Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Everfocus Co Ltd.

I'll research this case across docket sources, PTAB records, and industry coverage.

Case Overview — Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. EverFocus Co., Ltd., No. 6:22-cv-00661 (W.D. Tex.)

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian non-practicing entity formed in 2019 that, by 2022, had become the single most prolific patent plaintiff in the United States; its president Greg Benoit has described a business model built on licensing and litigation of a portfolio acquired largely from Intellectual Ventures spin-outs, with roughly a 96% settlement rate among terminated cases and a heavy preference for W.D. Tex. (IAM, "Examining the practice of Cedar Lane Technologies – America's top-filing NPE," Mar. 20, 2023; Seyfarth Shaw, "NPE Showcase – Cedar Lane Technologies," JD Supra). Cedar Lane's near-exclusive counsel in this campaign was Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, who signed every filing in this case (later Cedar Lane matters added Napoli Shkolnik). EverFocus is an operating company: EverFocus Electronics Corporation (TWSE: 5484), founded in 1995 and headquartered in New Taipei City, Taiwan, a maker of video-surveillance hardware — IP/HD-SDI/analog cameras, DVRs/NVRs, mobile DVRs and access control — with U.S. sales offices in Duarte, California and Hauppauge, New York (company materials, everfocus.com.tw; TWSE filing). It is a genuine product company, not a patent holder, and it never entered an appearance in this case; the Patexia docket shows no defense counsel of record before dismissal.

The patents and the accused technology. The case metadata identifies U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242, "Host interface for imaging arrays," as the patent at issue. The '242 issued Sept. 17, 2013 from an application filed Oct. 27, 2005, and is a divisional of the family that produced U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 (issued Dec. 6, 2005); both claim priority to a January 2000 provisional, name Canadian inventor Mark Suska, and were originally assigned to Ottawa-based Symagery Microsystems before traveling via Intellectual Ventures to Cedar Lane. In one line: the claims cover an interface — preferably integrated on the same die as the image sensor — that buffers imaging-array data (FIFO or addressable memory) and, when the buffer reaches a threshold, generates an interrupt or bus-request signal so a host processor can pull the data at the processor's own rate, decoupling sensor timing from host timing (see the abstract and claim excerpts at Unified Patents' patent page and the EP 1 126 697 counterpart). Notably, this is a chip-architecture patent being asserted against camera integrators rather than sensor makers. A sourcing caveat: Patsnap's litigation record for this docket lists two patents ('790 and '242), and the complaint attached four exhibits (consistent with two patents plus two claim charts, Dkt. 1), while the IPWatchdog filing roundup and the case metadata list only the '242. I could not open Exhibits 3–4 or the AO-120 form (Dkt. 5/10) to resolve the discrepancy. On the accused products, the complaint pleaded only "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in unviewable claim-chart exhibits, so which EverFocus camera/NVR/DVR models were charted is not verified; given EverFocus's lineup and the sensor-interface subject matter, the targets were almost certainly its network/IP cameras and recorders, but that is inference, not record fact.

Procedural posture, venue, and why the case matters. Cedar Lane filed in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas on June 24, 2022, and the case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright (Dkt. 1; Docket Alarm). EverFocus waived formal service on Sept. 6, 2022, making its answer due Dec. 5, 2022 (Dkt. 7); the parties then agreed to extend the response deadline to Jan. 19, 2023 (Dkt. 8), and on that date Cedar Lane filed a notice of voluntary dismissal — the record text recites dismissal with prejudice, noting that EverFocus had neither answered nor moved for summary judgment — and the Clerk sent the AO-120 report to the USPTO the same day (Dkts. 9–10). Total pendency: 209 days. There was no answer, no motion practice, no Markman hearing, no transfer motion, and — on my search of PTAB records — no IPR petition against the '242 in this matter. Venue is the analytically interesting piece: neither party had any Texas presence, but EverFocus is an alien corporation, and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) treats a foreign defendant as residing in any judicial district, so Waco was available; the defendant never tested it. That is the structural reason Cedar Lane could route this campaign through Albright's fast docket — a Korean Judicial Policy Research Institute study of Cedar Lane's 2018–mid-2022 filings found 42% in W.D. Tex. and 39% before Albright specifically. Substantively, the case is a data point rather than a precedent: it illustrates the high-volume, low-visibility end of NPE assertion — a Canadian PAE, a one-lawyer Chicago firm, a 2000-vintage IV-sourced sensor-interface patent, an out-of-district alien defendant, and a with-prejudice exit before any merits test. Because the '242 and '790 covered consumer and industrial imaging broadly, the same patents were simultaneously pressed against Qualcomm, Amazon, ON Semiconductor, Snap, Lexmark, Raytheon, Motorola Solutions, Ricoh, and rental-car firms including Avis, Hertz and Sixt, among many others — a pattern of wide-net, quick-settlement assertion that drew judicial and academic criticism, including a 2020 N.D. Cal. sanctions order by Judge Vince Chhabria finding Cedar Lane and Rabicoff had taken "objectively frivolous" positions in bad faith and referring Rabicoff to that court's standing committee (per Seyfarth's account; I did not independently pull the underlying order). Finally, the patent family's term is the backstory to the campaign's wind-down: Patsnap records an estimated expiry of Aug. 1, 2023 for the '790 (and lists both patents as inactive), meaning the '242 — a same-priority divisional — was in its final months when this case settled out, which materially limits any forward-looking industry impact.

Facts I could not verify: the specific EverFocus models charted; whether the '790 was formally asserted here; defendant's counsel (none appeared); and whether the with-prejudice dismissal followed a payment — Cedar Lane's settlement rate makes a confidential license the likely explanation, but the docket discloses no consideration.

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

Key facts confirmed. Now let me verify the docket details and check for parallel PTAB proceedings.

Let me check PTAB proceedings more specifically and try to view the actual docket.

Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. EverFocus Co., Ltd., No. 6:22-cv-00661 (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line up front: This is a short, uncontested "file-and-settle" case. It went from complaint to a plaintiff-initiated dismissal with prejudice in under seven months (209 days) without EverFocus ever appearing, answering, or moving. There was no Answer, no counterclaim, no motion practice of any kind, no scheduling order, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, and no appeal, and I found no IPR/PGR on the '242 patent. The only substantive "event" is the dismissal itself, and its procedural posture (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice, before answer) tells you most of what a litigator needs to know about how the dispute resolved.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings — 2022-06-24

Venue: W.D. Tex./Waco. EverFocus Co., Ltd. is a Taiwanese manufacturer of DVRs, NVRs, IP cameras and video surveillance equipment — i.e., squarely within Cedar Lane's "imaging array / host interface" target set (cameras, DVRs, and image-sensor products).

Patent-count caveat. The case metadata lists only U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242 ("Host interface for imaging arrays," issued 2013-09-17, filed 2005-10-27 as a divisional of the '790 application, priority 2000-01-21). IPWatchdog's July 2022 docket roundup likewise lists only 8537242 for 6:22-cv-00661 (https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/07/01/patent-filings-roundup-centripetal-sees-iprs-microsoft-engineer-sues-seven-waco/). However, the Patsnap litigation record for this case lists two patents — US 6,972,790 and US 8,537,242 (https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/cedar-lane-technologies-v-everfocus-co-6-22-cv-00661/). Cedar Lane's standard template complaint in this campaign routinely pleaded the '790 (the '242's parent) alongside the '242. I could not pull Dkt. 1 to confirm which counts were pleaded; treat the '790 as a possible companion count, not a verified fact.

2. Service and extensions — no appearance

• 2022-09-06 — Dkt. 7: Waiver of Service returned executed; waiver sent 2022-09-06, answer due 2022-12-05. A foreign defendant opting for waiver (rather than contesting service under the Hague Convention) is an early signal of a defendant intending to negotiate, not litigate.
• 2022-09-16/17 — docket text entry: parties directed to comply with Judge Albright's updated Standing Order Governing Proceedings – Patent Cases and Amended Standing Order on Pretrial Procedures.
• 2022-12-02 — Dkt. 8: Notice of Agreed Extension of Time for EverFocus to answer, move, or otherwise respond, extended to 2023-01-19. Notably, this was styled as a notice of an agreed extension signed by plaintiff's counsel alone, not a contested motion — again consistent with cooperative, settlement-oriented handling.

3. Pre-trial motions of substance — none

There were no motions to dismiss, no § 1404(a)/§ 1406 transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, no motion for judgment on the pleadings, and no summary judgment motion. The docket (Dkts. 1–10, plus administrative text entries) contains no contested filing whatsoever. Relatedly, no scheduling order was entered, so no Markman/hearing date, no discovery cutoff, no expert deadlines, and no trial setting ever existed.

4. Claim construction (Markman) — did not occur

The case never reached claim construction. This is significant because the '242's claim 1 (a method claim requiring "updating a FIFO counter to maintain a count of the image data… comparing the count… with a FIFO limit… generating an interrupt signal… in response to an interrupt enable signal being valid and the count… having a predetermined relationship to the FIFO limit") and the specification phrase "at a rate determined by the processor system" were the obvious construction battlegrounds across Cedar Lane's '790/'242 docket — none of which was ever joined here.

5. Discovery milestones — none of record

No Rule 26(f) conference, no joint discovery plan, no initial disclosures, no interrogatories, no document production, no depositions, and no protective-order dispute appear on the docket. Practically, the "discovery" that mattered was pre-suit: the claim charts attached as Dkt. 1, Exs. 2–4 (the '242 patent plus infringement charts against identified EverFocus products), which in this campaign functioned as the settlement lever rather than as trial evidence.

6. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions — none

No trial, no verdict, no JMOL, no Rule 59 motion, and no fee motion. Cedar Lane expressly disclaimed fees in the dismissal (see below), so there was no § 285 prevailing-party fight either.

7. Final disposition — 2023-01-19: voluntary dismissal WITH prejudice

The dismissal text, as recorded:

"Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby dismisses this action with prejudice. Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees."

Three analytical points:

1. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) was available precisely because EverFocus had not answered or moved for summary judgment — Cedar Lane dismissed unilaterally, without a court order and without EverFocus's signature. Filing the notice on the very day the extended answer deadline ran is the classic pattern: dismiss before a responsive pleading forces the issue.
2. "With prejudice" plus "each party bears its own fees" is the signature of a negotiated, likely paid, resolution — Cedar Lane gave up the right to refile against EverFocus, and EverFocus gave up a fee/costs claim. The consideration, if any, is not public.
3. No appeal was taken and none was possible in any meaningful sense; the case is fully and finally closed (closed 2023-01-19).

8. Parallel PTAB proceedings — none found on the '242

I searched PTAB records/derivatives and the secondary literature and found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242, and none by or against EverFocus. Patsnap's patent record for the '242 lists "Validity challenges: None recorded." Two structural explanations, both worth flagging as inference rather than confirmed fact:

• Economics: Cedar Lane's targets were small-to-midsize camera/DVR makers facing nuisance-value demands; an IPR (then $40k+ with expert costs) rarely penciled out against a settlement in the low five figures.
• Timing/expiry: Both the '790 and '242 share a 2000-01-21 priority date and an estimated expiry of roughly 2023-08-01, so by the time EverFocus's answer came due the asserted family had months of life left. A defendant's rational move in early 2023 was to settle cheap, not to spend on a PTAB challenge to a patent expiring that summer.

Because there was no IPR, there was correspondingly no Fintiv § 314(a) discretionary-denial issue, no stay motion, and no estoppel effect — the entire PTAB dimension is absent from this case.

---

Strategic read / context

Cedar Lane (founded 2019 by attorney Greg Benoit; portfolio largely acquired from Intellectual Ventures) was the most prolific patent plaintiff in the U.S. in 2021, with roughly 325+ district court suits and an approximately 96% settlement rate among terminated cases (IAM, 2023-03-20, interview with Benoit: https://www.iam-media.com/court/us-district-court-for-district-of-delaware?page=9). Seyfarth's NPE Showcase notes that none of Cedar Lane's cases had reached trial and that the campaign was "conventional patent-based nuisance litigation designed to generate a large quantity of modest settlements" (https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/npe-showcase-cedar-lane-technologies-[1171526](/patent/1171526)/). EverFocus fits that mold exactly: waiver of service → agreed extension → dismissal with prejudice on the eve of the answer, with costs and fees mutually waived.

For comparison within the same June 2022 filing wave: Cedar Lane v. Longse Tech. (6:22-cv-00655), v. Moxa (6:22-cv-00778), v. PixArt Imaging (6:22-cv-01077), v. Tattile (6:22-cv-00962), v. Silent Sentinel (6:22-cv-00960) — nearly all resolved by similar early dismissal. The '242 patent accumulated on the order of 200+ district court filings before expiring.

What I could not verify (flagged, not asserted)

• The four corners of Dkt. 1. Whether the '242 was the sole count or was pleaded with the '790; which claims were charted; the specific accused EverFocus models.
• Whether consideration was paid. The docket shows dismissal with prejudice and mutual fee waivers but no disclosed settlement amount or license.
• Whether EverFocus's counsel of record ever appeared. No notice of appearance appears in the docket extract I reviewed (Dkts. 1–10), which would be unusual if a settlement agreement was papered by defense counsel — the deal may have been negotiated without a formal appearance, or the appearance (if any) is not reflected in the source.
• Exact closure of PTAB search. My negative finding on IPRs rests on PTAB/Patsnap/secondary-source searching, not a line-by-line query of the PTAB Case Tracking System for every IPR number series against the '242. If a petition was filed and denied institution in a non-precedential decision, it may not surface in these sources.

Primary sources: Docket via Patexia, https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-EverFocus-Co-Ltd-id-[164561](/patent/164561)/documents; case metadata and dismissal text via Patsnap, https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/cedar-lane-technologies-v-everfocus-co-6-22-cv-00661/; filing-wave confirmation via IPWatchdog (2022-07-

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

Let me verify against the docket and look for any additional appearances.

Let me check CourtListener's docket/parties page directly and whether any local counsel appeared.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Bottom line: The docket in 6:22-cv-00661 reflects exactly one attorney appearing for Cedar Lane — Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago), who was lead and sole counsel of record. No local counsel, no second firm, and no in-house counsel appear on the docket, and there is no pro hac vice motion or appearance by co-counsel in the record. Cedar Lane's founder, Greg Benoit, is identified in third-party reporting as the company's principal, but he is not an attorney of record here.

---

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

Docket footprint in this case (W.D. Tex., Judge Alan D. Albright):

• Doc. 1 — Complaint for Patent Infringement, filed 6/24/2022 (signed Rabicoff)
• Doc. 2 — Notice of Attorney Appearance on behalf of Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., 6/24/2022
• Doc. 3 — Rule 7 Disclosure Statement, 6/24/2022
• Doc. 4 — Request for Issuance of Summons, 6/24/2022
• Doc. 5 — AO 120 Patent/Trademark Form, 6/24/2022
• Doc. 7 — Waiver of Service Returned Executed, 9/6/2022
• Doc. 8 — Notice of Agreed Extension of Time for EverFocus to respond (to 1/19/2023), 12/2/2022
• Doc. 9 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, 1/19/2023
• Doc. 10 — Report on Patent/Trademark to USPTO, 1/19/2023 (clerical)

Sources: Patexia docket, Cedar Lane Techs. v. EverFocus, No. 6:22-cv-00661; Patsnap case page; case listed in IPWatchdog Patent Filings Roundup, July 1, 2022.

Relevant patent litigation experience:

• Rabicoff is a registered patent attorney (B.S. Physics, University of Kansas; J.D., Loyola University Chicago with a Trial Advocacy Certificate) and is the architect of Cedar Lane's enforcement campaign — routinely described in trade press as one of the most prolific filers of patent suits in the country, with Lex Machina data cited at roughly 600 infringement suits over a two-year span, the largest share in Delaware and Texas. Cedar Lane alone accounted for dozens of his matters; a Chinese IP-protection-center risk alert tallied 58 Cedar Lane cases handled by Rabicoff Law.
• Other Cedar Lane '242/'790-family matters in W.D. Tex. before Judge Albright were filed by him the same week (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Longse Tech., 6:22-cv-00655; Cedar Lane v. Moxa, 6:22-cv-00778; Cedar Lane v. PixArt Imaging, 6:22-cv-01077).
• His firm bio credits him with arguing before the Federal Circuit, defeating institution of numerous IPR/CBM petitions (including denial of institution on all claims in a Mastercard CBM), authoring a Federal Circuit amicus brief on representative claims under § 101, and co-presenting IPLAC CLE on venue post-TC Heartland. (rabilaw.com bio)
• Adverse history worth flagging: In Cedar Lane Techs. v. Blackmagic Design, No. 20-cv-01302-VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria sanctioned Rabicoff and Cedar Lane under Rule 11 and the court's inherent authority ($1,000) for frivolous positions taken in bad faith, found he "made misleading statements about the procedural history of the case," and referred him to the N.D. Cal. Standing Committee on Professional Conduct over systematic failures to seek pro hac vice admission or pay the fees. The Committee's final report describes an informal resolution in which he agreed to pay ~$9,193 in unpaid pro hac vice fees and to comply going forward. (Sanctions order and Committee report, via Justia; Law.com coverage)

---

What is not in the record — and caveats

• No local counsel of record. W.D. Tex. practice and Judge Albright's standing orders contemplate a local-counsel association, but no W.D. Tex. attorney appears on this docket. Note also that Rabicoff's published admissions list (Illinois, U.S. Supreme Court, Fed. Cir., 7th Cir., E.D. Tex., N.D. Ill., W.D. Wis.) does not include the Western District of Texas, and the docket contains no pro hac vice application. I could not confirm from a primary source how his appearance was authorized in this case — treat that as an open question rather than a documented violation.
• No second firm on this docket. The June 2022 Retail Patent Litigation Report lists "Mann Law Group; Rabicoff Law" as plaintiff's counsel for Cedar Lane's June 2022 wave of filings generally, but no Mann Law Group appearance appears on the EverFocus docket. That attribution appears to belong to other Cedar Lane cases in the wave.
• No in-house counsel. Cedar Lane's principal, Greg Benoit (a lawyer by training), is identified in third-party reporting but never entered an appearance here.
• No sealing issue. Nothing in this docket is sealed; the case ran only to the pleadings. EverFocus never answered — the parties stipulated to an extension to 1/19/2023, and Cedar Lane dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) that same day, with each side bearing its own fees and costs. The case closed 1/19/2023, 209 days after filing. (Patsnap termination text)
• Defendant's counsel was not recorded on the docket snapshots I could access, consistent with EverFocus never having answered or appeared.

Confidence: High on the identity of plaintiff's counsel (multiple independent docket mirrors agree, and the ECF signature blocks corroborate it). Moderate on the exact firm street address for the 2022 period, since the firm moved offices between the 2019–2022 filings (73 W. Monroe) and later 2025–26 dockets (4311 N. Ravenswood).

I'll research the counsel of record for Everfocus Co Ltd. in this case.

The docket result is telling — let me verify whether any defense counsel ever appeared.

Bottom line

No attorney ever entered an appearance for EverFocus Co., Ltd. in this case. The docket for 6:22-cv-00661 contains ten entries total, and not one of them is a notice of appearance, pro hac vice motion, or any paper filed by or on behalf of the defendant. EverFocus waived formal service, obtained one agreed extension of its answer deadline through counsel who never appeared, and the case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice before any defense filing. Accordingly, there is no lead counsel, local counsel, of counsel, or in-house counsel of record to report for the defendant.

Docket evidence

Source: docket listing for Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. EverFocus Co., Ltd., No. 6:22-cv-00661 (W.D. Tex.), at Patexia litigation record; mirrored at Patsnap (recording termination as voluntary dismissal, 24 Jun 2022 – 19 Jan 2023, 209 days) and Docket Alarm. Filing listed in IPWatchdog's Patent Filings Roundup, July 1, 2022.

The only counsel of record in the case (plaintiff side, for completeness)

• Isaac Phillip Rabicoff — sole attorney of record; Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago, IL (4311 N. Ravenswood Ave., Suite 315). Rabicoff is a prolific serial filer of patent suits in W.D. Tex.; he is the appearances-and-dismissal attorney of record in dozens of Cedar Lane matters (e.g., Cedar Lane v. ecobee, No. 6:22-cv-00018, Dkt. 2; Cedar Lane v. Johnson Controls, No. 2:25-cv-00815). He signed Dkt. 1–5, 7, 8, and 9 here. He is not defense counsel — included only so the record of who appeared in this case is complete.

No local Waco/Texas counsel, no AT-1/pro hac vice admission, and no in-house EverFocus attorney appears anywhere on the docket.

Why the record looks this way

EverFocus is a Taiwan-listed surveillance/CCTV hardware maker (TWSE: 5484) sued alongside dozens of similarly situated camera and DVR vendors in Cedar Lane's 2022 wave. This case follows the template of Cedar Lane's foreign-defendant matters: waiver of service under Rule 4(d) (Dkt. 7), one or more agreed extensions of the answer date (Dkt. 8), then a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal with prejudice before any responsive pleading — here, dismissal landed precisely on the extended answer deadline of 19 January 2023.

What I could not verify — and where the answer likely lives

• The identity of the attorney who negotiated the December 2022 extension is not established by the docket. I did not retrieve the underlying PDFs (Dkt. 7-1 waiver form and Dkt. 8 notice). The executed waiver form in Dkt. 7-1 is the single most likely place on the public record to find a named defense attorney or firm, since waiver forms frequently identify the counsel who agreed to accept service on the defendant's behalf. Dkt. 8's certificate of service and any attendant email correspondence would be the second place. Both require a PACER pull of this closed case.
• No sealed filings are indicated on the docket; the absence of defense counsel is a public-record fact, not a sealing artifact.
• I did not confirm EverFocus's litigation counsel in its other patent cases (e.g., InnoMemory, LLC v. EverFocus Co., Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-00674 (E.D. Tex.), filed Aug. 14, 2024) as a proxy for who would have been retained here. Any firm name supplied by that route would be inference, not record evidence in this case, and my searches did not return verified appearances. I decline to name a firm on that basis.

Confidence: High that no defense appearance exists — the docket is short, closed, and every entry is accounted for; the Rule 41(a) notice itself recites that EverFocus never answered. Medium-high that the docket transcription is complete, as the aggregator listings are consistent across Patexia, Patsnap, and Docket Alarm, but I did not access PACER itself.

Metadata note: Patsnap's case record lists two patents (US 6,972,790 and US 8,537,242), while our case metadata lists only the '242. Per your instruction I've treated the '242 as authoritative; the discrepancy is flagged only because the '790 is the patent EverFocus's co-defendants in the Cedar Lane wave most often litigated.