Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.

I'll research this case and the broader Cedar Lane campaign before drafting.

Case Overview

Parties. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a non-practicing entity organized under Canadian law (Nelson, British Columbia; incorporated April 2019), whose sole director, Gregory Benoit, is tied to Patent Armory, a patent-monetization consultancy. Its litigation counsel in this matter was Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, with David W. deBruin as Delaware local counsel (docket). Cedar Lane does not make or sell products; it asserts a portfolio of acquired patents — reporting by RPX/Mondaq indicates the asserted patents were obtained directly or indirectly from Intellectual Ventures — and has filed on the order of 200 U.S. suits since 2019 against camera, smart-home, printer, and consumer-electronics targets, with a reported standard opening demand of ~$95,000 (Mondaq/RPX campaign summary; The Logic). Defendant Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. is the Delaware-incorporated film and television studio (Century City, CA), which was in the process of being acquired by Amazon.com at the time of filing — the $8.45B deal announced May 2021 and closed March 2022, i.e., after this case was dismissed (deal timing is general public record, not a docket fact).

Accused technology and patents. The complaint (D.I. 1, filed 2022-01-04) asserted the same pair of "Host interface for imaging arrays" patents Cedar Lane was then wielding against camera and imaging-hardware defendants: U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 and U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242, both naming Mark Suska and sharing a January 2000 priority date (the '790 issued Dec. 6, 2005 from an application filed Dec. 21, 2000; the '242 is a later-issuing family member issued Sept. 17, 2013). Technically, the '790 claims an interface circuit that receives pixel data from an image sensor and clocks it into a buffer at the sensor's clock rate, then — based on how much data has accumulated — asserts an interrupt or bus-request signal and hands the data to a host processor at the processor's rate; the buffer may be a FIFO or addressable memory, and the interface is preferably on the same die as the sensor (patent abstract/summary; Chinese IP-office NPE alert summarizing the family). Note a metadata discrepancy: the case-tracking entry lists only the '790, but both the complaint and the court's Patent/Trademark reports (D.I. 3, D.I. 8) list both the '790 and the '242. I could not verify from any free source what MGM product or service was actually charted in Exhibits A–D — the complaint exhibits are not available in RECAP text — and the pairing is facially odd (a film studio accused under image-sensor interface patents), which is consistent with this being one of a large batch of boilerplate complaints filed in Wilmington the same day (Cedar Lane also filed 1:22-cv-00011 v. Excelitas and same-day suits naming Illunis LLC and Novantas Inc. on identical patents).

Procedural posture and significance. Filed in the District of Delaware, not a division-specific venue — D. Del. matters here because MGM is a Delaware corporation, so venue was secure under 28 U.S.C. §1400(b) post-TC Heartland without any acts-of-infringement analysis; the case was assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews (RGA), who received essentially all of Cedar Lane's Delaware filings. The case never reached the merits: the complaint and summons issued January 4, 2022, Cedar Lane noticed voluntary dismissal on January 5, 2022 — one day later, before MGM appeared or answered — and Judge Andrews so-ordered it on January 12, 2022, terminating the case (docket). Because the notice cites no answer or motion for summary judgment, the dismissal operated without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i); unlike the parallel case against Snap Inc., which was dismissed with prejudice (D. Del. 1:22-cv-00058), the MGM dismissal text contains no prejudice language. There is no claim construction, no summary-judgment ruling, and no Federal Circuit opinion; I found no PTAB IPR on the '790 (third-party databases record no validity challenge, and the patent's estimated expiry of August 1, 2023 has now passed), so any IPR linkage to this patent family would have to be confirmed directly in PTAB dockets. Its notability is therefore doctrinal-lite but practice-heavy: it is a clean illustration of high-volume NPE filing economics, of the Delaware incorporation hook for venue, and of Judge Andrews' management of the Cedar Lane wave — the court required related-case disclosure letters from local counsel (e.g., Feb. 10, 2022 letter in the Snap case) and entered sua sponte status orders when service/answer deadlines slipped (see 1:22-cv-00054, D.I. 8).

Sourcing caveats. (1) The identity of the MGM product/service charted in the complaint is unverified. (2) Cedar Lane's corporate details and settlement-demand practice come from press reporting (The Logic; RPX/Mondaq), not court records. (3) The absence of IPRs is based on secondary databases and my search, not an exhaustive PTAB docket review — verify on PTAB Center/Fluor before relying on it.

I'll research this case and its broader context.

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

Bottom line

Only one attorney actually appears as counsel of record on the docket of Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00014-RGA (D. Del.): David W. deBruin, a Wilmington, Delaware litigator who filed the complaint and the notice of voluntary dismissal. No notice of appearance by any other attorney — including Cedar Lane's usual lead filer, Isaac P. Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC — appears on the eight-entry docket before the case was dismissed seven days after filing.

Counsel of record — plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

What the docket actually establishes

• D.I. 1 — Complaint for patent infringement, filed 1/4/2022, jury demand, fee receipt ADEDC-3774212; D.I. 3–4 — AO-120 patent report and Rule 7.1 disclosure (no parents/affiliates).
• D.I. 6 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by Cedar Lane, entered 1/5/2022, signed on the ECF system by (deBruin, David).
• D.I. 7 — So Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 1/12/2022; case terminated. D.I. 8 — AO-120 report of dismissal.
• Justia's party block for the case lists the plaintiff's representative as "David W. deBruin" — the single name captured when the docket was last pulled on 1/12/2022 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2022cv00014/77638). UniCourt likewise shows a single plaintiff attorney, David W. deBruin (https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-metro-goldwyn-mayer-inc-[1110050](/patent/1110050)).
• A parallel CourtListener D. Del. miscellaneous docket entry records the MGM complaint under the same fee receipt (ADEDC-3774212) with the filer tag "(deBruin, David)," confirming deBruin as the filing attorney (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/61655041/plaintiffs-v-defendants/).

Explicit gaps / things I could not verify

1. The complaint's signature block was not retrieved. In contemporaneous Cedar Lane Delaware complaints, the signature block typically carries Rabicoff as lead counsel with deBruin as Delaware counsel. This is a reasonable inference, not a verified fact for the MGM complaint — I could not pull the PDF of D.I. 1.
2. No notice of appearance by Rabicoff, and no pro hac vice motion, exists on this docket. Because the case was dismissed eight days after filing, no other counsel ever entered an appearance. Any assertion that Rabicoff was "of record" here would be unsupported.
3. No in-house counsel for Cedar Lane appears. Cedar Lane is a Canadian NPE (Nelson, BC) whose public filings list Greg Benoit as a principal/director; he is a corporate officer, not counsel of record, and no in-house attorney appeared.
4. Nothing is sealed in this case — the docket is entirely public; the gap is simply that no one else appeared.

Two metadata notes for the case file

• The docket reports two patents on the AO-120 forms: 6,972,790 and 8,537,242 — while your case metadata lists only the '790 patent. The complaint attached Exhibits A–D (suggesting two patents × two claim charts).
• A docketing anomaly: the CourtListener miscellaneous entry notes the MGM complaint was cross-referenced to "civil action 22-11," and the 1/4/2022 filing was initially docketed in the miscellaneous/duplicate queue before landing in 22-cv-00014. That is consistent with the ~50-case Cedar Lane Delaware batch filed in the first week of January 2022, all assigned to Judge Andrews, which explains the rapid voluntary dismissal (typical of Cedar Lane's settlement-driven campaign — it has no cases that reached trial).

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

Bottom line

No attorney ever appeared for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer in this case, so there is no counsel of record for the defendant. The entire operative docket is eight entries, and none of them is an appearance, answer, motion, or pro hac vice application by or for MGM. Naming any attorney as MGM's counsel here would be fabrication.

What the docket actually shows

Sources: Justia docket, https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2022cv00014/77638; DocketBird, https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer-Inc/ded-1:2022-cv-00014; UniCourt, https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-metro-goldwyn-mayer-inc-1110050.

Key negative findings, each of which is affirmatively supported by the docket text:

• No service. There is no "Summons Returned Executed" entry — the summons issued 1/4 and the case was dismissed 1/5 (ordered 1/12). In sibling Cedar Lane cases where a defendant was actually served, the return of service appears on the docket within days (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Excelitas, D. Del. 1:22-cv-00011, service returned 1/7/2022; Cedar Lane v. EPIX, 1:22-cv-00050, served 1/20/2022). Nothing comparable here.
• No D. Del. Local Rule 83.5(d) compliance, no pro hac vice motion, no Rule 7.1 disclosure by MGM, no answer or Rule 12 motion. Compare Cedar Lane v. EPIX (1:22-cv-00050), where EPIX answered with counterclaims and moved for pro hac vice admission of Neil J. McNabnay and Lance E. Wyatt (Baker Botts) — the kind of filing that is entirely absent in the MGM case.
• No sealed filings. The docket contains no entries under seal; the absence of counsel is not a sealing artifact.
• The docket's "Attorney/Law Firm Details" in aggregators list only plaintiff's counsel, David W. deBruin (Wilmington, Del. — Gawthrop Greenwood, P.C.), which is consistent with defendant-side counsel never being recorded.

What I can say about MGM's representation without inventing names

• MGM never retained counsel of record in this action. The one-day gap between filing (1/4) and Cedar Lane's notice of dismissal (1/5) — before service — is the signature of the pre-suit/early license-or-settlement dynamic that ran through the Cedar Lane campaign of ~60+ D. Del. suits filed in 2021–2022, many of which were dismissed within days or weeks. See January 2022 Retail Patent Litigation Report (listing Cedar Lane's MGM suit among a batch pleading U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,972,790 and 8,537,242), https://www.illinoislawyernow.com/2022/10/january-2022-retail-patent-litigation-report/.
• Any identification of MGM's outside patent counsel for this matter would be unsourced. I found no court opinion, Law360/Reuters piece, firm press release, or docket entry tying a law firm or attorney to MGM's defense of this case. I am not going to supply a name on the strength of MGM's general IP roster or its counsel in unrelated copyright matters (e.g., MGM Studios v. Grokster), because none of that reflects an appearance here.
• Note one small metadata discrepancy worth flagging in the case summary: although the case metadata lists only 6,972,790, the complaint's Patent/Trademark Reports (D.I. 3 and 8) list both 6,972,790 and 8,537,242.

Practical implication for the case file

Because there is no defendant-side appearance, there is no counsel to profile — no lead counsel, no local counsel, no in-house appearance. If you need MGM's litigation counsel for a related Cedar Lane matter or a later-filed suit against an MGM entity, that would require a separate PACER pull of that specific docket; it cannot be derived from 1:22-cv-00014. If you want, I can check whether Cedar Lane ever re-filed against MGM or an affiliate in another district (e.g., W.D. Tex. or S.D.N.Y.), where a defense team may actually have appeared.