Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Alps Alpine North America, Inc.

I'll research this case and the parties systematically.

Key finding already: the docket shows this case was dismissed with prejudice in March 2023. Let me verify details and research the parties, patents, and NPE campaign.

Now let me verify the dismissal timeline, patent ownership chain, and the defendant's business.

Case Overview

Correction to the prior summary first: the status of this case is not merely "unconfirmed" — it is terminated. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Alps Alpine North America, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00001-JLR (W.D. Wash.) was dismissed with prejudice on March 24, 2023, roughly 12 weeks after filing, on the parties' joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), each side bearing its own costs and fees (Dkt. 17, 18; dismissal order). No answer, motion to dismiss, claim construction, discovery, or PTAB proceeding ever occurred. Any analysis of the case should treat it as a resolved, high-volume NPE "settle-and-dismiss" matter, not pending litigation.

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian corporation at 560 Baker Street, Suite 1, Nelson, British Columbia — an entity formed in 2019 and widely characterized as a patent assertion vehicle/PAE (Compl. ¶ 2). Third-party NPE trackers describe it as incorporated in 2019 by Greg Benoit, a lawyer with NPE-litigation background, funded by acquisition of patents divested from Intellectual Ventures entities; by 2022 it had filed on the order of 325+ suits, and one Korean IP-office risk report tabulates 367 cases, with the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifying it as an "acquired patents" asserter (Stanford NPE database; "NPE Showcase – Cedar Lane Technologies," Oct. 2022). Defendant Alps Alpine North America, Inc. is a California corporation with an office at 2509 152nd Ave. NE, Suite MEZZ-D, Redmond, Washington (Compl. ¶ 3) — the U.S. arm of Japan's Alps Alpine Co., Ltd., the Tokyo-based electronic-components and automotive-HMI supplier created by the 2019 merger of Alps Electric and Alpine Electronics (the Alpine car-audio/navigation brand). Note: the parent-subsidiary relationship is well documented in public corporate materials but is not established anywhere in this docket; the complaint pleads only the California incorporation and the Redmond office.

The patents and the accused technology. Both asserted patents are titled "Host interface for imaging arrays," invented by Mark Suska (Ottawa) and descending from a January 2000 priority application. U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 (issued Dec. 6, 2005; application 09/742,723 filed Dec. 21, 2000) claims, in representative claim 1, an apparatus: an interface between a CMOS image sensor and a host processor, with a memory (e.g., FIFO) buffering pixel data at the sensor's clock rate, a signal generator that asserts an interrupt/bus-request "in response to the quantity of data in the memory," and circuitry clocking data out at the processor's rate. U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242 (issued Sept. 17, 2013; application 11/259,791 filed Oct. 27, 2005) is a divisional of that application and claims the corresponding method — receiving image data, storing it in a FIFO, updating a FIFO counter, comparing to a FIFO limit, and generating an interrupt to the processor to trigger transfer (see the '242 patent text at D. Del. rec. 1-3; the complaint's own description is at Compl. ¶¶ 9–10). The chain of title is a textbook IV-monetization lineage: Symagery Microsystems → Psion Teklogix → Harusaki Technologies LLC (2007) → Intellectual Ventures Assets 99 LLC (Dec. 2018) → Steephill Technologies LLC (Dec. 2018) → Cedar Lane (May 3, 2019), per USPTO assignment records and patentcut. The accused products are never named in the complaint body — Cedar Lane pleaded only "Exemplary Defendant Products" charted in Exhibits 3 and 4, which were filed as attachments (Dkt. 1, Att. 3–4) but are not in the public RECAP text. Given the claim scope (sensor-side FIFO buffering plus host interrupt), the plausible accused technology is the image-sensor/camera interface in Alps Alpine's automotive camera and HMI modules (rear-view, surround-view, driver-monitoring, capacitive touch/display units) — but that is inference, not sourced; I could not retrieve the claim charts to confirm which products were charted.

Procedural posture and venue. Filed January 1, 2023 in the Seattle division of the Western District of Washington (a New Year's Day filing, consistent with Cedar Lane's automated batch-filing practice), initially before Magistrate Judge David W. Christel; a stipulated extension set the answer deadline at March 17, 2023 (Dkt. 6), and the case was reassigned to District Judge James L. Robart on January 31, 2023 (Dkt. 8) (Justia docket; CourtListener docket). Plaintiff was represented by Philip P. Mann of Mann Law Group PLLC (Bainbridge Island, WA) — local counsel, notably not Isaac Rabicoff's firm, which handled the bulk of Cedar Lane's Texas and Delaware filings; defendant by Brian F. McMahon of Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness (Seattle) with Michelle Armond and Douglas Wilson of Armond Wilson LLP appearing pro hac vice. Venue rested squarely on the Redmond office under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) as construed in TC Heartland (Compl. ¶ 7), not on any plaintiff-side convenience — making this a deliberate "follow the defendant's own office" filing rather than Cedar Lane's usual W.D. Tex./D. Del. forum, and landing it as case No. 1 on the district's 2023 patent docket before a judge with substantial patent and tech-sector experience. Cedar Lane also filed nearby against Phytec America in W.D. Wash. (3:22-cv-

I'll research this case systematically across the docket, PTAB, and secondary sources.

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Alps Alpine North America, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00001-JLR (W.D. Wash.)

Bottom line up front: this case is a 139-day pleadings-only lawsuit. It was filed 2023-01-01 and terminated 2023-03-24 by a stipulated dismissal with prejudice, each side bearing its own fees, roughly one week after the defendant filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and before any opposition, answer, counterclaim, scheduling order, IPR petition, or discovery ever existed. There is no Markman, no trial, no verdict, no JMOL/fee motion, and no appeal. The requested chronological categories below are therefore mostly "not reached," but the sequencing is itself the analytically interesting fact.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

Substance of the complaint. Cedar Lane (a Canadian NPE, Nelson, B.C.) asserted two related patents — U.S. 6,972,790 and 8,537,242, both titled "Host interface for imaging arrays" — against Alps Alpine North America, Inc. (California corp. with a Redmond, WA office, ¶3, pled for venue under §1400(b)). Venue was premised on that Redmond facility, not a W.D. Tex./D. Del. theory — an unusual forum choice for this plaintiff, whose campaign was concentrated in W.D. Tex. and D. Del.

• The '790 patent (issued 2005-12-06; app. filed 2000-12-21) was pled as direct infringement (¶¶12–13), including vicarious "employees internally test and use" allegations.
• The '242 patent (issued 2013-09-17; app. filed 2005-10-27) is a divisional of the '790 application and was pled as direct and indirect/inducement infringement (¶¶21–27).
• Critically, no accused product was named in the body of the complaint. The infringement theories lived entirely in Exhibits 3 and 4 (claim charts) that were not filed with the public complaint — a fact independently noted by complaint-analysis services. That pleading structure is the obvious predicate for the motion to dismiss that followed.
• Prayer included an accounting, §284 enhanced damages/interest, a §285 "exceptional case" declaration, and attorneys' fees.

Answer/counterclaims: never filed. Defendant's response deadline was 2023-03-17; instead of answering it moved to dismiss. There are no counterclaims in this docket — so no declaratory-judgment invalidity/non-infringement case was ever joined, and nothing in this case could have produced a validity ruling.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

Only one motion of substance was ever filed, and it was never decided.

• 2023-03-17 — Dkt. 10: Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Rule 12(b)(6)), oral argument requested, noting date 2023-04-14, with Exhibit 1 and proposed order. Filed the same day as the answer deadline, by local counsel Brian F. McMahon (Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness, Seattle) with Michelle E. Armond and Josepher Li (Armond Wilson LLP, Newport Beach) appearing pro hac vice the same day (Dkts. 12–13; Armond admitted 2023-03-20 at Dkt. 15).
  • Caveat on sourcing: the grounds of the motion are not established in any public secondary source I located, and the brief itself was not retrievable in full. The 12(b)(6) framing plus the complaint's failure to identify any accused product makes a "no plausible infringement / no identified accused instrumentality" argument highly likely, but I am flagging that as inference, not verified holding. It was never ruled on, so no opinion exists.
• 2023-03-17 — Dkt. 14: Judge Robart's order regarding initial disclosures and JSR — FRCP 26(f) conference by 2023-03-31, initial disclosures by 2023-04-14, joint status report due 2023-04-21. All three deadlines were vacated by mootness when the case dismissed on 03-24.
• No motion to transfer, no motion to stay pending IPR, no summary judgment, no §101 motion decided, no Daubert, no motion in limine.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Not reached. The case never received a scheduling order, never exchanged infringement/invalidity contentions, and never approached a Markman hearing. There is no claim construction order for the '790 or '242 patents from this court. (Note for portfolio-level analysis: because dismissal was with prejudice by stipulation, no §285/§101 ruling was ever made, so this case generated zero precedent value for or against either patent.)

---

4. Discovery milestones

None of strategic significance — discovery never opened. The only discovery-adjacent event was Dkt. 14 setting the 26(f) conference for 2023-03-31, which was overtaken by dismissal five days before it was due. No Rule 34 requests, no depositions, no ESI, no source-code production, no damages discovery. Any document production that occurred must have been informal/pre-suit.

---

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

Not reached. No trial date, no pretrial order, no verdict, no JMOL, no new-trial motion, no §285 fee motion. The fee issue was resolved by contract in the dismissal papers (below), which foreclosed an Octane/§285 fight.

---

6. Final disposition

• 2023-03-23 — Stipulation of dismissal signed by counsel (Mann for plaintiff; McMahon/Armond/Li for defendant).
• 2023-03-24 — Dkt. 17: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (case).
• 2023-03-24 — Dkt. 18: Stipulation and Order of Dismissal, entered by Judge Robart: dismissed with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); "Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees." (order PDF; docket)
• 2023-03-24 — Dkt. 19: AO 120 report re termination emailed to USPTO.

Present posture: closed and final. No appeal was taken; the time to appeal expired long ago. Because the dismissal is with prejudice, claim preclusion bars Cedar Lane from re-asserting the '790 and '242 patents against Alps Alpine North America on the same infringement theories. Because each side bore its own fees, there is no fee award to collect or contest.

Why it ended — what's knowable vs. not. There is no public record of a settlement payment or license, and no press release from either party. Two observations that are grounded:

1. Procedural inference (mine, flagged): dismissal came seven days after the 12(b)(6) motion, before plaintiff's opposition was due, and without any ruling — the classic signature of a plaintiff declining to defend a thin pleading rather than of a merits vindication.
2. *Term-of

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

Key facts are emerging (case was dismissed with prejudice in March 2023). Let me pull the docket entries and the appearance/pro hac vice filings to confirm exactly who appeared for plaintiff.

Let me examine the full docket sheet to see who filed each appearance and whether Rabicoff ever moved pro hac vice here.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Bottom line: Only one attorney ever appeared on the docket for Cedar Lane in this case — Philip P. Mann of Mann Law Group PLLC (Bainbridge Island, WA), who served as local counsel of record. The complaint also identified Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC as out-of-state counsel "pro hac forthcoming," but the docket does not reflect that any pro hac vice application, appearance, or admission order for him was ever entered before the case was dismissed with prejudice on March 24, 2023.

⚠️ Case status correction: The metadata in your prompt says "status not confirmed." The docket confirms this case is closed: the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice on March 23, 2023 (Dkt. 17), and Judge James L. Robart entered the order dismissing the case with prejudice on March 24, 2023 (Dkt. 18), each side bearing its own fees and costs. CourtListener docket; Dkt. 18 PDF

---

1. Philip P. Mann — Counsel of Record / Local Counsel

Relevant experience: Mann Law Group is a Seattle-area boutique whose practice is concentrated in patent and trademark litigation, and Mann has been Cedar Lane's standing local counsel in W.D. Wash. — the same role he played in the companion matter Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Latecoere International Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01825 (W.D. Wash.). Mann Law Group is also frequently listed alongside Rabicoff Law in trade-press compilations of Cedar Lane's filings (e.g., the January 2023 Retail Patent Litigation Report, which lists plaintiff's counsel here as "Mann Law Group; Rabicoff Law"). Illinois Lawyer Now report; Lexology version

---

2. Isaac Rabicoff — Designated Out-of-State Counsel ("pro hac forthcoming")

Relevant experience / notable history: Rabicoff has filed hundreds of patent suits on behalf of Cedar Lane and other NPE plaintiffs and is one of the most prolific patent filers in the country. His practice history is, however, the subject of significant judicial criticism that is directly relevant to any assessment of this case:

• Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Blackmagic Design Inc., No. 20-cv-01302-VC (N.D. Cal.) — Judge Vince Chhabria imposed a $1,000 Rule 11 sanction on Rabicoff and referred him to the N.D. Cal. Standing Committee on Professional Conduct, finding frivolous Rule 15 arguments and "misleading statements," including inconsistently describing himself as "of counsel" versus "lead counsel." His pro hac vice motion was denied. Sanctions order; Final Committee Report, In re Isaac Rabicoff, No. 20-mc-80206-JD
• Virginia State Bar — publicly reprimanded Rabicoff (Nov. 19, 2020) in connection with 29 N.D. Cal. patent cases in which he practiced without seeking pro hac vice admission or paying the fee. VSB order

That pattern is consistent with what happened here: a three-month, file-and-settle case in which the out-of-state lawyer was named but never admitted.

---

What is not counsel for plaintiff (to avoid misattribution)

Several names that appear in this docket are defense counsel, and web searches on this case surface them prominently:

• Brian F. McMahon (WSBA No. 45,739), Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness PLLC, 1201 Third Ave., Suite 3600, Seattle — local counsel for Alps Alpine; filed the notice of appearance (Dkt. 9) and the Rule 12(b)(6) motion (Dkt. 10).
• Michelle E. Armond and Josepher Li, Armond Wilson LLP, 4685 MacArthur Court, Suite 390, Newport Beach, CA — pro hac vice counsel for Alps Alpine. (Armond Wilson is a well-known patent boutique; Armond's docket includes Targus v. Group III PTAB work and Western Digital matters.) Note that the Jan. 25, 2023 clerk's notice (Dkt. 7) cc'd Armond and Douglas Wilson by email; that correspondence relates to the defense side, not plaintiff.

No in-house counsel appeared

Cedar Lane Technologies is a Canadian NPE (560 Baker Street, Suite 1, Nelson, BC). No in-house attorney entered an appearance; the Rule 7.1 statement (Dkt. 2) disclosed no parent or affiliate.

---

Suggested addition to the case summary

Complaint filed 1/1/2023 asserting the '790 and '242 patents against Alps Alpine's Redmond, WA facility. Initially assigned to Magistrate Judge David W. Christel; reassigned to Judge James L. Robart on 1/31/2023 (Dkt. 8). Defendant appeared through Christensen O'Connor (McMahon) and Armond Wilson (Armond, Li) and moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Dkt. 10) rather than answering. Plaintiff's counsel of record was Philip P. Mann (Mann Law Group); Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law) was designated "pro hac forthcoming" but never appears to have been admitted. The case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation on 3/24/2023 (Dkt. 18), each party bearing its own costs and fees — well before any claim construction, discovery, or PTAB activity, and with no IPRs instituted on the '790/'242 patents in connection with this matter that I could locate.

Sourcing note: The specific attorney identities, firm addresses, and bar numbers above are drawn from the complaint signature block and the Dkt. 18 stipulation as reproduced on CourtListener/RECAP. I could not independently confirm from PACER the filer of Dkt. 12/13 or whether a plaintiff-side pro hac vice motion was ever docketed; if you need that level of certainty, pull the PACER docket sheet for 2:23-cv-00001-JLR directly, since the RECAP mirror was last updated in March 2023.

I'll research the docket and counsel for this case.

Let me pull the docket entries and the actual filings to confirm each attorney.

Let me confirm the full docket and the signature blocks on the motion to dismiss, plus check for a second pro hac vice order.

Bottom line

Defendant Alps Alpine North America, Inc. was represented by a two-firm team: Armond Wilson LLP (Newport Beach, CA) as the substantive/lead patent team, appearing pro hac vice, and Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness PLLC (COJK) in Seattle as local counsel of record. The case was short-lived — the answer deadline was 3/17/2023 and the case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation on 3/24/2023 — so the defense appearance is confined to a handful of March 2023 docket entries. No in-house counsel appeared on the docket.

Counsel of record for Alps Alpine North America, Inc.

Douglas R. Wilson (Armond Wilson's co-founder, USPTO Reg. No. 54,542, Austin, TX office) is named in the Clerk's electronic-service copy line on Dkt. 7 (1/25/2023), but no notice of appearance or pro hac vice application by him appears on this docket. He should not be listed as counsel of record for this case on the present record; treat that reference as an artifact of the Clerk's distribution list.

Docket support

• Dkt. 9 (3/17/2023) — "NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Brian Francis McMahon on behalf of Defendant Alps Alpine North America Inc." (docket; Patexia document list)
• Dkt. 10 (3/17/2023) — Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Rule 12(b)(6)); Dkt. 11 — Corporate/Diversity Disclosure Statement; Dkt. 12 — Armond PHV application; Dkt. 13 — Li PHV application; Dkt. 14 — Joint Status Report Order Form.
• Dkt. 15 (3/20/2023) — text order admitting Michelle E. Armond pro hac vice (Clerk Ravi Subramanian), with the standard LCR 83.1(d) note that local counsel agrees to sign all filings and handle trial if the applicant is absent.
• Dkt. 18 (3/24/2023) — Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, Judge James L. Robart; signature blocks: s/ Philip P. Mann (Mann Law Group PLLC, Bainbridge Island, WA) for plaintiff; s/ Brian F. McMahon (COJK, Seattle) and Michelle Armond (admitted pro hac vice) / Josepher Li (admitted pro hac vice), Armond Wilson LLP, "Counsel for Defendant Alps Alpine North America Inc" (PDF).

Caveats / not verified

• No formal "lead counsel" designation appears on the docket. The lead/local characterization above is inferred from the order of appearance, the PHV structure, and who signed for defendant.
• Josepher Li's admission order is not separately visible in the public text I could retrieve (only the Armond order, Dkt. 15, is legible); his pro hac vice status is represented in the parties' joint stipulation (Dkt. 18), and a companion text-only order dated 3/20/2023 appears on the CourtListener docket feed. Please confirm via PACER if precision matters.
• Signature block of the Rule 12(b)(6) motion (Dkt. 10) was not retrievable; I cannot confirm which attorney signed it, though the PHV applications filed the same day were filed through Mr. McMahon, as W.D. Wash. local rules require.
• No in-house counsel for Alps Alpine appears on this docket.
• No sealed filings affected this inquiry; the docket is fully public and the case is closed (dismissed with prejudice, each side bearing its own fees and costs).