Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. FMR LLC

I'll research this case and its context before drafting the overview.

Let me dig into the docket details, the patent's history, and Cedar Lane's broader campaign.

Now let me verify the patent's provenance, IPR exposure, and campaign-wide outcomes (including §101 rulings).

Case Overview: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. FMR LLC, No. 2:25-cv-00232 (E.D. Tex.)

Parties and business models. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian non-practicing patent monetization entity — not an operating company — that acquires portfolios and licenses/enforces them through high-volume infringement filings; it was the most prolific patent plaintiff in the U.S. in 2021–2022 (176 cases in 2022, 23 in 2023, 3 in 2024, per case-count data compiled in this 2025 litigation report), and is represented in this action by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC) with Benjamin C. Deming (DNL Zito) appearing later (PacerMonitor docket). Defendant FMR LLC is the private holding company for Fidelity Investments, one of the largest retail brokerage and asset-management complexes in the U.S.; it was defended by Corinne Stone Hockman of McGuireWoods (Houston) — counsel information is from the docket, while the FMR/Fidelity relationship is general public knowledge rather than a docket fact. FMR was not sued alone: Cedar Lane filed two companion suits the same day — No. 2:25-cv-00223 (Cobra Trading, Inc., defended by Duane Morris) and No. 2:25-cv-00233 (The Charles Schwab Corporation, defended by Greenberg Traurig) — all three naming the same patent and all three consolidated on April 6, 2025 with FMR as the lead case (Dkt. 11, Justia docket).

Patent asserted and accused technology. Only one patent is at issue: U.S. Patent No. 8,577,782, "Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants," issued November 5, 2013 from Application No. 12/756,929 (filed April 8, 2010; named inventor Christopher R. Petruzzi per the Google Patents record; estimated expiry 2030; CPC G06Q 40/00), now held by Cedar Lane. Technical sketch: the claims describe associating each trading entity with a persistent but anonymized identifier, accumulating that identifier's trade history, generating a profile (e.g., whether that counterparty's trades would generate a profit — the patent's "toxic trader" problem), and letting a "liquidity provider" send a conditional offer that is made only to that identified entity and processed through an exchange with a bid/offer spread (patent summary; complaint analysis). Independent claim 1 recites processor/hardware elements — a drafting choice likely aimed at the post-Bilski §101 climate of 2010. The complaint's substantive infringement theory lives entirely in Exhibit 2 (a claim chart against "Exemplary Defendant Products"); the body of the complaint identifies no accused products by name, and I was not able to verify which specific Fidelity platform(s) or order-handling/RFQ functionality Cedar Lane charted — treat any such identification as unsourced.

Procedural posture, venue, and outcome. Filed February 24, 2025 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap (with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne referral) — historically the most plaintiff-friendly patent venue in the country and the district in which Cedar Lane chose to file all three of its February 2025 financial-trading suits. The case never reached the merits. FMR was served February 27, 2025 and obtained two unopposed extensions of its answer deadline to May 5, 2025 (Dkts. 7, 9), but instead of answering was dismissed with prejudice by order signed May 20, 2025 (Dkt. 23); the Cobra Trading member case was dismissed with prejudice (Dkt. 19), and the Schwab member case was stayed May 22, 2025 "pending settlement" (Dkt. 22). Cedar Lane then filed a notice of voluntary dismissal (Dkt. 25, June 23, 2025), and Judge Gilstrap closed the lead and member cases on June 27, 2025 under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), each side bearing its own costs (Dkt. 26; case terminated June 30, 2025). Note a metadata discrepancy: the case record supplied to me lists this matter as "active," but the PACER-derived dockets uniformly show it closed on June 30, 2025 after 126 days, dismissed with prejudice; settlement/license terms, if any, were not made public.

Why it matters. This case is a data point in the second wave of Cedar Lane's business — a pivot from consumer

I'll research this case across the docket, PTAB, and legal press. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Good initial data. Now let me pull the full docket from CourtListener and check PTAB proceedings on the '782 patent.

Bottom line

Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. FMR LLC, No. 2:25-cv-00232-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) was a short-lived, one-patent assertion of U.S. Patent 8,577,782 (the "'782 patent," Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants) against a retail/electronic brokerage. It never reached an answer by FMR, a Rule 12 motion, Markman, discovery, or trial. The case was consolidated as the lead of a three-case EDTX group in April 2025 and was closed on 2025-06-30 after all three defendants were dismissed with prejudice, FMR by court order on 2025-05-20 and the last remaining member case by voluntary dismissal on 2025-06-23/27. Total life: 126 days.

⚠️ Metadata caveat: your prompt describes the case as "active." The PACER-derived docket shows the case terminated on 2025-06-30 (Dkt. 26, 27). I treat the docket as authoritative for disposition below.

---

Chronological docket (as reconstructed)

---

Stage-by-stage analysis

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• Complaint (2025-02-24). Cedar Lane, a Canadian corporation (Nelson, B.C.), sued FMR LLC (Delaware) for direct and induced infringement of one or more claims of the '782 patent, pleading infringement through charts in Exhibit 2 comparing "Exemplary '782 Patent Claims" to "Exemplary Defendant Products." The complaint identifies no accused product by name in the body — a deliberate, low-cost pleading style. Venue was pleaded under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) on the theory that FMR has "an established place of business" in EDTX. (complaint analysis)
• The patent. U.S. 8,577,782, issued 2013-11-05, application filed 2010-04-08 (priority 2010-04-08), estimated expiry 2030-04-08 — i.e., the asserted asset has roughly 3.5 years of term remaining as of today, which materially caps exposure. Claim 1 (method) requires: associating a trading entity with an identifier via a hardware processor; acquiring trade history tied to that identifier; receiving a liquidity-provider offer based on a profile indicating whether the entity's trades "would generate a profit"; the offer being made only to that entity; processed through an exchange with a bid/offer spread.
• Answer / counterclaims. FMR never answered and filed no counterclaims. It obtained two unopposed extensions (to 2025-04-21, then 2025-05-05) and a third to 2025-06-04 (Dkt. 16); before that deadline ran, it was dismissed with prejudice (Dkt. 23). Any invalidity/unenforceability challenge by FMR therefore never entered the record — Patsnap's "validity challenges: none recorded" is consistent with the docket.
• Consolidation (2025-04-06). Gilstrap consolidated the three parallel EDTX suits (FMR, Cobra Trading, Charles Schwab) for pretrial purposes with FMR as lead — standard EDTX practice that lets a plaintiff litigate one infringement theory across similarly situated brokers while preserving separate damages.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

There were none from FMR. No Rule 12(b)(6) motion, no § 1404(a)/§ 1406 transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, no § 101 motion, no summary judgment motion, no motion to compel, no fees motion. The only substantive motion on the consolidated docket was Charles Schwab's unopposed motion to stay pending settlement (Dkt. 21), granted 2025-05-22 (Dkt. 22) — a settlement-driven stay, not a merits stay.

The absence of any transfer motion is strategically notable: the accused services (Fidelity's retail/electronic trading platform) have no meaningful EDTX nexus, and a § 1404(a) transfer to D. Mass. or D. Del. would have been a plausible, high-probability defense strategy. Instead FMR chose delay-plus-settlement, resolving within three months of the initial answer deadline. That pattern — rather than motion practice — is the dominant dynamic in the entire Cedar Lane '782 campaign.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Never reached. No scheduling order with a Markman date was entered; the 2025-05-28 Case Management Conference at which a docket control order would ordinarily have been set was cancelled (2025-05-27 minute entry) after FMR's dismissal and the Schwab stay. Consequently there is no claim construction ruling on the '782 patent in this case and, to my knowledge, no contested Markman on the '782 patent in any of Cedar Lane's related suits to date.

4. Discovery milestones

No substantive discovery occurred. The case was dismissed ~10 weeks after service and before a docket control order (which would have set infringement contentions, invalidity contentions, and discovery cutoffs) was ever entered. There were no discovery disputes, no § 282 disclosures, and no depositions on the record. Practically, the only "discovery" of significance was the Exhibit 2 claim charts served with the complaint, which constitute Cedar Lane's infringement-contentions surrogate and are the notice trigger for Cedar Lane's induced-infringement theory ("at least since being served by this Complaint and corresponding claim charts").

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial, no verdict, no JMOL, no new-trial motion, no § 285 fee motion by either side. The final order expressly provides that "each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees" — i.e., Cedar Lane did not obtain a fee award, and FMR did not pursue fees (it would have had to establish exceptionality, which is difficult in a case that never reached the merits).

6. Final disposition

• 2025-05-20: FMR dismissed with prejudice by order of Judge Gilstrap (Dkt. 23). This is the operative disposition for this defendant.
• 2025-05-22: stay pending settlement granted as to Schwab (Dkt. 22).
• 2025-06-23: notice of voluntary dismissal (Dkt. 25); 2025-06-27/30: order dismissing the case (Dkt. 26) under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing all pending claims with prejudice, denying remaining relief as moot, each party bearing its own costs and fees, and directing the Clerk to close the lead and member cases. The order's text speaks of the "Member Case" and of closing "the above-captioned Lead and Member Cases

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

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. FMR LLC, No. 2:25-cv-00232 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: Two attorneys appeared for Cedar Lane on the docket — Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago), who filed and drove the case, and Benjamin Charles Deming of DNL Zito (Dallas), who entered a notice of appearance on 27 May 2025 (Dkt. 24), just as the case was being wound down by settlement/dismissal. No in-house counsel and no separate "local counsel" appearance exists on this docket.

1. Isaac Phillip Rabicoff — lead counsel (filing and signing attorney)

Relevant experience: Rabicoff Law is Cedar Lane's near-exclusive outside counsel; the firm was among Lex Machina's top-3 most active patent litigation firms in 2017, and Rabicoff has run licensing/enforcement campaigns against Amazon, Microsoft, Sony, Apple, LG, Huawei, Samsung and Google, and has argued IPR/CBM institution denials and Federal Circuit appeals (per firm bio, rabilaw.com). Note for context (adverse to plaintiff, and worth flagging): in 2020 Judge Vince Chhabria of the N.D. Cal. sanctioned Cedar Lane and Rabicoff for positions the court called "objectively frivolous" and taken in bad faith, and referred Rabicoff to that district's standing committee on professional conduct — reported in the Legal500/"NPE Showcase – Cedar Lane Technologies" piece (Oct. 6, 2022). I have not independently pulled the underlying sanctions order, so treat that item as secondary-source based.

2. Benjamin Charles Deming — additional counsel of record (DNL Zito)

Role note / caveat: The appearance does not label him lead or local counsel. Timing is notable: it was filed on 5/27/2025 — a week after Judge Gilstrap's 5/20/2025 order dismissing FMR with prejudice (Dkt. 23) and one month before the case-wide dismissal (Dkt. 26, 6/27/2025) — so he did not sign any substantive filing in this docket as reflected in the public record. His realistic function in the Cedar Lane docket is co-counsel/outside patent counsel alongside Rabicoff; DNL Zito (including name partner Joseph J. Zito) appears with Deming for Cedar Lane in other matters, e.g., the Federal Circuit appeal in which "JOSEPH J. ZITO, DNL Zito, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by BENJAMIN CHARLES DEMING, Dallas, TX" (Fed. Cir. No. 25-1488, Rule 36 judgment, Oct. 13, 2026) — I could not confirm from the public record that No. 25-1488 is an appeal from this case, so I do not assert that link. Deming's background is general IP/commercial litigation (Univ. of Michigan J.D.; formerly Rutan & Tucker, Costa Mesa, CA, where he worked on patent cases such as Altair Instruments v. Image Derm, C.D. Cal. No. 2:17-cv-00876).

Nothing to report on these points

• No in-house counsel for Cedar Lane (a Canadian NPE) appears on the docket.
• No separate local-counsel entry — unsurprising, since Rabicoff is admitted in E.D. Tex. and signed the filings himself.
• No sealed attorney appearances; the appearance and dismissal papers are public. (Exhibit 2 claim charts were referenced in the complaint but not filed publicly, which is a document-sealing issue, not a counsel issue.)
• The Patsnap litigation entry lists plaintiff's counsel as "Benjamin Charles Deming · Isaac Phillip Rabicoff" with firms "Dnl Zito, Rabicoff Law LLC," consistent with the PACER docket.

Two corrections/updates to the case metadata worth carrying forward

1. Status: the metadata says "active," but the case is closed. Judge Gilstrap dismissed FMR LLC with prejudice on 5/20/2025 (Dkt. 23), and after Cedar Lane's Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice (Dkt. 25), the Court dismissed the consolidated lead and member cases with prejudice on 6/27/2025, entered 6/30/2025 (Dkt. 26), each party bearing its own fees and costs.
2. Consolidation: this case (2:25-cv-00232) was designated the lead case in a consolidation order of 4/6/2025 (Dkt. 11), with member cases 2:25-cv-00223 (Cobra Trading, Inc.) and 2:25-cv-00233 (The Charles Schwab Corp.); both member-case defendants also exited in May–June 2025. On the defense side, FMR was represented by Corinne Stone Hockman (McGuireWoods, Houston).

Sources: Justia docket, https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2025cv00232/[236274](/patent/236274); PACER Monitor docket, https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/56992927/Cedar_Lane_Technologies_Inc_v_FMR_LLC; Patsnap litigation record, https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/cedar-lane-technologies-v-fmr-corp-trading-patent-dismissed-patsnap/; firm bio, http://www.rabilaw.com/rabicoff.html; State Bar of California licensee record No. 233687; Fed. Cir. Rule 36 judgment in No. 25-1488 (Oct. 13, 2026), https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1488.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.10-13-2026_2769789.pdf.

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

Key finding so far: FMR LLC's filings were signed by Corinne Stone Hockman (McGuireWoods LLP, Houston). Let me confirm whether any co-counsel appeared and research her background.

Let me pull the full docket from CourtListener to confirm every attorney who appeared for FMR LLC (including any pro hac vice admissions) and check for an answer.

Counsel of Record — Defendant FMR LLC

Bottom line: Exactly one attorney is identified in the public record as representing FMR LLC in this case: Corinne Stone Hockman of McGuireWoods LLP (Houston, Texas), who served as lead (and apparently sole) counsel of record. No local counsel, no second firm, and no in-house counsel appear on the docket. No attorney was admitted pro hac vice for FMR.

Docket grounding

• Hockman is the filer of record on FMR LLC's three unopposed extension applications: Dkt. 6 (Mar. 4, 2025), Dkt. 7 (Mar. 4, 2025), and Dkt. 9 (Apr. 2, 2025 — "Second Unopposed Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint filed by FMR LLC… (Hockman, Corinne)"). Extensions granted at Dkts. 8 and 10, pushing FMR's answer date from 4/21/2025 to 5/5/2025. (Justia docket; PacerMonitor)
• PacerMonitor lists FMR LLC's "Represented By" entry as Corinne Stone Hockman, McGuireWoods LLP – Houston. Third-party litigation databases recording the docket (Patsnap Litigation) likewise list her as the only FMR-side counsel, with plaintiff represented by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC) and Benjamin Charles Deming (DnL Zito).
• Caveat on appearance form: I did not locate a standalone "Notice of Attorney Appearance" filed by McGuireWoods for FMR in the docket entries retrievable outside PACER — her status as counsel of record is established through the signed filings above. No answer, counterclaim, or IPR petition by FMR appears in the record.

Attorney detail — Corinne Stone Hockman

• Firm/office: McGuireWoods LLP, Houston. Directory listings show the Houston office at 845 Texas Ave., Suite 2400, Houston, TX 77002 (Super Lawyers); the State Bar of Texas record is stale, still reflecting a prior Winston & Strawn Houston address. McGuireWoods' November 2025 partnership announcement identifies her with the firm's Raleigh office as part of the 2026 partnership class — a possible later relocation; her Houston identification is what the FMR filings and 2025 Law360/Super Lawyers profiles reflect.
• Admission/education: Admitted Texas, Nov. 4, 2016; J.D., George Washington University Law School (2016); prior roles include associate at Winston & Strawn; judicial internships with Judge Jimmie V. Reyna (Fed. Cir.) and Chief Judge Susan G. Braden (Ct. Fed. Cl.).
• Directly relevant experience: Her McGuireWoods bio lists representation of "several top banking institutions in patent litigations involving data backup and security technologies for customer account data (E.D. Tex.)" and "multiple financial institutions in a patent" matter — i.e., she is a repeat defense-side lawyer in financial-services NPE suits in this district. She also handles PTAB IPR proceedings and Hatch-Waxman ANDA cases (Restasis, Suboxone, Dificid, Xywav, Slynd, Biktarvy, Balcoltra).
• Other representative matters: Gilead Sciences v. Lupin (D. Del. 1:22-cv-00615, pro hac vice for Lupin); ALD Social LLC v. T-Mobile US (W.D. Tex. 6:22-cv-00973); Washington v. Caterpillar (W.D. Tex. 6:24-cv-00310); Airborne Aspect Inc. v. NV5 Geospatial (N.D. Tex.); plus Valentine v. Collier (COVID-19 prison-conditions trial/appeal, pro bono).
• Recognition: Texas Super Lawyers "Rising Star," 2022–2025.

Two flags you should carry forward

1. Status correction: your case metadata says "active," but the docket shows FMR LLC was dismissed with prejudice by Judge Gilstrap's order of May 20, 2025 (Dkt. 23), and the consolidated case was closed June 30, 2025 (Dkt. 26; AO-120 at Dkt. 27), following Cedar Lane's Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of dismissal (Dkt. 25). FMR never answered.
2. Consolidation context: this case was the lead case in a consolidated pretrial group (Consolidation Order, Dkt. 11, Apr. 6, 2025) with Cedar Lane v. Charles Schwab, 2:25-cv-00233 (Schwab defended by Kathryn Elizabeth Albanese, Greenberg Traurig) and Cedar Lane v. Cobra Trading, 2:25-cv-00223/00230 (Matthew Sean Yungwirth, Duane Morris). Those defense teams should not be attributed to FMR.

Sourcing note: Findings rest on the Justia and PacerMonitor docket mirrors, Patsnap's docket-derived case record, McGuireWoods' attorney bio and press release, Law360's attorney profile, and State Bar of Texas/Super Lawyers directories. Direct PACER access and any sealed filings were not reviewed; if a sealed appearance or an unnoticed withdrawal exists, it would not appear in these sources.