Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Leica Camera, Inc.

I'll research this case across multiple sources before drafting.

Good initial data. Now let me verify the docket specifics, the possible refiling, and the PTAB/reexam history.

Rich docket detail. Now let me check PTAB/validity history, the patent's provenance, and Leica's venue connection.

Case Overview — Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. Leica Camera, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-06226 (D.N.J.)

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian patent-assertion entity (PAE/NPE) based in Nelson, British Columbia, formed around 2019; Korean IP-industry and Stanford NPE-database analyses both classify it as an NPE whose portfolio is built on acquired patents, reportedly purchased out of Intellectual Ventures' portfolio, and Unified Patents' patent portal tags it "NPE (Patent Assertion Entity)." It is a high-volume filer — third-party trackers count roughly 300–400 suits since 2019, concentrated in W.D. Tex. (before Judge Alan Albright), D. Del. (Judge Richard G. Andrews) and, to a lesser degree, D.N.J. In this case it was represented by David W. deBruin of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC (Rabicoff Law is co-counsel in many of Cedar Lane's other suits). The defendant, Leica Camera, Inc., is the U.S. subsidiary of Germany's Leica Camera AG (Wetzlar) — an operating company, not a patent holder in this dispute — selling high-end digital cameras and optics. Cedar Lane's own complaint identifies no specific accused models in its narrative; infringement is alleged through claim-chart exhibits (Exhibits 3 and 4 to the complaint), which are not reproduced on the public docket, so the precise accused Leica camera bodies cannot be confirmed from the record I reviewed — only that the theory targets Leica's digital imaging products generally.

The patents. The case as docketed asserted two related patents from the same family — U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 and U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242, both titled "Host interface for imaging arrays" (the '790 issued Dec. 6, 2005 on an application filed Dec. 21, 2000; the '242 issued Sept. 17, 2013 as a divisional on an application filed Oct. 27, 2005, with earliest priority in January 2000). The technical sketch in one line each: the '790 claims a system — an interface, preferably on the same die as a CMOS image sensor, with a FIFO/addressable buffer that stores pixel data and clocking signals, plus a signal generator that issues an interrupt or bus-request to the host processor once a threshold quantity of data has accumulated, so the processor reads at its own pace; the '242 claims the corresponding method — receiving image data, buffering it in FIFO memory, incrementing a FIFO counter, comparing the count to a limit, and generating an interrupt to trigger the host transfer. In substance this is foundational mid-1990s/2000-era sensor-readout plumbing, which is why Cedar Lane has asserted the '242 against dozens of camera, sensor, scanner and video-surveillance vendors (STMicroelectronics, OmniVision, Basler, Hasselblad, Phase One, FLIR, Ricoh, Lexmark, and more). Note that PatentSnap/Unified data record the '242 family as inactive with an estimated expiry around Aug. 1, 2023, and no PTAB IPR or ex parte reexamination on the '242 surfaced in the sources I reviewed — meaning the campaign was running against a closing damages window rather than an invalidity challenge. (Caveat: your case metadata lists only the '242; the docket, the AO-120 form and third-party litigation databases all show both the '790 and '242.)

Posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed Oct. 22, 2022 in D.N.J. and assigned to District Judge John Michael Vazquez with Magistrate Judge Jose R. Almonte, the case did not proceed on the merits — and the way it ended is the interesting part. D.N.J. was a residence-based forum (Leica's U.S. operation is New Jersey–based, and service was ultimately effected there on Feb. 24, 2023), not a plaintiff-friendly patent venue, which helps explain the trajectory. After the Clerk issued a Rule 4(m) call for dismissal on Feb. 23, 2023 (D.E. 6) for failure to serve within 90 days, Leica appeared through Arnold B. Calmann and Katherine Ann Escanlar of Saiber LLC and on Mar. 3, 2023 moved to dismiss with prejudice for failure to effect service and for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) and L. Civ. R. 41.1 (D.E. 10). Cedar Lane responded on Mar. 6 by noticing a voluntary dismissal (D.E. 11), which Judge Vazquez entered without prejudice on Mar. 8, 2023 (D.E. 12) — closing the case at 137 days. Leica then moved on Mar. 10 to vacate that dismissal (D.E. 13, with a declaration from Ali H.K. Tehrani, Esq.), while Cedar Lane refiled the identical suit the very next day, Mar. 9, 2023, as No. 2:23-cv-01322 before the same judge. That case was stayed by consent through Apr. 19, 2023 (D.E. 5 in the 2023 action), and then Cedar Lane filed a notice of dismissal with prejudice on Apr. 19, 2023, which Judge Vazquez so ordered on Apr. 20, 2023. The net effect — dismiss without prejudice to moot a Rule 4(m)/41(b) motion, refile, then dismiss with prejudice after a short stay — is a textbook illustration of how mass-filing PAEs convert a procedural loss into a quiet exit, and the short stay-then-with-prejudice sequence is consistent with (though not proof of) a settlement or license. It is also a useful data point on D.N.J.'s role as a defendant-residence venue in the 2022 wave of camera/sensor-interface suits, and on how the '242 campaign wound down as the patent neared expiry.

Sourcing notes / open items. Verified against the Justia docket mirrors for both 2:22-cv-06226 and 2:23-cv-01322 (including individual docket entries and the Saiber appearances), the Patexia and PatentSnap litigation records, Unified Patents' '242 page, and Stanford/KIPO NPE-database profiles of Cedar Lane. Not independently verified in this pass: the specific accused Leica product models (the claim charts are exhibits I could not retrieve); the "acquired from Intellectual Ventures" provenance (reported in a Korean IP-office NPE report, not confirmed by an assignment record here); the Aug. 1, 2023 expiry date (database-derived); and any settlement terms, which are not public. The "15 U.S.C. § 1126" cause-of-action code on the Justia docket appears to be a CM/ECF coding error, since the complaint pleads patent infringement.

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

Good — I have the core docket. Now let me verify the docket's final entries and look for PTAB proceedings on the '242/'790 patents.

Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. Leica Camera, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-06226 (D.N.J.)

Sourcing note. The case is a short, low-paper docket that never generated an opinion, so there is no case law or Law360/IPWatchdog coverage of the merits. The reconstruction below rests on the D.N.J. CM/ECF docket entries as republished by Justia, Patexia, and Patsnap Litigation Data (docket items and dates), plus the contemporaneous complaint in the refiled action. Where I could not verify something — notably any PTAB proceeding — I say so expressly rather than infer.

One threshold correction to the case metadata: the docket and both litigation databases show two patents asserted, U.S. 6,972,790 and U.S. 8,537,242 (the '242 is a divisional of the '790 application and shares the 2000-01-21 priority date). The case summary understates the scope by naming only the '242. Also, the docket's "cause of action" field is coded as 15 U.S.C. § 1126, a CM/ECF clerical artifact common in D.N.J. patent filings; the complaints plead infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

---

Chronological timeline

---

Phase-by-phase analysis

1. Filing and pleadings (2022-10-22 → 2023-03-03).
Cedar Lane — a Canadian NPE that was, by Lex Machina's count, the single most prolific patent plaintiff in the U.S. in 2021, with roughly 270 suits filed and a portfolio acquired largely from Intellectual Ventures — filed a two-patent, form-complaint action. The complaints in this campaign asserted direct infringement plus induced and contributory infringement and willfulness premised entirely on post-suit knowledge ("service of this Complaint ... constitutes actual knowledge"), with element-by-element proof deferred to claim-chart exhibits (Exhibits 3–4 in the parallel complaints). The accused products were not named in the body of the pleading.

Critically for everything that followed: Leica never answered, never counterclaimed, and never appeared until after the Rule 4(m) notice. There were no Rule 12(b) motions on the merits, no invalidity or inequitable-conduct counterclaims, and no patent-specific pleading skirmish. The metadata's reference to an "answer, counterclaims" phase has no counterpart in this docket.

2. The service defect and the Rule 4(m)/41(b) motion (2023-02-23 → 2023-03-03).
The case sat unserved for roughly four months — from 2022-10-22 to 2023-02-24, well beyond Rule 4(m)'s 90-day window (which ran to about 2023-01-20). The Clerk's sua sponte 4(m) call issued on 2023-02-23, returnable 2023-03-15. Cedar Lane served the next day, 2023-02-24, and Leica's counsel at Saiber appeared a week later and moved to dismiss with prejudice on three grounds: failure to effect timely service under Rule 4(m), failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b), and L. Civ. R. 41.1. This is the only substantive motion practice the case produced, and it was procedural rather than patent-focused.

3. The strategic dismissal-and-refile maneuver (2023-03-06 → 2023-03-09).
Rather than oppose the motion, Cedar Lane took a voluntary dismissal as of right on 2023-03-06 — permissible because Leica had filed no answer or summary-judgment motion — and obtained a without-prejudice dismissal order on 2023-03-08. Three days later it refiled the identical case as No. 2:23-cv-01322, this time with prompt service. The move mooted the 4(m)/41(b) motion and reset the service clock, but it also reset all deadlines and gave Leica a fresh window to answer — which is presumably why Leica immediately moved to vacate the dismissal order (Dkt. 13, 2023-03-10), seeking to preserve a with-prejudice or fee-bearing resolution rather than let Cedar Lane wash out the procedural default by refiling.

4. The stay and the negotiated ending (2023-03-16 → 2023-04-20).
The two sides then de

I'll research the docket and counsel of record for Cedar Lane Technologies v. Leica Camera.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff — Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc.

Bottom line: The docket in Cedar Lane Techs., Inc. v. Leica Camera, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-06226 (D.N.J.) reflects a single plaintiff-side attorney of record: David W. deBruin, then of Napoli Shkolnik LLC (Wilmington, Delaware office). No other plaintiff attorney appears on the docket, and no separate local counsel was designated — deBruin is himself admitted in New Jersey, so he signed directly in D.N.J.

1. David W. deBruin — lead counsel (sole counsel of record for plaintiff)

Important caveats and sourcing notes

• No second plaintiff attorney. Unlike Cedar Lane's refiled 2023 action against Leica (Cedar Lane Techs. v. Leica Camera, No. 2:23-cv-01322 (D.N.J.), filed 3/09/2023), where the complaint lists Napoli Shkolnik LLC and Rabicoff Law LLC (Isaac Rabicoff), the 2022 case's docket shows only deBruin. Do not import Rabicoff or Paul J. Napoli into the 2022 docket without a filing.
• "Notice of Appearance" exhibit. D.E. 1 carried an attachment labeled "Notice of Appreaence" (sic), but no separate notice-of-appearance docket entry by any other attorney appears in the retrieved docket; the only ECF filer for plaintiff is DEBRUIN, DAVID.
• Nothing sealed in the record as retrieved; the case ended by unopposed voluntary dismissal without prejudice (D.E. 12, 3/08/2023), with Leica's motion to vacate (D.E. 13) and a short stay (D.E. 21) following — Cedar Lane refiled as 2:23-cv-01322, which was itself dismissed ~42 days later.
• Firm attribution comes from secondary sources (Justia/Patexia/Patsnap docket mirrors plus contemporaneous signature blocks and Law360's attorney profile listing "David W. deBruin (Wilmington, DE) — Napoli Shkolnik"); PACER docket text itself lists attorney names but not firms.
• Disambiguation: a different David W. DeBruin is a Jenner & Block appellate/DC litigator — not this attorney. Don't conflate.

Recommended citation form: David W. deBruin, Napoli Shkolnik LLC, 919 N. Market St., Ste. 1801, Wilmington, DE 19801 — Counsel for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (D.E. 1, 11, 16 in No. 2:22-cv-06226).

I'll research the counsel of record for Leica Camera, Inc. in this D.N.J. case.

Let me dig into specific docket entries and verify counsel/firm affiliations.

Let me check the full docket on CourtListener and confirm which attorneys formally appeared.

Counsel of Record — Leica Camera, Inc.

Bottom line: Leica appeared through Saiber LLC (New Jersey counsel of record, Arnold B. Calmann and Katherine Ann Escanlar) with Crowell & Moring LLP (Ali H.K. Tehrani) handling the patent-side work. Both appearances were filed late in the case — March 3, 2023 (DE 8, DE 9), roughly four months after the October 22, 2022 complaint and only three days before Cedar Lane voluntarily dismissed.

Summary table

Docket grounding

• DE 8 (Mar. 3, 2023) — Notice of Appearance by Arnold B. Calmann on behalf of Leica Camera Inc.
• DE 9 (Mar. 3, 2023) — Notice of Appearance by Katherine Ann Escanlar on behalf of Leica Camera Inc.
  (Patexia docket compilation; Justia docket)
• DE 13–15 (Mar. 10, 2023) — Leica's Motion to Vacate the Order of Dismissal, including the Declaration of Ali H.K. Tehrani, Esq. (with Exs. A–C) and Leica's corporate disclosure statement — all signed/filed by Calmann.
• DE 16–21 (Mar. 16–21, 2023) — Cedar Lane's adjournment request (DE 16), Leica's opposition letter (DE 17, Calmann), the Court's one-cycle adjournment setting an Apr. 17, 2023 return date (DE 19), and a consent order staying the case through Apr. 19, 2023 (DE 20–21, Calmann), signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez.

Corroborating firm-side source: Crowell & Moring's profile for Ali Tehrani expressly lists "Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Leica Camera Inc., No. 2:22-cv-06226 (D.N.J.): Successfully represented Leica in patent dispute involving digital camera technologies" (crowell.com/en/professionals/ali-tehrani).

Important caveats

1. No formal appearance by Tehrani is visible on the docket. He appears through the DE 14 declaration, and Crowell publicly claims the representation. Whether he entered a pro hac vice appearance (or none, because the case resolved before his admission was sought) is not confirmed in the sources I could access — treat his formal "of record" status as probable but unverified.
2. Role labels are inferential. The docket contains no "lead counsel" designation. Calmann signed every substantive Leica filing (motion, letters, corporate disclosure), so he is the N.J. attorney of record driving the docket; Tehrani's declaration and Crowell's case listing indicate he was the substantive patent litigator.
3. Docket coverage is partial. The public compilations I retrieved stop at DE 21 (Mar. 21, 2023). What happened after the stay expired (Apr. 19, 2023) — including whether Leica's DE 13 motion to vacate was ever decided — is not documented in the accessible record. The case is reported as terminated Mar. 8, 2023 by voluntary dismissal without prejudice, with the post-dismissal fee/vacatur skirmish layered on top. Nothing on this docket was sealed, but several filings were minimalist one-page entries, and the complaint's claim-chart exhibits were not publicly available.
4. Related follow-on suit. Cedar Lane refiled against Leica as No. 2:23-cv-01322 (D.N.J., filed Mar. 9, 2023; dismissed Apr. 20, 2023) — same patents ('790 and '242). I did not retrieve the appearance entries for that case; given the timing and shared Crowell/Leica relationship, the same team is likely, but I have not verified it.
5. Firm office location. Saiber LLC's filings in this era used One Gateway Center, Newark, NJ; the firm has since used Florham Park and Madison, NJ addresses in other matters. I could not confirm which address appeared on the DE 8/DE 9 captions themselves.