Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Costar Technologies Inc.

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

Case Overview: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Costar Technologies Inc., No. 3:22-cv-01009 (N.D. Tex.)

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian non-practicing entity formed in British Columbia on April 29, 2019, with a listed address of 560 Baker St., Nelson, BC, and attorney Greg Benoit as director — the same address used by IP licensing firm Pigott & Co. (RPX, Nov. 2019; KIPO/IP-Navi NPE profile). Cedar Lane does not make or sell products; its portfolio consists largely of patents acquired (in part through Steephill Technologies LLC) out of the Intellectual Ventures divestiture pipeline, and it has been described as one of the most prolific filers in the patent-monetization space, with hundreds of defendants sued since 2019 (Seyfarth Shaw, "NPE Showcase – Cedar Lane Technologies," Oct. 2022). Costar Technologies, Inc. (OTC: CSTI), by contrast, is a Coppell, Texas–based operating company that designs, manufactures and distributes video surveillance and machine-vision products — cameras, lenses, DVRs/NVRs and high-speed domes — through subsidiaries including CohuHD Costar, Costar Video Systems, Innotech Security, IVS Imaging, and, after July 2018, Arecont Vision Costar, LLC, the Glendale, California megapixel IP-camera business Costar bought out of Arecont's Chapter 11 (Costar press release, July 23, 2018). Costar itself was acquired by Korean video-surveillance group IDIS, a deal completed in August 2023 — after this case ended (Security Systems News).

The technology and patents. The asserted patent in the case metadata is U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242, "Host interface for imaging arrays" (issued Sept. 17, 2013; priority to January 2000; inventor Mark Suska). Technically, the '242 is a divisional of U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 (same title) and claims a method of processing imaging signals in which image data from an imaging array is written into a FIFO memory, a FIFO counter is compared against a programmed FIFO threshold, and an interrupt is generated to prompt the host processor to pull the data out — i.e., a buffer architecture that decouples a sensor's real-time output rate from a processor's read rate (Unified Patents patent record for US 8,537,242; Stanford NPE Litigation Database). Secondary databases of the complaint indicate that Cedar Lane pleaded both the '242 and its parent '790, the apparatus counterpart claiming an interface with a memory, a signal generator and a transfer-control circuit, preferably integrated on the same die as the image sensor (KOTRA IP dispute record; IPWatchdog filings roundups), though the case metadata here lists only the '242. Caveat: the specific accused Costar products are not identified in the publicly available body of the complaint, which instead incorporates claim charts as Exhibits 3 and 4; given Costar's product lines and the parallel filings against other IP-camera vendors, the accused instrumentalities are evidently Costar/Arecont Vision network cameras, but I could not verify specific model numbers from a public source. Damages and willfulness theories are likewise not publicly documented.

Procedural posture and why it matters. Cedar Lane first sued Costar in the Western District of Texas on February 1, 2022 (No. 6:22-cv-00117, Judge Alan D. Albright), then voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on March 28, 2022 before Costar answered, and refiled in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, on May 5, 2022 — Costar's home district (Unified Patents W.D. Tex. docket; N.D. Tex. docket). The case was initially assigned to Senior Judge Sam R. Cummings but was reassigned the next day to Chief Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn under Special Order 3-340. Costar was served May 9, 2022, answered with a jury demand and counterclaims posture on May 31, 2022 through local counsel C. Michael Moore, with pro hac vice appearances by Jennifer Librach Nall (granted June 6) and Chris Michael Katsantonis (granted June 13); Cedar Lane was represented by D. Bradley Kizzia and Jay B. Johnson of Kizzia Johnson PLLC in Dallas, with Isaac Rabicoff having handled the earlier W.D. Tex. filing. The litigation was short-lived: Cedar Lane filed an unopposed motion to stay deadlines with a notice of settlement on August 18, 2022, and the case was terminated on September 8, 2022 on a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice (Doc. 20) — roughly four months from filing, with terms undisclosed (N.D. Tex. docket). The case is notable on three counts. First, it is a textbook illustration of Cedar Lane's volume-driven model: the same May 2022 window saw N.D. Tex. complaints against Brickcom, Avycon, COP Security and Johnson Controls over the '527, '790 and '242 patents (Lexology, May 2022 Retail Patent Litigation Report), part of a campaign that also hit Motorola Solutions, Ricoh, STMicroelectronics, Snap, GoPro and numerous drone makers, and that has produced essentially no merits rulings, no trial, and a steady stream of quick dismissals (Seyfarth). Second, the W.D. Tex. → N.D. Tex. refiling against the same defendant in under three months fits the broader 2022 re-sorting of NPE venue preferences away from Judge Albright's courtroom, though no public filing explains Cedar Lane's specific reason. Third, the transactional and PTAB backdrop matters for valuation: the '242/'790 family is IV-derived, and the closest IPR linkage in this campaign is Unified Patents' challenge to a different Cedar Lane patent — U.S. 7,173,177, held unpatentable in a February 12, 2021 final written decision (IPR2020-00006) (Unified Patents). I found no IPR petition against the '242 itself, and third-party databases record no validity challenges to it — so this dismissal reflects a licensing settlement, not an adjudicated validity or infringement outcome. Given the family's January 2000 priority (Patsnap estimates the '790's term running to August 2023), the asserted rights were near the end of their life, which is consistent with a discounted, portfolio-wide settlement rather than protracted litigation.

I'll research the docket, filings, and any parallel PTAB proceedings before writing.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Bottom line: This is a pleadings-and-settlement case. It produced no dispositive-motion practice, no claim construction, no discovery of substance, no trial, and no judgment on the merits. It ran 126 days from complaint to dismissal with prejudice and generated no written opinion and no parallel PTAB proceeding on the asserted patent. The only legally consequential events are (i) the earlier, dismissed W.D. Tex. suit on the same patents; (ii) the answer-only defense (no counterclaims); and (iii) a with-preferential voluntary dismissal that permanently closed the '242 (and, if asserted, the '790) against Costar.

Chronology of record events

Sources: Unified Patents docket, 3:22-cv-01009; Justia docket; Patexia document index; Patexia W.D. Tex. document index, 6:22-cv-00117; UniCourt.

A. Pleadings stage: an answer-only defense

Costar's ECF 8 is docketed as an "ANSWER to [ECF] 1 Complaint with Jury Demand" and is ten pages long. Unlike Cedar Lane's parallel 2022–23 camera-vendor suits — where defendants such as EPIX, Snap One, and Dallmeier pleaded counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement/invalidity (plus inequitable conduct in some) — no counterclaim appears on this docket, and no Rule 12(b) motion, motion to dismiss, or motion to transfer was ever filed. Costar's defense was therefore purely responsive: affirmative defenses plus a jury demand, with invalidity/non-infringement asserted defensively rather than as affirmative claims. The substantive content of those affirmative defenses is not visible in the public docket mirrors and I have not verified it.

B. Pre-trial motions of substance: none

The task brief asks about motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, and summary judgment. The verified answer for each is none filed:

• Motion to dismiss / § 101 / § 112: none. Costar answered rather than move.
• Motion to transfer venue: none. This is the quiet payoff of Cedar Lane's W.D. Tex. → N.D. Tex. refiling; suing an operating company in its home district (Costar's principal place of business in Coppell, N.D. Tex.) removed the standard TC Heartland/§ 1404(a) attack that had become routine in Judge Albright's court by 2022.
• Motion to stay pending IPR or PGR: none — and none could have been. No petition existed against the '242 (see § F).
• Summary judgment, Daubert, MILs: none. The case never reached expert discovery.

The only contested-adjacent events are two unopposed procedural motions by Cedar Lane (ECF 18, the stay/settlement motion, and the earlier motion to continue the scheduling conference), both granted or mooted by dismissal.

C. Claim construction: the case never reached Markman

No scheduling order issued, no Joint Claim Construction Statement was filed, no Markman hearing was set, and there is no claim-construction order in this docket. The asserted terms that would have driven the case — principally whether the accused cameras' DMA/interrupt architecture generates a signal "in response to the quantity of data in the memory" and whether a "FIFO limit" comparison is satisfied by threshold- or timer-driven DMA bursts — were therefore never construed by Judge Lynn. Any construction of the '242 anywhere else is not binding on this record.

D. Discovery: no strategically significant milestone

No Rule 26(f) conference, Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures, protective order, or ESI order appears in the docket mirrors; no discovery motion (compel, protective order, sealing) was filed. The only "discovery" content in the record is Cedar Lane's own infringement claim charts, filed as Exhibits 3 and 4 to the complaint but not publicly reproduced. Practically, Costar obtained the claim charts and nothing else, and Cedar Lane obtained no Costar source code, no sales/revenue data, and no damages discovery — which materially caps what a future plaintiff could learn from this file.

E. Settlement and the final disposition (with prejudice)

• 2022-08-18 — Cedar Lane moved to stay all deadlines and noticed settlement, representing the case as resolved in principle.
• On or about 2022-09-07 — Cedar Lane filed a **Notice of Dismissal With Pre

Plaintiff's counsel of record — Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Costar Techs. Inc., No. 3:22-cv-01009 (N.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: The plaintiff's side was handled by a single small Dallas firm, Kizzia Johnson, PLLC (now Kizzia Law PLLC), with Jay B. Johnson as the attorney who actually signed and filed everything in this docket. No pro hac vice applications were filed by plaintiff's counsel — the firm is Dallas-based and N.D. Tex.-admitted — and no in-house counsel ever appeared for Cedar Lane. The case settled and was dismissed with prejudice in September 2022.

Table of counsel

Docket grounding

• ECF No. 1 — Complaint with jury demand, filed 5/5/2022 by "Johnson, Jay" (filing receipt 0539-12802595); exhibits 1–4 and civil cover sheet attached.
• ECF Nos. 2, 3 — Cedar Lane's Rule 7.1 CIP/disclosure statement and AO 120 patent-report notice, both filed by Johnson on 5/5/2022.
• ECF No. 7 — Summons returned executed (service on Costar 5/9/2022), filed by Johnson 5/11/2022.
• 8/15/2022 — Unopposed motion to continue scheduling conference, filed by Cedar Lane (Johnson).
• 8/18/2022 — Unopposed motion to stay deadlines and notice of settlement, filed by Cedar Lane (Johnson).
• ECF No. 20 — Notice of voluntary dismissal (with prejudice); case terminated 9/7–9/8/2022. No answer-stage merits ruling, claim construction, or summary judgment issued, and no IPR was filed against the '242 patent in connection with this case that I could locate — the case was resolved by settlement roughly four months after filing.

Sources: Unified Patents litigation portal for 3:22-cv-01009; Justia Dockets and UniCourt docket summaries (last PACER pull 6/13/2022) for 3:22-cv-01009; Patexia docket for 6:22-cv-00117; complaint signature blocks for Kizzia Johnson matters on CourtListener RECAP; firm bio pages at kizzialaw.com; PTAB filings listing Johnson as counsel.

Caveats

• I could not access the PACER docket directly; the docket entries above are reconstructed from the Unified Patents, Justia, UniCourt, and Patexia mirrors, which agree with each other. The precise ECF numbers for the two August 2022 motions are not visible in those mirrors, so I've cited them by date and description rather than guessing numbers.
• Nothing in the public record for this case is sealed that would affect the counsel identification; the only sealed/omitted material is the infringement-content of Exhibits 3 and 4 to the complaint, which does not bear on who appeared.
• Cedar Lane is a Canadian NPE; no in-house or corporate counsel for Cedar Lane appears anywhere on this docket.

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

Now let me verify each attorney's firm and role.

Counsel of Record for Costar Technologies, Inc.

Bottom line: Costar was defended by a single firm — DLA Piper LLP (US) — through three attorneys of record, all appearing in May–June 2022: one Texas-based local/answering counsel (C. Michael Moore, Dallas) and two pro hac vice patent litigators (Jennifer Librach Nall, Austin; Chris M. Katsantonis, then Chicago). No in-house counsel and no separate local-counsel firm appears on the docket, and no Costar filing in this case is sealed.

1. C. Michael Moore — local counsel / counsel of record (first to appear)

Sources: Justia docket; UniCourt docket; Law360 attorney page; Texas Lawbook lateral move.

2. Jennifer Librach Nall — lead patent counsel (pro hac vice)

Sources: DLA Piper bio; PTAB filings showing Reg. No. 57,053 and Austin address; W.D. Tex. docket, 6:22-cv-00117.

3. Chris Michael Katsantonis — supporting patent counsel (pro hac vice)

Sources: DLA Piper bio; PTAB order noting his departure from DLA Piper.

Procedural context that affects the counsel picture

• Two suits, same team. Costar was first sued by Cedar Lane on the '790/'242 family in W.D. Tex., No. 6:22-cv-00117 (filed 2/1/2022), where Nall appeared for Costar; Cedar Lane voluntarily dismissed that case without prejudice on 3/28/2022 and refiled in N.D. Tex. on 5/5/2022 (Case No. 3:22-cv-01009, Chief Judge Lynn after reassignment from Judge Cummings per SO 3-340). The same three DLA Piper lawyers therefore appear in both.
• Short life. Answer filed 5/31/2022; Cedar Lane moved to stay pending settlement (Doc. 18, 8/18/2022); the case was terminated 9/8/2022 on Cedar Lane's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 20). There are no claim-construction, summary-judgment, or trial rulings and no reported opinion, so there is no judicial assessment of counsel's performance to cite.
• No IPR by Costar located. I did not find a Costar-filed IPR/PGR against the '242 in the sources reviewed before my search budget ran out; I could not confirm that negative, so treat it as unverified rather than as a finding. (For contrast, plaintiff's side used Kizzia Johnson PLLC — D. Bradley Kizzia and Jay B. Johnson — plus Isaac Rabicoff in the W.D. Tex. case.)

Sourcing caveats

Counsel names and appearance dates are drawn from secondary docket mirrors (Justia, UniCourt, Patexia, Unified Patents) that consistently reproduce the CM/ECF text of Docs. 8–13; I did not pull the raw PACER docket in this session, so document numbers should be spot-checked on PACER/ROA before being cited in a filing. Firm offices for Moore (Dallas) and Katsantonis (Chicago) reflect the addresses in contemporaneous filings/PTAB papers, not statements in the N.D. Tex. docket itself; Nall's PHV application (Doc. 10) would confirm her then-listed address.