Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Autel Robotics USA LLC

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting.

Case Overview & Background

The parties. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is not an operating company — it is a Canadian non-practicing entity formed in British Columbia on April 29, 2019, with founder/director Greg Benoit, an attorney with a long NPE-monetization background (he also signed for Steephill Technologies, the vehicle through which some Cedar Lane acquisitions passed). Its portfolio is overwhelmingly acquired, largely from Intellectual Ventures affiliates — IPWatchdog's filing table tags this very case "[IV selloff]" (IPWatchdog, Nov. 3, 2022; RPX, Nov. 9, 2019). Cedar Lane is one of the highest-volume patent plaintiffs in the country — Lex Machina ranked it the #1 filer of patent suits in 2021 — and has been characterized as running a high-volume, fast-settlement nuisance-litigation model, with reported settlement rates around 96% and median closure near 90 days (Seyfarth Shaw, NPE Showcase; IAM, Mar. 20, 2023; China (Shenzhen) IP Protection Center risk advisory, Oct. 2022). Its frequent counsel in this campaign is Rabicoff Law LLC; the Delaware appearance here was by David W. deBruin. Defendant Autel Robotics USA LLC is the U.S. arm of Shenzhen-based Autel Robotics/Autel Intelligent Technology, a maker of consumer and commercial camera-equipped drones and a principal U.S. rival to DJI; its U.S. operations were identified in ITC filings as based in Bothell, Washington, where Autel itself was complainant in Certain Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Inv. No. 337-TA-1133 (ITC notice). No parent/affiliate was disclosed for Cedar Lane (D.I. 4, Rule 7.1 statement: "No Parents or Affiliates Listed").

The accused technology and the patent. The suit targets Autel's drone imaging pipeline — the sensor-to-JPEG chain in its camera-bearing UAVs — although, consistent with Cedar Lane's template pleadings, the complaint body refers only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and pushes product identification and element-by-element mapping into exhibits (D.I. 1, Exs. 4–6). The asserted patent is U.S. 6,473,527, "Module and method for interfacing analog/digital converting means and JPEG compression means" (issued Oct. 29, 2002; earliest priority June 1, 1999; assigned to Cedar Lane in May 2019, together with the sibling '790 patent, per The Recycler). In one line: it claims an interface module that buffers a predetermined number of image lines from an A/D converter and then feeds correctly sized 8×8 pixel blocks straight into the JPEG codec's built-in memory, eliminating the external RAM buffer that conventional JPEG front-ends required (independent apparatus claim 1 and method claim 8). Practically, the '527 is a expired asset — the 20-year term from the 1999 filing ran out around mid-2019 — so any recovery is limited to pre-expiration conduct within the six-year lookback of 35 U.S.C. § 286, which the Shenzhen advisory expressly flagged in analyzing parallel Cedar Lane '527 suits. One docket ambiguity worth noting: the Rule 5 report filed with the complaint lists only the '527 (D.I. 3), while the report entered at dismissal lists 6,473,527; 6,972,790; and 8,537,242 (D.I. 8). The '790/'242 ("Host interface for imaging arrays") are the companion patents asserted against other defendants in the same October 2022 filing wave; I could not access the sealed/unpublished claim-chart exhibits to confirm whether they were in fact pleaded against Autel. My read is that D.I. 8 reflects the clerk's handling of the associated-case group, not a three-patent case — treat that as inference, not verified.

Posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed October 26, 2022 in the District of Delaware, assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews (the case initially carried the "-UNA" unassigned designation; D.I. 7 signature line confirms RGA), the case was voluntarily dismissed by Cedar Lane seven days later — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on November 2, 2022 (D.I. 6), so ordered the same day (D.I. 7), with the civil case terminated before any appearance, answer, or motion by Autel. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) that dismissal is presumptively without prejudice, so it is a nullity on the merits — no claim construction, no § 101 or § 112 ruling, no damages determination, and correspondingly no precedential value (PACER Monitor docket; Patexia docket). Delaware mattered here less as a plaintiff-friendly forum than as a mass-filing venue: Cedar Lane filed a coordinated wave of drone-and-camera-company suits in D. Del. on October 26, 2022 — including Vantage Robotics (1:22-cv-01406), Teal Drones (1:22-cv-01407), Brinc Drones (1:22-cv-01409), and Security Camera Warehouse (1:22-cv-01414) — the clerk grouping this case with "1:22-cv-01402-UNA et al." That the targets were incorporated in Delaware is the likeliest § 1400(b) hook

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

The docket above shows a remarkably short case. Let me verify whether it was refiled or dismissed with prejudice, and check PTAB activity on the '527 patent.

Voluntary dismissal 7 days after filing, pre-answer. Let me confirm service status, any refiling against Autel, and PTAB challenges to the '527 patent.

Bottom line

This case never became a real lawsuit. Cedar Lane filed the complaint on 2022-10-26 and voluntarily dismissed it seven days later, on 2022-11-02, before Autel was served, answered, or appeared. There is no answer, no counterclaim, no motion practice, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, and no appeal — the docket consists of eight entries total. The final disposition is dismissal without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (the notice and the court's order contain no "with prejudice" language), and the case is closed. I found no parallel PTAB proceeding on the '527 patent in my searches, and no refiling by Cedar Lane against Autel since.

---

Chronology of docket events (complete, 8 entries)

Sources: PACER Monitor docket, https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/46617343/Cedar_Lane_Technologies_Inc_v_Autel_Robotics_USA_LLC ; Patexia docket mirror, https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Autel-Robotics-USA-LLC-id-[182920](/patent/182920)/documents

---

Point-by-point on your checklist

1. Filing & initial pleadings. The complaint (D.I. 1) alleged direct infringement of the '527 patent, styled "Module and method for interfacing analog/digital converting means and JPEG compression means," and demanded a jury, § 284 damages, interest, costs, and a § 285 exceptional-case finding (patent title and relief sought confirmed in the retail litigation reports, e.g., https://www.illinoislawyernow.com/2024/02/november-2022-retail-patent-litigation-report/). There was never an answer or counterclaim — the case died inside the answer window (Autel was never shown as served on the docket; there is no summons-return entry, unlike sibling Cedar Lane cases).

2. Pre-trial motions of substance. None. No Rule 12(b) motion, no § 1404/1406 transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, no summary judgment motion. The case did not last long enough for the D. Del. scheduling order to issue.

3. Claim construction. None. No Markman briefing, no Indefiniteness/§ 112(f) ruling. For context only: the '527 claims use means-plus-function language ("read control means," "memory means," "output control means") and "image block," which would have been the likely battleground had the case proceeded — that analysis appears in the AI-generated complaint analyses of sibling Cedar Lane '527 suits (e.g., 1:23-cv-00337, https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/ded/1:23-cv-00337/doc/analysis/1), not in any ruling in this case.

4. Discovery milestones. None. No Rule 26(f) conference, no ESI or protective order, no expert reports.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions. None. No JMOL, new-trial, or § 285 fee motion was filed, and no judgment was entered — the docket shows termination by voluntary dismissal, not judgment.

6. Final disposition / present posture. Closed 2022-11-02, dismissed without prejudice. Two evidentiary points matter here:

• The D.I. 6 notice and D.I. 7 order do not say "with prejudice." Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) a plaintiff may dismiss unilaterally before service/answer, and such a dismissal is without prejudice by operation of law. Contrast contemporaneous Cedar Lane dismissals in D. Del. where the court's order expressly said otherwise (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Hubbell, 1:23-cv-00381, D.I. 15 → "SO ORDERED Granting Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice," 2023-06-20; Cedar Lane v. Videology, 1:22-cv-00157, stipulated dismissal with prejudice, 2022-03-16).
• Consequence: no claim preclusion, no issue preclusion, no fee-shifting exposure for Cedar Lane, and Cedar Lane remained free to refile. I could not locate any later Cedar Lane complaint against Autel Robotics USA LLC; the post-2022 Autel NPE suits were brought by unrelated plaintiffs — Wildcat Licensing LLC v. Autel Intelligent Technology Co. / Autel Robotics USA (W.D. Tex. 6:23-cv-00446, filed 2023-06-13, asserting 7,228,232 / 7,231,294 / 7,286,913 / 7,418,320) and Iron Bird LLC v. Autel Robotics Ltd. (W.D. Tex. 6:23-cv-00169, filed 2023-03-07, U.S. 7,400,950). Those are not parallel to this case and involve different patents.
• No appeal exists, because there was no appealable judgment.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings. I found no IPR, PGR, or reexamination of U.S. 6,473,527 in my searches (USPTO PTAB, Unified Patents, and general web). If any petition was filed, it plainly did not affect this case, since the case was gone within a week. Treat this as "nothing located," not as a verified negative — I was unable to complete a full PTAB docket sweep.

---

Strategic read: what this docket actually represents

• This was one unit of a mass-filing wave, not a targeted enforcement action. Autel Robotics USA LLC is a Delaware LLC, so D. Del. venue/personal jurisdiction was secure (D.I. 1; the same reasoning appears in DJI's earlier D. Del. suit against Autel, C.A. No. 16-706-LPS). Cedar Lane filed a large batch in D. Del. on 2022-10-26 (the 1:22-cv-01402 "et al." assignment group, including sibling drone-related defendant Vantage Robotics, 1:22-cv-01406, and Security Camera Warehouse, 1:22-cv-01414). Many of those cases were dismissed within days or weeks. The dismissals are the signature of a portfolio-licensing program using complaints as demand letters.
• The reason for dismissal is not in the record — nothing in D.I. 6 states a cause. Plausible explanations (license taken, wrong Autel entity, or the patent's age) are unverified speculation and should not be represented as findings.
• A noteworthy docket anomaly for anyone relying on the AO-120 reports: D.I. 3 (at filing) lists only the '527; D.I. 8 (at dismissal) lists '527, '790, and '242. The dismissal-stage report appears to have been populated with Cedar Lane's standard three-patent family rather than the single patent actually pleaded. If you are counting assertions of the '790/'242 in this case, don't — the complaint asserted only the '527.
• Damages exposure would have been thin even if litigated. The '527 patent issued 2002-10-29 and its specification describes 1990s-era JPEG/A-D converter interfacing; on its face the 20-year term likely ran out years before the 2022 filing, which would have capped recoverable damages to the six-year § 286 lookback window against pre-expiration sales. I flag this as my inference from the patent's age and the claim language, not a court finding in this case — no court ever addressed it here.
• Counsel. Plaintiff: David W. deBruin on the docket (D. Del. local counsel). Cedar Lane's campaign counsel of record in this period were Rabicoff Law (Isaac Rabicoff) and Napoli Shkolnik per the retail litigation reports; I cannot confirm from the eight-entry docket which of them worked this particular file. No Autel counsel ever entered an appearance.

---

Sourcing caveats

• The docket

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

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Bottom line

Only one attorney ever entered an appearance for the plaintiff in this case, and he did so as Delaware/local counsel. The case lived only eight days (complaint filed Oct. 26, 2022; voluntarily dismissed Nov. 2, 2022), so no pro hac vice admissions, no additional appearances, and no defendant appearance ever occurred. The docket does not disclose any separate national/lead patent counsel for this specific case.

---

1. David W. deBruin — Plaintiff's counsel of record (Delaware counsel; de facto lead)

• Role: The sole attorney appearing for Cedar Lane on the docket. Listed by PACER Monitor as plaintiff's "Represented By" attorney; he also electronically signed the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (D.I. 6), the only substantive filing by plaintiff's counsel. Delaware Bar No. 4846 — i.e., a member of the D. Del. bar appearing in his own right, in the local-counsel posture Cedar Lane used in Delaware.
• Firm / office: Wilmington, Delaware. Firm affiliation at the time of this filing is not confirmed by any source I could retrieve — see caveat below. His contemporaneous Cedar Lane Delaware filings (2021–2022) were made on Gawthrop Greenwood, PC, 3711 Kennett Pike, Suite 100, Wilmington, DE 19807, (302) 777‑5353, ddebruin@gawthrop.com; by November 2022 (Cedar Lane v. Openeye US, No. 1:22‑cv‑01505) Law360's attorney profile lists him at Napoli Shkolnik in Wilmington. The transition appears to fall in this window, so the Gawthrop Greenwood address is the best-supported affiliation for the Oct. 26, 2022 complaint, but it should be verified against the Appearance of Counsel attachment (D.I. 1‑8) or the Delaware bar roster before being cited as fact.
• Relevant experience: He is Cedar Lane's habitual Delaware counsel in its camera/imaging patent campaign asserting the '527, '790 and '242 patents — e.g., Cedar Lane v. GoPro, No. 1:21‑cv‑01319 (D. Del.) (dismissed Oct. 12, 2021); Cedar Lane v. Snap, No. 1:22‑cv‑00058 (D. Del.), where PACER/CourtListener flags him as "LEAD ATTORNEY"; Cedar Lane v. Cox Communications, No. 1:22‑cv‑00471 (D. Del.); Cedar Lane v. Hilton Worldwide, No. 1:21‑cv‑01070 (D. Del.) (appearance filed Aug. 6, 2021 after transfer from W.D. Tex.); Cedar Lane v. Philips Electronics North America (D. Del., Aug. 25, 2021); Cedar Lane v. TVL International, No. 1:23‑cv‑00376 (D. Del.). His Cedar Lane work is characteristically short-lived: complaint, short extension, voluntary dismissal — the same pattern as here.

---

What the docket shows, and what it does not

• No other attorney appeared. There is no pro hac vice motion, no notice of appearance by outside counsel, and no answer or motion by Autel before termination. PACER Monitor, Patexia and CourtListener all reflect deBruin as the only listed plaintiff's attorney.
• Not sealed: nothing in this docket is under seal; the absence of other counsel is a function of the case's eight-day life, not of sealing.
• Unverified: the contents of the Appearance of Counsel attachment (D.I. 1‑8). In Cedar Lane's other complaints this form typically names the filing attorney(s) only. I could not retrieve the document image, so I cannot rule out that it named an additional out-of-state attorney (Cedar Lane's W.D. Tex./E.D.N.Y./N.D.N.Y. complaints in this campaign were often signed by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago, who sometimes appears as national lead counsel alongside Delaware counsel — e.g., Cedar Lane v. Hilton Worldwide, D.I. 2, Notice of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Rabicoff, filed Mar. 10, 2021 in W.D. Tex.). I am not asserting he appeared here; he does not appear on this docket.
• Note also a metadata discrepancy worth flagging in the case summary: IPWatchdog's filing table lists only the '527 patent for this case, while the court's own Patent/Trademark Report (D.I. 8) lists 6,473,527; 6,972,790; and 8,537,242 — consistent with Cedar Lane's standard three-patent camera/imaging complaint.

---

Sourcing

• PACER Monitor docket, Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Autel Robotics USA LLC, No. 1:22‑cv‑01411 (D. Del.): https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/46617343/Cedar_Lane_Technologies_Inc_v_Autel_Robotics_USA_LLC
• Patexia docket/documents view (full docket text incl. D.I. 1 attachments): https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Autel-Robotics-USA-LLC-id-182920/documents
• Law360 attorney profile for David W. deBruin (Napoli Shkolnik, Wilmington): https://www.law360.com/firms/napoli-shkolnik/attorneys/david-w-debruin/cases
• Gawthrop Greenwood signature block and address in Cedar Lane D. Del. filings: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/14368090; https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.76772/gov.uscourts.ded.76772.7.0.pdf
• CourtListener party record naming deBruin "LEAD ATTORNEY," Cedar Lane v. Snap Inc., No. 1:22‑cv‑00058: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/62601280/parties/cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-snap-inc/
• IPWatchdog Patent Filings Roundup (Nov. 3, 2022) confirming the case/patent pairing: https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/11/03/patent-filings-roundup-old-ip-edge-filings-explode-no-new-discretionary-denials-fortress-backed-divx-rolls/

Confidence: High that deBruin was the only counsel of record. Moderate on his firm name on the filing date (Gawthrop Greenwood vs. Napoli Shkolnik) — verify via D.I. 1‑8 or the Delaware Supreme Court attorney roster before publishing.

I'll research the docket and counsel of record for Autel Robotics USA LLC in this case.

Key finding so far: the only attorney listed on the docket is plaintiff's counsel. Let me verify the docket independently and check whether Autel ever appeared.

Docket confirmed as ending at D.I. 8 with no defendant appearance. Let me check CourtListener for the full docket and whether Cedar Lane later re-filed against Autel elsewhere.

Bottom line

There is no counsel of record for Autel Robotics USA LLC in this case — none ever appeared. Autel never answered, moved, or filed a notice of appearance. Cedar Lane voluntarily dismissed the action seven days after filing, before any defendant-side attorney entered the case. I found no attorney who can honestly be described as "defense counsel" here, and I will not invent one.

What the docket actually shows

The entire docket in D. Del. No. 1:22-cv-01411 (RGA) consists of eight entries, and the case terminated on the same day the dismissal notice was filed:

Sources: PACER Monitor docket sheet, https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/46617343/Cedar_Lane_Technologies_Inc_v_Autel_Robotics_USA_LLC; Patexia document list, https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Autel-Robotics-USA-LLC-id-182920/documents.

Two points worth flagging for the case write-up:

1. No Rule 4 service. The docket shows a summons issued but never a "Summons Returned Executed" entry — consistent with dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (dismissal before the defendant serves an answer or moves for summary judgment), which requires no court order and no opposing-party signature/counsel.
2. The complaint asserted three patents, not just the '527. The AO-120 filings (D.I. 3 and D.I. 8) list U.S. 6,473,527, 6,972,790, and 8,537,242. The case metadata's single-patent focus on the '527 tracks the IPWatchdog roundup (https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/11/03/patent-filings-roundup-old-ip-edge-filings-explode-no-new-discretionary-denials-fortress-backed-dvx-rolls/), but the docket itself is broader — worth correcting in the summary.

The only attorney of record in the case (plaintiff's side)

For completeness, since he is the sole name on the docket:

• David W. deBruin — counsel for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.; filed the complaint, the Rule 7.1 disclosure, and the notice of dismissal. Delaware-based; he is Cedar Lane's routine Delaware counsel in its D. Del. campaign (e.g., 1:22-cv-01406 Vantage Robotics, 1:22-cv-01407 Teal Drones, 1:22-cv-01408 Skydio, 1:22-cv-00050 EPIX). Note: I could not verify his firm affiliation or office address from a primary source in the time available — PACER-derived aggregators list only his name — so treat the firm line as unconfirmed rather than reporting it.

Why there is no defense-side roster

This was one of roughly a dozen-plus complaints Cedar Lane filed in the District of Delaware on October 26, 2022 (Nos. 1:22-cv-01402 through -01414, all assigned to Judge Andrews), many of them against drone/UAS companies (Teal Drones, Skydio, Vantage Robotics, Autel). In that wave, Cedar Lane frequently dismissed before appearance — e.g., Teal Drones (D.I. 9–10, dismissed 1/25/2023) and Skydio (D.I. 9–10, dismissed 2/10/2023). Autel was simply the fastest: dismissal came seven days after filing.

Caution on a nearby name: Autel Robotics USA LLC has been represented in other D. Del. patent litigation — in SZ DJI Technology Co. v. Autel Robotics USA LLC, No. 16-706-LPS, Autel's counsel included Anne Shea Gaza (Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE) as Delaware counsel and Beau M. Goodrick (Steptoe & Johnson LLP) pro hac vice (see Google Scholar case summary and D. Del. opinions at https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/opinion/sz-dji-technology-co-ltd-et-al-v-autel-robotics-usa-llc-et-al-2). Those attorneys are not, and never became, counsel of record in 1:22-cv-01411. Do not list them as such.

What I could not verify (do not assume)

• Whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The PACER Monitor/Patexia docket text of D.I. 6 does not state it; the two-page notice itself must be pulled from PACER to confirm. (In parallel Cedar Lane cases the notices typically recited dismissal without prejudice, but that is an inference, not a finding here.)
• Any settlement or license. Nothing on the docket suggests consideration; the speed and the absence of service are more consistent with a pre-suit resolution or case-management decision than with litigated settlement.
• Any PTAB activity by Autel on the '527 patent. I did not find any Autel-filed IPR against U.S. 6,473,527 in the sources reviewed, but I did not run a full PTAB docket search — treat this as "not found," not "confirmed none."
• In-house counsel. No corporate disclosure statement, appearance, or correspondence from Autel or its legal department appears on this docket.

Recommendation for the case summary: characterize the case as "filed 10/26/2022 and voluntarily dismissed 11/2/2022 (D.I. 6–7) before any defendant appearance or service; no defense counsel of record," and note that the complaint/AO-120 identified three patents ('527, '790, '242) rather than the '527 alone.