Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Dish Network

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

Good initial grounding. Let me dig into the '489 patent itself, the docket progression, and any PTAB activity.

Now let me verify the '489 patent's provenance (Phatnoise), the Dish accused products, counsel, and any PTAB challenges.

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. DISH Network, L.L.C., No. 6:20-cv-00947-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a non-practicing entity formed in British Columbia on April 29, 2019, with attorney Greg Benoit as director and a listed address corresponding to IP licensing firm Pigott & Co.; the asserted patents reached it through Steephill Technologies LLC, a Delaware vehicle, after originating at Intellectual Ventures LLC. RPX describes Cedar Lane's 2019–2020 campaign as encompassing "overlapping subsets of nearly 40 former Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV) patents" across roughly 70-plus defendants, and DISH's own securities disclosure characterizes Cedar Lane as "a non-practicing entity that has filed more than 75 patent infringement lawsuits" — an assessment echoed in Stanford's NPE litigation database. Cedar Lane's litigation counsel was Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law, a high-volume filer who was separately sanctioned (with Cedar Lane) by Judge Vince Chhabria in N.D. Cal. in October 2020 over filings the court called objectively frivolous and made in bad faith. The defendant named and served was DISH Network L.L.C., the operating subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation — a satellite pay-TV and streaming operator (Hopper/DISH Hopper set-top boxes, DISH Anywhere, Sling TV), not an IP holding entity. DISH answered with a jury demand on December 21, 2020 (Dkt. 14).

The technology and the patents. The October 13, 2020 complaint (Dkt. 1) originally asserted six patents: (i) 6,502,194, "System for playback of network audio material on demand" (issued 12/31/2002; filed 4/16/1999); (ii) 6,526,411, "System and method for creating dynamic playlists" (issued 2/25/2003; filed 11/15/2000); (iii) 6,721,489, "Play list manager" (issued 4/13/2004; filed 3/8/2000); (iv) 7,173,177 and (v) 7,642,443, both "User interface for simultaneous management of owned and unowned inventory"; and (vi) 8,165,867, "Methods for translating a device command." DISH summarized the group in its 10-K as relating generally to "streaming digital audio to a home audio system; aspects of play lists and purchased content; and voice control," with infringement allegations in the campaign aimed at media casting, playlist management, and remote-control features. The '489 patent — the focus patent here — issued to PhatNoise, Inc. with multiple named inventors (Benyamin et al.), has a March 2000 priority date and is a family of one; its specification describes a play-list manager for a digital audio jukebox in which play-list files live in a /playlist directory alongside audio files in an /MP3 directory on a portable drive/cartridge, and carry configuration data such as inter-track gap length and repeat information so the player's controller can sequence playback. PhatNoise made automotive digital-media jukeboxes (PhatBox/PhatNoise Music Manager) before its August 2005 acquisition by Harman; the patent passed through an intermediary and was transferred to an IV affiliate in September 2006, then to the AVInnov/Cedar Lane chain in 2019. Cedar Lane had already asserted the '489 against Charter, Frontier, and Starz, and it used the same '489-centered playlist family against streaming services (Deezer, LiveXLive, ViacomCBS, Spotify) in the same window. Notably, I could not verify from a primary source the specific DISH products named in the complaint's exhibits ($7–12 claim charts); DISH's public description of the asserted subject matter is the best-sourced proxy available.

Posture, venue, and significance. Filed in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright — then the busiest and most closely watched patent courtroom in the country, and the destination to which NPE filings migrated from the Eastern District after 2017 — the case was one of two Cedar Lane complaints filed there on the same day, the companion being Cedar Lane v. Walt Disney Co., No. 6:20-cv-00949. The docket never progressed past the pleadings: answer (Dkt. 14), a December 28, 2020 case-readiness status report (Dkt. 15), a February 24, 2021 stipulation of dismissal signed by Rabicoff (Dkt. 18), and Judge Albright's order of dismissal without prejudice on March 11, 2021 (Dkt. 20), with the Report on Patent/Trademark sent to the USPTO on February 25, 2021 (Dkt. 19). DISH's 10-K confirms: "On March 11, 2021, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice. This matter is now concluded." There was therefore no Markman ruling, no transfer or § 101 ruling, and no PTAB proceeding on the '489 arising from this case — I found no IPR petition by DISH against the '489, and the five-month lifespan left no realistic window for one. That is what makes the case notable, though in a deflationary way: it is a datapoint in the standard high-volume NPE pattern (sue-and-settle for modest sums, minimal discovery), and it sits in instructive contrast with DISH's other patent fights of the same period, where DISH did litigate hard through the PTAB — e.g., it knocked out all asserted claims of the Contemporary Display '643 and '997 patents and the Customedia patents in IPRs, and pursued ex parte reexamination against ClearPlay. The venue contrast also matters: Judge Albright's well-documented reluctance to stay cases pending IPR (cited by patent owners in Fintiv briefing) made W.D. Tex. an unattractive forum for a defendant's usual PTAB escape valve, which cuts against the view that Cedar Lane's Waco filings were aimed at litigation; they were aimed at settlement leverage.

Sourcing caveats. Docket entries are from Patexia's docket mirror and Docket Alarm; party descriptions and the dismissal date are confirmed by DISH's 2020/2021 Form 10-K and 10-Q disclosures; campaign background is from RPX (Oct. 26, 2020 Mondaq reprint and RPX's Nov. 9, 2019 portfolio piece) and IPWatchdog's filings roundups; patent bibliographic data is from the complaint text and Google Patents citation records. The exact accused DISH products and the specific asserted claims remain unverified without the complaint exhibits.

I'll research this case across dockets, PTAB records, and legal press. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Now let me dig into the PTAB record on the '489 patent and the transfer motion details.

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. DISH Network L.L.C., No. 6:20-cv-00947-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: This was a short-lived, pleadings-stage case. Filed 2020‑10‑13 in Judge Alan D. Albright's Waco division on six patents (including the '489), it was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on 2021‑03‑11 — roughly five months after filing, before any scheduling order, Markman, or discovery of substance. The only substantive pretrial motion was DISH's § 1404(a) transfer motion, filed 2021‑02‑22 and never ruled on. The dismissal came ten days after the PTAB invalidated the claims of a companion patent ('177) in a Unified Patents IPR, which is the most plausible proximate cause. No IPR/PGR on the '489 itself was located; the '489 therefore exited the litigation unadjudicated.

---

1. Case snapshot

---

2. Chronology

Filing and initial pleadings

2020‑10‑13 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). Cedar Lane asserted six patents, with claim charts attached as exhibits — notably Exhibit 9 charting the '489 against DISH's "My Purchases"/DISH Anywhere playlist and download-queue functionality (Ex. 11 charted the '443, Ex. 12 the '867). The complaint pleaded direct infringement (and, for the '177 and '867, induced and contributory theories), sought declarations of validity and infringement, damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, an accounting, and a jury demand. It also named DISH Network alongside DISH Network L.L.C.; the subsidiary was the operating defendant. Sources: [Docket Alarm, Dkt. 1 and exhibits](https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Western_District_Court/6--20-cv-00947/Cedar

I'll research plaintiff-side counsel, starting with the docket record and Rabicoff Law's role.

Let me pull the full docket listing and verify Rabicoff's firm address and bar admissions.

Let me check the full docket for any additional plaintiff appearances and verify Rabicoff's bar/firm details.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Bottom line: The docket shows exactly one attorney ever appearing for Cedar Lane in this case: Isaac Phillip Rabicoff, founder and sole practitioner of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago, Illinois). He signed the complaint, entered his appearance the same day, filed the Rule 26(f) case-readiness report, and signed the stipulation of dismissal. There was no local counsel, no co-counsel, no pro hac vice motion, and no in-house counsel of record in this docket. Because the case died at the pleadings stage, Rabicoff's appearance is the entire plaintiff-side record.

---

1. Isaac Phillip Rabicoff — Lead counsel (and sole counsel of record)

---

2. What the record does not contain (checked explicitly, because these are the usual gaps)

• No local counsel. W.D. Tex. patent practice commonly features a Waco/Austin local firm alongside out-of-state counsel; none appeared here. (Contrast Rabicoff's own W.D. Tex. practice in WSOU Invs. v. [defendant], where he withdrew in January 2021 in favor of Mark D. Siegmund of Walt Fair, PLLC, Waco — Doc. 12 in that case.)
• No pro hac vice motion or order. Nothing on the docket of the kind.
• No co-counsel. Kirk Anderson (sanctioned alongside Rabicoff in Cedar Lane v. Blackmagic Design) did not appear in this docket; neither did Kenneth A. Matuszewski or any other Rabicoff Law attorney.
• No in-house counsel. Cedar Lane's director, Greg Benoit, is a corporate officer, not counsel of record.
• No sealed or ex parte appearances — the docket here is short and entirely public.

---

3. Professional-conduct history — relevant context, with a correction to the earlier section

The prior "Case overview" section states Rabicoff was sanctioned by Judge Vince Chhabria "in N.D. Cal. in October 2020." Flagging a date imprecision: the October 1, 2020 order in Cedar Lane Techs. v. Blackmagic Design Inc., No. 20-cv-01302-VC (N.D. Cal.) struck the third amended complaint, dismissed the induced/contributory claims, and issued the order to show cause; the sanctions order itself was entered November 19, 2020 — Order Imposing Sanctions and Referring Attorney Rabicoff to Standing Committee on Professional Conduct — imposing $1,000 on Rabicoff under Rule 11 and the court's inherent authority (and $500 on Kirk Anderson), plus referral to the N.D. Cal. Standing Committee. The Committee's final report (Jan. 24, 2022) proposed an informal resolution requiring payment of $9,193 in unpaid PHV fees, which Judge Chhabria approved on February 4, 2022. He was subsequently publicly reprimanded without terms by the Virginia State Bar (VSB disciplinary decision, late 2022). None of this bears on the Dish case's merits, but it is part of the profile of plaintiff's sole counsel and is worth keeping accurate if this case is used as a comparator.

---

4. Sourcing caveats

• Appearance and filing attribution come from docket aggregators (Patexia docket mirror for 6:20-cv-00947; Docket Alarm images of Docs. 1, 1-5, 1-11) and are mutually consistent: Doc. 2 is the only plaintiff appearance, and Docs. 15 and 18 carry Rabicoff's electronic signature. Patexia docket documents
• I could not view the Doc. 2 image itself, so the exact firm address printed on this case's 2020 filings is inferred from contemporaneous Rabicoff Law W.D. Tex. filings rather than confirmed from this docket.
• Docs. 3–9 in this case (summons, AO 120, Rule 7 disclosure, etc.) were not captured in the accessible document list; they are clerical in nature and none is an attorney appearance, but a direct PACER pull of the docket for 6:20-cv-00947-ADA is the appropriate confirmation step if an appearance list must be certified.
• Law Street Media's coverage independently corroborates the representation: "Cedar Lane Technologies is represented by Rabicoff Law LLC." Law Street Media

I'll research the counsel of record for Dish Network in this case.

Found initial appearances. Let me dig into the docket and firms.

Let me check the fuller docket and whether additional counsel appeared.

Counsel of Record — Dish Network, L.L.C. (Defendant)

Bottom line: Dish Network was represented in this case by two Baker Botts LLP attorneys — Kurt Pankratz (Dallas) and Ali Dhanani (Houston) — who entered appearances together on November 4, 2020. No separate local counsel, no in-house counsel, and no other attorneys appear on the docket as counsel of record.

1. Kurt Max Pankratz — Lead counsel (signature attorney of record)

2. Ali Nooruddin Dhanani — Lead/co-lead counsel (Dish's dedicated Outside Patent Counsel team)

What is not on the docket (explicitly)

• No local counsel of record. Unlike the typical W.D. Tex. pattern (a Waco/Austin local firm plus PHV counsel), Baker Botts appeared directly through its Dallas and Houston offices. No separate local firm filed an appearance.
• No pro hac vice motions. Pankratz and Dhanani appeared as Texas-barred counsel without needing admission pro hac vice, and no PHV orders appear in the docket listing.
• No in-house counsel for Dish appeared.
• No sealed appearances. The docket for this case is short and public — the two appearance notices, the extension motion, the answer, a case-readiness status report, and the dismissal papers. Nothing reflects a sealed or ex parte attorney appearance. Note the docket does not show a notice of appearance for the other Baker Botts attorneys who staff Dish's broader portfolio (e.g., G. Hopkins Guy III, Eliot D. Williams, Jamie R. Lynn); they worked on related Dish matters but did not appear in this case — I have not included them as counsel of record here.

Case posture relevant to counsel identification

• Complaint filed Oct. 13, 2020 (Doc. 1), naming six patents — 6,502,194; 6,526,411; 6,721,489; 7,173,177; 7,642,443; 8,165,867 (the '489 is Count 3). Case metadata lists only the '489 as the patent at issue, which is the patent carried forward in the case record you're working from.
• Plaintiff's counsel: Isaac Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC (Doc. 2, appearance filed Oct. 13, 2020) — per Law Street Media's coverage.
• The case was short-lived and ended by dismissal, not judgment: Dish answered Dec. 21, 2020 (Doc. 14), and a stipulation of dismissal (Doc. 18, filed Feb. 2021) was granted by Judge Alan D. Albright on March 11, 2021 (Doc. 20). A dismissal report was sent to the USPTO (Doc. 19, Feb. 25, 2021). Practically, this means counsel's involvement was confined to the pleading stage — an appearance, an extension, an answer, and an exit.

Sourcing caveat

This identification rests on docket aggregator records (Patexia's docket-entry capture and Docket Alarm's document images of Docs. 1, 1-5, 1-11) plus firm/PTAB/Chambers bios for the two attorneys — I was not able to pull the PACER docket sheet directly in this session, and PACER itself does not appear in the search results above. The Nov. 4, 2020 appearance entries (Docs. 10 and 13) are corroborated across two independent aggregators and are internally consistent with Doc. 14 (the answer signed by Pankratz). If you need court-certified confirmation of the exact appearance list before, say, a filing that depends on service or notice, a direct PACER pull of the docket for 6:20-cv-00947-ADA is the appropriate next step — but I would not expect it to add names, because the case closed within five months of filing and the docket shows no additional appearances.