Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. KTC America

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search.

Case Overview — Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. KT&C America, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-05065 (D.N.J.)

Parties and what they do. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a non-practicing entity — a Canadian (British Columbia) company formed on April 29, 2019, with a registered address in Nelson, BC and Greg Benoit as director/president, affiliated with the Pigott & Co. IP-licensing shop and the pass-through entity Steephill Technologies LLC. RPX documented Cedar Lane's model in detail: it acquired roughly 100 former Intellectual Ventures patents (some indirectly, e.g., via AVInnov LLC, which assigned its whole portfolio to Cedar Lane in October 2019), and by 2022 it was filing at industrial scale — IAM ranked it America's top-filing NPE for 2022, and Seyfarth's "NPE Showcase" notes 16 complaints filed in a single week (September 12, 2022), nearly all in W.D. Tex. and nearly all by Isaac Rabicoff. Cedar Lane has no operating business, no parent, and no publicly held shareholder above 10%. In this particular case its counsel of record was David W. deBruin of Napoli Shkolnik, LLC (per the docket and Patsnap's case record), not Rabicoff. Defendant KT&C America, Inc. is the U.S. branch of Korea Technology and Communications (KT&C), a Korean manufacturer founded in 1996/97 that makes CCTV/video-surveillance gear and high-resolution zoom block cameras for OEM/ODM customers; the U.S. subsidiary was established in 2009 and is based at 40 Lane Road, Fairfield, New Jersey (formerly Hasbrouck Heights, NJ). A publicly traded parent isn't disclosed in the record I could retrieve, and I could not verify KT&C America's state of incorporation — so the venue hook I can support is its New Jersey principal U.S. office, not residence-by-incorporation.

The accused technology. The patents in suit are all imaging-pipeline patents — camera-module and image-sensor interface technology — which fits the target: KT&C's camera/DVR/IP-camera product line rather than any software service. Cedar Lane's complaints in this campaign attach claim charts as exhibits (Exhibits 1–6 here) but do not identify specific accused model numbers on the face of the pleading; I could not retrieve the actual exhibits, so the specific accused KT&C products are not verified. Based on the parallel complaints in the same wave (e.g., Moxa, Longse, PixArt, Silent Sentinel, Security Camera Warehouse), the theory is that ordinary CMOS/CCD sensor-to-processor interfaces and on-camera JPEG compression practice the claims.

Patents asserted. IPWatchdog's August 25, 2022 Patent Filings Roundup is the source for the three-patent attribution, tagging the case "Cedar Lane Technologies Inc [IV selloff]" and listing '790, '242, and '527:

One caution on all three: Cedar

I'll research the docket history and outcome for this case.

Key facts are emerging: filed 2022-08-16, closed 2023-03-17 by voluntary dismissal. Let me dig into the docket, the service issues, and parallel proceedings.

Let me check the PTAB side and whether Cedar Lane ever refiled against KT&C.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome — Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. KT&C America, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-05065 (D.N.J.)

Bottom line: this case has no merits adjudication at all. It was filed 2022-08-16 and terminated 2023-03-17 — 213 days later — by voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before KT&C ever answered, appeared, or moved. There was no Rule 12 motion, no transfer or stay motion, no Markman, no discovery, no summary judgment, no trial, no fee motion, no appeal, and (on my search) no PTAB proceeding against any of the three asserted patents. The entire substantive history is procedural: a docket that sat unserved for six months, a clerk-generated Rule 4(m) dismissal notice, a bare-bones waiver of service, and then a unilateral exit.

Chronological timeline (all dates from the D.N.J. docket)

Why the dismissal is legally clean (and why it says nothing about the merits)

Because KT&C had not served an answer or moved for summary judgment, Cedar Lane held an unconditional right to dismiss as of right under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i); the court's 2023-03-17 order is ministerial housekeeping, not a merits ruling. Consequences worth flagging for the file:

• No claim preclusion and no issue preclusion. The dismissal is expressly without prejudice, so Cedar Lane's right to re-assert all three patents against KT&C is fully preserved — nothing in the record adjudicated infringement, validity, or enforceability.
• No fee exposure. KT&C never appeared; there was no § 285 motion, no Rule 41(d) costs motion, and no judgment of any kind.
• No AO 120 / judgment entry reflecting a merits decision, in contrast to Cedar Lane's dismissals with prejudice elsewhere in the same campaign (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Snap One Holdings, D. Del. No. 1:22-cv-01626, Doc. 10–11, joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice so ordered 2023-02-02).

Strategic read of the sequence

Three facts together tell the story, though I want to be explicit about what is inference versus record:

1. The Rule 4(m) notice (2023-01-26) preceded service by three weeks. Cedar Lane had sat on the summons since September 2022 — behavior consistent with the campaign's standard "file first, negotiate license, serve only if needed" template rather than genuine litigation intent.
2. Cedar Lane, not KT&C, moved to extend KT&C's answer deadline (Doc. 6) — again consistent with an agreed standstill while licensing terms were discussed.
3. The dismissal came 18 days later, four days before the extended answer deadline, and before any appearance by KT&C.

The public record does not disclose a settlement agreement, license, or any consideration, and I could not verify one. Any statement that KT&C took a license is unsourced; Patsnap expressly records only "Voluntary dismissal" as the basis of termination. Cedar Lane's parallel D.N.J. case against Hanwha Techwin America (No. 2:22-cv-05091), filed the same week on the same three patents, ended the same way — Jones Day's own case study describes developing "key defenses" and obtaining a voluntary dismissal, but does not mention a payment either (Jones Day experience page).

There is also a timing/leverage point the docket makes plain: the '790 patent's estimated expiry was 2023-08-01, and the '242 divisional shares the same 2000-01-21 priority and therefore the same expiry window. By the March 2023 dismissal, the two "host interface" patents were roughly four months from expiration, and the '527 patent was likewise a 1990s-priority IV divestiture asset. Damages windows were closing regardless of outcome — which materially weakens the deterrence value of refiling.

Pre-trial motions of substance

None. For completeness of the requested checklist:

• Motion to dismiss / transfer: none filed (no defendant appearance).
• Motion to stay pending IPR: none — and none needed, since no IPR existed (see below).
• Markman / claim construction: the case never reached a scheduling order, so no claim construction occurred. No Markman order, no joint claim construction statement, no O2 Micro / local-patent-rule exchanges.
• Discovery milestones: none. No Rule 26(f) conference, no initial disclosures, no ESI or protective order, no expert reports.
• Trial / verdict / JMOL / new trial / fees: none.
• Appeal: none. No Federal Circuit docket exists for this case.

Parallel PTAB proceedings

I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding on US 6,473,527, US 6,972,790, or US 8,537,242. Patsnap's patent-level records for the '790 and '242 list "Validity challenges: None recorded" for these patents, and my searches did not surface any petition naming them. The only Cedar Lane PTAB proceeding I could verify is on a different patent: Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., IPR2020-00006 (filed 2019-10-03; instituted 2020-03-18 on all challenged claims; final written decision 2021-02-12, holding the asserted independent claim of US 7,173,177 unpatentable) — a playlist/user-interface patent from the same IV/AVInnov tranche, not at issue here (Unified Patents summary). That proceeding is relevant only as portfolio context: it shows a well-funded defensive aggregator had already knocked out one Cedar Lane assertion vehicle, which bears on the pricing dynamics of the whole campaign, but it had zero procedural effect on this case.

Present posture

Terminated/closed as of 2023-03-17. Statistical disposition: voluntary dismissal without prejudice. As of my searches I found no re-filing by Cedar Lane against KT&C America on these patents, and no later activity on the D.N.J. docket. That is a negative finding only — Cedar Lane's 2025–2026 filings (mostly S.D.N.Y./E.D.N.Y. § 271 cases via Isaac Rabicoff, e.g. Cedar Lane v. BNY Mellon, 1:25-cv-09488, dismissed 2026-01-30; Cedar Lane v. TIAA-CREF, 1:25-cv-09538, settled/dismissed 2026-03-11) suggest it has shifted to a different, financial-services-targeting portfolio, so refiling on the imaging-array patents now that they

I'll verify and expand on the plaintiff-side counsel of record with targeted searches.

Plaintiff-Side Counsel of Record — Cedar Lane Techs., Inc. v. KT&C America, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-05065 (D.N.J.)

Bottom line: The docket reflects exactly one attorney appearing for Cedar Lane — David Walter deBruin of Napoli Shkolnik, LLC (Wilmington, Delaware office). He signed the complaint, the only plaintiff-side motion, and the notice of voluntary dismissal. There is no local New Jersey counsel of record, no pro hac vice application, no second plaintiff-side appearance, and no in-house counsel anywhere on this docket. This confirms (and slightly sharpens) the earlier section's statement that deBruin, not Isaac Rabicoff, was counsel here.

Counsel table

Docket record establishing the appearance

Patsnap's case page independently records "Counsel: David W. deBruin; Firm: Napoli Shkolnik, LLC," and Law360's attorney/case page for deBruin lists him as Napoli Shkolnik (Wilmington, DE) on the Cedar Lane matters. Net: one attorney, no co-counsel.

Points to flag

1. No local counsel / no PHV. D.N.J. practice normally requires a member of the court's bar or a pro hac vice application plus local counsel. The docket shows deBruin filing and signing directly, with no PHV motion recorded and no New Jersey firm appearing — consistent with his being admitted to the D.N.J. bar. However, I could not independently verify his D.N.J. admission date or bar number (the Delaware number 4846 is confirmed only from the 2021 Gawthrop filing). Treat that admission point as unverified.
2. Case-number discrepancy (flagging a metadata issue). Justia's docket page renders this case as 3:22‑cv‑05065, while the case metadata, IPWatchdog, Patsnap and Patexia use 2:22‑cv‑05065. Both are correct at different times: the case was filed in the Trenton vicinage before Judge Esther Salas / M.J. Leda Wettre and was reassigned on Oct. 3, 2022 to Judge John Michael Vazquez and M.J. Jose R. Almonte (Newark), which is when the "2:" prefix appears. Note also that the defendant's formal docket name is "KT&C AMERICA," and Patsnap renders it "KT&C America, Inc." — the metadata caption's "KTC America" is a truncation, not a different party.
3. Disambiguation — do not conflate with the Jenner & Block lawyer. Search engines surface a prominent "David W. DeBruin" of Jenner & Block LLP (DC bar, b. 1955; Morrison v. Olson, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, Bridge v. Phoenix Bond). That is a different person from the patent litigator here (David Walter deBruin, Wilmington, DE; formerly Gawthrop Greenwood, then Napoli Shkolnik). Any biography attributing Supreme Court appellate work to this counsel should be rejected.
4. Napoli Shkolnik's later dissociation. In the parallel Delaware Cedar Lane cases, Paul J. Napoli filed letters on May 17, 2023 to Judge Richard G. Andrews "regarding dissociation of Napoli Shkolnik LLC from Plaintiff's counsel" (e.g., Cedar Lane v. TVL Int'l, 1:23‑cv‑00376‑RGA, Dkt. 8; same in Cedar Lane v. Opticon, 1:22‑cv‑01627). That post-dates the March 17, 2023 dismissal here, so it affects nothing on this docket — but it matters if Cedar Lane re-asserts the '527/'790/'242 patents against KT&C, since the firm affiliation on any refiling may differ.
5. What the public record does not show. No attorney other than deBruin appears for Cedar Lane in any retrieved docket entry; there is no indication Isaac Rabicoff (who co-counsels with deBruin on other Cedar Lane suits, per the February 2023 Retail Patent Litigation Report listing "Rabicoff Law; Napoli Shkolnik") ever entered an appearance in this D.N.J. action. Whether Rabicoff or Paul Napoli worked on the file behind the scenes is not visible on the docket. The complaint exhibits (claim charts naming the accused KT&C models) remain unavailable to me, and KT&C never appeared — no defense counsel of record exists.

Caveats on sourcing

Docket details above were retrieved from third-party aggregators (Justia Dockets, Patexia/Patexia Services, Patsnap, Law360 attorney pages), not from PACER directly; the PACER docket was last retrieved by Justia on the filing date (Aug. 16, 2022), so the full D.N.J. docket sheet — which would definitively confirm the absence of any additional appearance or PHV motion — should be pulled from PACER/CM‑ECF before this is treated as final. One Patsnap page also lists a plaintiff-firm detail as "1421 OLD WILMINGTON ROAD," which does not match the Wilmington office address confirmed in the CourtListener-filed D. Del. summons/service papers; I treat that field as a data artifact rather than a second firm.

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record using docket records and firm sources.

Key finding so far: the docket shows voluntary dismissal before any answer. Let me verify the complete docket via CourtListener and check for any defendant appearance.

Let me try to pull the actual CourtListener RECAP docket and the Feb. 2023 extension motion, which sometimes names defendant's counsel.

Counsel of Record for the Defendant — Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. KT&C America, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-05065 (D.N.J.)

Headline finding: no attorney ever appeared for KT&C America on this docket. The case was filed August 16, 2022 and terminated March 17, 2023 on Cedar Lane's unilateral Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice, three days before the defendant's (extended) answer deadline. The docket contains ten entries total, every one of them filed by or issued at the instance of the plaintiff — there is no notice of appearance, no answer, no Rule 12 motion, no corporate disclosure statement, and no stipulated dismissal signed by defense counsel. Patsnap's case record, built from the docket, likewise lists the defendant's counsel field as "Not recorded."

The only attorney of record in the case

Because the question asks specifically about defendant's counsel, the honest answer is an empty set: no lead counsel, no local counsel, no of-counsel, and no in-house attorney for KT&C America is identifiable from the public record of this case.

Why the defendant never appeared (chronology from the docket)

The dismissal notice recites the basis verbatim: "Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff CEDAR LANE TECHNOLOGIES INC. hereby dismisses this action without prejudice. Defendant has not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment." That is the strongest available confirmation that no defense appearance preceded termination.

The one unresolved thread (flagged, not filled in)

Dkt. 6 is a plaintiff-filed motion to extend the defendant's answer deadline, filed the same day service was effected. Motions of that shape are ordinarily filed as stipulated or unopposed, and the accompanying papers (or a certificate of conference) would normally name whoever was speaking for KT&C America. I could not retrieve the Dkt. 6 or Dkt. 8 PDFs, so I cannot confirm whether a defense attorney — in-house, KT&C's Korean counsel, or a U.S. firm engaged on a pre-suit/stipulation basis — was identified there. Neither the Patexia document list nor Patsnap's counsel fields surface any name. If a name exists in this case file, it exists only inside those two documents or in unrecorded correspondence.

Verification notes and caveats

• Source quality differs by docket copy. Justia's docket page shows the case as 3:22-cv-05065 and was "last retrieved on August 16, 2022," so its party/attorney block (listing only "DAVID W. DEBRUIN") proves nothing after that date. The reliable post-termination chronologies are Patexia's document list (entries through Dkt. 10) and Patsnap's litigation record (filed Aug. 16, 2022; closed Mar. 17, 2023; basis "voluntary dismissal"; 213 days).
• No separate "counsel" entry was ever created in the ECF attorney module for the defendant. ECF requires a Notice of Appearance before an attorney can file; nothing in the ten entries indicates one. A definitive negative still requires a live PACER attorney/party query (D.N.J. → "Utilities → Attorney Info" or the docket's party block), since third-party aggregators occasionally truncate the attorney roster. That check is cheap and I'd recommend running it before any filing that characterizes the defense side.
• Metadata consistency. The prompt's caption renders the defendant "KTC America"; the docket and the complaint style it "KT&C America, Inc." The court's own Justia entry uses the ampersand form. Consistent with the earlier sections, I treat "KT&C America, Inc." (U.S. subsidiary of Korea Technology and Communications Co., Ltd., Fairfield, NJ) as correct.
• No parallel proceeding fills the gap. I found no PTAB IPR, no DJ action, and no second Cedar Lane suit against KT&C America in the accessible records — so there is no related docket in which KT&C's retained patent counsel can be identified by proxy. (The '790 and '242 patents, per Patsnap, show "No validity challenges recorded.")

Practical takeaway for the litigation narrative

The absence of defense counsel is itself the substantive point: this case never became adversarial. Cedar Lane let it sit unserved for six months, was prompted by the Clerk's Rule 4(m) notice, served on the eve of that deadline, obtained a short answer extension, and then dismissed without prejudice three days before answering. That profile is characteristic of a licensing-shakeout filing rather than a litigated case, and it means any question about KT&C's litigation posture — invalidity contentions, prior art, IPR strategy — is unanswerable from this record. The patents' exposure must be assessed from the other Cedar Lane matters in the same wave, not from anything KT&C's (nonexistent) counsel did here.