Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Disney

I'll research this case before writing the overview.

Good initial hits. Now let me pin down the Disney complaint's specifics, the '867 patent's technology, and any PTAB activity.

Now let me verify the Disney-specific accusations, the dismissal, and any PTAB challenge to the '867 patent.

Case Overview & Background

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company, No. 6:20-cv-00949 (W.D. Tex.), was filed October 13, 2020 and assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright. Plaintiff Cedar Lane is a non-practicing patent assertion entity, not an operating company or university: it was incorporated in British Columbia on April 29, 2019, with attorney Greg Benoit as director, and lists an address corresponding to IP licensing firm Pigott & Co. Its asserted portfolio traces back to Intellectual Ventures LLC, passing through a Delaware intermediary, Steephill Technologies LLC, before reaching Cedar Lane. Cedar Lane has disclosed no parent corporation and no publicly held entity owning 10% or more of its stock, and it pleaded that no nonparty has a pecuniary interest in the outcome. Disney is the operating-company defendant—the entertainment and media conglomerate whose direct-to-consumer streaming business (Disney+ had launched in November 2019, alongside Hulu and ESPN+) was the commercial backdrop to the suit. Cedar Lane's counsel was Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, a high-volume filer in the campaign; Disney's counsel is not identified in the docket materials I could verify. (Justia docket; RPX/Mondaq, Oct. 26, 2020)

The patents and accused technology. The metadata patent for this case is U.S. Patent No. 8,165,867, "Methods for translating a device command," issued April 24, 2012 from an application filed September 15, 2000 (a six-member family, estimated priority September 2000). In one line: it claims a method of using a first electronic device to operate a second, physically separate device in real time—capturing auditory information (human speech) at the first device, manipulating it, transmitting it to a remote computer system that translates it into a command, and using the result to operate the second device that is only intermittently local. Practically, that maps onto voice-assistant/remote-control ecosystems (Google Assistant, voice remotes, casting) and is how Cedar Lane later charted it against smart speakers, streaming devices, and voice remotes. Notably, the Disney complaint was not limited to the '867: IPWatchdog's filing roundup lists four patents in 6:20-cv-00949—6,526,411; 6,721,489; 7,173,177; and 8,165,867—drawn from the campaign's playlist-management and owned/unowned-inventory families, and the complaint's eight exhibits were claim charts. RPX characterized the October 2020 Disney and DISH complaints (DISH was sued the same day, No. 6:20-cv-00947) as targeting "the provision of media streaming services as well as related apps and products," with infringement theories centering on media casting, playlist management, and remote-control features. The specific accused Disney products named in the claim charts are not described in any public source I located, so I flag that as unverified rather than assume Disney+ by name. (IPWatchdog roundup, Oct. 21, 2020; Unified Patents PATROLL)

Procedural posture, disposition, and why it matters. The case was filed in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas—case-number prefix "6:"—before Judge Albright, then the single most important patent venue in the country for PAEs, prized for speed to trial and a plaintiff-friendly bench; Cedar Lane's Waco filings in October 2020 were a textbook example of that venue strategy, and they predate the 2021–22 Federal Circuit venue-shopping corrections and the district's later random-assignment changes. The case never reached claim construction. Cedar Lane filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on February 23, 2021 (Doc. 8), with the PTO report sent the same day (Doc. 9), and Judge Albright signed the Order Dismissing Case on October 14, 2021 (Doc. 13, with PTO report at Doc. 14); the docket does not disclose settlement terms, and I found no public record of a license or payment. The case is notable for three reasons. First, it is a data point in Cedar Lane's campaign, which RPX reported had grown past 150 defendants by January 2022 across roughly 50 former IV patents—the '867 alone was asserted against D-Link, Disney, DISH, Comcast, LG, iHeartMedia, ViacomCBS, TCL, SiriusXM, Bose, Sonos, Walmart, Cox, Wyze, WideOpenWest, and Leviton—with IAM later profiling Cedar Lane as "America's top-filing NPE." Second, it sits squarely in the IPR/patent-quality linkage: Unified Patents challenged Cedar Lane's '177 patent (also asserted here) in IPR2020-00006, and the Board's final written decision of February 12, 2021 held the asserted independent claim unpatentable—twelve days before Cedar Lane dropped Disney, a timing coincidence I note without asserting causation, since no public filing ties the two. Unified also ran a PATROLL prior-art contest on the '867's claim 1 (opened January 20, 2021, closed March 1, 2021, with a $3,000 award to Vibhor Dimri in April 2021), but I could not confirm any instituted IPR against the '867 itself. Third, the case reflects the 2020 wave of NPE assertions against streaming platforms, and it carries the reputational baggage of Cedar Lane's litigation conduct—two weeks before filing against Disney, Judge Vince Chhabria in N.D. Cal. ordered Cedar Lane to show cause why its Blackmagic Design case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and why counsel should not be sanctioned. For Disney, the suit was a low-cost nuisance exposure absorbed into a much larger docket of streaming-related patent fights (Velos Media, InterDigital, DivX), and it resolved quietly by dismissal within roughly four months of filing.

Sourcing caveats: party names, court, docket number, filing date, judge, and dismissal entries are grounded in the Justia/Patexia docket records cited above; the four-patent composition of the Disney complaint rests on IPWatchdog's roundup (consistent with the eight exhibits on the docket) and should be confirmed against the Doc. 1 PDF on PACER; the accused-product identification for Disney specifically, the dismissal's substantive terms, and Disney's counsel are not publicly documented in the sources reviewed. The metadata for this case lists only the '867, and I have treated that as authoritative for the "patent at issue" while noting the broader complaint.

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with searches on the docket and the patent.

Good initial hits. Let me pull the actual docket and confirm the details of the dismissal, any answer/counterclaims, and the PTAB proceedings.

Let me dig into the complaint itself, the dismissal terms, and any PTAB proceedings on the '867 patent.

Bottom line

I confirmed the metadata that the prior summary flagged as unverified: Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. The Walt Disney Co., No. 6:20-cv-00949 (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.), filed 2020-10-13 before Judge Alan D. Albright, and it terminated by Cedar Lane's own notice of voluntary dismissal filed 2021-02-23, with the formal dismissal order entered 2021-10-14. The case never left the pleadings stage: no answer, no counterclaims, no Rule 12/transfer/stay motions, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, no fees motion, no appeal. The only merits event with any causal bite was at the PTAB — the Board's 2021-02-12 final written decision in IPR2020-00006 invalidating claims of U.S. 7,173,177, one of the patents Cedar Lane asserted against Disney — eleven days before Cedar Lane walked away.

---

Chronology of developments

I'll research the counsel of record for Cedar Lane Technologies in this W.D. Tex. action against Disney.

Let me dig into the docket details and counsel information.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Case identification (confirmed): Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company, No. 6:20-cv-00949 (W.D. Tex., filed Oct. 13, 2020), assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright. Case terminated by voluntary dismissal. (Justia docket; Patexia docket)

The one attorney of record

What the record does not show

• No local counsel. W.D. Tex. does not require local counsel, and none appeared; every plaintiff filing carries Rabicoff's signature alone.
• No pro hac vice motion appears on the public docket, even though Rabicoff's admissions list (see firm bio) includes E.D. Tex., N.D. Ill., W.D. Wis. — not W.D. Tex. This is consistent with the N.D. Cal. committee's findings about his filing-without-admission practice, but I cannot confirm from the aggregator dockets whether a PHV motion was filed and simply not indexed. Treat this as a flag, not a finding.
• No co-counsel or additional Rabicoff Law attorneys (e.g., Kenneth A. Matuszewski, Reg. No. 74,791, who appears with Rabicoff in PTAB papers) entered an appearance in 6:20-cv-00949.
• No in-house counsel for Cedar Lane appeared; Cedar Lane is a Canadian-formed NPE with no litigation department on the docket.
• No sealing issues affecting counsel identification — the case has no sealed filings; the docket is 14 entries and the only non-Rabicoff entries are Judge Albright's standing orders and the clerk's AO 120 transmittals.

Procedural context for the counsel question

Cedar Lane sued Disney and DISH Network the same day (Oct. 13, 2020), asserting a family of former Intellectual Ventures patents said to include the '867 patent along with U.S. 6,502,194, 6,526,411, 6,721,489, 7,173,177 and 7,642,443, targeting streaming/media-casting and remote-control functionality. (Mondaq/RPX analysis; Korean IPO summary of the companion DISH case, 6:20-cv-00947). Cedar Lane voluntarily dismissed Disney on Feb. 23, 2021 (Dkt. 8), but the dismissal order was not entered until Oct. 14, 2021 (Dkt. 13), with the AO 120 report the same day (Dkt. 14) — a ~8-month gap that suggests the dismissal was held open pending a settlement or license. No substantive motion practice, answer, or transfer motion ever occurred, which is typical of Rabicoff's Disney/DISH matters.

Sourcing caveat: Because PACER itself was not queried directly, the above rests on Justia, UniCourt and Patexia docket mirrors, each last refreshed at different dates (Justia's at Oct. 13, 2020; Patexia's through the Oct. 2021 dismissal). Given the case is closed with only 14 entries, the risk of a missing plaintiff-side appearance is low but not zero.

I'll research the counsel of record for Disney in this Cedar Lane Technologies case.

Key finding so far: the case appears to have been voluntarily dismissed early. Let me verify the full docket and whether any defense counsel ever appeared.

Let me check the full RECAP/CourtListener docket and PACER Monitor record to confirm no defense appearance was ever filed.

Addendum: Counsel of Record for Defendant The Walt Disney Company

Bottom line: there is no defense counsel of record to identify — Disney never appeared

This is a negative finding, and it is the accurate answer rather than a research gap. The case was resolved before any attorney entered an appearance for Disney. Cedar Lane filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on February 23, 2021 (Doc. 8) — approximately four months after filing and without any responsive pleading, Rule 12 motion, or notice of appearance ever being docketed by the defense. Judge Albright's Order Dismissing Case (Doc. 13) followed on October 14, 2021.

Sources: Justia docket, No. 6:20-cv-00949 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2020cv00949/[1110679](/patent/1110679)); UniCourt case record (https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-the-walt-disney-company-[703859](/patent/703859)); Patexia document index for case id 141132 (https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-The-Walt-Disney-Company-id-141132/documents).

Answer to the specific fields requested

• Lead counsel: None. No attorney filed an appearance, answer, or motion on Disney's behalf.
• Local counsel (W.D. Tex.): None identified. No W.D. Tex. attorney appeared for Disney, and no pro hac vice application was ever filed.
• In-house counsel: None identified in any public filing; Disney's legal department did not enter an appearance.
• Firm / office: N/A.

Two corroborating points:

1. No return of service appears on the docket as retrieved. The docket reflects issuance of summons (Doc. 6) but no executed-service entry before dismissal, which is consistent with a pre-appearance, pre-service dismissal. (I could not pull the underlying PDFs to confirm this independently — see caveats.)
2. Only plaintiff's counsel is listed in every third-party docket aggregator I could reach; none lists a "Defendant Attorney" field populated for this case, in contrast to sister Cedar Lane suits (e.g., UniCourt's record in Cedar Lane v. Bose, No. 6:21-cv-00280, does list a defendant attorney).

Caveats — what I could and could not verify

• Direct PACER access was not obtained (subscription wall). The absence of defense counsel is supported by three independent aggregators (Justia, UniCourt, Patexia) agreeing on a 14-entry docket with no defense filing, but I did not read the docket sheet from the court's own system. If a formal counsel-of-record certification is needed for a filing, pull the PACER docket for 6:20-cv-00949 directly.
• Whether dismissal was with or without prejudice is not stated in the document abstracts I could access. Do not assume. (Cedar Lane's practice in parallel suits was typically dismissal without prejudice, but that is a pattern observation, not a verified fact for this case.)
• I have not identified any re-filing by Cedar Lane against Disney on the '867 patent or on the other three patents asserted in this complaint.

Two corrections to the existing case summary, worth carrying forward

1. The '867 patent was not the only patent asserted. The complaint pleaded four counts: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,526,411, 7,173,177, 6,721,489, and 8,165,867, supported by Exhibits 1–8 (complaint text at https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/14574293; IPWatchdog's Oct. 21, 2020 filings roundup lists exactly those four patents for 6:20-cv-00949). The "8,165,867" framing in the summary is attributable to Unified Patents' '867-specific tracking and understates the pleading.
2. The disposition is now confirmed, resolving the summary's open question: filed Oct. 13, 2020; voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff Feb. 23, 2021; case closed by order Oct. 14, 2021.

Practical implication for the litigation narrative

Disney answered this suit with silence, not with motion practice — Cedar Lane withdrew roughly four months in, before Disney's counsel ever had to surface. That means there is no Disney-authored briefing, no claim construction position, and no Disney IPR on the '867 patent to cite in this case. If you need a substantive defense-side record on the '867 patent, the usable material sits in the parallel matters Cedar Lane actually litigated — Unified Patents' IPR2020-00006 and the PATROLL prior-art contest on the '867 patent (https://patroll.unifiedpatents.com/contests/AymDhWe8pwshAiJHD) — and in the other named defendants' cases, not in Disney's docket.