Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Frontier Communications Corp.

I'll research this case and the surrounding context before writing.

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Frontier Communications Corp., No. 2:19-cv-00369 (E.D. Tex.)

The parties. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a non-practicing entity — a British Columbia corporation formed on April 29, 2019, with a Nelson, BC address and attorney Greg Benoit as director; its complaints list an address corresponding to IP licensing firm Pigott & Co., and it disclosed in its Rule 7.1 statement that no parent or publicly held company owns 10% or more of it (Dkt. 4). Cedar Lane is a pure licensing/assertion vehicle: it does not make or sell anything, and its portfolio is largely composed of patents acquired, directly or through intermediaries such as Steephill Technologies and AVInnov LLC, from Intellectual Ventures' divestiture program — roughly 100 patents by late 2019, per RPX (https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/news/59211). By the time it sued Frontier it was already running multiple campaigns; DISH later described it in an SEC filing as "a non-practicing entity that has filed more than 75 patent infringement lawsuits" (https://ir.echostar.com/static-files/ba0ae484-bc81-4307-b429-7ece3bd5cde1). Defendant Frontier Communications Corp. is the Norwalk, Connecticut-based incumbent local exchange carrier/rural broadband provider — an operating telecom that, at the time, also sold video service and leased/supplied set-top boxes to subscribers. Its counsel of record was Robert J. McAughan, Jr.; Cedar Lane was represented by Isaac P. Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC), its habitual campaign counsel.

The technology and patents asserted. Consistent with Cedar Lane's template complaints, the accused technology was Frontier's subscriber cable/set-top boxes and the video-on-demand, playlist, and on-screen media-navigation functionality they exposed. RPX's contemporaneous report states that "the defendants' respective cable boxes" were accused and that "[a]gainst Frontier, Cedar Lane has asserted the '194, '411, and '489 patents" (https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/news/59211). The '194 patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,502,194 B1, "System for playback of network audio material on demand" (issued Dec. 31, 2002; filed Apr. 16, 1999; inventors Berman et al.; original assignee Synetix Technologies), claims a set-top-like playback unit that pulls audio from a remote server on demand and plays it through a home audio system, with server-side permission/distribution-rights control — a family of one, acquired by an IV affiliate in July 2006. The '411 patent (6,526,411, "System and method for creating dynamic playlists," original assignee Relatable, LLC; IV in May 2009) and the '489 patent (6,721,489, "Play list manager," original assignee PhatNoise, Inc., later Harman; IV in Sept. 2006) cover playlist generation/management. Note a sourcing discrepancy: the case metadata here lists only the '194 patent, while RPX reports three patents against Frontier and the docketed complaint carried eight exhibits (Dkt. 1, Exs. A–H), which is more consistent with a multi-patent set of patent copies plus claim charts. I could not retrieve the complaint itself to reconcile this, so treat "three patents" as RPX-reported rather than docket-verified.

Posture, venue, and significance. Cedar Lane filed on November 9, 2019 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas — the same day it sued Charter Communications there (No. 2:19-cv-00368) on an overlapping patent set, and weeks after suing Starz in D. Colo. (No. 1:19-cv-03189) — with a jury demand and a §271 complaint; the case was assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap with referral to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne (Dkt. 1–5), and a scheduling conference was set for January 28, 2020 (Dkt. 8). Frontier twice obtained unopposed extensions to answer, to January 8 and then January 13, 2020 (Dkt. 7, 9), but never answered: the case was terminated on January 21, 2020 by voluntary dismissal (https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Frontier-Communications-Corporation-id-[130093](/patent/130093)). The E.D. Tex. filing is the analytically interesting choice: it is the district that (post-TC Heartland) still offered NPEs speed, patent-experienced judges, and a defendant like Frontier with substantial Texas operations; and the suit was timed to the October 7, 2019 AVInnov→Cedar Lane assignment — a rapid "re-assertion" of a former IV portfolio within about a month of acquisition, characteristic of the secondary market in IV assets. The case's broader significance is as a data point in two trends: high-volume, short-life NPE campaigns in pay-TV/set-top-box media navigation (the same era's Broadband iTV, Customedia and Contemporary Display suits against MVPDs), and the mid-2020 shift of Cedar Lane's filings toward W.D. Tex. and D. Del. On IPR linkage, the only related PTAB activity I found in this campaign is Unified Patents' petition against the '177 patent, IPR2020-00006 — asserted against Charter, not Frontier — and I found no IPR against the '194 patent; that absence is a negative search result, not a verified fact.

Sourcing caveats. (1) The exact dismissal terms (with/without prejudice, any license or payment) are not visible in free dockets; the January 21, 2020 order text should be pulled from PACER before being characterized. (2) The precise accused products (e.g., specific Frontier set-top models or the VOD/playlist features charted) are described only generically by RPX; the complaint exhibits would be needed for specifics. (3) Any causal story tying the fast dismissal to Frontier's distressed balance sheet (it filed Chapter 11 in April 2020) is inference, not record evidence.

I'll research this case across dockets, court records, and patent proceedings.

Key finding: the case appears to have terminated quickly. Let me verify the dismissal and check for PTAB proceedings.

Bottom line

This case never became a litigated patent dispute. It was filed 2019‑11‑09 and terminated roughly ten weeks later, on 2020‑01‑21, as a voluntary dismissal, before any answer deadline was reached, before any motion practice, and before any case management/scheduling order issued. There is no Markman order, no summary judgment ruling, no trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new‑trial/fee motion, and no appeal. No PTAB proceeding was ever instituted against the '194 patent in connection with this case. The only detectable "development" is procedural: the plaintiff's serial-filing pattern, and the speed with which the case was abandoned.

Caveat up front: the public dockets for this case are thin and most aggregators stopped refreshing the docket in early 2020 (Justia stopped 2020‑01‑02; UniCourt stopped 2020‑01‑08). The terminal event is reported by Patexia (Termination Date 2020‑01‑21; Status "Dismissed – Voluntarily") and corroborated by the case metadata ("closed"). I flag below what I could not verify.

---

Chronology

---

Element-by-element

1. Filing and initial pleadings

The complaint (Doc. 1, 2019‑11‑09) was a standard Rabicoff-form NPE pleading: ownership by assignment, allegation of validity/enforceability, direct and indirect infringement, jury demand, and eight exhibits. The '194 patent is "System for playback of network audio material on demand," issued 2002‑12‑31, filed 1999‑04‑16, naming Berman et al., originally issued to Synetix Technologies (a family of one, priority April 1999) — see Cedar Lane's own later complaint language in the parallel LiveXLive matter (complaint PDF).

On answer and counterclaims: I found no record of an answer or counterclaim being filed. The answer deadline ran 2020‑01‑13; the case was dismissed eight days later, and the 2020‑01‑28 scheduling conference was set in anticipation of a Rule 16 conference. It is possible an answer with declaratory-judgment counterclaims of invalidity/non-infringement landed on 2020‑01‑13 and was simply never captured by the aggregators, but I could not verify this and will not assume it. If an answer exists, it would be the last docket entry before the dismissal.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None. No motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no § 1406 motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, no severance, no motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The only filings of any kind were the two uncontested extensions of the answer date. Notably, Cedar Lane never had to defend venue — relevant because Frontier was not a "regular and established place of business" plaintiff would need to establish in E.D. Tex. post-TC Heartland, and because the '194 patent's "family of one" status made IPR invalidity challenges relatively easy to mount. Neither issue was ever joined.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Never reached. No claim construction order, no joint claim construction statement, no O2 Micro / Nautilus disputes. The deadline for a Docket Control Order had not even been set; in E.D. Tex. practice the DCO and Markman date typically follow the Rule 16 scheduling conference — which was set for 2020‑01‑28 and vacated by the dismissal.

4. Discovery milestones

None of strategic significance; likely none at all. No Rule 26(f) conference report, no protective order, no ESI order, no interrogatories or document productions appear on the docket. At most, pre-suit notice/investigation correspondence would exist. There is no sanctions episode, no spoliation dispute, and no discovery-order appeal. (Contrast with Cedar Lane's N.D. Cal. matters, where Judge Vince Chhabria sanctioned Cedar Lane and Rabicoff in 2020 for "objectively frivolous" positions taken in bad faith and referred Rabicoff to the court's Standing Committee on Professional Conduct — a campaign-level fact, not a fact in this case. Mondaq, 2022‑10‑06.)

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial setting, no verdict, no Rule 50/59 motions, no § 285 fee motion, no bill of costs, no judgment on the merits. This is consistent with the broader pattern: as of late 2022, no Cedar Lane case had reached trial, and the campaign was described as "conventional patent-based nuisance litigation designed to generate a large quantity of modest settlements" (Mondaq, above).

6. Final disposition

Voluntary dismissal, docket terminated 2020‑01‑21, roughly 73 days after filing and 10 days before the scheduled scheduling conference. Under the Cedar Lane template, this is almost certainly a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice following a modest paid license — the same mechanism appears in dozens of Cedar Lane suits (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Comcast, W.D. Tex. 1:20‑cv‑00501, Doc. 13, 2020‑10‑13; Cedar Lane v. iHeartMedia, 1:20‑cv‑00472, Doc. 12, 2020‑09‑29; Cedar Lane v. Motorola Solutions, N.D. Ill. 1:20‑cv‑03600, Doc. 9, 2020‑07‑10 — all dismissals without prejudice).

However, I could not verify from accessible records (a) whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, (b) whether a written dismissal notice was filed as a docketed document or the clerk simply terminated on stipulation, (c) whether a settlement agreement or license was disclosed, or (d) whether any consideration changed hands. No settlement amount has been publicly reported. No appeal was taken — nothing to appeal from.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings

No IPR or PGR on the '194 patent was filed in connection with this case, and none was instituted. Because the case died in ten weeks, no stay motion was ever available or needed, and no IPR estoppel (§ 315(e)) could attach to Frontier.

The relevant PTAB activity sits on an adjacent patent in the same Cedar Lane/IV portfolio, not on the patents asserted here:

• **Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., IPR2020‑

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

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. — 2:19-cv-00369 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line

The public docket for this short-lived case shows exactly one attorney appearing for the plaintiff: Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago, Illinois), who was both the drafting/signing attorney on the complaint and the only noticed appearance. No local counsel, no co-counsel, and no in-house counsel for Cedar Lane appear anywhere on the docket. The case was voluntarily dismissed roughly ten weeks after filing, before any answer was due.

Plaintiff's counsel

Docket support

• Dkt. 1 — Complaint (11/09/2019), signature block: "/s/ Isaac Rabicoff, Isaac Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC, 73 W Monroe St, Chicago, IL 60603, (773) 669-4590, isaac@rabilaw.com — Counsel for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc." (text available via RPX litigation documents).
• Dkt. 3 — Notice of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff on behalf of Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (11/09/2019) — the only appearance by any plaintiff-side attorney.
• Dkt. 4 — Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Cedar Lane, signed by Rabicoff.
• Docket reproduction: Justia docket 2:2019cv00369; UniCourt; RPX Insight.

Important qualifications and sourcing gaps

1. Docket currency. The free-aggregator dockets (Justia, UniCourt) for this case were last pulled from PACER in early January 2020; both stop at Dkt. 9 (Frontier's second unopposed extension, 12/31/2019) and the 1/02/2020 text order granting it. Patexia lists a termination date of January 21, 2020 with the case "Dismissed – Voluntarily" (Patexia summary), which is consistent with the metadata showing this case as closed. I could not retrieve the text or filer of the notice of dismissal itself, so I cannot confirm whether Rabicoff signed it or whether any additional attorney appeared in the final two weeks. That document should be pulled from PACER (the last few entries, likely Dkts. 10–12) to close the record. Nothing in this case appears to be sealed.
2. No local counsel of record. E.D. Tex. Local Rule AT-2 ordinarily requires a non-resident attorney to designate local counsel. The docket reflects no such designation here — plausible because Rabicoff lists the E.D. Tex. among his admissions, and because the case died before the court's first scheduling conference (set for 01/28/2020 before Judge Gilstrap, Dkt. 8). By contrast, when Cedar Lane sued Sirius XM in N.D. Tex. in May 2020, the court ordered it to designate local counsel and denied Rabicoff leave to proceed as out-of-town counsel (N.D. Tex. 3:20-cv-01103, Dkts. 8–10) — a useful illustration that his practice model was to appear without local counsel.
3. Backup/PTAB counsel did not appear. Kenneth A. Matuszewski (Rabicoff Law LLC, Reg. No. 74,791), Rabicoff's usual backup counsel in PTAB filings, is not listed on this docket and should not be described as counsel of record here.
4. Defendant side, for context only. Frontier was represented by Robert James McAughan, Jr., who filed both unopposed extension applications (Dkts. 6–7, 9). I did not verify his firm affiliation for this filing from a primary source and therefore do not attribute a firm.
5. Case posture note. The complaint (asserting the '194, '411 and '489 patents against Frontier's cable boxes/set-tops, per RPX's Nov. 9, 2019 report) acknowledged the '194 patent expired April 16, 2019, so past damages only were sought on that patent. Frontier never answered; the case was dismissed on Cedar Lane's own initiative in January 2020, mirroring its rapid file-and-dismiss pattern in the parallel Charter (2:19-cv-00368) and Starz (D. Colo. 1:19-cv-03189) suits filed the same day.

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

Counsel of Record for Defendant Frontier Communications Corp.

Bottom line: The docket for this short-lived case identifies one attorney appearing for Frontier — Robert J. McAughan, Jr. (Houston), the founder/name partner of what is now McAughan Deaver PLLC. No local E.D. Tex. counsel, no in-house lawyer, and no second defense attorney appears in the retrieved docket. The case was voluntarily dismissed roughly ten weeks after filing, before any answer or pro hac vice motion, which explains the thin appearance record.

1. Robert James McAughan, Jr. — Lead counsel (sole appearing defense counsel)

Docket support (E.D. Tex. 2:19-cv-00369):

• Dkt. 6 (Nov. 25, 2019) — filed in error, Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer (per attorney).
• Dkt. 7 (Nov. 25, 2019) — corrected First Application for Extension; granted, answer deadline extended to Jan. 8, 2020.
• Dkt. 9 (Dec. 31, 2019) — Second Application for Extension; granted Jan. 2, 2020, deadline extended to Jan. 13, 2020.
• No answer, motion to dismiss, or Rule 12 filing appears on the retrieved docket; the case terminated Jan. 21, 2020 on a voluntary dismissal (Patexia case summary: Termination Date Jan. 21, 2020; Status "Dismissed – Voluntarily").

Relevant experience: Long-tenured Houston IP litigator and registered patent practitioner; formerly a partner at Locke Lord (his 2009 E.D. Tex. notice of appearance for Continental Airlines in EMG v. Continental Airlines, No. 6:08-cv-447, carried a lockelord.com address), then a name partner at Sutton McAughan Deaver PLLC (3 Riverway, Houston). He is the lead or backup counsel of record in numerous PTAB proceedings at McAughan Deaver and argued before the Federal Circuit in Kilbourne v. Apple Inc. He is also Frontier's recurring outside patent counsel — e.g., Interactive Media Networks LLC v. Frontier Communications Corp. (N.D. Tex./E.D. Tex., 2022) and, with Albert B. Deaver, Jr., for Frontier entities in Rushing v. [Verizon Communications, Inc.](/litigations/by-defendant/Verizon%20Communications%2C%20Inc.), No. 6:22-cv-00030 (E.D. Tex.).

2. Attorneys who did NOT appear (explicitly)

• No local E.D. Tex. counsel is listed on the docket or in party/attorney records (UniCourt/PACER-derived "Defendant Attorney" field lists McAughan only). Because Frontier never answered, no LR CV-83 local-counsel designation or pro hac vice application was ever made.
• No in-house Frontier attorney appears of record.
• Albert B. Deaver, Jr. (McAughan Deaver PLLC) is McAughan's customary co-counsel/backup in both PTAB and district court matters and has represented Frontier in other suits, but I found no docket entry, notice of appearance, or filing bearing his name in 2:19-cv-00369 — do not assume he appeared here.

Sourcing caveats

• The party-level attorney fields and docket entries above come from PACER-derived aggregators (Justia Dockets, UniCourt, Patexia), not a first-hand PACER pull of the E.D. Tex. docket; the docket has not been updated in these sources since early January 2020, so a later notice of appearance (or a withdrawal) cannot be excluded from the public snippets I reviewed — though the January 21, 2020 dismissal makes additional appearances unlikely.
• No sealing issue was identified; the record simply ends early. No court opinion issued in this case, so there is no counsel listing in a judicial opinion to cross-check.
• Law360's attorney profile lists McAughan under "Locke Lord," which is a historical affiliation, not his 2019–2020 firm; the PTAB and later district-court filings confirm McAughan Deaver PLLC. I could not pin the exact date the firm name changed from "Sutton McAughan Deaver PLLC" (3 Riverway, Houston) to "McAughan Deaver PLLC" (550 Westcott, Houston); filings from 2016 still use the former, and 2022–2025 filings use the latter, so both names may fairly be cited for the 2019 appearance.

Primary sources: Justia docket · UniCourt docket summary · Patexia case summary (termination date) · RPX litigation profile · RPX news, Nov. 9, 2019 (patents asserted: '194, '411, '489) · CourtListener parties, Rushing v. Verizon (McAughan Deaver PLLC address/lead-attorney designation) · USPTO PTAB counsel listing (Reg. No. 36,599; Houston address)