Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. COP Security System Corp.

I'll research this case across docket sources and patent databases.

Now let me dig into the parties and the patent's litigation history.

I'll research this case across docket sources, court records, and PTAB proceedings.

Key finding: the case appears to have ended in a voluntary dismissal in July 2022. Let me confirm the full docket and the PTAB history for the '242 patent.

Let me check the full docket and search PTAB for any IPR on the '242 patent.

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: This was a short-lived, single-counsel case. The docket reflects exactly one attorney appearing for Cedar Lane — Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC — who signed the complaint and every subsequent filing, including the notice of voluntary dismissal entered roughly 11 weeks later. No local counsel, no co-counsel, and no in-house attorney appeared.

Counsel table

Docket support

The W.D. Tex. (Waco Division) docket for No. 6:22-cv-00457-ADA, assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, shows Rabicoff as the filer of record on every entry:

• Doc. 1 — Complaint for Patent Infringement (filed 5/5/2022, jury demand)
• Doc. 2 — "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Rabicoff on behalf of Cedar Lane Technologies Inc." (5/5/2022)
• Docs. 3–5 — Rule 7 Disclosure Statement, Request for Issuance of Summons, AO 120 Patent/Trademark Notice (all 5/5/2022)
• Doc. 7 — "MOTION to Dismiss (Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice) by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc." (7/21/2022), signed by Rabicoff
• Doc. 8 — Report on Patent/Trademark sent to USPTO (7/21/2022)

Sources: Docket Alarm case page for 6:22-cv-00457 (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Western_District_Court/6--22-cv-00457/Cedar_Lane_Technologies_Inc._v._Cop_Security_System_Corp/) and the Patexia docket mirror with full document text (https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Cop-Security-System-Corp-id-[163570](/patent/163570)/documents).

The signature block Cedar Lane used contemporaneously is confirmed in the parallel W.D. Tex. dismissal in Cedar Lane v. Xerox, No. 6:22-cv-01153-ADA (Feb. 9, 2023): "/s/ Isaac Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC, 5680 King Centre Dr, Suite 645, Alexandria, VA 22315, 7736694590, isaac@rabilaw.com, Counsel for Plaintiff."

Flagged discrepancy — possible local counsel, unconfirmed

The May 2022 Retail Patent Litigation Report (Lexology, Dec. 1, 2022) lists a Cedar Lane filing grouping that includes Cop Security System Corp. among the defendants and states "Cnsl: Kizzia Johnson; Rabicoff Law," with patents including the '242 patent. Kizzia Johnson, PLLC (Jay Johnson / D. Bradley Kizzia, Dallas, TX) is a frequent W.D. Tex. local-counsel firm in patent cases.

I could not corroborate a Kizzia Johnson appearance on this docket — no notice of appearance, no signature on any of Docs. 1–8, and no pro hac vice motion appears in the mirrored docket. Most likely the report's "Cnsl" line aggregates a multi-case entry or reflects a companion Cedar Lane suit (e.g., the Brickcom action named in the same entry). Treat Kizzia Johnson as not counsel of record here unless a PACER pull of the full docket sheet shows otherwise. If the reader needs certainty, the check is the "Attorneys" tab / full docket sheet in PACER for 6:22-cv-00457.

Sourcing gaps and caveats

• Full docket sheet not directly pulled. My reconstruction relies on two independent docket mirrors (Docket Alarm and Patexia), which agree entry-for-entry on Docs. 1–8. Neither shows a separate order granting the voluntary dismissal; the case is reported as terminated in July 2022, consistent with dismissal without prejudice. A PACER pull would confirm the closing order and whether any pro hac vice motion was ever docketed.
• No sealed material identified. Nothing in the mirrored docket suggests sealed filings or sealed counsel designations; the appearance and dismissal are both public.
• Firm address ambiguity is real, not an error: Rabicoff Law LLC used an Alexandria, VA address on 2022 filings in this District and a Chicago, IL address on 2025 filings (see Cedar Lane v. Johnson Controls, 2:25-cv-00815, E.D. Tex., listing "Rabicoff Law LLC, 4311 N Ravenswood Ave, Suite 315, Chicago, IL 60613").
• Notable professional-conduct history worth carrying forward (relevant to any sanctions/admission analysis, and well-sourced): in Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Blackmagic Design Inc., No. 3:20-cv-01302-VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria's Nov. 19, 2020 order sanctioned Rabicoff $1,000 under Rule 11 and the court's inherent authority and referred him to the N.D. Cal. Standing Committee on Professional Conduct for serial patent filing without pro hac vice admission; the Committee's final report followed. See https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/3:2025cv00103/[173189](/patent/173189)/37/0.pdf. This is adverse-history background, not a finding in this case — the '457 docket itself contains no sanctions or admission disputes.

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for the defendant.

Let me verify the full docket on CourtListener and check for any defendant appearances.

Counsel of Record for Defendant — COP Security System Corp.

Bottom line: no attorney ever entered an appearance for COP Security System Corp. in this action. The docket reflects zero defendant-side counsel of record, because the case was dismissed roughly eleven weeks after filing — before the defendant answered, moved, or appeared.

Docket evidence

The complete public docket for No. 6:22-cv-00457-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Div., Judge Alan D. Albright) contains only eight substantive entries, all plaintiff-side or clerical:

Sources: Patexia litigation document index for Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Cop Security System Corp., No. 6:22-cv-00457 (listing Docs. 1–8 and no defense filings) — https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Cop-Security-System-Corp-id-163570/documents ; Docket Alarm case page (Waco Division, Judge Albright, filed May 5, 2022, case flag "PATENT," last updated pre-answer) — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Western_District_Court/6--22-cv-00457/Cedar_Lane_Technologies_Inc._v._Cop_Security_System_Corp/ ; filing also noted in IPWatchdog's May 12, 2022 Patent Filings Roundup (correlating 6:22-cv-00457 with the '242 patent) — https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/05/12/patent-filings-roundup-fintiv-denials-wd-of-tx-itc-schedules-vector-capital-funded-semi-campaign-hits-an-ipr-wall/

There is no Notice of Appearance, no pro hac vice application, no answer, no Rule 12 motion, no waiver of service, and no corporate disclosure statement from the defendant anywhere in the docket. The last defendant-directed paper is the Clerk's summons issuance (Doc. 6); the docket does not even show a return of service.

Why the absence is structural, not a gap in reporting

• The dismissal was filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — Cedar Lane's standard "drive-by" exit in its 2022 camera/CCTV campaign. In the materially identical Cedar Lane v. Konica Minolta notice (No. 6:22-cv-01074-ADA), Rabicoff's office stated verbatim that "Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment," and the certificate of service recited service only on "all parties who have appeared." The Konica Minolta notice is archived here (useful as the template for the dismissal filed in this case): https://www.action-intell.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Cedar-Lane-dismisses-suit-against-Konica-Minolta.pdf
• Twenty-eight days after the complaint, the case was closed by the Doc. 7 dismissal and the Doc. 8 USPTO report — i.e., the entire life of the case sits inside the window in which a foreign defendant would normally still be arranging service and pro hac vice counsel.
• Consistent with this, no attorney for COP Security appears in any Cedar Lane docket reporting. The Lexology/Illinois Lawyer Now "May 2022 Retail Patent Litigation Report" entry covering this wave of W.D. Tex. suits (Brickcom, Costar/Avycon, COP Security, Johnson Controls) lists only plaintiff-side counsel ("Rabicoff Law" with local counsel Kizzia Johnson) — no defense-side firms are identified: https://www.illinoislawyernow.com/2022/12/may-2022-retail-patent-litigation-report/

Attorney table

For completeness on the only barred attorneys in the case (adverse to your query but relevant for cross-reference): Isaac Phillip Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC (Alexandria, VA; Chicago, IL), was plaintiff's sole counsel of record (Doc. 2), a high-volume patent plaintiff's firm that has filed hundreds of § 271 suits (including the Cedar Lane camera campaign and later the Patent Armory campaign). No W.D. Tex. local counsel appears on this particular docket, which is itself a tell that the case never reached the stage where the District's local-counsel or pro hac vice practice would have kicked in.

Caveats and verification limits

• I could not pull the PACER docket sheet directly; this finding rests on three independent third-party docket mirrors (Patexia, Docket Alarm, and the IPWatchdog roundup), which agree that the docket terminates at Doc. 8 on July 21, 2022. Because the case is closed (terminated), the absence of defense counsel is unlikely to be a mirror-coverage artifact — but if you need certifiable proof, a PACER pull of the full docket sheet for 6:22-cv-00457-ADA ($0.10/page, capped) would confirm it in one step.
• I found no basis to name any attorney for COP Security, and I am not inferring one from (a) counsel who represented COP Security in other matters, (b) counsel who represented co-defendants in the parallel Brickcom/Costar suits, or (c) Korean counsel for the parent. Any such name would be unsourced. COP Security System Corp. is generally understood to be a South Korean CCTV/video-surveillance manufacturer, which is consistent with the pattern of Cedar Lane naming offshore equipment makers in Waco and dismissing before appearance — but I have not verified the corporate details here.
• Practical implication for the case file: an appearance-based contact list for this defendant cannot be built from this docket. If you need a service/notice address for COP Security, the operative source would be the Doc. 1 complaint's allegations and the Doc. 6 summons, not any attorney appearance.