Litigation

Untitled case

2:19-cv-00369

Patents at issue (1)

6526411

Summary

Litigation involving U.S. Patent 6,526,411 listed in the Google Patents/Unified Patents record. Defendant and outcome not verified in the narrative.

Case overview & background

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

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

Key facts confirmed. Let me pull the docket details and patent specifics.

Case Overview — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Frontier Communications Corporation, No. 2:19-cv-00369 (E.D. Tex.)

Parties. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a non-practicing entity (NPE/PAE) incorporated in British Columbia on April 29, 2019, with attorney Greg Benoit as director and a business address corresponding to IP licensing firm Pigott & Co. (RPX, Nov. 9, 2019; Mondaq/RPX, Oct. 26, 2020). Its asserted portfolio consists of former Intellectual Ventures LLC assets, many routed through Steephill Technologies LLC; Cedar Lane acquired the AVInnov LLC portfolio — itself assembled from IV in December 2018 — in October 2019, roughly a month before this suit. Cedar Lane litigates from a single law firm principal, Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law, and disclosed in the complaint that it has no parent and no publicly held parent owning 10% or more (Dkt. 4, Corporate Disclosure Statement). Defendant Frontier Communications Corporation is an operating telecommunications/broadband provider (Stamford/Norwalk, CT) offering residential FiOS and DSL video and broadband service; it was represented here by Robert James McAughan, Jr. Notably, Frontier filed for Chapter 11 in April 2020 — about three months after this case ended — and later agreed in September 2024 to be acquired by Verizon.

Patents and accused technology. The prompt's metadata lists only the '411 patent, and that is the patent whose lineage is best documented, but secondary sources report that Cedar Lane asserted three patents against Frontier: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,194, 6,526,411, and 6,721,489 (RPX; Patexia party record showing "'411, '194, '489"). The '411 patent, "System and method for creating dynamic playlists," issued February 25, 2003 to sole inventor Sean Ward, filed November 15, 2000 with a November 15, 1999 provisional priority, and assigned to Relatable, LLC (a Virginia company Ward co-founded) before an IV affiliate acquired it in May 2009. Its 24 claims cover a hybrid content-based/collaborative-filtering engine that builds and reorders a "dynamic playlist" from meta-category queries, including an elements table and pairs table with weighted linkages (patent text; RPX Insight). The '194 patent ("System for playback of network audio material on demand," Synetix Technologies, issued Dec. 31, 2002) and the '489 patent ("Play list manager," PhatNoise, Inc., issued Apr. 13, 2004) round out a playlist/VOD cluster. Per RPX, the accused instrumentalities are the defendants' respective cable boxes — i.e., set-top box program-guide and playlist/VOD features. Caution: I could not retrieve the complaint or its claim charts (Dkt. 1, Exhibits A–E), so the specific accused Frontier products and asserted claims are not independently verified.

Procedural posture and significance. Cedar Lane filed on November 9, 2019 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas, assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap with referral to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne (Dkt. 8). Frontier never answered: it obtained two unopposed Local Rule CV-12 extensions (to Jan. 8, then Jan. 13, 2020; Dkt. 7, 9), and the case was terminated on January 21, 2020 as a voluntary dismissal (Patexia) — roughly ten weeks after filing and before any Rule 12 motion or scheduling order issued. Whether the dismissal followed a license or settlement is not publicly documented. The case is a compact specimen of the Cedar Lane model: it was filed the same day as companion suits against Charter Communications (2:19-cv-00368, same court) and Starz Entertainment (D. Colo. 1:19-cv-03189), re-asserting patents that AVInnov had dropped against Charter in Delaware months earlier — the "portfolio bounce" RPX documented. It also illustrates defensive-aggregator scrutiny of the ex-IV portfolio: Unified Patents petitioned for IPR of the related '177 patent in October 2019 (IPR2020-00006). By Lex Machina's count Cedar Lane became the most prolific patent plaintiff in the country in 2021, with a settlement-driven, ~90-day case profile. Finally, the '411 carries a 260-day patent term adjustment, expiring in roughly August 2021 — meaning the damages window on this campaign's core playlist patents closed almost as the filing wave crested (RPX Insight lists the patent as expired for term). One metadata caution: an RPX article refers in passing to Frontier's suit as "2:19-cv-00269," but the authoritative docket number is 2:19-cv-00369 per UniCourt, RPX Insight, and Patexia; treat the "269" reference as a typo.

Key legal developments & outcome

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

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Frontier Communications Corp., No. 2:19-cv-00369 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: This was a short-lived pleading-stage case. Cedar Lane filed on 2019‑11‑09, never obtained an answer or counterclaim, never reached a scheduling order, Markman, or discovery, and voluntarily dismissed roughly ten weeks later (case terminated 2020‑01‑21). There is no judgment, verdict, appeal, or PTAB proceeding on the ’411 patent tied to this docket. The litigation is best understood as one data point in Cedar Lane's high-volume, license-driven campaign over the former Intellectual Ventures playlist/media portfolio.

1. Filing & initial pleadings

Date Event Source
2019‑11‑09 Complaint filed (Dkt. 1) with Exs. A–H; jury demand; corporate disclosure (Dkt. 4); AO‑120 (Dkt. 2); appearance of Isaac Phillip Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC) (Dkt. 3) Justia docket; UniCourt
2019‑11‑12 Case assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap; referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne; summons issued (Dkt. 5) Justia docket
2019‑11‑25 Defendant's unopposed first extension of time to answer under Loc. R. CV‑12 → answer due 2020‑01‑08 (Dkt. 7; Dkt. 6 filed in error) Justia docket
2019‑12‑31 / 2020‑01‑02 Defendant's unopposed second extension → answer due 2020‑01‑13 (Dkt. 9; granted 2020‑01‑02) Justia docket
2019‑12‑19 Order setting scheduling conference for 2020‑01‑28 before Judge Gilstrap (Dkt. 8) Justia docket
2020‑01‑21 Case terminated — voluntary dismissal Patexia case summary ("Dismissed – Voluntarily"; termination 2020‑01‑21)

Patents actually asserted: the complaint pleaded three patents, not just the ’411: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,194 ("System for playback of network audio material on demand"), 6,526,411 ("System and method for creating dynamic playlists"), and 6,721,489 ("Play list manager"). RPX's contemporaneous write-up (2019‑11‑09) confirms the same three patents against Frontier, accused instrumentality being Frontier's cable set-top boxes.

Answer / counterclaims: None. The answer deadline had been extended twice (to 2020‑01‑13), and the case was dismissed eight days later; no answer, Rule 12 motion, or counterclaim appears on the public docket. Defense counsel of record for Frontier was Robert James McAughan, Jr. (per UniCourt party data).

Note on the case number: RPX's article lists the Frontier suit as "2:19‑cv‑00269," which appears to be a typographical error; PACER/Justia and the court's own docket reflect 2:19‑cv‑00369, consistent with the metadata supplied.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None filed. There was no motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, and no summary-judgment practice. The docket's only contested-adjacent activity was the two stipulated extension applications. The 2020‑01‑28 scheduling conference (Dkt. 8) never occurred as a substantive event because the case closed on 2020‑01‑21.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Not reached. No claim-construction order, no O2 Micro / Nautilus briefing, no technical tutorial or Markman hearing exists for this docket. Construing the ’411 (or the ’194/’489) in E.D. Tex. was never tested in this case.

4. Discovery milestones

None of strategic significance. No Rule 26(f) conference, discovery plan, protective order, infringement or invalidity contentions, or ESI exchanges are reflected on the public docket. The case ended ~70 days after filing, before the Local Rule scheduling order issued.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial setting, verdict, JMOL/new-trial motion, or fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285. There is no reported opinion, no Federal Circuit appeal, and no judgment on the merits.

6. Final disposition / present posture

  • Disposition: Voluntary dismissal; the case is closed and terminated as of 2020‑01‑21 (Patexia).
  • Precision caveat: The publicly indexed docket snapshots I could retrieve stop at 2020‑01‑02 (Justia) or reflect a summary status only (Patexia/UniCourt). I could not verify from a primary source whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, whether it was a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice versus a stipulated order, or whether a written settlement/license was referenced. Given Cedar Lane's practice in parallel cases, a without-prejudice voluntary dismissal (often following a confidential license) is the most likely mechanism, but treat that as inference, not confirmed fact.
  • No refiling against Frontier appears in Cedar Lane's docket record (Patsnap litigation index of 120 Cedar Lane cases shows no subsequent Frontier action). Context worth noting: Frontier Communications and certain subsidiaries filed for Chapter 11 on 2020‑04‑14, roughly three months after this dismissal — a plausible strategic backdrop, though I have no source tying the dismissal to that filing.
  • Broader campaign resolution: Cedar Lane's cases from this period overwhelmingly ended in early voluntary dismissal or consent judgment rather than adjudication. E.g., Motorola Solutions (N.D. Ill. 1:20‑cv‑03600, dismissed without prejudice 2020‑07‑10); Verizon (W.D. Tex. 6:22‑cv‑00043, dismissed without prejudice 2022‑02‑09); Funai (N.D. Ga. 1:21‑cv‑03722, dismissed without prejudice 2021‑09‑14).

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the ’411 patent

  • No IPR or PGR on U.S. 6,526,411 appears in the record for this case or identified in available searches, and there was therefore no stay motion and no estoppel effect on this docket. (Searches were limited; absence of an IPR is stated as "not found," not as a verified negative.)
  • The related PTAB activity in this campaign concerned other patents in the same portfolio: Unified Patents filed IPR2020‑00006 against U.S. 7,173,177 in early October 2019 — a patent Cedar Lane asserted against Charter and Starz but not against Frontier (RPX, 2019‑11‑09). In the later DISH litigation, DISH Network filed ex parte reexamination requests in Oct.–Nov. 2020 on four Cedar Lane patents (the ’784, ’799, ’318 and ’970 patents), again not the ’411 (DISH DBS 10‑K disclosure).
  • Practical effect: none on this case — the litigation ended before any PTAB vehicle could mature, and the ’411 itself was never the target of a PTAB challenge on the record found.

Analyst notes

  1. Metadata correction: the case-level field lists only the ’411, but the complaint asserted the ’194 and ’489 as well. Any validity/damages analysis tied to this docket must cover all three.
  2. Timing economics: the ’411 claims priority to a 2000‑11‑15 filing and issued 2003‑02‑25, so its 20-year term ran out around 2020‑11‑15. By the time of this suit the patent was within roughly twelve months of expiry, sharply limiting recoverable damages and favoring quick, discounted licensing — consistent with a 10-week dismissal.
  3. Evidentiary gaps to close with PACER: the text of the dismissal (Dkt. 10 or later), any accompanying stipulation, and whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. These entries were not retrievable in indexed form and should be pulled directly from E.D. Tex. CM/ECF (Gilstrap/Payne) before relying on the disposition characterization.

Plaintiff representatives

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

I'll research the docket and counsel of record for Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. the defendant in E.D. Tex. Case No. 2:19-cv-00369.

Plaintiff's counsel of record — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Frontier Communications Corp., No. 2:19-cv-00369 (E.D. Tex.)

Case identification confirmed: 2:19-cv-00369 is Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Frontier Communications Corporation, filed 11/09/2019 before Judge Rodney Gilstrap with referral to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne, asserting the '411 patent alongside U.S. 6,502,194 and 6,721,489 against Frontier's cable boxes. (Justia docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2019cv00369/193521; RPX background: https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/news/59211; Patexia, showing termination 1/21/2020 as a voluntary dismissal: https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Frontier-Communications-Corporation-id-130093)

Counsel appearing for Cedar Lane

Attorney Role Firm / office Experience note
Isaac Phillip Rabicoff (Reg. No. 74,147) Lead counsel — and the only plaintiff-side attorney appearing on the docket. Signed the complaint (Dkt. 1), filed the Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure (Dkt. 4), and filed the notice of appearance (Dkt. 3), all on 11/09/2019. Rabicoff Law LLC; at the relevant time the address of record was 73 W. Monroe St., Chicago, IL 60603 (the firm has since listed offices at 4311 N. Ravenswood Ave., Chicago; 5680 King Centre Dr., Alexandria, VA; and 600 Mamaroneck Ave., Harrison, NY) The architect and near-exclusive counsel of Cedar Lane's litigation program — he has appeared for Cedar Lane in well over 100 suits (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Bank of America, 2:25-cv-01225; Cedar Lane v. Johnson Controls, 2:25-cv-00815; Cedar Lane v. Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2:26-cv-00044). Also a frequent Patent Owner's lead counsel at the PTAB (e.g., IPR2020-00111, IPR2018-00418) and counsel to other NPEs such as Patent Armory and VeriBase. Sole practitioner-focused boutique.

Sources for Mr. Rabicoff's identity/firm: docket entries Dkt. 1, 3, 4 (11/09/2019) as reflected in the Justia and UniCourt dockets (https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-frontier-communications-corporation-[255626](/patent/255626)); Law360 attorney profile (https://www.law360.com/firms/rabicoff-law/attorneys/isaac-p-rabicoff); PTAB filings listing him as Lead Counsel for Patent Owner, Rabicoff Law LLC, Reg. No. 74,147 (e.g., https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1548634](/patent/1548634)/download-documents).

Explicit gaps and caveats

  • No other plaintiff counsel appears. The retrieved docket shows no local counsel, no of-counsel, and no in-house attorney entering an appearance for Cedar Lane. The complaint was filed electronically by Mr. Rabicoff himself and he is listed as the sole "Plaintiff Attorney" in the third-party docket compilations.
  • No pro hac vice motion appears on the retrieved docket. The docket extract available to me ends January 2, 2020 (Justia notes "last retrieved on January 2, 2020"), and the case was voluntarily dismissed on or about January 21, 2020 per Patexia. I therefore cannot rule out that a local-counsel appearance or a pro hac vice motion was filed in that final ~3-week window before dismissal — the entries are simply not in the retrieved record. I found no evidence of one, and I am not asserting one exists.
  • Nothing is sealed in the retrieved entries; the limitation is docket coverage, not sealing.
  • Mr. Rabicoff's E.D. Tex. admission status in 2019 is not documented in the materials I could access; I did not verify whether he was admitted to the Eastern District bar or was proceeding on some other basis. Local Rule AT-3 would ordinarily require association of local counsel for a pro hac vice admission, which is conspicuously absent here — flag this as an open verification item for a PACER pull of the full docket sheet.
  • Cedar Lane's corporate principal, Greg Benoit (director of the British Columbia entity; former CEO of Patent Armory), is a business figure, not counsel of record in this case — do not list him as counsel.

Bottom line: For 2:19-cv-00369, the plaintiff's counsel of record is Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago, Illinois, serving as sole/lead counsel. Any suggestion of additional plaintiff-side counsel (local or otherwise) is unsupported by the accessible record.

Defendant representatives

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

I'll research this case to identify the defendant and its counsel.

The defendant is Frontier Communications Corporation. Let me confirm counsel details.

Let me pull the actual docket entries to confirm which attorneys filed appearances.

Bottom line

Case No. 2:19-cv-00369 (E.D. Tex.) is Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Frontier Communications Corporation, filed 11/09/2019. The only defendant is Frontier Communications Corporation, and the only defense attorney who appears anywhere on the docket is Robert James ("Bob") McAughan, Jr. of the Houston IP boutique now known as McAughan Deaver PLLC (in 2019, Sutton McAughan Deaver PLLC). No local E.D. Tex. counsel, no in-house counsel, and no second firm appear on the record.

Important correction to the case metadata: the '411 patent was asserted alongside other patents. Cedar Lane's 11/09/2019 wave (Charter, 2:19-cv-00368, filed the same day) asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,194, 6,526,411, 6,721,489 and 7,173,177; third-party litigation trackers list the Frontier case as asserting the '411, '194 and '489 patents (see KOTRA IP dispute database entry for 2:19-cv-00369 and RPX's 11/09/2019 campaign note). The complaint itself has eight exhibits (Dkt. 1, Exs. A–H), consistent with multiple patents plus claim charts.

Counsel of record for Frontier Communications Corporation

Attorney Role Firm / office Note
Robert James McAughan, Jr. Sole defense counsel of record (lead — no local counsel on the docket) McAughan Deaver PLLC, 550 Westcott St., Ste. 375, Houston, TX 77007 (firm was "Sutton McAughan Deaver PLLC" in 2019; formerly Locke Lord, Houston) Career patent litigator; argued Kilbourne v. Apple Inc., No. 2020-1665 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2021) (Rule 36 affirmance of IPR2019-00233) and handled NPE defense/offense work such as the Iron Oak Technologies campaigns; B.S., Texas A&M.
Albert Berton ("Bert") Deaver, Jr. Not of record here — frequent co-counsel/partner at the same firm McAughan Deaver PLLC, Houston Listed only as a caveat: he is McAughan's standard co-counsel (e.g., Kilbourne, Iron Oak v. Samsung, No. 3:17-cv-01259 (N.D. Tex.)), but I found no filing by him in 2:19-cv-00369. Do not treat as of record absent a PACER check.

Docket basis

Caveats and sourcing limits

  • No notice of appearance is visible on the free docket. The only defendant-side filings captured before the docket snapshot are the three extension applications, each bearing McAughan's ECF signature. E.D. Tex. practice requires an appearance, so one was likely filed but is not reflected in the free mirrors; PACER (or the court's CM/ECF) would be needed to cite the appearance document number. I did not find it, and I am not inventing one.
  • No local counsel: McAughan is Texas-barred and the firm is Texas-based, so no local-counsel appearance was required or made.
  • No in-house attorney for Frontier appears on the docket. Frontier's public filings/10-K litigation notes do not list this case (unlike DISH's, which does discuss Cedar Lane), so no in-house or co-counsel identification is available.
  • Nothing is sealed in this case; the limitation is solely docket-mirror coverage, not sealing.
  • Posture: The case was voluntarily dismissed on or about 1/21/2020 (Patexia docket summary, https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Frontier-Communications-Corporation-id-130093) — i.e., dismissed roughly seven weeks after service and before any answer, motion to dismiss, or Markman activity. I could not verify the dismissal order's text or document number from a free source; that should be confirmed on PACER. Practically, this means McAughan's recorded involvement is limited to extension practice and case-opening defense strategy, not substantive motion or trial work in this docket.
  • Counsel identification note: Plaintiff was represented throughout by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC), who filed his appearance on the complaint date (Dkt. 3) — useful for cross-referencing the campaign's other suits.