Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. GoPro, Inc.

Let me dig into the three patents and the surrounding campaign.

Case Overview — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. GoPro, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-01319-RGA (D. Del.)

The parties. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian non-practicing entity — a patent assertion entity in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database's "acquired patents" category — organized in British Columbia on April 29, 2019, with a stated principal place of business at 560 Baker St., Suite 1, Nelson, BC (Stanford NPE Database; complaint caption in Cedar Lane v. Alps Alpine, W.D. Wash. 2:23-cv-00001). Its disclosure statement in this case listed no parent or affiliate (D.I. 4). RPX reported that Cedar Lane's director is attorney Greg Benoit, that its address corresponds to IP licensing firm Pigott & Co., and that its portfolio was assembled largely from patents divested by Intellectual Ventures (directly and via Steephill Technologies LLC and AVInnov) (RPX, Nov. 9, 2019). Defendant GoPro, Inc. is the well-known U.S. consumer action-camera and drone maker — an operating company, not a licensor — and the paradigmatic end-product target in a component-level assertion campaign.

The accused technology and patents. The complaint (D.I. 1, with six exhibits, including claim charts) asserted three patents, per the Rule 3 report to the Commissioner: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,473,527; 6,972,790; and 8,537,242 (D.I. 3 and D.I. 9). Two are a parent/divisional pair on the same 2000-era specification: the '790 patent, "Host interface for imaging arrays" (filed Dec. 21, 2000; issued Dec. 6, 2005; earliest priority Jan. 21, 2000; inventor Mark Suska), claims an interface — preferably integrated on the same die as the CMOS image sensor — that buffers pixel data in a FIFO/addressable memory and signals the host processor when the buffer reaches a threshold, letting the sensor and processor run at independent rates; and the '242 patent, of the same title (issued Sept. 17, 2013 from an application filed Oct. 27, 2005 as a divisional of the '790 application), shares that disclosure (Google Patents '790; Patsnap case records). The '527 patent, "Module and method for interfacing analog/digital converting means and JPEG compression means," is a camera front-end patent — an integrated module coupling A/D conversion of image signals to JPEG compression (The Recycler). In short, Cedar Lane asserted the silicon-to-JPEG image-capture pipeline against a camera maker. The public docket summary does not name the specific accused GoPro products; the claim charts in the complaint exhibits (Exs. 3–6) would identify them, and I could not retrieve those exhibit contents within this research session — so the precise product list (e.g., which HERO/Max models) should be treated as unverified. Based on Cedar Lane's contemporaneous filings, the accused technology is the image sensor/host-interface and image-compression functionality inside its cameras.

Posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed September 17, 2021 in the Wilmington division of the District of Delaware, served on GoPro September 20, answer due October 12, and assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews (D.I. 6; docket entry of Sept. 22, 2021) (Docket Alarm). Twenty-five days after filing — and on the very day GoPro's response was due — Cedar Lane filed a notice of voluntary dismissal (D.I. 7), which Judge Andrews so-ordered the same day, terminating the case (D.I. 8), followed by the patent report (D.I. 9). The docket does not state the reason; no answer, motion, or transfer request was ever filed, and no license or settlement was disclosed in the record. Delaware was a natural venue: Cedar Lane filed a coordinated September 2021 wave of materially identical complaints there that landed before Judge Andrews (e.g., Nos. 1:21-cv-01206, -01207, -01285, -01289, -01397, -01428, -01441, -01704), and GoPro's Delaware incorporation would supply the § 1400(b) hook — a point I infer from Cedar Lane's standard venue practice rather than from the complaint text I could review. The case's significance is as a data point in an unusually aggressive campaign rather than as a merits ruling: Cedar Lane asserted these same three patents against a broad cross-section of the imaging industry — camera and imaging defendants (Arashi Vision/Insta360, Hasselblad, Seiko Epson, LT Security, per the Korean IP Protection Agency's litigation tracker), sensor and chip suppliers (ON Semiconductor, STMicroelectronics, Amlogic, PixArt), OEMs (Amazon, Motorola Solutions, Ricoh, Lexmark, Xerox, Pantum) — with the Shenzhen IP Protection Center reporting roughly 325 U.S. patent suits and characterizing Cedar Lane as the most frequent patent plaintiff in the United States in 2021. Rapid paper dismissals like this one, occurring before any substantive defense, are the characteristic resolution pattern of that model, and they mean there is no claim construction, no invalidity ruling, and no IPR legacy to analyze here. On the defensive side, the only adjudicated validity event I could verify in the Cedar Lane portfolio is Unified Patents' IPR against the unrelated '177 patent, in which the PTAB held the asserted independent claim unpatentable on February 12, 2021 (Unified Patents) — a reminder that the '790/'242 family, arising from 2000-era priority art and now near or past nominal expiry (Patsnap lists an estimated Aug. 1, 2023 expiry and "no validity challenges recorded"), was never subjected to a PTAB test in this matter because the case died in three weeks.

Sourcing caveats. Docket entries, judge assignment, service and dismissal dates, and the three asserted patents are grounded in the docket records above (D.I. 1–9). The accused GoPro product identification, the reason for dismissal, whether any license was taken, and whether Cedar Lane re-filed against GoPro in another district are all not established by the sources I could reach and should be confirmed against PACER and the complaint exhibits before being relied on. My research session hit its cap before I could pull the complaint PDF or check for later GoPro filings.

The docket is very short (9 entries). Let me pin down the dismissal terms, counsel, and any parallel PTAB proceedings.

Let me locate the actual dismissal notice text and check whether Cedar Lane re-filed against GoPro elsewhere.

Summary conclusion up front

This case never reached the merits. It is a 25-day "file-and-dismiss" case: complaint filed 2021‑09‑17, defendant served 2021‑09‑20, and plaintiff voluntarily dismissed on 2021‑10‑12 — the very day GoPro's answer was due. There was no answer, no counterclaim, no motion of any kind, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, and no appeal. Only nine docket entries exist, four of which are administrative forms.

---

Chronological docket reconstruction

Sources: D. Del. docket via Docket Alarm, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Delaware_District_Court/1--21-cv-01319/Cedar_Lane_Technologies_Inc._v._GoPro_Inc/ ; Patexia docket mirror, https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-GoPro-Inc-id-[154562](/patent/154562)/documents ; IPWatchdog Patent Filings Roundup, 2021‑09‑22 (listing the filing), https://ipwatchdog.com/2021/09/22/patent-filings-roundup-trio-actions-accuse-ip-investments-coordinated-campaign-intellectual-ventures-backend-judge-albright-cancels-one-141-wsou-asserted-patents-new-magnetar-entity-s/

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• Complaint (D.I. 1, 2021‑09‑17): nine-page pleading asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 6,473,527 ("Module and method for interfacing analog/digital converting means and JPEG compression means"), 6,972,790 and 8,537,242 (both "Host interface for imaging arrays"). The '242 is a divisional of the '790 application, so the two share a specification and a 2000‑01‑21 priority date.
• Based on the exhibit page counts (7, 18, 19, 4, 4, 6 pages), Exhibits 1–3 are almost certainly copies of the three patents and Exhibits 4–6 the claim charts — an inference from page counts; I did not obtain the exhibits themselves.
• The pleading appears to follow Cedar Lane's boilerplate template used across its 2019–2023 campaign (direct + induced + contributory infringement, post-suit "actual knowledge" willfulness theory, § 285 exceptional-case prayer, jury demand). That template is documented verbatim in sibling complaints, e.g. Cedar Lane v. Alps Alpine N. Am., W.D. Wash. No. 2:23‑cv‑00001 (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.[317813](/patent/317813)/gov.uwuscourts.wawd.317813.1.0.pdf). Treat the template point as likely rather than verified for the GoPro pleading.
• Answer / counterclaims: none. GoPro never appeared. Answer deadline 2021‑10‑12; dismissal entered that same day. Because GoPro had not answered or moved for summary judgment, Cedar Lane could dismiss unilaterally as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) without leave of court — which is why the dismissal was filed as a "Notice" and merely so-ordered.
• Counsel: the D. Del. filer was David deBruin (Delaware local counsel). Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago) was Cedar Lane's national lead counsel across this campaign; I could not confirm from the docket that he entered an appearance in this case, so I flag that as unverified. No GoPro counsel of record exists — consistent with no appearance.

2. Pre-trial motions

None. No Rule 12 motion, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no stay-pending-IPR motion, no summary judgment motion. The case ended before the Rule 16 scheduling conference and before any scheduling order was entered.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Not reached. No joint claim construction statement, no Markman hearing, no claim construction order.

4. Discovery

None. No Rule 26(f) conference, no initial disclosures, no infringement or invalidity contentions.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial date, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, no § 285 fee motion.

6. Final disposition

• 2021‑10‑12: voluntary dismissal, so ordered by Judge Andrews; case terminated the same day; form patent report sent to the Commissioner.
• No appeal. There is no Federal Circuit proceeding.
• Prejudice status — unverified. The docket text for D.I. 7 records only "NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. as to GoPro, Inc." and does not state whether it was with or without prejudice. A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice is without prejudice by default under Rule 41(a)(1)(B) unless the notice states otherwise. Cedar Lane's practice in this period was inconsistent — some sibling dismissals were expressly with prejudice with each side bearing its own costs (e.g., Cedar Lane v. D‑Link, W.D. Tex. No. 6:20‑cv‑01202, D.I. 17, granted 2021‑10‑01; Cedar Lane v. Hertz, 6:22‑cv‑01216; Cedar Lane v. Via Techs., 6:22‑cv‑01305), while others were without prejudice (Cedar Lane v. Verizon, 6:22‑cv‑00043, D.I. 9, 2022‑02‑09; Cedar Lane v. Phase One, 1:22‑cv‑00482, D.I. 18, 2022‑05‑10). I could not retrieve the two-page D.I. 7 text, so I will not characterize the prejudice term.
• Present posture: closed and inactive since 2021‑10‑12. I found no re-filing by Cedar Lane against GoPro; a definitive negative would require a full PACER party search, which I could not complete.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings

• No IPR or PGR was filed against the '527, '790 or '242 patents in connection with this case, and no PTAB proceeding affected this litigation. Third-party litigation databases record "validity challenges: none" for the '790 and '242 patents (Patsnap litigation records, e.g. https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/cedar-lane-technologies-v-stmicroelectronics-patent-dismissal-patsnap/), and the case's 25-day life foreclosed any § 315(b) one-year IPR window from ripening.
• One caveat worth noting: a Unified Patents IPR against Cedar Lane exists as IPR2020‑00006 (filed 2019‑10‑03), which appears as a "related case" in Cedar Lane's litigation records. I could not verify which patent it targeted or that it had any bearing on the GoPro matter; treat it as campaign background, not as a parallel proceeding on these three patents.

---

Strategic significance

1. This case is one data point in a mass-filing campaign, not a litigated dispute. Cedar Lane filed the GoPro suit on 2021‑09‑17 (the same day as a burst of other D. Del. filings, e.g., 1:21‑cv‑01285, ‑01289, ‑01397), and dozens of its D. Del. cases were assigned to Judge Andrews. The docket shows the signature Cedar Lane pattern: serve quickly, then dismiss as of right before answer — preserving the ability to re-file and avoiding an adverse pleading or § 101/§ 112 ruling.
2. Dismissal on the answer date strongly suggests a pre-answer resolution — a license or covenant not to sue — but the docket does not disclose it, and I found no public announcement. Go

Docket shows a Delaware signature. Let me dig into the attorneys and firms.

Let me get the actual CourtListener docket for this case and the complaint signature block.

I have the docket outline. Let me verify against CourtListener/PACER for any defendant-side entries and check whether GoPro appeared at all.

Docket is small and appears entirely plaintiff-side. Let me confirm there was no separate GoPro appearance and check related Cedar Lane–GoPro litigation for context.

Bottom line

No counsel of record ever appeared for GoPro, Inc. in this case. The docket for Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. GoPro, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-01319-RGA (D. Del.) contains nine entries, all filed by the plaintiff or by the Clerk/Chamber. There is no notice of appearance, no Rule 83.5 pro hac vice motion, no answer, no Rule 12 motion, no corporate disclosure statement, and no stipulation signed by defense counsel. GoPro was served on September 20, 2021 (D.I. 6), its answer was due October 12, 2021, and Cedar Lane voluntarily dismissed the action on that very day (D.I. 7), with Judge Andrews so-ordering dismissal the same day (D.I. 8).

I want to be explicit per your instructions: I am not naming any attorney as GoPro's counsel, because the record shows none, and naming one would be fabrication.

Docket evidence

Sources: Docket Alarm track docket, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Delaware_District_Court/1--21-cv-01319/Cedar_Lane_Technologies_Inc._v._GoPro_Inc/ ; Patexia document list, https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-GoPro-Inc-id-154562/documents (both mirrors agree entry-for-entry and both reflect a closed, 9-entry docket). Filing date and asserted patents also corroborated by IPWatchdog's Patent Filings Roundup of Sept. 22, 2021, https://ipwatchdog.com/2021/09/22/patent-filings-roundup-trio-actions-accuse-ip-investments-coordinated-campaign-intellectual-ventures-backend-judge-albright-cancels-one-141-wsou-asserted-patents-new-magnetar-entity-s/.

The only counsel who appears on this docket — for the plaintiff

For completeness, the sole attorney of record in the case is on the plaintiff's side:

• David W. deBruin — plaintiff's counsel of record (signatory on D.I. 7). Morris James LLP, Wilmington, Delaware (Delaware local counsel). Morris James is a regular Delaware filing shop for NPE/patent plaintiffs; deBruin's name appears as filing attorney across numerous Cedar Lane docket entries in D. Del. (e.g., 1:22-cv-00054, where he filed the status letter and notice of voluntary dismissal). Note: Cedar Lane's Texas filings in the parallel campaign were typically signed by Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC), who is publicly identified as Cedar Lane's counsel and who described the campaign's settlement strategy to reporters — but Rabicoff did not appear in this Delaware docket.

Why the defense side is empty

This is a "serve-and-settle" case, not a litigated one: 25 days from filing to dismissal, with dismissal landing on the answer deadline rather than after any defense response. Cedar Lane ran the same pattern against Arashi Vision/Insta360 (6:21-cv-00959 W.D. Tex.), where a public securities filing by the defendant's affiliate disclosed a $50,000 settlement reached September 24, 2021 and dismissal shortly afterward — context that fairly explains a same-day dismissal here without any GoPro appearance. None of that appears on the GoPro docket, and no settlement amount or agreement is in the record; the dismissal was without any stated terms.

Caveats and where a residual answer could hide:

• If GoPro's in-house legal department or outside counsel negotiated the pre-dismissal settlement, that correspondence is not on the docket and I found no public filing, press release, or Law360/Reuters item identifying GoPro's counsel for this matter.
• GoPro's counsel in other matters is documented but irrelevant to this question — e.g., Fenwick & West LLP is identified as "Derivative Defendants' Counsel" for GoPro in the GoPro shareholder derivative settlement (N.D. Cal.), a securities matter, not this patent case. Do not carry that attribution over to 1:21-cv-01319.
• To be 100% certain a notice of appearance isn't in a PACER-only field not surfaced by the mirrors, a direct PACER docket pull for 1:21-cv-01319 (D. Del.) would confirm; the docket is only nine entries, so the check is cheap. Based on two independent mirrors of the full docket, however, I would expect it to confirm zero defense appearances.