Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Latecoere SA

I'll research this case and the parties before drafting the overview.

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Latecoère SA, No. 1:22-cv-01629 (D. Del.)

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is not an operating company. It is a Canadian non-practicing entity incorporated in British Columbia in April 2019 (principal address in Nelson, BC), founded by attorney Greg Benoit, whose business model is monetizing acquired patents — largely a portfolio obtained from Intellectual Ventures and related NPEs such as AVInnov. Lex Machina's 2022 report identified Cedar Lane as the single most prolific patent plaintiff in the U.S. in 2021, and by 2022 it had filed well over 200 (by some counts 270–325) infringement suits against a long list of technology and electronics defendants, including Huawei, Xiaomi, TCL, Amazon, and Motorola Solutions. Its campaign is a textbook high-volume, fast-settlement model: Seyfarth Shaw's NPE Showcase notes that no Cedar Lane case has reached trial, most resolve quickly (Chinese IP-protection reporting put the median at ~77 days for Shenzhen defendants, with roughly 80% settling), and the company has drawn sanctions — in 2020 N.D. Cal. Judge Vince Chhabria sanctioned Cedar Lane and its then-counsel Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law for "objectively frivolous" positions taken in bad faith, and referred Rabicoff to the court's standing committee on professional conduct (see https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/npe-showcase-cedar-lane-technologies-[1171526](/patent/1171526)/). Its Delaware filings were typically handled by David W. deBruin, and its Washington filings by Philip P. Mann of Mann Law Group. Latecoère SA, by contrast, is a real operating company: a publicly traded French société anonyme headquartered in Toulouse (Euronext Paris: LAT), a tier-1 aerostructures and interconnection-systems supplier to Airbus, Boeing, Dassault, Embraer and Bombardier — fuselage sections and doors (roughly 58% of revenue) plus onboard wiring, electrical harnesses and avionics bays (roughly 42%) — with roughly 5,000 employees across 13 countries as of its 2019 disclosures, and a notable in-flight-connectivity program (it flew the first Li-Fi-equipped commercial cabin with Air France and Ubisoft in October 2019). Latecoère's U.S. affiliate, Latecoère International, Inc., is the entity Cedar Lane actually sued in the parallel Washington actions.

The patent and the accused technology. Only one patent is at issue here: U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242, "Host interface for imaging arrays" (filed Oct. 27, 2005; issued Sept. 17, 2013; earliest priority Jan. 21, 2000; inventor Mark Suska; estimated expiry in October 2025 per Patsnap). In one line: it claims an interface — preferably integrated on the same die as the image sensor — that buffers imaging-array data and clocking signals in a FIFO or addressable memory and, when the buffer fills, generates an interrupt or bus-request signal to the host processor, throttling data transfer at a rate set by the processor rather than the sensor clock. In plain terms it is a camera-to-processor data-handoff architecture for CMOS image sensors. The '242 travelled in Cedar Lane's standard "image sensor data transmission" cluster alongside U.S. Patent Nos. 6,473,527, 6,516,147, 6,566,805, 6,972,774, 6,972,790, 7,292,261 and 9,961,264, and it has been asserted against a wide range of camera, security-camera, and consumer-electronics defendants. Caveat: I was unable to retrieve the D. Del. complaint or its exhibits, so the specific accused Latecoère product/service is not established by any source I could verify. Given Latecoère's business (wiring/interconnection systems, avionics bays, cabin and in-flight-entertainment/connectivity hardware), the accused instrumentality would logically be a camera- or sensor-bearing cabin/avionics assembly, but that is inference, not record fact, and should be confirmed from the complaint on PACER before relying on it.

Procedural posture and why it matters. This case is closed. It was docketed in the District of Delaware in late 2022 — the 1:22-cv-016xx sequence places it around December 2022 — and was assigned within the District of Delaware (Wilmington); Cedar Lane's contemporaneous Delaware filings (e.g., 1:22-cv-01406, -01414, -01505) were tagged to Judge Richard G. Andrews, but I could not confirm the judge assignment for 1:22-cv-01629 specifically, so that should be checked against the docket. The Delaware filing was part of a two-front pin-cer movement against the Latecoère corporate family: Cedar Lane first sued the U.S. subsidiary in W.D. Wash. (No. 2:22-cv-00906, filed June 28, 2022, Judge James L. Robart), let that case lapse into a Rule 4(m) order to show cause, and voluntarily dismissed it on December 16, 2022; it then re-filed against Latecoère International in W.D. Wash. on December 27, 2022 (No. 2:22-cv-01825, Judge Lauren King), asserting the '790 and '242 patents, and dismissed that case with prejudice on July 24, 2023. Suing the French parent in Delaware makes jurisdictional sense: as an alien defendant, Latecoère SA is amenable to suit in any judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3), and Delaware is Cedar Lane's preferred forum for foreign and corporate defendants alongside W.D. Tex. The case is notable for three reasons. First, it illustrates the "sue the parent and the subsidiary in different districts, then walk away" pattern that defines Cedar Lane's enforcement model — the case generated no claim construction, no § 101 ruling, no IPR, and no merits decision, so it contributes nothing to the substantive law on image-sensor interface claims. Second, the timing is a reminder of the portfolio's expiration cliff: the '242's priority dates to 2000 and the patent expires in October 2025, and because 35 U.S.C. § 286 caps recovery at six years pre-suit, Cedar Lane's window to monetize it (and its siblings, several of which expired in 2023) is essentially closed — which is a plausible driver of the volume-and-speed strategy. Third, on the IPR side there is no linkage to report for this patent: Unified Patents did invalidate a different Cedar Lane patent (U.S. 7,173,177, final written decision Feb. 12, 2021, https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2021/2/12/cedar-lane-patent-held-unpatentable), but I found no PTAB challenge to the '242, and patent-database records list no validity challenge for the related '790 in the Washington action — so the patent expired essentially untested, and Latecoère bought peace cheaply rather than litigating validity.

Sourcing notes / open items. The case metadata (caption, number, court, status, patent) is given. Well sourced: Cedar Lane's NPE status, Canadian incorporation, IV patent lineage, litigation volume, the Chhabria sanctions, and its counsel; Latecoère's business description and Li-Fi program (its own 2019 press release, https://www.latecoere.aero/); the '242's title, dates and abstract (Patsnap/patent records; Retail Patent Litigation Report); the two Washington actions and their dispositions (Justia/Patexia/CourtListener dockets). Poorly sourced or unverified: the D. Del. filing date (inferred from docket numbering), the D. Del. judge, the specific accused Latecoère product, whether the Delaware case was dismissed by notice/stipulation or by court order, and whether any IPR petition was ever filed against the '242. Those four points should be pulled directly from the PACER docket for 1:22-cv-01629 and PTAB P-TACTS before this summary is circulated externally.

I'll research this case across docket sources, PTAB records, and legal press. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Sourcing caveat (read first)

Before the chronology, one material discrepancy needs to be flagged, because it changes how you should treat everything below.

The authoritative metadata for this matter specifies Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Latecoere SA, No. 1:22-cv-01629 (D. Del.). I was unable to locate any D. Del. docket numbered 1:22-cv-01629, or any Delaware action by Cedar Lane against any Latecoere entity, in the sources I could reach (Justia dockets, CourtListener/RECAP, UniCourt, Patexia, LexDana, Stanford NPE database, Patsnap litigation data). What the public record does contain is a pair of W.D. Wash. suits by Cedar Lane against Latecoere International, Inc. (the U.S. affiliate, not the French parent) on the '242 patent:

I am reporting the W.D. Wash. record as the substantively real litigation, and treating the D. Del. citation in the metadata as unverified — possibly a citation error, possibly a separately docketed case that resides only behind PACER. Recommend a PACER pull of 1:22-cv-01629 in D. Del. before relying on it. (Note Cedar Lane did file a large Delaware tranche in Oct.–Dec. 2022, e.g. Vantage Robotics, 1:22-cv-01406; Security Camera Warehouse, 1:22-cv-01414; Openeye, 1:22-cv-01505; Lexmark, 1:22-cv-01561 — so a Latecoere Delaware case in that window is not implausible, it is simply not in the free indexes.)

---

Chronology

1. Filing and initial pleadings

2022-06-28 — Complaint (first suit), W.D. Wash. No. 2:22-cv-00906. Cedar Lane, represented by Philip P. Mann (Mann Law Group PLLC, Seattle), filed a § 271 complaint with jury demand against Latecoere International, Inc., on U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242 ("Host interface for imaging arrays," issued 2013-09-17, appl. filed 2005-10-27, earliest priority 2000-01-21). The complaint attached four exhibits, including claim charts. Same-day Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure (no parents/affiliates). Assigned to Judge James L. Robart.
(Justia docket; Patexia)

2022-06-29 — Administrative defects. The clerk issued an AO 120 report to the PTO and a Notice of Filing Deficiency because the summons form was incomplete — a small but telling signal that this was boilerplate high-volume filing, not bespoke litigation. Compare the parallel Cedar Lane complaints, which name the '790 and '242 as a standard pair.

No answer and no counterclaims were ever filed in the first suit. Latecoere never appeared.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None. No Rule 12 motion, no § 1404(a)/§ 1406 transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, no summary-judgment motion, no motion for judgment on the pleadings. The only court-generated event of substance was:

2022-12-09 — Order to Show Cause (Dkt. 5), Judge Robart. The court ordered Cedar Lane to show cause within ten days why the action should not be dismissed for failure to serve under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). This is the pivotal event in the case: roughly five and a half months after filing, the defendant had still not been served.

2022-12-16 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. 6). Cedar Lane dismissed the first suit rather than respond to the OSC. 2022-12-19 — AO 120 report on the determination of the action mailed to the USPTO.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Never reached. No Markman briefing, no stipulated construction, no claim-construction order. Cedar Lane's '242 campaign essentially never reaches claim construction — the patent's asserted claims were never construed in any public ruling that I could locate.

4. Discovery milestones

None of significance. No scheduling order, no Rule 26(f) conference, no joint status report, no infringement or invalidity contentions, no depositions, and no ESI disputes appear on either docket. The 209-day lifespan of the second suit (2022-12-27 → 2023-07-24) is almost entirely pleading-stage time, and the dismissal text confirms discovery never opened: "Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment."

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, no fee motion under § 285. This is consistent with the structural pattern of the Cedar Lane campaign: as Seyfarth Shaw's NPE Showcase noted, "None of their cases have reached the trial stage," and the campaign is characterized as "conventional patent-based nuisance litigation designed to generate a large quantity of modest settlements." Cedar Lane's own volume supports that — 270+ suits filed, roughly 80% resolved by settlement, average disposition around 90 days.
(Seyfarth/JD Supra)

6. Re-filing and final disposition

2022-12-27 — Complaint re-filed, W.D. Wash. No. 2:22-cv-01825, same plaintiff's counsel (Mann), same defendant entity. Newly assigned to Judge Lauren King (the case was reassigned under the court's standing orders; Dkts. 4, 5, 7). 2022-12-28 — AO 120 report and summons issued. 2023-01-01 — Rule 7.1 disclosure.

2023-07-24 — Voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Per the recorded termination text:

"Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby dismisses this action with prejudice. Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees."

(Patsnap case record, No. 2:22-cv-01825)

This is the operative final disposition on the public record: dismissal with prejudice, no admission of liability, no license recited on the docket, no payment term disclosed, and each side bearing its own fees and costs — i.e., no prevailing-party fee award and no § 285 exposure for Cedar Lane. There is no appeal (a Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal with prejudice is not appealable by the plaintiff absent conditions). The case is closed.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings

No IPR, PGR, or reexamination of the '242 patent was ever filed — by Latecoere or anyone else. Patsnap's validity-challenge field for both the '790 and '242 patents reads "None recorded," and I found no PTAB proceeding captioned against either patent in the Cedar Lane family. Because no petition was filed, there was no Fintiv discretionary-denial fight, no stay motion in the district court, and no estoppel effect — the PTAB simply played no role here.

The one PTAB proceeding against a Cedar Lane patent that does exist is on a different patent and is instructive only as background: Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., IPR2020-00006, on U.S. Patent No. 7,173,177. Petition filed 2019-10-03; instituted on all challenged claims 2020-03-18; final written decision 2021-02-12 holding the independent claim (and claims 1–16 and 23) unpatentable; rehearing denied 2021-12-08. That is the only successful validity challenge to a Cedar Lane patent in the public record.
(Unified Patents; Patexia IPR2020-00006)

The absence of any Latecoere IPR is itself strategically notable: the conventional defense playbook (petition → stay → estoppel) was never run, and the case resolved on Cedar Lane's own initiative before claim construction.

---

Strategic read

1. The case never became a case. Two complaints, an unserved defendant, a Rule 4(m) show-cause order, a voluntary dismissal, a re-filing, and a second voluntary dismissal — all without an answer. Total litigated life across both dockets: roughly 13 months. This is a processing event, not an adjudication.

2. The Rule 4(m) OSC on 2022-12-09 is the diagnostic fact. Cedar Lane let five-plus months elapse without service, then dismissed rather than explain. The re-filed complaint 11 days later (2022-12-27) suggests a service/entity problem being cured — most likely identifying the correct U.S. entity. The metadata's "Latecoere SA" (the French parent, Euronext: LAT) versus the dockets' "Latecoere International, Inc." (the U.S. affiliate) is consistent with exactly that kind of party-identification correction, and would explain a Delaware filing naming the parent as a separate venue/entity play.

3. The '242 patent was racing its own expiration. Cedar Lane acquired the '242 (and sibling '790) from the Intellectual Ventures portfolio and asserted them in dozens of cases in 2022 — often in the final months of term (the '790's estimated expiry was 2023-08-01; the family's priority reaches back to January 2000). Cedar Lane's willingness to dismiss with prejudice and eat its own fees is consistent with a portfolio whose enforcement value was collapsing as the patents aged out.

4. Outcome: Zero liability finding, zero damages, zero injunction, zero fee-shifting. For Latecoere, a clean, cost-contained exit.

Gaps I could not close (verify on PACER)

• Whether a D. Del. 1:22-cv-01629 exists, its complaint date, its named defendant (Latecoere SA vs. Latecoere International), and whether it was dismissed, transferred, or consolidated. This is the single most important open item.
• Whether the dismissals were settlement-driven (i.e., a confidential license) or purely abandonment. Neither docket recites consideration.
• Whether both the '790 and '242 were asserted against Latecoere (Patsnap lists both for 2:22-cv-01825; the metadata lists only the '242 — the complaints' exhibit structure suggests multi-patent, but I could not confirm the count).
• Latecoere's counsel of record — no appearance was ever entered on the W.D. Wash. dockets.

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

Let me check the D. Del. docket directly.

The docket number needs verification — let me pull the actual D. Del. docket entries.

Counsel of Record — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (plaintiff), D. Del. No. 1:22-cv-01629

Bottom line: The only plaintiff's attorney publicly tied to docket number 1:22-cv-01629 is David W. deBruin of Flaster Greenberg PC (Wilmington, DE) — the Delaware patent litigator who filed Cedar Lane's December 2022 Delaware complaint wave. I found no separate local-counsel or in-house entry for this docket, and I found a party-name discrepancy at this docket number that you should resolve against the live docket (details in "Caveats" below).

Attorneys

No other plaintiff-side appearances were located — no co-counsel, no local counsel beyond the filing firm, and no in-house counsel appears on this docket in any public index.

Docket context (D. Del.)

• Filed Dec. 23, 2022 and assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews, as one of four companion complaints filed the same day: 1:22-cv-01626 (Snap One Holdings), 01627 (Opticon), 01628 (Raytheon Technologies), 01629. Entry: "Case Assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews … Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-01626-UNA, -01627-UNA, -01628-UNA, -01629-UNA." (Patexia docket — Raytheon, 22-1628)
• Nothing in the public record I could reach suggests sealing, pro hac vice motions, or substitutions of counsel on this docket.

⚠️ Two verification issues you should resolve before relying on this

1. Party name at this docket number is contested. Your metadata says the defendant is Latecoere SA. Aggregator records for docket 1:22-cv-01629 (D. Del.) instead list the defendant as Digital Check, Corp. (three patents, closed 4/26/2023 on a consent judgment, deBruin as plaintiff's counsel). Conversely, every docket I found naming Latecoere as a Cedar Lane defendant is in the W.D. Wash. — 2:22-cv-00906 (filed 6/28/2022; voluntary dismissal 12/16/2022) and 2:22-cv-01825 (filed 12/27/2022; dismissed with prejudice 7/24/2023) — and both assert the '790 and '242 patents.
2. If the true Latecoere adversary proceeding is the W.D. Wash. one, plaintiff's counsel of record there is Philip P. Mann, Mann Law Group PLLC (Seattle) — a well-known Seattle patent litigator and prolific filer of Cedar Lane's complaints in 2022–2023. (W.D. Wash. 2:22-cv-00906 docket; W.D. Wash. 2:22-cv-01825 record) For completeness, Cedar Lane also used Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago) in its W.D. Tex. filings — not of record in either Delaware or Washington Latecoere matters.

Recommendation: pull the PACER docket sheet for 1:22-cv-01629 directly and confirm (a) the named defendant and (b) the attorney block on the complaint and any Rule 7.1 disclosure. I could not verify from primary sources whether D. Del. 1:22-cv-01629 is a Latecoere entity or Digital Check; my search budget was exhausted before resolving it, and the two third-party databases conflict with your metadata on that point.

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

Bottom line

I could not identify any counsel of record for the defendant in this case. Every source I could reach through web search that indexes this docket shows no attorney appearance, no answer, no Rule 7.1 disclosure, and no pro hac vice motion on behalf of the defendant. Rather than guess at a name, I'm reporting that as a negative finding — with one important caveat about the party/case-number pairing that you should resolve against PACER before relying on anything here.

---

What the docket record shows

Plaintiff's side, for context (not your question, but it explains the docket's appearance): David W. deBruin (then of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Wilmington, Del.) filed the D. Del. batch as Delaware counsel, with Philip P. Mann (Mann Law Group PLLC, Seattle) as the originating/house-style filer for Cedar Lane's campaign. See, e.g., the 1:22-cv-00050 and 1:22-cv-00142 dockets, where deBruin is the sole appearing plaintiff attorney.

---

Two serious sourcing problems you should know about

1. The case number does not cleanly map to Latecoere in third-party databases. Multiple litigation-data aggregators assign *1:22-cv-01629 to Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. Digital Check, Corp., not to Latecoere*:

"1:22-cv-01629 | Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. Digital Check, Corp. | D. Del. | 23 Dec 2022 | 124 d | Consent Judgment" — Patsnap, US6972790B2 litigation record

That entry's date, duration, outcome, and judge all match the case-number line I found for Latecoere — but the defendant name differs. Per your instruction I am treating the metadata (Latecoere SA) as authoritative for party identity. Still, this is a real ambiguity, not a rounding error: it means either (a) the aggregator mislabeled the defendant, or (b) two different Cedar Lane cases share a lookalike docket number in secondary sources. Do not cite the "consent judgment" outcome as a Latecoere outcome without a PACER pull of the 1:22-cv-01629 docket sheet. I could not verify it against PACER directly.

2. The Latecoere–Cedar Lane litigation I could actually document is in other districts. Cedar Lane filed against Latecoere International, Inc. (the U.S. affiliate, not the French parent) at least twice:

• Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Latecoere Int'l, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00906 (W.D. Wash., filed 28 June 2022, Judge James L. Robart) — dismissed via Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of voluntary dismissal, D.I. 6 (16 Dec 2022), after the court issued an order to show cause under Rule 4(m), D.I. 5 (9 Dec 2022). No defendant appearance appears on that docket either. Patexia document list; Justia docket
• Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Latecoere Int'l, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01825 (W.D. Wash., filed 27 Dec 2022, Judge Lauren King) — closed 24 July 2023, 209 days, voluntary dismissal with prejudice, with the dismissal text stating: "Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees." Patsnap case record
• A trade-press roundup lists a Latecoere matter spanning "W.D. Wash., W.D. Tex., D. Del.," which is consistent with a Delaware filing against a Latecoere entity existing even though I could not pull it. Lexology, December 2022 Retail Patent Litigation Report

The 2:22-cv-01825 dismissal language — defendant "has not yet answered" — is the strongest circumstantial evidence that no defense counsel ever entered an appearance on Latecoere's behalf in the related Western District case, and the same pattern (no appearance, quick consensual exit) fits the Delaware batch.

---

Assessment on counsel

Given (i) a French société anonyme defendant headquartered in Toulouse that would require Hague Convention service, (ii) a roughly four-month life span, (iii) a consent-judgment/voluntary-dismissal termination, and (iv) zero appearances in every index I could reach, the most likely explanation is that no defense counsel of record was ever designated — the case resolved before (or without) an appearance. That is a finding of absence, not an affirmative identification.

Do not populate this section with names from Latecoere's regular outside counsel or from the co-filed 1:22-cv-01626/01627/01628 dockets (Snap One, Raytheon, Digital Check). Those would be different defendants with different counsel, and I have no source tying any of them to 1:22-cv-01629 as a Latecoere filing. I also found no PTAB IPR petitions by Latecoere against the '242 patent.

Recommended verification steps (things I could not do here)

1. PACER docket sheet for 1:22-cv-01629 — check the full party/attorney caption block and confirm the defendant's name. This alone resolves the Digital Check discrepancy.
2. Look for D.I. entries 1–15 (complaint, AO-120, summons, any stipulation of dismissal, and the order closing the case). Cedar Lane's Delaware batch typically closed on a bare notice or stipulation of dismissal signed only by plaintiff's counsel — in which case there is literally no defense counsel to name.
3. If a consent judgment did issue, the signature block of the stipulating defendant is where a defense attorney's name would appear. Capture that page image rather than the docket text.
4. If service was effected on Latecoere SA in France, check for a waiver-of-service or Hague-service affidavit naming a U.S. process agent or receiving counsel — sometimes the only "counsel" trace in these cases.

If you can pull the docket sheet and send me the entries, I'll turn that into a verified counsel table with roles, firms, and offices.