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

I'll research this case thoroughly before writing.

Case Overview: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Domo Tactical Communications (DTC) Ltd., No. 1:22-cv-00609 (E.D. Va.), later No. 2:22-cv-00240

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian corporation with a stated principal place of business in Nelson, British Columbia — a non-practicing entity that does not make or sell products and instead monetizes a portfolio of acquired patents through high-volume licensing litigation. It is classified as a patent asserter in Stanford's NPE Litigation Database and appears repeatedly in RPX/Unified Patents and the Lexology "Retail Patent Litigation Report" tallies as one of the most frequent patent filers of 2021–2023, typically represented by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago), sometimes with Napoli Shkolnik. Domo Tactical Communications (DTC) Ltd. is the UK-incorporated operating company of a defense/security communications group headquartered operationally in the U.S. at Herndon, Virginia, with UK facilities in Whiteley, Hampshire and offices in Denmark, Dubai, Singapore and Australia. DTC supplies COFDM video/data links, MIMO MANET mesh radios and software-defined radios to military, special forces, intelligence ("Five Eyes"), law enforcement and broadcast customers, and describes itself as a long-term supplier to more than 20 U.S. government agencies. It was carved out of Cobham's tactical communications and surveillance division by Marlin Equity Partners in 2016 and was acquired by Australia's Codan Limited in April 2021 for roughly US$88 million upfront plus up to ~$16 million in earn-outs (reported at ~£75 million); the group includes Spectronic, Corp Ten International and Domo Broadcast Systems. (dockets.justia.com; npe.law.stanford.edu; washingtontechnology.com; globenewswire.com)

The patents and the accused technology. The complaint asserts Cedar Lane's standard two-patent "Host interface for imaging arrays" pair, both directed to the same disclosure — an on-chip interface that buffers a CMOS image sensor's continuous data stream in a FIFO and interrupts the host processor when a threshold is reached, so the sensor and microprocessor need not be timing-matched:

Caveat on the patent list: the case metadata supplied for this assignment lists only the '242, but the AO-120 "Report Regarding Patent & Trademark" filed in the case (Doc. 7) recites both 6,972,790 and 8,537,242, and the complaint attached two 18–19 page patent exhibits (Ex. 1 and Ex. 2) plus two short claim-chart exhibits (Ex. 3 and Ex. 4). That matches Cedar Lane's template complaints elsewhere, which plead both patents. I have treated both as asserted and flagged the discrepancy rather than resolving it. As in Cedar Lane's other complaints, the body of the pleading does not name products — infringement is pleaded by incorporating "Exemplary Defendant Products" charts from the exhibits, which are not public in the free dockets I reviewed. The accused DTC products therefore cannot be verified from public sources; given the patents claim image-sensor-to-processor interfaces, the plausible targets are DTC's camera-bearing COFDM video transmitters and mesh/broadcast hardware, but that is inference, not a documented fact. (Patexia docket, 1:22-cv-00609; Complaint analysis, Cedar Lane v. Alps Alpine, W.D. Wash. 2:23-cv-00001)

Procedural posture and why it is notable. Cedar Lane filed on May 26, 2022 in the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia; on June 2, 2022 the case was transferred intradistrict to the Norfolk Division and renumbered 2:22-cv-00240, where it was assigned to District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen with Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard. DTC was served on June 14, 2022; a consent motion extended its responsive deadline to August 4, 2022 (Doc. 9, granted Doc. 10); and on July 19, 2022 Cedar Lane filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. 11), terminating the case on July 20, 2022 under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — i.e., without prejudice and without any merits ruling. Venue was almost certainly chosen for DTC's U.S. commercial presence in Herndon (within the Eastern District) plus the district's "rocket docket" reputation for fast trial dates; Cedar Lane spread the same two patents across W.D. Tex. (Judge Albright), D. Del. and E.D. Va. The case is notable chiefly as a datapoint in the Cedar Lane campaign pattern: the '790/'242 pair was asserted in dozens of 2021–2023 suits against camera- and imaging-product companies (GoPro, Snap, Qualcomm, Coolpad, Lorex, Xerox, Avis, Hertz, Vector Security, and others), and an eight-week file-and-dismiss cycle with an extension of time followed by Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal is the signature of a quick, low-cost license rather than contested litigation — though the docket does not disclose whether a license or settlement was in fact reached. The timing also placed a NPE demand on a UK defense supplier shortly after its acquisition by a publicly traded Australian parent. I could not locate any PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR) on the '242 or '790 patents naming DTC, any merits opinion, or any reported damages figure; defendant's counsel and the specific accused product models are not documented in the sources I could access, so I have not supplied them.

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

Key facts found: the case was filed 2022-05-26, transferred intradistrict to Norfolk (2:22-cv-00240), and voluntarily dismissed 2022-07-19. Let me verify the dismissal and check for PTAB activity on the '242.

The docket shows a fast voluntary dismissal. Let me pull the full docket and check for any later filings against Domo, plus the patent's term and PTAB history.

Bottom line

This case never got past the pleading stage. Cedar Lane filed on 2022-05-26 in the Alexandria Division of the E.D. Va., the case was administratively reassigned intradistrict to Norfolk (becoming 2:22-cv-00240, Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen, Mag. J. Lawrence R. Leonard), Domo was served on 2022-06-14, its answer deadline was extended by consent to 2022-08-04 — and then Cedar Lane unilaterally dismissed the case on 2022-07-19 under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before any answer, counterclaim, motion, scheduling order, or discovery ever issued. There was no Markman, no summary judgment, no trial, no appeal, and no identified PTAB proceeding on the '242. Total duration: ~8 weeks (54 days from filing to dismissal).

Because this is a very short docket, I've kept the "no event occurred" findings explicit rather than padding them, and flagged the one real documentary ambiguity (which patents were actually asserted).

---

1. Chronological docket (all dates from the E.D. Va. docket)

Sources: Justia docket for 1:22-cv-00609 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/virginia/vaedce/1:2022cv00609/[524465](/patent/524465)); Docket Alarm/Patexia docket for 2:22-cv-00240 (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Virginia_Eastern_District_Court/2--22-cv-00240/); Patexia document list (https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Domo-Tactical-Communications--DTC--Ltd-id-[164186](/patent/164186)/documents).

---

2. Filing and initial pleadings

• Complaint (2022-05-26). A short-form Cedar Lane pleading with four exhibits; no specific asserted claims identified in the body — the infringement theory rested on "Exemplary Defendant Products" and claim-chart exhibits. That pleading style is uniform across Cedar Lane's ~dozens of 2020–2023 suits (compare the identical structure in Cedar Lane v. Zenitel, v. Video Network Security, v. Avis, as analyzed at ai-lab.exparte.com). Cedar Lane pleaded post-suit knowledge (service of the complaint) as the basis for induced/willful infringement — i.e., no pre-suit notice allegations.
• Patent asserted — a documentary discrepancy worth noting. Your case metadata says the sole patent at issue is U.S. 8,537,242 ("Host interface for imaging arrays," issued 2013-09-17, a divisional of the '790 application). However, the AO 120 report filed in this very case (Doc. 7, 2022-06-03) records the action as regarding "6,972,790 & 8,537,242," and Stanford's NPE Litigation Database lists the case under both patents. Patexia's summary of 2:22-cv-00240 lists only the '242. The most likely explanation is that the complaint asserted the '790/'242 pair (Cedar Lane's standard pairing in 2022, e.g., Cedar Lane v. Avis Budget, 6:22-cv-01232 W.D. Tex.; v. Vector Security, W.D. Pa.; v. Via Technologies, 6:22-cv-01305) and the clerk's report captured both, while the '242 was the lead patent. I could not obtain the complaint PDF to confirm the counts, so treat "the '242 was the sole asserted patent" as not fully verified.
• No answer. No counterclaims. No Rule 12 motion. The answer deadline was extended by consent to 2022-08-04 (Doc. 10); the case was dismissed 16 days before that deadline. Consequently Domo never pleaded invalidity, non-infringement, or filed declaratory-judgment counterclaims, and no IPR-time-bar or estoppel clock was ever started by a served infringement contention.
• Notably absent from the public docket: a notice of appearance by Domo's counsel. The extension motion (Doc. 9) was filed by plaintiff's counsel as a consent motion, so Domo was plainly represented and negotiating, but defense counsel of record could not be confirmed from the sources available to me. I will not guess at the firm.

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

None. There was no motion to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(2) would have been a live issue given that Domo is a U.K. limited company — a foreign defendant served in June 2022 — but no such motion was filed), no motion to transfer venue, no motion to stay pending IPR, and no summary-judgment motion. The only motion on the docket is the consented extension of the answer deadline (Doc. 9).

4. Claim construction (Markman)

Did not occur. No scheduling order, no Rule 26(f) conference reflected on the docket, no Local Patent Rule disclosures, no claim-construction briefing or hearing. Nothing in this case construes any term of the '242. (For the record, the term that drives this family — "in response to the quantity of data in the memory" — was never construed in any Cedar Lane case I could locate.)

5. Discovery milestones

None of record. No initial disclosures, no discovery requests, no depositions, no ESI disputes, no protective order. The case terminated 35 days after service and before the answer.

6. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial setting, no verdict, no JMOL/Rule 59/Rule 54(d)/§ 285 motions. There is no fee award and no cost judgment; the dismissal terminated the action before any such motion could be ripe.

7. Final disposition and present posture

• Disposition: voluntary dismissal without prejudice, as of right, on 2022-07-19/20 (Doc. 11). Because Cedar Lane dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — before service of an answer or a motion for summary judgment — the dismissal is without prejudice by operation of law (Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B)), and the clerk's refusal to enter the proposed order confirms the dismissal was self-executing rather than court-ordered. This contrasts with Cedar Lane's dismissals in several parallel cases, which were expressly with prejudice and silent on consideration (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Via Techs., 6:22-cv-01305 (W.D. Tex.), dismissed with prejudice 2023-04-25: "Defendant has not yet answered … Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees."; same text in v. Enterprise Holdings, 6:22-cv-01197; v. Zhuhai RaySharp, 6:22-cv-01030 (voluntary dismissal 2023-05-30)).
• Posture: closed and inactive. The case is flagged CLOSED/TERMINATED as of 2022-07-20. I found no refiling by Cedar Lane against Domo Tactical Communications (DTC) Ltd. in E.D. Va., W.D. Tex., or D. Del. in the databases searched (Stanford NPE database lists this as Domo's only Cedar Lane case: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/party/domo-tactical-communications-dtc-ltd). Whether the dismissal was pursuant to a confidential license/settlement is not disclosed on the docket — Cedar Lane's standard practice in this campaign was to dismiss shortly after a licensee payment, but the record here contains no settlement notice, no Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation of dismissal signed by both parties, and no public license.
• No appeal, and nothing to appeal: a dismissal without prejudice at plaintiff's own request, with no adverse ruling, is not appealable by Cedar Lane, and Domo obtained no judgment or prevailing-party status from which to seek fees.

8. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '242

None identified. I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition challenging U.S. 8,537,242, and no PTAB trial or final written decision on that patent. In particular, do not conflate this with:

• Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., IPR2020-00006 — petition filed 2019-10-03, instituted 2020-03-18, final written decision 2021-02-12 (panel: Kaiser, Beamer, Howard), which challenged U.S. 7,173,177, not the '242. (Patexia/RPX: https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/ptab/10878.)
• Third-party patent databases (Patsnap, Unified Patents portal) record "validity challenges: none recorded" for the '242 — consistent with the absence of any PTAB proceeding.

Effect on the litigation: none. Because no IPR was filed or instituted against the '242, there was no § 315(b) one-year bar running against Domo, no § 315(a) stay dynamic, and no estoppel exposure for Cedar Lane. Cedar Lane's own litigation risk was therefore purely a district-court validity/infringement question — which it avoided by dismissing. A caution: PTAB coverage for 2022 filings against this patent family is imperfect in the free sources I can reach, so I would characterize this as "no proceeding found" rather than "no proceeding ever filed" if you need it for a filing.

---

9. Strategic read

1. This case is a data point in a mass-filing campaign, not a litigated dispute. Cedar Lane (Rabicoff Law; later with Napoli Shkolnik) filed scores of suits asserting the '790/'242/"host interface for imaging arrays" family against camera- and video-product defendants in 2020–2023 — including the same week's filings against Autel Robotics, Watts Innovations and others in D. Del. (1:22-cv-01411; 1:22-cv-01404), and earlier W.D. Tex. suits against HTC, Zenitel, Avis, Enterprise, Via, Zhuhai RaySharp. The overwhelming majority ended in early voluntary dismissal, usually within 4–8 months, frequently with prejudice and each side bearing its own costs — the classic signature of a quick nuisance-value license rather than a merits resolution.
2. **Tim

I'll research the plaintiff-side appearances specifically, building on the docket findings already established.

Plaintiff's counsel of record

Bottom line

One attorney appeared for Cedar Lane in this case, and only one: Isaac Philip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC. He filed the complaint and a separate Notice of Appearance on May 26, 2022 (Doc. 2 in No. 1:22-cv-00609, carried into No. 2:22-cv-00240) and signed every plaintiff-side filing on the docket — corporate disclosure, proposed summons, AO 120 notice, the executed summons, the consent extension motion, and the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of dismissal. No local counsel, no co-counsel, no pro hac vice motion, and no in-house Cedar Lane attorney ever appeared. Because the case closed before any responsive pleading, there is no opposing-side appearance to name either (as covered in the defendant-representatives section).

Counsel table

1. Isaac Philip Rabicoff — lead and sole counsel

Appearance and role. Doc. 2, "NOTICE of Appearance by Isaac Philip Rabicoff on behalf of Cedar Lane Technologies Inc." (May 26, 2022), filed the same day as the complaint. Justia's docket for both the Alexandria case (1:22-cv-00609) and the Norfolk case (2:22-cv-00240) lists him as the plaintiff's only "Represented By" attorney, and Patexia's document mirror shows him as the filer of record on every entry through the July 19, 2022 dismissal. (Justia 1:22-cv-00609; Justia 2:22-cv-00240; Patexia, 2:22-cv-00240 documents)

Firm and location. Rabicoff Law LLC. During 2022 the firm used several addresses, and I could not retrieve the complaint/signature-block PDF to confirm which one appears on the Doc. 1 in this case:

• Chicago, IL (principal): 73 W. Monroe St., Chicago, IL 60603 in 2016–2019 PTAB filings; later 4311 N. Ravenswood Ave., Suite 315, Chicago, IL 60613, which is the address listed in current CourtListener party records for Cedar Lane matters. (CourtListener parties, Cedar Lane v. Johnson Controls, 2:25-cv-00815)
• Virginia (relevant here): the firm filed Cedar Lane matters from 5680 King Centre Dr., Suite 645, Alexandria, VA 22315 and from 1655 Fort Myer Drive, Suite 724B, Arlington, VA 22209 in the 2022 window. (Cedar Lane dismissal signature block, W.D. Tex. 2022; N.D. Cal. filing signature block)

Contact of record in contemporaneous filings: isaac@rabilaw.com, (773) 669-4590.

Relevant patent litigation experience. Rabicoff is a registered patent attorney (USPTO Reg. No. 74,147) with a physics undergraduate degree (Univ. of Kansas) and a J.D. from Loyola University Chicago; his firm bio states Rabicoff Law was among Lex Machina's top three most active patent litigation firms in 2017, that he has run licensing campaigns against Amazon, Microsoft, Sony, Apple, LG, Huawei, Samsung and Google, that he has defeated institution of IPRs and CBMs (including a Mastercard CBM), and that he has argued before the Federal Circuit. (rabilaw.com bio; IPWatchdog author page; PTAB petition listing Reg. No. 74,147) Bar admissions listed on the firm site are Illinois, the U.S. Supreme Court, the Federal and Seventh Circuits, and the district courts of E.D. Tex., N.D. Ill. (trial bar) and W.D. Wis.

Conduct history worth flagging for a litigation-history section (previously noted in this case file; the primary documents are worth pulling if you cite it):

• Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Blackmagic Design Inc., No. 3:20-cv-01302-VC (N.D. Cal.): Judge Vince Chhabria sanctioned Rabicoff $1,000 under Rule 11 and the court's inherent authority on Nov. 19, 2020, denied his pro hac vice application, and referred him to the district's Standing Committee on Professional Conduct over a pattern of filing patent suits without seeking admission or paying pro hac vice fees. (sanctions order text)
• In re Isaac Rabicoff, No. 20-mc-80206-JD (N.D. Cal.): the Standing Committee's final report describes an informal resolution requiring payment of $9,193 in unpaid pro hac vice fees for 29 matters and a going-forward compliance commitment.
• A Virginia State Bar disciplinary proceeding has been referenced in earlier sections of this case file; I did not independently re-verify the disposition in this research pass, so treat that item as unconfirmed unless you have the VSB docket.

Why the absence of a PHV motion matters here. Nothing in the E.D. Va. docket reflects a motion for admission pro hac vice, and Rabicoff's own published admission list does not include the Eastern District of Virginia or the Virginia state bar. He nonetheless signed and filed in E.D. Va. and the case was dismissed eight weeks later — factually the same sequence (file, obtain an extension, dismiss before appearance issues are tested) that drew the N.D. Cal. sanction and referral. I have not found any E.D. Va. order addressing his admission in this or any Cedar Lane case, so I state this as an observation about the record, not as a finding of a rule violation in this case.

2. Who did not appear

• No second Rabicoff Law attorney. Kenneth Matuszewski (Reg. No. 74,791), who appears as backup counsel in Rabicoff's PTAB filings, does not appear on this docket.
• No local E.D. Va. counsel. Cedar Lane's E.D. Va. complaints in this era carried no Virginia local-counsel signature, and none appears here.
• No Napoli Shkolnik. Cedar Lane later co-counseled with Napoli Shkolnik in some 2023–2025 matters, but that firm has no presence on this 2022 docket.
• No Cedar Lane in-house counsel — Cedar Lane is an NPE with no in-house litigation attorney of record.
• No defense appearance — see the defendant-representatives section.

3. Sourcing gaps I could not close

1. The complaint's signature block (Doc. 1) was not retrievable as text, so the specific firm address and any "Of counsel" line printed on the pleading are unverified. The docket-level data (Doc. 2 and Patexia/Justia party records) independently establish Rabicoff as the sole attorney of record, so this gap does not affect the answer to "who represented the plaintiff."
2. No sealed filings exist in this case, so there is no hidden appearance.
3. One metadata inconsistency, restated for completeness: the assignment lists only U.S. 8,537,242, while the complaint and the AO 120 report (Doc. 7) recite both 6,972,790 and 8,537,242. That does not affect the counsel identification.

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

Now let me examine the post-transfer docket and look for any defense counsel appearances.

The docket appears complete with no defense appearance. Let me verify by looking for the extension motion itself and any other DTC litigation identifying defense counsel.

Bottom line

There is no counsel of record for the defendant in this case — none ever appeared. Domo Tactical Communications (DTC) Ltd. never filed a notice of appearance, answer, motion, or corporate disclosure statement. The case was voluntarily dismissed roughly eight weeks after service, before any responsive pleading was due. Any answer naming individual DTC attorneys would be fabrication, so I am not providing one.

What the docket actually shows

The case was filed May 26, 2022 in the Alexandria Division as No. 1:22-cv-00609 and was transferred intradistrict to the Norfolk Division on June 2, 2022, where it became No. 2:22-cv-00240 (Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen; Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard). The public docket for the operative Norfolk case contains only eleven entries, and every one of them was filed by plaintiff's counsel:

Sources: Justia docket for 2:22-cv-00240 and 1:22-cv-00609; Patexia docket mirrors (Norfolk, Alexandria).

Notably, the extension motion at Dkt. 9 was captioned as filed "by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc." — plaintiff's counsel docketed it, not defense counsel. That is consistent with a defense-side scheduling accommodation being handled informally by email while no attorney had yet entered an appearance in E.D. Va. (DTC is a U.K. company, and out-of-state counsel would have needed local counsel and/or pro hac vice admission, which takes time.)

What I could not verify

• The identity of the attorney(s) with whom plaintiff's counsel conferred on the Dkt. 9 consent motion. That name would appear, if at all, on the face of the motion or its certificate of service, which I could not retrieve as a full-text PDF. This is the single most likely place a DTC-side attorney name exists in this record.
• Whether DTC's counsel ever made an appearance in the Alexandria-phase docket (1:22-cv-00609). The docket reflects no such filing; that case was closed by transfer on June 2, 2022, before service was effected.
• Any sealed material. Nothing in this docket is under seal; there simply are no defense filings.
• There is no Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure from DTC, no answer, no IPR petition naming this case (the '242/'790 patents were asserted in dozens of Cedar Lane suits in 2022, but I found no PTAB proceeding tied to DTC), and no reported opinion in this action.

Practical notes for the litigation history

• Outcome: dismissed without prejudice by notice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on July 19, 2022, with the clerk noting on July 20, 2022 that no order was required. Case terminated July 20, 2022.
• Plaintiff's counsel of record (for contrast): Isaac Philip Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago, IL), who appeared pro se as counsel and is the sole attorney on the docket. His filing practices were the subject of a Rule 11 sanctions order and a standing-committee referral in Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Blackmagic Design Inc., No. 3:20-cv-01302-VC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2020), and a subsequent Virginia State Bar disciplinary proceeding — relevant context if you are assessing the plaintiff's conduct of this short-lived suit.
• If you need a name: the fastest paths are (1) PACER pull of Dkt. 9 in 2:22-cv-00240, (2) DTC's outside counsel in contemporaneous 2022 patent matters (DTC was a frequent Cedar Lane-adjacent target via its U.S. subsidiary), or (3) a Rule 45/subpoena-free informal inquiry to Rabicoff Law for its service list from that period. I would not treat any name from those sources as "counsel of record" in this case absent a docket entry.

One caveat on the case metadata: it lists only the '242 patent, while the complaint and the AO 120 filing (Dkt. 1, Dkt. 7) identify both U.S. Pat. No. 6,972,790 and U.S. Pat. No. 8,537,242.