Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Adesso Incorporated

I'll research this case across docket sources, patent databases, and industry coverage.

I have the docket skeleton. Now let me dig into the parties, the patents' provenance, and the broader assertion campaign.

Now let me verify the patents' technical content and provenance, plus any PTAB activity.

Case Overview and Background

The parties. The plaintiff, Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., is a Canadian non-practicing entity incorporated in 2019 and based in Nelson, British Columbia; it does not make or sell products and derives its portfolio from the secondary market — Seyfarth's "NPE Showcase" profile notes that Cedar Lane "primarily asserts patents that were originally owned by Intellectual Ventures entities" (JD Supra/Seyfarth, Oct. 6, 2022), and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies it as an "acquired patents" asserter (npe.law.stanford.edu). By the end of 2022 it was one of the highest-volume filers in the country; a Korean IP office (KIPO) NPE survey tallied roughly 367 Cedar Lane suits, of which about 310 had ended in settlement and none had gone to trial. In Delaware it was represented by David W. deBruin of Napoli Shkolnik LLC, while its parallel W.D. Tex. docket was driven by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law. The defendant, Adesso Incorporated (Adesso, Inc.), is a privately held, founder-era (1994) design manufacturer and distributor of computer peripherals headquartered at 20659 Valley Blvd., Walnut, California — keyboards, mice, trackballs, fingerprint and barcode scanners, docking stations, headsets and, most relevant here, its CyberTrack webcam line and other camera products (document cameras, GekoGear body cameras), sold through Ingram Micro, TD Synnex, D&H, Amazon, CDW, Staples, Office Depot and Dell (adesso.com; Explorium profile). It is a small operating company (dozens of employees), not a competitor of Cedar Lane in any licensing sense.

The accused technology and the patents. The complaint (D.I. 1, filed Oct. 26, 2022, with six exhibits, most likely claim charts and accused-product documentation) targeted Adesso's camera/webcam products and pleaded infringement of three patents directed to the image-capture "pipeline" inside a camera: (1) US 6,473,527 B1, Module and method for interfacing analog/digital converting means and JPEG compression means — issued Oct. 29, 2002 to inventor Chia-Ying Wang and originally assigned to Mustek Systems Inc. of Taiwan; it claims an interface module that buffers a small number of image lines between an ADC and a JPEG encoder so the JPEG chip needs no extra external RAM (Google Patents); (2) US 6,972,790 B2 and (3) US 8,537,242 B2, both titled Host interface for imaging arrays, naming Mark Suska as inventor, with earliest priority of Jan. 21, 2000, claiming an on-sensor (preferably same-die) FIFO/addressable memory that buffers pixel data clocked at the sensor's rate and then generates an interrupt or bus-request signal to hand data to the host processor at the host's rate (PatSnap case record). In plain terms, the '527 patent covers the ADC-to-JPEG bridge inside a still/video camera, and the '790/'242 patents cover the sensor-to-host interface buffering scheme — the kind of architecture embedded in commodity webcam and camera SoCs. Caveat: the specific accused Adesso model numbers are set out only in the complaint exhibits, which I could not retrieve; the inference that the CyberTrack webcam family is the accused product follows from Adesso's product mix and the patents' subject matter, not from a document I verified.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Cedar Lane filed in the District of Delaware on Oct. 26, 2022; the case was assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews on Nov. 2, 2022, as part of a multi-case batch (the assignment entry references "Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-01402-UNA et al.," and contemporaneous sister suits included Cedar Lane v. Security Camera Warehouse, No. 1:22-cv-01414, and Cedar Lane v. Openpath Security, No. 1:22-cv-01497). Delaware was a deliberate second front: Cedar Lane's 2022 campaign was overwhelmingly W.D. Tex. (Judge Albright), but it opened a Delaware cluster in late 2022 as the Western District's filing environment tightened, and Delaware offered a deep, patent-experienced bench plus the leverage of local-entity/venue pressure. Service was slow — the summons went unexecuted (D.I. 7, Jan. 31, 2023), prompting Judge Andrews to issue a sua sponte oral order that more than 90 days had elapsed (D.I. 6, Jan. 27, 2023); Cedar Lane obtained an extension (D.I. 8–9), served Adesso on Feb. 6, 2023 (D.I. 10), and Adesso — represented by Fish & Richardson (Jeremy D. Anderson, with Neil J. McNabnay and Lance Wyatt moving pro hac vice, D.I. 11, 13) — answered and counterclaimed on Feb. 24, 2023 (D.I. 11). Four days later the parties filed a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation dismissing all of Cedar Lane's claims with prejudice and all of Adesso's counterclaims without prejudice, each side bearing its own fees and costs (D.I. 14), which Judge Andrews so-ordered on Feb. 28, 2023 (D.I. 15), with the AO-120 report following (D.I. 16). The case therefore lasted 125 days and never reached a motion to dismiss, Markman, or discovery of consequence. Its notability is threefold. First, it is a clean specimen of the Cedar Lane model: high-volume, low-dollar assertion against small operating companies, resolved before the merits — the same Fish & Richardson team was simultaneously defending other Cedar Lane targets, and Cedar Lane's own litigation history includes a 2020 sanctions order by Judge Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) finding frivolous positions taken in bad faith and referring Rabicoff to the court's professional-conduct committee, facts that give defense counsel leverage to resolve cheaply. Second, the asymmetric dismissal structure (plaintiff with prejudice, defendant without) is characteristic of a paid license or covenant not to sue whose terms are not in the public record — no settlement amount or license was disclosed in any filing I located, so any inference about payment is speculation. Third, the patents themselves were at or near end of life during the suit — PatSnap lists the '790 as inactive with an estimated expiry of Aug. 1, 2023, and the '527 as expired, which caps the backward-looking damages window

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

Now let me check for parallel PTAB proceedings on these three patents, and dig into the docket details.

Let me check the Unified Patents litigation portal and PTAB for any IPR activity on these patents.

Case Timeline: Cedar Lane Techs., Inc. v. Adesso Inc., No. 1:22-cv-01413-RGA (D. Del.)

Bottom line up front: this case never reached the merits. It was a 125-day "file-serve-stipulate" matter: a three-patent NPE complaint, a contested service fight that drew a sua sponte order from Judge Andrews, an answer with counterclaims, and a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal four days later. There is no Markman ruling, no motion practice of substance, no discovery, no trial, and no appeal. That absence is itself the analytically important fact.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

Patents asserted: US 6,473,527 ("Module and method for interfacing analog/digital converting means and JPEG compression means"); US 6,972,790 and US 8,537,242 (both "Host interface for imaging arrays," inventor Mark Suska, earliest priority 2000-01-21). Cedar Lane took assignment of the '527 and '790 in May 2019 (The Recycler). Cedar Lane is a Canadian entity (560 Baker Street, Nelson, BC) — a detail pleaded in its parallel complaints, e.g., Cedar Lane v. HTC, No. 6:21-cv-420 (W.D. Tex.).

Counsel: David W. deBruin (Napoli Shkolnik LLC) for Cedar Lane; Jeremy Douglas Anderson (Fish & Richardson, Delaware) with McNabnay and Wyatt (F&R Dallas) for Adesso (Patexia docket).

Strategic note on the filing date: 2022-10-26 was not an isolated filing. Cedar Lane filed a coordinated Delaware wave that day before Judge Andrews — including Cedar Lane v. Video Network Security, No. 1:22-cv-01405, Cedar Lane v. Vantage Robotics, No. 1:22-cv-01406, and Cedar Lane v. Security Camera Warehouse, No. 1:22-cv-01414 — all on the same '527/'790/'242 family. Adesso was one file in a bulk campaign, not a bespoke target. Notably, F&R's McNabnay/Wyatt also appeared for other Cedar Lane defendants (e.g., Avis Budget, 6:22-cv-01232), suggesting a coordinated defense playbook across the campaign.

2. The only contested episode: service

This is the sole substantive friction in the docket, and it is worth reporting because it is unusual:

• 2023-01-27 (D.I. 6): Judge Andrews issues an oral order on his own motion: "More than 90 days have elapsed since the Complaint was filed, and summons have not been returned executed. Plaintiff is now directed to file a status letter within 3 days of this Order."
• 2023-01-31 (D.I. 7): Summons returned unexecuted as to Adesso.
• 2023-02-02 (D.I. 8–9): Cedar Lane moves to extend time to perfect service, with status report; granted the same day.
• 2023-02-06 (D.I. 10): Alias summons served on Adesso; answer due 2023-03-21.

So service was perfected 103 days after filing, and only after judicial prompting. In a district where Rule 4(m) dismissal is a live threat and Judge Andrews actively polices his docket, this is a meaningful data point about the quality of the campaign's execution — Cedar Lane was filing faster than it was serving.

Answer and counterclaims (2023-02-24, D.I. 11): Adesso answered with a jury demand and asserted counterclaims, and filed a Rule 7.1 disclosure plus a PHV motion for two F&R Dallas attorneys. Caveat: the public docket text I retrieved describes D.I. 11 only as "ANSWER ... COUNTERCLAIM against Cedar Lane Technologies Inc."; the count-by-count content (presumably DJ of noninfringement/invalidity, possibly inequitable conduct or unenforceability theories) is not visible in the sources I accessed, so I will not characterize the specific counterclaim theories. The PHV motion (D.I. 13) does not appear to have been ruled on before termination — no order appears on the docket in the four days remaining.

3. Pre-trial motions of substance — none

No motion to dismiss, no § 1404 transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, no summary judgment motion, no motion to compel, no Daubert motion. Zero motion practice on the merits. Adesso answered four days before the case ended and never had occasion to file one.

4. Claim construction (Markman) — did not occur

No scheduling order issued, no Rule 26(f) conference appears on the docket, no joint claim construction statement, no Markman hearing, no claim construction order. Any FTO or design-around analysis of these three patents must be built from intrinsic evidence alone; there is no judicial gloss available from this case (or, as far as my search showed, from any Cedar Lane case on this family).

5. Discovery milestones — none of record

No Rule 26 disclosures, no discovery requests, no depositions, no expert reports. The case closed roughly four months after filing and three weeks after service. Adesso incurred essentially no discovery burden — a favorable outcome for a mid-size peripherals manufacturer facing a multi-patent NPE complaint.

6. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions — none

No trial date was ever set; no verdict; no JMOL, new-trial, or fee motion. Critically, the stipulation expressly provides that "[e]ach party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees" — foreclosing a § 285 motion by either side.

7. Final disposition

2023-02-28 — stipulated dismissal, so ordered. D.I. 14 (joint stipulation, filed by Cedar Lane's deBruin), D.I. 15 ("SO ORDERED Granting 14 Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice (***Civil Case Terminated)," Judge Andrews), D.I. 16 (Report to Commissioner, with order attached). The operative text, quoted verbatim in the case record:

"Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the parties hereby stipulate to dismiss all claims against Adesso Incorporated WITH PREJUDICE and all counterclaims against Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees."

Two precision points for the file:

1. It is a stipulated dismissal, not a consent judgment. Some litigation databases (

Bottom line

The public docket for Cedar Lane Techs., Inc. v. Adesso Inc., No. 1:22-cv-01413-RGA (D. Del.) reflects one — and only one — attorney of record for the plaintiff: David W. deBruin of Napoli Shkolnik LLC, appearing in the firm's Wilmington, Delaware office. No pro hac vice motion, notice of appearance, or other counsel's signature on a plaintiff-side filing appears in the docket as reported by the aggregators (Patexia, UniCourt, PatSnap) that mirror PACER for this case.

Counsel of record for Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Docket support for the identification:

• D.I. 1 — Complaint for patent infringement (filed 10/26/2022), with Attachment #7 "Appearance of Counsel"; UniCourt/Patexia list deBruin as the plaintiff's counsel of record.
• D.I. 7 (Summons Returned Unexecuted, 1/31/2023), D.I. 8 (Motion to Extend Time to Perfect Service, 2/2/2023), D.I. 10 (Alias Summons Returned Executed, 2/9/2023), and D.I. 14 (Stipulation of Dismissal, 2/28/2023) — all signed/filed by David deBruin on behalf of Cedar Lane.
• D.I. 15 — SO ORDERED granting the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) joint stipulation dismissing Cedar Lane's claims with prejudice and Adesso's counterclaims without prejudice; Judge Richard G. Andrews, 2/28/2023.

Nothing else in the record — and caveats

• No additional plaintiff counsel appear. Unlike the defendant's side — where Fish & Richardson's Jeremy D. Anderson plus pro hac vice entrants Neil J. McNabnay and Lance Wyatt moved to appear (D.I. 13, 2/24/2023) — the plaintiff never sought pro hac vice admission for any out-of-state lawyer. Cedar Lane's Texas counsel of choice in its W.D. Tex. wave (e.g., Isaac P. Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC) and Napoli Shkolnik's New York-based principal Paul J. Napoli do not appear on this docket.
• Firm-level context, not of record here: Napoli Shkolnik was Cedar Lane's Delaware firm during this 2022–23 filing wave, and in several other Cedar Lane D. Del. matters Napoli filed letters in May 2023 "regarding dissociation of Napoli Shkolnik LLC from Plaintiff's counsel" (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Hubbell, 1:23-cv-00381; Cedar Lane v. Best Lighting, 1:23-cv-00380). No such letter appears in this case because it was already closed (2/28/2023). I flag this only as context; it is not an appearance in 1:22-cv-01413.
• No sealed filings or unappeared counsel issue. The case resolved by stipulated dismissal, so there is no protective-order/sealed-filing overlay and no indication of a lawyer who worked the matter without entering an appearance.
• Sourcing limitation: I could not pull the PACER docket sheet directly; the docket entries above come from Patexia's docket mirror (services.patexia.com/lawsuits/…-id-182921/documents), UniCourt (case 1325743), and PatSnap's litigation record, which are consistent with each other. CourtListener's RECAP page for this docket did not surface in search. If you need certification-grade confirmation, the operative check is PACER D. Del. 1:22-cv-01413, D.I. 1 and its Attachment #7 (Appearance of Counsel), and the signature block on D.I. 14.

I'll research the docket and related sources for defense counsel.

Defense counsel of record — Adesso Incorporated (D. Del. No. 1:22-cv-01413)

Adesso's defense was handled entirely by a Fish & Richardson P.C. team: one Delaware-admitted principal in Fish's Wilmington office acting as local/lead counsel of record, plus two Texas-based Fish attorneys noticed for admission pro hac vice. No in-house counsel entered an appearance on the public docket, and no second law firm appears.

Docket grounding

• D.I. 11 (Feb. 24, 2023): "ANSWER to 1 Complaint, with Jury Demand, COUNTERCLAIM against Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. by Adesso Incorporated. (Anderson, Jeremy)" — Adesso's only substantive filing.
• D.I. 12 (Feb. 24, 2023): Rule 7.1 disclosure (no parents/affiliates), also filed by Anderson.
• D.I. 13 (Feb. 24, 2023): PHV motion for McNabnay and Wyatt, filed by Anderson — the sole record identifying the two Texas attorneys.
• D.I. 14–16 (Feb. 28, 2023): joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice; so-ordered by Judge Andrews the same day, case terminated; form Patent Office report filed. Only four days elapsed between Adesso's appearance and dismissal.

Source dockets: Patexia document list for 1:22-cv-01413; UniCourt case page. Counsel bios: fr.com/team/jeremy-anderson, fr.com/team/neil-j-mcnabnay, and Fish's 2021 Docket Navigator ranking release listing McNabnay (#1), Anderson, and Wyatt among the ten busiest patent-defense attorneys.

Caveats and sourcing gaps

• Pro hac vice status is unconfirmed. The public docket reflects the PHV motion (D.I. 13) but I could not locate an order granting it, or the CM/ECF "Pro Hac Vice Attorney … added for electronic noticing" entry, before the case was dismissed on Feb. 28, 2023. Because dismissal intervened four days later, it is likely the motion was never acted on and McNabnay and Wyatt never formally appeared; treat them as "noticed PHV counsel" rather than confirmed counsel of record. (In parallel Cedar Lane cases before Judge Andrews — e.g., Cedar Lane v. EPIX, No. 1:22-cv-00050, D.I. 11; Cedar Lane v. Videology, No. 1:22-cv-00157, D.I. 9; Cedar Lane v. Snap One, No. 1:22-cv-00149, D.I. 8 — the identical McNabnay/Wyatt motion was granted, which is why the trio is reliably the Adesso defense team.)
• No sealed materials affect this list; the filings here were public. Nothing on the docket indicates in-house counsel for Adesso (a privately held peripherals maker) participating as counsel of record.
• Firm/office attributions for McNabnay and Wyatt come from Fish's own site and directory listings; Wyatt's Dallas base is inferred from his consistent pairing with McNabnay in Fish's Texas-based defense group rather than from a filing in this case.
• For context on the other side, Cedar Lane was represented by David W. deBruin of Napoli Shkolnik LLC (the same plaintiffs' counsel across Cedar Lane's 2022 D. Del. wave, which IPWatchdog catalogued as an IP Edge-linked campaign).