Parties. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian patent-holding company headquartered at 560 Baker Street, Suite 1, Nelson, British Columbia — an entity the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies as a patent asserter whose entire portfolio is "acquired patents," and which the Korean IP protection agency (KOTRA/KOIPA) and Chinese trade-warning reports describe as an NPE that built its portfolio from patents acquired out of the Intellectual Ventures ecosystem (via the NPE AVInnov). Cedar Lane does not appear to make or sell any product; it monetizes through licensing-and-litigation campaigns. Third-party trackers put its cumulative filings at roughly 367 cases by 2023 (KIPO/KOTRA) and ~457 cases by early 2026 (Guangdong WTO/TBT center), with a settlement rate above 96% and only ~3% ending on procedural rulings — and IAM named it "America's top-filing NPE" for 2022. Its filings in this era were handled principally by Rabicoff Law LLC (per Law Street Media coverage of the parallel HTC and Huawei complaints). Defendant Azpen Innovation is a small, low-margin consumer-electronics vendor: a Texas corporation with a U.S. office in Plano (Collin County) and a Chinese affiliate at Fenggang, Dongguan, Guangdong, selling budget Android/Windows tablets, 2-in-1 convertibles, e-readers/e-Bibles, kids' tablets, internet-radio tablets, and keyboard cases through Walmart, HSN, Amazon and similar channels, and supplying 4G LTE tablets to HUD's ConnectHome broadband program. Azpen is a repeat patent-defendant — it was named in Personal Audio v. Acer et al. (E.D. Tex. 2014) and Map Tool Inc. v. Azpen Innovation (N.D. Cal. 2013) — which is characteristic of small importers/distributors in Cedar Lane's target set.

The accused technology. Cedar Lane's complaints in this campaign do not name products in the body; they incorporate by reference "Exemplary Defendant Products" charts filed as exhibits. The Marshall Division complaint surfaced through RPX Insight, captioned in the Marshall Division and pleading Counts for the '105 and '774 patents with Exhibits 5 and 6 as the corresponding claim charts, alleges direct infringement by making/using/selling/importing the charted products, plus induced infringement via product literature and website materials instructing end users, and adds the boilerplate theory that the defendant's own employees "internally test and use" the devices. I could not retrieve the Azpen-specific claim charts, so the exact model list is unverified; based on Azpen's product line and Cedar Lane's parallel pleadings, the accused devices are almost certainly its Android tablets/e-readers (e.g., A-series and G-series tablets), with the '105 theory resting on the built-in Android/Mopria mobile-printing stack (in Cedar Lane v. HTC, the chart relied on the phone "automatically discover[ing] printers nearby that are certified for mobile printing by the Mopria Alliance") and the '790/'242 theory resting on the image-sensor-to-processor camera pipeline. That OS-feature framing — suing the device seller for functionality supplied by the platform — is the obvious vulnerability in the theory, though I found no motion practice or ruling in this case addressing it.

Patents asserted and procedural posture. Four patents, all asserted in this single 2021 complaint (per the IPWatchdog March 17, 2021 roundup and the KOTRA dispute record):

Patent	Title	Technical sketch
6,972,790 (iss. 12/6/2005; app. filed 12/21/2000)	Host interface for imaging arrays	FIFO/addressable-memory interface on the image-sensor die that buffers sensor-rate pixel data and interrupts the host processor so the processor can pull data at its own rate — decoupling CMOS sensor timing from commercial microprocessor interfaces. Inventor Mark Suska.
8,537,242 (iss. 9/17/2013; app. filed 10/27/2005)	Host interface for imaging arrays	Divisional of the '790, claiming the same FIFO-buffer/interrupt scheme as a method (receiving image data, storing in FIFO, comparing counter to limit, generating interrupt).
6,972,774	Image processing system for inserting plurality of images into composite area, and medium	Software/method for compositing multiple images into a defined composite area — the collage/panorama-style feature Cedar Lane also asserted against Corel's Roxio Panorama Assistant.
10,346,105 (iss. 7/9/2019; app. filed 5/25/2018)	Method and system for communicating between a remote printer and a server	Claim 1 covers a computing device receiving, from a remote printer over a network, data identifying printer characteristics — i.e., driverless/cloud mobile print discovery and configuration.

The case was filed March 8, 2021 in the Eastern District of Texas; the "2:" docket prefix places it in the Marshall Division, then presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap (I have not independently verified the individual assignment for this docket, and given the case's five-week life I found no substantive order, claim-construction proceeding, or transfer ruling). Venue was not really a TC Heartland fight: Azpen's own Plano/Collin County, Texas presence sits inside the Eastern District, so § 1400(b)'s residence prong was satisfied on the face of the pleadings — the Marshall filing was a divisional/forum preference rather than a jurisdiction stretch. The case terminated April 13, 2021, five weeks after filing, with Patexia recording the disposition as "Dismissed – Voluntarily." No answer, motion to dismiss, or IPR appears in the sources I could access, and the specific Rule 41 subsection and whether dismissal was with or without prejudice are not verifiable from those sources (in parallel Cedar Lane cases, e.g. Cedar Lane v. Video Network Security, the firm used Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals without prejudice). Any license or settlement is non-public.

Why it is notable. Three reasons. (1) It is a textbook datapoint on NPE assertion economics: a portfolio assembled from IV-lineage patents, a Canadian shell plaintiff, a volume-filer law firm, ultra-short case life, and a >96% settlement rate — E.D. Tex. in 2021 still carried cachet for speed and plaintiff-friendly procedure even as W.D. Tex. (Judge Albright) had absorbed much of the patent docket after TC Heartland, and the Marshall/Sherman-division filing against a Plano defendant shows how a Texas-resident importer remained easy to sue at home. (2) It illustrates how expiry shaped settlement leverage: the '790/'242 family carries an estimated term expiry around August 1, 2023 (Patsnap), leaving roughly 2.4 years of forward damages plus a six-year lookback when the suit was filed — a short exposure window that favors a

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case thoroughly, including the docket events and any parallel PTAB proceedings on the asserted patents.

The case was short-lived, so let me pull the actual docket to confirm what documents were filed, and check the PTAB history on the four patents.

Now let me pull the case docket directly and check PTAB proceedings on each asserted patent.

Case chronology and analysis: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Azpen Innovation, No. 2:21-cv-00078 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line up front: this is a 36-day, pleadings-only case. The complaint was filed 2021-03-08 and the action was voluntarily dismissed and terminated 2021-04-13 — before any answer, motion practice, scheduling order, Markman proceeding, or discovery of any kind. There is essentially no "litigation history" to narrate in the conventional sense; the analytically meaningful content lies in why the case ended that fast, which is best understood against Cedar Lane's high-volume licensing campaign and the fact that the asserted patents were being asserted concurrently against dozens of other defendants.

A sourcing caveat before the chronology: I was not able to pull the PACER docket sheet itself in this session. My account rests on third-party docket aggregators (Patexia, RPX Insight, IPWatchdog's filing roundup, Stanford NPE Litigation Database/Unified Patents) and on the complaint text itself, which is available in full via RPX Insight. Where I could not verify something — notably docket entry numbers for the dismissal and any PTAB activity — I say so rather than reconstructing it.

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2021-03-08)

Cedar Lane filed suit on 2021-03-08 in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, captioned Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Azpen Innovation, No. 2:21-cv-00078. The cause of action was 35 U.S.C. § 271 patent infringement, with a Rule 38(b) jury demand on all triable issues.

Asserted patents (four):

Patent	Count in complaint	Claim chart exhibit
U.S. Pat. No. 10,346,105 ("the '105 patent")	Count 1	Ex. 5
U.S. Pat. No. 6,972,774 ("the '774 patent")	Count 2	Ex. 6
U.S. Pat. No. 6,972,790 ("the '790 patent")	Count 3	Ex. 7
U.S. Pat. No. 8,537,242 ("the '242 patent")	Count 4	Ex. 8

Substance of the pleading. The complaint is a template-style NPE complaint. Each count pleads (i) direct infringement by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing "Exemplary Defendant Products," literally or under the doctrine of equivalents; (ii) actual knowledge of infringement arising from service of the complaint together with the claim charts; (iii) induced infringement under § 271(b) via product literature and website materials directing end users; and (iv) a request for damages adequate to compensate. Notably, the complaint also alleged direct infringement through Azpen's own internal testing and use of the accused products by its employees — a pleading device Cedar Lane used to capture otherwise-extraterritorial manufacturing. The prayer sought declarations of validity and enforceability of all four patents, damages, and a jury trial. Claim charts were incorporated by reference in lieu of element-by-element narrative pleading.

Defendant. Azpen Innovation is a Plano, Texas-based tablet, IoT and wireless-accessory maker (formed 2010), with affiliated operations in Dongguan, Guangdong, China. Azpen is a repeat patent defendant: it was among the defendants in Personal Audio, LLC v. Acer, Inc., et al., No. 1:14-cv-00008-RC (E.D. Tex.), and was later sued by Map Tool Inc. in the Northern District of California. Cedar Lane's complaint in the instant case does not appear to have been served to the point of triggering a responsive deadline, or if it was, no responsive pleading was ever filed.

Answer / counterclaims: none. No answer, Rule 12 motion, or counterclaim for declaratory judgment of invalidity or non-infringement appears in the record. This is significant — Azpen did not litigate, and Cedar Lane therefore never had to defend claim scope or validity against this particular defendant.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance — none

There was no motion to dismiss, no § 1406/§ 1404 transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, no summary judgment motion, and no motion for fees or sanctions. The case did not survive long enough for any of these. Cedar Lane's standing was not challenged; as an assignee NPE it pleaded ownership of all substantial rights in the asserted patents, including the right to recover past damages.

The absence of a stay motion is worth flagging given the period: by March 2021, E.D. Tex. defendants routinely moved to stay pending IPR, and Judge Gilstrap's practice on stay motions was well developed. That no such motion was filed is consistent with Azpen never having engaged with the merits.

3. Claim construction (Markman) — did not occur

No scheduling order, no Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, no Markman briefing, no Markman hearing, and no claim construction order. The case terminated roughly five weeks after filing, far short of the ~9–12 month horizon at which E.D. Tex. Markman proceedings ordinarily mature.

There is also no claim construction in this case to borrow from related litigation: unlike, for example, the Personal Audio line of cases (where prior constructions from Personal Audio v. Apple were recycled across later suits), the four Cedar Lane patents asserted here were not, so far as the record shows, the subject of a construction order in the Azpen action.

4. Discovery — none of significance

No Rule 26(f) conference, no discovery plan, no initial disclosures, no interrogatories, no document production, no depositions, and no expert reports. No protective order appears to have been entered. There were therefore no discovery disputes, no spoliation issues, and no strategic discovery milestones to report. Cedar Lane's damages theory — which would have required Azpen sales and unit data — was never tested.

5. Trial, verdict, and post-trial motions — none

No trial date was set, no jury was empaneled, and there was no verdict. Consequently there were no post-trial motions (JMOL, new trial, attorney's fees under § 285), and no judgment on the merits.

6. Final disposition: voluntary dismissal (2021-04-13)

Cedar Lane voluntarily dismissed the action. The case was terminated on 2021-04-13, roughly 36 days after filing. Docket aggregators record the disposition as "Dismissed – Voluntarily"; the Korean IP Protection Agency's dispute database (drawing on the same docket) records the first-instance outcome as 소취하 — voluntary withdrawal/dismissal.

I was not able to verify from a primary source whether the dismissal was entered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) by notice (which would be without prejudice as a matter of right, since no answer or motion for summary judgment had been served) or by Rule 41(a)(2) order, nor whether it was with or without prejudice, and I could not confirm the docket entry number. Given that no answer appears of record, a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) unilateral notice without prejudice is the mechanically available route, but this should be confirmed against the PACER docket before being relied on. There was no appeal, and no consent judgment or publicly filed settlement agreement.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings

I did not identify any IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding petitioned by Azpen (or anyone else) challenging the '105, '774, '790, or '242 patents that is tied to this case, and I could not run that verification to completion. I am therefore not in a position to state whether such proceedings exist. What can be said with confidence is structural rather than docket-specific:

No stay posture ever arose. Because the case ended in 36 days, any IPR petition that might have been contemplated by Azpen would have been moot before institution. The typical NPE-defendant playbook — file IPR, move to stay, leverage institution decision into a better settlement — never got off the ground here.
The patents were widely asserted elsewhere. Cedar Lane's campaign over the 2019–2023 period spanned well over a hundred district court actions (the Stanford NPE database and Patsnap dockets both list dozens of Cedar Lane complaints across W.D. Tex., D. Del., D.N.J., E.D.N.Y. and others). Where a patent is asserted against many defendants, invalidity challenges tend to be brought by the deepest-pocketed defendants in separate cases, and any PTAB outcome on a Cedar Lane patent would have had collateral estoppel-adjacent value across the campaign. Whether such proceedings touched these four specific patents is a question I could not answer here and should be checked directly against PTAB docket search (PTAB E2E / Docket Navigator) for the four patent numbers.

8. Analytical significance

This case's value is as a data point about Cedar Lane's licensing model, not as a merits dispute. Three observations:

Speed as the product. A 36-day lifespan with zero substantive filings is the signature of a "license-then-dismiss" outcome. IAM's 2023 profile of Cedar Lane quoted its president, Greg Benoit, describing a 96% settlement rate among terminated cases; the Azpen matter fits that pattern precisely — file, serve (or threaten), extract a paid license, dismiss, move on.
Concurrent filing wave. This complaint was filed into a burst of Cedar Lane filings in the same window: Anker Innovations (6:21-cv-00195, 2021-03-02), Leviton (1:21-cv-00363, 2021-03-11), AT&T and NVIDIA (both 2021-03-12), iRobot (2021-03-17), TiVo (2021-03-18), Belkin, Neato, Ecovacs (2021-03-18/19), Vizio, Bose, Ledvance, E-Sceptre (2021-03-21/22), Sonos (2021-03-25). IPWatchdog's 2021-03-17 roundup flagged the same-week filing spike and listed this case among it. Azpen was one small target in a coordinated wave, and its case resolved faster than most — among the fastest in the group.
Forum and counsel. Cedar Lane's counsel of record across the campaign was Isaac Phillip Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC), who appears on the contemporaneous Cedar Lane dockets I reviewed. The E.D. Tex. Marshall Division filing is mildly notable given that Cedar Lane's highest-volume venue at the time was Judge Alan Albright's W.D. Tex. docket; the E.D. Tex. choice here likely reflects nothing more than Azpen's Plano, Texas residence and the absence of any real venue fight in a case designed to settle.

Net assessment: Cedar Lane v. Azpen produced no legal ruling of any kind. It is a null merits outcome — a complaint filed and withdrawn within five weeks, with an inference of prompt settlement or license that the public record supports only circumstantially (Cedar Lane's documented settlement rate and the timing), not by any filed settlement document.

Sources: Complaint text via RPX Insight litigation document 14151782; Patexia Research case summary (id. 145958); IPWatchdog Patent Filings Roundup, 2021-03-17; Stanford NPE Litigation Database (Cedar Lane party page); KOTRA/Korean IP Protection Agency dispute record (case 2:21-cv-00078); Patsnap Eureka Cedar Lane litigation table; IAM Media, "Examining the practice of Cedar Lane Technologies – America's top-filing NPE," 2023-03-20; Personal Audio, LLC v. Google, Inc. amended complaint (N.D. Cal./E.D. Tex. related-case recitals) for Azpen's prior defendant history.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Rabicoff Law
- Isaac Phillip Rabicoff · lead counsel

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

The complaint's signature block identifies Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC. Let me confirm docket appearances and whether local counsel was added.

Let me pull the docket sheet and the full complaint signature blocks.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Bottom line

The record I could access shows one attorney of record: Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, who signed the complaint and is the sole counsel identified. Because the case was dismissed on April 13, 2021 — roughly five weeks after filing and (per the record) before any defendant response — the appearance list is unusually thin, and I was not able to retrieve the actual PACER docket sheet for 2:21-cv-00078 to confirm whether any additional appearance (e.g., local counsel or a pro hac vice motion) was entered in that window. That limitation is flagged below.

1. Isaac Phillip Rabicoff — Lead counsel (and only identified counsel of record)

Field	Detail
Role	Lead / sole signing counsel for Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
Firm	Rabicoff Law LLC (his own firm; he is the named principal)
Office location as listed on this complaint	5680 King Centre Dr., Suite 645, Alexandria, VA 22315 — isaac@rabilaw.com, (773) 669-4590
Later/current firm address	Chicago, IL (first 73 W. Monroe St., Chicago, IL 60603; now 4311 N. Ravenswood Ave., Suite 315, Chicago, IL 60613, per his appearances in Cedar Lane's S.D.N.Y. and E.D. Tex. suits)

Source for the signature block: the complaint in this action, dated March 8, 2021, captioned in the Marshall Division of E.D. Tex., closes with:

"/s/ Isaac Rabicoff — Isaac Rabicoff — Rabicoff Law LLC — 5680 King Centre Dr, Suite 645 — Alexandria, VA 22315 — 7736694590 — isaac@rabilaw.com — Counsel for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc."

(Complaint, Cedar Lane Techs. v. Azpen Innovation, No. 2:21-cv-00078 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2021), via RPX Insight, doc. 14151782)

Relevant patent-litigation experience. Rabicoff is a registered patent attorney and high-volume patent plaintiff's lawyer who served as Cedar Lane's near-exclusive national counsel in its licensing/enforcement campaign. Cedar Lane is a Canadian-domiciled, acquired-patent assertion entity, and Rabicoff filed and prosecuted well over a hundred of its suits across E.D. Tex., W.D. Tex., D. Del., D.N.J., S.D.N.Y., E.D.N.Y., D. Colo., W.D. Wis. and elsewhere — typically followed by early Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissals or consent judgments. Concrete examples tied to this same docketing campaign:

Cedar Lane's earlier E.D. Tex.-adjacent and N.D. Ill. filings in 2019–2020, where he appeared with a "Pro Hac Vice admission to be filed" notation (e.g., the '889-patent suit, dated Nov. 29, 2019) — RPX Insight, doc. 13602304.
Later Cedar Lane E.D. Tex. matters in the same Marshall docket, e.g., Cedar Lane Techs. v. Neosapience, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00823 (E.D. Tex.), where he filed the complaint, an AO 120 form, and a notice of attorney appearance on the filing date — CourtListener docket 71155935.
S.D.N.Y. Cedar Lane filings (e.g., v. TIAA-CREF, No. 1:25-cv-09538; v. Bank of New York Mellon, No. 1:25-cv-09488), where he moves pro hac vice as the sole Cedar Lane attorney — Justia docket, PACER Monitor.
CourtListener party records in Cedar Lane's E.D. Tex. cases list him as "ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED" with the Chicago firm address (e.g., No. 2:26-cv-00042; No. 2:25-cv-00815).

2. Local counsel / additional appearances

None identified. The complaint bears a single signature, and no second attorney or local firm appears in the materials I could retrieve. E.D. Tex. Local Rule AT-2 ordinarily requires a locally admitted attorney to sponsor pro hac vice admission, but in this case the docket closed so quickly (terminated April 13, 2021) that the record I can see reflects no such entry, and in Cedar Lane's other E.D. Tex. suits Rabicoff likewise appears on his own.
Caveat / not verified: I could not open the PACER docket for 2:21-cv-00078 directly (paywalled), and the aggregator summary page for this case shows an empty "Plaintiff Attorneys" field (Patexia case summary). So I cannot affirmatively rule out an appearance filed between March 8 and April 13, 2021. If a firm-specific confirmation matters (e.g., for a conflicts check), the docket sheet in 2:21-cv-00078 should be pulled from PACER.

3. In-house counsel

None. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a non-practicing entity with no in-house litigation counsel on the record; all identified representation is through Rabicoff Law LLC.

4. Defendant-side note (for completeness)

No defense counsel of record is confirmed either — Azpen never answered, and the case ended by voluntary dismissal. (Azpen's registered agent/CEO is Qimin "Jim" Hu in Plano, TX.)

Confidence and sourcing notes

High confidence: Rabicoff as plaintiff's counsel of record; his firm, email, and 2021 Alexandria, VA address (taken verbatim from the filed complaint).
Medium confidence: that he was the only attorney appearing in this specific case — inferred from the single-signature complaint, the five-week pre-answer life of the case, and the absence of any other attorney in accessible indexes; not confirmed against the full PACER docket.
Not established: any pro hac vice order, designation of local counsel, or sealed appearance in this case. I found no evidence of any, and I have not invented any.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

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

Let me check the docket sheet and RECAP records to see whether any defense counsel actually appeared.

Let me pull the case's document list and try the federal docket aggregators directly.

Bottom line

I could not identify any counsel of record for Azpen Innovation in this case. On the record available, no attorney ever entered an appearance for Azpen before the case was voluntarily dismissed on April 13, 2021 — roughly five weeks after filing and, based on the docket metadata, before any answer, Rule 12 motion, or corporate disclosure statement was filed. I want to be explicit about the limits of that conclusion below.

What the record shows

Plaintiff's side (for contrast and docket anchoring):

Isaac Rabicoff — Rabicoff Law LLC, Alexandria, VA (5680 King Centre Dr., Suite 645) — sole signatory on the March 8, 2021 complaint, per the complaint's signature block (RPX litigation document 14151782). Rabicoff was Cedar Lane's near-exclusive outside counsel across its multi-hundred-case assertion campaign; he is not defense counsel here.

Defendant's side:

No appearance, answer, extension application, or disclosure statement by Azpen counsel is reflected in the case metadata. Patexia's case summary for 2:21-cv-00078 lists both a "Plaintiff Attorneys" and a "Defendant Attorneys" field, and the Defendant Attorneys field is empty (Patexia case 145958). That is consistent with a case that closed before any defense appearance.
The termination pattern matches Cedar Lane's standard "file-and-dismiss" cadence in early 2021 — compare Cedar Lane v. AT&T, No. 6:21-cv-00251 (W.D. Tex.), filed March 2021 and dismissed within a week, and Cedar Lane v. Anker Innovations, No. 6:21-cv-00195, where the voluntary dismissal likewise preceded any defense filing. In those cases Cedar Lane typically dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before service or before a response was due, which moots the need for defense counsel.

Important caveats — what I could not verify

The PACER docket sheet itself was not retrievable in this research session (paywalled; the case did not surface on CourtListener/RECAP or DocketBird through the searches available to me). My conclusion rests on docket-derived metadata (Patexia, IPWatchdog's filing roundup, RPX) rather than a line-by-line read of the E.D. Tex. docket. A PACER pull of the full docket — likely only 4–8 entries — is the definitive check, and I'd recommend it before this section is treated as final.
Filings were not sealed in any way I could detect; the issue is simply that no defense filing appears to exist.
I did not locate any Law360 or Reuters coverage of this specific case, which is unsurprising for a 36-day NPE suit against a small Plano, Texas tablet maker.

Adjacent context (not counsel of record here)

Azpen Innovation, Inc. is a Plano, TX tablet/IoT device company; its registered agent for service in prior suits was Qimin Hu (6505 Winchester Drive, Suite 300, Plano, TX 75024) — a corporate officer, not an attorney of record (Personal Audio v. Acer complaint). Azpen was a frequent infringement defendant in E.D. Tex. in 2014–2016 (Personal Audio v. Acer, No. 1:14-cv-00008; Red Anvil v. Azpen, No. 2:15-cv-00960; Morpho Komodo v. Azpen, No. 2:15-cv-01096, where a clerk's entry of default was entered; Codec Technologies v. Azpen, No. 2:16-cv-00303). Counsel who represented Azpen in those matters would be the natural candidates had it appeared here — but I have not verified the identity of any such attorney, and I will not name one without a docket citation. Morpho Komodo's default in particular suggests Azpen did not consistently retain patent defense counsel in this period, which supports the "no appearance" reading of this docket.

Recommendation: confirm with a direct PACER docket pull for 2:21-cv-00078 and, if the docket is longer than expected, a Docket Navigator or Lex Machina counsel report keyed to the case number.

Record id: 10346105-2-21-cv-00078 · edit in Admin