Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Aspiro, Inc.

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

Case Overview — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Aspiro, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03159 (S.D.N.Y.)

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian entity with a principal place of business in Nelson, British Columbia (Compl. ¶ 1, Dkt. 1) — the kind of small, acquisition-funded assertion vehicle that Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies under "acquired patents," and which RPX has tracked as a prolific filer of short-lived infringement suits. It does not appear to make or sell anything; its monetization model is licensing and litigating portfolios it bought, including patents that passed through Intellectual Ventures. Its counsel of record in this case was Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, admitted pro hac vice on April 23, 2020 (Dkt. 9), with the complaint filed two days earlier (Dkt. 1, filed 4/21/2020). Aspiro, Inc. is the Delaware-incorporated U.S. arm of Aspiro AB, the Norwegian media-technology company whose principal asset is Tidal, the subscription music-streaming service acquired by Project Panther Bidco (Jay-Z's vehicle) in 2015. The complaint pleads an "established place of business" at 540 W. 26th Street, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10001 (Compl. ¶ 2) — Tidal's U.S. office footprint. One secondary source (a Korean IP-dispute database entry) describes Aspiro as a "Polish/foreign" company; that characterization conflicts with the complaint and with Aspiro's known Norwegian/U.S. corporate structure, and I would not rely on it.

The accused technology and the patents. Cedar Lane targeted Tidal's streaming platform and web client — specifically the way Tidal groups streaming content into playlists and "Collections," displays sources of streaming content in defined areas of a web page, and manages playback (Law Street Media's report on the filing, which quotes the complaint's '609 claim-28 allegations). Although the case metadata here lists only U.S. Patent No. 6,721,489, the complaint actually asserted nine patents (Compl. ¶ 7): the '489 patent, titled "Play list manager" (issued Apr. 13, 2004; Benyamin et al.; originally PhatNoise, Inc., with a priority date around March 2000; acquired by Harman in 2005 and later transferred to an Intellectual Ventures affiliate, per RPX) — a one-line sketch: software that automatically populates and updates playlists by testing a track's properties against user-defined playlist criteria; '609 and '394, both "Web application for accessing media streams" (Katinsky et al.; originally Copper Data River LLC) — a browser-based player/sequencer interface for queuing and playing streamed media; '194, "System for playback of network audio material on demand"; '411, "System and method for creating dynamic playlists"; '097, also "Web application for accessing media streams"; and '889, '177, and '830, whose titles I could not independently confirm in the accessible sources and which should be treated as unverified. The '489 was not novel to this suit — Cedar Lane had already asserted it against Charter Communications, Frontier, and Starz in 2019 (RPX, Nov. 9, 2019), which is useful context for reading this filing as part of a portfolio-wide campaign rather than a Tidal-specific grievance.

Procedural posture and venue. Filed April 21, 2020 in the Southern District of New York (Manhattan Division) and assigned to Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, with Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron designated; the docket flags the case as "Eligible for Patent Pilot Program." Venue was pleaded under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) on the theory that Aspiro both committed infringing acts in the district and maintained a regular and established place of business there (Compl. ¶ 6) — the post-TC Heartland theory a plaintiff must now satisfy, and the reason the New York office allegation matters more than the plaintiff's own residence. SDNY was a plausible forum for a streaming-service defendant with Manhattan operations, but it was also simply where Cedar Lane filed a companion suit the same day against Skylum Software over photo-editing patents (Law Street Media), suggesting a template-and-file approach. On disposition I have a gap I want to flag: the public dockets I could reach (Justia, UniCourt, Docket Alarm, CourtListener indexes) surface only the opening documents — complaint, summons, Rule 7.1 statement, AO 120 form, and the pro hac vice order — and I found no reported judgment, claim construction, summary-judgment ruling, or stipulated dismissal order terminating this action. Given Cedar Lane's documented pattern of voluntarily dismissing cases without prejudice shortly after filing or after settlement (e.g., its later SDNY suits against Bank of New York Mellon, Safra Securities, Aegis Capital, and its E.D. Tex. suits against Momondo and Resemble AI), the most likely resolution is a quiet dismissal or license, but I could not verify that, and it should not be reported as established. Likewise, I found no inter partes review or other PTAB challenge to the '489 patent arising from or parallel to this case; that absence is based on my searches, not on an exhaustive PTAB docket check.

Why it is notable. Three things give this otherwise routine NPE suit significance. First, it is a representative data point in the 2019–2021 wave of assertions against music-streaming platforms, in which patents with 1998–2000 priority dates — written for the era of the Rio PMP300, desktop media managers, and browser plugins — were mapped onto modern subscription streaming interfaces; the '489's PhatNoise provenance (a portable-car-audio media manager) illustrates how far the accused functionality had drifted from the original disclosure. Second, Aspiro/Tidal was a repeat NPE target in this period, also drawing suits from Paradise IP (D. Del. 2021), Post Media Systems (E.D. Tex. 2020), and Distributed Media Solutions (E.D. Tex. 2022) — a pattern consistent with plaintiffs viewing a high-profile, thinly capitalized-at-the-time streaming brand as a settlement candidate. Third, the timing sits just before Tidal's 2021 majority-stake sale to Square/Block, an event that would have changed both the defendant's litigation resources and its appetite for nuisance-value settlements; the case's apparent quiet end, whatever its mechanism, fits the broader picture of Cedar Lane's portfolio being monetized through volume and speed rather than through litigated merits.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and any records specific to Cedar Lane v. Aspiro.

Key correction emerging: the complaint asserted nine patents, not just the '489. Let me get the full docket and PTAB records.

Let me pull the actual docket and search for the disposition.

Research limitation up front

Public docket aggregators for this case are thin: Justia's last retrieval is the filing date (2020‑04‑21), UniCourt's last update was 2020‑06‑20, and the Stanford NPE database/Patexia only confirm the filing and patent list. I could not retrieve a PACER docket report showing events after mid‑2020, and I found no opinion, verdict, judgment, or dismissal order for this case. Everything below distinguishes what is documented from what is not.

---

Threshold correction to the case framing

The case was not a single‑patent suit. The complaint (Dkt. 1, filed 2020‑04‑21) asserted nine patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,452,609; 6,502,194; 6,526,411; 6,721,489; 6,806,889; 7,173,177; 7,610,394; 8,549,097; and 8,805,830. The '489 ("Play list manager," filed 2000‑03‑08, issued 2004‑04‑13) is Count 4 of nine; it was not the sole or even lead patent. Any narrative treating this as an '489 case should be corrected — the '489 assertion here is one count in a nine‑patent, shotgun‑style complaint.

---

Chronology

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• Parties: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., a Canadian corporation (Nelson, B.C.) — an acquired‑patents NPE per Stanford's database. Defendant Aspiro, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its established place of business at 540 W. 26th St., 8th Floor, New York — the U.S. arm associated with the TIDAL streaming business. That is why venue was laid in S.D.N.Y. rather than relying on a sale‑into‑the‑district theory.
• Assigned judge: Alvin K. Hellerstein.
• Answer/counterclaims: No answer or counterclaim is recorded in any public docket snapshot I could retrieve (through 2020‑06‑20). A contemporaneous NPE‑tracking piece (Mondaq, 2020‑10‑26) confirms the case "ha[d] yet to progress much beyond pleadings" and that Cedar Lane's S.D.N.Y. suits against Aspiro, B&H Foto, and Sirius had "proceeded slowly." So: no documented invalidity counterclaim, no § 101 or § 112 challenge on the merits in the record I can verify.

2. Pre‑trial motions of substance

• Motion to dismiss / transfer / stay: none documented. Because no answer appears on the docket, any Rule 12 motion would have preceded it and would appear as an early docket entry; none does in the retrievable snapshots. Under Judge Hellerstein's individual practices, a pre‑motion letter is a prerequisite, and no such letter is in the public record.
• Stay pending IPR: none documented in this case (contrast with the parallel Unified Patents IPR, below).
• Summary judgment: none. There is no indication the case ever reached expert discovery, let alone dispositive motions.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Did not occur. No Markman order, briefing schedule, or Phillips hearing is documented. Given the pleadings‑stage posture as of late 2020, the case never reached claim construction — a significant strategic point, because Cedar Lane's Katinsky‑family patents ('609/'394/'097/'830) have term‑construction fights that a defendant would want teed up before investing in expert discovery.

4. Discovery milestones

No documented discovery of strategic significance (no Rule 26(f) report, no case management plan/ scheduling order located, no discovery motions, no privilege or § 315(b)‑related disputes). I cannot confirm whether a Rule 26(f) conference ever occurred.

5. Trial, verdict, post‑trial motions

None. No trial date, verdict, JMOL, new‑trial, or fee motion is documented.

6. Final disposition / present posture

Unverified — this is the material gap in the record. I found no notice of voluntary dismissal, stipulation, Rule 54 judgment, or appeal for 1:20‑cv‑03159. The last confirmed data point is the 2020‑10‑26 report that the case was stalled at the pleadings. What can be said responsibly:

• The case was filed in the teeth of the COVID‑19 S.D.N.Y. slowdown and, on the available record, generated essentially no contested motion practice.
• This is consistent with the broader Cedar Lane campaign pattern (70+ defendant suits from 2019–2022, mostly resolved by early license/dismissal rather than adjudication), but I cannot state that Aspiro settled or was dismissed, or on what terms, without fabricating.
• Necessary next step to close this out: pull the PACER docket for 1:20‑cv‑03159 (Dkt. 10 onward) and check for a Rule 41 dismissal, a "closed" flag, or a transfer/consolidation.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

The directly relevant PTAB activity is on the '177 patent, one of the nine patents asserted against Aspiro — not on the '489.

Sources: Unified Patents insights (2020‑03‑24 and 2021‑02‑12); Patexia docket for IPR2020‑00006; Banner Witcoff PTAB Highlights (Dec. 2021); Board rehearing document.

Effect on the Aspiro litigation: the '177 was Cedar Lane's most exposed patent in this family — it had been asserted against Charter/Spectrum, T‑Mobile, Disney, Dish, and CBS — and the February 2021 FWD invalidating the asserted claim materially discounted one‑ninth of the Aspiro complaint's theory. Cedar Lane was represented in the IPR by Rabicoff himself, the same counsel of record in Aspiro, which means the Aspiro case's leverage analysis and the IPR defense were managed out of the same shop.

What I did not find: no IPR or PGR on the '489, and none on the '609, '194, '411, '889, '394, '097, or '830 that I can attribute to Cedar Lane. (Caution: search results surface IPRs on unrelated patents with similar numbers, e.g., IPR2017‑01753 on 8,815,830 — a different patent from Cedar Lane's 8,805,830.) I also found no Federal Circuit appeal from IPR2020‑00006; given the December 2021 rehearing denial, an appeal window would have run in early 2022, and I cannot confirm whether one was taken.

---

Strategic reading

1. This was a "contacts" case, not a merits case. The Aspiro entity sat in Manhattan, making S.D.N.Y. an easy venue; the nine‑patent complaint with 18 exhibits is a licensing‑pressure instrument, not a trial vehicle.
2. The '489 was a passenger. Cedar Lane's '489 assertions (part of a playlist‑management family) drew far less attention than the Katinsky web‑media patents and the AVInnov/Intellectual Ventures‑sourced '177; the '489 count in Aspiro appears to have gone nowhere.
3. The real adjudication happened at the PTAB, not in Judge Hellerstein's courtroom. The only substantive ruling touching this complaint is the '177 FWD — a defense‑side win that undercut the settlement value of the entire campaign.
4. Docket hygiene matters for anyone citing this case. The widely circulated framing (single '489 patent, IPWatchdog roundup) is materially incomplete on both the patent count and the case's actual trajectory.

---

Sourcing gaps to close before this is relied on

• PACER docket 1:20‑cv‑03159, Dkt. 10+ (dismissal? transfer? consolidation with the other S.D.N.Y. Cedar Lane suits before Hellerstein?)
• Whether Aspiro/TIDAL was ever served — a Rule 4

I'll start by researching the docket and counsel for this case.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Bottom line: One attorney appeared for Cedar Lane in this case — Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, admitted pro hac vice. No local S.D.N.Y. co-counsel, no additional firm, and no in-house counsel appears in any docket record I could retrieve. Nothing in this case was sealed with respect to counsel.

The one attorney of record

Local counsel

None of record. The docket shows no notice of appearance by any S.D.N.Y.-admitted attorney for plaintiff; Rabicoff filed his own PHV motion and every substantive paper personally. This is consistent with S.D.N.Y. practice, which permits out-of-state counsel to appear pro hac vice without a local co-counsel (unlike, e.g., N.D. Cal.). Because Judge Hellerstein granted PHV (ECF No. 9), there was no "PHV pending, local counsel appearing" arrangement.

In-house counsel

None identified. Cedar Lane is a Canadian entity (complaint ¶ 1: BC corporation, 560 Baker Street, Suite 1, Nelson, BC). No in-house attorney signed or appeared. Third-party commentary identifies Gregory Benoit as a Cedar Lane director — that is a corporate-governance, not counsel-of-record, point, and I could only source it to a non-authoritative secondary article, so treat it as unverified.

Sourcing caveats you should know about

• The docket details above come from free mirrors of the PACER docket — Justia (docket last retrieved 4/21/2020) and UniCourt (last updated 6/20/2020) — plus the filed complaint and PHV papers hosted on Docket Alarm. Both mirrors are stale and truncated; I could not confirm from them whether any additional counsel appeared after mid-2020, nor the case's ultimate disposition (UniCourt listed it as "Pending – Other Pending" as of 6/20/2020). Pulling the current PACER docket for 1:20-cv-03159 (AKH) is the only way to rule out a later substitution or co-counsel appearance.
• One substantive correction worth carrying forward: although the case summary frames this as a single-patent ('489) suit, the complaint actually asserted nine patents — U.S. Patent Nos. 6,452,609; 6,502,194; 6,526,411; 6,721,489; 6,806,889; 7,173,177; 7,610,394; 8,549,097; and 8,805,830 — against Aspiro's TIDAL streaming service (Compl. ¶ 7; see also Law Street Media, "Cedar Lane Technologies Files Photo Editing, Music Streaming Patent Suits"). The '489 patent is only one count.
• I found no Law360 or Reuters Legal coverage naming additional counsel, and no court opinion in this action addressing counsel.

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

Counsel of Record for Aspiro, Inc. — Findings

Bottom line: I could not identify any attorney who appeared for Aspiro, Inc. in this action. As far as the publicly retrievable docket record shows, defense counsel never entered an appearance in 1:20-cv-03159 (AKH). I am flagging this explicitly rather than filling the gap with names from related TIDAL/Aspiro litigation, because nothing I found ties any firm to this docket.

What the docket actually shows

Source: Justia docket (retrieved 4/21/2020) and UniCourt's mirror of the S.D.N.Y. docket, which states it was "last updated from U.S. District Courts on 06/20/2020" — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2020cv03159/[536030](/patent/536030) and https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-aspiro-inc-[440647](/patent/440647).

Not present in any accessible version of the docket: a notice of appearance, answer, motion to dismiss, Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure from Aspiro, pro hac vice motion for any defense attorney, stipulation of dismissal, or entry of default. Case assigned to Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, Mag. J. Stewart D. Aaron; classified as eligible for the Patent Pilot Program.

Why the record is thin, and what it likely means

• Both free mirrors stop at roughly June 2020 (UniCourt's stated last-update) or at the complaint-stage filings (Justia). That coverage ceiling — not a confirmed absence of appearance — is the main limitation on this answer. If Aspiro answered in late June 2020 or later, the appearance would sit on PACER beyond what these aggregators captured.
• Cedar Lane's 2020 campaign (a very large multi-defendant assertion program over former Intellectual Ventures/Copper Data River assets, handled by Rabicoff Law — see Law Street Media, "Cedar Lane Technologies Files Photo Editing, Music Streaming Patent Suits," https://lawstreetmedia.com/featured/cedar-lane-technologies-files-photo-editing-music-streaming-patent-suits/) resolved overwhelmingly by early voluntary dismissal, often before or shortly after appearance. A dismissal without any defense appearance is therefore plausible here, but I did not find a dismissal order or notice in this docket and cannot confirm the case's disposition.

Persons I deliberately did not list as counsel

• Todd Mumford and Desiree Perez appear on Aspiro AB's Copyright Office DMCA agent designation (TIDAL, 1411 Broadway, 39th Fl., NY) — https://cdn.loc.gov/copyright/onlinesp/agents/a/aspiro_ab.pdf. That is a statutory agent designation, not a litigation appearance in this case.
• Counsel in the separate Blue Spike, LLC v. Aspiro AB C.D. Cal. action (TIDAL accused products) are a different matter entirely; the C.D. Cal. filings surfaced in search (e.g., Dkt. 15, motion addressing personal jurisdiction over Aspiro AB) but no attorney names were recoverable from those excerpts, and even if they were, they would not be counsel of record here.

Party note relevant to service/counsel

The complaint describes Aspiro, Inc. as a Delaware corporation with its "established place of business" at 540 W. 26th Street, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10001 — TIDAL's then-headquarters address (Compl. ¶ 2, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/New_York_Southern_District_Court/1--20-cv-03159/Cedar_Lane_Technologies_Inc._v._Aspiro_Inc/docs/1.pdf). A Polish/Swedish-affiliated corporate parent (Aspiro AB / WiMP) exists, which in parallel litigation generated personal-jurisdiction and service disputes — a plausible reason this case may have stalled or settled rather than litigated on the merits.

Recommended verification to close the gap

1. Pull the full PACER docket for 1:20-cv-03159 (AKH) — specifically entries after No. 9 through case closure — and check for any appearance, extension, or Rule 41(a) dismissal.
2. Bloomberglaw: https://www.bloomberglaw.com/search?q=%22Cedar%20Lane%20Technologies%20Inc.%20v.%20Aspiro%20Inc.%20-%20Bloomberg%20Law%22 / Docket Alarm case page (already indexed at docketalarm.com for this case number) for post-June 2020 entries.
3. If PACER returns no defense appearance at all, that itself is the finding: Aspiro never appeared, and no counsel of record for defendant exists to report.