Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard

I'll research this case, the parties, the patent, and the surrounding context.

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

Good initial grounding. Let me dig into the docket specifics, the dismissal, HP's counterclaims, and any PTAB activity.

Let me pull the full docket and the complaint content for this specific case.

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. HP Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00040 (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line

This was a short-lived, settlement-track case — roughly 6½ months from complaint to dismissal with prejudice, with no merits ruling of any kind. Cedar Lane filed on 2022-01-11 in the Waco Division before Judge Alan D. Albright; HP answered and counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement on 2022-03-21; the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice on 2022-07-25, and the case closed that day. There was no transfer motion, no motion to dismiss, no stay, no Markman/hearing, no summary judgment practice, no trial, and no appeal. I found no PTAB proceeding against the '242 traceable to this case.

One caption note: the docket styles the defendant "HP Inc." (not "Hewlett-Packard"), and the docket title is Cedar Lane Technologies Inc v. HP Inc.

---

Chronological developments

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Cedar Lane — a Canadian NPE that was, by its own account and IAM's, the single most prolific patent plaintiff of 2022, with a reported 96% settlement rate among terminated cases (IAM, 2023-03-20) — filed suit against HP on 2022-01-11 in W.D. Tex., Waco Division. The complaint carried ten exhibits (the asserted patent(s) plus element-by-element claim charts), and Cedar Lane's standard pleading theory was direct infringement plus induced infringement predicated on post-service knowledge.

Caveat on the patent count: the case metadata for this matter identifies U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242 ("Host interface for imaging arrays," issued 2013-09-17, from an application filed 2005-10-27; inventor Mark Suska; prosecution counsel McAndrews Held & Malloy) as the patent at issue, and I have proceeded on that basis. However, the docket's ten-exhibit structure is consistent with Cedar Lane's practice in its 2022 campaign of pleading multiple patents from the same imaging-interface family in a single complaint (elsewhere it routinely bundled the '242 with U.S. Patent Nos. 6,473,527, 6,972,790 and/or 8,165,867, and in some cases a '505 patent). One publicly indexed W.D. Tex. Waco Division Cedar Lane complaint from this era pleads four counts ('527, '790, '505, '867). I was not able to verify the exact count/identity of every patent pleaded against HP before concluding research; treat "solely the '242" as the metadata-authoritative framing rather than a confirmed count of the complaint's counts.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None were filed. The docket reflects no Rule 12(b)(6) motion, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, and no summary judgment motion. That is itself the notable datapoint: HP — a frequent Albright-division defendant with obvious alternative venues (N.D. Cal., W.D. Tex.'s competitors) — chose not to challenge venue or pleadings, and instead answered and counterclaimed. The only procedural activity was the agreed extension of HP's response deadline to 2022-03-21 and routine pro hac vice admissions.

HP's 2022-03-21 answer (Dkt. 11) denied infringement and asserted affirmative defenses, and brought counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patent(s) under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202. Cedar Lane replied to the counterclaims on 2022-04-11. HP's local counsel was Melissa Richards Smith, with Suparna Datta and S. Rao appearing pro hac vice; Cedar Lane was represented by Isaac Rabicoff.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

The case was dismissed approximately six and a half months after filing, well before any Markman briefing, technical tutorial, or claim construction hearing. No claim construction order or transcript exists in this case. Cedar Lane's W.D. Tex. campaign was structured to monetize early, not to litigate construction; nothing in this docket even hints at a disputed term being teed up.

4. Discovery milestones

No scheduling order appears to have driven the case to a discovery cutoff, and no discovery disputes, motions to compel, or protective-order fights are reflected in the docket before termination. Given the timeline (answer in late March, dismissal in late July), the case was in early discovery/infringement-contention territory at most. I could not verify specific discovery events (e.g., Rule 26(f) conference date, initial disclosures, or invalidity contention service) from the sources retrieved; the docket excerpts available did not include them.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial setting, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, no fee motion under § 285, and no appeal to the Federal Circuit. The case ended at the pleading/discovery threshold.

6. Final disposition

On 2022-07-25, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, styled on the docket as a motion to dismiss, and the case was terminated the same day (the docket is captioned "Final Civil Docket 07-25-2022"; status "Closed"). Because the dismissal was joint and with prejudice, **the terms — including whether any

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

Let me dig deeper into the docket and Cedar Lane's typical counsel arrangements.

Bottom line

Cedar Lane Technologies was represented in this case by a single attorney of record — Isaac Philip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC — who was both the filing attorney and the only plaintiff-side appearance on the docket. No local counsel, no co-counsel firm, and no in-house counsel appeared for Cedar Lane before the case was dismissed by joint stipulation in July 2022. This is consistent with Cedar Lane's nationwide campaign, in which Rabicoff Law served as the near-exclusive filing firm.

Counsel of record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

No other plaintiff-side counsel appears on the docket. Specifically:

• There is no local counsel of record for Cedar Lane in this case (contrast the defendant side, where Melissa Richards Smith of Gillam & Smith in Marshall, Texas served as local counsel and moved for pro hac vice admission of HP's national counsel).
• The docket shows no pro hac vice motion by Rabicoff in this action — he entered via a Notice of Attorney Appearance rather than an admission motion, a pattern for which he was criticized in the N.D. Cal. matter.
• No in-house Cedar Lane attorney appeared. Cedar Lane is a Canadian entity (560 Baker Street, Suite 1, Nelson, BC) with no in-house litigation counsel on the public record.

Docket grounding

Docket entries below are drawn from the W.D. Tex. CM/ECF docket as republished by Unified Patents' litigation portal and Patexia (case name on the docket is styled Cedar Lane Technologies Inc v. HP Inc., 6:22-cv-00040-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright):

• Dkt. 1 — Complaint for Patent Infringement, filed 1/11/2022, e-signed "(Rabicoff, Isaac)" (receipt no. 0542-15604206), with Exhibits 1–10 and civil cover sheet.
• Dkt. 2 — "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Rabicoff on behalf of Cedar Lane Technologies Inc." (1/11/2022) — this is the operative appearance of plaintiff's counsel. (Entry numbering immediately after the complaint follows the identical same-day Cedar Lane filings, e.g., 6:22-cv-00043 v. Verizon; I have not independently re-verified the number against PACER's image of the docket.)
• Dkt. 3–5 — Rule 7 disclosure statement, request for issuance of summons, and AO 120 patent form, all filed by Rabicoff (1/11/2022).
• Dkt. 7 — Notice of Agreed Extension of Time for HP to respond (to 3/21/2022), filed by Rabicoff.
• Dkt. 12 — Cedar Lane's Answer to HP's counterclaim, filed by Rabicoff (4/11/2022).
• Dkt. (final entry) — "MOTION to Dismiss (Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice)" filed by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., e-signed by Rabicoff, 7/25/2022 — the last substantive plaintiff filing; the case is closed.

For completeness, defendant HP Inc.'s counsel of record were Melissa Richards Smith (Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall, TX — local counsel), with Suparna Datta and Sasha Rao admitted pro hac vice (Dkt. 9 and Dkt. 10 orders granting admission, 3/22/2022); at the time Datta and Rao were at Ropes & Gray LLP. These are defense counsel, listed only to distinguish them from plaintiff's side.

Caveats on sourcing

• The PACER docket for 6:22-cv-00040 is short (the case lived roughly six months and terminated on a joint stipulation), so the counsel picture is unusually simple — there is no sealed appearance, no intervening substitution of counsel, and no attorney withdrawal on the public record. I found no indication of sealed filings in this case.
• The firm's office location shifted during the campaign: pleadings signed in 2019–2020 (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Genesis Digital, S.D. Cal.) list Chicago; 2023 filings (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Xerox, W.D. Tex. 6:22-cv-01153) and 2025 S.D.N.Y./E.D. Tex. filings list Alexandria, VA. I could not retrieve the actual signature block image from the January 2022 complaint in this case within this research session, so the exact address as of filing is not independently confirmed — treat the Chicago/Alexandria framing as "firm locations over time" rather than a verified address for this specific filing.
• Note a caption discrepancy worth flagging: the court's docket names the defendant HP Inc., not "Hewlett-Packard" (Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. is a separate entity). Also, the complaint asserted a family of Cedar Lane imaging/JPEG patents — reporting on the filing lists the '527, '790 and '242 patents (and IPWatchdog's filing table for 6:22-cv-00040 lists the '867 and '505 patents as well), so U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242 was one of several patents-in-suit, not the sole one.

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

Counsel of Record for HP Inc. (named in some docketing systems as "Hewlett‑Packard")

Bottom line: Three attorneys appeared for the defendant in Cedar Lane Techs., Inc. v. HP Inc., No. 6:22‑cv‑00040‑ADA (W.D. Tex.). One was a Texas local‑counsel anchor at a small Marshall firm; two were out‑of‑district patent litigators from Maynard Cooper & Gale (now Maynard Nexsen) admitted pro hac vice. No HP in‑house attorney entered an appearance on this docket, and nothing in this case was sealed. The case closed on a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice on July 25, 2022, roughly six months after filing — so counsel's work here was limited to the appearance, an answer/counterclaim, and dismissal.

One‑line experience notes

• Melissa Richards Smith — Dean of Marshall/E.D. Tex. patent local counsel practice; Martindale peer reviews describe her as a first‑choice local counsel for patent cases in Marshall and Tyler, and her docket includes defense‑side local‑counsel roles for Microsoft, Samsung and Kia, plus plaintiff‑side work (e.g., Rare Breed Triggers, ABC IP). Source: Martindale profile; court dockets in Patent Armory v. Microsoft (W.D. Tex. 6:23‑cv‑00542, Dkt. 10) and VDPP v. KIA (E.D. Tex. 2:23‑cv‑00367).
• Sasha Rao — Named chair of Maynard's IP litigation practice (per the firm's own announcement of Dr. Datta's hire, Jan. 11, 2021), San Francisco‑based; Law360's case index lists her as counsel in this matter ("Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. HP Inc., Texas Western," Jan. 11, 2022).
• Suparna Datta, Ph.D. — Registered patent attorney with a Georgia Tech Ph.D. in EE and Texas Instruments DSP research background; ITC and district‑court patent litigator (e.g., ZiiLabs v. ASUS/Nvidia 337‑TA‑1099; directPacket v. Polycom, N.D. Cal.), and co‑counsel with Pepper Hamilton in Tuhin Ganguly‑related N.D. Cal. matters immediately before joining Maynard. Sources: Maynard Cooper bio PDF; Maynard press release 1/11/2021; Buchalter bio.

Sourcing caveats

• The unified/unifiedpatents "Final Civil Docket 07‑25‑2022" mirror of the PACER docket sheet (portal.unifiedpatents.com, case 6:22‑cv‑00040) and Law360's attorney‑case pages are the sources for the three names and the PHV orders. I did not independently pull the PACER PDFs of Dkts. 9–11, so I cannot quote the signature blocks or verify whether additional non‑appearing attorneys signed the answer.
• The case is captioned "Hewlett‑Packard" in some indexes and "HP Inc." on the docket; the appearance was entered on behalf of HP Inc. (the entity that answered and counterclaimed).
• No HP in‑house counsel appears in the docket text I reviewed, and HP's Rule 7 disclosure statement does not identify outside counsel. Nothing indicates any filing was sealed — the case concluded by joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice (docket entry dated 7/25/2022), so there is no sealed‑record issue to flag here.
• Firm affiliations are stated as of the 2022 appearance, with current affiliations noted where I could confirm them; Maynard Cooper & Gale combined with Nexsen Pruet in 2023 to form Maynard Nexsen, and Dr. Datta has since moved (Maynard → Pepper Hamilton/Mintz → Buchalter). I could not confirm from a primary source where Ms. Rao is currently practicing, so I have not asserted a current firm for her.