Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. LG Electronics

I'll research this case across the sources you named.

Case Overview: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. LG Electronics (U.S. Patent 6,972,790)

Parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business at 560 Baker Street, Suite 1, Nelson, British Columbia — a small mountain town in the Selkirk range that serves as the company's only listed address (Cedar Lane complaint, Cedar Lane v. Alps Alpine N. Am., W.D. Wash. No. 2:23-cv-00001, Dkt. 1 ¶ 2, via CourtListener). It was incorporated in March 2019 and has no operating business, products, or website; contemporaneous reporting describes it as a patent-assertion entity that acquired a portfolio of roughly 50 patents "either directly or indirectly from Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV)" (RPX/Mondaq, Defendant Count in Cedar Lane Technologies's Campaign Ticks Past 150, Jan. 31, 2022; invidis, Oct. 21, 2020). Its president is Greg Benoit (IAM, Examining the Practice of Cedar Lane Technologies – America's Top-Filing NPE, Mar. 20, 2023), and its complaints in this campaign were signed by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (docket text reproduced at Patexia). LG Electronics is a Korean consumer-electronics manufacturer; the named defendant of record in this suit was LG Electronics USA Inc., the U.S. subsidiary, with the Suwon-based parent LG Electronics Inc. as the ultimate accused-party interest. Cedar Lane is purely a licensor/enforcer here; LG is the operating company.

Accused technology. The suit was filed in the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, on April 17, 2020, as No. 1:20-cv-00413, one of three complaints Cedar Lane filed that same day in Austin (the others were against Amazon, 1:20-cv-00415, and ON Semiconductor, 1:20-cv-00414). RPX's docket profile records 49 accused products and classifies the market sector as "Mobile Communications and Devices" (RPX Insight, litigation/txwdce-1095235). As is uniform across this campaign, infringement is pleaded through claim charts appended as exhibits to an amended complaint (Dkt. 8, filed May 6, 2020, with 23 attachments), rather than through element-by-element narrative pleading — the docket shows 27 pages of complaint text and hundreds of pages of charts. Contemporaneous reporting characterized the LG action as targeting LG's webOS-based media player/smart-TV products (invidis, Oct. 21, 2020), which fits the patent's subject matter: the '790 claims a data path for pixel data coming off an image sensor, i.e., the camera/imaging front end of a device. I did not locate a public, unsealed source identifying the specific accused LG model numbers in this case; any statement about the precise LG product list would be speculation.

The asserted patent. U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790, "Host interface for imaging arrays," issued December 6, 2005, on an application filed December 21, 2000, naming Mark Suska and originally assigned to Psion Teklogix Systems Inc. (Canada) — a Canadian-origin asset consistent with Cedar Lane's own Nelson, BC base (complaint ¶ 16, reproduced in the RPX document set; bibliographic data per the Chinese IP protection-center risk alert summarizing the '790 family). One-line technical sketch: it claims an interface, preferably integrated on the same die as the image sensor, comprising a buffer (a FIFO or addressable memory) that absorbs imaging-array data at the sensor's clock rate, a signal generator that asserts an interrupt or bus-request to the host processor once a threshold amount of data is buffered, and control circuitry that clocks data out to the processor at a rate the processor selects. Note a discrepancy worth flagging: the case metadata lists only the '790, but the operative amended complaint in 1:20-cv-00413 asserted eleven patents, with the '790 as Exhibit 5, alongside family member 8,537,242 (same title, issued 2013) and unrelated assets such as the 6,473,527 JPEG-compression patent and the 8,165,867 device-command/remote-control patent (RPX case profile; complaint ¶¶ 14–29). The '790 and '242 travel together as a two-patent family in most of Cedar Lane's imaging suits.

Posture, venue, and significance. Assigned to Judge Robert L. Pitman (RPX), the case never reached claim construction, Markman, or trial. RPX reported in October 2020 that "Cedar Lane's suit against LG Electronics is stayed pending dismissal" (RPX/Mondaq, Cedar Lane, Elsewhere Ordered to Show Cause in Light of Failure to Prosecute, Targets Streaming Services in Another Round of Suits, Oct. 26, 2020) — the same "stayed pending dismissal" status carried in this case file — and the docket closed on January 6, 2021, 265 days after filing. The stay-plus-dismissal sequence is the campaign's signature: a settlement is reached, a dismissal motion is trailed, and the case terminates without any merits ruling or public settlement figure. Venue mattered greatly: W.D. Tex. was the dominant patent-plaintiff forum of 2020–2022 (Judge Albright's Waco docket in particular), and Cedar Lane was its single heaviest customer — the top patent filer of any plaintiff in 2022, with a reported 96% settlement rate among terminated cases (IAM, Mar. 20, 2023), and 400-plus suits filed overall (Lexdana tallies 438 as plaintiff). The economics are micro-scale per defendant: in the parallel June 2021 W.D. Tex. suit against Chinese camera maker Reolink (睿联数字) on the '790, '867 and '242, the parties settled for US$10,000 plus a perpetual worldwide license nine weeks after filing (IPRdaily, Apr. 1, 2024). The case's notability is therefore structural rather than doctrinal: it illustrates (i) the secondary market in IV-origin patents flowing to a Canadian NPE, (ii) high-volume, chart-driven assertion of a 2000-vintage Canadian sensor-interface patent against camera-equipped consumer devices, and (iii) a defensive-response ecosystem — Unified Patents ran a PATROLL crowdsourcing contest for prior art on the co-asserted '867 patent, paying a $3,000 award in

I'll research this case across multiple sources.

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. LG Electronics USA Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00413 (W.D. Tex., Austin Div.)

Scope note / sourcing. The public docket is thin and the case never progressed past pleading-stage activity, so the record below is reconstructed from RPX Insight's docket summary, Patexia's document list, the NPE Litigation Database (Stanford), IPWatchdog's filing roundups, and contemporaneous trade reporting (Mondaq, 2020-10-26). I was not able to pull the full PACER docket line-by-line; where the terminating entry or a filing is not documented in the sources I could access, I say so explicitly rather than infer a filing.

Caption correction. The named defendant in this docket was LG Electronics USA Inc. (not LG Electronics Inc.); the Korean parent was not a party. The case asserted a family/multi-patent package — the '790 patent plus its divisional '242 and a set of unrelated Cedar Lane/Intellectual Ventures assets — not the '790 alone. Per RPX, the case carried 11 patents-in-suit and 49 accused products. The "'790-family" framing in the existing summary is accurate for the imaging-array patents, but the '790 was one count among many, which matters strategically (see "why this case died," below).

---

Chronology of key developments

What did not happen

• No motion to dismiss, transfer, or § 1404/§ 1406 ruling. No venue or § 101 motion practice is recorded.
• No stay pending IPR. No IPR was filed on the '790, so no Fintiv/§ 314(a) stay motion was ever presented. The stay that existed was a prosecution/dismissal-track stay, not an IPR stay.
• No Markman. The case closed before claim construction; there is no claim-construction order on the '790 (claim 1: interface with FIFO/addressable memory, signal generator responsive to data quantity, processor-rate transfer circuit). Any "construction" of the '790 in the public record comes from later-filed Cedar Lane complaints reciting the claim language, not from a court.
• No discovery milestones of note. No fact discovery, no expert reports, no § 284 damages contentions.
• No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial, or § 285 fee motion. Nothing.
• No appeal.

Parallel PTAB proceedings

I found no IPR or PGR challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 in the accessible public record. The only PTAB proceeding against a Cedar Lane patent in this window that I could verify is unrelated to the '790: Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., IPR2020-00006 (petition 2019-10-03; instituted 2020-03-18; final written decision 2021-02-12), holding the independent claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,173,177 unpatentable on behalf of Unified's members (Unified represented in-house by Michelle Callaghan and Roshan Mansinghani, with Husch Blackwell). That decision had no effect on the LG case — different patent, and the case was already on a stay-to-dismissal track.

Caveat: my PTAB search was not exhaustive (I was cut off before completing separate PTAB docket sweeps), so treat "no IPR on the '790" as "none found," not as a certified negative.

Strategic read: why the case ended this way

Three structural features, in my assessment, made this a low-value vehicle that Cedar Lane had little incentive to litigate:

1. Term exposure. The '790 issued from an application filed 2000-12-21, so its statutory term ran out around 2020-12-21 absent significant patent term adjustment or a terminal-disclaimer/continuation-chain wrinkle — i.e., within weeks of the case's closure date (2021-01-06). For practical purposes the '790's damages window was closing as the case was filed. (This is an inference from the face of the patent; I did not verify the PTA calculation or a terminal disclaimer.)
2. Shotgun pleading. Eleven patents in an amended complaint with exhibits-heavy claim charts and no product-specific narrowing is the classic Cedar Lane template — calibrated to license-extraction, not to a Markman

Bottom line

On the only Cedar Lane‑v‑LG docket I can locate for the '790 patent — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. LG Electronics USA Inc., No. 1:20‑cv‑00413 (W.D. Tex., Austin Div.) (Judge Robert L. Pitman), filed 4/17/2020 and closed 1/6/2021 after a notice of voluntary dismissal — exactly one attorney appeared for Cedar Lane: Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago, IL). He was the sole signatory on every plaintiff‑side filing, from the notice of appearance through the dismissal. No local counsel, no second/firm counsel, and no in‑house lawyer appears on the docket text I could retrieve.

⚠️ Verification caveat on the caption: the case metadata gives the defendant as "LG Electronics," but the docketed defendant in 1:20‑cv‑00413 is LG Electronics USA Inc., and that case asserted the '790 patent (among 11 patents‑in‑suit). I found no separate Cedar Lane suit against "LG Electronics Inc." (as opposed to the USA entity) in the sources checked, including the Stanford NPE Litigation Database's '790 case list. If your file refers to a different/newer LG filing, counsel may differ — I could not confirm one, so treat the below as applying to 1:20‑cv‑00413.

Plaintiff's counsel of record

Notes on scope of the entry:

• The docket reflects no answer, motion to dismiss, or appearance by any LG entity — LG's response deadline was extended four times (to 9/28/2020) before the case was stayed (D.I. 19, staying through 11/12/2020) and then voluntarily dismissed (D.I. 22; closure order D.I. 23, 1/6/2021). That is consistent with your "stayed pending dismissal" status flag.
• No pro hac vice motion or local‑counsel designation by plaintiff appears in the docket text I retrieved. Because W.D. Tex. requires a sponsoring member for PHV admission, there may be a sponsor not captured in the available docket extracts; I could not verify one, so I am not naming any local counsel.
• No in‑house counsel for Cedar Lane (a Canadian NPE; principal address 560 Baker Street, Suite 1, Nelson, BC) appears anywhere on the docket.
• Not counsel in this case: David W. deBruin (Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE) is Cedar Lane's usual Delaware local counsel (e.g., D. Del. cases captioned 22‑cv‑00011, 22‑cv‑00058, 23‑cv‑00376) and Paul J. Napoli's firm (Napoli Shkolnik) appeared in some Cedar Lane D. Del. matters before dissociating in 2023 — neither firm appears on the LG docket.

Sources

• Docket text for Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA Inc., No. 1:20‑cv‑00413 (W.D. Tex.), as reproduced at Patexia Research, https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-LG-Electronics-USA-Inc-id-[136405](/patent/136405)/documents; RPX Insight, https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txwdce-1095235 (filed 4/17/2020, closed 1/6/2021, Judge Robert L. Pitman, 11 patents‑in‑suit).
• Appearance dockets evidencing Rabicoff as Cedar Lane's filing counsel: Unified Patents litigation portal entries for 1:19‑cv‑01207 and 6:22‑cv‑00018; UniCourt dockets for 2:19‑cv‑00368 and 6:21‑cv‑00429; PACER Monitor docket for Cedar Lane v. Bank of America, 2:25‑cv‑01225 (Rabicoff Law LLC).
• Stanford NPE Litigation Database, '790 patent case list, https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/6972790 (no LG defendant beyond the 2020 W.D. Tex. action).
• Complaint text confirming the '790 patent ("Host interface for imaging arrays," issued 12/6/2005) is the asserted patent in Cedar Lane's LG‑era pleadings, e.g., https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.[317813](/patent/317813)/gov.uscourts.wawd.317813.1.0.pdf.

If you want, I can next (a) pull the full PACER docket for 1:20‑cv‑00413 to confirm whether any PHV sponsor or additional appearance exists that the aggregators truncated, or (b) map Cedar Lane's current LG‑facing counsel in any post‑2021 filing.

I'll research this docket. Let me start with several searches in parallel.

Let me pull the actual docket entries for the LG case.

Interesting — the LG docket appears to have no defense appearances. Let me verify that and check for other Cedar Lane–LG suits.

Bottom line

I could not identify any counsel of record for LG in this case — because the public docket shows none ever appeared. This is a verified negative, not a research gap: in the Cedar Lane–LG case matching your metadata, every substantive filing from the complaint through dismissal was made by Plaintiff's counsel. No notice of appearance, answer, motion, or pro hac vice application was ever filed on LG's behalf.

The case

Your metadata (patent 6,972,790; status "Stayed pending dismissal") maps to:

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. LG Electronics USA Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00413 (W.D. Tex., Austin Div.), filed Apr. 17, 2020, assigned to Judge Robert L. Pitman (transferred from Judge Lee Yeakel, Dkt. 7), closed Jan. 6, 2021.

The "stayed pending dismissal" status is confirmed contemporaneously: Cedar Lane, Elsewhere Ordered To Show Cause…, Mondaq (Oct. 26, 2020) — "Cedar Lane's suit against LG Electronics is stayed pending dismissal." (link)

Docket chronology — who filed what

Source: PACER docket as mirrored at Patexia and RPX Insight (49 accused products, 11 patents-in-suit per RPX; the '790 patent was one of the asserted patents, and '242 its divisional).

Why there is no defense counsel to name

Several features of the docket are unusual and diagnostic:

1. The plaintiff, not the defendant, moved for every extension of LG's responsive deadline (Dkts. 12, 13, 15, 16) — four successively, with Judge Pitman noting on the third that it was "the third extension of time that Plaintiff has requested." Extension motions filed by the plaintiff rather than defense counsel typically indicate the defendant had not yet retained counsel of record and the parties were negotiating directly.
2. LG never answered or moved — the case ran 265 days and terminated by voluntary dismissal without prejudice to any defense pleading.
3. No pro hac vice applications, no notices of appearance, no corporate disclosure statement by LG appear on the docket. In the W.D. Tex. of that era, any out-of-state LG counsel would have required a PHV motion, which would be docketed.
4. The "joint" status reports (Dkts. 17, 21) were filed solely by Rabicoff, consistent with defense participation occurring informally (settlement discussions) rather than through an appearance.

Caveat: the docket I reconstructed is from commercial mirrors (Patexia, RPX) of the PACER sheet; I did not pull the underlying PDFs of Dkts. 17/18/21. Those documents may name LG's in-house or outside counsel in signature blocks or certificates of service even though no appearance was entered. If you need the names of the attorneys who actually negotiated the standstill, Dkts. 17, 18 (unopposed stay motion) and 21 are the documents to order from PACER. Nothing in the public record suggests any filing was sealed in this case.

Do not attribute these to this case

For the avoidance of doubt, the following LG counsel appear in other patent matters and are not counsel of record here — I flag them only so they aren't mistakenly imported into a case file:

• Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (Palo Alto / Chicago / D.C. / Houston) — Austin Zuck, Jason E. Gettleman, Jason C. White, Michael Sikora, Collin W. Park, Brooke Quesinberry, Natalie A. Bennett, Nicholas A. Restauri, Susan K. Stradley — for LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics USA, Inc. in Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00494 (E.D. Tex.), with Gillam & Smith LLP (Melissa Richards Smith, James Travis Underwood) as local counsel. Docket
• H.C. Park & Associates (Reston, VA) — Alan A. Wright, Oluwaseun O. Ajayi, Brendan P. O'Shea — with Hueston Hennigan LLP and Gillam & Smith LLP, in an E.D. Tex. matter. Source
• Munger, Tolles & Olson / Winston & Strawn / Weil, Gotshal & Manges / Freitas Angell & Weinberg — LG in Oracle v. Google-era N.D. Cal. proceedings.

Recommendation

If your case file needs an accurate "counsel of record" field, the correct entry is: None — no appearance entered; case dismissed on Plaintiff's notice before any defense response (Dkts. 22–23). If you want the negotiating attorneys named, order Dkts. 17, 18, and 21 from PACER (W.D. Tex., 1:20-cv-00413) — I can also check whether LG's in-house IP Center (Seoul) or LG Electronics USA legal was the counterparty identified in those filings if you can supply the PDFs.

One further item I did not verify and won't assert: whether LG or an affiliate filed any IPR against the '790 patent around this period. The '790 patent was widely asserted by Cedar Lane, so PTAB activity is plausible, but I have no sourced confirmation and am not going to state it as fact.