Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Booking Holdings, Inc.

I'll research this case across the sources you named. Let me start with parallel searches on the case itself, the patent, and the parties.

Key discrepancy emerging — the docket-derived records point to a different patent than the metadata. Let me dig into that, plus the patent's status and the follow-on filings.

Case Overview

Parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a British Columbia corporation with a stated principal place of business at 560 Baker Street, Suite 1, Nelson, BC — a patent-holding entity that Stanford's NPE database classifies as a non-practicing entity whose assertions rest on acquired patents (Stanford NPE Litigation Database, case 299298). It does not make or sell products; it buys portfolios by assignment (e.g., the '177 patent came to Cedar Lane from Avinnov LLC by assignment recorded in 2019, and the VR/panorama patents were acquired in May 2019) and litigates through Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, a high-volume plaintiffs' shop that is a perennial name in the Retail Patent Litigation Report's list of "frequent filers." Booking Holdings, Inc. is the Norwalk, Connecticut-based online travel holding company (Booking.com, Priceline, KAYAK, Agoda, Rentalcars.com, OpenTable) — an operating company, formerly The Priceline Group, and in this case represented by Jeremy J. Taylor of Baker Botts LLP (PacerMonitor docket, 7:25-cv-00148).

Patents asserted and the technology accused. ⚠️ There is a material conflict in the record that you should resolve against the actual complaint before relying on either patent sketch. The case metadata in this file lists US 8,577,782. However, docket-derived records for this case number attribute the suit to US 8,397,177 B2 — Patsnap's litigation record for 7:25

I'll research this case systematically, starting with docket activity and patent details.

Key finding: the case appears to have been dismissed in June 2025. Let me verify the asserted patent — the metadata says US 8,577,782 but docket sources say US 8,397,177 — and check for related/prior litigation and PTAB activity.

Important discrepancy to resolve: the metadata says US 8,577,782, but docket sources indicate US 8,397,177 was asserted. Let me pull the actual filings.

Threshold correction: the patent actually asserted

Before the chronology, one substantive correction to the case metadata, because it changes the whole analysis of the campaign.

The docket record and the complaint's exhibit structure point to US 8,397,177 ("Graphic-information flow method and system for visually analyzing patterns and relationships"), not US 8,577,782:

• The commercial litigation databases record case 7:25-cv-00148 as asserting US 8,397,177, with the '177 title listed as the product/technology description (Patsnap case record).
• The complaint (Doc. 1) attached "Exhibit 1 to Complaint" plus five claim charts (Exs. 2.0–2.4), the exact structure Cedar Lane used in its '177 hotel/travel campaign — e.g., Cedar Lane v. Choice Hotels Int'l, No. 7:25-cv-00147 (W.D. Tex. filed 2025-03-28), also asserting '177 — and the structure of its 2021 Booking complaint (Ex. 1 + Exs. 2.1–2.5) (2021 docket).
• Cedar Lane's '782 patent ("Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants," issued 2013-11-05) is asserted in a separate campaign against financial-services defendants — banks, brokers, and asset managers — where every complaint attaches "Exhibit 1 – Patent US8,577,782" (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Charles Schwab, v. BNY Mellon, v. TD Bank, v. LaSalle St. Securities). Booking Holdings is a travel/OTA holding company, sued in the '177 campaign.

Bottom line: the litigation I can document was an '177 case. The '782 attribution in the metadata appears to be a database error in the NPE tracker (a common cross-attribution problem given Cedar Lane's 120+ suits). I flag this rather than paper over it; if your work product depends on '782, this case is not the vehicle for it. Everything below concerns the '177 action.

---

Chronology of the litigation

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Two things worth noting from the docket text: (i) no counterclaims appear — Booking filed a straight answer (Doc. 11 is captioned "Corrected ANSWER to 1 Complaint," not an answer with counterclaims), so no declaratory-judgment invalidity/noninfringement case was set in motion; and (ii) the Midland/Odessa header deficiency confirms the case was filed in W.D. Tex.'s Midland-Odessa Division, consistent with that division's docket volumes rather than the Waco Division.

I could not verify from a free source which specific claims of the '177 patent were charted (Patsnap's abstract-level record and the paywalled complaint exhibit set are the only accessible descriptions). In the same-day Choice Hotels complaint in the identical campaign, Cedar Lane asserted independent method claim 5 and reserved other claims; treat that as strongly suggestive but not confirmed for Booking.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance — none reached

There was no motion to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(3) venue or 12(b)(6)), no motion to transfer (e.g., to D. Del., where Cedar Lane filed many '177 suits in 2021, or to D.N.J./S.D.N.Y.), no motion to stay pending IPR, and no summary-judgment practice. The case lasted 80 days; Booking's only filings were an extension motion, an answer, and a disclosure statement.

3. Claim construction (Markman) — none

No scheduling order, no claim-construction briefing, no Markman hearing, no construing order. The case terminated before the initial pretrial conference at which a scheduling order would have been entered.

4. Discovery milestones — none of record

No Rule 26(f) conference, no discovery plan, no infringement/invalidity contentions, no document production, no depositions, no expert reports. The docket reflects zero discovery activity. This is strategically significant in itself: Booking's exposure to discovery-driven cost (and to a venue/transfer fight it likely would have won on the TC Heartland/Fifth Circuit analysis for a Delaware holding company) never materialized.

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

No trial setting, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, and no fee motion. The dismissal order expressly allocated costs: "Each party shall bear and pay their respective attorney fees and costs herein."

6. Disposition

The order invoked Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church, 727 F.3d 356, 362 (5th Cir. 2013) for the proposition that stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) "require no judicial action or approval and are effective automatically upon filing." Text quoted at length in the Patsnap termination record; docket entries corroborated at PacerMonitor and Justia.

No appeal was taken; there was no appealable judgment. Present posture: closed (terminated 2025-06-16), with Cedar Lane free to refile (no prejudice), subject to the '177 patent's expiry and the § 286 six-year damages lookback.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings

I located no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding on US 8,397,177, and no PTAB filing by Booking Holdings. The litigation accordingly never had a stay motion, an IPR-driven estoppel event, or a parallel validity track. Because absence of a filing is hard to prove from secondary sources, this should be confirmed against the PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board Endpoint / PTAB Center docket before being stated as fact in a filing — but nothing in the docket (no stay motion, no POPR-driven extension requests, no Fintiv-style scheduling disputes) is consistent with a petition having been filed.

---

Strategic read: what this case actually was

A re-set, not a merits loss. Five days after Booking stipulated out of the W.D. Tex. case, Cedar Lane filed Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Momondo A/S, No. 2:25-cv-00641 (E.D. Tex., filed 2025-06-17), asserting the same '177 patent against a Booking Holdings subsidiary (Momondo is part of Booking's KAYAK/Momondo portfolio). The Momondo complaint expressly pleads that the defendant had notice of infringement "since at least March 8, 2021, the date Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant's

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

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Bottom line: exactly one attorney appeared for the plaintiff — Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago). No local counsel, no co-counsel, and no in-house counsel ever entered an appearance. The case was also dismissed without prejudice in June 2025 (see caveat below), so the appearance list is closed.

The sole plaintiff-side appearance

Docket grounding (W.D. Tex. 7:25-cv-00148):

• Doc. 1 — COMPLAINT for Patent Infringement, filed 3/28/2025 (entered 3/30/2025), signed Rabicoff — Justia docket
• Doc. 2 — NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Rabicoff on behalf of Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (3/30/2025)
• Doc. 3 — Rule 7 Disclosure Statement (Rabicoff)
• Doc. 4 — AO-120 Patent/Trademark form (Rabicoff)
• Doc. 5 — Request for Issuance of Summons (Rabicoff)
• Doc. 14 — STIPULATION of Dismissal without Prejudice (Rabicoff), 6/13/2025 — PacerMonitor docket
• Doc. 15 — Order closing the action (Judge David Counts), 6/16/2025; Doc. 17 — order cancelling the initial pretrial conference (6/23/2025)

Relevant experience / notable history

• Rabicoff is Cedar Lane's near-exclusive enforcement counsel and one of the most prolific patent filers in the country; he filed the earlier Cedar Lane v. Booking Holdings suit (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00221, filed 3/8/2021) as well, and appears as plaintiff's counsel across the Cedar Lane campaign in W.D. Tex., N.D. Ill., S.D.N.Y., E.D. Tex., D. Del., and elsewhere (see, e.g., Nov. 2022 Retail Patent Litigation Report listing "Pls. Cnsl: Rabicoff Law").
• Sanctions and ethics referral (material for any credibility/conduct argument): In Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Blackmagic Design Inc., No. 20-cv-01302-VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria sanctioned Rabicoff and Cedar Lane $1,000 under Rule 11 and the court's inherent authority, denied his pro hac vice motion, and referred him to the N.D. Cal. Standing Committee on Professional Conduct as "a serial filer of patent lawsuits" not admitted in that district (In re Isaac Rabicoff, No. 20-mc-80206-JD). The Committee's final report records an informal resolution in which Rabicoff paid $9,193 in unpaid pro hac vice fees for 29 N.D. Cal. matters. Sources: Committee final report / referral order PDF.
• Litigation posture: Cedar Lane cases, including this one, characteristically terminate early by dismissal or settlement short of claim construction; the Cedar Lane docket here went complaint → answer (Booking, via Baker Botts) → stipulation of dismissal in ~80 days.

Caveats and discrepancies you should know about

1. No local counsel appeared. W.D. Tex. practice normally contemplates a local attorney for pro hac vice admission, but no pro hac vice motion and no Texas attorney appearance appears on the docket. Rabicoff may hold (or have obtained) W.D. Tex. admission directly — I could not verify his Texas bar/admission status from available sources, so I would not assert either way.
2. The case is closed, not active. The docket shows Docs. 14–17 (June 2025) dismissing all claims without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and closing the action; the metadata field "Status: active" in the case summary appears stale. I could not find the complaint's Exhibit 1 to independently confirm the asserted patent.
3. Patent mismatch in the record. Your metadata lists US 8,577,782; secondary litigation databases (Patsnap) report US 8,397,177 as the patent asserted in 7:25-cv-00148. Both are Cedar Lane patents asserted in its other 2025 suits (8,577,782 appears in the N.D. Ill./S.D.N.Y./D. Del. complaints against other defendants), so this needs confirmation from the complaint PDF itself rather than a database.
4. Sealed/absent materials: nothing in the retrieved docket suggests sealing; the limitation is that I could not pull the underlying PDFs from PACER, so the above rests on Justia, PacerMonitor, CourtListener/RECAP, Patsnap, and Stanford NPE records rather than the documents themselves.

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

I found the base docket. Let me dig into additional appearances and the answer's signature block.

Let me check the full docket on CourtListener/RECAP and look for the answer's signature block listing all defense counsel.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Booking Holdings, Inc.

Bottom line

The public docket for this case shows exactly one attorney appearing for Booking Holdings: Jeremy J. Taylor of Baker Botts L.L.P. No other defense-side appearance, pro hac vice motion, or local-counsel designation appears in the docket extract. There is also no in-house counsel listed on the docket for Booking.

Docket support for the appearance

Taylor is the ECF filer on every Booking-side filing, which is how his appearance is reflected even though no standalone "Notice of Attorney Appearance" appears in the docket text:

• Doc. 8 (May 7, 2025) — Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer, filed "by Booking Holdings, Inc. … (Taylor, Jeremy)"; granted at Doc. 9 (answer due 6/6/2025).
• Doc. 10 (June 6, 2025) — Answer to Complaint; Doc. 11 (June 9, 2025) — Corrected Answer, refiled after a deficiency notice that the caption did not read "Midland/Odessa Division."
• Doc. 13 (June 12, 2025) — Rule 7 Disclosure Statement for Booking Holdings (Taylor, Jeremy).
• Doc. 14 (June 13, 2025) — Joint Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice; Doc. 15 (June 16, 2025) — Order closing the case (Judge David Counts); Doc. 17 (June 23, 2025) — order cancelling the initial pretrial conference.

Sources: JUSTIA docket; PACER Monitor docket; Patsnap litigation record.

Important caveats and corrections to the case metadata

1. Sequencing/status. The case is closed, not active: the parties stipulated to dismissal without prejudice on June 13, 2025, and Judge Counts ordered the Clerk to close the action on June 16, 2025 (Doc. 15). Any counsel question here is retrospective — the defense team never progressed beyond the pleadings.
2. Patent discrepancy. Your metadata lists US 8,577,782, but every litigation database I found records the asserted patent in this case as US 8,397,177 ("Graphic-information flow method and system for visually analyzing patterns and relationships"), asserted against Booking's hotel-search / map-layer GUI. This looks like a data-entry error in the source summary (the same-day companion complaint, Cedar Lane v. Choice Hotels Int'l, 7:25-cv-00147, asserts the '177 patent). I could not verify any '782 patent in this docket and would not rely on it.
3. No sealed or withheld appearances. Nothing in this docket was sealed, and no counsel "has yet to appear." The absence of additional defense counsel is a real absence, not a records gap — the case died in 80 days.
4. No Texas local counsel of record. W.D. Tex. practice often pairs an out-of-state lead with Texas local counsel; here no separate local-counsel notice or PHV motion was filed, consistent with Taylor handling the matter directly (Baker Botts has Austin/Dallas offices and Taylor holds D.C. and California bar admissions and is admitted in E.D. Tex.). I could not independently confirm his W.D. Tex. admission status — the docket extract does not show a pro hac vice application, which is suggestive but not dispositive.

Related prior matter (context, not counsel of record here)

Cedar Lane previously sued Booking on the same patent family in W.D. Tex. No. 6:21-cv-00221 (filed Mar. 8, 2021), voluntarily dismissed Apr. 29, 2021. In that case Booking's appearances were by Jennifer Librach Nall (Baker Botts, Austin) and Syed K. Fareed (Baker Botts) — same firm, different staffing. Those attorneys did not appear in the 2025 case, so they should not be listed as counsel of record here. Source: Patexia document list for 6:21-cv-00221.

Verification note

Counsel identification above is drawn from mirrored docket text (JUSTIA, PACER Monitor, Patsnap) rather than a direct PACER pull, and Jeremy Taylor's firm/office and experience come from his Baker Botts profile and USPTO PTAB filings listing him at Baker Botts' 101 California Street, San Francisco address. If a cert-level citation is needed for a filing, the primary source is the ECF signature/filer block on Docs. 8, 10, 11, and 13 in 7:25-cv-00148.