Litigation

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. DISH Network L.L.C.

terminated/closed
Filed
2020-10-13

Patents at issue (6)

8165867
6502194
6526411
6721489
7173177
7642443

Summary

Cedar Lane filed suit against DISH Network in the W.D. Tex. involving US 8,165,867 and other patents (6,502,194; 6,526,411; 6,721,489; 7,173,177; 7,642,443). The case was terminated/closed; the docket number was not confirmed.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

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

Excellent docket detail found. Let me dig into the IPR linkage, accused products, and outcome.

Case Overview & Background

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. DISH Network L.L.C., No. 6:20-cv-00947-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Division), filed Oct. 13, 2020, terminated Mar. 11, 2021.

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies is a British Columbia-formed, non-practicing patent assertion entity — organized April 29, 2019, with attorney Greg Benoit as director, using an address associated with the IP licensing firm Pigott & Co., and acquiring its portfolio through a Delaware intermediary, Steephill Technologies LLC. Its patents came out of Intellectual Ventures' divestiture stream (via AVInnov), making Cedar Lane a downstream purchaser of IV assets rather than an operating company or university. DISH Network L.L.C. is the operating pay-TV/satellite and streaming subsidiary of DISH Network Corp. (now EchoStar), and the named defendant; DISH's own SEC disclosures repeatedly describe Cedar Lane as "a non-practicing entity that has filed more than 75 patent infringement lawsuits." Cedar Lane was represented by Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC); DISH by Kurt Pankratz and Ali Dhanani (individual attorneys verified via the docket; I did not independently confirm their firm affiliations).

The accused technology and the six patents. The complaint pleads six counts against DISH's media streaming services, apps, set-top boxes and remote-control/voice functionality, using "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified only in claim-chart exhibits (Exs. 7–12) rather than in the body of the complaint. DISH's 10-Q summarized the theories as "streaming digital audio to a home audio system; aspects of play lists and purchased content; and voice control," and contemporaneous reporting (Mondaq, Oct. 2020) describes the campaign as targeting "media casting, playlist management, and remote control features" of streaming services. The asserted patents, per the complaint (Doc. 1) and DISH's 10-Q: 6,502,194 — "System for playback of network audio material on demand" (filed 4/16/1999, issued 12/31/2002); 6,526,411 — "System and method for creating dynamic playlists" (filed 11/15/2000, issued 2/25/2003); 6,721,489 — "Play list manager" (filed 3/8/2000, issued 4/13/2004); 7,173,177 — "User interface for simultaneous management of owned and unowned inventory" (filed 10/29/2003, issued 2/6/2007); 7,642,443 — same title, continuation practice (filed 8/29/2006, issued 1/5/2010); and 8,165,867 — "Methods for translating a device command" (filed 9/15/2000, issued 4/24/2012), i.e., remote-control command translation. The '177/'443 pair covers indicating in a playlist UI whether content is already owned or must be acquired; the '194/'411/'489 trio covers on-demand networked audio playback and playlist generation/management; the '867 covers cross-device command translation.

Procedural posture and why the venue matters. The case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright in the Waco Division — in 2020–21 the single busiest patent venue in the country and Cedar Lane's preferred forum. The docket shows an unusually compressed life: complaint (Doc. 1, 10/13/2020); DISH's answer with jury demand (Doc. 14, 12/21/2020); Cedar Lane's case-readiness report (Doc. 15, 12/28/2020); DISH's opposed § 1404(a) motion to transfer to the District of Colorado with eleven exhibits (Doc. 16, 2/22/2021); a stipulation of dismissal two days later (Doc. 18, 2/24/2021); and Judge Albright's order granting dismissal (Doc. 20, 3/11/2021). DISH's 10-K states the dismissal was without prejudice; no consideration or settlement terms are publicly disclosed, so any inference that a license was paid is unsourced. Notably, Cedar Lane filed a companion case against The Walt Disney Co. in Waco the same day (No. 6:20-cv-00949).

Why it's notable. Three reasons. First, it is a clean specimen of the 2019–2022 Waco NPE wave: Cedar Lane ran overlapping subsets of roughly 40 former IV patents against ~70+ defendants and, per IAM (Mar. 2023), achieved a 96% settlement rate among terminated cases; it became the top-filing NPE in 2022. Second, it carried direct IPR linkage: Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., IPR2020-00006 (petition filed 10/3/2019, instituted 3/18/2020, panel Kaiser/Beamer/Howard) produced a final written decision on Feb. 12, 2021 holding the asserted independent claim of the '177 patent unpatentable — twelve days before Cedar Lane stipulated to dismissal here. The '177 patent had been asserted against Charter/Spectrum, T-Mobile, Disney, DISH and CBS, so a defensive aggregator's IPR removed a claim with cross-defendant leverage; Unified's request for rehearing was denied Dec. 8, 2021. I have not found public confirmation of IPRs on the other five patents in this suit, and I cannot confirm that the '177 FWD caused the dismissal, though the timing is suggestive. Third, the case captures the venue wars: DISH's transfer motion (following its Colorado-transfer strategy in other NPE suits) was cut short by dismissal, so W.D. Tex. never ruled on it — leaving the case with zero substantive claim-construction or invalidity rulings and no merits adjudication of the '194, '411, '489, '443 or '867 patents against DISH.

Sourcing note: docket entries and dates above are from the Patexia/RPX docket transcript for No. 6:20-cv-00947 and the complaint text reproduced by Docket Alarm; party characterizations and patent descriptions from DISH Network Corp. Form 10-Q (Nov. 6, 2020) and Form 10-K (FY2021); IPR details from Unified Patents' case note and the PTAB docket for IPR2020-00006. I could not retrieve the underlying claim-chart exhibits or a PACER-generated copy of the complaint to identify the specific accused DISH products (e.g., Hopper, DISH Anywhere, voice remote) — that specific identification should be treated as unverified.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with docket and filing details.

Case number confirmed: 6:20-cv-00947-ADA (Judge Albright). Let me pull the full docket and check for PTAB activity.

Now let me check the PTAB side (Unified Patents challenge to the '177 patent) and get the full docket text.

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, pleadings-stage case that never reached a scheduling order, Markman, or discovery. Cedar Lane sued on 2020-10-13 over six former-Intellectual Ventures media/playlist/remote-control patents, DISH answered, and the case was dismissed by stipulation in March 2021 — roughly five months after filing, two days after DISH moved to transfer the case to Colorado, and twelve days after the PTAB invalidated the asserted claim of one of the six patents. No motion to dismiss, no stay motion, no claim construction, no summary judgment, no trial, no fees motion, and no appeal.

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Date Docket Event
2020-10-13 D.E. 1 Complaint for patent infringement, six counts (one per patent), jury demand, 12 exhibits including claim charts. Assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright.
2020-10-13 D.E. 2, 3, 5, 8 Notice of appearance (Isaac Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC); Rule 7.1 disclosure (no parent/publicly held owner); AO-120 form to USPTO; summons issued.
2020-10-14 D.E. 9 Judge Albright's Standing Order Regarding Notice of Readiness in Patent Cases.
2020-11-04 D.E. 10–12 DISH appearance (Kurt Pankratz) and later Ali Dhanani; unopposed extension motion; Rule 7.1 disclosure.
2020-11-05 Text order Extension granted; answer due 2020-12-21.
2020-12-21 D.E. 14 DISH's Answer (13 pp.), with jury demand.
2020-12-28 D.E. 15 Cedar Lane's Case Readiness Status Report under the standing order.
  • Patents asserted: US 6,502,194 (network audio on demand); 6,526,411 (dynamic playlists); 6,721,489 (playlist manager); 7,173,177 and 7,642,443 (owned/unowned inventory UI); 8,165,867 (translating a device command). See D.E. 1 at 3–4.
  • Accused functionality: DISH's "Movies for Purchase" feature within its Video on Demand menu, plus related apps and media-streaming products; the complaint pleads direct, induced, and contributory infringement. (Law Street/General Counsel News summary)
  • Counterclaims: The docket entry for D.E. 14 is captioned only as an "ANSWER to 1 Complaint, with Jury Demand" — the docket does not reflect counterclaims, and I found no separately docketed counterclaim. Treat "DISH asserted no counterclaims" as probable but not verified against the document text.
  • No Rule 12(b) motion was filed; DISH answered on the merits deadline instead.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

  • No motion to dismiss, no motion to stay pending IPR, no summary judgment motion, no motion to sever, no discovery motions appear on this docket.
  • The one substantive motion: DISH's §1404(a) motion to transfer to the District of Colorado, filed 2021-02-22 (D.E. 16, with 11 exhibits and a proposed order). DISH is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado, so this was a natural venue challenge before Judge Albright — a judge whose §1404(a) rulings were heavily litigated in 2020–21.
  • The motion was never decided. Cedar Lane filed a Stipulation of Dismissal (D.E. 18) on 2021-02-24 — two days after the transfer motion — and Judge Albright granted it by Order dated 2021-03-11 (D.E. 20), terminating the case. A Report on Patent/Trademark was sent to the USPTO on 2021-02-25 (D.E. 19).

3. Claim construction and discovery

None. The case was dismissed before a scheduling order issued. There was no Markman briefing, no Albright-style claim construction hearing, no invalidity contentions, no document production, no depositions, and no damages discovery. The only "milestone" of strategic significance is the readiness report (D.E. 15) confirming the case was still in its infancy at the end of 2020 — consistent with contemporaneous reporting that Cedar Lane's campaign "ha[d] yet to take any of its cases much beyond pleadings." (Mondaq/RPX, 2020-10-26)

4. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial setting, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, and no fee motion under §285.

5. Parallel PTAB proceeding — the decisive event

The only identified PTAB challenge to any asserted patent is Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., IPR2020-00006 on US 7,173,177:

  • Petition filed 2019-10-03 (Unified, represented in-house by Michelle Callaghan and Roshan Mansinghani, outside counsel Husch Blackwell; Cedar Lane represented by Isaac Rabicoff, the same counsel of record in this case).
  • Institution on all challenged claims, 2020-03-18 — i.e., before the DISH suit was filed. (Unified Patents, 2020-03-24)
  • Final Written Decision 2021-02-12 holding the asserted independent claim of the '177 patent unpatentable. (Unified Patents, 2021-02-12)
  • The Board did not invalidate claims 16–22; Unified's request for rehearing was denied 2021-12-08 (IPR2020-00006, Paper 24). No Federal Circuit appeal by either side is reflected in the record I could locate.
  • Unified's own summary expressly lists DISH among the defendants against whom the '177 patent had been asserted, and the '177 patent was simultaneously in suit against Spectrum/Charter, T-Mobile, Disney, and CBS.

Effect on this litigation: The FWD landed on 2021-02-12. DISH moved to transfer on 2021-02-22. Cedar Lane stipulated to dismissal on 2021-02-24. That is a plausible causal chain — Cedar Lane lost its strongest inventory-UI patent (one of only two asserted from that family) and faced losing the case to Colorado — but the record does not establish which factor drove the dismissal, and I found no filing that says so.

6. Final disposition and present posture

  • Dismissed by stipulation; order entered 2021-03-11 (D.E. 20). Case terminated/closed, consistent with the metadata.
  • **Whether the dismissal was with or without

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

I'll search for press coverage of this case across multiple angles.

Let me check the IPWatchdog roundups that likely mention this filing.

Let me check the other roundups and look for additional coverage.

Press and analysis coverage

Coverage of this case specifically is thin — a handful of roundup-table entries and one trade summary, and no mainstream or national legal-press treatment. The most precise contemporaneous notice is the filing itself: IPWatchdog's Oct. 21, 2020 "Patent Filings Roundup" (Jonathan Stroud) listed Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Dish Network, No. 6:20-cv-00947, among that week's 61 new district court complaints, alongside the companion Cedar Lane v. Walt Disney Co. (6:20-cv-00949), with the asserted patents tabulated. It is a data row, not analysis — the roundup's editorial content that week was devoted to the Nokia/Lenovo AVC codec fight. That is characteristic of how this case was covered throughout: as an entry in Cedar Lane's campaign statistics rather than as a litigation in its own right. I found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, Patently-O or JD Supra article about this docket, and no coverage at all of the February–March 2021 dismissal.

The only substantive description of the allegations comes from trade press summarizing the complaint. Law Street Media's report, republished by General Counsel News, reported that Cedar Lane accused DISH's "Movies for Purchase" feature within its Video on Demand menu, and summarized the six patents as relating to "playback of network audio on demand, creating and managing playlists, management of owned and unowned inventory, and translating a device command." More analytically useful is the Mondaq analysis published Oct. 26, 2020, which placed the DISH and Disney suits inside Cedar Lane's campaign of "almost 70 defendants with overlapping subsets of nearly 40 former Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV) patents" and said the infringement theories "focus on media casting, playlist management, and remote control features of the new defendants' various streaming services." That piece is also the source for the corporate-background material in the case overview (British Columbia formation April 29, 2019; Greg Benoit as director; the Pigott & Co. address; the Steephill Technologies pass-through) and for the contemporaneous assessment that Cedar Lane "has yet to take any of its cases much beyond pleadings."

Where accounts differ. The Mondaq analysis is a campaign-wide piece, and its patent set does not map onto this complaint: it describes the '867 patent as covering "wirelessly controlling a device with another device in real time" (the complaint pleads "translating a device command"), and it lists two patents — 6,452,609 and 7,610,394 — that were asserted against the other October 2020 defendants (Deezer, LiveXLive, ViacomCBS), not against DISH. Anyone relying on that paragraph as a description of this case would misstate the asserted art. Law Street's "Movies for Purchase" detail, by contrast, goes beyond the complaint body (which identifies accused products only in claim-chart exhibits) and remains the only public identification of a specific accused DISH feature I located.

The invalidity event and the outcome were reported only indirectly. Unified Patents announced on Feb. 12, 2021 that the PTAB had held the asserted independent claim of US 7,173,177 unpatentable in IPR2020-00006, expressly noting that the '177 patent "had been asserted against several companies such as Spectrum (Charter Communications), T-Mobile, Disney, Dish Network, CBS Corp., and others" — which is the only press-side confirmation that ties the IPR to this defendant. But no outlet I found reported the DISH dismissal itself; the dismissal appears in the public record only through DISH's own SEC disclosures (reproduced in its FY2020 Form 10-K and later S-4/prospectus filings, e.g. EchoStar's investor site), which state that on March 11, 2021 "pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice" and that "this matter is now concluded," while characterizing Cedar Lane as "a non-practicing entity that has filed more than 75 patent infringement lawsuits." That is a party characterization in a securities filing, not journalism. Later roundups in the supplied list continue to track Cedar Lane only as a high-volume filer — e.g., IPWatchdog, Mar. 17, 2021 recorded a burst of new Cedar Lane complaints that week (asserting, among others, the '867 patent against AT&T and Nvidia), and Roundtable Group, Feb. 18, 2022 named Cedar Lane among the largest filers with "at least 75 new lawsuits this year alone" — without referencing DISH.

Sourcing note: no reported damages figure, settlement amount, license, or market-impact estimate exists in any source I found for this case; the dismissal was without prejudice and no consideration was disclosed, so any "settlement value" characterization would be unsourced. I also could not retrieve full text of several IPWatchdog roundups in the supplied list (the Feb. 18, 2021 and Oct. 7, 2021 items in particular were not fully retrievable before search limits were reached), so I cannot rule out that the DISH dismissal appears in one of their termination tables; the only non-press record of the outcome I located beyond the docket was a foreign government trade database entry (KOTRA, Korea) logging No. 6:20-cv-00947 with a first-instance result of voluntary dismissal ("소취하").

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

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

Case number confirmed. Now let me pull the docket entries and appearances.

Let me verify the full docket via CourtListener and check the plaintiff's counsel's firm details.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Case: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. DISH Network L.L.C., No. 6:20-cv-00947-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.), assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright. Filed Oct. 13, 2020; terminated Mar. 11, 2021. (Case number now confirmed from the filings themselves — the complaint's CM/ECF header reads "Case 6:20-cv-00947-ADA Document 1 Filed 10/13/20.")

The short answer: one attorney, no local counsel

The public docket reflects a single attorney of record for the plaintiff — Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC — who both signed the complaint and made the only plaintiff-side appearance in the case. Unlike most W.D. Tex. patent matters of that era, no local counsel, no second firm, and no in-house/party attorney ever appeared for Cedar Lane.

Attorney Role Firm / Office Note
Isaac Rabicoff Lead (and sole) counsel of record — signed the complaint, filed the Rule 7 disclosure, litigated through dismissal Rabicoff Law LLC, 5680 King Centre Dr., Suite 645, Alexandria, VA 22315; tel. (773) 669-4590; isaac@rabilaw.com. (Small/solo patent boutique; himself a registered patent attorney.) The architect and near-exclusive filer of Cedar Lane's nationwide assertion campaign — Law.com Radar described this very complaint as "filed by Rabicoff Law on behalf of Cedar Lane Technologies Inc." He personally appeared in dozens of Cedar Lane suits across W.D. Tex., D. Del., D.N.J., N.D. Ill. and elsewhere.

Docket support for the appearance

  • Dkt. 1 (Oct. 13, 2020) — Complaint for patent infringement (six patents: '194, '411, '489, '177, '443, '867), 12 exhibits with claim charts. Signature block: "/s/ Isaac Rabicoff, Isaac Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC, 5680 King Centre Dr, Suite 645, Alexandria, VA 22315 … Counsel for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc."
  • Dkt. 2 (Oct. 13, 2020) — "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Rabicoff on behalf of Cedar Lane Technologies Inc."
  • Dkt. 3 (Oct. 13, 2020) — Rule 7 disclosure statement (no parent; no publicly held 10% owner).
  • Dkt. 15 (Dec. 28, 2020) — Case Readiness Status Report filed by Rabicoff for Cedar Lane, per Judge Albright's standing order.
  • Dkt. 18 (Feb. 24, 2021) — Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Rabicoff for Cedar Lane.
  • Dkt. 20 (Mar. 11, 2021) — Order granting the stipulation, signed by Judge Albright — the termination entry.

For context on the defense side (not your question, but it explains the case's short life): DISH was represented by Kurt Pankratz (Dkt. 10) and Ali Dhanani (Dkt. 13), both appearing Nov. 4, 2020; DISH answered Dec. 21, 2020 (Dkt. 14) and filed a § 1404(a) motion to transfer to the District of Colorado on Feb. 22, 2021 (Dkt. 16) — two days before Cedar Lane stipulated to dismissal without prejudice. The case thus ended on the pleadings, before any claim construction or damages discovery.

Important caveats and sourcing limits

  1. No sealing issue. The docket appears fully public/redacted; nothing about the plaintiff's representation is under seal. The absence of additional plaintiff counsel is therefore a real absence, not an artifact of sealed filings.
  2. No pro hac vice motion or local-counsel entry appears in the public docket for plaintiff. I could not verify from available sources whether Rabicoff was admitted to the W.D. Tex. bar at the time or appeared under some other authorization — I am flagging this as unresolved rather than characterizing it as a rules violation. (Note that his appearances in this case and scores of other Cedar Lane W.D. Tex. suits are docketed the same way, without local counsel.)
  3. Cedar Lane's principal is not counsel of record. Cedar Lane Technologies was formed in British Columbia in 2019 with attorney Greg Benoit as director, and its complaint address corresponds to IP licensing firm Pigott & Co. (per RPX/Law360-adjacent reporting at the time of filing). Benoit did not enter an appearance in this case and should not be listed as counsel; he is the client-side principal, not counsel of record.
  4. "Notable cases" for Rabicoff — I can confirm only what the dockets show: he is the recurring filer for Cedar Lane's campaigns against streaming, cable, and consumer-electronics defendants. I have not verified whether he was counsel in the N.D. Cal. Cedar Lane v. Blackmagic Design matter in which Judge Chhabria issued an October 1, 2020 order to show cause threatening sanctions against Cedar Lane's counsel — I would not attribute that to him without pulling that docket.
  5. Docket access method. PACER itself was not queried directly; the docket entries above are drawn from third-party PACER mirrors (Patexia litigation database, Docket Alarm/RECAP) and the filed complaint text. A direct PACER pull of 6:20-cv-00947 would be the prudent final confirmation, though the entries are internally consistent.

Bottom line: if you need to notice, contact, or conflict-check plaintiff's counsel in this matter, the only name is Isaac Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC (Alexandria, VA) — lead counsel, sole counsel, and the signatory on every plaintiff-side filing from complaint to stipulation of dismissal.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

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

I've confirmed the case number (6:20-cv-00947-ADA). Now let me find the docket entries identifying DISH's counsel.

Found two appearances (Docs. 10 & 13). Let me identify their firms and backgrounds.

Counsel of Record — DISH Network L.L.C.

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

The docket number, which the prior summary flagged as unconfirmed, is now confirmed: 6:20-cv-00947-ADA. The case was filed 10/13/2020, answered 12/21/2020, and dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the parties' stipulation (Doc. 18) by order entered March 11, 2021 (Doc. 20).

Attorneys who appeared for DISH

# Attorney Role Firm / Office Docket basis
1 Kurt Pankratz Lead / primary counsel of record — he filed the only substantive defense pleading (the Answer) Baker Botts L.L.P., 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 900, Dallas, TX 75201 (214-953-6500) Notice of Attorney Appearance, Doc. 10 (Nov. 4, 2020); Answer with Jury Demand, Doc. 14 (Dec. 21, 2020)
2 Ali Dhanani (Ali Nooruddin Dhanani) Co-counsel of record / second attorney appearing for DISH Baker Botts L.L.P. (Texas) Notice of Attorney Appearance, Doc. 13 (Nov. 4, 2020)

Experience notes

  • Kurt Pankratz — Registered patent attorney (USPTO Reg. No. 46,977) and Baker Botts partner; the firm's Dallas IP litigation group. He was DISH's lead trial counsel in ClearPlay, Inc. v. DISH Network L.L.C. (D. Utah), where a March 2023 jury found infringement and awarded damages, the district court then granted DISH's JMOL of noninfringement, and the Federal Circuit affirmed (Fed. Cir. appeal nos. 22-1627/22-1558) — the outcome Baker Botts publicized as a "$470M verdict reversal obtained for DISH." He also represents DISH/Sling in DISH Technologies L.L.C. v. MG Premium Ltd. (D. Utah) and appeared for DISH in Multimedia Content Management LLC v. DISH Network L.L.C. (W.D. Tex. No. 6:18-cv-00207, Albright, J.). He is regularly admitted pro hac vice in DISH's out-of-state cases, consistent with a national relationship-counsel role for DISH.
  • Ali Dhanani — Baker Botts litigator listed alongside Pankratz on the firm's DISH $470M-verdict-reversal team release. He was also DISH's docketed Texas counsel in Multimedia Content Management LLC v. DISH Network L.L.C. (W.D. Tex.), signing DISH's stipulation to stay (Doc. 126) and joint stipulation of dismissal (Doc. 129) there — i.e., a repeat W.D. Tex./Judge Albright hand for DISH in NPE matters.

Important qualifications and sourcing gaps

  • No separate local counsel appeared. In W.D. Tex. practice a non-local firm typically adds local counsel; here both appearing attorneys were Baker Botts Texas lawyers, so Baker Botts apparently served in both roles. I found no notice of appearance by any other firm, and no in-house DISH attorney appeared on the docket.
  • I could not pull the PACER docket sheet directly (paywalled); the document list above comes from third-party docket mirrors (Patexia's docket report for No. 6:20-cv-00947, Docket Alarm, CourtListener). Entries I could not fully attribute include Docs. 3–7, 9, 11 (the extension of time motion granted by text order 11/5/2020), 12, 15–17. It is possible one of these is an additional appearance or pro hac vice motion I did not see; I have not invented anyone to fill that gap.
  • No sealing issue: nothing suggests DISH's appearances were sealed or redacted; the appearances and Answer are public.
  • Ali Dhanani's specific Baker Botts office (Houston vs. Dallas/Austin) is not confirmed from a firm bio in the sources I could retrieve — treat the "Texas office" designation as approximate. His firm is confirmed by the Baker Botts news release listing him with the DISH matter.
  • Why the case ended quickly: consistent with Cedar Lane's campaign-wide pattern (dismissals shortly after pleadings, often following ex parte reexamination requests by defendants), DISH's SEC disclosures state the case was dismissed without prejudice by stipulation on March 11, 2021 and "this matter is now concluded." DISH also pursued ex parte reexamination of the Cedar Lane patents in this period; I did not verify whether any reexamination requests targeted the six patents in this case specifically.
Record id: 8165867-cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-dish-network-l-l-c · edit in Admin