Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Middlegate Securities Inc.

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

Case Overview & Background

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian patent-assertion entity (NPE/PAE) incorporated in 2019 and based in Nelson, British Columbia; it does not make or sell products, and it built its portfolio largely from patents acquired from Intellectual Ventures entities, enforcing them at volume and nearly always through solo practitioner Isaac P. Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Seyfarth Shaw, "NPE Showcase – Cedar Lane Technologies"; Stanford NPE Litigation Database). Its enforcement history is overwhelmingly nuisance-value: hundreds of suits since 2019, most resolved by early settlement or voluntary dismissal, and none tried — a pattern also noted by a 2020 N.D. Cal. sanctions order against Cedar Lane and Rabicoff in Cedar Lane Techs. v. Blackmagic Design (per Seyfarth's account). Defendant Middlegate Securities Inc. is the opposite profile: a small, family-run New York broker-dealer (CRD No. 21544, FINRA member since 1988; SEC File No. 8-39031) headquartered at 8 West 40th Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10018 (FINTRX firm profile; AdvisorCheck). Per its audited SEC filing, Middlegate is a New York "S" corporation that "buys and sells primarily corporate securities and municipal bonds," clears all customer transactions through two clearing brokers on a fully disclosed basis, and participates in municipal underwriting syndicates (Middlegate Securities Inc., Statement of Financial Condition, Dec. 31, 2024). It is a Sutton-family enterprise, also named in Tawil v. Middlegate Securities (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018).

The patent and accused technology. The sole patent asserted is U.S. 8,577,782 B2, "Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants," filed April 8, 2010, issued November 5, 2013, appl. No. 12/756,929, classified G06Q 40/00, with a nominal expiry around April 8, 2030. In one line: it claims a method of tagging a trading participant with a persistent (but not necessarily identifying) identifier, harvesting that identifier's trade history, building a profile showing whether the participant's trades have been profitable, and having a "liquidity provider" send a targeted offer — good only for that identifier — through an exchange with a bid/offer spread, the idea being to let market makers price around "toxic" flow without learning counterparties' identities (’782 patent, abstract & col. 6; claim-1 breakdown as reproduced in the PatSnap case page and in analyses of parallel complaints, e.g. Patent Litigator on the AlpacaDB and BTG Pactual suits). Consistently with Cedar Lane's template pleading, the Middlegate complaint (ECF No. 1, with Exhibits 1–2: the patent and a "Claim Chart for Patent US8,577,782") does not name a specific accused product in its text — it points to "Exemplary Defendant Products" charted in Exhibit 2 — and asserts infringement of "one or more claims," with induced infringement alleged at least from service, plus § 284 damages, § 285 exceptional-case relief, and a jury demand (PACER Monitor docket; same template analyzed in parallel E.D. Tex. complaints such as Cedar Lane v. Cobra Trading, 2:25-cv-00223). Functionally, the accusation targets Middlegate's order-handling/routing arrangements rather than a licensed trading platform it sells — a mismatch worth flagging, since Middlegate's public filings describe a fully disclosed clearing model and no proprietary matching engine. Because the Exhibit 2 chart (the only place the accused products are identified) is not in the free public record I could retrieve, the precise accused instrumentality cannot be verified from open sources.

Procedural posture, venue, and why the case is notable. Cedar Lane filed on November 14, 2025 in S.D.N.Y., No. 1:25-cv-09530, randomly assigned to Judge Margaret M. Garnett (Courtroom 906, 40 Centre St.); the complaint pleads § 271 infringement and demands a jury (Justia docket). Service on Middlegate was effected November 19, 2025 on Albert Sutton (VP), making the answer due December 10; Rabicoff's pro hac vice motion was granted November 17 (Dkt. 9), and Judge Garnett set an initial pretrial conference for January 13, 2026 (Dkt. 10). Middlegate retained Filip Cukovic of Thompson Hine LLP, who appeared December 9 and obtained an extension of the response deadline to January 7, 2026 (Dkts. 12–14). On December 30, 2025 — before any answer, motion to dismiss, or IPR petition — Cedar Lane filed a unilateral Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice (Dkt. 15), with a proposed order (Dkt. 16) that Judge Garnett so-ordered on January 5, 2026 (Dkt. 17). Total life: 52 days, with no claim construction, no validity ruling, and no merits decision; because the dismissal was without prejudice, Cedar Lane remains free to refile against Middlegate, subject only to limitations and the patent's 2030 expiry. Venue here is unremarkable and defensible rather than opportunistic: Middlegate's principal office sits squarely in S.D.N.Y., so the forum follows the defendant's own home district — though S.D.N.Y. is also a convenient, well-resourced forum for a serial filer, and Cedar Lane filed a cluster of near-identical broker-dealer suits in the same weeks (e.g., First Manhattan Sec. 1:25-cv-09485, Empire Asset Mgmt 1:25-cv-09526, Percheron 1:25-cv-09531, Spartan Capital 1:25-cv-09535, Beech Hill Sec. 1:25-cv-07840, Clear Street 1:25-cv-07846), plus E.D.N.Y., N.D. Ill., D. Del., W.D. Tex., and E.D. Tex. actions on the same patent (Stanford NPE database, patent 8,577,782). The campaign's significance is precisely its commodity character: a single 2013 financial-methods patent of doubtful § 101 resilience, asserted in five-page complaints against dozens of small and mid-sized broker-dealers whose cost of defense exceeds settlement value. The early returns support that read — BNY Mellon (1:25-cv-09488) and Horace Mann (N.D. Ill. 1:25-cv-14404) exited in ~78 and ~48 days via stipulated dismissals with prejudice, David Lerner settled, and Uhlmann Price obtained a voluntary dismissal; Middlegate's dismissal, by contrast, was without prejudice, leaving the ’782 exposure live (PatSnap: BNY Mellon; PatSnap: Horace Mann; PatSnap: Uhlmann Price). Market context: no Article III court has construed the ’782 claims, and I found no PTAB inter partes review of the ’782 in my searches (the parallel complaints likewise reference no prior IPR or licensing history) — so the patent's validity remains untested in any forum, and IPR is the obvious defensive lever for future targets.

Sourcing caveats: the ’782 prosecution is credited to the Law Office of Donald L. Wenskay, but I could not verify from open sources the original assignee/inventor chain or whether Cedar Lane acquired the patent from an Intellectual Ventures entity specifically; the reasons for the voluntary dismissal (and whether Middlegate's defense counsel prompted it) are not in the public record and are not stated in any filing; and the accused products named in Exhibit 2 were not retrievable.

I'll research this case and the asserted patent across dockets, PTAB records, and legal press.

Now let me dig into the patent's provenance, its enforcement history, and any PTAB proceedings.

Let me research the patent's provenance, assignment chain, and check PTAB for any '782 challenges, plus Middlegate's counsel.

Bottom line

This was a 52‑day, pleadings‑only case. Cedar Lane filed a five‑page, one‑patent complaint on 2025‑11‑14, served the defendant five days later, and then exercised a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) unilateral dismissal on 2025‑12‑30 — before Middlegate had served any answer, counterclaim, or motion. Judge Margaret M. Garnett entered the confirmatory order on 2026‑01‑05 (ECF 17). There was no motion practice of substance, no Markman, no discovery, no § 101 or § 285 ruling, and no PTAB proceeding on the '782 patent. The only "legal development" of consequence is the dismissal itself and what it signals about Cedar Lane's mass‑filing campaign.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Substance of the pleading. A boilerplate Rabicoff‑firm complaint: Canadian plaintiff (Nelson, BC) pleading assignee status and exclusive right to sue; Count I alleging direct infringement (including the recurring "having its employees internally test and use" theory), induced infringement from the date of service of the complaint and claim charts, willfulness‑adjacent "actual knowledge" language, damages under § 284, and an exceptional‑case prayer under § 285; jury demand. Independent claim 1 recites: associating a trading entity with an identifier via a processor; acquiring trade history keyed to that identifier; receiving a buy/sell offer from a liquidity provider based on a profile indicating whether the entity's trades "would generate a profit"; the offer being made only to that identified entity; and processing through an exchange for items with a bid/offer spread. Patents‑in‑suit: US 8,577,782 B2, Trading with conditional offers for semi‑anonymous participants, App. No. 12/756,929, filed 2010‑04‑08, issued 2013‑11‑05, G06Q 40/00, nominal 20‑year term to 2030‑04‑08 (Patsnap/Google Patents; term subject to any disclaimer not verified).

Answer / counterclaims: none. Middlegate's only appearance activity was:

• 2025‑12‑09: ECF 12, notice of appearance by Filip Cukovic (Patsnap's case record lists Thompson Hine LLP — I could not independently verify the firm).
• 2025‑12‑09: ECF 13, letter motion for extension of time to respond.
• Order entered 2025‑12‑09/10 (ECF 14): extension granted, response deadline moved to 2026‑01‑07, with the court's standard warning that extension requests must be filed two business days before the deadline and that future untimely requests may be denied "on the basis of timeliness alone."

So the case died with zero counterclaims — no declaratory judgment of invalidity or non‑infringement, no unfair‑competition or state‑law counterclaims, and hence no defendant‑side vehicle to challenge the patent. That matters: Cedar Lane walked away with no adverse adjudication and no estoppel.

---

2. Pre‑trial motions of substance — none were filed or decided

• Motion to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(2)/(3)/(6) or § 101): none. Middlegate never filed one; it obtained an extension and then the case was dismissed. (The § 101 exposure for a G06Q business‑method patent of this vintage was real, but it was never teed up.)
• Motion to transfer (28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)): none. Worth noting for campaign analysis: Middlegate is an S.D.N.Y.‑located broker‑dealer, so venue under § 1400(b) ("established place of business") was not seriously contestable, and Cedar Lane's parallel Nov. 2025 wave was deliberately filed in S.D.N.Y. against New York broker‑dealers.
• Motion to stay pending IPR: none, and none could arise — no IPR existed on the '782 (see § 6).
• Summary judgment: none.
• Discovery motions, protective orders, stay applications: none.

The single "motion" of any kind in the case file other than PHV was ECF 13, the extension request.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman) — did not occur

The case never reached a scheduling order, so no Markman briefing, no J. Markman procedures under Judge Garnett's individual rules, no claim‑construction hearing, and no construction order. Correspondingly, no court has construed any claim of the '782 patent in this or (per the available aggregator record) any other '782 action. The scope of "profile … indicating whether said trading transactions … would generate a profit," "s

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

I have the core docket. Let me dig deeper for the full docket (entries 1–8) and any local counsel appearance, since S.D.N.Y. requires local counsel for a pro hac vice admission.

Let me verify via CourtListener's RECAP docket and check for any additional appearances.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Bottom line: the plaintiff's side in this case had exactly one attorney of record — Isaac P. Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago, IL), admitted pro hac vice. No local counsel, no second plaintiff-side attorney, and no in-house appearance ever appeared on the docket.

Summary table

Attorney detail

Isaac Phillip Rabicoff — lead counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm/office: Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago, Illinois. The firm address recorded in his S.D.N.Y. pro hac vice papers and in contemporaneous Cedar Lane matters is 4311 N. Ravenswood Ave., Suite 315, Chicago, IL 60613 (phone 773-669-4590); older Cedar Lane complaints list 73 W. Monroe St., Chicago.
• Role in this case: He was the only lawyer who ever appeared for Cedar Lane. He filed the complaint on 14 Nov 2025 (Dkt. 1, with the '782 patent and a claim chart as Exhibits 1–2), moved for pro hac vice admission the same day (Dkt. 6), and Judge Garnett granted the motion on 17 Nov 2025 (Dkt. 9, text-only order). He also filed the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of voluntary dismissal on 30 Dec 2025 (Dkt. 15), which the Court so-ordered on 5 Jan 2026 (Dkt. 17).
• Relevant experience note: Rabicoff is a high-volume patent plaintiff's lawyer who has filed hundreds of infringement suits, largely for Cedar Lane Technologies and other asserting entities, in the N.D. Ill., E.D. Tex., W.D. Tex., D. Del., and S.D.N.Y. He appears to be essentially Cedar Lane's outside counsel of choice — the same '782 patent was asserted in a coordinated November 2025 wave of securities/fintech-defendant suits (e.g., Cedar Lane v. First Manhattan Securities, 1:25-cv-09485; v. Empire Asset Management, 1:25-cv-09526; v. Ingalls & Snyder, 1:25-cv-09529; v. Percheron, 1:25-cv-09531; v. Safra Securities, 1:25-cv-09533; v. Spartan Capital, 1:25-cv-09535; v. TIAA-CREF, 1:25-cv-09538), nearly all filed 13–14 Nov 2025 in S.D.N.Y.
• Notable adverse rulings (worth flagging for any diligence): In Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Blackmagic Design Inc., No. 3:20-cv-01302-VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria sanctioned Rabicoff $1,000 under Rule 11 and the court's inherent authority, denied his pro hac vice motion, and referred him to the N.D. Cal. Standing Committee on Professional Conduct (Nov. 19, 2020 order). The Committee's final report issued in In re Isaac Rabicoff, No. 20-mc-80206-JD (N.D. Cal.). Both documents are available via Justia. This history is directly relevant to his pro hac vice practice in S.D.N.Y., since this case was filed, served, and dismissed within roughly seven weeks.

What I did not find (stated explicitly, not inferred away)

• No local counsel of record. Nothing on the docket (Dkts. 1–17) shows a notice of appearance by a New York–admitted attorney for Cedar Lane, and I found no firm announcement or press coverage indicating local co-counsel. In the parallel Cedar Lane S.D.N.Y. cases filed the same week (e.g., v. Bank of New York Mellon, 1:25-cv-09488), the docket likewise shows only Rabicoff for plaintiff. I could not confirm from a primary source whether Judge Garnett's individual practices or the S.D.N.Y. Local Rules would have required a local co-counsel appearance; treat the "no local counsel" point as a docket observation, not a legal conclusion.
• No in-house counsel appearance. Cedar Lane is an IP-holding/asserting entity; no corporate or in-house attorney appeared.
• No sealed appearances. Nothing on this docket is sealed; the docket is fully public through the 5 Jan 2026 dismissal. So the absence of other plaintiff counsel is a real absence, not a sealing artifact.
• Defendant side (for contrast only): Filip Cukovic of Thompson Hine LLP appeared for Middlegate Securities (Dkt. 12, 12/9/2025) and filed the extension letter-motion (Dkt. 13). Patsnap's litigation page lists Thompson Hine as Cukovic's firm; I did not independently verify his office location from a primary source.

Sourcing caveats

The attorney-identity findings above rest on the Justia docket mirror for 1:25-cv-09530 and the PacerMonitor docket page for the same case, which agree entry-for-entry on Dkts. 1–17. The Rabicoff Law LLC street address and phone come from CourtListener's party/attorney records in contemporaneous Cedar Lane matters (E.D. Tex. and S.D.N.Y.); PACER itself masks contact information on the public docket. The Blackmagic sanction and In re Rabicoff committee report are drawn from the Justia-hosted PDFs of those orders. I did not obtain a live PACER pull for this case, so if a later-filed appearance exists post-5 Jan 2026 it would not be captured here — but the case is closed and dismissed, so no further appearances are expected.

I'll research this docket and counsel. Let me start with searches on the case and parties.

The docket shows one defense appearance. Let me verify the attorney's firm and background, and check for any additional appearances.

Confirmed the single defense appearance. Let me check for any additional appearances, and see whether the parallel Cedar Lane securities cases (same patent, same week) show a coordinated defense group.

Bottom line

Only one attorney ever appeared for Middlegate Securities in this case: Filip Cukovic, an associate in the Business Litigation group at Thompson Hine LLP, New York office. He entered his appearance on December 9, 2025 (Dkt. 12) — 20 days after service — and filed the only defense filing in the case, an unopposed letter motion for an extension of time to respond (Dkt. 13). No other defense counsel, no local counsel, no in-house lawyer, and no pro hac vice sponsor ever appeared before the case was voluntarily dismissed on January 5, 2026 (Dkt. 15–17). Because he is admitted in New York (S.D.N.Y. doesn't require local counsel for NY-barred attorneys), no separate local-counsel appearance was needed.

Counsel of record for Middlegate Securities Inc.

Docket support

• Dkt. 11 (Nov. 20, 2025) — summons returned executed; Middlegate served 11/19/2025 via Albert Sutton (VP); answer due 12/10/2025. (No in-house attorney identified; service on a business executive.)
• Dkt. 12 (Dec. 9, 2025) — "NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Filip Cukovic on behalf of Middlegate Securities Inc."
• Dkt. 13 (Dec. 9, 2025) — "LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer addressed to Judge Margaret M. Garnett from Filip Cukovic dated 12/09/2025. Document filed by Middlegate Securities Inc."
• Dkt. 14 (Dec. 10, 2025, signed 12/9) — extension granted; response deadline moved to 1/7/2026; court warned future extensions may be denied as untimely.
• Dkt. 15–17 (Dec. 30, 2025 – Jan. 5, 2026) — Cedar Lane's Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, proposed order, and Judge Garnett's order granting it. This mooted the 1/13/2026 initial pretrial conference (Dkt. 10).

Source: Justia docket for S.D.N.Y. 1:25-cv-09530 (last retrieved Jan. 5, 2026) — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2025cv09530/[653121](/patent/653121); PACER Monitor case page 61195228 — https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/61195228/Cedar_Lane_Technologies_Inc_v_Middlegate_Securities_Inc.

Corroboration of the firm affiliation

The docket text itself does not print the firm name; the Thompson Hine affiliation is corroborated independently of the litigation databases: his Thompson Hine bio page (https://www.thompsonhine.com/professionals/filip-cukovic/), Super Lawyers profile listing Thompson Hine at 300 Madison Ave., 27th Floor, New York (https://profiles.superlawyers.com/new-york/new-york/lawyer/filip-cukovic/9a9749c2-8ca8-424e-aa50-9c6983d33db2.html), and Thompson Hine press releases naming him among NY Rising Stars (Nov. 10, 2025) and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch (Aug. 20, 2026). PatSnap's litigation record separately lists "Filip Cukovic — Thompson Hine LLP" as defendant's counsel.

What I could not confirm (and won't guess at)

• No second chair, no IP-group lawyer, and no PHV sponsor for Middlegate appears anywhere on the public docket. Given Thompson Hine has a substantial IP practice, it is plausible a patent litigator would have been added had the case survived a motion-to-dismiss stage — but no such appearance exists, and I found no evidence of one.
• Nothing is sealed. The docket items are all public; there were simply no substantive defense filings (no answer, no Rule 12 motion, no invalidity contentions) because the case died in 52 days.
• No public explanation of the dismissal (e.g., settlement/license or stand-down) is recorded; the Patsnap write-up's suggestion of settlement or licensing is editorial inference, not record evidence. Note that Middlegate was one of a wave of brokerage/broker-dealer defendants hit with U.S. 8,577,782 in late 2025 (Beech Hill 1:25-cv-07840; Empire Asset Mgmt 1:25-cv-09526; Percheron 1:25-cv-09531; Spartan Capital 1:25-cv-09535; First Manhattan 1:25-cv-09485), and those defendants did not use a common firm — e.g., Percheron was represented by Michael Patrick Mangan of Clark Hill PLC (per PACER Monitor case 61196847 and PatSnap) — so there is no sign of a coordinated joint-defense group that would have brought additional counsel into this case. Treat the parallel-case counsel details as database-sourced rather than verified against primary dockets.

Practical read: Middlegate's defense was handled at the "buy time" level by a single NY commercial litigator whose practice centers on financial-services clients — consistent with the case's 52-day life and the absence of any merits briefing.