Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc.

I'll research this case and its context before drafting.

Good initial detail. Now let me verify the case outcome, the PTAB history for these patents, and the specific accused products.

Case Overview: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00088 (E.D. Tex.)

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian entity headquartered at 560 Baker Street, Suite 1, Nelson, British Columbia — a classic non-practicing entity with no operating business, holding a portfolio of acquired patents and monetizing it through high-volume licensing litigation. It is represented in this matter by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, who appears as plaintiff's counsel across the great majority of Cedar Lane's suits; Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies Cedar Lane as a "non-practicing entity" whose asserted patents are all "acquired patents." (Complaint ¶ 2; Stanford NPE Database) Defendant ASUSTeK Computer Inc. is a Taiwanese corporation at No. 15, Li-Te Rd., Beitou District, Taipei (Complaint ¶ 3), one of the world's largest PC-hardware makers — ASUS-brand notebooks (Zenbook, Vivobook, ROG), motherboards, graphics cards, monitors, and smartphones. Notably, Cedar Lane sued only the Taiwanese parent, not ASUS Computer International, the Fremont, California subsidiary that ordinarily handles U.S. sales. The complaint does not name accused models in its body; instead it incorporates claim charts — Exhibits 3.1 and 3.2 for the '105 patent and Exhibit 4 for the '147 patent — identifying "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Dkt. 1, Atts. 3.1, 3.2, 4; Complaint ¶¶ 12–14). Based on Cedar Lane's parallel '105 pleading against HTC, the asserted theory appears to be that devices shipping mobile/driverless printing capability — specifically products that auto-discover printers certified for mobile printing by the Mopria Alliance — practice claim 1 of the '105 patent; Cedar Lane also pleads direct infringement through ASUS's internal testing and use of those products. I could not verify from accessible sources the specific ASUS product list or whether a Mopria-based theory was carried into the ASUS charts.

The patents and posture. Two unrelated patents are asserted. U.S. Patent No. 10,346,105, "Method and system for communicating between a remote printer and a server" (issued July 9, 2019; application filed May 25, 2018), claims, in substance, a computing device that receives data over a network from a remote printer identifying that printer's characteristics — i.e., the discovery/negotiation layer underlying driverless and cloud printing. U.S. Patent No. 6,516,147, "Scene recognition method and system using brightness and ranging mapping" (issued Feb. 4, 2003; application filed Dec. 19, 2000), claims a camera that classifies a scene from brightness and range/distance data in order to select capture or processing parameters — an early-2000s precursor to today's automatic scene modes. The complaint pleads Count 1 for the '105 patent and a further count for the '147 patent (a slight refinement of the prior case summary, which referenced only the '147 count). Procedurally, Cedar Lane filed on January 30, 2025 in the Marshall Division; the case was assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne (Dkt. 5), and a jury was demanded. ASUS was served March 12, 2025, and an unopposed extension pushed its answer/response deadline to May 19, 2025 (Dkts. 6–7). (Justia docket)

Why it matters. First, venue: Marshall Division before Judge Gilstrap is the highest-volume patent venue in the country, and Cedar Lane's § 1400(b) allegation that ASUS maintains "an established place of business in this District" (Complaint ¶ 7) is aggressive for a Taipei-domiciled parent whose U.S. operations run through a California subsidiary — a TC Heartland-style venue or Rule 12(b)(3) challenge was an obvious early defense. Second, repeat-player dynamics: this is Cedar Lane's second suit against ASUS on these same two patents — it previously asserted the '105 and '147 patents (along with Nos. 6,473,527, 6,972,790, 7,292,261, and 8,537,242) against ASUS in W.D. Tex., No. 6:21-cv-01342, filed December 22, 2021 and voluntarily dismissed — and it has run the same '105/'147 pair against HTC, Lenovo, TCL, Pantum, and others. Third, the portfolio has drawn defensive-patent-community attention: Unified Patents challenged Cedar Lane's U.S. Patent No. 7,173,177 in IPR2020-00006, and the PTAB held the

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and initial pleadings.

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00088 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.)

Bottom line: This was a short-lived complaint. Cedar Lane filed on 2025-01-30, served AsusTek on 2025-03-12, obtained one agreed answer extension, and the case was dismissed with prejudice roughly 148 days after filing (on or about 2025-06-27). The case never reached an answer-and-counterclaim stage that is publicly documented, never reached a scheduling order, Markman, discovery, or trial, and I found no PTAB challenge by AsusTek to either patent. The public record for docket entries after Doc. 7 is thin — see the verification note at the end.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Substance of the complaint. Two patents:

• U.S. Patent No. 10,346,105 — "Method and system for communicating between a remote printer and a server," issued 2019-07-09 from an application filed 2018-05-25 (i.e., a continuation-family filing, not a 2018 priority date). Count 1 asserts direct infringement of exemplary method claims, with charts at Exs. 3.1–3.2, plus a theory that AsusTek's employees directly infringed "by having its employees internally test and use" the accused products — a standard Cedar Lane pleading flourish aimed at capturing method claims against a foreign manufacturer.
• U.S. Patent No. 6,516,147 — "Scene recognition method and system using brightness and ranging mapping," issued 2003-02-04 from an application filed 2000-12-19 (Count 2). This is the older camera/scene-recognition patent in Cedar Lane's portfolio.

Answer and counterclaims. I could not confirm a filed answer. The answer deadline was 2025-05-19; the case terminated roughly five weeks later, so an answer (with AsusTek's customary invalidity counterclaims and, likely, non-infringement contentions) may exist at Dkts. 8–10 or may never have been filed if the parties stipulated to dismissal first. This is the single most important docket gap to close.

Venue/personal jurisdiction. The complaint pleads venue under §1400(b) on the theory that AsusTek has "an established place of business in this District" — a weak assertion for a Taiwanese OEM with no Texas facility, and one that would have invited a §1400(b)/TC Heartland transfer motion had the case progressed. AsusTek has historically contested venue (e.g., its transfer motion practice in Maxell v. AsusTek) and has been sued repeatedly in E.D. Tex. anyway as a foreign defendant suable in any district under §1391(c)(3).

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None identified. No motion to dismiss, no §1406(a)/§1404(a) transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, and no summary judgment motion appears in the retrievable record. The case died before the E.D. Tex. scheduling-order machinery (which under Judge Gilstrap's practice would have generated P.R. 3-1/3-3 contentions, a Markman order, and a trial setting) engaged at all. There is no indication a scheduling conference was ever held.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Never reached. No P.R. 4-3 joint claim construction statement, no Markman hearing, no claim construction order. For portfolio-monetization purposes this matters: the '105 and '147 claim terms remain unconstrued by any court in this AsusTek dispute, so the dismissal has no collateral estoppel or issue-preclusion effect on claim scope against AsusTek or anyone else.

---

4. Discovery milestones

None of strategic significance occurred. With the answer due 2025-05-19 and termination ~2025-06-27, the case did not reach a Rule 26(f) conference, initial disclosures, P.R. 3-3 invalidity contentions, or document production. The only "discovery-adjacent" event is the extension of the answer date — consistent with the parties talking settlement rather than litigating.

---

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, and no fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or § 1927. Because the case ended by dismissal with prejudice, there is no "prevailing party" determination in the record I can verify.

---

6. Final disposition / present posture

Dismissed with prejudice, on or about 2025-06-27; case closed. Duration reported as 148 days from the 2025-01-30 filing, with outcome recorded as "Dismissed with Prejudice" in PACER-derived litigation datasets.

Two things follow from "with prejudice" rather than "without":

1. It is almost certainly the product of a settlement or license. Cedar Lane's model is volume assertion followed by rapid paid resolution; a plaintiff does not walk away from a complaint with prejudice for free, and AsusTek would not accept prejudice absent consideration. Cedar Lane's reported settlement rate across its campaigns has been characterized as effectively 100% (IAM reported on 2025-04-17 on NPE campaigns against Acer, Asus and Hisense following "the same formula that has achieved a 100% settlement rate in previous disputes" — note the article's subject is a successor campaign, so treat the attribution loosely).
2. No appeal. No Federal Circuit docket or notice of appeal appears in anything I could retrieve; a stipulated dismissal with prejudice is generally not appealable by the dismissing plaintiff absent preserved conditions.

Because the dismissal was with prejudice and no judgment on the merits issued, there is no invalidity or non-infringement ruling that helps AsusTek against other Cedar Lane-family asserters — but equally no estoppel against Cedar Lane re-asserting either patent against other targets.

---

7. Prior and parallel proceedings

Prior AsusTek suit (important context): Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., No. 6:21-cv-01342 (W.D. Tex., Judge Alan D. Albright), filed 2021-12-22, asserted a six-patent group including both the '105 and '147 patents plus U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,473,527, 6,972,790, 7,292,261, and 8,537,242. AsusTek never answered: Cedar Lane granted four successive agreed extensions (answer moved from 2022-01-24 → 2022-03-10 → 2022-04-25 → 2022-06-09 → 2022-06-23), and Cedar Lane then voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on 2022-06-21 (Dkt. 13, with AO 120 report at Dkt. 14). The 2025 E.D. Tex. suit is therefore a re-assertion of the same two patents against the same defendant in a new venue, three years later — with the same file-and-extend-then-dismiss rhythm. That pattern is the strongest single signal that docket 2:25-cv-00088 ended in a license rather than on the merits.

Parallel PTAB proceedings: I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition filed by AsusTek against the '105 or '147 patent in connection with this case. The window under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) would have run from 2025-03-12 service to 2026-03-12 — already moot given the dismissal. Cedar Lane's patents have been challenged at the PTAB in other campaigns over the years, but I could not verify a specific '105 or '147 IPR institution or final written decision, so I will not assert one.

Other Cedar Lane 2025 activity (context for the campaign): the same period shows a broad new Cedar Lane filing wave, including E.D. Tex. cases against Doo Technology Singapore (2:25-cv-00231) and Bank of America (2:25-cv-01225) and a series of S.D.N.Y. actions against financial-services defendants — consistent with a re-launched assertion program using the same acquired portfolio.

---

8. Strategic observations (clearly labeled as analysis, not record)

• The '147 patent was likely expired at filing. Issued 2003-02-04

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

Bottom line

As of the last retrievable docket snapshot for this case, exactly one attorney has appeared for Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.: Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC. He is the sole counsel of record for the plaintiff — no local counsel, no co-counsel, and no in-house attorney has entered an appearance. The complaint itself was filed "through its attorneys" (i.e., Rabicoff), with no other firm named.

Counsel of record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Docket grounding for Rabicoff's appearance

• Doc. 2 — "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff on behalf of Cedar Lane Technologies Inc." (filed Jan. 30, 2025). This is the operative appearance.
• Doc. 1 — COMPLAINT for Patent Infringement (Jan. 30, 2025), filed by Rabicoff; exhibits 1, 2, 3.1, 3.2, 4 and civil cover sheet.
• Doc. 3 — Rule 7.1(a)(1) Disclosure Statement (Jan. 30, 2025), signed/filed by Rabicoff.
• Doc. 4 — AO 120 Patent/Trademark Form (Jan. 30, 2025), filed by Rabicoff.
• Doc. 6 — Unopposed Application for Extension of Time to Answer (Mar. 19, 2025), filed by Rabicoff (summons served 3/12/2025; ASUS's answer reset to 5/19/2025); granted at Doc. 7.

Source: Justia docket snapshot for Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. AsusTek Computer Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00088 (E.D. Tex.), last retrieved Mar. 19, 2025 — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2025cv00088/[235642](/patent/235642). The complaint text is available at RPX Insight: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/16003678.

Why the sole-counsel picture is credible here

This is consistent with Cedar Lane's litigation model and with how Rabicoff handled the earlier ASUS suit. In Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., No. 6:21-cv-01342 (W.D. Tex., filed Dec. 22, 2021), Rabicoff was likewise the only plaintiff's attorney on the docket; that case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on June 21, 2022 (Doc. 13). See https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-ASUSTeK-Computer-Inc-id-[160190](/patent/160190)/documents. In Cedar Lane's other 2025 matters, e.g., Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Bank of America Corp., No. 2:25-cv-01225 (E.D. Tex.), the plaintiff-side entry of appearance is again Rabicoff Law LLC alone (the other listed attorneys in that case — Dustin James Edwards and William Mitchell Logan of Winston Taylor LLP — appeared for the defendant). See https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/61891392/Cedar_Lane_Technologies_Inc_v_Bank_of_America_Corporation.

What is not of record / explicit caveats

• No local counsel in Marshall/Tyler. No E.D. Tex. local-counsel appearance appears in the docket snapshot. If Rabicoff is not admitted to the E.D. Tex. bar, a pro hac vice motion and local counsel would eventually be required; no such motion or local-counsel appearance appears in the retrieved docket. (Rabicoff has previously drawn criticism in N.D. Cal. for failing to seek pro hac vice admission in dozens of cases.)
• No in-house counsel. Cedar Lane is a Canadian NPE (560 Baker Street, Suite 1, Nelson, BC) whose principal/founder, Greg Benoit, is himself a lawyer; no Cedar Lane employee-attorney has entered an appearance in this case.
• Nothing is sealed on the counsel side. Docs. 1–7 are public; there are no sealed filings and no protective-order/appearance issues in the retrieved record.
• Case-status discrepancy — flagging rather than asserting. Your metadata describes the case as active, but third-party litigation databases (Patsnap's litigation product) list 2:25-cv-00088 as "Dismissed with Prejudice" after 148 days, which would place dismissal around late June 2025 — i.e., shortly after the 5/19/2025 answer deadline. That entry is a secondary-source datapoint only; I could not confirm it against PACER, and the last docket text I could actually retrieve ends at Doc. 7 (Mar. 19, 2025). If a joint stipulation of dismissal was filed, it would likely be Doc. 8 or later, and Rabicoff would be the signatory. This should be verified on PACER before relying on it.
• Firm location. Multiple sources confirm the firm name Rabicoff Law LLC (Mondaq/Legal Newsline coverage of Rabicoff's filing campaigns: https://alpha.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/[1622726](/patent/1622726)/). I could not verify a specific street address or office from the retrieved materials, so I have not supplied one rather than guess.

Verification steps I'd recommend

1. Pull the current PACER docket for 2:25-cv-00088 to confirm (a) whether any additional appearance (local counsel or co-counsel) was filed after Mar. 19, 2025, and (b) the dismissal entry reported by Patsnap.
2. Check the E.D. Tex. attorney roll for Rabicoff's bar status, to confirm no local-counsel requirement was triggered.
3. If the case did dismiss in June 2025, confirm whether dismissal was pursuant to a settlement/license — Cedar Lane's campaigns in this period typically resolve by stipulated dismissal within weeks to months.

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

Bottom line

I could not identify any attorney who appeared of record for Asustek in this case. The publicly available docket for No. 2:25-cv-00088 (E.D. Tex.) shows no defense appearance, no answer, and no Rule 7.1 disclosure by the defendant — every filing of substance was made by plaintiff's counsel — and the case appears to have terminated by dismissal before Asustek ever appeared. I will not name anyone as "defense counsel of record" here, because the record does not support it.

What the docket actually shows

From the Justia docket mirror (last PACER retrieval March 19, 2025: dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2025cv00088/235642):

Two points worth flagging for the litigation team:

1. The extension was filed by Cedar Lane, not by Asustek's counsel (Dkt. 6, signed by Rabicoff). In E.D. Tex. practice, a defendant-side unopposed extension is normally filed by defense counsel under Local Rule CV-12 and accompanied by a notice of appearance. Here no appearance accompanied it.
2. No notice of appearance, answer, motion to dismiss, or corporate disclosure statement for Asustek appears on any docket snapshot I could retrieve. Third-party litigation databases report the case as "dismissed with prejudice" after 148 days (i.e., on or about June 27, 2025) — see Patsnap's Asustek and E.D. Tex. litigation trackers (eureka.patsnap.com). That outcome data is from a commercial aggregator, not a court document I verified, and I could not locate the dismissal order or notice on a public RECAP/PACER mirror (CourtListener does not appear to have this case's later filings, and the Justia mirror stops at Dkt. 7).

Conclusion on the record: there is no confirmed counsel of record for Asustek. The case looks like a fast settlement/dismissal in which the defendant never formally appeared — consistent with Cedar Lane's high-volume, short-duration NPE model.

Corroborating pattern: the 2021 Cedar Lane v. Asustek case

The earlier suit, Cedar Lane Techs., Inc. v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., No. 6:21-cv-01342 (W.D. Tex.), asserting an overlapping patent set including the '105 and '147 patents, resolved the same way: four successive agreed extensions of Asustek's answer deadline, all noticed by plaintiff's counsel, followed by Cedar Lane's voluntary dismissal without prejudice on June 21, 2022 (Dkt. 13) — again with no defense appearance on the docket (Patexia document list; UniCourt).

Asus's usual E.D. Tex. patent counsel — context only, NOT confirmed for this case

If you need to know who would likely have been engaged behind the scenes (or who to expect in any refiled/related suit), these are the attorneys who have actually appeared for ASUSTeK in E.D. Tex. patent matters in the same period. None of these appearances is in 2:25-cv-00088, and I have no evidence any of them worked on this matter:

• Melissa Richards Smith — Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall, TX (local counsel). E.D. Tex. local counsel for ASUSTeK in Force MOS Technology Co. v. ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00460-JRG (the case that went to a February 2025 jury verdict, $10.5M running royalty, and a June 11, 2025 final judgment) and in Mingoe Consulting LLC v. ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00770 (Gilstrap, J.).
• Li Chen — Lumens Law Group PLLC (lead attorney of record for ASUSTeK in Force MOS, 2:22-cv-00460; terminated July 16, 2025). Same firm: James Travis Underwood, who signed the June 2025 joint filings for ASUSTeK in that case.
• Charles M. McMahon, Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham, Gregory Proctor (pro hac vice), Kalpesh K. Shah, Louis Constantinou (pro hac vice), Kathleen Lynch, Ziyong Sean Li — additional ASUSTeK-side counsel in Force MOS (appearance list reproduced in the CM/ECF docket attached as Ex. 1027 to IPR2025-01433, Docket Alarm).
• Chris Ryan Schmidt and Lydia Raw — Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park, KS — appeared for ASUSTeK in Mingoe Consulting (2:25-cv-00770).
• For the earlier W.D. Tex. Cedar Lane suit, bankruptcy-court records for a related matter also list John T. Moehringer (then Cadwalader) as counsel in the IBM ITC/EDTX matters naming ASUSTeK and ASUS Computer International, and as counsel adverse to Cedar Lane for Qualcomm and Brother — but that is portfolio background, not an appearance here.

Recommended next step

To close this out with certainty, pull the full PACER docket sheet for 2:25-cv-00088 (E.D. Tex., CM/ECF) — specifically entries after Dkt. 7 through the June 2025 dismissal — and the dismissal filing itself. Under Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) any attorney who negotiated the March 19 extension on Asustek's behalf would have had to enter an appearance to sign filings; if none is on the docket, the correct answer for your pleadings/service list is that Asustek appeared without counsel of record, and the case was dismissed before an appearance was entered. I can run that docket pull if you can supply the PACER credentials or a docket export.