Untitled case

I'll research this case before writing the overview.

Now let me dig into the broader campaign, the patent's provenance, and any IPR activity.

Case Overview — Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. FlexTrade Systems, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-06327 (E.D.N.Y.)

Correction to the existing summary: the caption and defendant are now confirmed. The docket number 1:25-cv-06327 corresponds to Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Flextrade Systems, Inc., filed November 13, 2025 — exactly one year ago today — and terminated on March 3, 2026. (PACER Monitor case page; Patsnap litigation record.)

Parties and what each side does

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is the plaintiff — a Canadian patent-holding entity (it pleads itself as "a Canadian corporation" and a Rule 7.1 filer with no parent) that does not appear to make or sell products. It is best known as one of the highest-volume patent plaintiffs of the 2020–2022 period, having filed well over a hundred infringement suits, largely on consumer imaging, camera and multimedia patents against camera, DVR and security-hardware makers. Third-party litigation databases list on the order of 50+ Cedar Lane cases in 2022 alone, nearly all resolved by voluntary dismissal or consent judgment within weeks to months — the classic high-volume, license-first assertion model. Its counsel here (and across the campaign) is Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, a firm that functions as an outsourced assertion shop for small patent owners.

FlexTrade Systems, Inc. is the defendant — an established, privately held vendor of broker-neutral electronic trading technology: execution management systems (EMS), order management systems and algorithmic/execution tools used by buy-side and sell-side institutions. FlexTrade is headquartered in Great Neck, New York, which is the most plausible basis for E.D.N.Y. venue; I did not verify the headquarters or the complaint's specific venue allegations against the docket in this research pass, so treat that as inference rather than confirmed record. FlexTrade was represented by Matthew Berkowitz of Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (Dkt. 11, notice of appearance, Jan. 2, 2026) — a notably heavier-caliber defense firm than the defendants in most Cedar Lane matters, which is consistent with a platform vendor facing a systemic exposure rather than a one-off user.

The patent and the accused technology

Only one patent is asserted: U.S. Patent No. 8,577,782, "Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants" (App. No. 12/756,929, filed April 8, 2010; issued November 5, 2013; inventor Christopher R. Petruzzi; prosecution counsel Donald L. Wenskay; classified G06Q 40/00; estimated expiry April 8, 2030).

One-line technical sketch: it claims a method of running a "semi-anonymous" electronic market in which each trading entity is tagged with a persistent pseudonymous identifier, a liquidity provider (market maker) pulls that identifier's trade history, builds a profile — including whether that counterparty's past trades would generate a profit — and then generates a price/offer that is made only to that specific entity and processed through an exchange with a bid/offer spread. In plain terms: it patents the "toxic-trader" defense — letting market makers widen spreads for informed, consistently profitable counterparties and tighten them for naïve ones, without learning who anybody is. Independent claim 1 recites the identifier → history → profile → targeted offer → exchange processing chain; the specification's worked examples are the ACTPROF and SIMPROF profitability variables (col. 4:50–5:10).

The accused instrumentalities are FlexTrade's electronic trading products and services. The complaint follows Cedar Lane's template for this campaign: it refers generically to "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified only in Exhibit 2, a claim chart, and pleads direct infringement (including internal testing/use by FlexTrade employees), induced infringement via product literature and website materials, and willfulness from the date of service. The Exhibit 2 claim chart is the only place the specific accused products are named, and I was unable to retrieve the filed exhibit in this pass — so I cannot responsibly state which FlexTrade product or feature is charted. For the same reason, the precise asserted claims are not confirmable beyond the template's reliance on exemplary independent claims.

Procedural posture, venue, and why the case is notable

The case never got past the pleading stage. Filed Nov. 13, 2025 in the Eastern District of New York and assigned to Judge Pamela K. Chen, with Magistrate Judge Seth D. Eichenholtz on pretrial. FlexTrade appeared Jan. 2, 2026 (Dkt. 11) and obtained an unopposed 45-day extension to answer, pushing its response date to Feb. 26, 2026 (Dkt. 12, granted Jan. 6, 2026). Magistrate Judge Eichenholtz then set an initial conference for March 24, 2026 with a proposed discovery plan due March 17 (Dkt. 13, Jan. 27, 2026). Before either deadline, Cedar Lane filed a letter motion to stay and notice of settlement in principle on March 3, 2026 (Dkt. 14), representing that the parties had "reached a settlement in principle that would fully resolve this matter." Judge Chen the same day dismissed the action with leave to reopen within sixty days if the settlement were not finalized, denying the stay request as moot; the initial conference was adjourned sine die (Dkt. 15 is the AO-120 patent report, filed March 18, 2026). No answer, no Rule 12 motion, no Markman, no discovery, and no PTAB proceeding ever materialized. The docket in substance records a 110-day placeholder suit.

Why it matters, in four respects:

1. It is one case in a coordinated, unusually broad fintech campaign, not an isolated suit. Cedar Lane acquired the '782 patent by assignment recorded in late 2024 (USPTO assignment records show November 2024 assignments from both Petruzzi and Wenskay to Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.) and began asserting it in February 2025 — first against small trading firms (Cobra Trading, E.D. Tex. No. 2:25-cv-00223, filed Feb. 19, 2025; Doo Technology Singapore, No. 2:25-cv-00231). By late 2025 it had scaled to name-brand financial institutions: Citibank and Cantor Fitzgerald (Law360, Sept. 23, 2025), Clear Street (S.D.N.Y. 1:25-cv-07846), TIAA-CREF (S.D.N.Y. 1:25-cv-09538), Bank of America (E.D. Tex. 2:25-cv-01225), Morgan Stanley (S.D.N.Y. 1:26-cv-00294), Toronto-Dominion (E.D. Tex. 2:26-cv-00044), Raymond James (W.D. Tex. 7:26-cv-00022), and — in a parallel September 30, 2026 wave — BTG Pactual and AlpacaDB in D. Delaware. FlexTrade was sued the same day as another E.D.N.Y. defendant, Henley & Company (No. 1:25-cv-06328).

2. The target set is the distribution channel, not the end user. Naming an EMS/OMS vendor like FlexTrade alongside banks and broker-dealers is a leverage play: a finding against the platform would implicate every institutional customer running it. That makes FlexTrade's decision to retain Reichman Jorgensen, and its quick settlement, economically rational on both sides — but it also means the case generated no ruling on whether the vendor's software actually performs a "profile" containing profit-indication data, or whether an offer merely flagged for one participant is "only made to" that participant.

3. Venue-shopping and forum fragmentation are visible in the pattern. Cedar Lane simultaneously used E.D.N.Y. (FlexTrade, Henley), S.D.N.Y. (the bulk of the 2025 brokerage suits), E.D. Tex. (foreign defendants and Bank of America), W.D. Tex. (Raymond James), N.D. Ill. and D. Del. There is no unified MDL or JPML consolidation, so each defendant litigates — or settles — alone. E.D.N.Y. mattered here less as a patent venue than as the defendant's home district, which blunts the usual "convenience" objections.

4. The outcome profile is settlement-by-attrition, and validity was never tested. Nearly every '782 case in the public record closed within roughly 30–120 days by voluntary dismissal, dismissal with prejudice, or settlement in principle

I'll research this case across dockets, PTAB records, and legal press. Let me start with broad searches.

Initial results give me the parties and docket skeleton. Let me pull the full docket and check PTAB.

Now let me get the complete docket and check for any PTAB challenge to the '782 patent.

Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. FlexTrade Systems, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-06327 (E.D.N.Y.)

Bottom line up front: this case never got past the pleading stage. It was filed 2025-11-13, the answer deadline was extended once, and the parties reported a settlement in principle on 2026-03-03 — 110 days after filing and before FlexTrade ever answered, moved, or counterclaimed. There is no Markman ruling, no discovery, no trial, no appeal, and (as far as I can find) no PTAB proceeding against the asserted patent. This is a high-volume NPE licensing campaign, not a litigated dispute, and it should be treated as a settlement precedent rather than a merits precedent.

One correction to the prior summary section: the previously-unconfirmed defendant is FlexTrade Systems, Inc., the Great Neck, New York–based execution/order-management system vendor (FlexTRADER, FlexONE, FlexFX). Its headquarters sit in this district, which explains E.D.N.Y. venue. Assigned to Judge Pamela K. Chen, with Magistrate Judge Seth D. Eichenholtz on referral.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

The complaint was filed in the same wave as Cedar Lane's other '782 suits against broker-dealers (Firstrade, 1:25-cv-06322; Henley & Co., 1:25-cv-06328; Joseph Gunnar & Co., 1:25-cv-06329, all filed 2025-11-13 in E.D.N.Y.). The '782 patent issued 2013-11-05, claims a 2010-04-08 priority date, and expires roughly 2030-04-08 — a short runway that is the usual driver of Cedar Lane's settlement pricing. Plaintiff's counsel of record is Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC), Cedar Lane's regular outside counsel. The complaint attached the patent and a claim chart as Exhibits 1–2, consistent with the parallel complaints in the campaign.

Answer / counterclaims: none. FlexTrade never answered. Its only substantive move was procedural — Dkt. 12.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

There were none on the merits. The complete motion practice:

• 2026-01-06 — Dkt. 12: FlexTrade's unopposed motion for a 45-day extension of time to answer, granted the same day by Mag. J. Eichenholtz; response deadline moved to 2026-02-26.
• 2026-01-27 — Dkt. 13: scheduling order setting an initial conference for 2026-03-24 and requiring the parties' proposed discovery plan by 2026-03-17.
• No Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a)/§ 1406 transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, no § 101 motion, no summary judgment motion.

The absence of a 101 motion is worth noting: a business-method patent in class G06Q40/00 with a 2010 priority date is a natural Alice target, and FlexTrade retained sophisticated patent counsel. The record doesn't tell us why no such motion was filed — settlement presumably intervened, and it is possible the extension was being used to negotiate rather than to prepare a motion. That's an inference, not a documented fact.

3. Claim construction

Did not reach Markman. No claim construction order, no Markman hearing, no joint claim construction statement. The case settled before the initial conference at which a discovery schedule (and thus a Markman date) would have been set.

4. Discovery milestones

No discovery occurred. No Rule 26(f) conference, no disclosures, no written discovery, no depositions. The proposed discovery plan due 2026-03-17 was mooted by the 2026-03-03 dismissal.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial setting, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, and no fee motion under § 285 — consistent with the dismissal posture (a fee motion would require a prevailing-party judgment that was never entered).

6. Final disposition

• 2026-03-03 — Dkt. 14: Cedar Lane's "Letter MOTION to Stay and Notice of Settlement," reporting a settlement in principle that "would fully resolve this matter," requesting a 30-day stay of all deadlines including the 2026-03-24 initial conference and FlexTrade's answer date. "Counsel for Defendant consents to the request for a stay."
• 2026-03-03 — text order (Judge Chen): "ORDER DISMISSING CASE: In light of the parties' [14] notice of settlement in principle of this matter, the Court dismisses this action with leave to reopen within sixty (60) days if the settlement is not finalized. In so far as the parties request a stay of all deadlines, (see Dkt. 14), this request is denied as moot in light of the dismissal."
• 2026-03-03 — text order (Mag. J. Eichenholtz): initial conference adjourned sine die.
• 2026-03-18 — Dkt. 15: AO-120 termination report to the PTO, attaching the dismissal order.

Terminated 2026-03-03. The 60-day reopen window lapsed on or about 2026-05-02 with no application to reopen on the docket, so the dismissal stands as the final disposition. Note the precise posture: the order dismisses the action but does not state that it is with prejudice, and it contains no "without prejudice" label either — it is a conditional dismissal keyed to finalization of the settlement. There is also no retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, and no settlement agreement was filed or "so ordered," so the terms are not part of the public record. Whether any payment or license was made is not disclosed anywhere I could find — do not assume a dollar figure.

7. Appeal

None. No notice of appeal, no Federal Circuit proceeding, no Rule 60(b) or reconsideration motion.

8. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '782 patent

None identified. My searches of PTAB records found no IPR, PGR, or reexamination of U.S. 8,577,782, and the parallel district-court complaints in this campaign (per the complaint analyses of the Cobra Trading and Bolton Global Capital suits) affirmatively do not reference any prior IPR or PTAB history for the patent.

The only PTAB proceeding involving Cedar Lane as patent owner that surfaced is Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., IPR2020-00006 — petition filed 2019-10-03, instituted 2020-03-18, final written decision 2021-02-12 (panel: Kaiser, Beamer, Howard) holding the asserted independent claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,173,177 unpatentable. That is a different Cedar Lane patent (playlist UI, ex-Intellectual Ventures) and has no preclusive or estoppel effect on the '782. Cedar Lane's only other known PTAB loss in that era was the same Unified Patents campaign; the '782 has apparently survived unchallenged at the Board.

Effect on this litigation: none. No IPR was filed, so no § 315(a)/(b) issues, no Fintiv-type discretionary-denial analysis, and no stay briefing arose.

9. Campaign context (why this case looks the way it does)

The '782 is being asserted in a rolling 2025–2026 campaign against retail broker-dealers and trading-platform vendors, with nearly every case resolving in under five months:

Bottom line

For case No. 1:25-cv-06327 (E.D.N.Y.), Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. Flextrade Systems, Inc., the plaintiff's side was represented by a single attorney of record: Isaac Philip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago, Illinois). I found no local counsel, no co-counsel, no in-house appearance, and no pro hac vice application on the public docket. The case is closed (dismissed March 3, 2026 on notice of settlement, with leave to reopen for 60 days), so this roster should be treated as final.

Counsel of record for Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Nothing else appears. Third-party docket mirrors list only "Isaac Rabicoff — Rabicoff Law LLC" on the plaintiff's side (PacerMonitor case 61169328; Patsnap Eureka case record). The defendant, Flextrade Systems, Inc., was represented by Matthew Berkowitz of Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP (notice of appearance, Dkt. 11, Jan. 2, 2026) — noted only for contrast, since no Cedar Lane-side counterpart appeared.

Docket basis (counsel-relevant entries)

• Dkt. 1 — Complaint for patent infringement, filed Nov. 13, 2025, asserting U.S. Patent 8,577,782 ("Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants"); before Judge Pamela K. Chen, referred to Magistrate Judge Seth D. Eichenholtz.
• Dkt. 9 (Nov. 17, 2025) — attorney case-opening quality-control check (single-attorney opening, consistent with Rabicoff filing pro se as counsel).
• Dkt. 14 (Mar. 3, 2026) — "Letter MOTION to Stay and Notice of Settlement by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. … (Rabicoff, Isaac)," opening: "I represent Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc."
• Mar. 3, 2026 order (Judge Chen) — action dismissed with leave to reopen within 60 days; stay request denied as moot.
• Dkt. 15 (Mar. 18, 2026) — AO 120 patent report reflecting the dismissal.
• Docket indexes: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/61169328/Cedar_Lane_Technologies_Inc_v_Flextrade_Systems,_Inc; https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/cedar-lane-technologies-v-flextrade-systems-settlement-reached-in-trading-platform-patent-dispute-patsnap-eureka/

Notable experience / red flags worth carrying into the case profile

1. Scale of the campaign. Rabicoff is Cedar Lane's habitual counsel and files its '782 suits nationwide (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Uhlmann Price Securities, No. 1:25-cv-15329 (N.D. Ill.); Cedar Lane v. Bank of New York Mellon, No. 1:25-cv-09488 (S.D.N.Y.); the subsequent D. Del. '782 filings in 2026). Each complaint is signed by Rabicoff personally, and the same five-page template plus claim-chart exhibit is reused. Sources: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2026cv00721/[493726](/patent/493726); https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/61169236/Cedar_Lane_Technologies_Inc_v_The_Bank_of_New_York_Mellon_Corporation
2. Firm profile (self-reported). rabilaw.com states the firm was "among Lex Machina's top 3 law firms in 2017 for most active patent litigation," has run licensing campaigns against Amazon, Apple, Google, Huawei, LG, Samsung and T-Mobile, and has defeated institution of IPRs/CBMs (including a Mastercard CBM). His admissions list is Illinois, U.S. Supreme Court, Fed. Cir., 7th Cir., E.D. Tex., N.D. Ill. (trial bar) and W.D. Wis. — no New York admission listed. http://www.rabilaw.com/rabicoff.html
3. Prior conduct finding involving this very client. In Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Blackmagic Design Inc., No. 3:20-cv-01302-VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria's Nov. 19, 2020 order sanctioned Rabicoff $1,000 under Rule 11 and the court's inherent authority, denied his pro hac vice motion, and referred him to the N.D. Cal. Standing Committee on Professional Conduct for filing numerous patent suits in a district where he was not admitted — often without seeking pro hac vice admission or paying the fee, and dismissing before the issue surfaced. The Committee's final report is docketed at In re Isaac Rabicoff, No. 20-mc-80206-JD (N.D. Cal.). https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/3:2025cv00103/[173189](/patent/173189)/37/0.pdf

Explicit negative findings / open items

• No local counsel of record. E.D.N.Y. does not mandate local counsel, and none appears here — notable because Rabicoff lists no New York admission.
• No pro hac vice motion appears on the public docket in this case, and the case terminated in 110 days on a settlement letter rather than an answer or scheduling conference. I could not verify from a primary PACER pull whether any admission was ever sought or granted; third-party aggregators may lag on minor ECF entries. This is the one item I would confirm with a direct PACER docket-sheet pull (or the E.D.N.Y. clerk's CM/ECF attorney report) before relying on it.
• No sealed appearances. Everything above comes from public entries; nothing on this docket is sealed, and no in-house Cedar Lane attorney appeared.
• Do not attribute other Rabicoff Law attorneys to this case. Kenneth A. Matuszewski (Reg. No. 74,791, Rabicoff Law LLC) appears as backup counsel in the firm's PTAB filings for other clients, but there is no evidence he entered an appearance here, and I have not listed him.

Sourcing caveat: the docket detail above is drawn from public docket mirrors (PacerMonitor, Patsnap Eureka, Justia, patentlitigator.com) rather than a direct PACER/RECAP retrieval of the E.D.N.Y. docket sheet; the underlying filings quoted (Dkt. 14 letter text, the March 3, 2026 dismissal order) are reproduced verbatim in those sources.

I'll start by identifying the defendant and docket details for this case.

The defendant is Flextrade Systems, Inc. Let me dig into the docket and defense counsel's background.

Let me verify the full docket for any additional appearances and confirm no local counsel.

Counsel of Record — Defendant Flextrade Systems, Inc.

Bottom line: The docket reflects exactly one attorney appearing for the defendant. There is no second RJLF attorney, no separate local counsel, and no in-house appearance on the public docket. This is a thin record because the case died early — FlexTrade never answered, so no answer signature block or counterclaim ever added names.

The single appearance

Docket grounding

• Dkt. 11 (Jan. 2, 2026) — "NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew Berkowitz on behalf of Flextrade Systems, Inc." This is the only appearance filed for the defense.
• Dkt. 12 (Jan. 6, 2026) — Unopposed motion for a 45-day extension to answer, signed by Berkowitz; granted the same day by Mag. J. Eichenholtz, extending the response date to Feb. 26, 2026.
• Dkt. 14 (Mar. 3, 2026) — Plaintiff's letter motion to stay and notice of settlement, stating that "Counsel for Defendant consents to the request for a stay" — i.e., Berkowitz's consent, though he did not sign the letter.
• Dkt. 15 / Dkt. 16 — Case dismissed by Judge Pamela K. Chen on Mar. 3, 2026, with leave to reopen within sixty days if settlement was not finalized; the stay request was denied as moot. The initial conference before Mag. J. Eichenholtz (set for Mar. 24, 2026) was adjourned sine die.
• No answer, counterclaim, or motion to dismiss appears on the docket — hence no opportunity for additional defense counsel to enter an appearance.

(Source: PacerMonitor public docket for 1:25-cv-06327, last checked 2026; corroborated by Patsnap Eureka litigation record and Justia docket index. I did not pull the raw PACER docket sheet, so I cannot rule out a sealed or unfiled-paper appearance, though nothing in the public record suggests one.)

Practical caveats

1. Counsel's role is effectively at an end. The case has been closed since March 3, 2026, more than eight months as of today. Berkowitz remains counsel of record only in the formal sense; if the settlement collapsed and plaintiff moved to reopen within the 60-day window (deadline ~May 2, 2026), the docket I can see does not reflect it.
2. No local counsel was retained. E.D.N.Y. does not mandate local counsel for attorneys already admitted to that court's bar, and Berkowitz's firm bio lists admission to the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York — consistent with his appearing alone from California.
3. Why RJLF / California counsel for a Great Neck defendant: FlexTrade Systems is headquartered at 111 Great Neck Road, Great Neck, NY — squarely within E.D.N.Y. venue. Berkowitz is a Silicon Valley partner but is New York-licensed; RJLF also maintains a New York office, though the docket does not specify which office was billing the matter.
4. Not verified: whether FlexTrade's in-house legal department (or a D&O/carrier-appointed panel firm) participated behind the scenes; that would not appear on a docket where only one notice of appearance was filed. Likewise, I found no PTAB petition by FlexTrade against the '782 patent in my searches, but I did not exhaustively run PTAB dockets, so treat that as unconfirmed rather than as a negative finding.

Context on the case posture

This is one of a large 2025 wave of '782 patent suits by Cedar Lane (Rabicoff Law LLC) against broker-dealers and trading-platform vendors, mostly filed in S.D.N.Y. and N.D. Ill., with FlexTrade and Henley & Company landing in E.D.N.Y. (1:25-cv-06327 and 1:25-cv-06328). The pattern is uniform: appearance, an extension, then a quick settlement/dismissal — which is precisely the procedural signature visible here.