Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Motorola Solutions Inc. et al.

I'll research this case across dockets, patent records, and litigation databases.

Case Overview — Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Motorola Solutions Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-03600 (N.D. Ill.)

Parties and posture. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian entity (its later complaints list a principal place of business at 560 Baker St., Suite 1, Nelson, B.C.) that describes itself as assignee of a portfolio of legacy display- and imaging-related patents and is classified as a non-practicing entity holding "acquired patents" in Stanford's NPE Litigation Database. It was represented throughout by Isaac P. Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago) as sole counsel of record. Defendants were Motorola Solutions, Inc. — the Chicago-based public-safety/enterprise communications company (two-way radio, LMR, body cameras, command-center software) — and, after amendment, Motorola Mobility LLC, the separate Chicago-headquartered handset maker owned by Lenovo since 2014. The case was filed June 19, 2020, randomly assigned to Judge Andrea R. Wood with Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes designated (Dkt. 1, 4). Cedar Lane amended on July 10, 2020 to name Motorola Mobility LLC (Dkt. 6, with 14 exhibits), then filed a notice of voluntary dismissal the same day (Dkt. 7); Judge Wood terminated the case that afternoon without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), striking all dates (Dkt. 9). Total lifespan: 21 days, with no appearance, answer, or motion by either Motorola entity — the case is procedurally a nullity and has no preclusive or merits effect. Venue mattered here in an inverted way: unlike Cedar Lane's contemporaneous W.D. Tex./D. Del./S.D. Tex. filings, N.D. Ill. is the defendants' actual home district (both Motorola entities are Chicago-based) and counsel's home forum, so § 1400(b) residency was uncontested — yet Cedar Lane abandoned the forum anyway.

The patent and the accused technology. The asserted patent in the case metadata is U.S. Patent No. 6,566,805, "Organic electro-luminescent device with first and second composite layers," issued May 20, 2003 from application 09/672,920 (filed Sept. 28, 2000; June 1, 2000 priority), naming Rung-Ywan Tsai, Ching-Ian Chao, Chia-Shy Chang and Mu-Yi Hua, originally assigned to Taiwan's Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) and now recorded to Cedar Lane. In one line: a flexible OLED display structure — a plastic substrate coated on both faces with TiO₂–SiO₂ composite barrier/hard-coat layers, an ITO transparent anode, an organic emitting layer, a metal cathode, and an encapsulating SiO₂ "protecting layer," with claim 1 requiring the dual composite layers (see Google Patents US6566805B1; FreePatentsOnline). It is a panel-fabrication patent, not a handset-software patent, which explains the entity shuffle: Motorola Solutions does not make consumer displays, so the amended complaint redirected the claim to Motorola Mobility, the handset OEM. Two caveats worth flagging: (1) the complaint's claim charts were attached as exhibits rather than described in the body, and I could not retrieve the Motorola-specific charts to confirm which products (e.g., OLED-equipped handsets) were named — in a nearly identical Cedar Lane complaint from this period the body named no products at all; and (2) a Korean IP-protection database (KOTRA, citing the Korea IP Protection Agency) records seven patents for this case number — 6,473,527, 6,516,147, 6,566,805, 6,972,774, 6,972,790, 7,292,261 and 8,537,242 — which is

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and case metadata.

The 20-cv-03600 docket appears extremely short. Let me verify the full docket and check for any PTAB proceedings on the '805 patent.

Let me investigate the PTAB side and the possibility of related follow-on suits against Motorola.

Bottom line

This case never became a litigation in any substantive sense. Cedar Lane Technologies v. Motorola Solutions, 1:20-cv-03600 (N.D. Ill.) existed for 21 days — from complaint (2020-06-19) to a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal without prejudice (2020-07-10). There was no answer, no counterclaim, no motion of any kind, no Markman, no discovery, no IPR, no judgment, and no appeal. The entire docket is nine entries. The reporting value here is therefore negative/diagnostic rather than doctrinal: this is the shell of a case, and understanding why requires looking at Cedar Lane's campaign behavior and its 2022 re-filing against the same defendant.

---

Chronology (all docket entries)

2020-06-19 — Complaint filed. Dkt. 1, "COMPLAINT Patent Infringement," jury demand, $400 filing fee. Assigned on random assignment to Judge Andrea R. Wood, with Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes designated. Summons issued same day as to Motorola Solutions Inc. Counsel for plaintiff: Isaac Philip Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC), who appears in essentially all Cedar Lane matters. Dkt. 2 (corporate disclosure), Dkt. 3 (attorney appearance) filed same day.

2020-06-19 — Dkt. 4. Minute entry setting initial status hearing for 2020-08-19, with the standard COVID-era telephonic access instructions and a Rule 26(f) planning-conference / joint status report requirement.

2020-06-22 — Dkt. 5. AO 120 report on filing of a patent action mailed to the USPTO (the docket text reads "MAILED Trademark report," which is the clerk's boilerplate for the combined AO 120 form).

2020-07-10 — Dkt. 6, First Amended Complaint. Filed against Motorola Mobility LLC, not Motorola Solutions Inc. Fifteen attachments (main document plus Exhibits 1–14). No leave to amend was sought or granted on the docket; Rule 15(a)(1)(A) permitted amendment as of right because no responsive pleading had been served.

2020-07-10 — Dkt. 7, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

2020-07-10 — Dkt. 9, Minute entry (Judge Wood). "Plaintiff having filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) [#7], this case is dismissed without prejudice. All pending hearing dates and motions are stricken. Civil case terminated." Because no answer or summary-judgment motion had been filed, the dismissal was self-executing on filing — the minute entry merely memorialized it.

2020-07-10 — Dkt. 8. Chief Judge Pallmeyer's Fifth Amended General Order 20-0012 (COVID-19), a district-wide administrative order unrelated to the merits.

That is the complete docket. No later entries, no reopened proceedings, no post-dismissal motions, no Rule 54(d)/§ 285 fee motion, no appeal.

---

Stage-by-stage: what did not happen

---

Two metadata problems resolved

1. The N.D. Ill. / "Illinois S.D." conflict. The Unified Patents litigation portal files this case under "Illinois Southern District Court," which is wrong. The docket confirms U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division: Judge Wood and Magistrate Judge Fuentes sit in N.D. Ill., the docket entry references the N.D. Ill. website and the district's General Order 20-0012, and the AO 120 report was mailed to the Alexandria, VA PTO address under the N.D. Ill. clerk's standard text. Treat N.D. Ill. as authoritative.

2. Which patents were asserted. The case metadata lists only U.S. Patent No. 6,566,805 ("Organic electro-luminescent device with first and second composite layers," filed 2000-09-28, issued 2003-05-20, claim 1 covering a plastic substrate with first and second composite barrier layers, a transparent conductive electrode, an organic emitting layer, a metal electrode, and an encapsulating protecting layer). However, the Korean IP-protection/KOTRA database entry for this exact case number lists seven patents: 6,473,527; 6,516,147; 6,566,805; 6,972,774; 6,972,790; 7,292,261; and 8,537,242 — which matches the fourteen exhibits attached to the amended complaint (plausibly two exhibits per patent). Cedar Lane's contemporaneous complaints against TCL (D. Del. 1:20-cv-00836, filed 2020-06-22) and Innolux (D. Del. 1:20-cv-00768) asserted the same overlapping set. My assessment: the '805 was almost certainly one of several patents asserted here, not the sole one, and the single-patent metadata field is under-inclusive. I could not retrieve the Dkt. 6 exhibit list itself to confirm the exact count per patent — flagging that as unverified.

---

Strategic reading of the 21-day life

The sequence is unusual and worth noting precisely: on the same day, Cedar Lane (a) amended to swap Motorola Solutions Inc. for Motorola Mobility LLC and (b) dismissed the case outright. Amending to fix the entity and then immediately dismissing is internally inconsistent behavior for a plaintiff pursuing a defendant; it is the signature of a form-complaint campaign being triaged, not of a merits-driven withdrawal.

Context that supports that reading: Cedar Lane was formed in British Columbia in April 2019, acquired portfolios from NPE intermediaries (AVInnov / Intellectual Ventures lineage), and filed 60-plus complaints within roughly a year in 2019–2020, all through Rabicoff Law. Its dismissal rate was high across the campaign — e.g., the later Lenovo (D. Del. 1:22-cv-00051) and Shenzhen Shenting (W.D. Tex. 6:23-cv-00234, dismissed with prejudice 2023-06-09) suits both ended by plaintiff's own notice.

I could not source a stated reason for the 2020-07-10 dismissal. I specifically considered and cannot confirm a venue rationale: Motorola Mobility LLC is headquartered in Chicago, which sits in the Northern District of Illinois, so a TC Heartland problem would not obviously explain a dismissal from N.D. Ill. A more likely (but unproven) explanation is consolidation of Cedar Lane's 2020 filing wave into the Western District of Texas, where it filed companion suits against Amazon (1:20-cv-00415) and ON Semiconductor (1:20-cv-00414) that same year. This is inference, not record fact.

---

Parallel PTAB activity on the asserted patents

On U.S. 6,566,805: I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding. No petition appears in PTAB records or in any secondary database tied to the '805. Because the case died before any answer, no defendant would yet have been positioned to file a § 315(b)-timed petition, and no stay motion was ever presented. So the answer to "effect of PTAB proceedings on this litigation" is: none — there were none.

Cedar Lane did face PTAB pressure in this window, on a different patent. In Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., IPR2020-00006, Unified challenged U.S. 7,173,177 (playlist owned/unowned-item user-interface patent, IV lineage — not a patent in this case). Key dates: petition 2019-10-03; institution on all challenged claims 2020-03-18; final written decision 2021-02-12 holding the asserted independent claim unpatentable; rehearing denied 2021-12-08. Cedar Lane's owner-side counsel in that IPR was Isaac Rabicoff himself. This is useful campaign context — Cedar Lane was absorbing an invalidity loss in early 2020 while filing these hardware/display suits — but it had no legal or procedural effect on 1:20-cv-03600.

(Caveat on scope: my search coverage for PTAB proceedings on the '805 was not exhaustive of every docket-navigator-grade database. I rate "no IPR on the '805" as well-supported but not absolute.)

---

Follow-on litigation against the same defendant — the real terminus

Cedar Lane returned to Motorola Solutions two years later:

• 2022-10-26 — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-01111 (W.D. Tex.), assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright "due to related cases." Complaint with Exhibits 1–6; Notice of Related Case filed (Dkt. 6); AO 120 filed. Per the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, the asserted family included U.S. 6,473,527 — i.e., the same Cedar Lane display/imaging portfolio as the 2020 N.D. Ill. suit, and materially the same patent set including the '805 per the '790/527 docket cross-references.
• 2022-11-21 — Dkt. 8, agreed extension of Motorola Solutions' response deadline to 2022-12-27.
• 2022-12-07 — Dkt. 9, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (with proposed order); Dkt. 10, AO 120 report to PTO. No answer was ever filed; no IPR was filed.

So the pattern replicated itself: complaint → extension → plaintiff's voluntary dismissal before any responsive pleading. **The present posture is: fully terminated, twice, without adjud

I'll search multiple angles to find press coverage of this case.

Let me dig further for actual press coverage.

Press coverage: essentially none specific to this case

I searched the caption, both party names, the ’805 patent, "verdict," "settlement," and Cedar Lane's broader campaign across the outlets you listed. *I found no article from Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF Deeplinks, or any mainstream or trade outlet that reports on Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Motorola Solutions Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03600 (N.D. Ill.).* The only records of the case I could locate are litigation databases and docket mirrors — UniCourt, Unified Patents' portal, and a Korean government IP-dispute database entry (KOTRA/KIPO) — none of which are journalism. That absence is unsurprising: the docket shows Cedar Lane filed a notice of voluntary dismissal (Dkt. 7) and Judge Andrea R. Wood dismissed the case without prejudice on 2020-07-10 (Dkt. 9), roughly three weeks after filing, leaving no ruling, no verdict, and no reported damages or settlement terms. There was no press window and no newsworthy event.

What does exist is coverage of Cedar Lane's litigation campaign as a whole, which gives context but never mentions Motorola. Law Street Media reported on a Cedar Lane suit against HTC in the Western District of Texas asserting the same U.S. Patent No. 6,566,805 — describing it as covering an "organic electro-luminescent device" — and noted Cedar Lane's damages, fees, and interest demands and its representation by Rabicoff Law LLC. JD Supra, publishing Seyfarth Shaw's "NPE Showcase" in October 2022, profiled Cedar Lane as "one of the more prolific NPEs in the patent enforcement market," a Canadian company incorporated in 2019 that "sue[d] hundreds of defendants," filed sixteen cases in a single week in the Western District of Texas, and "primarily asserts patents that were originally owned by Intellectual Ventures entities." Seyfarth's analyst take went beyond any court record: it characterized the campaign as "conventional patent-based nuisance litigation designed to generate a large quantity of modest settlements," noted that "none of their cases have reached the trial stage," and flagged a 2020 sanctions order by Judge Vince Chhabria of the N.D. Cal. against Cedar Lane and attorney Isaac Rabicoff for "taking positions in his filings that were objectively frivolous … and did so in bad faith," referring Rabicoff to that court's Standing Committee on Professional Conduct.

The most detailed reporting is Canadian trade/business coverage of a different Cedar Lane suit. The Logic, via the Calgary Herald, reported (in a piece referencing Ecobee's December 2022 acquisition by Generac, so published around early 2023) that Cedar Lane had "launched nearly 200 lawsuits in U.S. courts" per Sqoop data, that its sole director is Gregory Benoit (also linked to Patent Armory), and that Cedar Lane's counsel told the reporter in writing, "I'm authorized to make an opening demand of 95K" — a $95,000 settlement figure that appears nowhere in any public docket and is notable because the reporter says Rabicoff later said he had mistaken the journalist for opposing counsel. In the digital-signage trade press, invidis published a 2020-10-21 piece by Dave Haynes describing Cedar Lane as a "patent troll," noting it incorporated in March 2019, that its listed office was a small Nelson, B.C. law firm, and that it had also sued LG, Comcast, SiriusXM, and Enplug; Actionable Intelligence has similarly reported Cedar Lane settlements (e.g., with Brother), and an IAM headline teaser from 2023-02-13 reads "Cedar Lane Technologies dominates US computer centre case filings in 2022" — though I could not access the article body, and its connection to Motorola is only that both appear on the same IAM organisation page.

Caveats. First, none of the above articles names Motorola, Motorola Solutions, or Motorola Mobility in connection with Cedar Lane; treat them as campaign context only, not case coverage. Second, the UniCourt and Unified Patents dockets disagree with the N.D. Ill. record on venue labeling (Unified Patents' URL labels the case "Illinois Southern District Court"), and the Korean KOTRA entry lists seven asserted patents (including the ’805 patent and U.S. 6,473,527, 6,516,147, 6,972,774, 6,972,790, 7,292,261, 8,537,242) and describes the outcome as "진행중" (pending) — which is stale, since dismissal occurred in July 2020. Third, Cedar Lane re-filed against Motorola Solutions in the W.D. Tex. as No. 6:22-cv-01111 (complaint filed 2022-10-26 before Judge Alan Albright) and voluntarily dismissed that case on 2022-12-07 (Dkt. 9), per Justia's docket; I found no press coverage of that suit either. If your research objective requires contemporaneous news for this docket, the honest conclusion is that the case generated none — the usable reporting is entirely about Cedar Lane's filing volume, its principal, its settlement pricing, and its litigation conduct in other matters.

Sources

• 6972790 | NPE Litigation Database - 6972790
• Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Motorola Solutions Inc. - This case was last updated from U
• Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc.
• 1:20-cv-03600 - Cedar Lane Technologies Inc v. Motorola Solutions Inc et al. - CIVIL DOCKET
• 6473527 | NPE Litigation Database
• D.C.N.D.Illinois - 해외경제정보드림
• Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc. > Documents
• JD Supra: NPE Showcase - Welcome to the first installment of “NPE Showcase,” where we discuss high-volume non-practicing entities (or as some call them, ...
• IP WEEKLY | 中国企业涉美诉讼动态
• Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Innolux USA Inc. - This case was last updated from U
• Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. TCL Communication, Inc.
• Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. Court Docket Sheet

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

Let me pull the actual docket and verify attorney details.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Case No. 1:20-cv-03600 (N.D. Ill., Judge Andrea R. Wood) — closed

Record basis

The docket for this case is short and entirely one-sided on the plaintiff's side: the complaint (Dkt. 1, filed 6/19/2020), corporate disclosure (Dkt. 2), a single attorney appearance (Dkt. 3), the first amended complaint naming Motorola Mobility LLC (Dkt. 6, 7/10/2020), the notice of voluntary dismissal (Dkt. 7, 7/10/2020), and the termination minute entry (Dkt. 9, 7/10/2020). Dkt. 3 is the only attorney appearance by anyone on behalf of the plaintiff, and every substantive filing bears the same single signature block.

---

1. Isaac Philip Rabicoff — Lead counsel (sole counsel of record)

• Firm / office: Rabicoff Law LLC, 73 W. Monroe St., Chicago, IL 60603 (tel. 773-669-4590; isaac@rabilaw.com). USPTO Reg. No. 74,147.
• Appearance: Dkt. 3, "ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. by Isaac Philip Rabicoff" (6/19/2020); he also signed the complaint, the Rule 7.1/corporate disclosure, the amended complaint, and the notice of voluntary dismissal.
• Admissions / why no local counsel: Admitted in Illinois; U.S. Supreme Court; Fed. Cir.; 7th Cir.; N.D. Ill. (including the Trial Bar); E.D. Tex.; W.D. Wis.; registered patent attorney. Because he is admitted to the N.D. Ill. trial bar, Cedar Lane did not retain separate Chicago local counsel — consistent with the absence of any second appearance on the docket.
• Experience note: Rabicoff is the architect of Cedar Lane's high-volume assertion campaign — his firm bio states it was among Lex Machina's top 3 most active patent litigation firms in 2017 and that he has run licensing campaigns against Amazon, Microsoft, Sony, Apple, LG, Huawei, Samsung and Google; he also handles PTAB work (including a CBM denial of institution against Mastercard) and has argued before the Federal Circuit. A 2022 Chinese IP-protection-center risk alert identified Rabicoff Law LLC as counsel in 58 of Cedar Lane's suits.

2. No other counsel appeared

• No of-counsel, no local counsel, no in-house appearance. Greg Benoit — Cedar Lane's president/director and a lawyer by training, described in RPX and IAM reporting as the company's founder and the force behind the campaign — is not on the docket as counsel in this case. Cedar Lane has no in-house legal department reflected in any filing here.
• Caveat: I could not locate a full-text PDF of Dkt. 1 or Dkt. 6 in this docket to confirm whether the caption signature block listed additional firm attorneys who never entered an appearance. Nothing in the docket, the Justia/UniCourt docket mirrors, or the Unified Patents entry shows a second name. If you need certainty, pull Dkt. 1 and Dkt. 6 from PACER and check the signature blocks.

3. Posture point relevant to staffing

Cedar Lane re-filed against Motorola in the Western District of Texas on the same family of patents — Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-01111 (W.D. Tex., Judge Alan D. Albright) — and Rabicoff again appeared as the sole plaintiff's attorney (Dkt. 2, 10/26/2022), filing the notice of voluntary dismissal himself on 12/7/2022 (Dkt. 9). This confirms the single-lawyer staffing model was deliberate, not an artifact of the 2020 Illinois filing.

4. Sourcing caveat on one reputational item

Secondary commentary (Seyfarth Shaw's "NPE Showcase" on JD Supra) reports that in 2020 Judge Vince Chhabria of the N.D. Cal. sanctioned both Cedar Lane and Rabicoff for objectively frivolous positions taken in bad faith, noted Rabicoff was not admitted in that district, and referred him to the court's standing committee on professional conduct. I did not independently verify the underlying order or its citation, so treat that as attributed secondary reporting rather than a confirmed finding. It has no bearing on counsel of record in the N.D. Ill. case.

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

Let me verify the complete docket on CourtListener/RECAP to confirm whether any defense counsel appeared.

The docket shows only nine entries, all plaintiff-side. Let me confirm via PACER Monitor and check the later-filed companion case for context on Motorola's defense counsel.

Bottom line

No attorney appeared for either defendant in this case. The docket for Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Motorola Solutions Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03600 (N.D. Ill.) contains no attorney appearance, no answer, no Rule 12 motion, no corporate disclosure statement, and no proof of service on behalf of Motorola Solutions Inc. or Motorola Mobility LLC. The case was voluntarily dismissed 21 days after filing, before any defense appearance was due.

This is a verified "no counsel of record" finding, not a gap in the record — the case is terminated and the docket is complete at 9 entries.

Docket basis (all 9 entries, complete)

Sources: Justia docket (last retrieved 07/10/2020) https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2020cv03600/[376983](/patent/376983); UniCourt (last updated 08/18/2020) https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-motorola-solutions-inc-[547841](/patent/547841); Unified Patents litigation portal https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Illinois%20Southern%20District%20Court/case/1:20-cv-03600 (note: that database's court tag "Illinois Southern District" is erroneous — the docket is N.D. Ill.).

Why there is no defense counsel to name

• No service. The only summons issued was to Motorola Solutions Inc. (Doc. entered 06/19/2020), and no return of service ever appeared. Under Rule 12(a)(1)(A), no response obligation (and therefore no reason to retain counsel of record) had ripened.
• Dismissal preceded appearance. Cedar Lane amended to swap in Motorola Mobility LLC (Doc. 6) and dismissed the same day (Docs. 7, 9). Motorola never had to answer.
• Nothing sealed. There are no sealed filings and no defense-side filings of any kind; the absence of counsel is not an artifact of sealing or redaction. Defense counsel "hasn't appeared" in the literal, permanent sense.

Explicitly not verifiable / do not assume

• I did not find any attorney identified as Motorola's counsel in this docket, and I will not name one. Any name offered as "Motorola's counsel in 1:20-cv-03600" would be fabricated.
• Later companion case (context only, not this case). Cedar Lane re-sued Motorola Solutions in W.D. Tex. — No. 6:22-cv-01111 (filed 10/26/2022), where the docket shows a plaintiff-filed "Notice of Agreed Extension of Time for Defendant Motorola Solutions, Inc. to Answer… to 12/27/22" (Doc. 8, 11/21/2022) and a voluntary dismissal (Doc. 9, 12/07/2022). My retrieval of that docket did not surface an attorney-appearance entry for Motorola; I could not confirm who, if anyone, entered an appearance there. That case is a different matter and cannot be used to attribute counsel to 1:20-cv-03600.
• Firm-level context, not counsel of record. Public PTAB materials show Motorola Solutions using Baker Botts in IPR2023-01295 (contact: Katharine Burke); Motorola Mobility has historically been represented by large national IP firms in other litigations (e.g., Kirkland & Ellis/Ropes & Gray alumni in Fed. Cir. No. 14-1089). These are background indications of Motorola's outside-counsel relationships, not appearances in this case, and should not be reported as counsel of record here.

Recommended next step if you need a negative cite

Pull the PACER docket report for 1:20-cv-03600 directly (N.D. Ill. CM/ECF, Judge Wood, "case terminated") to paper the file with a certified docket showing the absence of any appearance under Local Rule 83.15/5.2. Expect a 9-entry, 2-page report consistent with the above.

One flag for the case summary

The KOTRA/Korean IPP database entry for this case lists seven patents asserted — US 6,473,527; 6,516,147; 6,566,805; 6,972,774; 6,972,790; 7,292,261; 8,537,242 — while the case metadata here lists only the '805 patent. Worth reconciling against the Doc. 1/6 exhibit set (Docs. 6-1 through 6-14) before the patent count is treated as settled.