Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Motorola Solutions

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

Now let me dig into the specific docket, the patent's provenance and expiry, and any PTAB activity.

Let me verify the complaint details, Cedar Lane's corporate profile, and any PTAB challenges.

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-01111 (W.D. Tex.)

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a non-practicing entity that the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies as an "acquired patents" asserter (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/[268981](/patent/268981)). It is best known as one of the highest-volume patent plaintiffs of the 2019–2023 period: Seyfarth's "NPE Showcase" profile describes it as a Canadian entity that began filing in 2019, has sued hundreds of defendants, relies almost entirely on a small portfolio of acquired patents (frequently traced to Intellectual Ventures entities), and is represented in most suits by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC — the same counsel of record here (Dkt. 2). The same profile notes that none of its cases have gone to trial and that the campaign has the hallmarks of volume/licensing-driven litigation; it also recounts a 2020 Northern District of California ruling in which Judge Vince Chhabria criticized Cedar Lane's and Rabicoff's filings as objectively frivolous and made in bad faith, and referred Rabicoff to that district's standing committee (as reported by Seyfarth Shaw; I did not independently pull the underlying order). Motorola Solutions, Inc. is the operating company — the public-safety and enterprise communications business (LMR/two-way radio systems, command-center software, and, since its Avigilon and Pelco acquisitions, video-security cameras and access control), i.e., a large, deep-pocketed manufacturer rather than a technology developer in the image-sensor space. Notably, Cedar Lane had sued Motorola before: Cedar Lane Techs. v. Motorola Solutions, No. 1:20-cv-03600 (N.D. Ill., filed June 19, 2020, Judge Andrea R. Wood), asserted seven patents including the '790 patent, was amended to name Motorola Mobility LLC, and was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on July 10, 2020, roughly three weeks after filing (Unified Patents docket portal; UniCourt). The 2022 case is therefore a re-assertion against the same corporate family.

The patent and the accused technology. The sole patent at issue per the case metadata and the Stanford entry is U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 B2, "Host interface for imaging arrays" (inventor Mark Suska, Ottawa; originally assigned to Psion Teklogix Systems Inc., Mississauga, Ontario; filed Dec. 21, 2000; priority to a Jan. 21, 2000 provisional; issued Dec. 6, 2005). In one line: it claims an interface — preferably integrated on the same die as a CMOS image sensor — that buffers pixel data in a FIFO (or addressable) memory at the sensor's clock rate, uses a signal generator to interrupt the host processor or request the bus when the buffer reaches a threshold, and lets the processor read the buffer out at its own pace, thereby decoupling sensor timing from the processor bus (see Google Patents US6972790B2; RPX Insight). The complaint (Dkt. 1, Oct. 26, 2022) is Cedar Lane's standard form pleading: it accused unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" charted in exhibits and pleaded direct and induced infringement without naming models in the body; the claim-chart exhibits were not publicly available in the sources I could access, so the specific accused Motorola products cannot be verified. Based on Motorola Solutions' product lines and on the defendant set in Cedar Lane's other '790 suits (Leica Camera, Lorex, Skydio, Vantage Robotics, Dahua-adjacent camera makers, security-camera and drone vendors — see the Patsnap litigation index for US6972790B2), the accused devices are most plausibly Motorola's video-security cameras/recorders (Avigilon, Pelco) or other CMOS-sensor-equipped hardware; that is an inference, not a documented fact.

Posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed October 26, 2022 in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas and assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright "due to related cases" (docket text, Oct. 26–27, 2022), the case was one of a large wave Cedar Lane filed in W.D. Tex. and D. Del. that autumn (the same week it filed a dozen-plus '527/'790/'242 suits). Venue selection mattered: Judge Albright's court was then the preferred NPE forum for its speed and plaintiff-friendly procedures, and Cedar Lane's notice of related case (Dkt. 6) kept the matter in front of a judge already handling its campaign. The case never reached the merits: after an agreed extension of Motorola's response deadline to December 27, 2022 (Dkt. 8, Nov. 21, 2022), Cedar Lane filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on December 7, 2022 (Dkt. 9), and the PTO report issued the same day (Dkt. 10) — no answer, no motion to dismiss, no claim construction, and no public dismissal term. The case's significance is therefore systemic rather than doctrinal: it illustrates the high-volume, short-life NPE model (52+ district-court cases asserting the '790 patent per Patsnap; Cedar Lane's W.D. Tex./D. Del. filings typically resolved by voluntary dismissal or consent judgment within weeks to months), and it shows a large operating company choosing early resolution over invalidity litigation. One timing point is worth flagging: the '790 patent's term ran out in mid-2023 (expiration reported as Aug. 1, 2023, reflecting the 20-year term from the December 2000 filing plus adjustment), so at filing fewer than ten months of term remained, capping the damages window to roughly the six years before suit under 35 U.S.C. § 286 and foreclosing any injunctive relief — a structural reason these suits were priced as settlements rather than trials. I found no IPR or PGR challenge to the '790 patent in the sources searched; that absence is not proof no petition exists, and Cedar Lane's practice of dismissing early means PTAB linkage is largely absent from this campaign. Unverified items: the actual accused Motorola product models, the terms of the December 2022 dismissal (settlement/license vs. walk-away), and the intermediate chain of title from Psion Teklogix to Cedar Lane.

Primary sources: Docket, Cedar Lane Techs. v. Motorola Solutions, No. 6:22-cv-01111 (W.D. Tex.) — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2022cv01111/[1193625](/patent/1193625) and https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Motorola-Solutions-Inc-id-[182898](/patent/182898)/documents; Stanford NPE Database — https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/268981 and https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/6972790; 2020 N.D. Ill. case — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Illinois%20Southern%20District%20Court/case/1:20-cv-03600; patent bibliography — https://patents.google.com/patent/US6972790 and https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/US6972790B2; assertion history — https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/patent/us6972790b2/; NPE profile — Seyfarth Shaw, "NPE Showcase – Cedar Lane Technologies" (reproduced at https://darik.news/california/npe-showcase-cedar-lane-technologies-seyfarth-shaw-llp/[746421](/patent/746421).html).

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

Let me dig into the earlier 2020 Illinois case, the PTAB record on the '790 patent, and any related Motorola Mobility actions.

Summary up front

This is not a litigated-to-judgment case. The Cedar Lane–Motorola dispute on U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 ("Host interface for imaging arrays") consists of two short-lived complaints filed roughly 2½ years apart, both of which Cedar Lane voluntarily dismissed before any defendant answered. There is no Markman order, no summary-judgment ruling, no discovery, no trial, no IPR, and no public settlement document. Motorola never filed an answer or counterclaim in either action. The "outcome" is a pre-answer Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal — twice.

Because the operating rule is to build on the existing summary rather than repeat it, the analysis below adds the docket-level detail and the strategic read.

---

1. First action — N.D. Illinois (2020)

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Motorola Solutions Inc. (and Motorola Mobility LLC), No. 1:20-cv-03600 (N.D. Ill.)

Sources: Justia docket, https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2020cv03600/[376983](/patent/376983); Unified Patents litigation portal, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Illinois%20Southern%20District%20Court/case/1:20-cv-03600.

Strategic significance / caveats:

• The dismissal came 21 days after filing and the same day Cedar Lane amended to add Motorola Mobility — i.e., Cedar Lane abandoned the Illinois forum rather than litigate there. No answer, no Rule 12 motion, no § 1406(a) transfer motion, and no substantive ruling of any kind appears on the docket.
• The patents asserted in the 2020 Illinois complaint are not verifiable from the public docket I could retrieve (no AO 120 patent list appears in the entries). A Korea IP Protection Agency / KOTRA database entry lists seven Cedar Lane patents for this case number — 6,473,527; 6,516,147; 6,566,805; 6,972,774; 6,972,790; 7,292,261; 8,537,242 (https://dream.kotra.or.kr/dream/cms/link/actionLinkBoardDetail.do?SITE_NO=2&MENU_ID=4060&CONTENTS_NO=1&pTmplateCd=NT2319&pDataId=22000000000011841087). That seven-patent list looks like an aggregation of Cedar Lane's Illinois filing campaign rather than the contents of one complaint — Cedar Lane's actual complaints of that era typically asserted one to three patents. Treat the '790's presence in the 2020 complaint as probable but not confirmed by a primary source. This is the single biggest evidentiary gap in the file.
• 2020 was the peak of Cedar Lane's filing volume (hundreds of defendants; 16 W.D. Tex. cases in the week of 2022-09-12 alone, per Seyfarth Shaw's "NPE Showcase – Cedar Lane Technologies"). Pre-answer dismissals were the campaign's normal exit ramp, not an anomaly.

---

2. Second action — W.D. Texas (2022)

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-01111 (W.D. Tex.)

Sources: Justia docket, https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2022cv01111/1193625; Patexia document list, https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Motorola-Solutions-Inc-id-182898/documents; Stanford NPE Litigation Database case page, https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/268981.

Strategic read:

• No answer, no counterclaims. Motorola's response deadline was extended to 2022-12-27; Cedar Lane dismissed 20 days before it. There is therefore no Motorola invalidity or non-infringement pleading on the public record, and no declaratory-judgment counterclaim.
• The dismissal was filed as a notice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — available as of right only before service of an answer or a motion for summary judgment — which is consistent with Motorola not yet having answered and confirms this was a pre-answer, unilateral exit, not a negotiated dismissal order.
• Prejudice status: the notice itself is not reproduced in public docket text; Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) defaults to without prejudice, but I could not confirm from a primary source whether Cedar Lane's notice stated "with prejudice." This is unverified and matters — it determines whether a third Motorola suit is possible.
• Nothing was adjudicated. No Markman hearing or claim construction order, no scheduling order, no protective order, no discovery dispute, no IPR-based stay motion, no summary-judgment motion (and note: on this docket, the § 315(b)/stay machinery was never engaged because the case died at the pleading stage).

---

3. Claim construction, discovery, trial, post-trial, appeal

• Markman: none. The case never reached a scheduling order, so no claim terms were construed in this litigation.
• Discovery: none of record. No Rule 26(f) conference, no initial disclosures, no fact or expert discovery milestones.
• Trial / verdict: none. Cedar Lane has not taken any case to trial — Seyfarth Shaw described the campaign as "traditional patent-based nuisance litigation" with "little appetite for lengthy litigation," and IAM reported (2023-03-20) that Cedar Lane's president Greg Benoit claimed a 96% settlement rate among terminated cases. That statistic is the best available explanation for the two pre-answer dismissals here, though no consideration is disclosed in either docket.
• Post-trial motions (JMOL/new trial/fees): none. Notably, no § 285 fee motion was filed by Motorola in either case — unsurprising given the dismissals preceded any merits position and given that prevailing-party status requires a judicially sanctioned material alteration of the parties' legal relationship.
• Appeal: none. Nothing was appealable.
• Final disposition: the 2022 action terminated on 2022-12-07 by voluntary dismissal; the 2020 action terminated on 2020-07-10 by voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Present posture: closed/terminated, with no live Motorola litigation on the '790 as of today (2026-11-07) based on the dockets reviewed.

---

4. Parallel PTAB proceedings

No IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding on U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 was located. I searched PTAB docket data, Unified Patents' litigation/PTAB portal, and Patexia's PTAB records. The only Cedar Lane-related Unified Patents PTAB filing I could confirm is IPR2020-00006, Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (petition filed 2019-10-03), which challenges U.S. Patent No. 7,173,177 — a different Cedar Lane patent — and was instituted on 2020-03-18. That proceeding is not about the '790 and had no effect on the Motorola suits.

Accordingly, there was no IPR-driven stay motion, no § 315(b) time-bar issue, and no PTAB estoppel affecting this litigation. Given that the '790 was asserted against dozens of defendants across W.D. Tex., D. Del., W.D. Pa., D.N.J., and elsewhere between 2019 and 2023, the absence of any IPR petition against it is itself notable — likely a function of how quickly cases settled rather than of the patent's strength.

Caveat: my PTAB search could not be run to exhaustion within this session, so I would characterize this as "none found in public records reviewed" rather than a definitive negative. A confirming check would be a Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to End (PTAB E2E) search on "6,972,790" and a docket search on "Cedar Lane" as patent owner.

---

5. Cross-cutting point that should shape how this case is valued

The '790 application was filed 2000-12-21 (earliest priority 2000-01-21) and the patent issued 2005-12-06. Twenty years from the non-provisional filing date puts the presumptive expiration around 2020-12-21, subject to any patent term adjustment or terminal disclaimer (I did not verify the face-of-patent term adjustment).

If that is right, then by the time Cedar Lane filed the W.D. Tex. complaint on 2022-10-26 the patent had already expired

Bottom line

In the W.D. Tex. action that the Stanford NPE database indexes for US 6,972,790 — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-01111 (W.D. Tex., filed Oct. 26, 2022, Judge Alan D. Albright) — Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago, Illinois) is the only attorney who appeared for Cedar Lane. He signed and filed the complaint, filed the Rule 7.1 disclosure, handled the agreed extension, and filed the notice of voluntary dismissal six weeks later (Doc. 9, Dec. 7, 2022). No local counsel, no of-counsel, and no in-house lawyer appears on the public docket.

Counsel table

Docket grounding (6:22-cv-01111)

• Doc. 1 — Complaint for Patent Infringement, filed Oct. 26, 2022, by Rabicoff (asserting the '790 and '242 patents against Motorola Solutions, Inc.). Justia docket
• Doc. 2 — Notice of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Rabicoff on behalf of Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., Oct. 26, 2022.
• Doc. 3 — Rule 7 Disclosure Statement (no parent/affiliate).
• Doc. 6 — Notice of Related Case (the W.D. Tex. Cedar Lane wave).
• Doc. 8 — Notice of Agreed Extension of Motorola's response deadline to Dec. 27, 2022, filed by Rabicoff, Nov. 21, 2022.
• Doc. 9 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by Cedar Lane, filed by Rabicoff, Dec. 7, 2022; case closed before any defendant appearance or motion practice. Patexia document list

The earlier Motorola action (possible source of confusion)

Cedar Lane first sued Motorola in N.D. Ill. No. 1:20-cv-03600 (Judge Andrea R. Wood), filed June 19, 2020, asserting the '790 patent along with six others ('527, '147, '805, '774, '261, '242). There too the only plaintiff appearance was Isaac Philip Rabicoff (Doc. 3, "Attorney Appearance for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. by Isaac Philip Rabicoff," June 19, 2020); he filed the first amended complaint on July 10, 2020, and voluntarily dismissed the case that same day (Doc. 9, dismissal without prejudice). UniCourt docket

Sourcing caveats

• The docket snapshots available publicly (Justia, Patexia) were last refreshed around Dec. 7, 2022; the case terminated then, so there is little risk of a later-appearing attorney, but I could not run a live PACER pull to confirm there is no sealed appearance.
• No court opinion, Law360, or Reuters piece naming additional Cedar Lane counsel in this specific case surfaced; the representation is documented only through the docket entries above and Rabicoff Law's own filings. I have not attributed any other attorney to this matter, and I found no evidence of local counsel, of-counsel, or in-house appearances.

I'll research the docket and counsel of record for Cedar Lane Technologies v. Motorola Solutions. Let me start with searches.

Key finding: this case appears to have been dismissed before any defense appearance. Let me verify the full docket and check the related 2020 case.

Confirmed the case was dismissed before an answer. Let me check for a more recent docket snapshot and try to locate the agreed-extension notice (Doc. 8), which may name defense counsel.

Bottom line

There is no counsel of record for Motorola Solutions, Inc. in this case — because Motorola never appeared. The case was voluntarily dismissed by Cedar Lane on December 7, 2022, twenty days before Motorola's answer deadline, and the docket contains no attorney appearance, no pro hac vice motion, no corporate disclosure statement, and no answer/motion to dismiss on Motorola's behalf. I will not name defense counsel here, because naming anyone would be fabrication.

Docket evidence (Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-01111 (W.D. Tex.))

Judge Alan D. Albright. Filed October 26, 2022. The complete docket as retrieved from PACER is nine substantive entries, all filed by Plaintiff or the Clerk:

Sources: Justia docket (last PACER retrieval Dec. 7, 2022) https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2022cv01111/1193625 ; Patexia document list https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Motorola-Solutions-Inc-id-182898/documents ; Stanford NPE database entry https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/268981.

Two points are worth flagging for the record:

1. The only attorney of record in the case is Plaintiff's counsel, Isaac P. Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC, Arlington, VA — formerly Chicago). He signed every filing, including the agreed extension. The extension notice (Doc. 8) is captioned as filed by Cedar Lane, not jointly, and the docket text does not name any Motorola attorney. The underlying PDF (3 pages) may reference "counsel for Defendant" in its body; I could not retrieve the PDF text, so the identity of the attorney with whom the extension was negotiated (in-house or outside) is not established on the public record.

2. Timing confirms no defense appearance was possible/needed. Motorola's responsive pleading was not due until 12/27/2022 (per the 11/21/2022 docket note resetting the deadline). Cedar Lane filed its Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of dismissal on 12/7/2022 — before any response, and before any appearance would ordinarily have been entered. This is the standard pattern for Cedar Lane's campaign: file, extract a short extension, settle, dismiss without prejudice.

Earlier (2020) suit against Motorola — same result

Cedar Lane previously sued Motorola over the same patent family in the N.D. Ill.: Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Motorola Solutions Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03600 (N.D. Ill., Judge Andrea R. Wood), filed 6/19/2020, asserting US 6,473,527, 6,516,147, 6,566,805, 6,972,774, 6,972,790, 7,292,261 and 8,537,242. There too, the only attorney appearance on the docket was Rabicoff for Plaintiff; the first amended complaint swapped in Motorola Mobility LLC, and Cedar Lane voluntarily dismissed on 7/10/2020 — three weeks after filing, with no defense appearance. Sources: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Illinois%20Southern%20District%20Court/case/1:20-cv-03600 ; https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-motorola-solutions-inc-[547841](/patent/547841).

Context on Motorola-side counsel (explicitly not this case)

So that the record is not misread: the following are attorneys who have represented Motorola Mobility LLC (the handset entity, now Lenovo-owned — a different company from Motorola Solutions, Inc.) in other patent matters. None of them has any appearance in 6:22-cv-01111, and none should be attributed to Motorola Solutions in this case:

• Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner — Cory C. Bell (lead, Boston) and Jason Stach (back-up, Atlanta), PTAB counsel for Motorola Mobility in IPR2025-00174 (Motorola–Ericsson matter). See mandatory notices, https://ai-lab.exparte.com/documents/ptab/.../IPR2025-00174_doc_5_exparte.pdf
• Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton — John C. Alemanni, Candice C. Decaire, David A. Reed, counsel for Motorola Mobility in IPR2013-00007 (SoftView). https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1458828](/patent/1458828)/
• Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan — Charles K. Verhoeven, Edward J. DeFranco, David A. Nelson, for Motorola Mobility in S.D. Fla. (2010).
• King & Spalding — Brian Eutermoser, trial counsel for Motorola Mobility in St. Lawrence Communications v. Motorola Mobility (E.D. Tex.). https://www.kslaw.com/people/brian-eutermoser

Caveats and recommended verification

• Justia's snapshot is dated December 7, 2022; Patexia's list matches. I was unable to run a fresh PACER pull. Because the dismissal was without prejudice (Doc. 9), a refiling is theoretically possible, but I found no 2023–2025 Cedar Lane suit against Motorola Solutions in the Stanford NPE database, Patsnap's litigation index for US 6,972,790 (52 cases listed, no Motorola case after 2022), or IPWatchdog's filing roundups.
• To close the gap definitively: (a) pull the current PACER docket for 6:22-cv-01111 to confirm no post-12/7/2022 entries; (b) download Doc. 8 (the agreed extension PDF) — it is the one document most likely to name Motorola's negotiating counsel in its signature block or certificate of conference; and (c) if the settlement/license correspondence is ever produced, Motorola's in-house IP litigation counsel would appear there. Until one of those is reviewed, the identity of Motorola's counsel in this matter is unknown on the public record, not merely unlisted.