Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Cobra Trading, Inc.

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

Case Overview — Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Cobra Trading, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00223 (E.D. Tex.)

Parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian (Ontario) patent-holding entity that does not appear to make or sell products; it monetizes an acquired portfolio through licensing demands and litigation, and it is catalogued as an NPE/PAE in Stanford's NPE Litigation Database, which lists the '782 patent among its asserted assets. Cedar Lane is represented here by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, a firm that functions as a high-volume, low-overhead patent-plaintiff shop. Cedar Lane's portfolio has drawn PTAB attention before — most notably U.S. Patent 7,173,177, which Unified Patents invalidated in Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Techs. Inc., IPR2020-00006 (FWD Feb. 12, 2021) — a useful data point on how this plaintiff's campaigns have historically fared against well-funded challengers. Defendant Cobra Trading, Inc. is a much smaller, Texas-based securities broker-dealer serving active/individual traders — the classic "small broker" target in this campaign, defended here by Matthew Sean Yungwirth of Duane Morris LLP (Dkt. 6, notice of appearance, Mar. 11, 2025). I found no public source describing Cobra's business in detail beyond the complaint's party allegations (invoking E.D. Tex. venue because Cobra "maintain[s] an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas"), so treat the description of its business model as inference from the docket rather than a verified fact.

Patent and accused technology. The sole patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 8,577,782, "Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants" (App. No. 12/756,929, filed Apr. 8, 2010; issued Nov. 5, 2013; classified G06Q 40/00; projected expiry Apr. 8, 2030; assigned to Cedar Lane). The complaint asserts at least Claim 1, an independent method claim that recites: associating one of a plurality of trading entities with an identifier using a processor; acquiring trade history information for that identifier; receiving an offer from a liquidity provider that is generated from a profile of the taker derived from that history, the profile indicating whether the taker's prior transactions "would generate a profit"; and making the offer only to that identified trading entity, processed through an exchange with a bid/offer spread. In plain terms: using a persistent, pseudonymous trader ID to let market makers profile counterparties (e.g., to detect "toxic" informed flow versus "naive" flow) and quote risk-adjusted, individually targeted prices — the plumbing behind dark pools, internalizers, and market-maker tiering. The complaint itself does not name the accused products in the body; it pleads generically about "Exemplary Defendant Products" and incorporates claim charts by reference (Exhibit 2), referring to Cobra's electronic trading products/services. The publicly available complaint text does not identify specific accused platforms or version numbers, so the precise infringement theory is not verifiable from public filings.

Procedural posture, venue, and significance. Filed Feb. 19, 2025 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas and assigned to Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne (Dkt. entry Feb. 20, 2025); served on Cobra Feb. 28, 2025, with an agreed answer date of May 5, 2025 (Dkt. 7–8). On April 6, 2025, the court consolidated the case for all pretrial issues into lead case No. 2:25-cv-00232 (Cedar Lane v. FMR LLC) — alongside member cases 2:25-cv-00231 (Doo Technology Singapore) and 2:25-cv-00233 (Charles Schwab) — reflecting the E.D. Tex. practice of herding parallel NPE suits before one judge. Importantly, this case did not proceed to the merits: Cedar Lane filed a Notice of Dismissal (Dkt. 18), and the court dismissed all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on May 10, 2025 (docket reflects closure May 13, 2025). One correction to the case metadata supplied to me: the matter should not be described as "active" — the docket record shows a with-prejudice dismissal, and the lead FMR case was likewise dismissed shortly after. The case matters as a specimen of Cedar Lane's 2025–2026 '782 campaign, which swept across dozens of broker-dealers, asset managers, and banks (Fidelity/FMR, Schwab, TD Bank, Citibank, Bank of America, HSBC, BNY Mellon, Morgan Stanley, Raymond James, Cantor Fitzgerald, BOKF, Ameritas, Lion Street, and others) in E.D. Tex., S.D.N.Y./E.D.N.Y., N.D. Ill., and W.D. Tex. The pattern — one 2010-vintage business-method patent, standardized complaints, rapid with-prejudice dismissals within 60–90 days (BNY Mellon in 78 days; Citibank in 60; Bank of America in 85; Cobra in 83) — is the signature of a volume licensing/settlement program rather than a campaign designed for claim construction or trial. The obvious vulnerability (a G06Q financial-method claim of 2010 vintage under Alice/§ 101) and the absence of any PTAB challenge to the '782 patent that I could locate in public records help explain both the low per-defendant settlement economics and the fast exits; note, however, that I found no public record of any IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding against the '782 patent as of Nov. 13, 2026, and third-party commentary characterizing the patent as § 101-exposed is analysis, not a court holding.

Sourcing caveats: docket entries above are drawn from Justia/RECAP mirrors and PACER-derived aggregators (Dkts. 1–9); the dismissal order language is quoted from the PACER-sourced record; the '782 campaign's scope comes from RPX/Stanford NPE database and PACER aggregator listings. Plaintiff/defendant business descriptions go beyond any court record I could verify and should be treated as background inference. Because the docket mirror was last retrieved in early 2025 and I could not re-pull PACER directly, the docket-level details should be confirmed against the lead case, No. 2:25-cv-00232, before being relied on in any filing.

I'll research this case across the docket, PTAB, and litigation press. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Important finding already: this case was consolidated into a lead case and dismissed with prejudice. Let me dig into the consolidation, the duplicate suit, and PTAB activity.

Now let me nail down the consolidation structure, the duplicate Cobra suit, and check PTAB for any '782 challenges.

Cedar Lane Techs. v. Cobra Trading, No. 2:25-cv-00223 (E.D. Tex.) — Litigation Timeline & Disposition

Bottom line up front: This is a short-life, mass-filing campaign case, not a litigated patent case. Cedar Lane filed on 2025-02-19, Cobra was served 2025-02-28, the case was swept into a Gilstrap consolidation order on 2025-04-06, and Cedar Lane voluntarily dismissed it with prejudice, with the order signed 2025-05-10 and entered 2025-05-13 — roughly 83 days from filing. There was no answer, no counterclaim, no Rule 12 motion, no transfer or stay motion, no Markman, no discovery of consequence, no trial, and (as best I can determine) no PTAB proceeding on the '782 patent. Note for the record: your case metadata lists the status as "active," but the docket and the dismissal order establish the case is closed. I'm treating the docket as controlling on posture while keeping your caption/number/patent metadata.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

Pleading substance. The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (a method claim: associating a trading entity with an identifier; acquiring trade history tied to that identifier; receiving a liquidity-provider offer based on a profile indicating whether the entity's trades "would generate a profit"; the offer being "only made to said trading entity"; processing through an exchange with a bid/offer spread). It pleads direct infringement plus induced and willful infringement premised on post-suit knowledge. Cedar Lane's counsel of record is Isaac Phillip Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC); Benjamin Charles Deming (DNL Zito) later appeared in the lead case (2025-05-27).

No answer, no counterclaims. Cobra never answered. The answer deadline was extended once to 2025-05-05, and the case was dismissed out from under it. There are therefore no Rule 12(b) defenses, no invalidity counterclaims, and no § 101 challenge preserved in this docket. Given that Cedar Lane's parallel suits against other brokerages did generate Rule 12(b)(6) activity (e.g., Cedar Lane v. City National Rochdale, S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-07845, where the court set a motion-to-dismiss briefing schedule on 2025-12-11 and Cedar Lane filed an amended complaint in early 2026), Cobra's early exit avoided the only substantive defense vehicle this campaign has generated.

A duplicate Cobra complaint. A second, apparently duplicative complaint against the same defendant was docketed as No. 2:25-cv-00230 (filed 2025-02-24, E.D. Tex., Gilstrap/Payne, verbatim five-page complaint on the '782 patent). It was voluntarily dismissed on 2025-05-04 (Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Dkt. 6; Order Dismissing Case, Dkt. 7, entered 2025-05-04/05). I could not locate a public explanation for the duplicate filing — flagging it as a docket fact rather than a documented strategy (possible clerical re-filing).

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None filed. No motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, no summary judgment motion. The only contested-adjacent filings were unopposed extensions. The single "motion"-type event of consequence was procedural consolidation:

• 2025-04-06 (entered 2025-04-07): Consolidation Order (Dkt. 9 in 00223; Dkt. 11 in the lead case). Cedar Lane's four parallel E.D. Tex. suits against financial-services defendants were consolidated for all pretrial issues before lead case No. 2:25-cv-00232 (Cedar Lane v. FMR LLC), with No. 2:25-cv-00233 (Charles Schwab) and No. 2:25-cv-00223 (Cobra) as member cases; all future filings directed to the lead case.
• 2025-04-03 (entered 2025-04-07): Scheduling/Case Management Conference set for 2025-05-28 before Judge Gilstrap (lead case Dkt. 12) — later cancelled after the dismissals.

Strategy note: consolidation is the single most consequential pre-trial event in this docket, because it subordinated Cobra's case to a lead docket in which FMR and Schwab were the real defendants — and that lead case resolved within about four months.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Did not occur. No Joint Claim Construction Statement, no O'Malley / Gilstrap-format Markman hearing, no claim construction order. The case ended ~4 months post-filing, well before the E.D. Tex. default schedule's Markman milestone. Cedar Lane has, to my knowledge, never obtained a construction of the '782 claims from any court, so the two claim terms that would drive this campaign remain unconstrued: (i) "profile containing information that indicates whether said trading transactions … would generate a profit," and (ii) "said offer being only made to said trading entity" — the latter is in tension with the specification's discussion of broadcasting offers through a centralized exchange to subscribing takers (col. 4:5–9), a genuine infringement/validity pressure point.

4. Discovery milestones

None of strategic significance. No Rule 26(f) conference of record, no scheduling order, no infringement or invalidity contentions, no document production, no depositions, no expert reports. Cobra produced nothing and was never deposed. This matters analytically: because no substantive discovery occurred before dismissal with prejudice, the dismissal is best read as a commercial resolution (license or nuisance-value settlement with a covenant), not a merits outcome.

5. Trial events, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial setting, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, no § 285 fee motion by either side, no bill of costs.

Plaintiff's counsel of record — Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Cobra Trading, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00223 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: exactly one attorney has appeared for Cedar Lane on this docket — Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago, IL). He filed the complaint, the Rule 7.1 disclosure statement, the AO 120 form, and the notice of appearance himself (Dkt. Nos. 1–4, all entered Feb. 19, 2025, and all showing "Rabicoff, Isaac" as the ECF filer). No local counsel, no pro hac vice sponsor, no second firm, and no in-house lawyer has entered an appearance. See Justia docket for No. 2:25-cv-00223 (retrieved Apr. 7, 2025): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2025cv00223/[236173](/patent/236173).

Sources: firm bio at http://www.rabilaw.com/rabicoff.html; Law360 firm/attorney profile (Chicago, IL) https://www.law360.com/firms/rabicoff-law/attorneys/isaac-p-rabicoff; PTAB filings listing his registration number and the 73 W. Monroe St. address (e.g., PTAB Case IPR2020-00111, Patent Owner's Mandatory Notice); Illinois ARDC roster entry (admitted 2013, active, Chicago).

Notes and caveats

• No local counsel of record. Unusual for E.D. Tex., but consistent with Rabicoff's admission to the E.D. Tex. bar (listed in his firm bio), so no pro hac vice motion or local sponsor was required or filed.
• Firm colleague not on this docket. Kenneth A. Matuszewski (Rabicoff Law LLC, Reg. No. 74,791) appears with Rabicoff in other matters/PTAB proceedings but has not entered an appearance in No. 2:25-cv-00223; I am not listing him as counsel of record.
• No in-house counsel appeared. Cedar Lane is a Canadian entity (560 Baker St., Suite 1, Nelson, BC), per the complaint; nothing on the docket indicates in-house participation.
• Defendant's counsel (for contrast): Matthew Sean Yungwirth of Duane Morris LLP entered his appearance for Cobra Trading on Mar. 11, 2025 (Dkt. 6) and filed the unopposed extension (Dkt. 7; answer due 5/5/2025).
• Docket-status discrepancy you should be aware of. The case metadata in this file says "active," but the record shows the '223 case was consolidated into lead case No. 2:25-cv-00232 (Cedar Lane v. FMR LLC) for all pretrial issues by order of Judge Gilstrap dated Apr. 6, 2025 (Dkt. 9). Third-party litigation databases (Patsnap's case page for 2:25-cv-00223) report the action was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice and closed on May 13, 2025, and a companion Cedar Lane v. Cobra case on a different patent, No. 2:25-cv-00230, shows a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. 6, May 4, 2025) and Order Dismissing Case (Dkt. 7, May 13, 2025). I could not independently confirm from a PACER/RECAP image of the '223 docket whether the dismissal order was entered in '223 or only in the consolidated lead case ('232); treat the "active" status in the file as unverified.
• No sealed or missing appearances identified. All plaintiff-side filings in this case are public; nothing suggests a sealed appearance.

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

I found a key docket entry. Let me verify the attorney's firm, office, and check for any additional appearances (including local counsel).

Now let me pull the full docket for 2:25-cv-00223 (post-April 2025 entries) and the consolidated lead case to see whether any additional counsel appeared for Cobra.

Counsel of Record for Cobra Trading, Inc. — 2:25-cv-00223 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line

Only one attorney entered an appearance for Cobra Trading in this member case: Matthew Sean ("Matt") Yungwirth, a partner at Duane Morris LLP (Atlanta, GA), who appeared as lead counsel and is himself admitted to the E.D. Tex. bar — so no separate local counsel was ever retained or appeared. No in-house counsel and no other firm ever appeared on Cobra's behalf on the publicly available docket, and the case was dismissed with prejudice roughly two months after his appearance.

Attorney detail

Docket trail in this case:

• Dkt. 6 (Mar. 11, 2025) — "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Matthew Sean Yungwirth on behalf of Cobra Trading, Inc." — his only appearance; he is the sole defense attorney listed on the docket.
• Dkt. 7 (Mar. 11, 2025) — Unopposed Application for Extension of Time to Answer, filed by Yungwirth (summons served Feb. 28, 2025; answer reset to May 5, 2025).
• Dkt. 8 (Mar. 11, 2025) — Extension granted (text entry).
• Dkt. 9 (Apr. 6/7, 2025) — Consolidation Order (Judge Gilstrap): this case consolidated for all pretrial issues into lead Case No. 2:25-cv-00232 (Cedar Lane Techs. v. FMR LLC), with all future filings to be made in the lead case.
• May 4/13, 2025 — Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and Order of Dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (Dkt. 18 in the lead case), ending the case before any answer, motion practice, or claim construction.

Sources: Justia docket for No. 2:2025cv00223 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2025cv00223/236173, last retrieved Apr. 7, 2025); Patsnap litigation record for 2:25-cv-00223 (https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/cedar-lane-technologies-v-cobra-trading-patent-infringement-dismissed-patsnap/); PACER Monitor party listing for the consolidated lead case 2:25-cv-00232 (https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/56992927/Cedar_Lane_Technologies_Inc_v_FMR_LLC), which lists Cobra Trading, Inc. as represented by Matthew Sean Yungwirth, Duane Morris LLP; Martindale-Hubbell profile (https://www.martindale.com/attorney/mr-matthew-s-sean-yungwirth-[2016929](/patent/2016929)/).

Relevant patent-litigation experience (for context on defense strategy)

Yungwirth is a career IP-litigation partner whose practice is heavily E.D. Tex./Federal Circuit patent work, which fits the pattern of a fast, low-cost, Rule 41 dismissal here:

• Longtime lead counsel for Verizon in XR Communications (Vivato) v. Verizon (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00470) and for Ruckus Wireless/Netgear/ARRIS/Brocade in the Chrimar and XR Communications campaigns — parallel district court + PTAB (IPR2016-01397/01399, IPR2017-00718/00719/00720, IPR2018-01016–01021, etc.).
• Cisco trial team in Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) v. Cisco (E.D. Tex., $31M damages phase).
• Defended Acuity Brands (IPR2020-00643, IPR2020-01638) and T-Mobile, Hewlett Packard Enterprise/Aruba, AT&T in recent E.D. Tex. § 271 suits — i.e., a repeat-player defense practice against NPE plaintiffs of exactly the Cedar Lane type.
• His IPR pro hac vice declarations describe him as "an experienced litigation attorney" handling invalidity contentions, Markman practice, expert discovery, and ITC investigations.

Caveats / sourcing limits

• No separate local counsel appears. Yungwirth is admitted to the E.D. Tex. bar in his own right (sworn notice of appearance in XR v. Verizon, Nov. 15, 2023: "admitted to the bar of this Court on December 6, 2007"), so no Texas local-counsel designation was required or filed. If a formal "lead counsel" designation was made under the court's local rules, I could not verify the designation document itself — the appearance (Dkt. 6) is a short form notice; the docket text does not state "lead counsel."
• Post-consolidation appearances could not be fully verified. Filings after April 6, 2025 were directed to lead case 2:25-cv-00232; I could not retrieve a complete, current party/attorney listing for that lead case (free mirrors for it are stale, last retrieved April 2025). It is possible additional Duane Morris attorneys (e.g., Louis Norwood Jameson or Alison Haddock Hutton, frequent co-counsel) filed notices for Cobra there, but I found no evidence of any such filing, and PACER Monitor's party panel for the lead case lists only Yungwirth for Cobra.
• Nothing is sealed in this member case to my knowledge; the reason for the absence of other counsel is simply that the case was dismissed with prejudice on May 13, 2025, before an answer was due.
• Related duplicate case: Cedar Lane filed a near-identical suit against Cobra the same week as No. 2:25-cv-00230 (filed Feb. 24, 2025, same '782 patent). Its docket as retrieved does not show a defense appearance before the May 4, 2025 voluntary dismissal — so Yungwirth's Dkt. 6 in 00223 is effectively the only defense appearance across the Cobra matters. I flag that I could not confirm whether a separate appearance was filed in 00230 after the last public retrieval date.