Cobra Trading, Inc.

Cobra Trading, Inc. is a privately held, SEC-registered securities broker-dealer headquartered at 3008 E. Hebron Parkway, Building 400, Carrollton, Texas. The firm was organized in June 2004, became a registered broker-dealer on December 17, 2004, and is a FINRA, NFA and SIPC member. It has no public ticker and appears closely held — audited SEC filings show 1,000 shares issued and outstanding. For FY2023, Cobra reported total income of roughly $59.2 million (including about $48.7 million in fee income and $10.1 million in commissions), net income of about $5.9 million, and stockholder's equity of about $17.7 million. Employee count is not disclosed in those filings.

Cobra is an active-trader brokerage, not an asset manager or market maker. It provides direct-access equities and options execution, real-time market data, charting tools, short-locate services and high-touch customer support aimed at day traders. Accounts clear through Wedbush Securities or Curvature Securities, with Interactive Brokers used for its Venom Trading division (venomtrading.com), per the company's disclosures.

Its patent-litigation posture is purely defensive: 0 cases as plaintiff, 1 as defendant in the tracked record. There is no indication Cobra has ever asserted patents.

The single tracked suit is Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Cobra Trading, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00223 (a companion docket, 2:25-cv-00230, was filed days later), E.D. Tex., filed February 19, 2025 before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Cedar Lane asserted U.S. Patent 8,577,782, "Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants," against Cobra's electronic trading products and services. Cedar Lane voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice in May 2025, each party bearing its own costs (CourtListener/Patsnap dockets).

Cedar Lane Technologies is a Canada-based non-practicing entity that has filed hundreds of US patent suits, largely on acquired portfolios (including former Intellectual Ventures assets), and is classified as a patent assertion entity by Unified Patents and Stanford's NPE database. The case fits that pattern: a financial-services operating company sued by an NPE in the plaintiff-friendly Eastern District of Texas.