Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Alterna Securities, Inc.

I'll research this case and the parties before drafting.

Good — the docket is already contradicting part of the case metadata. Let me verify further details.

Case Overview & Background

Parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian patent-holding company — it does not make or sell products, and describes itself in its complaints only as "the assignee of all right, title and interest" in the asserted patent. It is one of the most prolific patent asserters in the U.S., having sued hundreds of defendants since roughly 2019, almost always through the same five-page, single-patent form complaint with an attached claim chart, drafted by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago). Seyfarth's "NPE Showcase" profile describes Cedar Lane as "one of the more prolific NPEs in the patent enforcement market," notes that its earlier portfolio was largely acquired from Intellectual Ventures entities and aimed at consumer electronics (image processing, remote control, JPEG compression), and reports a 2020 N.D. Cal. rebuke of Cedar Lane and Rabicoff by Judge Chhabria for "objectively frivolous" positions taken in bad faith — I have not independently pulled that sanctions order, so treat that detail as secondhand. Alterna Securities, Inc. is a small Houston-based broker-dealer (CRD No. 41139; SEC No. 8-49311; 2800 Post Oak Blvd.), affiliated with investment adviser Alterna Wealth Management and formerly operating as Actinver Securities; it has a FINRA disciplinary history including a 2021 AML AWC ($150,000) and a 2023 supervisory AWC ($32,500) concerning pre-arranged corporate-bond trades (Kurta Law summary). Alterna retained Fish & Richardson (Neil J. McNabnay and Lance E. Wyatt, Jr.), a national IP-defense firm — a notable mismatch of resources for a firm of Alterna's size.

Accused technology. Cedar Lane's theory was that Alterna's electronic securities-trading/order-handling system infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,577,782 ("Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants," filed Apr. 8, 2010, issued Nov. 5, 2013). The patent's independent claim 1 recites a method of associating a trading entity with an "identifier," acquiring that identifier's trade history, and receiving a liquidity provider's offer priced off a "profile" indicating whether the entity's trades "would generate a profit," where the offer is made only to that identifier and processed through an exchange handling items with a bid/offer spread — essentially, letting market makers price against "toxic" versus "naïve" order flow without unmasking the counterparty (see Google Patents). Consistent with Cedar Lane's template, the complaint did not name specific products publicly; it pointed to "Exemplary Defendant Products" in an Exhibit 2 claim chart that is not in the public file. The one concrete factual anchor comes from the parties' joint transfer motion, which represented that "all party witnesses with knowledge of the accused system are in Houston, all uses of the accused system occur in Houston, and all documents related to the accused system are in Houston."

Patents asserted — an important correction. The docketed record indicates only the '782 patent was asserted against Alterna. The January 2025 Retail Patent Litigation Report lists Cedar Lane's January campaign as involving 8,577,782, 10,346,105 ("Method and system for communicating between a remote printer and a server" — network/cloud printing) and 6,516,147 ("Scene recognition method and system using brightness and ranging mapping" — sensor/image-based scene classification), but that appears to be a district-level roll

I'll research this case systematically across dockets, PTAB records, and legal press.

I have the core docket. Now let me verify the patent count, the E.D. Tex. metadata discrepancy, and PTAB activity.

Bottom line first: several premises in the case metadata need correction

Before the chronology, three factual corrections from the docket, since they change how the case should be characterized:

The '147 (Polaroid-origin camera scene-recognition exposure control) and '105 (remote printer/server communication) have no technological nexus to a Houston broker-dealer and no docket presence in the Alterna case. Treat the single-patent framing as the accurate one; I flag the metadata discrepancy rather than silently overwrite it.

Primary sources: Justia docket, W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00012; Justia docket, S.D. Tex. 4:25-cv-01095; PacerMonitor, S.D. Tex..

---

Chronology of developments

2025-01-14 — Complaint filed (W.D. Tex., Waco Div., No. 7:25-cv-00012). Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Canadian NPE) sues Alterna Securities, Inc. for infringement of the '782 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Five-page complaint with two exhibits (Ex. 1 patent copy; Ex. 2 claim chart). Counsel: Isaac Philip Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC. Case assigned to Judge David Counts pursuant to W.D. Tex.'s July 25, 2022 order assigning patent cases; Rule 7.1 disclosure and AO 120 form filed same day (Dkt. 1–4). Jury demand.

2025-01-15 — Summons issued; Order and Advisory (Dkt. 6–7).

2025-02-12 — Answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims (Dkt. 9); Rule 7.1 disclosure (Dkt. 10). Alterna appears through Fish & Richardson (Neil J. McNabnay; Lance E. Wyatt, Jr.), demands a jury, and counterclaims. Note on substance: the docket text confirms a counterclaim but the public docket does not display its counts; based on the standard response pattern in the parallel '782 cases and the later dismissal structure, the counterclaims were non-infringement and invalidity (likely including § 101), but I cannot confirm the counts from a public source. No Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss was ever filed — significant, because the obvious attack on a patent claiming computer-implemented securities trading is Alice/§ 101, and Alterna chose venue correction over a merits motion.

2025-02-26 — Joint motion to transfer to S.D. Tex. (Dkt. 11). Not a contested § 1404(a) fight: the parties stipulated that all party witnesses with knowledge of the accused system reside in Houston, all use of the accused system occurs in Houston, and all documents are in Houston. This is a rare posture — plaintiff joined its own transfer out of W.D. Tex., the venue Cedar Lane otherwise uses for volume filing.

2025-03-04 — Cedar Lane answers the counterclaims (Dkt. 12).

2025-03-04 — Transfer granted (Dkt. 13). Judge Gilliland: "Given the parties' agreement and representations, the Court GRANTS the motion… transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas without delay." Verbatim order text reproduced at Patsnap.

2025-03-08/10 — Case opened in S.D. Tex. as No. 4:25-cv-01095, assigned to Judge Lee H. Rosenthal; Magistrate Judge Peter Bray selected for referrals; AO 120 re-notified to USPTO (Dkt. 14–16).

2025-04-02 — Stipulation of dismissal filed (Dkt. 17). Roughly three weeks after transfer, before any scheduling order, Rule 26(f) conference, or discovery.

2025-05-19 — Order of Dismissal (Dkt. 18). Judge Rosenthal: "On the parties' stipulation, all claims against the defendant are dismissed with prejudice, and all counterclaims against the plaintiff are dismissed without prejudice." Case terminated 2025-05-19. Total pendency: 125 days from complaint to dismissal order (49 days in W.D. Tex., 72 days in S.D. Tex.).

Stages the case never reached

For completeness, because the request asks about each: no Markman/claim construction, no scheduling order, no discovery (no contentions, no written discovery, no depositions), no summary judgment briefing, no Daubert, no trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, no § 285 fee motion, and no appeal. There is no opinion citation because no court issued a substantive ruling — the only judicial action of substance in the entire case is the transfer order.

---

Disposition and strategic reading

The dismissal is asymmetric by design: Cedar Lane's infringement claims were extinguished with prejudice (barring re-assertion of the '782 against Alterna), while Alterna's invalidity and non-infringement counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. Consequences:

• No validity adjudication. Alterna obtained peace but not a judgment of invalidity, so nothing binds Cedar Lane against other broker-de

I'll research this. Let me start with parallel searches.

The docket is clear on the core answer. Let me verify counsel details, firm info, and notable experience.

Bottom line

Only one attorney ever appeared for Cedar Lane in this matter: Isaac Philip Rabicoff, the founder/owner of Rabicoff Law LLC in Chicago, who signed the complaint, the appearance, the answer to Alterna's counterclaim, and the stipulation of dismissal. No local counsel, no co-counsel, and no in‑house counsel entered an appearance in either the original W.D. Tex. case or the transferee S.D. Tex. case.

One docket correction up front, since it affects any counsel analysis: this was a single case that moved between districts — No. 7:25-cv-00012 (W.D. Tex., Waco, Judge David Counts, referred to Mag. J. Derek T. Gilliland), filed Jan. 14, 2025, transferred by agreed order (ECF 11, granted ECF 13) to No. 4:25-cv-01095 (S.D. Tex., Houston, Judge Lee H. Rosenthal), and dismissed with prejudice May 19, 2025 (ECF 18). I find no separate E.D. Tex. suit against Alterna Securities; the "E.D. Tex." reference in the January 2025 retail-litigation report appears to be an artifact of that report grouping Cedar Lane's Alterna filing with its E.D. Tex. Asustek filing (2:25-cv-00088), which was also Rabicoff's.

Counsel of record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Isaac Rabicoff — detail

Docket grounding. He filed the complaint as counsel on Jan. 14, 2025 (W.D. Tex. ECF 1, with exhibits and civil cover sheet), filed the Rule 7.1 disclosure statement and AO 120 form the same day (ECF 3–4), and filed the notice of appearance (ECF 2). After transfer he answered Alterna's counterclaim on March 4, 2025 (S.D. Tex. ECF 12) and filed the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation of dismissal on April 2, 2025 (ECF 17). See Justia docket for No. 4:25-cv-01095, https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txsdce/4:2025cv01095/[1995596](/patent/1995596); PACER Monitor, https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/57163300/; W.D. Tex. docket, https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/56507569/.

No local counsel was required or used. Rabicoff is admitted in the W.D. Tex., S.D. Tex., E.D. Tex., and N.D. Tex., so he appeared as a member of those bars rather than pro hac vice. His admissions (per his own verified 2025 Nevada pro hac vice petition, D. Nev. 3:25-cv-00103, ECF 37) list Illinois (2013), Virginia (2019), N.D. Tex. (2020), S.D. Tex. (2019), E.D. Tex. (2017), W.D. Tex. (2020), W.D.N.Y. (2020), plus the Federal Circuit, Seventh Circuit, U.S. Supreme Court, and USPTO registration. The only other Rabicoff Law attorney I can document, Kenneth A. Matuszewski (Reg. No. 74,791, kenneth@rabilaw.com), appears as backup counsel in PTAB matters but did not appear in this case — I found no docket entry naming him.

Firm/office note. Firm filings around 2025 use the Ravenswood Ave. address; older PTAB and district-court papers use 73 W. Monroe St. Both are Chicago. Firm contact: (773) 669-4590, isaac@rabilaw.com.

Relevant patent-litigation experience / notable matters.

• Described in the firm bio as having been "among Lex Machina's top 3 law firms in 2017 for most active patent litigation," with licensing campaigns against Amazon, Microsoft, Sony, Apple, LG, Huawei, Samsung and Google, and PTAB wins including denial of a Mastercard CBM petition (http://www.rabilaw.com/rabicoff.html).
• Adverse matter worth flagging: In 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 $500 on local counsel Kirk Anderson), found bad faith, and referred Rabicoff to the N.D. Cal. Standing Committee on Professional Conduct for filing ~49 patent suits in that district without pro hac vice admission (Order, Nov. 19, 2020, ECF 61, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01302/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01302-9.pdf). The Standing Committee's 2022 informal resolution required him to pay $9,193 in unpaid pro hac vice fees; the matter closed Feb. 4, 2022. The Virginia State Bar then issued a Public Reprimand Without Terms (VSB Docket No. 22-042-125771, Dec. 8, 2022, https://vsbwebstorage.blob.core.windows.net/$web/actions/Rabicoff-[121222](/patent/121222).pdf); the Illinois ARDC closed its inquiry without action.
• Cedar Lane is a high-volume NPE (Canadian, incorporated 2019) that has filed 100+ suits, and the JD Supra/Sterne Kessler "NPE Showcase" profile notes its cases rarely pass the pleadings stage — consistent with the 49-day/72-day life of this case.

Caveats / what I could not verify

• No sealed or non-appearing counsel issue: the docket is complete and short (18 entries in S.D. Tex.; 13 in W.D. Tex.), and Rabicoff is the only plaintiff-side appearance. Nothing against Cedar Lane was sealed.
• Patent set: PACER-derived records (Justia, Patsnap) reflect only U.S. Patent No. 8,577,782 in the Alterna complaint. The three-patent list in the case metadata ('147, '782, '105) matches the January 2025 Retail Patent Litigation Report's aggregated description of Rabicoff's January 2025 batch (Cedar Lane v. Alterna; Cedar Lane v. Asustek), not necessarily the four corners of this complaint. I could not retrieve the complaint PDF itself to confirm whether the '147 and '105 were pleaded against Alterna; treat the three-patent framing as unconfirmed for this specific docket.
• Outcome: dismissed with prejudice as to Cedar Lane's claims, counterclaims dismissed without prejudice, each party to bear its own costs (ECF 17–18). No indication of a public settlement or license; terms, if any, are not in the record.
• For contrast only: Alterna was represented by Neil J. McNabnay and Lance E. Wyatt, Jr. of Fish & Richardson (ECF 8–10).

I'll research the docket and defense counsel for this case, starting with searches on the case caption and patents.

Now let me verify counsel details and check for any parallel E.D. Tex. case.

Let me check for a parallel E.D. Tex. case and the complaint/answer filings.

Bottom line

Only two attorneys have appeared for Alterna Securities, Inc. in this case, and both are principals in the Dallas office of Fish & Richardson P.C. No local counsel, no in-house counsel, and no pro hac vice admissions appear on the docket. Because this case was a short-lived, single-patent (’782) suit that transferred from W.D. Tex. to S.D. Tex. and was dismissed with prejudice in May 2025, the appearance list is complete and small.

---

Counsel of record for Alterna Securities, Inc.

Docket support: W.D. Tex. No. 7:25-cv-00012 — Dkt. 8 (Notice of Appearance, Neil J. McNabnay, filed 2/12/2025); Dkt. 9 (Answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaim for non-infringement/invalidity signed and filed by Lance E. Wyatt, Jr., who was "added to party Alterna Securities, Inc."); Dkt. 10 (Rule 7 disclosure, Wyatt); Dkt. 11 (Joint Motion to Transfer, Wyatt). After transfer to S.D. Tex. No. 4:25-cv-01095, no new defense appearances were filed before dismissal (S.D. Tex. Dkt. 17 stipulation; Dkt. 18 Order of Dismissal, Judge Lee H. Rosenthal, 5/19/2025).

Sources: Justia docket, S.D. Tex. 4:25-cv-01095; PACER Monitor, S.D. Tex. case; PACER Monitor, W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00012; Law360 firm/attorney page — Lance E. Wyatt, Jr. (Dallas, TX); Fish & Richardson bio — Neil J. McNabnay; CourtListener party record showing Wyatt as "LEAD ATTORNEY" in a comparable FR Texas defense.

---

Points of caution / what the record does not show

1. No local counsel appeared. W.D. Tex. practice often involves local counsel, but nothing in the docket reflects a Texas-local or Austin-based co-counsel appearance; Fish & Richardson handled the matter from Dallas (its Austin and Dallas offices both sit within the state, which may explain the absence of separate local counsel).
2. No in-house counsel for Alterna entered an appearance, and Alterna's Rule 7 disclosure (Dkt. 10) does not identify parent/affiliate counsel. Whether Fish & Richardson was retained directly or appointed through Alterna's D&O/EPLI or a carrier panel is not documented in any public filing I could locate — do not assume either way.
3. No pro hac vice motions, no additional Fish & Richardson associates (e.g., Aaron Pirouznia or Ricardo Bonilla, who appear with McNabnay/Wyatt in other matters) are reflected on this closed docket. The absence of a larger team is consistent with a 72-day, pre-discovery resolution.
4. Docket coverage caveat: I relied on free aggregators (Justia, PACER Monitor, CourtListener/RECAP) rather than a live PACER pull; each is current only through roughly May–June 2025. Since the case terminated 5/19/2025 and the docket's last substantive entry was the dismissal order, the odds of a missing appearance are low, but a direct PACER docket-sheet pull for 4:25-cv-01095 (S.D. Tex.) is the way to confirm no late-filed appearance or substitution.
5. Caption/patent mismatch to flag: the case you gave me lists W.D. Tex. (Austin) and E.D. Tex. and three patents (’147, ’782, ’105). The docket I found for Alterna is W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00012 (assigned to Judge David Counts, referred to Judge Derek T. Gilliland — Pecos/Midland-side assignment, not Austin) → transferred to S.D. Tex. 4:25-cv-01095 (Houston), and the complaint/claim charts in the record assert only the ’782 patent. Cedar Lane's January–February 2025 ’782 wave did include separate E.D. Tex. (Marshall, Judge Gilstrap) suits against other brokers — e.g., Cedar Lane v. Cobra Trading, No. 2:25-cv-00230, and Cedar Lane v. FMR LLC, No. 2:25-cv-00232 — which is the likely source of the "E.D. Tex." and ’147/’105 references. I found no E.D. Tex. docket naming Alterna Securities; if such a case exists, defense counsel there could differ and would need a separate PACER check.