Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Bank of America Corporation

I'll research this case and the underlying patent across multiple sources.

Case overview — Cedar Lane Techs. v. Bank of America Corp., No. 2:25-cv-01225 (E.D. Tex.)

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian non-practicing entity — a British Columbia corporation incorporated in April 2019, listing its principal place of business at 471/560 Baker St., Nelson, BC, with a single director, Gregory Benoit, who also runs a patent-monetization consultancy (Patent Armory) (The Logic; complaint text). It makes and sells nothing; it acquires patent portfolios — much of its inventory traces to Intellectual Ventures — and monetizes them through high-volume, short-life assertions (Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies it as a non-practicing entity: npe.law.stanford.edu/case/309157). It was, by one count, the single most prolific patent plaintiff in the U.S. in 2021, with ~200 suits by 2023 and roughly 80% resolving by settlement in ~90 days (KIPO NPE report; The Logic). Its litigation counsel here and across the campaign is Isaac P. Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC. Bank of America Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., and one of the largest U.S. bank holding companies; its institutional brokerage and electronic-trading operations run through BofA Securities/Merrill Lynch. BofA was represented by Dustin James Edwards and William Mitchell Logan of Winston & Strawn LLP (PacerMonitor docket; Patsnap's counsel table lists "Winston & Strawn, LLP").

The patent and the accused technology. The sole patent-in-suit is U.S. 8,577,782 B2, Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants — filed April 8, 2010, issued November 5, 2013, inventor Christopher R. Petruzzi, Art Unit 3685, CPC G06Q 40/04, with a nominal term running to about April 2030 (patent record). In one line: it claims a method of tagging a trading counterparty with a persistent but non-identifying identifier, pulling that identifier's trade history, generating a "profile" of whether that counterparty's trades would be profitable, and having a liquidity provider make a conditional buy/sell offer only to that counterparty, processed through an exchange for items with a bid/offer spread (independent claim 1). In market-structure terms, it is aimed at the practice of segmenting order flow by counterparty profitability — differentiating "naive" from "toxic" flow — inside otherwise anonymous venues such as ATSs/dark pools, RFQ protocols, and last-look pricing. As in every other complaint in this campaign, the BofA complaint is a five-page form pleading that identifies the accused instrumentalities only as "Exemplary Defendant Products" defined by reference to Exhibit 2 claim charts; those charts are not reflected in the public docket, so no specific Bank of America platform is publicly named (complaint analysis, 2:25-cv-01225). Cedar Lane alleged direct infringement (including internal employee testing) and induced infringement from the date of service, sought § 284 damages plus interest and a § 285 exceptional-case finding, and demanded a jury.

Procedural posture and why it matters. Filed December 17, 2025 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas, the case was assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap with referral to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne — the busiest patent patent docket in the country, and a venue Cedar Lane pleaded under § 1400(b) on the theory that BofA "maintains an established place of business" in the district and committed infringing acts there. Service issued December 29, 2025; BofA obtained two agreed extensions of its answer date (to February 18, then March 5, 2026) and filed only a Rule 7.1 disclosure — no motion to dismiss, no § 1404/§ 1406 venue challenge, no IPR. The parties filed a joint motion to stay all deadlines and notice of settlement on March 2, 2026 (Dkt. 15), which Magistrate Judge Payne granted March 4 (Dkt. 16); a joint Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation followed March 5 (Dkt. 17), and Judge Gilstrap dismissed all claims with prejudice, each side bearing its own costs and fees (Dkt. 18, signed March 11, 2026; AO 120 notice at Dkt. 19, with termination recorded March 12). Total life: 85 days, with no merits ruling of any kind. What makes the case notable is less BofA than the campaign around it: this is a second-generation Cedar Lane program. Its 2019–2023 wave asserted aging IV-origin hardware and imaging patents (e.g., 6,972,790; 6,473,527) against camera, printer, smart-home and media companies; the '782 campaign, launched in February 2025, pivoted to financial-services business methods and has produced roughly a dozen-plus one-patent

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and patent background.

Docket captured. Now let me check for parallel PTAB proceedings on the '782 patent and the broader Cedar Lane campaign.

Now let me check for PTAB challenges to the '782 patent and any substantive rulings in the broader campaign.

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Bank of America Corp., No. 2:25-cv-01225 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: This was an 85-day, single-patent assertion that never reached an answer, never produced a motion of substance, and ended in a negotiated exit — a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), entered 2026‑03‑12, with each side bearing its own costs and fees. There is no claim construction, no discovery, no trial, no verdict, and no PTAB proceeding on the ’782 patent that I could locate. The case has no precedential value; its significance is purely as one data point in Cedar Lane's 2025–26 FinTech assertion wave.

Docket-based chronology (19 total entries)

Sources: PACER docket via PACERMonitor, https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/61891392/Cedar_Lane_Technologies_Inc_v_Bank_of_America_Corporation; DocketAlarm mirror, https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--25-cv-01225/Cedar_Lane_Technologies_Inc._v._Bank_of_America_Corporation/; dismissal text reproduced verbatim in PatSnap's case record, https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/cedar-lane-technologies-v-bank-of-america-trading-patent-case-ends-in-dismissal-patsnap-eureka/.

Pleadings — complaint only; no answer, no counterclaims

The complaint (Dkt. 1, 5 pp.) is the boilerplate Rabicoff Law template used across the campaign: Cedar Lane (a Canadian corporation, Nelson, BC) pleads assignee status in U.S. Patent No. 8,577,782, "Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants" (issued 2013‑11‑05; application filed 2010‑04‑08; est. expiry 2030‑04‑08), and alleges direct infringement, infringement by internal testing/use, and induced infringement, with actual knowledge dated to service of the complaint plus the claim charts. Infringement theories rest entirely on Exhibit 2 claim charts; the complaint body does not name accused products or identify asserted claims, referring instead to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and "Exemplary ’782 Patent Claims." Relief sought: declaratory judgments of validity/enforceability and infringement, damages under § 284 with interest, and an exceptional-case finding under § 285. (Compl. analysis: https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:25-cv-01225/cedar-lane-tech-inc-v-bank-of-america-corp; patent data: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/8577782.)

Critically, BofA never answered. It obtained two unopposed 30-day extensions and stipulated to dismissal on the very day its second extended answer deadline ran. Consequently no counterclaims for declaratory judgment of invalidity or non-infringement were ever pleaded, and no § 101 or § 112 defenses were formally joined. The Patsnap record's "validity challenges" field is empty, consistent with that.

Pre-trial motions of substance — none

• No motion to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(3)/(6) or § 101) was filed. This is notable given that the ’782 patent claims a financial-trading method — precisely the profile that invites Alice § 101 challenges (the same reasoning that appears to have driven quick exits in Cedar Lane's parallel SDNY cases).
• No motion to transfer under § 1404(a). BofA (Delaware corporation, Charlotte HQ) never challenged Judge Gilstrap's venue or the "established place of business" allegation.
• No motion to stay pending IPR — because no IPR petition on the ’782 patent existed to point to.
• No summary judgment motion; the case ended before the Rule 26(f) conference, so no scheduling order, no Markman order, no discovery.
• The only contested-adjacent filings were the two unopposed extension applications (Dkts. 10, 12) — procedural, not substantive.

Claim construction (Markman) — not reached

No claim construction proceedings, no joint claim construction statement, no Markman hearing, no order. The case was dismissed roughly three weeks before the first scheduling conference (which itself would only have set a Markman date). Any construction positions Cedar Lane took in this case exist only implicitly in Exhibit 2's claim charts.

Discovery milestones — none

No Rule 26(f) conference, no scheduling order, no protective order, no infringement or invalidity contentions, no document production, no depositions. The 85-day lifespan and the absence of a scheduling order mean there are no discovery milestones with strategic significance to report. The strategic significance lies in the gap itself: the settlement was reached without Cedar Lane incurring any contention or expert costs beyond the complaint, and without BofA having to serve invalidity contentions.

Trial, verdict, post-trial motions — none

No trial setting, no trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motions, and no fee motion. Fees were affirmatively resolved by the dismissal order's "each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees" language — so neither side sought § 285 fees, and there is no fee award or exceptional-case finding.

Final disposition and present posture

Dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)), order signed 2026‑03‑11, entered 2026‑03‑12; terminated per the docket 2026‑03‑12. The dismissal is with prejudice as to Cedar Lane's claims against BofA, extinguishing re-assertion of the ’782 patent against this defendant; costs and fees are borne separately. No appeal was taken, and none could meaningfully be — a stipulated dismissal with prejudice leaves no adverse judgment to review. The case is closed; there is no present posture to monitor.

One caveat on the settlement's terms: the docket establishes only that the parties reported the case "resolved" (Dkt. 15) and stipulated to dismissal. No license, payment, or royalty term is disclosed in any public record I found. Given the "each bears its own fees" structure and the absence of a consent judgment, this is consistent with a paid license or bare covenant not to sue, but the specific consideration is unsourced and should not be assumed.

Parallel PTAB proceedings on the ’782 patent — none identified

I found no IPR or PGR petition challenging U.S. 8,577,782 in any PTAB-related source (RPX PTAB tracker, Patexia, PTAB docket reporting) covering the relevant window. Unlike the dense IPR activity in other FinTech-patent campaigns, BofA and its co-defendants apparently did not go to the Board on this patent — so the PTAB played zero role in this litigation's timing or outcome. There was accordingly no stay motion, no Fintiv dispute, and no § 315(b) one-year bar running against BofA at dismissal.

For context on Cedar Lane's PTAB exposure generally (not this patent): Unified Patents challenged Cedar Lane's U.S. 7,173,177 in IPR2020-00006, and the Board's 2021‑02‑12 final written decision held the asserted independent claim unpatentable (https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2021/2/12/cedar-lane-patent-held-unpatentable). That decision concerns a different patent and does not affect the ’782's validity.

Campaign context (why the outcome looks the way it does)

The BofA suit was filed 2025‑12‑17 as part of a coordinated burst on the ’782 patent against financial-services defendants:

• Same-day E.D. Tex. filing: Cedar Lane v. HSBC Holdings plc, No. 2:25-cv-01226 (also before Judge Gilstrap).
• Same-day N.D. Ill. filings: Nos. 1:25-cv-15327 (Prosperum Securities) and 1:25-cv-15329 (Uhlmann Price Securities).
• Earlier filings: Cedar Lane v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corp., No. 1:25-cv-09488 (S.D.N.Y., filed 2025‑11‑13) — dismissed with prejudice with each side bearing its own fees (≈78 days); Cedar Lane v. Percheron, S.D.N.Y. (filed 2025‑11‑14; closed 2026‑02‑03, without prejudice); Cedar Lane v. Horace Mann Educators (complaint dated 2025‑11‑25); Cedar Lane v. Charles Schwab Corp., No. 2:25-cv-00233 (E.D. Tex., filed 2025‑02‑24, terminated 2025‑06‑30).
• Later re-filings: a September 2026 D. Del. wave on the same patent (Nos. 1:26-cv-01178, 01179, 01260, 01261), and S.D.N.Y./E.D.N.Y. filings in Aug–Sep 2026.

The pattern — short-lived suits, extensions, with-prejudice dismissals with no fee-shifting

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

Confirmed the docket exists. Now let me verify the plaintiff's full appearance list and counsel details.

Let me pull the full docket sheet to confirm every plaintiff-side appearance.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Bank of America Corp., No. 2:25-cv-01225 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: Only one attorney appeared for the plaintiff. Cedar Lane was represented solely by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, who signed the complaint, the joint motion to stay, and the joint stipulation of dismissal. There is no local counsel, no co-counsel, no pro hac vice sponsor, and no in-house appearance on the docket for plaintiff.

Counsel table

Supporting docket detail

• No additional plaintiff appearances. The docket shows no NOTICE of Attorney Appearance other than for defendant's counsel. The only appearance filings are Dkt. 8 (William Mitchell Logan, Winston & Strawn, for Bank of America).
• No pro hac vice motion was filed by plaintiff — consistent with Rabicoff's direct admission to the Eastern District of Texas bar (listed among his admissions on his firm bio). This is materially different from his S.D.N.Y./E.D.N.Y. Cedar Lane filings, where he routinely files a PHV motion (e.g., Cedar Lane v. TIAA-CREF, No. 1:25-cv-09538 (S.D.N.Y.), Dkt. 6).
• No in-house counsel appeared. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian NPE; the docket identifies no in-house or corporate counsel entering an appearance.
• Case posture: served 12/29/2025; two unopposed extensions of the answer date (Dkts. 10–13); joint notice of settlement and stay (Dkt. 15) granted 3/4/2026 (Dkt. 16); stipulated dismissal with prejudice (Dkt. 17); dismissal order signed by Judge Gilstrap 3/11/2026 and entered 3/12/2026 (Dkt. 18), with AO 120 form filed the same day (Dkt. 19).

Relevant background on the lead attorney (well sourced)

• Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Blackmagic Design Inc., No. 20-cv-01302-VC (N.D. Cal.) — Judge Chhabria imposed a $1,000 Rule 11 sanction on Rabicoff and referred him to the N.D. Cal. Standing Committee on Professional Conduct, finding he "repeatedly flouted Rule 15," advanced "objectively frivolous and misleading arguments," and made misleading statements about the procedural history. The court also noted he had filed 49 patent cases in that district without seeking admission in 29 of them. Order at Dkt. 61 (Nov. 19, 2020), available at govinfo.gov (USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01302).
• Virginia State Bar, VSB Docket No. 22-042-125771 — Public Reprimand Without Terms (Dec. 8, 2022, Fourth District, Section II Subcommittee), based on the Blackmagic conduct (Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct 3.1, 3.3, 8.4(c)–(d)). He paid $9,193 in retroactive N.D. Cal. PHV fees in February 2022.

Both items are matters of public record and are relevant to any assessment of plaintiff-side counsel in this campaign; they are not allegations in the BofA case itself, and I found no sanctions or misconduct findings specific to No. 2:25-cv-01225.

Sourcing and caveats

• Counsel identification is drawn from PACER-derived docket aggregators — PacerMonitor (case 61891392), RPX Empower (litigation txedce-242504), Patsnap Litigation Data, and a Docket Update/GAEFlex mirror of the E.D. Tex. docket — not from a direct PACER pull by me. All four independently report Rabicoff / Rabicoff Law LLC as plaintiff's sole counsel, and the docket entries show him as the filer of record on Dkts. 1, 15, and 17.
• Nothing on the plaintiff's side is sealed. The docket reflects no sealed or ex parte filings; the defendant-side filings (Rule 7.1 disclosure, appearances, extension applications) are public. The only gaps are the boilerplate "unopposed application for extension" text entries.
• I did not locate a firm website page or Law360/Reuters item specifically naming Rabicoff in this case; the case-specific attribution rests on the docket aggregators and docket-entry filer attributions above. Firm location details come from his firm bio (rabilaw.com), USPTO Patent Bar Register entry (Reg. No. 74,147), and PTAB mandatory notices listing the Chicago address.
• Not to be overlooked: Rabicoff Law's Kenneth Matuszewski (Reg. No. 74,791) is frequently listed as backup counsel in Rabicoff Law PTAB matters, but he did not appear in this case. Do not list him as counsel here.
• For cross-reference only, defendant Bank of America appeared through Dustin James Edwards and William Mitchell Logan of Winston & Strawn LLP (Dkts. 8, 10, 12) — one aggregator renders the firm as "Winston Taylor LLP," which appears to be a transcription error for Winston & Strawn.

Placement in the campaign

This case is one of roughly 120 Cedar Lane filings on record, most of them 2025–2026 suits against broker-dealers and financial institutions on the same US 8,577,782 ("Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants") patent — e.g., the same-day companion Cedar Lane v. HSBC Holdings plc, No. 2:25-cv-01226 (E.D. Tex.), and the 1/22/2026 wave against Toronto-Dominion Bank, Raymond James, and LaSalle St. Securities. Nearly all terminate within ~1–6 months by voluntary dismissal or settlement, with Rabicoff as the sole signing attorney — a pattern that makes him effectively the single point of contact for plaintiff-side discovery and any future licensing discussions.

I'll search for docket and counsel information on this case.

Now let me dig into the specific attorneys and their firms.

Let me confirm the docket appearances and check for any additional counsel.

Counsel of record for Bank of America Corporation

Both defendant-side appearances are from Winston & Strawn LLP (Houston). No other attorney — no in-house counsel, no separate Marshall/Tyler local-counsel firm, and no pro hac vice designees — appears on the docket for BofA in this case.

Docket support

• Dkt. 7 (Jan. 12, 2026) — "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Dustin James Edwards on behalf of Bank of America Corporation."
• Dkt. 8 (Jan. 12, 2026) — "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by William Mitchell Logan on behalf of Bank of America Corporation."
• Dkt. 9 (Jan. 12, 2026) — Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure statement for BofA.
• Dkts. 10 & 12 (Jan. 12 and Feb. 13, 2026) — unopposed applications for extension of time to answer, both filed by Edwards (answer ultimately pushed from 2/18/2026 to 3/5/2026; service effected 12/29/2025).
• Dkts. 15–19 — joint motion to stay pending settlement (3/2/2026, signed by plaintiff's counsel Isaac Rabicoff), stay order (3/4/2026), joint Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation (3/5/2026), and Judge Gilstrap's dismissal with prejudice order (3/11/2026, entered 3/12/2026). No answer, counterclaim, or IPR petition by BofA ever appeared on this docket.

Sources: PACER Monitor docket sheet for No. 2:25-cv-01225 (https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/61891392/); Docket Alarm docket page for 2:25-cv-01225; RPX Empower litigation record (https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txedce-242504-cedar-lane-technologies-v-bank-of-america); Patsnap Eureka litigation profile for the case; firm bio pages at winston.com/en/professionals/edwards-dustin-j and the Winston Taylor bio PDF; Martindale and State Bar of Texas records for Edwards (Bar No. 24042335); Super Lawyers profile for Logan.

Caveats and limits on sourcing

• I could not retrieve the PDFs of Dkts. 7–8 directly; the names, firms, and appearance dates above come from third-party PACER mirrors (PACER Monitor, Docket Alarm) and are consistent across those sources. Because the case settled before any answer was filed, there is no answer signature block to cross-check for additional attorneys who might have been working the matter behind the appearances.
• Role designations are inferential, not docket-labeled. E.D. Tex. appearance notices do not designate "lead" versus "of counsel." Edwards' role is inferred from his partnership/co-chair status and from his signature on every defendant-side filing; Logan's from his associate-level seniority. Neither attorney filed a pro hac vice motion — both are Texas-admitted and admitted to practice in the E.D. Tex., which is why Winston could appear without local counsel.
• Firm name: PACER Monitor and Super Lawyers now list the firm as "Winston Taylor," reflecting the Winston & Strawn/Taylor combination effective June 1, 2026 (i.e., after this case closed). Patsnap still lists "Winston & Strawn, LLP." For the period of the litigation (Dec. 2025–Mar. 2026) the correct name is Winston & Strawn LLP.
• No evidence of any Bank of America in-house attorney entering an appearance, and no sealed filings or sealed appearances were identified on this docket.