, answer/counterclaim, and disclosure statement were all filed July 6, 2022, and July 8, 2022 Cedar Lane filed a "MOTION to Dismiss (Joint Stipulation of Dismissal)" (Dkt. No. 10, signed by plaintiff's counsel Isaac Rabicoff), with the AO-120 form sent to the PTO on July 12, 2022 (Dkt. No. 11). There was no claim construction, no motion practice by Avycon, and no IPR activity by Avycon that I could locate — consistent with Cedar Lane's ~96–98% settlement pattern. The dismissal papers do not disclose settlement terms.

Sourcing and confidence

• High confidence on the two names, firms, and filing dates: the docket entries (Dkt. 7, 8, 9) are reproduced verbatim in docket aggregators — Docket Alarm, Patexia, UniCourt.
• Firm/office and bios: fr.com/team/neil-j-mcnabnay, fr.com/team/lance-wyatt, plus Law360 firm pages and Best Lawyers/Super Lawyers listings.
• Not directly verified: I did not pull the underlying PDFs of Dkt. 8/9 (PACER is paywalled; CourtListener RECAP did not surface this short-lived case), so I have not independently read the answer's signature block or the counterclaim counts. The caption/party-name and counsel attributions rest on the docket text as mirrored above. If you need the signature block confirmed (e.g., to check for an additional attorney listed but never noticed), a PACER pull of Dkt. 8 is the clean way to do it.