Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. BLU Products, Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Key finding already: the complaint asserted three patents, not just the '790. Let me dig into outcome, the IPR linkage, and the parties.

Case Overview — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. BLU Products, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-25210 (S.D. Fla.)

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a non-practicing entity (NPE/PAE) with no products and, as of the reporting I could locate, no public website. It was formed on April 29, 2019 in British Columbia by attorney Greg Benoit, and its portfolio is overwhelmingly acquired rather than invented — much of it traced to Intellectual Ventures, with some patents routed through intermediary NPEs such as AVInnov (Unified Patents, https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights?offset=1585671202718; Guangdong Overseas IP Protection Ass'n analysis citing Lex Machina/Darts-ip/Patsnap data, https://gdoip.com/friction/158.html — secondary source, treat figures as approximate). By 2021 Cedar Lane was, per Lex Machina data, the single most frequent patent plaintiff in the United States, with a business model of near-identical, claim-chart-driven complaints filed in volume and resolved quickly (that same analysis pegs roughly 80% of its cases as settling or dismissing, averaging ~90 days). The Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies it under "acquired patents" (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/party/cedar-lane-technologies-inc). Defendant BLU Products, Inc. is a Miami, Florida–based seller of low-priced unlocked Android smartphones under the "BLU" brand — a frequent target of consumer-electronics NPEs (BLU, for example, was also a named defendant in the Synkloud Technologies '526 remote-storage campaign, per Unified Patents). Caveat: I could not retrieve a primary corporate filing or annual report substantiating BLU's size, ownership, or incorporation details; the description rests on widely reported background plus the venue facts, which are consistent with a Miami principal place of business.

The patents and the accused technology. The case metadata for this file lists only U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790, and that is the lead patent. The '790 patent, "Host interface for imaging arrays," issued December 6, 2005 from an application filed December 21, 2000 (earliest priority January 21, 2000), naming Mark Suska; it claims an interface — preferably integrated on the same die as the sensor — that buffers image-array data in a FIFO or addressable memory at the sensor's clock rate and signals the host processor when enough data has accumulated so the processor can burst-read it, decoupling sensor timing from bus timing. Prosecution counsel was McAndrews Held & Malloy; estimated expiry was August 1, 2023, and the patent is now recorded as inactive — meaning the asserted rights have run out. Its divisional, U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242, claims the corresponding method (FIFO counter, limit comparison, interrupt generation) and was Cedar Lane's usual companion assertion. Importantly, the complaint as filed (Dkt. 1, Dec. 19, 2019) asserted three patents, not one: Ex. 1 = U.S. Patent No. 6,473,527 ("Module and method for interfacing analog/digital converting means and JPEG compression means"); Ex. 2 = the '790 patent; and Ex. 3 = U.S. Patent No. 7,292,261 — each with its own claim chart (Exs. 4–6). I was unable to verify the '261 patent's title or claim scope from accessible sources, so I won't characterize it. The accused instrumentalities are BLU's camera-equipped handsets, but the body of the complaint names no models; it incorporates by reference the claim-chart exhibits, which is the standard Cedar Lane pleading template ("Exemplary Blu Products' Products"). Practically, the theory is that the handset's CMOS image sensor and applications-processor interface practice the claimed buffering/signaling architecture.

Posture, venue, and why it's notable. Filed December 19, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, before Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr., with Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres referred for discovery matters (Dkt. 2, Dkt. 6, Jan. 3, 2020); a jury was demanded. Venue appears to have been chosen for the defendant's home turf rather than for docket advantage — S.D. Fla. is not a plaintiff-side patent venue in the way W.D. Tex. or D. Del. are, and Cedar Lane's subsequent campaign was overwhelmingly filed in Judge Alan Albright's W.D. Tex. court (and later D. Del. and E.D. Tex.). The case's significance is therefore less about doctrine than about assertion economics: the '790 patent became one of the most-asserted patents in the country, appearing in roughly 167 suits per one secondary compilation, deployed against device makers, automakers, rental-car companies, and retailers alike. There is no IPR on the '790 patent that I could locate; the PTAB linkage runs through Cedar Lane generally — Unified Patents filed IPR2020-00006 against Cedar Lane's '177 patent (an AVInnov/Intellectual Ventures asset), instituted trial March 18, 2020, and the Board held the independent claim unpatentable on February 12, 2021 (Unified Patents; Patexia docket). On outcome here, my sources conflict with the "open" status in the case metadata: the docket was last publicly retrieved February 17, 2020 showing the case open (Justia, UniCourt), while a Korean IP-protection-agency database records the first-instance disposition as 소취하 — voluntary dismissal (KOTRA, https://dream.kotra.or.kr/...). I could not confirm a dismissal on PACER, and given that Cedar Lane routinely dismissed these complaints within weeks of filing, voluntary dismissal or a confidential settlement is the strongly indicated but not verified outcome. With the '790 term having expired in August 2023, the case now has essentially historical interest — a datapoint in the Cedar Lane mass-assertion wave rather than a live dispute.

Sourcing note: Docket entry numbers and filing dates above are from the Justia/UniCourt docket snapshots (last PACER pull Jan. 3, 2020 / Feb. 17, 2020); I could not access PACER directly, so any docket activity after February 2020 is unconfirmed. The three-patent composition of the complaint is documented in Dkt. 1 and conflicts with the single-patent metadata for this file — flagging that discrepancy rather than resolving it.

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

The Korean IP source indicates a voluntary dismissal. Let me verify via the docket and look for the dismissal filing.

Let me check RPX Insight and patent litigation databases for the disposition.

Case Overview

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. BLU Products, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-25210 (S.D. Fla.), filed 2019-12-19 before Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr., with Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres referred for discovery matters. Plaintiff demanded a jury.

One threshold correction to the case metadata: although the summary lists only the '790 patent, the complaint actually asserted three patents — U.S. Patent Nos. 6,473,527 ("Module and method for interfacing analog/digital converting means and JPEG compression means"), 6,972,790 ("Host interface for imaging arrays"), and 7,292,261 ("Virtual reality camera") — in three separate counts, each supported by its own claim chart (Exhibits 4, 5, and 6 respectively). The '790 chart is Exhibit 5, which is likely the source of the single-patent framing. See Compl., DE 1 (attachments list), as reported in Justia docket, https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/1:2019cv25210/[563478](/patent/563478).

Chronological Developments

1. Filing and Initial Pleadings (Dec. 2019 – Jan. 2020)

Counsel for Cedar Lane was Howard L. Wernow (Sand, Sebolt & Wernow) — one of several firms the NPE used in its 2019 wave of filings, alongside Rabicoff Law, O'Kelly Ernst & Joyce, and Nielsen Patents. See December 2019 Retail Patent Litigation Report, https://www.illinoislawyernow.com/2020/06/december-2019-retail-patent-litigation-report/.

No answer, counterclaims, or Rule 12 motion appear on the publicly available docket. The last free-court docket snapshot (retrieved 2020-01-03 / updated 2020-02-17) shows an "Open"/"Pending" status with nothing filed after DE 6. UniCourt's final crawl was 2020-02-17, https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-blu-products-inc-[283861](/patent/283861). I could not locate a filed answer or any BLU counterclaim for invalidity/noninfringement in any public source, which is itself consistent with the case terminating before a responsive pleading deadline ran.

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

None identified. There is no public record of a motion to dismiss, motion to transfer venue, motion to stay pending IPR, or summary judgment motion. Given the short life of the case (below), none of these stages was reached.

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

Not reached. No Markman order, joint claim construction statement, or Indefiniteness/Philips briefing relating to the '790 patent in this case is publicly available. Contrast the related Cedar Lane campaigns, where the '790 patent was construed by other courts in 2022–2023 — but nothing in S.D. Fla. No. 19-25210.

4. Discovery Milestones

None of strategic significance identified. The 2020-01-03 order set the stage (discovery referral + protective order + scheduling conference requirement), but no scheduling order, Rule 26(f) report, ESI order, or discovery motion is reflected on the public docket. The interrogatory/document-production phase appears never to have begun in earnest.

5. Trial, Verdict, Post-Trial Motions

Not reached on any element. No trial date, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, no fee motion.

6. Final Disposition

The best available evidence supports voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff. The Korea Intellectual Property Protection Agency's litigation database (compiled from U.S. court records), records the first-instance outcome for No. 1:19-cv-25210 as "소취하" — voluntary dismissal/withdrawal ("분쟁결과(1심) 소취하"), listing the same three patents ('527, '790, '261), plaintiff Cedar Lane, defendant BLU Products. See KOTRA/KIPRA database entry, https://dream.kotra.or.kr/dream/cms/link/actionLinkBoardDetail.do?SITE_NO=2&MENU_ID=4060&CONTENTS_NO=1&pTmplateCd=NT2319&pDataId=22000000000011839862.

Caveat on precision: the exact dismissal date and the procedural vehicle (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice vs. stipulated dismissal vs. dismissal after settlement) are not confirmed, because the free docket truncates at 2020-02-17 and no dismissal filing could be retrieved. No public settlement amount, license, or consent judgment has been disclosed. Statistically this fits Cedar Lane's well-documented model: Lex Machina-based reporting found roughly 80% of Cedar Lane's suits resolved by settlement/dismissal with a median life near 90 days, and later Cedar Lane dismissals (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Via Techs., No. 6:22-cv-01305 (W.D. Tex.), dismissed with prejudice 2023-04-25 under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), each side bearing its own fees) used precisely that form. See https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/cedar-lane-technologies-v-via-technologies-patent-dispute-patsnap/. I am inferring the form of dismissal from that pattern, not from a document in this docket.

No appeal was taken; no Federal Circuit proceeding exists.

7. Parallel PTAB Proceedings

No IPR or PGR on the '790 patent is recorded, and none was filed against it in connection with this case. Patent-database records for the '790 list "Validity challenges: None recorded," and its legal status is now inactive (expired 2023-08-01, i.e., after the litigation ended). See the '790 patent records collected at Patsnap, https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/cedar-lane-technologies-v-hertz-global-holdings-patent-dismissal-patsnap/.

The one PTAB proceeding in Cedar Lane's 2019 campaign was Unified Patents' IPR2020-00006 against U.S. Patent No. 7,173,177 (a MONKEYmedia-origin patent asserted against Charter/Frontier/Starz, not BLU), where the Board instituted trial on all challenged claims on 2020-03-18. Unified Patents, https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights. Because the '177 patent was not in this case, that institution decision had no effect whatsoever on the BLU litigation.

Effect on the litigation: none. The absence of any IPR pressure on the '790 is notable, since a stay motion was the standard defense lever — but this case never reached the point where a stay would have mattered.

Present Posture

The case is closed — terminated by plaintiff's voluntary dismissal, with the docket's last confirmed activity in early 2020. (Lex Machina/UniCourt snapshots describe it as "Open" only because their crawl stopped 2020-02-17.) The '790 patent itself expired 2023-08-01, so no live claim can arise from it today, and Cedar Lane's subsequent assertion campaigns on the '790 (W.D. Tex., D.D. Del., E.D. Va., W.D. Wash., etc., 2020–2023) all involved other defendants.

Research Confidence

Recommendation: pulling the PACER docket sheet for the post-February-2020 entries (likely fewer than 5) would resolve the dismissal date, vehicle, and any fee/settlement terms in a single step. I did not have that access here, and I have deliberately not supplied a fabricated docket entry number or date for the dismissal.

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

Let me dig into the filing attorney and any additional appearances.

Let me check the later docket history and outcome, plus whether any co-counsel appeared.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Bottom line: The docket in this case shows exactly one attorney of record for Cedar Lane — Howard L. Wernow of Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA (Canton, Ohio), who signed the complaint and the Rule 7.1 disclosure. No local counsel, co-counsel, or in-house attorney appears on the publicly available docket. Note the docket snapshot available to me only runs through early 2020 (UniCourt last refresh 2020‑02‑17; Justia "last retrieved 2020‑01‑03"), so later appearances cannot be ruled out — but nothing indicates any.

Docket grounding

• Dkt. 1 (Dec. 19, 2019) — Complaint against BLU Products, Inc., filed by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.; all eight attachments (Exs. 1–6, including the '790 patent as Ex. 2 and the '790 claim chart as Ex. 5, per your case summary) were filed by "Wernow, Howard." Signature block: "/s/ Howard L. Wernow, Howard L. Wernow, B.C.S., Florida Bar No. 0107560, Aegis Tower – Suite 1100, 4940 Munson Street, N.W., Canton, Ohio 44718." (Justia docket; UniCourt docket; complaint text via RPX Insight)
• Dkt. 5 (Dec. 20, 2019) — Plaintiff's Certificate of Other Affiliates/Corporate Disclosure Statement (none disclosed), filed by Wernow.
• Dkt. 6 (Jan. 3, 2020) — Order referring case to Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres for discovery and requiring a scheduling conference; entered by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. No subsequent plaintiff-side appearance is reflected in that docket extract.

On the "no local counsel" point

Wernow's signature block carries a Florida Bar number, which is consistent with his filing directly in S.D. Fla. without separately retained Florida local counsel — and the docket confirms no second plaintiff-side appearance. His "B.C.S." designation indicates Florida Bar Board Certification as a specialist. (Super Lawyers profile; PatentBots practitioner record, USPTO Reg. No. 69,825)

Relevant experience / notable matters

• Wernow was one of the two principal firms behind Cedar Lane's 2019–2020 filing wave (the other being Rabicoff Law). Docket-analytics commentary on frequent patent plaintiffs specifically notes that "Sand, Sebolt & Wernow drastically increased their representation for this company from 2019 to 2020." (Kirsten Errick, Docket Alarm analytics, Nov. 29, 2020)
• He also appeared for Cedar Lane in other S.D. Fla. matters in the same campaign, e.g., Cedar Lane Techs. v. Plum USA, No. 1:21‑cv‑20805 (S.D. Fla.) (notice of voluntary dismissal filed by Wernow). (UniCourt)
• His practice has included PTAB work (e.g., lead counsel for patent owner Karetek Holdings in IPR2020‑01550) and representation of IP Edge/Mavexar-affiliated plaintiffs such as Mellaconic.
• Discipline (relevant diligence, not case-specific): the USPTO publicly reprimanded Wernow in March 2025 (OED D2025‑08) for failing to communicate adequately with a client whose litigation he ran through an intermediary consulting company (Final Order, redacted); the Ohio Supreme Court issued a public reprimand on Nov. 5, 2026 based on that order (AP story). He accepted responsibility, and the firm adopted new client-communication procedures.

Explicit caveats

1. Firm affiliations in later Cedar Lane suits differ. In 2022–2026 Cedar Lane matters, the recurring plaintiff's counsel is Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC, Alexandria, VA) — sometimes with local counsel such as Philip P. Mann (Mann Law Group PLLC, Bainbridge Island, WA) — and in 2026 Florida filings, Terry Marcus Sanks (Beusse Sanks PLLC, Miami). Neither Rabicoff nor Sanks appears in the 2019 docket for this case, so I do not list them as counsel here.
2. Sealed filings: nothing in the available docket suggests filings under seal bearing on counsel identity; the complaint and exhibits were filed publicly.
3. Outcome: a secondary source (KOTRA/KIPRIS, drawing on U.S. docket data) records the result of this case as voluntary dismissal (소취하), and a Korean government IP-dispute database lists the same three patents ('527, '790, '261). I could not independently confirm a dismissal order or stipulation on PACER, so treat the termination date/terms as unverified. This also means the counsel list above is complete for the pleading stage but unconfirmed for any later stage of the case.

I'll research the counsel of record for BLU Products in this S.D. Fla. case.

Bottom line

I could not identify any confirmed counsel of record for BLU Products in No. 1:19-cv-25210 (S.D. Fla.). The publicly indexed versions of the docket terminate before any defense appearance, and nothing in the free sources shows a Notice of Attorney Appearance, answer, or responsive pleading by BLU Products. I will not name attorneys as "counsel of record" for this case on the strength of inference alone.

What the docket actually shows

The most complete free dockets — Justia's docket (last retrieved 2020‑01‑03) and UniCourt's mirror (last updated 2020‑02‑17) — contain only six entries, none of them from the defense:

Sources: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/1:2019cv25210/563478 and https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-blu-products-inc-283861

Only Howard L. Wernow (Sand Sebolt & Wernow, North Canton, Ohio) appears as counsel — for the plaintiff. No defense-side attorney is listed anywhere in these mirrors.

Indication the case ended before an appearance

A Korean IP‑protection-agency litigation database entry for this exact case number records the first-instance disposition as "소취하" (voluntary dismissal/withdrawal) — consistent with the pattern of Cedar Lane's campaign, where many defendants were dismissed without prejudice shortly after service (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Plum USA, S.D. Fla. No. 1:21‑cv‑20805, DE 5 notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice). If a voluntary dismissal was filed before BLU appeared, there would be no defense counsel of record at all.
Source: https://dream.kotra.or.kr/dream/cms/link/actionLinkBoardDetail.do?SITE_NO=2&MENU_ID=4060&CONTENTS_NO=1&pTmplateCd=NT2319&pDataId=22000000000011839862&pUntyDsetId=GD0231&gbn=Out

Candidates worth checking — NOT confirmed in this case

BLU Products, Inc. (Doral, Fla.) has a well-documented stable of outside patent counsel in other suits. These names come from a publicly indexed counsel table in a different case, Monument Peak Ventures, LLC v. Blu Products, Inc. (E.D. Tex.), and I have no evidence any of them entered an appearance in 1:19‑cv‑25210:

• Bernard Lewis Egozi — Egozi & Bennett, P.A. (Miami/Coral Gables, Fla.) — BLU's most frequent Florida patent defense counsel; long record of S.D. Fla. patent and trademark defense work.
• Ty William Wilson — listed alongside Egozi for BLU in the same E.D. Tex. matter.
• William Ellsworth Davis III — The Davis Firm, P.C. (Longview, Tex.) — Texas patent litigator brought in for the Eastern District case.
  Source: https://www.patsnap.com/fr/resources/blog/litigation/monument-peak-ventures-v-blu-products-patent-dismissal-patsnap/

Why the gap exists, and how to close it

The free mirrors stop at DE 6 because the case stopped generating freely-crawled documents. Any appearance, extension motion, or notice of dismissal would sit at DE 7+, which is behind the PACER paywall and never entered the RECAP/Justia/UniCourt caches. To confirm definitively:

1. Pull the full PACER docket for 1:19-cv-25210-CMA (S.D. Fla.) — check DE 7 onward for a "Notice of Attorney Appearance," "Defendant's Corporate Disclosure Statement," or "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal," and check the docket's "Attorneys" tab, which lists terminated appearances even after dismissal.
2. If the docket is empty past DE 6, the file was almost certainly closed on a plaintiff-side voluntary dismissal and no defense counsel of record ever existed — which should be stated as such rather than filled in by inference.

Recommendation for the case write-up: record the defense-counsel field as "none confirmed — no defense appearance reflected in available docket through Feb. 17, 2020; disposition reported as voluntary dismissal." Do not attribute Egozi, Wilson, or Davis to this docket without a PACER pull.