Litigation

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Fantasia Trading LLC

dismissed

1:21-cv-01428

Terminated
2022-01-25

Patents at issue (3)

8537242
6972790
8165867

Summary

Cedar Lane sued Fantasia Trading in D. Del. on the '242 and related patents. Voluntary dismissal granted 2022-01-25.

Case overview & background

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

I'll research this case across the docket, party backgrounds, patent families, and Cedar Lane's broader assertion campaign.

Let me dig into the accused products, patent titles, and Cedar Lane's corporate background and IPR history on these specific patents.

Now let me verify the '867 patent's technical content and origin, plus any IPR challenges to these three patents.

Case Overview

Parties. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian patent-assertion entity formed in British Columbia on April 29, 2019, with attorney Greg Benoit as director and an address tied to IP licensing firm Pigott & Co.; it has disclosed no parent corporation in its Rule 7.1 filings. Its portfolio is largely acquired: the '867 patent's chain of title runs from inventor Robert D. Fish → Ulloa Research LLC → NyTell Software LLC → Intellectual Ventures Assets 120 LLC (Nov. 2018) → AVInnov LLC (Dec. 2018) → Cedar Lane (recorded Oct. 2019), and the '790/'242 imaging patents came to Cedar Lane in 2019 after passing through Canadian sensor maker Psion Teklogix (the exact upstream chain for the '790/'242 family is less cleanly documented in public sources than the '867 chain, so I flag it as not fully verified). Cedar Lane is one of the most prolific filers in the country — IAM named it America's top-filing NPE for 2022, noting a ~96% settlement rate among terminated cases, and it asserted the '790 patent in roughly 46 complaints and its '527 patent in roughly 38. Defendant Fantasia Trading LLC is the Delaware-registered U.S. retail/distribution arm of Anker Innovations (Shenzhen, China); its Rule 7.1 disclosure (D.I. 10, Nov. 29, 2021) identifies Anker Innovations Limited as corporate parent. Anker is an operating company known for charging/power products, Soundcore audio, and — critically here — the eufy smart-home line.

Accused technology. The complaint targets eufy imaging and smart-home devices, itemized in the claim charts at Exhibits D and F: Indoor Cam 1080p and 1080p Pan & Tilt, Indoor Cam 2K and 2K Pan & Tilt, eufyCam / eufyCam 2 / 2C / 2 Pro / 2C Pro / eufyCam E, the SpaceView and 720p video baby monitors, Floodlight Camera, Battery Camera, and Video Doorbell 2K/1080p. The theory is a hardware-architecture theory: the charts allege these cameras use CMOS image sensors feeding a FIFO buffer with a counter, a comparison against a FIFO limit, and an interrupt to the host processor — i.e., the 2000-era "host interface" design. The '867 count is less visible in the public exhibits; given that patent's claim 1 (capturing a spoken command at a first device, sending it to a distal computer, translating, and returning an instruction to operate a second device), the accused functionality almost certainly involves eufy app / voice-assistant control, but I could not fully review the '867 chart and will not assert that mapping as confirmed.

Patents and posture. Three patents were asserted, all with early-2000s priority: U.S. 6,972,790 ("Host interface for imaging arrays," issued Dec. 6, 2005, filed Dec. 21, 2000) — an on-die interface that buffers sensor data in a FIFO and interrupts the host when a threshold is reached; U.S. 8,537,242 (same title, issued Sept. 17, 2013) — a divisional of the '790 application claiming the corresponding method of FIFO counting/comparison/interrupt generation; and U.S. 8,165,867 ("Methods for translating a device command," issued Apr. 24, 2012, filed Sept. 15, 2000) — remote translation of a device command, i.e., sending captured voice command data to a remote server and returning a control instruction. Suit was filed Oct. 7, 2021 in the District of Delaware, C.A. No. 1:21-cv-01428-RGA, assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews on Oct. 13, 2021; Fantasia was served Oct. 8, 2021, and obtained an extension to Nov. 29, 2021 (D.I. 7). Delaware mattered for the usual reasons in Cedar Lane's campaign — a specialized patent bench, a defendant incorporated/registered there, and local rules that generate early claim-construction and dismissal practice — and it was one of two preferred venues for this campaign (the other being W.D. Tex.), with dozens of Cedar Lane cases from 2021–22 assigned to Judge Andrews. The case ended quickly: Fantasia moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim (D.I. 8) with an opening brief (D.I. 9) arguing that the complaint pled only conclusory, information-and-belief allegations, that the '867 count on its own face failed to show all claimed steps, and that the single sentence treating service of the complaint as "actual knowledge" could not support induced or willful infringement. Cedar Lane voluntarily dismissed on Jan. 25, 2022 (D.I. 13), and Judge Andrews so ordered that same day, terminating the case before any ruling on the motion.

Why It Matters

The case is best read as a data point in the Cedar Lane pattern rather than a merits ruling: a volume-driven, acquired-portfolio campaign in which dismissal within roughly three and a half months, before a motion-to-dismiss decision, is the characteristic terminal event. Public docket records do not disclose whether a license or settlement was signed, so any characterization of the dismissal as "paid" would be speculation. The patents themselves illustrate two recurring vulnerabilities of this campaign — mature (2000-era priority, with third-party expiry estimates placing the family's term in the early 2020s) sensor-interface claims being mapped onto modern SoC camera designs, and pleading-stage attacks on collective "service = knowledge" allegations. There is also an IPR/PATROLL linkage worth noting: Unified Patents had already attacked Cedar Lane's IV-derived portfolio, winning a Feb. 12, 2021 final written decision holding the asserted claim of U.S. 7,173,177 unpatentable (IPR2020-00006), and in April 2021 paid a $3,000 PATROLL award for prior art on the '867 patent — the same patent asserted here. I did not find a petition or instituted IPR directed at the '790 or '242 patents, so the invalidity-pressure story for those two remains unconfirmed. Commercially, the target was a fast-growing direct-to-consumer smart-home brand, and the Anker/Fantasia family has been a repeated patent-litigation target (e.g., NEC's 2024 assertion against Anker in E.D. Tex. and KT Imaging's 2022 filings), which makes the eufy camera line an instructive example of how NPE dockets track consumer-electronics product cycles.

Sources: D. Del. docket 1:21-cv-01428 (CourtListener/RECAP, D.I. 1, 6–10, 13); Compl. and Exhibits D & F (eufy claim charts); Fantasia's opening brief in support of its motion to dismiss (D.I. 9); Rule 7.1 disclosure (D.I. 10); RPX, "In a Matter of Months, Former IV Portfolio Bounces Off One NPE to Land in New Cedar Lane Complaints" (Nov. 9, 2019); IAM, "Examining the practice of Cedar Lane Technologies – America's top-filing NPE" (Mar. 20, 2023); Unified Patents insights on the '177 FWD (Feb. 12, 2021) and the '867 PATROLL award (Apr. 20, 2021); Stanford NPE Litigation Database (Cedar Lane party/patent records); USPTO assignment records for the '867 patent; The Recycler on the '790/'527 assignment and complaint counts. Unverified: any settlement/license terms, the precise original assignee chain for the '790/'242 family, and the '867 claim chart's specific product mapping.

Key legal developments & outcome

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

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

Now let me pin down the remaining docket entries and any PTAB activity on these three patents.

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Fantasia Trading LLC, No. 1:21-cv-01428-RGA (D. Del.)

Bottom line

This was a short, early-stage NPE strike suit that ended in a plaintiff-initiated voluntary dismissal roughly 3½ months after filing, without an answer ever being filed, without a scheduling order, without any claim construction, discovery, or trial, and with no PTAB proceeding on any of the three asserted patents. The only substantive contested event was Fantasia's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, filed 2021-11-29 — and Cedar Lane dismissed the case while that motion was pending. The prior case summary ("voluntary dismissal granted 2022-01-25") is confirmed by the docket; the detail below fills in everything around it.

1. Filing and initial pleadings

2021-10-07 — Complaint filed. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (a Canadian NPE) filed a three-count patent infringement complaint against Fantasia Trading LLC d/b/a AnkerDirect (the Anker Innovations affiliate that operates Anker's direct-sales channels) in the District of Delaware, assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews (C.A. No. 1:21-cv-01428-RGA), jury demand. Filing fee $402.

  • D.I. 1, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.76772/gov.uscourts.ded.76772.1.0.pdf
  • Patents asserted: U.S. 6,972,790 ("Host interface for imaging arrays," issued 2005-12-06, filed 2000-12-21, priority 2000-01-21); U.S. 8,165,867 ("Methods for translating a device command," issued 2012-04-24, filed 2000-09-15); U.S. 8,537,242 ("Host interface for imaging arrays," issued 2013-09-17, filed 2005-10-27, a divisional of the '790 application). D.I. 1 ¶¶ 7–11.
  • Asserted claims: at least claims 1 and 8 of the '242, claim 1 of the '867, and claim 1 of the '790. D.I. 1-4, 1-5, 1-6 (per D.I. 9 at 2).
  • Theory: direct infringement (including "employees internally test and use" the products) plus induced infringement, with actual knowledge premised entirely on the boilerplate allegation that "[t]he service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts and references cited, constitutes actual knowledge." D.I. 1 ¶¶ 15, 24, 33.

2021-10-08 — Service on Fantasia (D.I. 6, filed 2021-10-12); answer due 2021-10-29.

2021-10-20 — Answer deadline extended to 2021-11-29 on Cedar Lane's own unopposed motion (D.I. 7); so-ordered by Judge Andrews the same day.

No answer, no counterclaims, ever. The docket contains no Rule 12(a) answer and no counterclaims by Fantasia — the case was dismissed before any responsive pleading other than the motion to dismiss. (Contrast: Fantasia is a repeat patent defendant in Delaware; e.g., it litigated SOTAT, LLC v. Fantasia Trading, LLC, where it actively litigated into discovery.)

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

2021-11-29 — Fantasia's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)), D.I. 8, with opening brief D.I. 9 and Rule 7.1 disclosure identifying Anker Innovations Limited as corporate parent (D.I. 10). Counsel: Zhun Lu (Rimon, P.C., Delaware) and Jason Xu (Rimon, P.C., Washington, D.C., pro hac vice forthcoming).

The brief advanced three grounds, all pleading-stage:

  1. Direct infringement inadequately pleaded under Iqbal/Twombly — the complaint merely parroted claim language on information and belief without element-by-element facts, particularly for the '242 and '790; and for the '867 patent the complaint itself showed the accused product did not perform all recited method steps, so no direct infringement was possible as a matter of law.
  2. No plausible knowledge — pre-suit knowledge of the patents could not be inferred; Cedar Lane relied solely on service of the complaint, which Fantasia argued "contradicts the case law in this Court," dooming induced infringement.
  3. No willfulness — the complaint never even mentioned willful infringement, alleged no pre-suit knowledge, and pleaded no deliberate conduct.

2021-12-07 — Stipulation and proposed order to extend (D.I. 11), extending Cedar Lane's response deadline.

2022-01-06 — D.I. 12 filed by Cedar Lane (deBruin). Caveat: the public RECAP text for this entry is truncated in freely available mirrors and I could not verify the document title or contents. It appears on the docket in the slot immediately preceding the dismissal and is most consistent with an answering brief in opposition to D.I. 8; I am flagging it as unverified rather than characterizing it.

No ruling on the motion to dismiss was ever issued. Judge Andrews terminated the case before deciding it.

Motions that were never filed: no motion to transfer (Fantasia, a California-based Anker affiliate, did not seek transfer to C.D. Cal. or N.D. Cal.); no motion to stay pending IPR (none was available — no IPR existed); no summary judgment motion.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Never reached. No scheduling order, no Rule 26(f) report, no joint claim construction statement, no Markman briefing, no Markman hearing, and no claim construction order appear on the docket. The case ended five docket entries after the motion to dismiss.

4. Discovery milestones

None of significance occurred. There is no protective order, no Rule 26(f) discovery plan, no initial disclosures, no interrogatories, no document production, and no deposition on the docket. The case terminated approximately 3½ months after filing, well before any scheduling conference. This is one of the cleanest possible examples of a case that never entered discovery — relevant because it means no evidentiary record on infringement, invalidity, or damages was ever developed in this forum.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial date was set; no verdict; no JMOL, new trial, or fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285. No attorneys' fees were awarded (and Cedar Lane's dismissal came before any fee motion could be filed).

6. Final disposition

2022-01-25 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Cedar Lane as to Fantasia (D.I. 13), and the same day, Judge Andrews entered: *"SO ORDERED Granting 13 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (**Civil Case Terminated)." A Patent/Trademark Report to the Commissioner was also docketed.

Prejudice status — important caveat. Because Fantasia had not served an answer and had not moved for summary judgment, Cedar Lane was entitled to dismiss unilaterally as of right under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and such a dismissal operates without prejudice unless the notice itself states otherwise. In later, similar Cedar Lane dismissals the notice affirmatively recited Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and stated the dismissal was with prejudice (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Hertz Global Holdings, W.D. Tex. No. 6:22-cv-01216, dismissed 2023-03-29; Cedar Lane v. Via Technologies, No. 6:22-cv-01305, dismissed 2023-04-25). I could not retrieve the text of D.I. 13 in this case, so the with/without-prejudice character is unverified. The practical consequence is verifiable: Cedar Lane continued asserting the '790 and '242 patents against other defendants for years afterward (Renesas, Hertz, Via, Vector Security, Xerox, Lorex, Alps Alpine, and many others), so the dismissal plainly did not surrender the patents.

No appeal. Nothing was appealable; no Federal Circuit proceeding exists.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings

No IPR or PGR was ever filed on the '790, '867, or '242 patents. Searches of PTAB records and third-party patent-litigation databases turn up no validity challenge of record to the '790 or '242 patents; the '790 patent is recorded as having "None recorded" validity challenges and an estimated expiry of 2023-08-01 (i.e., a short remaining damages tail at the time of suit, after PTA). I found no IPR on the '867 either, but I could not run that search to completion and would characterize the '867 as no IPR identified rather than confirmed negative.

The only Cedar Lane PTAB proceeding I can confirm is on a different patent: 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) holding the asserted independent claim of U.S. 7,173,177 unpatentable (Kaiser, Beamer, Howard, APJs; opinion by Kaiser; Unified represented in-house by Michelle Callaghan and Roshan Mansinghani, with Husch Blackwell).

Effect on this litigation: none, directly. No IPR existed, so there was no § 315(b) bar clock running, no motion to stay was possible, and no estoppel attached. But the Unified Patents result is strategically material context: it demonstrated that Cedar Lane's AVInnov/Intellectual Ventures-derived portfolio was vulnerable in AIA trials, and it was issued about a month before Cedar Lane filed this suit — a defendant-side data point that would have informed any stay strategy had an IPR been filed here.

8. Strategic read

  1. The 12(b)(6) motion did real work. Cedar Lane's complaint is a template NPE pleading: no pre-suit knowledge, knowledge supplied solely by service, and infringement charted only by reference to exhibits. The '867 count was especially exposed because Cedar Lane's own pleading arguably negated an element of the claimed method — the rare case where the complaint pleads itself out of court.

  2. **Dismissal-before-ruling is the

Plaintiff representatives

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

Counsel of record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Bottom line: Only one attorney actually appeared as counsel of record for the plaintiff on this docket — David W. deBruin of Gawthrop Greenwood, PC (Wilmington, DE), Delaware local counsel, who is designated the lead (and only) attorney for Cedar Lane. Cedar Lane's regular national counsel, Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC), was the attorney who ran this filing campaign and is identified in contemporaneous Cedar Lane Delaware complaints as "pro hac vice application forthcoming," but no notice of appearance or pro hac vice motion by Rabicoff (or anyone else) appears on this docket before the case was voluntarily dismissed on 2022‑01‑25. No in‑house or Cedar Lane employee attorney appeared.

Attorney Role Firm / Office Experience note
David W. deBruin (D. Del. Bar #4846) Local counsel and sole attorney of record for Plaintiff; flagged "LEAD ATTORNEY" on the docket. Signed the complaint, the extension motions/stipulations, and the notice of voluntary dismissal (D.I. 7, 11, 12, 13). Gawthrop Greenwood, PC, 3711 Kennett Pike, Suite 100, Wilmington, DE 19807; (302) 777‑5353; ddebruin@gawthrop.com (firm is headquartered in West Chester, PA, with a Wilmington, DE office). Delaware litigator who serves repeatedly as local counsel in high-volume NPE campaigns — e.g., the companion Cedar Lane Delaware filings (Cedar Lane v. Philips Electronics North America, Cedar Lane v. Snap) and Realm Licensing LLC cases — pairing with out‑of‑state lead counsel on patent complaints and early dispositive/dismissal practice.
Isaac Rabicoff Not of record here. Identified in Cedar Lane's Delaware complaints of this period as counsel with "pro hac vice application forthcoming"; he is the attorney behind Cedar Lane's nationwide filing campaign (the complaint in this case was filed 10/7/2021, in the middle of that campaign). No PHV motion, appearance, or fee payment appears on this docket. Rabicoff Law LLC — at the relevant time 5680 King Centre Dr., Suite 645, Alexandria, VA 22315 (earlier Chicago, IL at 73 W. Monroe St.). Prolific filer of Cedar Lane (and other NPE) patent suits; sanctioned $1,000 under Rule 11 and referred to the N.D. Cal. Standing Committee on Professional Conduct in Cedar Lane Techs. v. Blackmagic Design, No. 20‑cv‑01302‑VC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2020), with a later Standing Committee resolution requiring payment of ~$9,193 in unpaid pro hac vice fees (final report approved Feb. 4, 2022).

Sourcing and evidentiary caveats

  • Docket: D. Del. No. 1:21‑cv‑01428‑RGA (Andrews, J.); complaint filed 10/7/2021 (D.I. 1); summons returned executed 10/12/2021 (D.I. 6); extension motion filed by "deBruin, David" (D.I. 7, 10/20/2021); stipulations (D.I. 11, 12); Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by deBruin (D.I. 13, 1/25/2022), so ordered the same day. Docket via CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60631839/cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-fantasia-trading-llc/) and Justia (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2021cv01428/76772). Every plaintiff-side filing is attributed to deBruin; no other plaintiff attorney appears.
  • deBruin as "LEAD ATTORNEY": CourtListener's parties page for this case lists David W. deBruin, Gawthrop Greenwood PC, 3711 Kennett Pike, Suite 100, Wilmington, DE 19807, "(302) 777‑5353," flagged LEAD ATTORNEY (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60631839/parties/cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-fantasia-trading-llc/).
  • Rabicoff's "pro hac vice forthcoming" designation: verified from a contemporaneous Cedar Lane Delaware complaint signature block — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Philips Electronics North America Corp., D. Del., dated Aug. 25, 2021, signed "/s/ David W. deBruin (#4846), Gawthrop Greenwood, PC … Isaac Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC (Pro hac vice application forthcoming), 5680 King Centre Dr, Suite 645, Alexandria, VA 22315 … Counsel for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc." (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/14368090). I could not retrieve the signature block of D.I. 1 in this case directly; while the same template was almost certainly used, treat Rabicoff's involvement in this case as "campaign-level counsel identified on papers of the period," not as an appearance of record. The absence of any PHV docket entry is consistent with the pattern criticized in the Blackmagic sanctions record (suits dismissed before admission was sought).
  • Sanctions/disciplinary history: In re Isaac Rabicoff, No. 20‑mc‑80206‑JD (N.D. Cal.), Final Report of the Standing Committee and proposed order (Rabicoff sanctioned $1,000; referred to Standing Committee; informal resolution to pay $9,193 in PHV fees), and Rabicoff's May 11, 2022 self‑report to the Virginia State Bar; a later California disciplinary decision (Rabicoff-121222.pdf) recounts the same facts. These are cited for background on the attorney, not as rulings in this case.
  • Nothing sealed: the docket reflects no sealed filings and no protective order; the case ended at the pleadings stage (Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, D.I. 8–9, was pending when Cedar Lane voluntarily dismissed without prejudice — the dismissal papers are public, and the order granting D.I. 13 terminated the case 1/25/2022).
  • Defendant Fantasia Trading LLC d/b/a AnkerDirect was represented by Zhun Lu (Rimon Law, Newark, DE) with Jason Xu (Rimon, P.C., Washington, D.C.) as of counsel — noted only for completeness, since it is not the requested side.

Defendant representatives

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

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

Let me verify the Rimon attorneys' backgrounds and whether the pro hac vice admission occurred.

Let me pull the full docket to see whether Jason Xu's pro hac vice motion was ever filed.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Fantasia Trading LLC d/b/a AnkerDirect

Bottom line: Only one attorney formally entered an appearance for Fantasia in this case — Zhun Lu of Rimon P.C.'s Newark, Delaware office, who signed every defense filing on the docket. Jason Xu (Rimon P.C., Washington, D.C.) was identified in the filings as "[o]f [c]ounsel (Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming)," but I found no pro hac vice motion, no admission order, and no entry of appearance for him on the publicly available docket before the case was voluntarily dismissed on 2022-01-25. No in-house counsel appeared.

1. Zhun Lu, Ph.D. — Local counsel / sole attorney of record (Delaware)

  • Firm / office: Rimon P.C. (formerly Rimon Law P.C.), 200 Continental Drive, Suite 401, Newark, DE 19713; ph. (302) 688-7566; zhun.lu@rimonlaw.com
  • Bar nos.: Delaware #4427; USPTO Reg. No. 53,242
  • Docket footprint: Signed the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (D.I. 8), the opening brief (D.I. 9), the Rule 7.1 disclosure statement identifying Anker Innovations Limited as Fantasia's corporate parent (D.I. 10), and the stipulations extending briefing (D.I. 11, and the Dec. 7, 2021 stipulation). CourtListener's parties page lists him as the sole "ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED" for the defendant.
  • Relevant experience: IP partner with ~20 years in patent prosecution, counseling and litigation, including telecom/electronics and semiconductor matters; joined Rimon in June 2021 to open its Delaware office, coming from Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, where he was a partner. His reported D. Del. patent-defense matters include PatentMarks Communications v. ZTE (USA), Alex is the Best v. ZTE (1:13-cv-1728-RGA — i.e., before Judge Andrews, the judge here), Golden Bridge Technology v. Amazon/ZTE/Apple, and Straight Path IP Group v. ZTE (E.D. Tex.). He is Co-Chair of AIPLA's Far East Committee (and former co-chair of its China Committee).
  • Sources: CourtListener parties page; Rimon bio; Rimon press release, June 21, 2021; D.I. 9 PDF

2. Jason Xu — Of counsel (listed, but no formal appearance found)

  • Firm / office: Rimon P.C., 1717 K Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, D.C. 20006 (now listed at 1050 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 500); ph. (202) 470-2141; jason.xu@rimonlaw.com. Also affiliated with Rimon's Shenzhen, China practice.
  • Docket footprint: Captioned as "Of Counsel: Jason Xu (Pro Hac Vice Forthcoming)" in D.I. 9 (opening brief ISO motion to dismiss) and D.I. 11 (stipulation). Sourcing caveat: my search did not surface a PHV application, an order granting admission, or a notice of appearance for him in this action; CourtListener's parties page does not list him for Fantasia. Given the case was dismissed ~two months after the motion to dismiss was briefed, the "forthcoming" admission appears never to have been completed. Treat this as unconfirmed rather than as a finding that no such filing exists — a direct PACER pull of the full docket would be needed to rule it out definitively.
  • Relevant patent litigation experience: Patent litigator and partner at Rimon (joined May 2020 from White & Case); deep ITC Section 337 practice plus district court patent defense in D. Del., E.D. Tex., N.D. Cal., W.D. Tex.; admitted to the Federal Circuit bar. Notably, he has repeatedly defended Anker entities, including Kamino v. Anker (W.D. Tex.), LedComm v. Anker (C.D. Cal.), LedComm v. Sengled (N.D. Ga.), and American GNC v. OnePlus; also Tobii v. 7Invensun (D. Nev.) where a § 101 motion to dismiss led to voluntary dismissal — a procedural parallel to the motion to dismiss filed here.
  • Sources: Rimon bio; Rimon press release (May 4, 2020); Federal Circuit nonprecedential order listing him as counsel for Anker Innovations.

Notes and context

  • No other defense counsel entered an appearance. Fantasia's PTAB counsel in unrelated IPRs (e.g., IPR2021-00067 v. CogniPower, IPR2022-00595, IPR2022-00609) was Fish & Richardson P.C. (Michael T. Hawkins, Nicholas Stephens, Christopher S. Marchese, Warren K. Mabey, Jr., and Brian P. Boyd). Those attorneys did not appear in this district court case, so they should not be listed as counsel here — I mention them only to explain a likely source of confusion in search results.
  • Posture: Fantasia moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on 2021-11-29 (D.I. 8–9); briefing was extended by stipulation (D.I. 11); Cedar Lane filed a notice of voluntary dismissal (D.I. 13) which Judge Andrews so-ordered on 2022-01-25 (D.I. 14), terminating the case. No motion-to-dismiss ruling or opinion issued, so there is no opinion citation identifying counsel.
  • For completeness, plaintiff's counsel: David W. deBruin (Gawthrop Greenwood, PC, Wilmington, DE) as lead/local counsel, with Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC, Alexandria, VA) as PHV counsel per the complaint (D.I. 1).
  • Sealed materials: Nothing in this docket appears sealed; the limitation is simply that Defendant's PHV paperwork for Mr. Xu, if it exists, was not visible in the sources I could retrieve.