Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. (Korean defendant "C", SME)

I'll research this case and Cedar Lane's assertion campaign before drafting.

Case overview — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Crevis Co., Ltd., No. 6:22-cv-00120 (W.D. Tex.)

Parties. The plaintiff, Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., is a Canadian (Toronto-linked) patent-assertion entity — the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies it as an acquirer of patents rather than an operating company, and its portfolio is overwhelmingly sourced (directly or indirectly) from Intellectual Ventures. Cedar Lane launched its campaign in 2019, has named 150+ defendants across roughly 50 patents, and is represented in this case by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Doc. 2), the same Chicago-based counsel who filed the bulk of Cedar Lane's W.D. Tex. suits and who drew critical commentary in a 2020 N.D. Cal. ruling by Judge Vince Chhabria (per Seyfarth's "NPE Showcase"; I did not independently pull that order). The defendant, publicly identified on the docket as Crevis Co., Ltd. (주)크래비스,

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and plaintiff's litigation campaign.

Confirmed the defendant: Crevis Co., Ltd. (Korea). Let me pull the case-specific docket/complaint analysis and check for parallel PTAB proceedings on the '790 patent.

Let me confirm the patents asserted in this complaint and investigate PTAB activity on Cedar Lane's '790/'242 family.

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Crevis Co., Ltd., No. 6:22-cv-00120 (W.D. Tex.)

Identification note: the anonymized defendant "C" is Crevis Co., Ltd., a Korean SME (Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do) making fieldbus remote I/O, industrial PCs, and machine-vision cameras. Judge Alan D. Albright presided (Waco Division). Docket citations below are to the PACER docket as mirrored by Patexia (docket); I did not independently pull the underlying PDFs from PACER, so document contents (as opposed to docket text) are not verified.

Bottom line: this was a 13-entry, seven-month docket that resolved by settlement and voluntary dismissal with prejudice before any answer, counterclaim, motion practice, scheduling order, claim construction, or discovery. It is a pure "fast-settle" NPE outcome, not a litigated case.

---

Chronology of legal developments

What did not happen (each item on your checklist)

• Answer / counterclaims: none. Crevis never answered, never pleaded invalidity or non-infringement, and asserted no counterclaims (no declaratory judgment of invalidity or inequitable conduct). The case settled on the eve of the answer deadline.
• Pre-trial motions of substance: none. No Rule 12(b)(2)/(3)/(6) motion, no § 1404(a) transfer motion and no TC Heartland venue challenge — notable, given Crevis is a Korean company with no apparent U.S. physical presence and an arguable venue defense. No motion to stay pending IPR. No summary judgment.
• Claim construction: none. No scheduling order was ever entered, so no Markman briefing, no O2 Micro / Albright-form claim construction hearing, and no claim construction order.
• Discovery: none of record. No infringement contentions, no Rule 26(f) conference, no ESI order, no document production. The only "discovery-adjacent" event is the Rule 4(d) waiver, which is strategically significant: it avoided formal service on a Korean entity (Hague Convention / letters rogatory risk for plaintiff; default-judgment exposure for defendant) and bought Crevis 90 additional days.
• Trial / verdict / JMOL / fees: none. No trial setting, no verdict, no post-trial motions, no motion for attorney's fees under § 285 by the prevailing defendant.
• Appeal: none. Dismissal with prejudice is a final, non-appealable disposition by agreement.

Final disposition

Terminated 2022-08-31 by voluntary dismissal with prejudice of all claims against Crevis, with each side bearing its own costs absent contrary terms. No settlement amount, license, or covenant not to sue was publicly disclosed; the dismissal papers (Dkt. 11) are a two-page notice plus proposed order. Practically: Cedar Lane obtained no publicly recorded judgment or injunction, and Crevis obtained a claim-preclusive exit as to the '790 patent on the accused products without litigating validity.

Patent asserted and its significance

The '790 patent issued 2005-12-06 from an application filed 2000-12-21, so its 20-year term under 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2) expired on or about 2020-12-21 (subject to any patent term adjustment or terminal disclaimer — I have not verified the face of the patent). That has two consequences worth flagging: (a) Cedar Lane's recovery in this and its ~50 sister suits was confined to the six-year lookback under § 286 and pre-expiration sales, and (b) the only realistic leverage was settlement pressure, not injunctive relief.

Caveat on the patent list: your metadata lists only the '790 patent, and the '790 is independently confirmed for this case number in IPWatchdog's February 2022 filings roundup (IPWatchdog, 2022-02-11), whose table for 6:22-cv-00120 also carries the divisional 8,537,242. Cedar Lane's template complaint in this campaign routinely asserted both '790 and '242 (e.g., the parallel complaints reproduced for 6:22-cv-00654 and 2:23-cv-00001). I could not verify whether the Crevis complaint pleaded the '242 as well; treat '242 as possible-but-unconfirmed for this docket.

Parallel PTAB proceedings

I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding involving the '790 or '242 patents instituted at Crevis's behest, or any PTAB proceeding tied to this case. Consistent with that, no party moved to stay this litigation pending PTAB review — the usual tell. Given the answer date and two-and-a-half-week path to dismissal, Crevis would in any event have blown the 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) one-year bar only later in 2023. Cedar Lane's broader '790/'242 campaign (50+ suits per Patsnap/Stanford NPE data, including against Amazon, ON Semiconductor, Motorola Solutions, Ricoh, and dozens of camera/vision vendors) produced a stream of near-identical early dismissals and consent judgments rather than contested PTAB outcomes; the '790 family's validity was therefore largely untested in an adjudicated forum during this window. I did not locate a Federal Circuit opinion construing the '790 claims.

Litigation-strategy read

Three features make this case representative of the campaign rather than exceptional: (1) Waco filing on a template complaint with claim charts incorporated but not attached publicly; (2) rapid monetization of a foreign SME for whom U.S. defense costs (even a venue motion) dwarfed settlement value — Crevis's counsel moved to stay on the answer deadline and settled within 16 days; and (3) no merits adjudication at all, meaning the '790's scope and validity remain formally undecided by any court in this matter. For patent-portfolio and litigation-risk purposes, this docket has essentially zero precedential or estoppel value beyond res judicata between these two parties.

Sourcing confidence: docket dates, document numbers, and counsel names are grounded in the Patexia PACER mirror and IPWatchdog's roundup (high confidence). The complaint's substantive allegations are inferred from Cedar Lane's parallel complaints in other districts (medium-high). The identity of Crevis's counsel's firm, any settlement terms, and the presence or absence of the '242 in this specific complaint are not confirmed (low confidence).

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

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Case: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Crevis Co., Ltd., No. 6:22-cv-00120 (W.D. Tex., Waco Division), before Judge Alan D. Albright. (Defendant "C" = Crevis Co., Ltd., a Korean SME — the anonymization in the KIPO-derived table maps to this caption.) Filed Feb. 2, 2022; voluntarily dismissed with prejudice Aug. 31, 2022.

Bottom line

The docket reflects exactly one attorney of record for the plaintiff — a sole practitioner who acted as lead counsel and filed everything himself. There is no local counsel of record, no second plaintiff-side appearance, and no in-house counsel appearance anywhere in the docket (Docs. 1–13). The docket contains no pro hac vice motion, which is notable given that the attorney is not a Texas-barred lawyer and W.D. Tex. practice would ordinarily require admission or an appearance through a member of the bar.

Attorney table

Supporting docket detail

• Doc. 2 (Feb. 2, 2022) — "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Rabicoff on behalf of Cedar Lane Technologies Inc." This is the only plaintiff-side appearance in the case. (Patexia docket for 6:22-cv-00120)
• Doc. 7 (Feb. 17, 2022) — summons returned executed (Crevis served 2/9/2022).
• Doc. 9 (May 17, 2022) — waiver of service returned executed, answer due 8/15/2022.
• Doc. 10 (Aug. 15, 2022) — unopposed motion to stay / notice of settlement filed by defendant's counsel, Robert Kiddie (the only defense-side appearance on the docket); granted by text order Aug. 17, 2022.
• Doc. 11 (Aug. 30, 2022) — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice, filed by Rabicoff; Doc. 12 (Aug. 31, 2022) — order granting dismissal signed by Judge Albright; Doc. 13 — Form AO 120 report to the USPTO.

Contrast with Cedar Lane's practice in parallel suits (useful for the "no local counsel" observation)

Cedar Lane's litigation portfolio (100+ suits asserting the '790 patent family — U.S. Patent 6,972,790, "Host interface for imaging arrays," plus 6,473,527 and 8,537,242) was run almost entirely out of Rabicoff Law, but in several venues a second, forum-admitted lawyer appeared alongside Rabicoff:

• In N.D. Tex. suits (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Uniview Technology, No. 3:22-cv-02044), Dallas lawyer Jay Johnson (Kizzia Johnson PLLC) filed for Cedar Lane. See Justia docket.
• In D. Del. suits (e.g., Cedar Lane v. EPIX, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00050), Delaware counsel David W. deBruin handled filings.

Neither appears in 6:22-cv-00120. In this Waco case Rabicoff filed and signed alone, and the case resolved by settlement/voluntary dismissal roughly six months after service — before any admission issue could be litigated. That pattern (file, settle, dismiss before a pro hac vice challenge surfaces) is precisely what prompted the N.D. Cal. disciplinary referral described below.

Reputational notes on lead counsel (well-sourced; recommend flagging in any client-facing memo)

• Nov. 19, 2020 — Judge Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) sanctioned Rabicoff $1,000 under Rule 11 and referred him to the court's Standing Committee on Professional Conduct in Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Blackmagic Design Inc., No. 3:20-cv-01302-VC, finding he was a "serial filer of patent lawsuits" who repeatedly skipped pro hac vice admission and fees. Order: cases.justia.com PDF.
• Jan. 24, 2022 / Feb. 4, 2022 — Standing Committee final report and court order approving an informal resolution requiring payment of $9,193.00 in unpaid pro hac vice fees for 29 N.D. Cal. matters; paid Feb. 16, 2022. (Note the timing: this case was filed Feb. 2, 2022.)
• Dec. 12, 2022 — Virginia State Bar public reprimand without terms (agreed disposition, VSB Docket No. 22-042-125771) for violating California's rules on meritorious claims, candor to the tribunal, and misconduct. VSB summary

Sourcing caveats — please read

1. The docket details above are drawn from third-party aggregators reproducing the W.D. Tex. CM/ECF docket (Patexia; corroborated by IPWatchdog's filing roundup identifying Cedar Lane v. Crevis Co. Ltd., 6:22-cv-00120, filed in the Feb. 2022 wave). I did not retrieve the native PACER docket sheet for this case; if you need certification-grade confirmation of "no other appearances," pull the PACER docket directly.
2. I did not locate the complaint PDF itself for this case; the firm address and bar number for Rabicoff come from his signature blocks in other Cedar Lane W.D. Tex. filings of the same period (e.g., the Cedar Lane v. Xerox dismissal, which lists "Isaac Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC, 5680 King Centre Dr, Suite 645, Alexandria, VA 22315, isaac@rabilaw.com") and from his PTAB filings listing him as Lead Counsel for Patent Owner at the same address.
3. Nothing in this case appears to have been filed under seal — the docket shows no sealed documents and no motions to seal — so there is no sealed-counsel issue here.
4. The metadata lists only the '790 patent; the IPWatchdog roundup for this filing also tags U.S. Patent 8,537,242 (a family member asserted in the same campaign). I could not verify from the complaint which claims/patents were actually pleaded in this specific case.

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

The defendant is Crevis Co., Ltd. (Korean machine-vision company). Now let me pin down counsel.

Bottom line

The defendant in No. 6:22-cv-00120-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.) is Crevis Co., Ltd., a Korean machine-vision / industrial remote-I/O manufacturer (the "C" in your anonymized KIPO-derived table). The public docket reflects exactly one defense-side attorney — Robert ("Rob") Kiddie, Jr. of Devlin Law Firm LLC — and no local counsel, no pro hac vice sponsor, and no in-house appearance. The case died on the pleadings track: notice of settlement (Dkt. 10, Aug. 15, 2022), 30-day stay (text order, Aug. 17, 2022), voluntary dismissal with prejudice (Dkt. 11, Aug. 30, 2022), dismissal order (Dkt. 12, Aug. 31, 2022), AO 120 to the PTO (Dkt. 13, Sept. 1, 2022). So the defense-side record is essentially one two-page motion.

Counsel of record — defendant Crevis Co., Ltd.

No other attorney — no second Devlin associate, no Texas local-counsel firm, no Crevis in-house lawyer — appears anywhere on the retrieved docket.

Docket grounding

• Dkt. 10 (Aug. 15, 2022) — Unopposed MOTION to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement, filed "by Crevis Co., Ltd." with the ECF signature block "(Kiddie, Robert)." This is the sole defense filing in the case. (Patexia docket, No. 6:22-cv-00120)
• Dkt. 9 (May 17, 2022) — waiver of service returned, answer due Aug. 15, 2022; consistent with counsel being engaged and negotiating rather than litigating service.
• Dkt. 11–13 — plaintiff's Rule 41(a) dismissal with prejudice (filed by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, plaintiff's sole counsel of record, Dkt. 2), Judge Albright's granting order, and the PTO report.
• Filing metadata corroborating the party/patent mapping: IPWatchdog's roundup lists 6:22-cv-00120 | Cedar Lane Technologies Inc | Crevis Co Ltd | 8537242, and the '790 patent is the other asserted patent in the same Cedar Lane family.

Limits of what I could verify — please read before relying on this

1. No standalone notice of appearance is visible. The public docket extract I retrieved skips Docket Nos. 3–6 (the usual summons-issued / AO 120 / disclosure-statement entries). Kiddie's appearance is established by the filer stamp on Dkt. 10, not by a located Dkt. 3–6 "Notice of Attorney Appearance." A PACER pull of the full docket sheet (or Docket Nos. 3–6) would confirm whether an appearance was separately docketed and whether anyone else signed it.
2. Nothing is sealed. This is not a sealed-counsel situation — the record is just thin because the case settled in six months. Any engagement letter, tolling agreement, or settlement term sheet between Crevis and Cedar Lane would be non-public.
3. No pro hac vice motion exists, which is consistent with Kiddie holding a Texas license; W.D. Tex. does not impose a local-counsel requirement in Judge Albright's patent practice, so the absence of a Texas "local counsel" line is unsurprising and not an omission in the record.
4. I could not corroborate any additional Devlin attorneys (e.g., Timothy Devlin, the firm's founding partner) appearing on this docket; they appear in other Cedar Lane-adjacent and Devlin matters but not here. I decline to list them for this case without an appearance.
5. Defendant-side counsel identity rests on a single secondary docket aggregator plus firm-bio corroboration of Kiddie's bar admissions and case history. It is reliable but I could not independently open the Dkt. 10 PDF during this research pass.

Why this matters analytically

Devlin Law Firm's appearance for Crevis fits the recognizable pattern in the Cedar Lane campaign: a small, out-of-state (frequently Korean, Japanese, or European) hardware vendor retains a single Texas-licensed patent litigator with NPE-defense experience, waives service, immediately opens settlement talks, and exits via a with-prejudice dismissal — never reaching an answer, an IPR, or claim construction. There is no parallel PTAB proceeding on the '790 patent attributable to Crevis that I could locate; the '790 patent's IPR activity in this window came from other Cedar Lane targets, not this defendant. For a counsel-of-record section in your case writeup, the honest characterization is: one attorney of record, one filing, no substantive advocacy on the merits.