Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Corinthian Partners, L.L.C.

Key docket facts established. Now let me verify the parties, the patent's provenance, and any PTAB activity.

Now let me verify the defendant's business, PTAB activity on the '782, and the broader campaign.

Case Overview — Cedar Lane Techs. v. Corinthian Partners, L.L.C., No. 1:25-cv-07848 (S.D.N.Y.)

Parties. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian corporation formed in British Columbia on April 29, 2019, and a textbook non-practicing entity: it makes nothing, sells nothing, and generates revenue by acquiring patent portfolios and suing users. Its patents came largely from Intellectual Ventures (routed through the Delaware SPV Steephill Technologies LLC), and its founder/president is attorney Greg Benoit, a career patent-monetization figure (former CEO of Patent Armory; complaints list an address shared with licensing firm Pigott & Co.). Lex Machina ranked Cedar Lane the single most active patent plaintiff in the U.S. in 2021, and its business model is famously transactional — an IAM interview with Benoit in March 2023 put its settlement rate at roughly 96% of terminated cases, with cases typically resolving in about 90 days. The Stanford NPE Litigation Database categorizes Cedar Lane strictly as an "acquired patents" asserter. Defendant Corinthian Partners, L.L.C. (FINRA CRD No. 38912) is a small, Manhattan-based full-service investment bank, broker-dealer and asset-management firm founded in 1996, headquartered at 850 Third Avenue (with a CRD address at 275 Madison Avenue), a member of FINRA/SIPC and a correspondent of RBC Correspondent Services. It is precisely the profile of defendant Cedar Lane targets: a thin-margin financial firm whose cost of defending a patent suit dwarfs any plausible settlement. (Third-party estimates of ~150 employees and ~$12.8M revenue appear on Datanyze/CB Insights; I could not verify those against a primary filing.) Cedar Lane is represented by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, a high-volume patent-filer who had to seek pro hac vice admission in S.D.N.Y. (ECF 6, granted ECF 13); Corinthian appeared through Joel Benjamin Rothman of Sriplaw, P.A. (ECF 10, Oct. 3, 2025).

The patent and the accused technology. Only one patent is asserted: U.S. Patent No. 8,577,782 B2, "Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants" (App. No. 12/756,929, filed Apr. 8, 2010; issued Nov. 5, 2013; inventors Christopher R. Petruzzi and Donald L. Wenskay; classified G06Q 40/00; estimated expiry Apr. 8, 2030). In one line: it claims a computer-implemented method of semi-anonymous securities trading — tagging a trading entity with an identifier, pulling that identifier's trade history, generating a profile showing whether that entity's trades were profitable, and having a liquidity provider issue a conditional price/offer that is valid only for that identifier and is processed through an exchange with a bid/offer spread. The commercial hook in the specification is the "toxic trader" problem: profiling order flow so market makers can price differently for "naive" versus "toxic" takers. Notably, this is a recently acquired asset, not an IV legacy patent — USPTO assignment records show a chain recorded in late November 2024 (Reels 072534/0016 and 072575/0772–0793) running from the inventors and from Wenskay (who was also the patent's prosecuting attorney) to Cedar Lane, i.e., the '782 moved from individual ownership into the assertion vehicle only months before suit. As to the accused instrumentality: Cedar Lane's theory, per its form complaint (5 pages) with an attached claim chart (ECF 1, Exs. 1–2), is that Corinthian's electronic trading/order-execution and routing activities — order handling that passes through exchanges and ECNs — practice claim 1. I was not able to review the Corinthian-specific claim chart, so the particular accused product (e.g., its RBC-correspondent trading workflow, a third-party OMS, or a specific order type) is not confirmed by any source I found; databases record the "product" field only as the patent's own title, which is a data artifact, not an identification of Corinthian's technology.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Cedar Lane filed on Sept. 22, 2025 in the Southern District of New York (Manhattan; no divisional split), with a jury demand and a Rule 7.1 statement disclosing no corporate parent (ECF 3). The case was assigned to Judge Jed S. Rakoff. Service on Corinthian was effected Sept. 25, 2025 (accepted by receptionist Kate Folley), answer due Oct. 16; defense counsel appeared Oct. 3; and on Oct. 7, 2025 — the same day his pro hac vice order issued — Rabicoff filed a **Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(

Key finding: this case was dismissed 15 days after filing. Let me verify the surrounding campaign, any PTAB challenges to the '782 patent, and whether Cedar Lane re-filed against Corinthian.

Bottom line

This is a 15‑day case. Cedar Lane filed on 2025‑09‑22, served Corinthian on 2025‑09‑25, and voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on 2025‑10‑07 under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before Corinthian ever answered or moved. There is no Markman ruling, no discovery, no trial, no appeal, and — on the available public record — no PTAB proceeding on the ’782 patent at all. The litigation's significance lies almost entirely in what it shows about Cedar Lane's ’782 assertion campaign against broker‑dealers, not in anything decided in this docket.

---

Chronology of the docket (S.D.N.Y. 1:25-cv-07848, Judge Jed S. Rakoff)

1. Filing (2025-09-22)

• Dkt. 1 — Complaint (5 pp.) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,577,782 ("Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants"; App. No. 12/756,929; filed 2010-04-08; issued 2013-11-05), with jury demand. Attachments: Ex. 1 (the patent) and Ex. 2 (claim chart). Filed by Isaac Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC (Las Vegas‑based; the firm behind essentially all of Cedar Lane's filings).
• Dkt. 2–5 — Civil cover sheet; Rule 7.1 disclosure ("No Corporate Parent"); request for summons; AO 120 form (§ 290 notice to PTO).
• Dkt. 6 — Rabicoff's pro hac vice motion (filed with the complaint).
• Note the batch‑filing pattern: Beech Hill Securities, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-07840 (S.D.N.Y.), was filed the same day, consistent with Cedar Lane's mass‑filing of the ’782 patent against small/mid‑size securities firms.

2. Service and initial defense (2025-09-25 → 2025-10-03)

• Dkt. 7–8 (2025-09-23) — Electronic summons issued; AO 120 case‑opening form.
• Dkt. 9 (2025-09-25) — Summons returned executed: Corinthian served 9/25/2025 (accepted by "Kate Folley, Receptionist"); answer due 2025-10-16.
• Dkt. 10 (2025-10-03) — Notice of appearance of Joel Benjamin Rothman (SripLaw, P.A.) for Corinthian — the only defense filing in the case. No answer, no Rule 12 motion, no counterclaims were ever filed.

3. Termination (2025-10-07)

• Dkt. 11 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), stating that "Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment" (i.e., dismissal as of right, no court leave required).
• Dkt. 12 (2025-10-07) — Proposed order; approved as to form by the Clerk on 2025-10-08.
• Dkt. 13 (2025-10-07) — Order granting Rabicoff's pro hac vice admission.
• Dkt. 14 (2025-10-07) — Order (Rakoff, J.) granting the voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
• Dkt. 15 (2025-10-07) — AO 120 "case terminated" form reporting a final decision to the PTO.

---

What did not happen (and why that matters)

Why so fast? The docket does not say. The observable pattern across the campaign suggests Cedar Lane uses early dismissal as a triage/licensing tool: once a defendant retains counsel and signals a real defense, Cedar Lane either walks away without prejudice (as here and in Middlegate Securities, No. 1:25-cv-09530 (S.D.N.Y.), dismissed without prejudice Jan. 2026) or exits via a stipulated with‑prejudice dismissal of its claims with counterclaims dismissed without prejudice and each side bearing its own costs (e.g., Alterna Securities, No. 4:25-cv-01095 (S.D. Tex.); BNY Mellon, No. 1:25-cv-09488 (S.D.N.Y.), closed 2026-01-30; Henley & Co., No. 1:25-cv-06328 (E.D.N.Y.), closed 2026-02-25; Horace Mann, No. 1:25-cv-14404 (N.D. Ill.)). The without‑prejudice form here is the least favorable outcome for the defendant of the two exits, because it preserves re‑assertion.

---

Parallel PTAB / PTO proceedings on the ’782 patent

• No IPR or PGR on U.S. 8,577,782 has been identified in searches of PTAB metrics/RPX/Patexia and in the campaign's own pleadings, which do not reference any prior IPR, reissue, or reexam. Cedar Lane's complaints in this campaign expressly recite only the patent and its chain of title. Caveat: absence of a hit is not proof of absence; I could not run a direct PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board Endpoint / PTAB docket query in this session, so treat this as "no public evidence of a challenge" rather than a verified negative.
• The one PTAB precedent against Cedar Lane is on a different patent: Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Techs. Inc., IPR2020-00006 (U.S. 7,173,177) — instituted 2020-03-18; final written decision 2021-02-12 holding the asserted independent claim unpatentable; rehearing denied 2021-12-08. That decision is useful leverage against Cedar Lane generally but has no estoppel or preclusive effect on the ’782 patent.
• Statutory consequence of this dismissal (analysis, not a docket fact): under Click‑to‑Call Techs., LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc as to the relevant portion), service of a complaint starts the § 315(b) one‑year clock even if the complaint is later voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Corinthian was served 2025-09-25, so any Corinthian IPR petition on the ’782 patent would have had to be filed by roughly 2026-09-25. No such petition is reflected in the public record I could review, and that window has now closed.

---

Present posture

• The case is closed (terminated 2025-10-07; AO 120 filed the same day). Nothing is pending; no appeal was taken; no fees or costs were awarded.
• Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Cedar Lane is not barred from re‑suing Corinthian on the ’782 patent, subject to the six‑year damages lookback (35 U.S.C. § 286) and the patent's term (estimated expiry ~2030-04-08 based on the 2010-04-08 filing). No re‑filing against Corinthian Partners appears in the NPE Litigation Database (Stanford) or in RPX's ’782 case list as of this review.
• The ’782 patent itself remains unadjudicated and unconstrained: no claim construction, no validity ruling, no § 101 ruling, no PTAB review. Its asserted claim 1 (associating a trading entity with an identifier; acquiring trade history; receiving a liquidity‑provider offer based on a profitability profile; offer made only to that trading entity; processed through an exchange with a bid/offer spread) is squarely aimed at ordinary broker order‑handling and account‑profiling infrastructure, which is why the campaign has generated dozens of suits.

Campaign context (for the file)

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian entity (Nelson, B.C.) asserting the ’782 patent — acquired, with prosecution history at the Law Office of Donald L. Wenskay, examiner Nigh, TC 3600/G06Q40 — against broker‑dealers, banks, and RIAs. Representative filings include Cobra Trading (2:25-cv-00223, E.D. Tex., 2025-02-19), Hilltop Securities (3:25-cv-00483, N.D. Tex., 2025-02-25), Alterna Securities (4:25-cv-01095, S.D. Tex., 2025-03-08), Beech Hill (1:25-cv-07840, S.D.N.Y., 2025-09-22), Citibank (7:25-cv-00432, W.D. Tex., dismissed 2025-11-21), Middlegate (1:25-cv-09530), BNY Mellon (1:25-cv-09488), First Manhattan (1:25-cv-09485), Empire Asset (1:25-cv-09526), Percheron (1:25-cv-09531), Spartan Capital (1:25-cv-09535), Uhlmann Price (1:25-cv-15329, N.D. Ill., 2025-12-17), Prosperum (1:25-cv-15327), Bank of America (2:25

Let me verify the docket's attorney list and Rabicoff's background directly.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Short answer: exactly one attorney appeared for the plaintiff — Isaac Philip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, admitted pro hac vice. No local counsel, no co-counsel, and no in-house counsel ever entered an appearance on this docket.

Docket grounding

• Doc. 1 — Complaint for patent infringement against Corinthian Partners, L.L.C., filed 9/22/2025 by Rabicoff, with Ex. 1 (US 8,577,782) and Ex. 2 (claim chart) (Justia docket; PACER Monitor).
• Doc. 6 — "MOTION for Isaac P. Rabicoff to Appear Pro Hac Vice," $200 fee, with declaration, proposed order, and certificate of good standing (receipt ANYSDC-31747021). The motion is itself the tell that he is not a member of the S.D.N.Y. bar and required sponsorship to appear.
• Doc. 13 — "ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting #6 Motion… The motion of ISAAC RABICOFF … is granted" (Rakoff, J., 10/7/2025).
• Party listing on both Justia and PACER Monitor shows the plaintiff "Represented By: Isaac Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC" — and no other name. Third-party compilations (Patsnap Eureka; September 2025 Retail Patent Litigation Report, which records "Cnsl: Rabicoff Law" for the Corinthian matter) agree.
• Defendant Corinthian Partners is separately represented by Joel Benjamin Rothman (Sriplaw, P.A.), Notice of Appearance Doc. 10 (10/3/2025) — noted only to confirm the two sides' counsel are not conflated.

Caveats you should carry forward

1. No local counsel of record. S.D.N.Y. Local Civil Rule 1.3 requires a member of the court's bar to appear as counsel of record; the retrieved docket reflects none for plaintiff. That may be a docket-reporting gap, but nothing in the public record shows a local sponsoring attorney. Flag as unsourced if you need a definitive answer — PACER itself would be conclusive.
2. Nothing is sealed in this case; the full docket (15 entries) is public. So the absence of additional plaintiff-side appearances is a genuine absence, not a sealing artifact.
3. Case status discrepancy. Your metadata lists the case as "active," but the docket shows it closed on 10/7/2025: Doc. 11 (Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), filed by Rabicoff), Doc. 14 (order granting dismissal without prejudice, Rakoff, J.), Doc. 15 (AO 120 case-terminated form to the PTO). The dismissal came 15 days after filing and before any answer — no merits ruling, no IPR, and the '782 patent's validity was never adjudicated, so re-filing remains available.
4. Unverified details. I could not independently confirm Rabicoff's state bar admissions or formal "lead counsel" designation (S.D.N.Y. dockets do not designate lead trial counsel at this stage); the "lead counsel" label above reflects that he is the only plaintiff-side attorney of record. The Chicago address is from CourtListener party records in contemporaneous Cedar Lane matters (e.g., 2:25-cv-00815, 2:26-cv-00042), not from this docket's caption block.
5. Related-case note. In later Cedar Lane '782 suits, additional plaintiff-side counsel do appear — e.g., Brian P. Lanciault (Thompson Hine LLP) in Cedar Lane v. David Lerner Assocs., 1:26-cv-00183 (E.D.N.Y.), and Beusse Sanks, PLLC in Cedar Lane v. Insigneo Fin. Grp., 1:26-cv-25629 (S.D. Fla.). None of those attorneys appeared in 1:25-cv-07848, so do not attribute them to this matter.

Only one defense-side appearance shows on the docket. Let me verify the attorney/firm details and check related cases.

Let me confirm no additional defense counsel appeared and check the RPX docket/related-case context.

Counsel of Record — Defendant Corinthian Partners, L.L.C.

Bottom line: Exactly one attorney appeared for Corinthian Partners in this action, and he did so as a sole, New York–admitted appearance rather than through a local-counsel/pro hac vice pairing. No in-house counsel, no second firm, and no local counsel of record ever appeared, and no Rule 7.1 disclosure, answer, or counterclaim was filed before the case ended.

Defense counsel of record

One-line experience note: Rothman is a career IP litigator, Board Certified in Intellectual Property Law by The Florida Bar and a former Bronx County ADA (Rackets Bureau), whose docket blends patent assertion work and IP defense — e.g., he was filing counsel in Vortex Pathway LLC v. HID Global Corp., No. 2:16-cv-00954 (E.D. Tex.) and lead/noticed counsel in Voltstar Technologies Inc. v. Fantasia Trading LLC, No. 2:23-cv-01003 (N.D. Ill.), and served as backup counsel for patent owner VPR Brands LP in iMiracle HK Ltd. v. VPR Brands LP, IPR2023-01255 (PTAB). His public profile and TTAB/PTAB filings describe an IP practice weighted toward patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets.

Procedural caveats worth flagging

1. The docket is now closed, contrary to the "active" case status in the metadata. Cedar Lane filed a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice on October 7, 2025 (Dkt. 11), which Judge Jed S. Rakoff so-ordered that same day (Dkt. 14), with the AO-120 termination form submitted at Dkt. 15. The case existed for 15 days. See Justia docket and PacerMonitor docket.

2. Because defendant never answered, counsel's role produced no substantive filings. There is no answer, no motion to dismiss, no invalidity contentions, no Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure by Corinthian, and no IPR petition by Corinthian on the '782 patent that I can locate. Rothman's only docketed act was the notice of appearance — filed roughly two weeks after service (service was accepted 9/25/2025 by a receptionist, answer due 10/16/2025, Dkt. 9) and four days before dismissal. Any defense strategy work therefore happened off-docket.

3. Nothing is sealed in a way that hides counsel. The appearance is public and the docket is short and complete; the absence of additional defense counsel is a real absence, not an artifact of sealing.

4. Aggregator discrepancy: The Patsnap litigation profile lists Rothman under "Sriplaw, PA" as defendant's counsel and shows "Not recorded" in other fields; that is consistent with the PACER record but is derivative — the primary source is Dkt. 10. Some secondary databases (e.g., pre-appearance snapshots) show the defendant as "represented by" no one, which simply reflects capture dates before October 3, 2025.

5. Context on the campaign: This suit was part of a September 2025 wave of § 271 actions by Cedar Lane asserting US 8,577,782 ("Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants") against small/mid-size broker-dealers in S.D.N.Y. — e.g., Cedar Lane v. Beech Hill Securities, No. 1:25-cv-07840, and cases against Cantor Fitzgerald, Clear Street, and City National Rochdale, all filed by Rabicoff Law LLC (see the September 2025 Retail Patent Litigation Report, Lexology / LexBlog, and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database entry for 8,577,782). Most of these were voluntarily dismissed pre-answer as well — which is why comparably little defense-counsel data exists across the wave. Defense representation in the sibling cases varied by defendant (e.g., Cooley LLP appeared for Firstrade Securities in the E.D.N.Y. case, No. 1:25-cv-06322); Corinthian is not known to have shared counsel with any of them.

For completeness on the opposing side (plaintiff, not your question): Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago) filed the complaint and was admitted pro hac vice on October 7, 2025 (Dkts. 6, 13).