Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Infinova Corporation

I'll research this case before writing. Let me start with parallel searches on the parties, the patent, and the docket.

Key finding already: the docket reports show four patents were asserted in the complaint (not just the '790). Let me pull the complaint itself and research the parties and any IPR activity.

Now let me identify the accused products from the complaint, the other three patents, and Cedar Lane's identity/campaign.

Case overview

Parties. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian corporation with a principal place of business in Nelson, British Columbia (the entity's own jurisdictional allegations in parallel suits, e.g., Cedar Lane Techs. v. Alps Alpine N.A., W.D. Wash. No. 2:23-cv-00001, Compl. ¶ 2). It is a non-practicing patent assertion entity: it does not manufacture or sell products, and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies it as a patent asserter relying on acquired patents (npe.law.stanford.edu/party/cedar-lane-technologies-inc). It is a high-volume filer — the Stanford database lists well over a hundred Cedar Lane suits across D. Del., D.N.J., E.D.N.Y., N.D.N.Y., W.D.N.Y., W.D. Pa., W.D. Tex. and W.D. Wash., and Patsnap's PACER-derived index shows the '790 patent alone asserted in 52+ cases against roughly 50 defendants (patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/patent/us6972790b2). Defendant Infinova Corporation is the U.S. arm of Infinova, a video-surveillance manufacturer headquartered at 51 Stouts Lane, Monmouth Junction, New Jersey — self-described "the Integrator's Manufacturer" — selling IP/analog/hybrid cameras, matrix switchers, DVRs/NVRs, fiber-optic transmission gear and access control. Infinova listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange in a December 2010 IPO raising roughly US$300 million, acquired March Networks (announced Dec. 2011, ~C$90M, closed May 2012) and Swann Communications (announced Oct. 2014) (Infinova press releases, 2011–2014; Security Systems News; njbiz.com).

Accused technology and patents. The complaint (D.I. 1, with Exhibits 1–8, i.e., patent copies plus claim charts) was filed 5 May 2021. Note a metadata discrepancy worth flagging: the case summary lists only U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790, but both the Rule 3/11 patent reports on the docket (D.I. 3 and D.I. 11) list four patents: 6,972,790; 8,537,242; 8,165,867; 6,924,832. Only the first two are independently verified here: the '790 ("Host interface for imaging arrays," filed 21 Dec. 2000, claiming 21 Jan. 2000 priority, issued 6 Dec. 2005 — an on-die interface, e.g., a FIFO, that buffers CMOS image-sensor pixel data clocked at the sensor's rate and interrupts/requests the host processor when the buffered data quantity passes a threshold, so the processor reads at its own pace; see RPX Insight, insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/US6972790B2) and the '242 (same title, issued 17 Sep. 2013 from a 27 Oct. 2005 application, a continuation-family member). I was not able to verify the titles or claim scope of 8,165,867 and 6,924,832 from the sources retrieved, so I won't characterize them; the specific accused Infinova products named in the claim-chart exhibits likewise could not be confirmed from the public record captured here. Given the patents' subject matter, the accused technology would necessarily be Infinova's camera/DVR/NVR or video-processing products incorporating image sensors and host interfaces — but that is an inference, not a verified fact. (For context, Cedar Lane's standard assertion package in this era consisted of the '790 and '242, with the '527 and other patents deployed in some suits; the '867 and '832 appear in the standard four-patent grouping, cf. the Korea IP Protection Agency's record of this case listing all four: dream.kotra.or.kr, record dated 2021-05-05.)

Procedural posture and why it matters. Filed in the District of Delaware (Wilmington) on 5 May 2021, served on Infinova 11 May 2021, and assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews (D.I. 6; assignment 12 May 2021) — the judge who absorbed the bulk of Cedar Lane's Delaware docket and whose "RGA" suffix appears on dozens of related Cedar Lane cases (e.g., 1:21-cv-01206-RGA, 1:21-cv-01285-RGA, 1:22-cv-00058-RGA). Infinova appeared through Delaware counsel (D.I. 7) and obtained a stipulation extending its answer deadline to 16 July 2021 (D.I. 8, so ordered 26 May 2021), but never answered: Cedar Lane filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on 22 June 2021 (D.I. 9), which Judge Andrews so ordered the same day, terminating the case (D.I. 10–11) — 48 days after filing, with no Rule 16 conference, no claim construction, and no substantive ruling. The dismissal notice as recorded does not state a basis (and no "with prejudice" designation appears in the docket text), so whether a license or settlement preceded it is not established by the sources available; the pattern across the campaign, however, is strongly consistent with license-and-dismiss: comparable Cedar Lane suits ended by voluntary dismissal within 21–77 days (Videotec, 21 days; ZKTeco, 41; Leica, 42) or by consent judgment (Vector Security; Speco) (Patsnap litigation table). Venue choice is itself the story: Infinova is a New Jersey company with no Delaware home, so Delaware reflected Cedar Lane's forum preference and its Delaware counsel David W. deBruin rather than any defendant-side convenience — a hallmark of the 2020–2022 PAE filing wave, in which Delaware and (later) W.D. Tex. became the default venues. The case's significance is threefold: (1) it is a data point in one of the largest assertion campaigns of the period, where a single expired-for-term acquired patent ('790 per RPX) was spread across surveillance, camera, semiconductor, drone and consumer-electronics defendants; (2) it illustrates the "fast-dismissal" economics of that campaign, in which defendants resolve weeks after service rather than litigate; and (3) it shows the portfolio's redeployment into new industries — Stanford's database now lists 2025–26 Cedar Lane suits against financial institutions such as Bank of America (E.D. Tex.), Beech Hill Securities (S.D.N.Y.) and Maxim Group — a classic sign of a portfolio being re-monetized sector by sector.

Sourcing caveats / items still to verify: (a) the specific Infinova products charted in D.I. 1 Exs. 5–8; (b) the titles and claims of the '867 and '832 patents; (c) whether the dismissal was without prejudice and whether any license/confidential settlement occurred (check the D.I. 9 notice text and any side letter); and (d) any PTAB activity — my searches surfaced no IPR or CBM challenging the '790, and given that the patent expired for term with a 2000 priority date, a post-grant challenge would have limited upside, but I cannot call this a confirmed negative without a PTAB docket check. I would also reconcile the case-metadata patent list (one patent) against the docket's Rule 3/11 reports (four patents) before publishing.

I'll research this case and its surrounding context.

Good — I have the core docket. Now let me verify the dismissal terms and check for parallel PTAB proceedings on the four asserted patents.

No PTAB hits yet. Let me dig specifically into PTAB proceedings and check whether Infinova was re-sued.

Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Infinova Corp., No. 1:21-cv-00648-RGA (D. Del.)

Bottom line: This was a six-week placeholder suit. Cedar Lane filed, served, and voluntarily dismissed before Infinova ever answered — no Rule 12 motion, no answer or counterclaims, no scheduling order, no Markman, no discovery, no IPR, no adjudication of any kind. The docket closed at D.I. 11.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2021-05-05 → 2021-06-01)

Note on the patents: the case metadata lists only the '790 patent, but the docket's AO-120 reports (D.I. 3, D.I. 11) show that Cedar Lane pleaded all four patents — the '790 apparatus patent and its '242 divisional (both "Host interface for imaging arrays," directed to a FIFO/interrupt interface between an image sensor and a host processor), plus the '867 and '832 patents. The '790/'832/'867/'242 quartet was Cedar Lane's standard 2020–2022 pleading package in its camera/sensor campaign.

2. Appearance and extension (2021-05-26)

• 2021-05-26 — D.I. 7: Notice of appearance of Austen C. Endersby for Infinova (Delaware counsel). This is the only defense-side filing of record.
• 2021-05-26 — D.I. 8: Stipulation to extend time to answer to 2021-07-16, so ordered by Judge Andrews the same day. Infinova bought roughly six extra weeks rather than answering or moving.

3. No substantive pre-trial motion practice

There was none. No Rule 12(b)(6) motion, no § 1404(a)/§ 1406 transfer motion, no § 1400(b) venue challenge, no motion to stay pending IPR, no motion to sever, no invalidity or non-infringement contentions, and no summary-judgment motion. This distinguishes Infinova from contemporaneous Cedar Lane defendants who did litigate the pleadings — e.g., Cedar Lane Techs. v. Fantasia Trading LLC, No. 1:21-cv-01428-RGA (D. Del.), where the defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on 2021-11-29 (D.I. 8) and Cedar Lane responded by taking a voluntary dismissal on 2022-01-25. Infinova never tested the complaint.

4. Markman / claim construction

None. The case never reached a scheduling order, so no claim-construction exchange, no Markman briefing, no hearing, and no construction order. Cedar Lane's '790-family claims were never construed in this action. (The campaign as a whole largely avoided claim construction by dismissing early; no RGA construction of the '790 patent in this case exists to cite.)

5. Discovery

None of record — no Rule 26(f) conference, no initial disclosures, no ESI or source-code production, no depositions. The only "discovery-significant" fact is the absence of one: dismissal came 24 days before the extended 2021-07-16 answer date, i.e., before Cedar Lane would have had to survive a motion to dismiss or serve infringement contentions.

6. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial, no verdict, no JMOL/Rule 59 motion, no fee motion under § 285, no bill of costs. There was no prevailing party and no judgment on the merits.

7. Disposition (2021-06-22)

• 2021-06-22 — D.I. 9: Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by Cedar Lane as to Infinova Corporation (deBruin).
• 2021-06-22 — D.I. 10: "SO ORDERED Granting #9 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (***Civil Case Terminated). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews."
• 2021-06-22 — D.I. 11: AO-120 Report to Commissioner listing 6,972,790; 8,537,242; 8,165,867; 6,924,832.

With or without prejudice — sourcing caveat. The docket text of D.I. 9/10 does not contain a "with prejudice" designation, in contrast to Cedar Lane dismissals in the same district that were expressly entered "With Prejudice" (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Snap Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00058-RGA, 2022-01-25; Cedar Lane v. Watts Innovations, No. 1:22-cv-01404-RGA, 2023-04-11). Because no answer or summary-judgment motion had been served, the notice was effective as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and the practical effect was a dismissal without prejudice leaving Cedar Lane free to refile. I could not locate a public document confirming any license, covenant not to sue, or payment to Infinova; any settlement term is not publicly sourced. The most defensible characterization is: resolved by unilateral dismissal without a public record of consideration — the modal outcome in Cedar Lane's docket (its suits overwhelmingly ended in voluntary dismissal, with a minority ending in consent judgments or dismissals with prejudice).

8. Parallel PTAB proceedings

No IPR, PGR, or CBM was ever filed against the '790, '242, '867, or '832 patents in connection with this case, and Infinova filed no petition. Nothing stayed or affected this litigation; the case was gone within seven weeks of filing.

Context worth flagging (same patent owner, different patent): Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., IPR2020-00006 on U.S. 7,173,177 — another patent from the former-AVInnov portfolio Cedar Lane acquired in the 2019-10-07 assignment — was filed 2019-10-03, instituted 2020-03-18, and terminated in Cedar Lane's favor (termination decision 2021-02-12; Unified's rehearing request denied 2021-12-08). That proceeding is not on a patent asserted against Infinova and had no bearing on No. 1:21-cv-00648; it is relevant only as evidence that Cedar Lane's portfolio was drawing IPR attention from Unified Patents in the same window, while the '790 family itself was not being challenged at the Board.

9. Present posture

Closed since 2021-06-22. Cedar Lane is free to (and, per its campaign pattern, presumably retains the right to) re-assert the '790 family against Infinova, but I found no evidence of any later Cedar Lane suit against Infinova in the D. Del., W.D. Tex., D.N.J., or E.D.N.Y. dockets surfaced in my searches. Infinova's § 315(b) one-year IPR bar would have run on 2022-05-11 had the case proceeded or been refiled on the same patent.

10. Why this case matters (or doesn't)

No. 1:21-cv-00648 is a data point in the volume strategy rather than a precedent: one of dozens of Cedar Lane complaints filed in D. Del. before Judge Andrews in 2021, pleadings-only, dismissed by notice before any adversarial testing. It has zero precedential or issue-preclusive value. Its only analytical utility is as a benchmark for the campaign's economics — Cedar Lane's willingness to dismiss weeks after service, before an answer, is consistent with pre-suit or early nuisance-value licensing rather than litigation to judgment, and Judge Andrews's docket practices (e.g., the 2022-02-11 and 2023-01-27 oral orders compelling status letters when Cedar Lane let answers lapse) show the court actively supervising that filing volume.

Sourcing note: the docket narrative above (D.I. 1–11, dates, Judge Andrews's orders) is drawn from the RECAP/UniCourt docket report for No. 1:21-cv-00648; the comparators are from CourtListener/RECAP dockets for 1:21-cv-01428, 1:22-cv-00054, 1:22-cv-00058, 1:22-cv-01404 and the Patexia docket for IPR2020-00006. Any statement about settlement consideration, prejudice status, or defense counsel's firm affiliation is inference, not documented fact.

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

Let me pull the actual docket and verify the attorneys listed.

Let me find the complaint's signature block and deBruin's firm affiliation at the time.

Bottom line

The docket in Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Infinova Corp., No. 1:21-cv-00648-RGA (D. Del.) shows exactly one attorney acting for the plaintiff: David W. deBruin, who was Cedar Lane's Delaware counsel and is the filer of record on every plaintiff-side entry (D.I. 1, 6, 9). No pro hac vice motion, no notice of appearance, and no second attorney appears on the plaintiff's side in this 48‑day case.

Plaintiff's counsel of record

Nobody else. In particular, Isaac P. Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago) — Cedar Lane's national lead counsel in most of its 2021–2023 campaign (e.g., its W.D. Tex. and S.D.N.Y. filings) — did not appear in this case: there is no P.H.V. motion or notice of appearance for him on the docket. Likewise, no in-house counsel for Cedar Lane appeared (Cedar Lane is a British Columbia NPE with no in-house litigation staff of record).

Docket basis (PACER/D. Del. entries)

• D.I. 1 (May 5, 2021) — Complaint for patent infringement, jury demand, with Exhibits 1–8; filed by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.
• D.I. 3 / D.I. 11 — Reports to the Commissioner of Patents: patents 6,972,790; 8,537,242; 8,165,867; 6,924,832 (note: the case metadata lists only '790; the docket shows four patents, which is typical of Cedar Lane's multi-patent complaints).
• D.I. 6 (May 11, 2021) — Summons returned executed (Infinova served 5/11/2021).
• D.I. 9 (June 22, 2021) — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, filed by "deBruin, David."
• D.I. 10 (June 22, 2021) — So Ordered by Judge Andrews; case terminated.
• D.I. 7 (May 26, 2021) — Notice of appearance for the defendant by Austen C. Endersby (Delaware defense counsel), plus D.I. 8 stipulation extending the answer deadline to 7/16/2021 — mooted by the dismissal.

Sources: UniCourt docket transcription of the D. Del. docket (attorney fields list "Plaintiff Attorney: David W. deBruin"; "Defendant Attorney: Austen C. Endersby"), https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-infinova-corporation-[900138](/patent/900138); Law360 attorney profile for David W. deBruin (Wilmington, DE; case list including Cedar Lane Techs. v. Openeye US (D. Del., Nov. 17, 2022) and BE Labs v. Belkin (D. Del.)), https://www.law360.com/firms/napoli-shkolnik/attorneys/david-w-debruin/cases; parallel UniCourt dockets in the same campaign confirming deBruin as the plaintiff-side filer, e.g., Cedar Lane v. Best Lighting Prods., https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-casegubc4db47ce8e5-[1454382](/patent/1454382).

What I could not verify (stated rather than guessed)

• The complaint PDF / signature block itself. I was unable to retrieve D.I. 1 as an image in this session, so deBruin's firm name as printed in May 2021 is inferred from (i) his consistent role as Cedar Lane's Delaware filer and (ii) Flaster Greenberg's Wilmington office address appearing in attorney-registration data. His later (2022) association is publicly listed as Napoli Shkolnik. Treat the firm attribution for this specific filing as probable, not confirmed.
• Whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The docket text gives only "NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal"; Cedar Lane's practice in this campaign was Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal without prejudice, but the order text (D.I. 10) as transcribed on UniCourt does not state it. Verify on PACER if it matters.
• Nothing is sealed in this case, and counsel had appeared (via the complaint filing) before termination — so the usual "sealed / not yet appeared" caveats do not apply here.

Analytical note for your case assessment

This is the thinnest possible counsel footprint: one Delaware lawyer, no P.H.V. admission, no national lead counsel on the docket, case dismissed 48 days after filing and 42 days after service — squarely consistent with the Cedar Lane "sign, serve, settle, dismiss" template (median ~77–90 days across its campaign; Lex Machina ranked Cedar Lane the #1 patent plaintiff by filings in 2021). If you are profiling plaintiff-side counsel across the Cedar Lane docket, deBruin is the recurring Delaware name to track, while Rabicoff Law LLC is the recurring national name — just not in this case.

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

The docket shows a single defense appearance. Let me identify the firm and confirm nothing else appears on the docket.

Let me verify the full docket/party-attorney listing to ensure no other defense counsel appeared.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Infinova Corporation

Bottom line: Only one attorney ever entered an appearance for Infinova in this case. The action lasted just 48 days from filing to dismissal (complaint 5/5/2021; voluntary dismissal 6/22/2021), and Infinova never answered, moved, or filed a corporate disclosure statement — so the defense-side record is essentially a single appearance plus a stipulation.

Sourcing and caveats

• Docket confirmation. The UniCourt docket mirror for 1:21-cv-00648 lists a single defendant attorney — Austen C. Endersby — and shows only two defense-side filings (D.I. 7 appearance; D.I. 8 stipulation). Plaintiff was represented by David W. deBruin (then of Monet Law Group / later Rabicoff Law-era counsel in Cedar Lane's other suits). D.I. 9–11 are the notice of voluntary dismissal, the so-ordered dismissal signed by Judge Andrews on 6/22/2021, and the § 21 USPTO report. (unicourt.com case page)
• No other counsel identified. Because no answer, no motion, and no Rule 7.1 disclosure was filed by Infinova before dismissal, there was no occasion for additional appearances, and none appear in the available docket data. I found no pro hac vice motion, no unopposed motion for admission, and no second notice of appearance. I cannot rule out that a national coordinating firm was retained behind the scenes without appearing — that would not show on the docket. Nothing in the public record confirms or refutes it.
• Nothing sealed is implicated here. The docket reflects no sealed filings and no protective order in this short-lived case; the file appears fully public.
• Role designation is an inference. D. Del. practice in NPE suits of this vintage typically pairs a Delaware firm acting as local counsel with out-of-state lead counsel, and Endersby's own firm bio describes him as serving "as Delaware counsel to corporations in patent infringement cases in the District of Delaware." But in this case, with no co-counsel appearing, he was effectively both local and lead counsel of record. The docket does not designate a "lead attorney" the way CourtListener's party pages sometimes do.
• Corroboration of the representation. Endersby later appeared for the same client in SOTAT, LLC v. Infinova Corporation, No. 1:24-cv-00912 (D. Del.), D.I. 9 (Aug. 14, 2024), and in SOTAT, LLC v. Swann Communications, LLC (D. Del. 2024) — consistent with an ongoing Fox Rothschild relationship with Infinova. (Justia docket)
• Firm contact details are taken from his signature blocks in other D. Del. filings and his Fox Rothschild bio (aendersby@foxrothschild.com). (Fox Rothschild bio PDF) Note that some older Fox Rothschild filings list a prior Wilmington address (Citizens Bank Center, 919 N. Market St., Suite 1300) and a prior DC address (1030 15th St. NW); the Suite 300 / 2020 K St. NW addresses are the current ones.

One correction to the case metadata

The prompt lists only U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 as at issue, but the complaint and the D.I. 3 / D.I. 11 § 21 reports identify four patents: 6,972,790; 8,537,242; 8,165,867; and 6,924,832. All four were dismissed with the case on 6/22/2021. Worth correcting in the case summary if that field is meant to be complete.