Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Initial docket facts found. Let me dig into the patent itself, the complaint's accused products, and the companion/related litigation.

Good progress. Now let me verify the patent's term/expiration, the Amazon-specific accused products, and any PTAB challenges.

Case Overview & Background

Parties. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian non-practicing entity formed in British Columbia on April 29, 2019, with a listed address (560 Baker St., Nelson, BC) corresponding to IP licensing firm Pigott & Co.; its director/founder is attorney Greg Benoit, who also signed for Steephill Technologies LLC, an intermediate vehicle in Cedar Lane's acquisitions, and is a former CEO of monetization firm Patent Armory. Cedar Lane's portfolio consists almost entirely of acquired patents — the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies it under "Acquired patents" and as a Non-Practicing Entity — sourced largely from Intellectual Ventures (directly and via the NPE AVInnov). By 2021–22 it had become the most prolific patent plaintiff in the U.S. (Lex Machina's 2022 report ranked it #1 for 2021 filings; third-party trackers count 270–367 suits, roughly 80% resolved by settlement and average case duration near 90 days). Defendant Amazon.com Inc. is the operating-company retailer/cloud-and-devices provider; it never appeared or answered in this case, so no Amazon counsel is reflected on the docket.

Patent and accused technology. The sole patent in the case metadata is U.S. Patent No. 6,473,527 B1, "Module and method for interfacing analog/digital converting means and JPEG compression means" — inventor Chia-Ying Wang; original assignee Mustek Systems Inc. of Hsinchu, Taiwan (a scanner manufacturer); App. No. 09/324,095 filed June 1, 1999; issued October 29, 2002. In one line: it claims an interface module (claim 1 is written in means-plus-function form: "read control means," "memory means," "output control means") that buffers a small number of image lines from an A/D converter in memory sized to match a JPEG codec's built-in buffer, then feeds 8×8 blocks directly to the codec, eliminating a discrete external RAM in scanners and digital cameras. USPTO assignment records show the chain Mustek → (2006 assignment to a Wilmington, DE entity) → Intellectual Ventures → Steephill Technologies → Cedar Lane (executed May 3, 2019, reel/frame 049155/0893); a 2022 "release by secured party" filing (reel/frame 061255/0360) indicates the portfolio was at some point encumbered. Critically, Unified Patents' patent record lists the '527's expiration as May 31, 2019 (20 years from the June 1, 1999 filing) — i.e., the patent had already expired roughly eleven months before this suit was filed, which would have capped recovery to pre-expiration back damages within the 35 U.S.C. § 286 six-year lookback (approximately April 17, 2014–May 31, 2019) and foreclosed any injunction. I could not retrieve the Amazon complaint's claim charts, so the specific accused Amazon products are not verified; the ten exhibits attached to the complaint (D.I. 1, Atts. 1–10) and Stanford's database entries for the '790 and '242 patents also listing this case suggest the complaint may have asserted Cedar Lane's three-patent imaging-interface family ('527 + 6,972,790 + 8,537,242), a standard package in its other suits (e.g., BLU Products, GoPro, Qualcomm, THine). Cedar Lane's typical targets in this campaign were CMOS-sensor and imaging-module makers (ON Semiconductor, THine, PixArt, Chicony) and downstream OEMs — and it filed a companion case against ON Semiconductor, No. 1:20-cv-00414 (W.D. Tex.), the same day, a supply-chain pairing pattern that makes Amazon-branded camera/imaging devices the likely (but unconfirmed) target here.

Posture and significance. Filed April 17, 2020 in the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas before Judge Robert Pitman (magistrate referral to Judge Hightower), the case was over in a month: summons issued April 20 (D.I. 6), Rule 7.1 disclosure listing no parent or publicly held affiliate (D.I. 2), § 21 report to the USPTO (D.I. 5), then Cedar Lane's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on May 14, 2020 (D.I. 7) and Judge Pitman's Order Closing Case on May 18, 2020 (D.I. 8), with a final USPTO report on August 4, 2020 (D.I. 9). There was no answer, no motion practice, no claim construction, no opinion, and no reported settlement or license terms — I found no Law360, Reuters, or court-opinion coverage of this docket, and no IPR on the '527. That trajectory is the point: it is a textbook exemplar of the Cedar Lane file-and-dismiss model, in which a Canadian NPE with no U.S. footprint files in the then-hottest patent venue in the country — W.D. Tex., where Judge Albright's Waco docket alone drew roughly 23% of all U.S. patent filings in 2021 — and extracts rapid, low-visibility settlements, with dismissals in its sibling cases often following within days (Drift Innovation, 8 days; GoPro, ~1 month). Two features make it analytically notable rather than routine: the asserted patent expired before filing, a recurring weakness across Cedar Lane's late-filed '527 campaign that sharply limited its damages exposure and made early dismissal cheap for defendants; and the portfolio's IPR linkage — Unified Patents had instituted review of Cedar Lane's '177 patent just a month earlier (IPR2020-00006, instituted March 18, 2020; final written decision February 12, 2021 holding claim 1 unpatentable), demonstrating that the NPE's acquired IV portfolio was contestable at the PTAB. For Amazon, the practical significance is docket-level: a low-cost, quickly-resolved assertion that illustrates how mass NPE filings

I'll research this case across multiple sources. Let me start with broad searches.

Key early finding: the Amazon case may have been dismissed within a month. Let me verify the docket and check for any refiling, IPRs, and the complaint's full scope.

Docket confirmed as very short. Now let me check for any refiling against Amazon, IPRs on the '527 patent, and the complaint's full patent list.

Bottom line

This case never became a real lawsuit. Cedar Lane filed the complaint on 2020-04-17 and voluntarily dismissed it 27 days later, on 2020-05-14, before Amazon ever appeared, answered, or moved. The court closed the case on 2020-05-18. There is no answer, no counterclaim, no Rule 12 motion, no transfer or stay motion, no Markman proceeding, no discovery, no trial, no verdict, no fee motion, and no appeal. No PTAB proceeding on the '527 patent was ever instituted in connection with this case. The entire docket is nine entries.

---

Chronological record (Case No. 1:20-cv-00415, W.D. Tex., Judge Robert Pitman)

Sources: Unicourt docket summary (https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-amazoncom-inc-[436264](/patent/436264)); Patexia document list, which independently shows only nine entries and nothing at all between the 2020-04-20 filings and the 2020-05-14 dismissal (https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-AmazonCom-Inc-id-[136409](/patent/136409)/documents).

Filing & initial pleadings

• Complaint (2020-04-17): Filed with 10 exhibits plus civil cover sheet. The prayer for relief pleads infringement of the '527 patent and expressly requests damages "with respect to the '527 patent, the '805 patent, the '790 patent, the '242 patent, the '264 patent" (Compl. at Prayer ¶¶A–B, L, reproduced at https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/13754613). The Stanford NPE database independently lists both US 6,473,527 and US 6,566,805 as patents in this case (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/[6566805](/patent/6566805)). Caveat: the case metadata and the Stanford '527 entry list only the '527 patent; the complaint text and Stanford's '805 entry indicate a multi-patent Mustek-origin imaging-portfolio assertion. I could not retrieve the exhibit-level claim charts to confirm which patents were charted.
• Answer / counterclaims: none. No return of service appears on the docket, and Amazon never entered an appearance. The case was almost certainly dismissed before Amazon was served — consistent with Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal as of right, i.e., without prejudice (the docket text does not state "with prejudice").

Pre-trial motions of substance

• None. No motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, no summary judgment motion, no motion for extension of the answer deadline. The 27-day life of the case foreclosed all of it.

Claim construction (Markman)

• Never reached. No scheduling order, no discovery order, no joint claim construction statement, no Markman hearing. Judge Pitman's case-management machinery was never engaged.

Discovery milestones

• None. No Rule 26(f) conference, no initial disclosures, no protective order, no ESI or source-code production. There is no strategically significant discovery event to report.

Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

• None. No trial setting, no verdict, no JMOL/Rule 50 or Rule 59 motion, no § 285 fee motion.

Final disposition

• Voluntary dismissal without prejudice, 2020-05-14; case closed 2020-05-18. No settlement agreement, license, or consent judgment is reflected on the docket. No appeal was taken — there was no appealable judgment. Present posture: terminated since 2020-05-18.

---

Parallel PTAB proceedings

• None identified on US 6,473,527. I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against the '527 patent, and — critically — the litigation was dismissed in 27 days, far too fast for any petition to be filed, let alone instituted. Because the case never progressed, there was no stay motion and no Fintiv-style discretionary-denial dispute in this docket. (Note: Cedar Lane's broader campaign did spawn PTAB activity on adjacent patents in its portfolio, but I could not verify any petition naming this case's patent within my search budget — treat this as "not found," not as a confirmed negative.)

---

Why it was dismissed — the strategic read

1. The '527 patent was already expired. Priority/filing 1999-06-01, issued 2002-10-29, lapsed 2019-06-01 — i.e., roughly ten months before suit. The Chinese IP-protection-center risk bulletin on Cedar Lane's '527/'790/'242 campaign flatly notes the '527 patent was "已失效" (expired) as of 2019-06-01 (https://www.bdipp.cn/help/show-523.html). That means: no injunctive relief was available, and under 35 U.S.C. § 286 Cedar Lane could only reach damages back six years from filing — a window closing at the patent's 2019 expiration, so the recoverable universe was fixed and shrinking from day one. This is a pure, time-boxed damages shakedown posture, not a merits fight.
2. This was a serial-filing campaign, not a bespoke case. Cedar Lane is a Canadian NPE formed in 2019 by Greg Benoit; by early 2023 it had filed 325+ U.S. patent suits and was the most prolific patent plaintiff in the country in 2021. Against Chinese-market defendants alone it filed 10 suits, 9 of which closed — all by settlement, with a median time-to-resolution of ~77 days

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

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Bottom line: Exactly one attorney appeared for plaintiff in this case. Isaac P. Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago, Illinois) was the sole attorney of record — he signed the complaint, the Rule 7 disclosure statement, the summons request, filed the only notice of appearance (Doc. 4), and filed the notice of voluntary dismissal (Doc. 7). No local counsel, no of-counsel, and no in-house counsel for Cedar Lane entered an appearance on this docket. The case was voluntarily dismissed roughly four weeks after filing, so the appearance list never grew.

Attorney table

Docket support

• Doc. 1 — Complaint for patent infringement (filed 4/17/2020; docketed 4/20/2020), signed /s/ Isaac Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC, 73 W Monroe St, Chicago, IL 60603, isaac@rabilaw.com, Counsel for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
• Doc. 2 — Rule 7 Disclosure Statement (Rabicoff for Cedar Lane)
• Doc. 3 — Request for Issuance of Summons (Rabicoff)
• Doc. 4 — Notice of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Rabicoff on behalf of Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
• Doc. 7 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Rabicoff), filed 5/14/2020
• Doc. 8 — Order Closing Case, signed by Judge Robert Pitman (5/18/2020)
• Doc. 9 — Report on Patent/Trademark sent to USPTO (8/4/2020)

Sources: UniCourt docket summary (attorney listed: "Isaac Rabicoff") — https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-amazoncom-inc-436264; Patexia docket/document list — https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-AmazonCom-Inc-id-136409/documents; complaint signature block via RPX Insight — https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/13754613; firm bio — http://www.rabilaw.com/rabicoff.html; PTAB filings listing Rabicoff's registration number and Rabicoff Law LLC address — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1504997](/patent/1504997)/download-documents; Law360 attorney profile (Chicago, IL; ~1,469 patent docket entries) — https://www.law360.com/firms/rabicoff-law/attorneys/isaac-p-rabicoff.

Caveats and gaps

• Source type: The docket detail above comes from third-party PACER-derived aggregators (UniCourt, Patexia, RPX) rather than a direct PACER pull; the entries are internally consistent and the nine-entry docket appears complete for a case that closed in about a month. I did not find a CourtListener RECAP docket page for txwd 1:20-cv-00415, so the docket was not independently confirmable there.
• No defense-side appearance is reflected in the docket before the May 18, 2020 closing order — consistent with a quick pre-answer voluntary dismissal (a common pattern in Cedar Lane's 2020 wave; the firm typically dismissed within weeks, likely after a license or settlement). I found no public settlement/license document, so the reason for dismissal is not established by any source I located.
• Sealed filings: none identified; all nine entries are public.
• Attorneys not of record here (do not attribute to this case): Kenneth A. Matuszewski (Rabicoff Law) frequently co-signs PTAB papers with Rabicoff but filed nothing in this case; Cedar Lane's founder, Greg Benoit, is sometimes described in commentary as having an in-house/management role at Cedar Lane but did not appear in this docket; Raeann Warner (Jacobs & Crumplar) and other firms represented Cedar Lane in other venues (e.g., D. Del.), not here.
• Related companion filing: Cedar Lane filed a near-identical complaint against ON Semiconductor the same week as 1:20-cv-00414, also with Rabicoff as sole counsel — useful corroboration of the counsel pattern but a separate case.
• Note the patent-scope wrinkle for your summary: the Stanford NPE database lists both the '527 patent and US 6,566,805 under this case number, while the complaint document I reviewed pleads the '527 patent. If the patent list matters to your analysis, the complaint exhibits (Doc. 1, Exs. 1–10) should be checked directly against PACER.

I'll research the docket and counsel of record for Amazon in this case.

Important finding already: the docket suggests a very short-lived case. Let me verify whether Amazon ever appeared and check for parallel/related suits.

Let me verify there was no defense appearance by checking the full docket on additional sources, and check whether Amazon has appeared through counsel in any related Cedar Lane matter.

Bottom line

There is no counsel of record for Amazon in this case — none ever appeared. The case was filed April 17, 2020 and voluntarily dismissed by Cedar Lane roughly four weeks later, before Amazon answered, moved, or entered an appearance. Any attorney list I gave you for "defense counsel of record" would be fabricated, so I'm giving you the docket record instead.

Docket record (complete, 9 entries)

Sources: UniCourt docket summary (https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-amazoncom-inc-436264) and Patexia document list (https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-AmazonCom-Inc-id-136409/documents). Case was assigned to Judge Robert Pitman, Austin Division, with Magistrate Judge Hightower designated for referrals/consent.

Critically, the docket shows no notice of appearance for Amazon, no answer, no Rule 12 motion, no extension stipulation, no Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure by Amazon, and no return of service on the summons that issued April 20. UniCourt's "Attorney/Law Firm Details" section lists only one attorney for the entire case: Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (73 W. Monroe St., Chicago, IL) — plaintiff's counsel. The only "appearance" on the docket is Doc. 4, which is plaintiff-side.

Attorney-by-attorney

Defendant (Amazon.com Inc.): none. I cannot provide names, roles, firms, or experience for defense counsel because no attorney for Amazon ever entered an appearance in 1:20-cv-00415. Nothing on this docket is sealed — the absence of defense counsel is not a sealing artifact; there simply was no defense appearance before dismissal.

Plaintiff side, for completeness (adverse to your request but the only appearance of record):

• Isaac Rabicoff — plaintiff's sole counsel of record; Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago, IL. High-volume NPE plaintiffs' firm; Stanford's NPE database and third-party trackers credit Rabicoff Law with dozens of Cedar Lane filings, predominantly in W.D. Tex., plus Cedar Lane's D. Del. campaign against TCL, Coolpad, GoPro, Drift, Lexmark and others.

What happened, and why there are no defense counsel

Cedar Lane's April 2020 Amazon suit was one of a wave of short-lived complaints. The pattern is visible in the same court: Cedar Lane's W.D. Tex. suit against ZTE (1:19-cv-01210) shows three agreed extensions of the answer deadline followed by a notice of voluntary dismissal on May 10, 2020 and an order closing the case — the same disposition timeline as Amazon. Cedar Lane's D. Del. cases against Drift Innovation (dismissed June 16, 2020, sixteen days after filing), GoPro, and Snap One follow the same script. The practical inference is that these suits were resolved through a pre-answer license/tolling arrangement, but I found no filing or public statement in this docket confirming the terms — and Doc. 7's text as docketed does not state whether dismissal was with or without prejudice. Treat the "settled/licensed" characterization as inference, not record fact.

Two record cautions worth flagging

1. The complaint may have asserted more than the '527 patent. Cedar Lane's complaint in the Austin Division dated April 17, 2020 and signed by Rabicoff invokes the '527, '805, '790, '242 and '264 patents in its prayer for relief (complaint text as reproduced at https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/13754613), and Stanford's NPE database lists 1:20-cv-00415 under '527, '790 and '805. Your case metadata lists only the '527. The ten exhibits attached to Doc. 1 are consistent with a multi-patent pleading. Worth reconciling against the PACER PDF of Doc. 1 if the patent count matters to your analysis.
2. Amazon has been sued by Cedar Lane in other matters, but I did not locate an appearance by Amazon counsel in any Cedar Lane case in my searches — I would not carry over names from unrelated Amazon patent litigation (e.g., Amazon's usual W.D. Tex./D. Del. outside firms) into this docket without a document. That would be exactly the kind of invention you asked me to avoid.

If you need defense-side names for this dispute

The only reliable next steps are: (a) pull the Doc. 1 and Doc. 7 PDFs from PACER for case 1:20-cv-00415-RP to confirm the dismissal terms and the full patent list; (b) check whether a license agreement or standstill is disclosed in a later Cedar Lane case involving Amazon products (none found in my searches); and (c) if the interest is Amazon's litigation posture rather than this specific docket, look to Amazon's appearances in other Cedar Lane or '527-family suits — of which I found none in the public dockets searched.

I also did not identify any PTAB petition by Amazon against the '527 patent, but I did not verify that exhaustively and would not state it as a finding.