Litigation

Untitled case

Litigation (Critical)

2:19-cv-00368

Patents at issue (1)

7173177

Summary

A US case filed in the Texas Eastern District Court involving US patent 7173177.

Case overview & background

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

Despite an extensive web search, a specific patent infringement litigation matching all the provided metadata—Case number: 2:19-cv-00368, Court: Texas Eastern District Court, Plaintiff: T-Rex Property LLC, Defendant: Nokia of America Corporation, and Patents at issue: 7173177—could not be definitively identified. The case number 2:19-cv-00368 appears in dockets for various, unrelated cases in different federal district courts, none of which align with a patent infringement suit involving these specific parties and patent in the Eastern District of Texas.

"T-Rex Property LLC" or "T-Rex Property AB," as it is often referred to, is known as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE) based in Sweden, founded in 2003. This entity has a history of acquiring and asserting patents related to digital advertising systems, particularly those involving the remote control of electronic displays like digital billboards. The patents typically asserted by T-Rex Property AB (e.g., US Patent RE39,470, 6,430,603, 7,382,334) pertain to this digital advertising technology, not pressure sensors. Conversely, Nokia of America Corporation is a major telecommunications equipment manufacturer and provider of wireless networking solutions, 5G infrastructure, and related services.

The patent listed as at issue, US Patent 7173177, is titled "Pressure sensor method and apparatus" and describes a chip-on-board pressure sensor where a pressure transducer is directly bonded to a substrate, with a plated through-hole allowing sensed media to contact the transducer's backside. This technology appears to be in a distinctly different technical field from the digital advertising patents historically asserted by T-Rex Property entities, and there is no readily available information linking Nokia's primary products or T-Rex Property's known assertion patterns to this specific pressure sensor patent in the context of this case number in the Eastern District of Texas.

Given these discrepancies, it is not possible to provide a detailed case overview for the exact combination of identifiers provided. The Eastern District of Texas, particularly the Marshall Division with Judge Rodney Gilstrap, has historically been a popular venue for patent infringement lawsuits due to its reputation for plaintiff-friendly rules and fast trials, making it a frequent choice for NPEs. However, without a confirmed docket for this specific patent and parties under the given case number in this court, further details regarding accused products, procedural posture, or specific notability cannot be accurately sourced.

Key legal developments & outcome

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

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with searches to pin down the actual docket and parties, given the internal contradictions in the prior sections.

The real docket is Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Charter Communications, Inc. — not T-Rex v. Nokia. Let me dig into the asserted patent, the transfer, and the Delaware follow-on.

Now I have the correct case. Let me verify the '177 patent's actual subject matter and trace the Delaware transferee case and the IPR outcome.

I hit the search-step limit, but I gathered enough to reconstruct the case accurately. Critically, the actual docket contradicts several premises in the prior sections and the case metadata, so I'll flag that up front and then lay out the real chronology.

⚠️ Threshold correction: the parties, patent, and even the patent's subject matter in the prior sections/metadata are wrong

The metadata ("Plaintiff: T-Rex Property LLC," "Defendant: Nokia of America," patent 7,173,177 as a pressure sensor) does not match the real docket for EDTX 2:19-cv-00368. The prior "Case overview" section guessed this might be T-Rex v. Nokia and described the '177 patent as a "Pressure sensor method and apparatus." Both are incorrect.

What the records actually show:

The prior "Plaintiff representatives" section was correct on substance (Isaac P. Rabicoff / Rabicoff Law LLC is Cedar Lane's counsel). The prior "Defendant representatives" section said it could not identify Charter's counsel — I can partially fill that gap (see below).

Chronological developments

Pre-filing background (Feb.–Aug. 2019)

  • Feb. 2019: A Delaware NPE, AVInnov LLC, sued Charter Communications in D. Del. on the same four patents (from a >36-patent portfolio AVInnov bought from Intellectual Ventures in Dec. 2018).
  • Early Aug. 2019: AVInnov voluntarily dismissed that case before Charter answered.
  • Shortly after: AVInnov assigned its portfolio to Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (a Canadian NPE formed in British Columbia on 2019-04-29). (RPX Empower).

Filing & initial pleadings (Nov. 2019)

  • 2019-11-09: Cedar Lane filed the EDTX complaint (Dkt. 1) against Charter Communications, Inc., asserting the '194, '411, '489, and '177 patents; complaint attached Exhibits A–J. Accused instrumentalities were Charter's cable boxes. Same day: Notice of Appearance (Dkt. 3, Rabicoff) and Corporate Disclosure Statement (Dkt. 4). AO 120 form filed (Dkt. 2). (Justia docket; RPX Empower).
  • 2019-11-12: Summonses issued; case assigned to Judge Gilstrap. 2019-11-27: Case referred to Magistrate Judge Payne. (Justia).
  • 2020-01-07: Re-issued summonses (c/o Corporation Service Company). (Justia).
  • Same day (2019-11-09), Cedar Lane filed parallel suits against Frontier Communications (EDTX 2:19-cv-00269) and Lions Gate/Starz Entertainment (D. Colo. 1:19-cv-03189). (RPX Empower).
  • Note: I found no record of an answer or counterclaims being filed in EDTX — the case was transferred before Charter's responsive deadline.

Venue transfer — the pivotal contested-stage event (Feb.–Apr. 2020)

  • 2020-02-28: Stipulated Joint Motion to Transfer to the District of Delaware and to Stay All Deadlines (Dkt. 7), filed by/for Charter (docketed under attorney Thomas Duston). (Unified Patents portal).
  • 2020-03-08 (signed) / 2020-03-09 (entered): ORDER granting the joint motion to transfer to D. Del. and to stay all deadlines — signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. (Unified Patents portal).
  • 2020-04-03: EDTX case closed (147 days after filing). (RPX Insight).

There was no Markman proceeding, no discovery of record, no trial, and no merits ruling in EDTX — the stipulated transfer ended the Texas phase early.

Outcome / present posture

  • The case transferred to the District of Delaware (as the transferee of EDTX 2:19-cv-00368). I was not able to confirm the Delaware case number or its ultimate disposition within the search budget — I'd flag that as an open item to verify on PACER (candidate docket: Cedar Lane Techs., Inc. v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., D. Del., filed 2020). I did not locate a verdict, settlement announcement, or judgment in the Delaware action and will not speculate about one.

Parallel PTAB proceeding — the decisive development

Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., IPR2020-00006 (US 7,173,177):

Event Date Source
IPR petition filed by Unified Patents (a defensive aggregator) 2019-10-03 RPX PTAB; RPX Empower
PTAB instituted trial on all challenged claims 2020-03-18 Unified Patents
Final Written Decision — asserted independent claim of the '177 patent held unpatentable 2021-02-12 Unified Patents
  • Unified was represented by in-house counsel Michelle Callaghan and Roshan Mansinghani and outside counsel Husch Blackwell. (Unified Patents).
  • Strategic effect: the IPR — filed one month before the EDTX complaint and instituted nine days after the transfer order — knocked out the asserted independent claim of the '177 patent, one of the four patents Cedar Lane had asserted. Note the interesting timing tension flagged by the sources: Unified touted the '177 patent as "asserted against Spectrum (Charter Communications)," i.e., this very case. (Unified Patents).
  • I did not confirm whether Cedar Lane appealed the FWD to the Federal Circuit, nor the status of IPRs on the other three patents ('194, '411, '489), within the search budget. That's worth a follow-up check.

Defendant's counsel (partial answer to the gap in prior sections)

The prior "Defendant representatives" section could not name Charter's counsel. The docket shows the joint motion to transfer was filed by/for Charter under attorney Thomas Duston — so he is ministerial-counsel of record in EDTX at minimum. (Unified Patents portal). I could not confirm his firm from the available snippets, so I won't name one.

Bottom line

  1. The correct case is Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Charter Communications, Inc., EDTX No. 2:19-cv-00368 (Gilstrap/Payne), filed 2019-11-09 on four former-Intellectual Ventures patents ('194, '411, '489, '177).
  2. The only substantive pre-trial event was a stipulated joint motion to transfer to the District of Delaware, granted 2020-03-08; the Texas case closed 2020-04-03 with no Markman, no trial, no verdict, and no merits ruling.
  3. Parallel PTAB action (IPR2020-00006) ended in a 2021-02-12 Final Written Decision holding the '177 patent's asserted independent claim unpatentable, materially weakening Cedar Lane's case on that patent.
  4. Unresolved/uncertain (needs PACER verification): the Delaware transferee case number and its final disposition; any Federal Circuit appeal of the '177 FWD; and the fate of IPRs on the other three patents. I did not find evidence of settlement outcomes, so I'm not asserting any.

Would you like me to try to pin down the Delaware transferee docket and the Federal Circuit appeal status next?

Plaintiff representatives

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

Here is the identified counsel of record representing the plaintiff, Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., in the patent infringement case 2:19-cv-00368 in the Eastern District of Texas:

  • Isaac Philip Rabicoff
    • Role: Lead Counsel
    • Firm: Rabicoff Law LLC
    • Office Location: While not explicitly stated for Rabicoff Law LLC's main office in the provided snippets, Isaac Philip Rabicoff is widely listed as representing Cedar Lane Technologies in Eastern District of Texas cases, indicating a strong presence or capability to litigate in that jurisdiction.
    • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Isaac Philip Rabicoff represents Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., a prolific patent assertion entity. He is consistently identified as the lead counsel for Cedar Lane Technologies in numerous patent enforcement actions across various technology sectors, including financial technology and trading systems. His efforts have included filing multiple patent infringement suits simultaneously against different entities, often involving patents originally owned by Intellectual Ventures.

While not definitively confirmed as counsel of record in this specific case through a direct docket entry, general reporting indicates that the following firms have also represented Cedar Lane Technologies in patent litigation, potentially in a local counsel or co-counsel capacity:

  • Jacobs & Crumplar

    • Role: Potential Counsel (likely local counsel or co-counsel, based on general representation of Cedar Lane Technologies).
    • Firm: Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A.
    • Office Location: Not specified in the search results, but as potential counsel in Eastern District of Texas cases, they would likely have a presence or affiliation there.
    • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Jacobs & Crumplar entered the lineup of firms representing Cedar Lane Technologies in 2020.

  • Eldreth Law Firm

    • Role: Potential Counsel (likely local counsel or co-counsel, based on general representation of Cedar Lane Technologies).
    • Firm: Eldreth Law Firm, P.C.
    • Office Location: Not specified in the search results, but as potential counsel in Eastern District of Texas cases, they would likely have a presence or affiliation there.
    • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Eldreth Law Firm also joined the firms representing Cedar Lane Technologies in 2020.

Due to the nature of web search and the lack of direct PACER access to pull specific appearance details for case 2:19-cv-00368, Isaac Philip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC is the most consistently and strongly identified lead counsel for Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. in its patent litigation activities in the Eastern District of Texas. The roles of Jacobs & Crumplar and Eldreth Law Firm are inferred from their general representation of Cedar Lane Technologies.

Defendant representatives

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

Defendant's Counsel of Record in Cedar Lane Technologies v. Charter Communications

As of May 30, 2026, the specific counsel of record representing defendant Charter Communications in the case Cedar Lane Technologies v. Charter Communications, case number 2:19-cv-00368 in the Eastern District of Texas, could not be definitively identified through publicly available web search resources, including legal news outlets and general court information.

While Charter Communications is confirmed as the defendant in this patent infringement case, and the case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, detailed attorney appearances for this specific docket were not found through the searches conducted. Without direct access to the court's electronic docket management system (PACER), the precise names, roles, and firms of the appearing attorneys for Charter Communications remain unconfirmed. Filings in patent litigation, including notices of appearance, are typically available on the court's docket sheet.