Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Blackmagic Design

I'll research this case to verify the key facts before drafting.

Good initial hits. Let me pull the actual court order and docket, plus verify the patent's provenance.

Let me locate the actual complaint to identify accused products, and check for any IPR activity on the '790 patent.

Case Overview

Parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian entity incorporated in 2019 that operates purely as a patent monetization vehicle — it makes no products and, per Seyfarth Shaw's NPE Showcase series, "primarily asserts patents that were originally owned by Intellectual Ventures entities," filing hundreds of suits and never taking one to trial; the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies it as an "acquired patents" asserter. Blackmagic Design Inc. is the U.S. arm of Australia's Blackmagic Design Pty Ltd (founded 2001 by Grant Petty, headquartered in Melbourne), a genuine operating company in the professional video/broadcast hardware market, best known for DaVinci Resolve software, digital cinema cameras (Cinema Camera, Pocket Cinema Camera, URSA), ATEM live-production switchers, and DeckLink/UltraStudio capture and playback hardware. The asymmetry is the story: a two-person litigation shop asserting a twenty-year-old sensor-interface patent against a well-known hardware vendor. Cedar Lane was represented by Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC), admitted in Illinois and Virginia but not in the Northern District of California, with Kirk Anderson as local counsel.

The patent and accused technology. The case summary identifies U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 B2, "Host interface for imaging arrays," as the patent in suit. It claims an interface — preferably integrated on the same die as a CMOS image sensor — that buffers imaging-array data (a FIFO or addressable memory), asserts a signal (interrupt or bus request) to a host processor when a threshold quantity of data has accumulated, and then clocks data out at a rate set by the processor, thereby decoupling the sensor's fixed video-style timing from the processor's random-access data bus. Independent claims 1 (interface) and 15 (integrated semiconductor imaging circuit) are the representative claims. Inventor Mark Suska of Ottawa; filed December 21, 2000; priority to a January 21, 2000 provisional; issued December 6, 2005; originally assigned to Psion Teklogix Systems Inc. (Mississauga) and later associated with Symagery Microsystems before reaching Cedar Lane; expired around August 1, 2023 including term adjustment. Two caveats: the case metadata lists only the '790, but a Korean IP-protection-agency case summary of No. 3:20-cv-01302 lists both US 6,972,790 and US 8,537,242 (a divisional sharing the same specification), and Cedar Lane's parallel complaints against other camera and imaging defendants routinely paired the two — so the '242 was likely pleaded here as well. Second, I could not retrieve the actual complaint or claim charts through the sources available, so I cannot confirm by name which Blackmagic products were charted. Given the claim scope (on-die sensor-to-processor buffering interface), the natural targets would be Blackmagic's camera bodies and capture hardware, but that is inference from the patent, not a verified docket fact, and I'd flag it as such.

Procedural posture, venue, and significance. Filed February 2020 in the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, before Judge Vince Chhabria, as No. 3:20-cv-01302-VC. Venue was unremarkable on its face — Blackmagic maintains U.S. operations in Fremont, within the district — and N.D. Cal. was at the time a preferred and fast-moving patent venue. What makes the case notable is that it did not turn on patent law at all. Cedar Lane amended its complaint repeatedly without consent or leave, eventually filing a second and then a third amended complaint in violation of Rule 15. On October 1, 2020, Judge Chhabria granted Blackmagic's motion to strike the third amended complaint and dismissed the induced- and contributory-infringement claims from the second amended complaint, and ordered Cedar Lane to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and why counsel should not be sanctioned for "repeated failure to comply with Rule 15 and their misrepresentations regarding the language of Rule 15" (Mondaq, Oct. 26, 2020). The parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice in late October 2020, before the November 12 show-cause hearing. On November 19, 2020 (Dkt. 61), the court sanctioned Anderson $500 and Rabicoff $1,000 under Rule 11 and its inherent authority, denied Rabicoff's pro hac vice motion, and referred him to the district's Standing Committee on Professional Conduct, finding he had filed 49 patent cases in the district in roughly two years, failed to seek admission or pay the fee in 29 of them, and argued a "objectively frivolous" reading of Rule 15. The Standing Committee's February 4, 2022 final report required Rabicoff to pay $9,193 in unpaid pro hac vice fees and to seek admission contemporaneously with future complaints; the matter closed in March 2022, with Rabicoff later self-reporting to Illinois (closed without action) and Virginia (public reprimand). In practical terms, the case is a leading data point on NPE docket-volume practices and on judicial policing of serial filers — cited in the Seyfarth NPE Showcase series and, later, relied on in a 2025 District of Nevada order scrutinizing Rabicoff's fee-avoidance pattern — rather than a merits precedent on the '790 patent. No IPR or other PTAB validity challenge to the '790 appears in the sources I checked (Patsnap records "none recorded" for both the '790 and '242), and any such challenge would now be academic given the patent's 2023 expiry.

Sourcing note. Verified: case number, court, judge, the Rule 15/ Rule 11 holdings and sanction amounts, the referral and its 2022 resolution, and patent bibliographic data (PSID/Google Patents/RPX Insight entries; the Nov. 19, 2020 order text via the govinfo PDF of No. 3:20-cv-01302). Not verified: the precise filing date (February 20, 2020, per KOTRA, consistent with the 3:20-cv-01302 number but not confirmed against PACER directly); the exact roster of accused Blackmagic products; and whether the '242 was formally asserted in this particular action.

I'll research this case using web sources, starting with the docket and key rulings.

Good foundation. Let me pull the docket and the earlier orders (motions to dismiss/strike, OSC).

Let me get the docket entries and check for any PTAB proceedings on the '790 patent.

Litigation chronology — Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Blackmagic Design Inc., No. 3:20-cv-01302-VC (N.D. Cal.)

Source note: PACER itself is paywalled, so the chronology below is anchored on the court's own filed orders (reproduced on GovInfo), the collateral disciplinary record (which recites the docket event-by-event), and contemporaneous trade reporting. Where I could not verify a docket number or party counsel, I say so rather than guess. The single most authoritative document is the sanctions/dismissal order, ECF No. 61 (Nov. 19, 2020), which recites the procedural history: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01302/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01302-9.pdf

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2020-02-20 — Complaint filed. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (a British Columbia entity incorporated 2019-04-29, with attorney Greg Benoit as director, per NPE-tracking commentary) sued Blackmagic Design Inc. in N.D. Cal., assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria. Asserted patent: U.S. 6,972,790, "Host interface for imaging arrays" (issued 2005-12-06), directed to a FIFO/interrupt-based interface between a CMOS image sensor and a host processor. Cedar Lane's February 2020 wave also asserted the '790 patent's divisional, U.S. 8,537,242, and U.S. 6,473,527; contemporaneous docket reporting on this case number lists both the '790 and '242 patents, so both were likely pleaded, though the case metadata here lists only the '790. Complaints in this campaign incorporated infringement claim charts by reference as exhibits rather than pleading element-by-element.
• Answer/counterclaims: Cedar Lane's own subsequent filings confirm Blackmagic appeared and moved to dismiss rather than answering the original complaint; I have not located a verified answer or counterclaim docket entry for Blackmagic, and the case never reached case-management/discovery, so no substantive counterclaim practice occurred. I'm flagging this as an unverified gap rather than asserting Blackmagic filed (or did not file) counterclaims.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance (the entire substance of the case)

The case never got beyond Rule 12 practice. The sequence, as recited in ECF No. 61 and the Virginia State Bar disciplinary record (https://vsbwebstorage.blob.core.windows.net/$web/actions/Rabicoff-[121222](/patent/121222).pdf):

• MTD #1 → FAC as of right. Blackmagic moved to dismiss; Cedar Lane filed a first amended complaint, which it was entitled to do once as of right under Rule 15(a)(1)(B).
• MTD #2 → SAC. After Blackmagic's second motion to dismiss, Cedar Lane filed a second amended complaint. Blackmagic filed a notice of non-opposition to the SAC — the court later held this put Cedar Lane's counsel on notice of Rule 15's actual requirements.
• 2020-10-01 order on MTD #2: the court granted dismissal of the induced- and contributory-infringement claims pleaded in the SAC. (Direct infringement survived, nominally.)
• TAC → motion to strike. Cedar Lane then filed a third amended complaint without Blackmagic's written consent and without leave — a second as-of-right amendment that Rule 15 does not permit. Blackmagic moved to strike the TAC / dismiss.
• 2020-08-06: the court set the hearing on the then-pending motions for 2020-10-01 — eight weeks out. (This date matters: Cedar Lane's counsel later told the court the hearing had been set only two days in advance; the court found that representation misleading.)
• 2020-10-01 — hearing; nobody appeared for Cedar Lane. The court granted the motion to strike the TAC and the motion to dismiss the induced/contributory claims, and issued a sua sponte order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and why counsel should not be sanctioned for repeated Rule 15 violations and misrepresentations about Rule 15's text. OSC hearing set for 2020-11-12. Reported contemporaneously at Mondaq (2020-10-26): https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/[998106](/patent/998106)
• No motion to transfer, no motion to stay pending IPR, no summary-judgment motion, and no fee motion were ever filed. None was reached.

3. Claim construction

None. No Markman hearing, no claim construction order, no Amgen-type procedural order. This is consistent with the broader campaign pattern — Cedar Lane's cases resolved at the pleadings or by early settlement, and none of its asserted patents (including the '790) received a contested district-court construction in this matter.

4. Discovery milestones

None of record. The case was dismissed roughly eight months after filing, before any scheduling order, Rule 26(f) conference, or discovery exchange. There were no discovery disputes, no third-party subpoenas, and no expert practice. Consequently there is no strategically significant discovery event to report; anyone citing "discovery in Cedar Lane v. Blackmagic" would be inventing it.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial, no verdict, no JMOL/Rule 50 or Rule 59 new-trial motion on the merits, and no fee motion under § 285. The only post-judgment motion was collateral to sanctions (below).

6. Sanctions, dismissal, and final disposition

• ~2020-10-22/23: While the OSC was pending, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice — which the court treated as an attempt to moot the sanctions inquiry. The court held that a court may still impose monetary sanctions on its own initiative if the OSC issued before voluntary dismissal or settlement (Rule 11(c)(3), (c)(5)(B)).
• 2020-10-29: Rabicoff belatedly filed a pro hac vice application naming Kirk Anderson as local co-counsel — with a Colorado address for Anderson and no California address.
• 2020-11-03 / 2020-11-12: Court ordered a five-year chart of Rabicoff's N.D. Cal. appearances; OSC hearing held 2020-11-12, with an updated chart demanded by 2020-11-13.
• 2020-11-19 — ECF No. 61 (the dispositive order). The court:
  • found the Rule 15 argument "objectively frivolous" and defying both Rule 15's plain text and common sense;
  • found bad faith and misleading statements (the two-days'-notice claim; "of counsel" vs. "lead counsel" designations);
  • sanctioned Rabicoff $1,000 under Rule 11 and the court's inherent authority, and Anderson $500 under Rule 11;
  • denied the pro hac vice application (regular N.D. Cal. practice requires admission; pro hac vice is improper — Civ. L.R. 11-3);
  • referred Rabicoff to the N.D. Cal. Standing Committee on Professional Conduct, noting 49 patent suits filed in the district from July 2018–October 2020 and 29 in which he never sought pro hac vice admission or paid the fee; and
  • granted the stipulated dismissal with prejudice.
• 2020-12-08: Rabicoff paid the $1,000.
• 2020-12-16: Rabicoff filed a Rule 59(e) motion to alter/amend, asking the court to revisit only two findings — bad faith on Rule 15 and the deceptive-statement finding — apologizing for "procedural irregularities and sloppiness."
• 2021-01-26: The court denied reconsideration. No appeal was taken; the sanctions order became final ~2021-02-25.
• Final judgment: dismissal with prejudice as to Blackmagic, 2020-11-19. Blackmagic paid nothing publicly disclosed; the settlement terms were not filed.

7. Collateral/disciplinary aftermath (the case's real legacy)

• 2022-01-24 / 2022-02-04: The Standing Committee issued its final report proposing an informal resolution, and the court approved it and closed the matter: Rabicoff to pay $9,193.00 in unpaid pro hac vice fees for 29 N.D. Cal. matters. Paid 2022-02-16; clerk confirmed closure 2022-03-25. See In re Isaac Rabicoff, No. 20-mc-80206-JD (N.D. Cal.).
• State bars: Rabicoff self-reported in May 2022. The Illinois ARDC closed without action; the Virginia State Bar imposed a public reprimand without terms (VSB order, Dec. 2022): https://vsbwebstorage.blob.core.windows.net/$web/actions/Rabicoff-121222.pdf
• Practical effect on the campaign: per Rabicoff's later sworn declaration in an unrelated D. Nev. matter, his firm "completely paused participating in any litigation in the state of California," and Cedar Lane shifted its '790/'242 assertions to D. Del. (before Judge Richard G. Andrews) and W.D. Tex. (before Judge Alan Albright), where dozens of cases were filed in 2021–2022 and resolved by voluntary dismissal, often within weeks of service. See, e.g., Cedar Lane v. GoPro, No. 1:21-cv-01319-RGA (D. Del.) (dismissed 2021-10-12); Cedar Lane v. Videology, No. 1:22-cv-00157-RGA (D. Del.) (dismissed 2022-03-16); Cedar Lane v. Brinc Drones, No. 1:22-cv-01409-RGA (D. Del.) (dismissed 2022-11-29).

8. Parallel PTAB proceedings

This is the weakest-sourced part of my answer and I want to be explicit about it. I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition challenging U.S. 6,972,790, and no PTAB proceeding that touched this case. Given how the case ended (dismissed seven months post-filing, before any case-management conference), no stay motion was ever possible or needed — the absence of a PTAB track had no effect on the litigation.

One adjacent data point, flagged as unverified: docket "related cases" listings for Cedar

I'll research the docket and related sources for plaintiff-side counsel in this case.

Now let me pin down firm affiliations, offices, and docket appearances.

Let me check the docket sheet itself and the complaint signature block.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Short answer: Two attorneys appeared for Cedar Lane, and the court's own sanctions order describes both of their roles with unusual specificity: Kirk J. Anderson (California‑licensed, appeared on the complaint as lead counsel and later served as local co‑counsel) and Isaac Rabicoff (Illinois/Virginia‑licensed, not admitted in N.D. Cal., who the court found had actually been lead counsel throughout). No in‑house counsel for Cedar Lane ever appeared. Because Rabicoff's pro hac vice motion was denied, no out‑of‑state counsel was ever formally admitted in the case.

Detail and sourcing

Isaac Rabicoff (lead). On the original complaint, Anderson was listed as lead and Rabicoff as "Pro Hac Vice admission to be filed"; at the show‑cause hearing both lawyers conceded Rabicoff "authored the opposition brief and served as lead counsel for the entirety of the lawsuit," and Rabicoff declared himself "lead counsel" while signing papers as "of Counsel." Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Blackmagic Design Inc., No. 20‑cv‑01302‑VC, 2020 WL 6789711 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2020) (ECF No. 61). The court sanctioned him $1,000 under Rule 11 and its inherent authority, denied his pro hac vice application (filed only after the stipulation of dismissal), and referred him to the N.D. Cal. Standing Committee on Professional Conduct. Payment was docketed at ECF No. 62 (Dec. 8, 2020); his Rule 59(e) motion (Dec. 16, 2020) was denied Jan. 26, 2021. The referral proceeded as In re Isaac Rabicoff, No. 20‑mc‑80206‑JD (N.D. Cal.), ending in a Feb. 4, 2022 order approving an informal resolution requiring payment of $9,193 in unpaid pro hac vice fees across 29 cases (paid Feb. 16, 2022).

Kirk J. Anderson (local). Sanctioned $500 under Rule 11 — the court found he was reckless (not in bad faith) in signing briefs he had not reviewed and in signing the response to the order to show cause. He is the only counsel with a California bar number and N.D. Cal. membership. The court specifically noted that the address Rabicoff supplied for Anderson was a Colorado address with "no local California address," which is consistent with the Budo Law P.C. (Arvada, CO) address appearing in his contemporaneous filings in other patent cases (e.g., Enserion, LLC v. Consensus Orthopedics, E.D. Cal. 2:20‑cv‑00339, Feb. 2020; Optima Direct, LLC v. Pulse Electronics, S.D. Cal. 3:21‑cv‑00768). Earlier in his career he appeared out of Garteiser Honea's San Rafael, CA office (e.g., Blue Spike, LLC v. Texas Instruments, E.D. Tex. 6:12‑cv‑00499, Doc. 635).

Verification notes and gaps

• I could not pull the PACER docket sheet directly in this session. The appearance list above is reconstructed from (a) Judge Chhabria's sanctions order, which recites who appeared and in what capacity, and (b) contemporaneous public filings and secondary reports. I did not independently confirm from the docket that no third attorney made a notice of appearance; the court's order describes only these two, and I found no reference to any other plaintiff‑side attorney.
• Anderson's firm at the exact time of the February 2020 complaint is not perfectly verified. The Colorado address is confirmed by the court's order; the Budo Law P.C. attribution comes from his filings in other cases in 2020–2021 rather than from this docket.
• Nothing is sealed on the plaintiff's side that would hide counsel — the sanctions order and PHV denial are public. The limitations are practical (no direct PACER access here), not sealing.
• Judge Chhabria's broader criticism — that Rabicoff regularly practiced in the district without admission and often settled before detection — is the reason the "counsel of record" designation in this case is doctrinally odd: for most of the litigation, no plaintiff's attorney was actually admitted to the court's bar.
• Minor caveat: a Korean trade‑promotion database entry reproduces a case summary listing US 6,972,790 and US 8,537,242 as asserted. Per the case metadata I am treating 6,972,790 as the patent at issue; the second patent reference is unverified.

I'll research the defense-side counsel of record using docket sources, firm announcements, and related Cedar Lane matters.

Plaintiff-side counsel is well documented. Now I need the defense side — let me pull the docket itself.

Jones Day represented Blackmagic in an earlier N.D. Cal. patent case. Let me verify whether they appeared here by pulling the actual docket and filing signature blocks.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Blackmagic Design Inc. — Research Result

Bottom line: I could not verify the names of Blackmagic's counsel of record from the sources available to me. I will not invent them. What I can do is (a) document that defense counsel of record necessarily existed and what they did, (b) give you the single strongest evidence-based lead with its exact probative value and its limits, and (c) name the specific documents that would resolve it in one PACER pull.

---

1. What the record does establish

Blackmagic was an actively represented party throughout; this was not a default or prose-defense case. The court's own findings confirm a full defense team filing substantive papers:

• Filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint (prompting Cedar Lane's first amended complaint).
• Filed a "Notice of Non-Opposition to Entry of Second Amended Complaint" in which it identified the Rule 15(a)(2) defect in Cedar Lane's serial amendments — the filing that Judge Chhabria later held put Rabicoff on notice that his Rule 15 reading was frivolous.
• Filed a second motion to dismiss the SAC, and a motion to strike the TAC.
• Won both: the October 1, 2020 minute order granted the motion to strike and dismissed the induced/contributory claims, per Mondaq's Oct. 26, 2020 report.
• Signed and filed the joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice (each side bearing its own costs, expenses, and fees), which the court granted in the November 19, 2020 sanctions order, Dkt. 61.

Source for all of the above: Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Blackmagic Design Inc., No. 20-cv-01302-VC, slip op. at 1–3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2020) (Dkt. 61), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01302/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01302-9.pdf; see also Mondaq, "Cedar Lane, Elsewhere Ordered To Show Cause…" (Oct. 26, 2020), https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/998106.

Why the names aren't in what I retrieved: the two documents in the govinfo package for this case are the court's own signed orders (the Nov. 3, 2020 order requiring Rabicoff's case-history declaration, and Dkt. 61). Neither carries party signature blocks, so neither lists defense counsel. The related miscellaneous proceeding, In re Isaac Rabicoff, No. 20-mc-80206-JD (N.D. Cal.), likewise concerns only plaintiff-side counsel (Standing Committee report at https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/3:2025cv00103/173189/37/0.pdf). The standard secondary sources — Law360's case page (https://www.law360.com/cases/5e4fc2db3a48b1073a94fc31) and the Studicata summary — report the rulings but do not surface the defense appearances in the text I could access.

---

2. Strongest lead — but explicitly unverified for this case

Jones Day, Silicon Valley Office (1755 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA) — Gregory L. Lippetz and Kathleen D. Lynott.

Evidence: Jones Day has an established relationship with this client. In Technology Licensing Corp. v. Blackmagic Design Pty Ltd., No. 4:13-cv-05184 (N.D. Cal.) — a six-patent infringement suit in the same district — Jones Day appeared for Blackmagic and is listed as the client engagement on the firm's own website (https://www.jonesday.com/en/practices/experience/2013/11/blackmagic-defends-against-patent-infringement-suit). The November 19, 2014 joint filing in that case (Dkt. 90, https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/4:2013cv05184/271754/90) lists the full defense team as:

Lippetz is a career patent litigator with a long N.D. Cal. docket (e.g., Netlist v. Smart Storage Systems, No. 4:13-cv-05889-YGR, and Diablo Technologies IPRs; Regents of the Univ. of California v. California Berry Cultivars). That profile is consistent with a company like Blackmagic retaining him again in 2020.

Caveats you must carry forward: (i) the 2013 defendant was Blackmagic Design Pty Ltd (the Australian parent), while the 2020 defendant is Blackmagic Design Inc. (the U.S. arm) — a different legal entity; (ii) seven years separate the matters; (iii) I found no document in 3:20-cv-01302 naming Lippetz, Lynott, or Jones Day. Treat this as a lead to check first, not a verified fact.

---

3. Names to not attribute to Blackmagic (common mix-ups)

• Raffi Vaheh Zerounian — appeared in Blackmagic Design Pty Ltd. v. GoPro, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-05923 (N.D. Cal.), but the docket entries show him filing for GoPro, not Blackmagic.
• Martin L. Fineman (Davis Wright Tremaine) and Raymond P. Niro (Niro Haller & Niro) — plaintiff's counsel (Technology Licensing Corp.) in the 2013 case.
• Daralyn Durie and Caroline McIntyre — the Standing Committee members who investigated Rabicoff in 20-mc-80206-JD. They were adjudicators, not counsel to anyone here.
• Kirk Anderson and Isaac Rabicoff — Cedar Lane's counsel, covered in the existing case overview.

---

4. Exact verification path (should resolve in one sitting)

1. PACER / ECF for No. 3:20-cv-01302-VC — pull the docket sheet's "Attorneys" pane and the signature blocks on: the first motion to dismiss (roughly Dkt. 12–20), the Notice of Non-Opposition to the SAC, the second motion to dismiss, the motion to strike the TAC (this is the filing that produced the October 1 hearing), and the joint stipulation of dismissal (filed late October 2020, granted at Dkt. 61). The stipulation is the highest-value single document — both sides' counsel sign it.
2. N.D. Cal. ECF "attorney appearances" report or the court's public terminal at 450 Golden Gate Ave. — the appearances pane lists every attorney with an ECF login on the case, including pro hac vice designations.
3. Law360 case page (link above) — Law360 tracks counsel rosters on its case pages; the article text I retrieved only quoted the sanctions ruling.
4. Jones Day engagement page / Lippetz and Lynott firm bios — Jones Day's experience pages often list Cedar Lane defense work; a "Cedar Lane Technologies v. Blackmagic Design" entry, if it exists, would confirm the lead above.

---

5. Sourcing status for this section

One flag against the existing summary: nothing in my searches corroborates or contradicts the previously noted uncertainty over whether US 8,537,242 was formally asserted here; the KOTRA record continues to list both patents, but that remains a secondary source.