Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Domo Tactical Communications

I'll research this case and the parties to build a grounded overview.

Case Overview and Background

The parties. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a patent-assertion entity (PAE/NPE) — Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies it as an "acquired patents" asserter, meaning its revenue model is licensing and litigating purchased portfolios rather than practicing the technology (Stanford NPE DB — Cedar Lane). Its lead counsel in this matter, Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, filed the complaint and is the recurring signature on Cedar Lane's nationwide docket. Cedar Lane's assertion campaign is large and highly repetitive: trade press reported that after acquiring the '527 and '790 families in May 2019 it had filed 38 complaints on the '527 patent and 46 on the '790 patent by 2022 (The Recycler), and a Chinese IP-protection bulletin pegged the '790's district-court litigation history at roughly 226 cases (SZIP risk alert). Defendant Domo Tactical Communications (DTC) Ltd. is the opposite profile: a UK-incorporated operating subsidiary of Australia's ASX-listed Codan Limited, which acquired 100% of DTC in 2021 for US$88 million upfront plus up to US$16 million in earn-outs. DTC designs and manufactures software-defined radios, MIMO mesh networks and video/broadcast transmission systems for military, special forces, intelligence, border-control, first-responder and broadcast customers, and supplies more than 20 U.S. government agencies and the Five Eyes community; it had roughly 140 employees at acquisition, with U.S. headquarters in Herndon, Virginia (Codan announcement, DTC/Codan). The pairing is the case's central oddity: a two-patent, image-sensor-interface portfolio aimed at a tactical-radio maker.

The patents and the accused technology. U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790, "Host interface for imaging arrays," issued December 6, 2005 from an application filed December 21, 2000, naming Mark Suska (Canada) and originally assigned to Psion Teklogix Systems Inc.; Cedar Lane's title traces to a recorded 2019 assignment (Recycler). Technically, the '790 claims an interface — preferably integrated on the same die as a CMOS image sensor — that buffers pixel data in a FIFO or addressable memory clocked by the sensor, asserts an interrupt (or bus-request) signal to the host processor once a threshold quantity of data has accumulated, and then lets the processor read the buffer at its own independent rate, eliminating the external "glue logic" that the specification says offset CMOS sensors' cost advantage. Independent claim 1 recites "a memory for storing imaging array data and clocking signals," "a signal generator … in response to the quantity of data in the memory," and "a circuit for controlling the transfer of data … at a rate determined by the processor system" (a good claim-by-claim analysis of the parallel Cedar Lane campaign appears here). The complaint's AO-120 report lists both 6,972,790 and 8,537,242 — the '242 being a divisional of the same application, sharing the "Host interface for imaging arrays" title and specification — even though Stanford's database records only the '790 for this case (Dkt. 7; Stanford). Caveat: the complaint itself and its Exhibits 1–4 (which include the infringement claim charts) are not available in the free RECAP/PACER mirrors I could reach, so I could not verify which DTC products were named as "Exemplary Defendant Products," which claims were charted, or whether the '242 was in fact pleaded as a count. Given the claim language, the theory necessarily posits DTC products that incorporate an image sensor or camera/video-capture front end with a buffered host interface — DTC's ISR, broadcast-video and unmanned-systems lines are the plausible candidates, but that is inference, not record fact.

Posture, venue and significance. Cedar Lane filed on May 26, 2022 in the Eastern District of Virginia as No. 1:22-cv-00609 (Alexandria Division), and the case was transferred intradistrict to the Norfolk Division on June 2, 2022, becoming No. 2:22-cv-00240 before District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen, with Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard referred (Justia docket). DTC (DTC) Ltd. was served on June 14, 2022; a consent motion — filed by plaintiff's counsel, notably with no defense appearance on the docket — extended the response deadline to August 4, 2022 (Dkts. 8–10), and on July 19, 2022 Cedar Lane filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which requires no order; the clerk struck the proposed order and closed the case the next day (Dkt. 11). There was no answer, no Rule 12 motion, no Markman proceeding, and no merits ruling. Venue was almost certainly chosen because DTC's U.S. headquarters sat in Herndon, Virginia — within the Eastern District — which satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) as construed in TC Heartland and avoids the § 1406 transfer risk that has become the principal strategic constraint on NPE forum-shopping since 2017; the Eastern District's "rocket docket" speed to trial is the usual secondary draw. The intradistrict shift to Norfolk is unexplained in the docket text; that the defendant entity was the UK "Ltd." rather than a Virginia-resident U.S. affiliate is a plausible driver of both the Norfolk assignment and the rapid walk-away, but I found no filing confirming either. The case is notable less for anything decided than as a data point in three trends: (1) Cedar Lane's industrial-scale, low-cost complaint template — short pleadings, claim charts as exhibits, quick dismissal without prejudice (the pattern visible in dozens of its 2020–2023 suits, e.g., [Excelitas](https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and parties.

Key facts emerging: filed 2022-05-26 in E.D. Va., transferred intradistrict, and voluntarily dismissed 2022-07-20 — before any answer. Let me verify details and check for PTAB activity.

Let me pull the full docket for the operative case and probe PTAB records.

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Domo Tactical Communications (DTC) Ltd.

E.D. Va. No. 2:22-cv-00240 (originally 1:22-cv-00609) · Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen · Mag. J. Lawrence R. Leonard

Bottom line up front

This is a very short-lived case: roughly eight weeks from complaint to voluntary dismissal, all of it in the pleading/service phase. It never reached an answer, counterclaims, a Rule 12 motion, claim construction, discovery, summary judgment, trial, or appeal. The final disposition is a plaintiff-initiated voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), entered 2022-07-19 and effective 2022-07-20 — approximately six weeks before defendant Domo's extended responsive-pleading deadline.

Because of that posture, most of the checklist items you asked about have no event to report. I flag each one explicitly below rather than manufacturing milestones.

One threshold correction to the case metadata: the docket's AO-120 patent report in this case lists two patents — US 6,972,790 and US 8,537,242 — both titled "Host interface for imaging arrays." The '790 patent was the lead asserted patent, but the complaint and the Rule 12 report swept in the '242 divisional as well (D.I. 7, "Report on the filing or determination of an action regarding patent and/or trademark(s) 6,972,790 & 8,537,242").[^1] The Stanford NPE database entry for the '790 track is what generated this case's presence in your dataset.

---

Chronological development

1. Filing (2022-05-26)

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., through Isaac Philip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago), filed a seven-page complaint for patent infringement with a jury demand in the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia, docketed as 1:22-cv-00609.[^2] The complaint attached four exhibits — the two patents and per-patent claim charts — and pleaded direct infringement, induced infringement, and willfulness under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 284, with an exceptional-case request under § 285.[^3]

Contemporaneous filings that day:

• D.I. 2 — Notice of Appearance (Rabicoff)
• D.I. 3 — Corporate Disclosure Statement (no parent/affiliate disclosed)
• D.I. 4 — Proposed Summons
• D.I. 5 — AO-120 Report on Filing

The pleading was a form complaint. Across Cedar Lane's campaign the body of the complaint does not identify accused products by name; it incorporates "Exemplary Defendant Products" by reference to the claim-chart exhibits. That boilerplate structure is a relevant strategic fact: it left Domo with essentially nothing to attack on the face of the pleading except by pre-answer motion.

2. Intradistrict transfer to Norfolk (2022-06-02)

On 2022-06-02 the case was administratively transferred within the district from Alexandria to the Norfolk Division and renumbered 2:22-cv-00240.[^4] This was an intradistrict reassignment, not a § 1404(a) transfer motion, and carries no substantive weight — no party briefed venue. Summons issued 2022-06-03 (D.I. 6), and the Rule 12 patent report was docketed the same day (D.I. 7).

3. Service and the answer clock (2022-06-14)

Domo Tactical Communications (DTC) Ltd. — a UK-incorporated entity — was served on 2022-06-14, making the answer due 2022-07-05. The executed return was filed 2022-07-05 (D.I. 8).[^5]

Notably, Domo never appeared through counsel of record in this case. No notice of appearance by any firm on Domo's behalf appears on the docket.

4. The only contested-space filing: consent extension (2022-07-05 → 2022-07-05/06)

On 2022-07-05 the parties filed a Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer (D.I. 9), referred to Magistrate Judge Leonard. Judge Leonard granted it on 2022-07-05 (docketed 2022-07-06 as D.I. 10), extending Domo's responsive-pleading deadline to 2022-08-04.[^6]

This is the single order of substance in the case, and it is procedural only. Two things are worth noting:

• A consent extension implies Domo's counsel was in contact with Rabicoff Law and that some engagement — likely licensing discussions — was underway. It does not by itself establish that anything was paid.
• Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), service on 2022-06-14 started a one-year IPR-petition bar running against Domo to 2023-06-14. That bar was extinguished before it mattered.

5. Pre-trial motions of substance — none

• Motion to dismiss (Rule 12(b)): no such motion was filed. Domo never answered or moved.
• Motion to transfer venue: none. The only transfer was the administrative intradistrict move described above.
• Motion to stay pending IPR: none — and none could have been, because no IPR existed (see §9).
• Summary judgment: none.

6. Claim construction (Markman) — did not occur

No scheduling order, no Joint Claim Construction Statement, no Markman briefing, no Markman hearing, and no claim construction order. The case terminated roughly six weeks before the Rule 16 conference stage would normally have been reached in E.D. Va. There is therefore no claim construction record for the '790 patent out of this litigation.

7. Discovery milestones — none

No Rule 26(f) conference, no initial disclosures, no written discovery, no depositions, no ESI protocol, and no protective order. The docket contains no discovery motions. This matters for the campaign-level analysis: Cedar Lane obtained no discovery from Domo, and Domo obtained none from Cedar Lane.

8. Voluntary dismissal (2022-07-19 / 2022-07-20)

On 2022-07-19 Cedar Lane filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (D.I. 11), with a proposed order attached.[^7] The clerk removed the proposed order on 2022-07-20 with the notation that "voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) does not require an order." The case was flagged CLOSED on 2022-07-20.[^8]

Two legal consequences follow directly from the rule cited:

• Because dismissal came under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — before Domo served an answer or a motion for summary judgment — it was unilateral and by operation of law, requiring no court approval and no stipulation.
• Such a dismissal is without prejudice. Cedar Lane therefore remained free to refile against Domo on the same patents. That is not a theoretical point: the '790 patent was a serial assertion vehicle, and Cedar Lane's practice in parallel cases was frequently to dismiss and refile (or dismiss a related entity and sue a different one). Within this docket, however, no refiling against Domo appears, and the Stanford database records only this one case against Domo Tactical Communications (DTC) Ltd.[^9]

No settlement agreement, license, consent judgment, dismissal with prejudice, or Rule 68 offer appears on the docket. If a license was in fact concluded, it was not made part of the record. I want to be explicit: I found no public evidence of a payment or license to Domo, and I am not inferring one from the consent extension.

9. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions, appeal — none

There was no trial, verdict, JMOL motion, new-trial motion, fee motion under § 285, bill of costs, or notice of appeal. The case never progressed past D.I. 11, and no appeal was taken from a voluntary dismissal without prejudice (and none would ordinarily lie absent exceptional circumstances).

10. Parallel PTAB proceedings — none identified

I searched PTAB records and litigation databases for inter partes review or post-grant review petitions against US 6,972,790 or US 8,537,242, and found no IPR/PGR naming either patent, whether filed by Domo or any other petitioner.[^10] Accordingly:

• No PTAB proceeding affected this litigation, because there was none.
• No § 315(a) or § 315(b) issue was ever joined.
• No stay motion was possible or filed.

I flag this as a negative finding subject to the limits of public indexing rather than a categorical assertion that no petition was ever filed; PTAB dockets are searchable but petitions that were never instituted can be harder to surface. Given the case's eight-week life, though, no PTAB petition could plausibly have matured into anything that bore on Domo's defense.

---

Strategic read

1. This is a campaign-context case, not an adjudicated dispute. Cedar Lane is a high-volume acquirer-and-assert NPE; the '790 patent appears in dozens of district court suits filed between roughly 2019 and 2023, overwhelmingly through Rabicoff Law and, later, with Delaware counsel David W. deBruin.[^11] The Domo case is a textbook instance: identify a user of an image-sensor-interface product, file a short form complaint with claim charts, extend the answer date by consent, then dismiss without prejudice.

2. The timing is the tell. Dismissal came ~3.5 months after filing and ~5 weeks after service, with no answer filed and no motion practice. That is the signature of an early resolution — most likely a small license or a determination that Domo's accused products (DTC's COFDM/Mesh video and tactical radio gear) did not practice the claims — but the record does not disclose which. Analysts should not treat this dismissal as a merits ruling on the '790 patent in any direction.

3. The dismissal had no preclusive effect. Without prejudice, no claim preclusion, no issue preclusion. Domo gained nothing it could assert offensively against the patent, and Cedar Lane preserved the ability to refile.

4. Domo's real exposure was likely the § 315(b) clock, not this suit. Had Domo wanted to challenge the '790 patent at the PTAB, the deadline ran to 2023-06-14. There is no evidence Domo filed. That suggests either a quick commercial resolution or a judgment that the cost of an IPR outweighed the value of the patent.

5. The '790 patent's vulnerability lies elsewhere. Because this case produced no Markman ruling and no invalidity record, the useful comparators for the '790 and '242 patents are Cedar Lane's other suits — e.g., the Delaware cases before Judge Richard G. Andrews and the W.D. Tex. cases before Judge Alan D. Albright — several of which did reach answers and counterclaims before stipulated dismissal with prejudice. Those dockets, not this one, are where any substantive claim-construction or invalidity history would reside.

---

Verified docket timeline (2:22-cv-00240)

---

Sourcing caveats

• The docket content above is drawn from PACER-derived aggregators (Justia Dockets, Docket Alarm, Patexia, UniCourt) rather than from a direct PACER pull; the entries are consistent across those sources and the docket has been dormant since 2022, so the risk of material error is low.
• The complaint PDF and the claim-chart exhibits were not independently reviewed in full. Statements about the pleading's contents are based on the docket descriptions plus the parallel

I'll research plaintiff's counsel of record for this case, verifying the docket entries and the attorney's current firm/role.

Confirmed the docket shows only Rabicoff. Now let me verify his Virginia office/admission and whether any co-counsel or local counsel were involved in Cedar Lane's E.D. Va. filings.

Let me try to locate the actual complaint PDF to confirm the signature block and any co-counsel, and check E.D. Va. admission status.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Bottom line

Cedar Lane was represented by exactly one attorney of record: Isaac Philip Rabicoff, founder of Rabicoff Law LLC, signing and filing every document in the case from the complaint through the notice of dismissal. He acted as lead counsel and, functionally, sole counsel. There was no co-counsel, no local counsel, no pro hac vice sponsor, and no in-house appearance by Cedar Lane — consistent with the fact that Rabicoff Law maintained an office in Alexandria, Virginia, inside the Eastern District, at the time of filing. There is no sealed appearance, no withdrawn appearance, and no substitution of counsel on the docket.

Docket basis for the identification

Every filing in No. 2:22-cv-00240 is attributed to Rabicoff in the docket text itself, and docket entry 2 is a formal Notice of Appearance:

Sources: Justia docket, 1:22-cv-00609 (confirming Dkt. 2 "NOTICE of Appearance by Isaac Philip Rabicoff on behalf of Cedar Lane Technologies Inc."); Patexia document list, 2:22-cv-00240 (attributing Dkts. 8, 9, 11 to "(Rabicoff, Isaac)"). No entry on the docket names any other attorney for either side.

Why no local counsel appeared — the Virginia office point

This is the one genuinely case-specific counsel fact worth flagging, and it corrects a soft assumption in the defendant-side section above (which speculated that E.D. Va. Local Rule 83.1(D) would have required a local-counsel designation). In fact:

• Rabicoff is a member of the Virginia State Bar (admitted 10/31/2019, Va. Bar No. 95094), per his sworn pro hac vice application filed in another matter (Nevada application, D. Nev. 3:25-cv-00103, Dkt. 37).
• Rabicoff Law LLC was domesticated as a Virginia LLC on 2/27/2020, with its principal office at 5680 King Centre Dr., Suite 645, Alexandria, VA 22315 and Rabicoff as registered agent; the Virginia entity was voluntarily canceled only on 2/14/2024, i.e., after this case (Virginia SCC entity record No. 11009632). Contemporaneous Cedar Lane filings in other districts in 2021–22 use that same Alexandria address in the signature block (e.g., the Cedar Lane v. Pantum dismissal, W.D. Tex.).
• The Alexandria office sits in the Alexandria Division — the division where Cedar Lane originally filed as 1:22-cv-00609 before the June 2, 2022 administrative reassignment to Norfolk. That is very likely why the complaint could be filed without retaining Virginia local counsel.

Caveat I will not paper over: Virginia State Bar membership does not by itself establish admission to the bar of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and the admission table in Rabicoff's 2025 Nevada application lists Illinois, Virginia, N.D. Tex., S.D. Tex., E.D. Tex., W.D. Tex., W.D.N.Y. and W.D. Wis. — it does not list E.D. Va. I could not retrieve an E.D. Va. attorney-roll confirmation from free sources. The absence of any pro hac vice motion here is consistent either with his being admitted to this court's bar or with the case closing (eight weeks in, pre-answer) before admission ever became an issue. If that distinction matters to you, it is verifiable only through the E.D. Va. clerk's roll or a PACER pull of Dkt. 1's signature block/CM-ECF filer record.

Relevant experience and notable matters

• Volume and role. Rabicoff is the paradigmatic high-volume PAE plaintiffs' lawyer: his firm's own bio claims Lex Machina top-3 ranking among most active patent litigation firms in 2017, and Law360's attorney page for him lists roughly 1,469 matters, with new PAE complaints still being filed in E.D. Tex. and S.D. Tex. as of late October 2026 (Law360). His PTAB practice is real: he has served as lead counsel for patent owners in numerous IPRs and CBMs (e.g., IPR2018-00418, Adobe v. Grecia; IPR2020-00111), and his bio credits him with defeating institution of a Mastercard CBM petition on all claims (firm bio; PTAB mandatory notice, IPR2018-00418).
• Technical background. B.S. in Physics (University of Kansas), J.D. with Trial Advocacy Certificate (Loyola Chicago), registered patent attorney; admitted 2013 in Illinois.
• Cedar Lane specifically. Rabicoff was Cedar Lane's near-exclusive litigation counsel in this era, filing the '790/'242 complaints himself in E.D. Va., W.D. Tex., N.D. Cal., W.D. Wash., D. Del. (through Delaware counsel David W. deBruin of Bayard, P.A.), and elsewhere. His signature block on the Cedar Lane form complaints places the Alexandria office as the contact address.

Disciplinary and sanctions history — directly relevant to assessing this docket

Two adjudicated items exist and should be on the record in any counsel profile, both public:

1. N.D. Cal. Rule 11 sanctions and Standing Committee referral in Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Blackmagic Design Inc., No. 3:20-cv-01302-VC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2020) (Chhabria, J.) — a $1,000 sanction against Rabicoff, denial of his pro hac vice motion, and referral to the district's Standing Committee on Professional Conduct, which found he had filed 49 patent cases in the district in roughly two years while failing to seek admission or pay the PHV fee in 29 of them (sanctions order and Standing Committee Final Report).
2. Virginia State Bar public reprimand without terms, effective December 12, 2022 (VSB Docket No. 22-042-125771), imposed under Va. R. Prof. Conduct 8.5(b) for violating California's rules on meritorious claims/contentions, candor toward the tribunal, and misconduct — an agreed disposition (VSB action summary; VSB reprimand document).

Timing note: both post-date or straddle the May–July 2022 window of this case (the sanction predates it; the reprimand came five months after dismissal). Neither appears on this docket and neither was raised by Domo, which never appeared. But the N.D. Cal. finding — that Rabicoff's practice was to file broadly and dismiss early, sometimes before admission issues surfaced — is precisely the pattern this Domo docket exhibits, and it is a fair analytical input for anyone assessing why Cedar Lane walked away here and in dozens of companion suits.

What is not in the record

• No second plaintiff-side attorney, ever. No of-counsel, no local counsel, no in-house counsel for Cedar Lane appears on the docket of either 1:22-cv-00609 or 2:22-cv-00240.
• Nothing sealed. The docket reflects no sealing orders and no sealed filings; the case is fully public. I could not, however, retrieve the PDFs of Dkt. 1 or Dkt. 9 from free mirrors, so I have verified the filer identity from docket text and the Notice of Appearance rather than from the signature block itself.
• Minor contradiction with the existing overview, flagged: the case-overview section above states DTC's U.S. headquarters is in Herndon, Virginia. A source surfaced in this round describes DTC's U.S. operating presence as Ashburn, Virginia (DTC Government Solutions / DTC Americas). This does not affect counsel-of-record, but since venue rationale in the earlier section leans on the Herndon address, the discrepancy is worth reconciling before publication.

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

Counsel of Record — Defendant Domo Tactical Communications (DTC) Ltd.

Bottom line

No attorney ever entered an appearance for the defendant in this case. The docket for Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Domo Tactical Communications (DTC) Ltd., No. 2:22-cv-00240 (E.D. Va.) contains eleven entries (plus the minuted June 2, 2022 intradistrict transfer from the Alexandria Division, No. 1:22-cv-609), and every substantive filing is signed by plaintiff's counsel, Isaac Philip Rabicoff. There is no Notice of Appearance under E.D. Va. Local Civil Rule 83.1(D), no answer, no motion to dismiss, no corporate disclosure statement, and no pro hac vice motion on behalf of Domo. The case was terminated by the plaintiff's unilateral Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. 11, filed July 19, 2022; docketed as a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal on July 20, 2022) — roughly two weeks before the defendant's extended responsive-pleading deadline of August 4, 2022 (Dkt. 10).

Accordingly, I cannot provide a name/firm/role/experience entry for defense counsel without fabricating one. The honest answer to "who represented Domo" is: no one of record.

What the docket does and does not show

Presiding: District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen; referred Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard.

The one caveat worth flagging

Docket entry 9 is styled a "Consent" motion, which typically represents that the defendant (or its counsel) agreed to the extension. That strongly implies Domo had retained or in-house counsel engaged in the matter as of early July 2022 — but that lawyer never appeared on the record, and the public docket text does not name any defense attorney. The motion papers themselves (Dkt. 9 and its attachment) would be the only place a conferring attorney might be identified, and I could not retrieve their full text from free sources; PACER or RECAP would be needed to confirm whether any name appears inside the certificate of conference. I have not verified that and will not guess at a firm.

Why there was likely no appearance

Two structural explanations, both consistent with the record and neither confirmed by any filing:

1. Entity mismatch. The complaint named Domo Tactical Communications (DTC) Ltd., the U.K. entity (Whiteley, Hampshire, U.K.; a Codan Communications subsidiary since the April 2021 acquisition). DTC's U.S. operating presence is in Ashburn, Virginia (DTC Government Solutions / DTC Americas). Cedar Lane's practice in this campaign was to file broadly and dismiss quickly — its filings against Domo were part of a wave of roughly 77 suits asserting US 6,972,790 in 2022 alone, the great majority resolved in under a year, and the Stanford NPE database records this matter as a single "acquired patent" assertion with no refiling against a corrected Domo entity in E.D. Va.
2. Early walk-away. Cedar Lane dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before any responsive pleading was due, mooting the need for a defense appearance and for the local-counsel designation E.D. Va. Local Rule 83.1(D) would otherwise have required.

Where to confirm definitively

• PACER docket for No. 2:22-cv-00240 (E.D. Va.), full docket sheet and PDFs of Dkts. 9 and 11 — the only places a defense-side name could surface.
• The complaint's caption/service exhibits (Dkt. 1, Exs. 1–4) for the accused products and the named entity.
• There is no public indication of any parallel PTAB proceeding involving US 6,972,790 brought by Domo; I did not locate an IPR petitioner filing by DTC, and none would be expected given the case's two-month lifespan.

Caveat on sourcing: the docket reconstruction above rests on the Justia and Patexia docket mirrors and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database (all retrieved via search), not on a live PACER pull. Docket text mirrors can lag; if a defense appearance exists in a later PACER-only entry, the mirrors I could access do not reflect it. Nothing in the record I reviewed identifies any attorney, firm, or in-house lawyer for Domo Tactical Communications (DTC) Ltd., and I have not named any.