Litigation

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. 3xlogic, Inc.

active

1:22-cv-00344

Filed
2022-03-17

Patents at issue (1)

6473527

Defendants (1)

Summary

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. sued 3xlogic, Inc. in D. Del.; listed as Other Pending at last docket update.

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 and its context before drafting.

Key finding already: the docket shows a voluntary dismissal with prejudice in July 2022. Let me verify and dig into the parties, patents, and IPR history.

Now let me check the dismissal, the associated same-day filings, and any PTAB activity on the patents.

Case Overview — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. 3xLOGIC, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00344-RGA (D. Del.)

Parties. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian non-practicing entity (NPE/PAE) incorporated in 2019 and identified in Korean IP-office NPE tracking data as located in Nelson, British Columbia; RPX and IAM reporting identify Greg Benoit as its president, and its Rule 7.1 disclosure in this case listed "[n]o Parents or Affiliates Listed" (D.I. 4) — consistent with a litigation vehicle with no operating business. Cedar Lane does not make or sell products; it acquires patents originated by Intellectual Ventures entities and monetizes them through high-volume, file-and-settle litigation (over 330 defendants since May 2019, per RPX; IAM reported a 96% settlement rate among terminated cases and no case ever tried). Its Delaware complaints in this period were filed by David W. deBruin of Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, with Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law) handling the parallel W.D. Tex. docket. Defendant 3xLOGIC, Inc. is an operating company — a Fishers, Indiana-based video surveillance and security vendor (founded 2006) selling VIGIL VMS/NVRs and recorders, VISIX IP cameras, Infinias access control, and VIGIL CLOUD, and a brand within Stanley Black & Decker's security portfolio following Stanley's 2018 acquisition. 3xLOGIC's Rule 7.1 statement in this case identified Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. as its corporate parent (D.I. 9, May 27, 2022), and it was represented by Jeremy A. Tigan (firm affiliation not confirmed in the sources I reviewed).

Patents and accused technology. The complaint (D.I. 1, filed with six exhibits, i.e., claim charts) reported three patents to the Patent Office (D.I. 3): U.S. Patent No. 6,473,527, "Module and method for interfacing analog/digital converting means and JPEG compression means" — a hardware/method claim set covering buffering image lines from an A/D converter into a memory sized to a JPEG compressor's built-in memory (independent claims 1 and 8, drafted in means-plus-function form, making § 112(f) structure the pivotal infringement issue); U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790, "Host interface for imaging arrays" — an interface architecture linking an image sensor array to a host processor; and U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242, a third patent from the same Cedar Lane/IV image-processing cluster. Note a discrepancy: your case metadata lists only the '527 patent, but the docket's own patent report (D.I. 3) and third-party case records list all three — and Cedar Lane's parallel complaints of this vintage pleaded all three patents, typically alleging direct infringement of the '527 patent and direct plus induced infringement of the '790. The complaint's claim charts were filed as exhibits rather than reproduced in the body, and I was unable to retrieve the exhibits' contents, so the precise accused 3xLOGIC products (most plausibly the VIGIL series NVR/DVR recorders and VISIX IP cameras, given the JPEG/imaging-interface subject matter) are an inference, not a verified fact. I also could not verify the '242 patent's title or claim scope from the sources reviewed and will not characterize it further.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed March 17, 2022 in the District of Delaware and assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews (1:22-cv-00344-RGA); 3xLOGIC was served March 22, 2022, obtained an extension to May 27, 2022 (D.I. 7, so ordered April 12, 2022), answered with defenses, and then Cedar Lane filed a notice of voluntary dismissal (D.I. 10), which Judge Andrews so ordered with prejudice on July 15, 2022, terminating the case — so the "active/Other Pending" status in your metadata is stale, and this matter is closed. No Markman, no summary judgment, no IPR. The dismissal fits Cedar Lane's documented pattern: it filed this case the same day as companion Delaware suits against other defendants (1:22-cv-00326 and -00327, both also assigned to Judge Andrews; the FirsTech case, -00327, was voluntarily dismissed within about two weeks), and Judge Andrews' docket carries dozens of related Cedar Lane matters — Delaware being attractive to the campaign for its speed, its familiarity to NPE plaintiffs, and the ease of suing entities with Delaware corporate parents like Stanley Black & Decker. Notability is therefore threefold: (1) it is a specimen of the country's highest-volume 2022 patent plaintiff testing the surveillance/NVR industry — the '527 patent alone was asserted against Motorola Solutions, Openeye, March Networks, DivioTec, Zenitel, Security Camera Warehouse, Ricoh, and PixArt, per Stanford's NPE Litigation Database; (2) it illustrates an NPE targeting a division of a large public parent (Stanley Black & Decker), which raises indemnification and parent-liability questions beyond the nominal defendant; and (3) the patents trace to Intellectual Ventures, feeding the broader debate over secondary-market patent assertion. On PTAB linkage, the only verified Cedar Lane IPR outcome I located is Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., where the Board held the asserted claim of U.S. Patent 7,173,177 unpatentable (final written decision Feb. 12, 2021); I found no PTAB challenge to the '527, '790, or '242 patents in this docket's history, and I did not independently run those patents through PTAB dockets, so IPR exposure for them remains unverified.

Confidence note: the docket events (filing, service, extension, answer/Rule 7.1, dismissal with prejudice) are well sourced from docket mirrors (UniCourt, DocketBird) and a Korean government IP-dispute database recording the outcome as voluntary dismissal. The accused-product identification, 3xLOGIC's litigation counsel's firm, the '242 patent's subject matter, and any settlement consideration are not verified from primary documents and should be confirmed via PACER and the complaint exhibits before being relied on.

Key legal developments & outcome

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

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and foundational documents.

The docket summary indicates this case closed very quickly. Let me verify via CourtListener and dig into the IPR landscape.

Let me pull the actual docket via CourtListener and check PTAB proceedings.

Bottom line first

This case did not litigate. It was filed and voluntarily dismissed with prejudice roughly four months later, before any motion practice, claim construction, or meaningful discovery. There is no Markman ruling, no summary judgment, no trial, no verdict, no fee motion, and no appeal.

I also need to flag a metadata correction: the case summary in my prompt lists the case as "active / Other Pending" and lists only U.S. Patent 6,473,527. Both are stale. The docket shows the case terminated on 2022-07-15, and the complaint actually asserted three patents — 6,473,527, 6,972,790, and 8,537,242 — as reflected in the AO-120 Report to the Commissioner (D.I. 3). The 6473527 entry in the metadata is an incomplete list, not a misidentification.

Chronological record

Date Event Source
2022-03-17 Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. files complaint for patent infringement (D.I. 1) with jury demand, six exhibits (A–F); filing fee receipt ADEDC-3827069. Summons issued (D.I. 5). AO-120 Report to Commissioner names 6,473,527; 6,972,790; 8,537,242 (D.I. 3). Rule 7.1 disclosure: no parents/affiliates (D.I. 4). Docket via DocketBird / UniCourt
2022-03-22 3xlogic served. Answer originally due 2022-04-12. D.I. 6
2022-03-23 Case assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews; flagged as associated with 1:22-cv-00326-RGA and 1:22-cv-00327-RGA (companion Cedar Lane filings). Docket text entry
2022-04-12 Stipulation extending defendant's response deadline to 2022-05-27 (D.I. 7); SO ORDERED by Judge Andrews the same day. D.I. 7
2022-05-27 3xlogic files Answer to complaint with jury demand and affirmative defenses (D.I. 8); Rule 7.1 disclosure identifying Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. as corporate parent (D.I. 9). D.I. 8, 9
2022-07-15 Cedar Lane files Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with prejudice as to 3xlogic (D.I. 10). Judge Andrews: "SO ORDERED Granting [10] Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice (***Civil Case Terminated)." AO-120 report refiled. D.I. 10, 11
2022-07-15 Case closed. No settlement agreement, license, or consent judgment placed on the docket. Docket

The full docket is only ~11 entries. That is the whole case.

Category-by-category

Filing & initial pleadings. Cedar Lane's complaint followed its standardized template — a short complaint with six claim-chart exhibits, one per asserted patent and accused product line. The asserted patents are the "imaging array host interface" family (the '790 and '242 patents) plus the '527 patent directed to an interface module between an A/D converter and a JPEG compression device. The '527 patent was originally issued to Mustek Systems (Taiwan) and reached Cedar Lane through the Intellectual Ventures portfolio divestiture. Notably, U.S. 6,473,527 expired on 2019-06-01 for failure to pay maintenance fees, which caps recoverable damages to the six-year lookback under 35 U.S.C. § 286 (i.e., infringement on or after 2016-03-17) and forecloses injunctive relief as a practical matter. (Patent term/expiry detail sourced to a Shenzhen IP Protection Center risk bulletin, a secondary source — treat the exact expiry date as needing verification against USPTO PAIR/Patent Center.)

3xlogic's answer (D.I. 8) was filed with a jury demand and affirmative defenses. The docket text does not reflect any counterclaims. I could not retrieve the answer PDF itself, so I cannot rule out that defenses were pleaded in the alternative in a way that functionally mirrored invalidity counterclaims, or that counterclaims were asserted and not separately indexed. On the public docket as it reads, no counterclaims were pleaded — a notable asymmetry versus the Cedar Lane cases where defendants counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of invalidity.

Pre-trial motions of substance. None. No Rule 12(b)(6) motion, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no § 1406 motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, no motion to sever, no motion to dismiss for improper venue. The only "motion-adjacent" filing was the routine unopposed extension of the response deadline (D.I. 7).

Claim construction. Never reached. No Scheduling Order, no Rule 16 conference, no Joint Claim Construction Statement, no Markman briefing, no Markman hearing. The case died well before the point in Judge Andrews' typical D. Del. patent schedule where claim construction would have been briefed.

Discovery. No Rule 26(f) conference is reflected, no discovery plan, no protective order, no ESI order, no infringement or invalidity contentions, no interrogatories or deposition activity. Discovery was effectively zero. This is strategically important: Cedar Lane never had to commit to claim constructions or infringement theories against 3xlogic, so there is no estoppel, no adverse claim-construction record, and no § 315(b)/§ 315(e) estoppel-generating event flowing from this case.

Trial, verdict, post-trial motions. None of any kind. No JMOL, no Rule 59 motion, no § 285 fee motion (and no prevailing party to support one).

Final disposition. Voluntary dismissal with prejudice as to 3xlogic, entered by Judge Andrews on 2022-07-15. Two procedural notes worth flagging:

  1. Because 3xlogic had already served an answer on 2022-05-27, Cedar Lane could no longer dismiss as of right under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The dismissal therefore required either a stipulation signed by all parties under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) or a court order under Rule 41(a)(2). The docket shows the court acting by order ("SO ORDERED Granting [10]"), which is consistent with Rule 41(a)(2) treatment. The docket does not show a signed stipulation, though the absence of any opposition and the "with prejudice" term strongly suggest the parties agreed to the dismissal's terms off-docket.
  2. Dismissal with prejudice means the judgment is final and appealable, and it operates as an adjudication on the merits against Cedar Lane as to 3xlogic on these patents. It also means Cedar Lane cannot refile against 3xlogic on these patents. That is the opposite of the typical Cedar Lane pattern, where dismissals were often without prejudice (see, e.g., the Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal in Cedar Lane v. Adaptive Recognition America, 1:22-cv-00531, D.I. 7–8, May 2022, and the without-prejudice dismissal in Cedar Lane v. DivioTec, 1:22-cv-01056, Sept. 2022).

Settlement, license, or consideration. Nothing is disclosed. There is no consent judgment, no license, no settlement agreement filed under seal or otherwise, and no indication of payment. Given that 3xlogic is a Stanley Black & Decker subsidiary (D.I. 9) — a well-resourced parent that would be an unattractive NPE target — and given the speed (60 days from answer to dismissal, ~120 days from filing), the most defensible inference is an out-of-court resolution, likely a modest license or covenant not to sue, rather than a litigated capitulation. I want to be explicit that this is inference, not record evidence; the docket does not establish it.

Parallel PTAB proceedings

I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding on U.S. 6,473,527, 6,972,790, or 8,537,242. No petition, institution decision, final written decision, or Federal Circuit appeal on these three patents surfaced in my searches. I also found no PTAB activity attributable to 3xlogic or Stanley Black & Decker against Cedar Lane.

This is consistent with the case's trajectory: no IPR was filed, so no § 315(a)/(b) stay motion was available, and there was no PTAB estoppel pressure driving the dismissal.

Two related data points that are not about these patents but bear on the plaintiff's PTAB exposure generally:

  • Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., IPR2020-00006 (FWD 2021-02-12) invalidated the independent claim of U.S. 7,173,177 — a different Cedar Lane patent (AVInnov/IV lineage) unrelated to the imaging-array family. Panel: Kaiser (author), Beamer, Howard. Unified was represented by in-house counsel Callaghan and Mansinghani with Husch Blackwell. This is the clearest precedent for a third party successfully invalidating a Cedar Lane asset at the PTAB, but it had no direct estoppel or preclusive effect here.
  • Cedar Lane's overall docket profile: roughly 325–367 district court patent suits since 2019, the great majority in W.D. Tex. before Judge Albright, with a substantial 2022 wave against security-camera and imaging-device makers (Synectics, Tattile, TKH Security, Urmet, Provision-ISR, Uniview, Silent Sentinel, Vanguard, Planet Technology, and others in W.D. Tex.; Lexmark, Snap One, March Networks, Grandstream, Openeye, Security Camera Warehouse in D. Del.). The '527 patent alone has been asserted in on the order of 124 district court cases per the Stanford NPE Litigation Database. This 3xlogic suit was one unit in an assembly line, not a bespoke dispute.

Caveat on the PTAB finding: my searches were web-index based, not a direct run against the PTAB's P-TACTS / PTAB Center docket system, and my tool budget ran out before I could do a systematic assignee-name and patent-number sweep there. I would rate the "no IPR" conclusion as probable but not exhaustively verified; confirming it requires a P-TACTS search on each patent number and on "Cedar Lane Technologies" as patent owner.

Strategic read

  1. This case's significance is as a data point about Cedar Lane's enforcement economics, not as a merits precedent. A with-prejudice dismissal 120 days in, after an answer from a Stanley Black & Decker subsidiary but before any discovery, is the signature of a quick nuisance-value resolution or a defendant-side business decision to clear the docket.
  2. Nothing here helps or hurts either side on the merits of the '527/'790/'242 family. There is no claim construction, no invalidity ruling, no damages analysis, and no estoppel. Any later Cedar Lane defendant gets zero leverage from this docket.
  3. The '527 patent's expired status is the most legally consequential fact about this branch of the portfolio. Cedar Lane can still sue on it, but only for pre-expiry infringement within the § 286 six-year window, and it can obtain no injunction. That materially compresses settlement values and explains why '527-centric suits resolved quickly across the board.
  4. Judge Andrews' D. Del. docket was being used as a parallel track to W.D. Tex. — the March 23, 2022 association of 22-326, 22-327, and 22-344 signals the court (and plaintiff) treating these as a

Plaintiff representatives

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

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. 3xlogic, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00344-RGA (D. Del.) — Judge Richard G. Andrews

Bottom line: this was a short-lived, single-appearance case. The docket shows one attorney of record for the plaintiff — Delaware counsel David W. deBruin — who signed the complaint, the summons return, and the eventual voluntary dismissal. The case was dismissed with prejudice on July 15, 2022 (D.I. 10 notice of voluntary dismissal; so-ordered by Judge Andrews, case terminated), roughly four months after filing, so no pro hac vice papers or additional appearances were ever docketed.

Attorney Role Firm / Office Notes
David W. deBruin (Del. Bar No. 4846) Lead counsel / local (Delaware) counsel of record — the only attorney formally appearing for Cedar Lane in this docket Gawthrop Greenwood, PC, 3711 Kennett Pike, Suite 100, Wilmington, DE 19807; (302) 777-5353; ddebruin@gawthrop.com The Delaware anchor for Cedar Lane's high-volume PTAB/district-court campaign; filed and appeared in dozens of Cedar Lane D. Del. suits (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Snap Inc., 1:22-cv-00058; Cedar Lane v. EPIX, 1:22-cv-00013-line; Cedar Lane v. Lenovo, 1:22-cv-00051). Law360's attorney profile later lists him at Napoli Shkolnik in Wilmington, suggesting a post-2022 firm move.
Isaac Rabicoff Of counsel / pro hac vice counsel (plaintiff-side lead in Cedar Lane's national campaign) — identified as plaintiff's counsel by trade press for the March 2022 Cedar Lane filings, but no entry of appearance or pro hac vice motion appears on this particular docket Rabicoff Law LLC — Chicago, IL (principal office); related filings list 5680 King Centre Dr., Suite 645, Alexandria, VA 22315 Serially files Cedar Lane's patent suits nationwide (hundreds of filings 2020–2022; Lex Machina ranked Rabicoff Law among the most active plaintiff firms). Notably, his pro hac vice practices in N.D. Cal. were referred to that court's Standing Committee on Professional Conduct (In re Isaac Rabicoff, N.D. Cal., arising from Cedar Lane v. Blackmagic Design, No. 20-cv-01302-VC), and he was sanctioned in a later N.D. Cal. order — useful context if you are assessing the plaintiff's litigation posture.

Caveats and sourcing

  • Sourcing basis: I could not pull the PACER docket directly; the appearance list is reconstructed from DocketBird, UniCourt, and CourtListener/RECAP mirrors of D.I. 1–11 (docket: https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-3xlogic-Inc/ded-1:2022-cv-00344; https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-3xlogic-inc-[1160085](/patent/1160085)). The only attorney name those mirrors attribute to the plaintiff is David W. deBruin (UniCourt "Plaintiff Attorney" field; docket signature on D.I. 6, filed 3/24/2022).
  • On Rabicoff: the March 2022 Retail Patent Litigation Report (Lexology/LexBlog) lists "Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law; Gawthrop Greenwood" for the March 2022 Cedar Lane group that includes this case (https://www.lexblog.com/2022/10/27/march-2022-retail-patent-litigation-report/). However, because the case settled/dismissed before any pro hac vice application was docketed, I would not represent him as "counsel of record" here without confirming the signature block of D.I. 1. If you need certainty, pull D.I. 1 from PACER and check whether Rabicoff is named "pro hac vice application forthcoming," as he was in Cedar Lane's parallel complaints (see the Aug. 25, 2021 complaint in Cedar Lane v. Philips, signed by deBruin with Rabicoff noted as "pro hac vice application forthcoming," https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/14368090).
  • No in-house counsel appeared for Cedar Lane; it is a Canadian NPE (principal place of business: Nelson, BC) with no parent/affiliate disclosed (D.I. 4, Rule 7.1 statement: "No Parents or Affiliates Listed").
  • No sealed filings affecting counsel identification — the docket is entirely public, consisting of the complaint (D.I. 1, with Exhibits A–F and civil cover sheet), magistrate consent forms, the AO-120 patent report listing 6,473,527; 6,972,790; and 8,537,242 (note: the case metadata lists only the '527 patent), summons/service (D.I. 5–6), a stipulation extending the answer deadline to 5/27/2022 (D.I. 7, so-ordered 4/12/2022), defendant's answer and Rule 7.1 statement (D.I. 8–9, identifying Stanley Black & Decker as parent), and the notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice (D.I. 10).
  • For comparison (defense side, not requested but confirming the docket read): Jeremy A. Tigan of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, signed for 3xlogic (D.I. 7, 9).

Defendant representatives

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

I'll research the defense-side appearances in this docket directly.

Let me confirm whether any additional defense attorneys appeared (pro hac vice or otherwise) and pull the fuller docket record.

Let me check for any pro hac vice / additional appearances and the actual answer's signature block.

Counsel of Record for Defendant 3xlogic, Inc.

Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. 3xlogic, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00344-RGA (D. Del.) — Judge Richard G. Andrews

Bottom line

The defense side is a single-attorney appearance. The only attorney of record for 3xlogic in this docket is Jeremy A. Tigan, a partner at Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP in Wilmington, Delaware — and he is the filer/signatory on every defense-side paper: the extension stipulation (D.I. 7, filed 4/12/2022), the answer with jury demand and defenses (D.I. 8, 5/27/2022), and the Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure identifying Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. as parent (D.I. 9, 5/27/2022). UniCourt's party/attorney table for the case lists exactly one "Defendant Attorney": Jeremy A. Tigan. Because the case was dismissed with prejudice on 7/15/2022 — 49 days after the answer — there was never a pro hac vice application, an additional appearance, or any motion practice that would have brought co-counsel onto the docket.

Attorney Role Firm & office Relevant patent-litigation experience
Jeremy A. Tigan (Del. Bar No. 5239) Lead counsel / Delaware counsel of record; sole defense attorney appearing — signed D.I. 7 (stipulation), D.I. 8 (answer + jury demand + defenses), D.I. 9 (Rule 7.1 disclosure) Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, 1201 N. Market Street, P.O. Box 1347, Wilmington, DE 19899-1347; (302) 658-9200; direct (302) 351-9106; jtigan@morrisnichols.com IP-litigation partner and head of Morris Nichols' IP practice group 2020–2024; Chambers USA Band 1 (Delaware IP), IAM Patent 1000 (silver), Managing IP IP Stars, Best Lawyers (since 2021), Delaware Super Lawyers. D. Del.-centric patent practice across software, networking, semiconductor, pharma, and consumer products; tries cases as both lead and Delaware counsel and handles Federal Circuit appeals. Representative matters: Qorvo, Inc. v. Akoustis Techs., Inc., No. 1:21-cv-01417 (D. Del.) (plaintiff-side patent trial, with Jack B. Blumenfeld); Pharmacyclics LLC v. Cipla Ltd., No. 18-192 (D. Del.); Roche Diagnostics Corp. v. Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC, No. 17-189 (D. Del.); CyDex Pharms., Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., No. 19-2043 (D. Del.); Recro Gainesville LLC v. Actavis Labs. FL, Inc., No. 14-1118 (D. Del.), aff'd Fed. Cir. No. 17-1822; Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc., No. 11-054-SLR (D. Del.), Phase I. Defense-side NPE experience in the same period includes Luxer Corp. v. ButterflyMX, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00602 (D. Del.) (local counsel; Gunderson Dettmer attorneys admitted pro hac vice).

What the record does not show

  • No pro hac vice admissions. There is no PHV motion anywhere in the 11-entry docket, so no out-of-state defense firm was formally admitted. If 3xlogic used national/trial counsel (plausible given Stanley Black & Decker ownership and the Indiana-based client), that firm never appeared of record here.
  • No co-counsel from Morris Nichols formally on the docket. In D. Del., the CM/ECF attorney field captures the filing attorney, not necessarily every co-signatory; Tigan routinely co-signs with Jack B. Blumenfeld (see the Qorvo v. Akoustis signature block: "Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014), Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)"). I could not retrieve the signature block of D.I. 8 to rule out a co-signer, but no second attorney is listed as appearing for 3xlogic in either docket mirror, so Blumenfeld (or anyone else) should not be described as counsel of record absent a PACER pull of D.I. 8.
  • No in-house counsel appeared, and nothing in the docket identifies 3xlogic's general counsel or legal department; I did not verify whether 3xlogic has in-house IP counsel.
  • No appearance by Stanley Black & Decker corporate counsel, notwithstanding the parent relationship disclosed at D.I. 9, and no third-party or indemnitor counsel (e.g., a component supplier) appeared.
  • No sealed filings bearing on counsel identification — the docket is entirely public, so the absence of additional appearances is a real absence, not a sealing artifact.
  • No disqualification, sanctions, or withdrawal motions; Tigan remained counsel of record through the 7/15/2022 dismissal.

Verification notes