Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Amlogic, Inc.

I'll research this case across multiple sources before drafting.

Case Overview — Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. Amlogic, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-01242 (D. Del.)

The parties. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a non-practicing entity, incorporated in British Columbia on April 29, 2019 (Nelson, BC), with attorney Greg Benoit as director and a portfolio assembled largely from patents formerly held by Intellectual Ventures entities (routed through Steephill Technologies LLC). Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies Cedar Lane under "Acquired patents," and it has been described as one of the most prolific patent plaintiffs in the country — Lex Machina's 2022 report ranked it the #1 patent plaintiff by 2021 filings, and one survey counted roughly 270 suits with ~80% resolved by settlement in about 90 days on average (Stanford NPE DB; Mondaq on Cedar Lane's formation/IV chain; Seyfarth "NPE Showcase"; KIPO/Chinese enforcement-alert summary). Defendant Amlogic, Inc. is the U.S. affiliate of Amlogic (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (SSE STAR Market: 688099), a fabless semiconductor designer of multimedia SoCs for smart set-top boxes, smart TVs, AIoT and automotive infotainment, whose chips reportedly powered one in three smart STBs and one in five smart TVs shipped globally in 2024 and reach brands including Xiaomi, TCL, Hisense and Skyworth (Amlogic company/market data). Cedar Lane was represented by John C. Phillips Jr. and Megan C. Haney of Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall (Wilmington); no defense counsel appears in the public docket snapshot (Justia docket).

The technology and patents. The accused technology is Amlogic's imaging/video-capture interface functionality in its SoC products — the Patsnap case record lists the accused product category as "Host interface for imaging arrays" and the dispute is indexed by Korea's IP-protection agency under AV (audio-video) technology (Patsnap case record; KOTRA record). U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 ("Host interface for imaging arrays," inventor Mark Suska, granted Dec. 6, 2005, earliest priority Jan. 21, 2000) claims an on-chip interface that buffers image-sensor data in a FIFO or addressable memory clocked at the sensor's rate, generates an interrupt or bus-request signal to the host when buffered data reaches a threshold, and then drains the buffer at the host processor's rate — in substance, an asynchronous clock-domain bridge between an imaging array and a host bus. U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242 — which the docket's Report to the Commissioner lists as co-asserted (D.I. 3, Oct. 31, 2023) even though your case metadata identifies only the '790 — is a divisional of the same application, shares the identical title and specification, and issued Sept. 17, 2013 from an application filed Oct. 27, 2005. Both patents are recorded as assigned to Cedar Lane and now inactive; the '790's estimated expiration is August 1, 2023, i.e., roughly three months before this complaint was filed (Patsnap; this suggests a past-damages-only theory, though the complaint itself was not available for review, so treat that as inference).

Posture, venue and why it matters. Filed October 31, 2023 in the District of Delaware — no divisional assignment is used there — and assigned to District Judge Richard G. Andrews, with a jury demand and the standard magistrate-consent form; Amlogic was served November 22, 2023, and after an unopposed extension (D.I. 8), its answer deadline moved to February 12, 2024. Rather than answer, Cedar Lane filed a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice on April 17, 2024 dismissing all claims with prejudice, each side to bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys' fees — a 169-day case with no answer, no Markman, no motion practice and no damages or injunctive relief (Justia docket; dismissal text per Patsnap). Delaware matters here for the usual reasons: it is the incorporation home of countless downstream device sellers, its judges (including Judge Andrews, who handled Cedar Lane's earlier MGM and Voxx suits on the same patent family) have deep patent dockets, and it was a principal Cedar Lane battleground alongside W.D. Tex. (Judge Albright) — the venue mix reflected in the '790's assertion history across D. Del., D.N.J., W.D. Pa., N.D.N.Y., E.D.N.Y., W.D. Tex. and W.D. Wash. (Patsnap '790 litigation record). The case is notable in three respects. First, it is a chip-vendor-targeting variant of Cedar Lane's imaging campaign: the '790 has been asserted in roughly 50–160 cases against camera, security, printer and semiconductor companies including MediaTek, Renesas, STMicroelectronics, Socionext and THine, so an Amlogic suit tested whether upstream SoC suppliers (rather than their OEM customers) would bear the exposure — and it ended without a ruling. Second, there is no recorded IPR or other validity challenge to the '790 (Patsnap lists "validity challenges: none"), which is unsurprising given its August 2023 expiry; the relevant PTAB linkage in this campaign is instead Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies, where the Board's Feb. 12, 2021 final written decision held the asserted claim of U.S. Patent 7,173,177 unpatentable (Unified Patents) — evidence that Unified and others were actively monitoring Cedar Lane's IV-derived portfolio. Third, the with-prejudice walk-away is atypical for Cedar Lane's docket, where outcomes are more often one-sided voluntary dismissals, consent judgments, or Rule 41 notices without prejudice; a with-prejudice dismissal on a "bear own costs" basis is consistent with a confidential resolution or license, but no such agreement is on the public record and I could not verify one.

Sourcing caveats. (i) The live PACER docket was not directly accessible; the docket detail above comes from the Justia snapshot last retrieved December 11, 2023, plus Patsnap's verbatim reproduction of the dismissal notice, and there is a gap between that snapshot and the April 17, 2024 termination. (ii) Amlogic's answer, any counterclaims, and Amlogic's counsel are not reflected in available records — do not assume none were filed, only that none appear. (iii) I could not verify the pre-Cedar Lane chain of title for the '790/'242 family specifically (whether it passed through Intellectual Ventures/Steephill, as most of Cedar Lane's portfolio did). (iv) Patsnap's defendant list includes a separate "Amlogic Shanghai" entry among '790 defendants, hinting at a related action against the Chinese parent, but I could not confirm a second case number or court. (v) The count of '790 assertions varies by source (52 cases per Patsnap's current snapshot; 167 per a 2022 industry alert), so treat any single figure as approximate.

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

Let me get the full docket and check for parallel PTAB proceedings.

Bottom line

This was a short, resolved-by-dismissal NPE case: Cedar Lane filed on 2023-10-31, never got past the pleading stage, and unilaterally dismissed with prejudice on 2024-04-17 — 169 days later. There was no answer, no counterclaim, no motion practice, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, and no appeal. The whole legal significance lies in (a) how it was dismissed (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice rather than stipulation, which is itself strong evidence no answer was ever served), (b) its relationship to an earlier Cedar Lane suit against Amlogic Shanghai in W.D. Tex. on the same patent family, and (c) its position in Cedar Lane's mass-licensing campaign against the '790/'242 patent pair.

Important source discrepancy: the case metadata lists only U.S. Patent 6,972,790. The docket's own Report to the Commissioner (D.I. 3, filed 2023-10-31) lists both 6,972,790 and 8,537,242 ("Host interface for imaging arrays," parent/divisional pair). I treat both as asserted, per the docket, and flag the metadata as under-inclusive.

---

Chronology

Counsel of record: Cedar Lane — John C. Phillips Jr. and Megan C. Haney, Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A. (Wilmington). No defense counsel is recorded on the public docket — consistent with no appearance being necessary beyond an extension being sought on Amlogic's behalf.

---

Stage-by-stage

1. Filing and initial pleadings

The complaint was a Cedar Lane form pleading: short on specifics, with the asserted claims ("Exemplary '790 Patent Claims") and accused products ("Exemplary Defendant Products") identified only by reference to claim-chart exhibits rather than in the body. Infringement theories were direct infringement (plus a "internal testing by Defendant's employees" theory) for the '790 and direct + induced infringement for the '242. This is the same template Cedar Lane used across dozens of suits in 2020–2023. See complaint analysis at the AI-Lab case page (third-party PACER-derived summary — moderate reliability, but consistent with the D.I. 1 attachment list of four exhibits).

No answer and no counterclaims were ever served. Two independent indicators: (i) the public docket ends at D.I. 8 (2023-12-11); and (ii) more importantly, Cedar Lane proceeded by unilateral notice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). That rule is available only before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment — had Amlogic answered (and counterclaimed for invalidity/noninfringement, as defendants in Cedar Lane cases routinely did), Cedar Lane would have needed a signed stipulation under 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) or a court order under 41(a)(2). The face of the notice therefore tells us the case ended pre-answer.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None. No Rule 12(b)(6) motion, no § 1404(a) transfer motion (Amlogic is a California/Delaware entity; Cedar Lane's earlier Amlogic-family suit had been filed in W.D. Tex., so transfer was a live option), no motion to stay pending IPR, no summary judgment motion. The only motion of any kind was the 2023-12-11 unopposed extension — and notably it was filed by the plaintiff, a Cedar Lane house habit visible across its Delaware docket (compare Cedar Lane v. Excelitas, 1:22-cv-00011; Cedar Lane v. Novantas, 1:22-cv-00016; Cedar Lane v. Voxx, 1:22-cv-00326, all before Judge Andrews).

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Did not occur. No scheduling order, no joint claim construction statement, no Markman hearing, no claim construction opinion. The case died roughly two months after the extended answer deadline and long before any D. Del. patent scheduling order would have produced a Markman.

4. Discovery milestones

None of record. No Rule 26(f) conference, no discovery plan, no ESI order, no infringement/contentions service, no depositions. There were no contested discovery disputes. The only "discovery-like" event was service of process on 2023-11-22.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial setting, no verdict, no JMOL, no new-trial motion, no § 285 fee motion. The dismissal expressly has each side bearing its own fees and costs, which

I'll research the counsel of record for Cedar Lane Technologies in this D. Del. case.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc.

Cedar Lane Techs., Inc. v. Amlogic, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-01242-RGA (D. Del.)

Bottom line

Two attorneys appeared for the plaintiff, both Delaware counsel from the same Wilmington firm. No national/lead trial counsel, and no in‑house counsel, ever entered an appearance on this docket before the case was dismissed.

Sourcing and verification notes

• The docket's party/attorney block lists only "John C. Phillips, Jr." and "Megan C. Haney" as representing Cedar Lane (Justia docket, last PACER pull Dec. 11, 2023: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2023cv01242/84017). The same two names are independently recorded as plaintiff's counsel of record in the Patsnap case record for 1:23-cv-01242: https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/cedar-lane-technologies-v-amlogic-imaging-patent-suit-ends-in-voluntary-dismissal-patsnap-eureka/
• All filing-party tags on the docket are Phillips (D.I. 1 complaint; D.I. 4 Rule 7.1 disclosure; D.I. 7 alias summons returned executed; D.I. 8 unopposed extension motion, so ordered by Judge Andrews on 12/11/2023 resetting Amlogic's answer to 2/12/2024).
• Caveat on completeness: the publicly mirrored docket I could retrieve stops at D.I. 8 (Dec. 11, 2023). The notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice (entered ~Apr. 17, 2024) and any appearance/withdrawal between January and April 2024 are not visible in the free mirrors, so I cannot confirm by docket entry who signed the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice. The termination text ("dismisses with prejudice all claims… each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees") is quoted in the Patsnap record cited above.
• No pro hac vice admissions appear anywhere in the retrievable docket — no motion for PHV appearance was filed, and no out-of-state counsel was added for electronic noticing. This is worth flagging because Cedar Lane's usual national counsel of record in its Texas cases is Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago), who filed and prosecuted the parallel Cedar Lane Techs. v. Amlogic Shanghai Co., No. 6:22-cv-01140 (W.D. Tex.) (see Patexia document list: https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Amlogic-Shanghai-Co-Ltd-id-[183118](/patent/183118)/documents). Rabicoff does not appear on this Delaware docket; in D. Del., Cedar Lane used Delaware local counsel only, consistent with D. Del. LR 83.5(d).
• Nothing in the record is sealed; the case simply closed early, so there is a very thin counsel record (8 docket entries total).

Experience notes

John C. Phillips, Jr. — Founding-name partner; admitted Delaware 1974 (also Texas, 1973; Third Circuit 1981; U.S. Supreme Court 1983); AV Preeminent peer-rated (Martindale: https://www.martindale.com/attorney/john-c-phillips-jr-[342303](/patent/342303)/). He is one of the most frequent local counsel in D. Del. IP litigation, appearing on both sides — e.g., In re Entresto (Sacubitril/Valsartan) Patent Litig., C.A. No. 20-2930-LPS, and Novartis v. Alkem Labs., C.A. No. 19-1979-LPS (signature block in D. Del. filing reproduced at archive.org copy of gov.uscourts.ded.71827, D.I. 241); Route 92 Medical v. Balt USA, No. 1:25-cv-00986 (D. Del.); Focus Global Solutions v. Rockwell Automation, No. 1:23-cv-00782 (D. Del.); PayRange v. CSC Serviceworks, No. 1:23-cv-00278 (D. Del.). He also served as plaintiff's Delaware counsel for Cedar Lane in other D. Del. NPE suits in the same 2023 wave (e.g., the related Cedar Lane v. Hubbell, No. 1:23-cv-00381-RGA, docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67131820/cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-hubbell-incorporated/).

Megan C. Haney — D. Del. bar #5016; her practice at the same firm is concentrated in patent and Hatch-Waxman/ANDA litigation, where she is typically Delaware counsel alongside out-of-state trial teams: Chemo Research SL v. Encube Ethicals, No. 1:22-cv-00854 (D. Del.); MSN/Novartis-adjacent ANDA matters (substitution notice, D. Del. D.I. 37 in No. 1:24-cv-…, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.85823/gov.uscourts.ded.85823.37.0.pdf); Torrent Pharmaceuticals ANDA defense (withdrawal notice, https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ded.88870/gov.uscourts.ded.88870.80.0.pdf); plus PayRange v. CSC Serviceworks and Get Out Ahead v. Wire Industries, No. 1:24-cv-00736 (D. Del.). Contact: mch@pmhdelaw.com, (302) 655-4200.

One correction to the case metadata

The prompt/metadata lists the sole patent at issue as 6,972,790, but D.I. 3 (Report to the Commissioner of Patents) and the complaint as filed in this case list both 6,972,790 and 8,537,242 ("Host interface for imaging arrays" family). The NPE Litigation Database and Patsnap records confirm two patents asserted in 1:23-cv-01242. Worth fixing in the case summary if patent count matters downstream.

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

Bottom line

No attorney of record for Amlogic, Inc. is identifiable in the publicly available record of this case. There is no notice of appearance, answer, motion, or corporate disclosure statement by Amlogic in any accessible docket extract, and the case terminated before any defense-side filing on the merits. I will not name attorneys for Amlogic here, because doing so would be fabrication.

What the record actually shows

The docket for D. Del. No. 1:23-cv-01242 (Judge Richard G. Andrews) contains only eight entries through the last publicly archived capture (Justia's docket was last retrieved 2023-12-11), and every one was filed by the plaintiff or the Clerk:

Sources: Justia docket.

The only two appearances of record are plaintiff's counsel — John C. Phillips, Jr. and Megan C. Haney, both of Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware — who are consistently the only names recorded for this case across Justia, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, and Patsnap's litigation record. Patsnap's party table for the defendant expressly lists counsel as "Not recorded." See Patsnap case page.

Why the gap exists — and what it does not mean

• The case closed 2024-04-17 by plaintiff's Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of dismissal with prejudice ("each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees"). That is roughly two months after the extended 2024-02-12 answer deadline, so docket entries 9 and following (post-December 2023) are almost certainly where any defense appearance would sit — and those entries are not in the free/archived docket extract I can reach. This is an access limitation, not a finding that no counsel appeared.
• The December 2023 extension motion was filed by plaintiff as "unopposed," which strongly implies Amlogic (or its counsel) was engaged in discussions and consented — typically negotiated with defense counsel before any formal appearance. That inference is mine, not a docket fact.
• I found no indication that any filing in this case was sealed. The absence of a defense-side record appears to be an artifact of a short, settlement-track case and incomplete free docket coverage, not a sealing order.

Related-case context (expressly not counsel of record here)

Two adjacent data points, offered only so you don't mistake them for an answer:

1. Cedar Lane Techs. v. Amlogic Shanghai Co., Ltd., No. 6:22-cv-01140 (W.D. Tex., Judge Albright) — the parallel suit on the same patent family. Its public docket likewise shows only plaintiff's counsel (Isaac Rabicoff) and no defense appearance before plaintiff's October 2023 voluntary dismissal. Patexia document list.
2. In unrelated Delaware matters where Amlogic entities have appeared (e.g., as a non-party in Qualcomm Inc. v. ARM Holdings plc, D. Del. No. 1:24-cv-00490), Amlogic Holdings Ltd. has used Bayard, P.A. (Brett M. McCartney, Elizabeth A. Powers, Emily L. Skaug; Wilmington) as Delaware counsel with King & Spalding LLP (Andrew S. Ong, San Francisco; Neel Chatterjee, Palo Alto) and later Goodwin Procter LLP (Redwood City) as lead. That is Amlogic's demonstrated outside-counsel bench in Delaware patent litigation, but it is not evidence of who appeared in 1:23-cv-01242 and should not be reported as such.

Recommended verification

To close this out definitively rather than by inference, pull the PACER docket report for D.I. 9–15 (Jan.–Apr. 2024). Specifically look for: a Notice of Appearance under D. Del. Local Rule 83.5, an Answer or Rule 12(b) motion, a Rule 7.1/Corporate Disclosure Statement, and the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. If a defense appearance exists, it will be in that window; if the window is empty, then Amlogic genuinely never entered an appearance and the case was resolved without one.

Caveat on the metadata: the case header lists only 6,972,790, but the Complaint's D.I. 3 Report to the Commissioner lists both 6,972,790 and 8,537,242 (the '790 patent and its divisional), and the dismissal disposed of claims on both. Worth correcting in the case file.