Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Moxa Inc.

I'll research this case before writing. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Good initial grounding. Let me dig deeper on Moxa, the accused products, and any PTAB activity.

Now let me verify the complaint's specifics and check PTAB activity on the '527 patent.

Case Overview — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Moxa Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00778 (W.D. Tex.)

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a non-practicing entity, not an operating company. Chinese IP-protection authorities describe it as registered in Canada in 2019, founded by Greg Benoit (a lawyer with a long NPE-litigation résumé), and holding roughly 193 U.S. patents — 191 of them acquired, only about 22 still in force — sourced largely from Intellectual Ventures. See 《关于海外专利纠纷案件高频原告Cedar Lane的风险预警》, Shenzhen IP Protection Center (Oct. 2022), http://www.sziprs.org.cn/szipr/hwwq/jfydzd/content/post_839930.html. RPX independently confirms the IV provenance and the campaign's scale: launched May 2019 against Advert Tech, past 150 defendants by January 2022, "nearing 50" asserted patents, with a documented practice of filing, pressing briefly, and then dismissing — "Cedar Lane has yet to take any of its cases much beyond pleadings." RPX, Defendant Count In Cedar Lane Technologies's Campaign Ticks Past 150 (Jan. 31, 2022), via Mondaq, https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/[1155682](/patent/1155682)/. Its litigation counsel is Isaac Rabicoff of Chicago's Rabicoff Law LLC, a high-volume filer concentrated in W.D. Tex. Moxa Inc. is the opposite kind of party: a Taiwanese industrial-networking and industrial-IoT manufacturer (New Taipei City), privately held, best known for industrial Ethernet switches, serial device servers, Modbus/fieldbus gateways, industrial computers, and its VPort line of industrial IP cameras and video encoders/servers. Moxa is a genuine operating company with no apparent U.S. patent portfolio of its own in this dispute; Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies it here solely as an alleged infringer. https://npe.law.stanford.edu/party/moxa-inc

The patents and the accused technology. The case metadata lists one patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,473,527, "Module and method for interfacing analog/digital converting means and JPEG compression means" — and that is the lead (and apparently only) patent in the operative pleading. The '527 patent is a single-patent family: inventor Wang Chia-Ying, originally assigned to Taiwan's Mustek Systems Inc., filed June 1, 1999, issued October 29, 2002, and expired June 1, 2019 — it was assigned to Cedar Lane in May 2019, i.e., essentially at the end of its term. The Recycler, Pantum sued for patent breach (quoting the complaint and assignment history), https://therecycler.com/posts/pantum-sued-for-patent-breach/. Technically, the '527 patent claims an interface module sitting between an A/D converter and a JPEG compression engine that uses a small internal buffer, sized to match the JPEG engine's built-in memory (e.g., 8 image lines / one 8×8 block), to eliminate a discrete external frame-buffer RAM chip — a cost-reduction architecture for digital cameras and scanners. Independent claim 1 is written in means-plus-function form ("read control means," "memory means," "output control means"), which makes § 112(f) construction the crux of any merits fight; claim 8 is a method claim. (Claim text and specification citations: complaint analysis at https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txwd/6:22-cv-00778/doc/analysis/1.) Caveat on the patent count: the Ex Parte complaint analysis for this docket, and Stanford's NPE database entries for patent 6,972,790, indicate the complaint as filed also asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 6,972,790 ("Host interface for imaging arrays," issued Dec. 6, 2005, ~Jan. 2000 priority) and 8,537,242 (a divisional of the same family, issued Sept. 17, 2013) — the two claims covering an on-chip FIFO/interrupt interface that bridges a CMOS image sensor's streaming output to a host processor's address-based bus. That is Cedar Lane's standard three-patent image-processing package, used in dozens of parallel suits. Per your instruction I treat the metadata's single-patent listing as authoritative, but the discrepancy is worth flagging. The accused products are not named in the complaint's narrative: Cedar Lane identified "Exemplary Defendant Products" only in Exhibits 4–6, which were incorporated by reference but not attached to the publicly filed complaint — so the product identification is not verifiable from the public record. Given the claim subject matter and Moxa's catalog, the likely targets are the VPort industrial IP cameras and video encoders (which perform MJPEG/H.264/H.265 compression in-camera), but that is inference, not a documented fact.

Procedural posture, venue, and why the case matters. Filed July 13, 2022 in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas and assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright; there was no trial, no claim construction, no motion practice on the merits, and no IPR that I can find linked to this docket. The entire life of the case is eight docket entries: complaint (Dkt. 1), summons issued (Dkt. 6), return of service on Moxa dated July 19, 2022 (Dkt. 7, filed Aug. 23), a waiver of service sent Aug. 30 and returned Sept. 9 (Dkt. 8, answer due Nov. 28, 2022), then Cedar Lane's own notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice on Sept. 26, 2022 (Dkt. 9), granted by Judge Albright on March 6, 2023 (Dkt. 10), with the AO-120 report sent to the PTO the same day (Dkt. 11). Full docket: https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Moxa-Inc-id-[165251](/patent/165251)/documents. The ~2½-month lifespan, ending in a plaintiff-initiated dismissal before any answer, is the signature outcome of this campaign — the Shenzhen report puts median time-to-resolution for Cedar Lane's cases against Shenzhen entities at 77 days, with 9 of 10 resolved by settlement. No settlement, license, or dismissal agreement appears on the public docket, so the reason for dismissal is not documented; the parallel service-then-waiver sequence (and the fact that the named defendant is the Taiwanese parent, Moxa Inc., rather than a U.S. subsidiary) is consistent with either a quick license or an entity/service problem, but I found no source confirming which. Venue is the analytically interesting piece: because Moxa Inc. is an alien (foreign) defendant, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) makes venue proper in any district, so the TC Heartland§ 1400(b) squeeze that was forcing Albright's domestic-defendant cases out on mandamus in 2022 did not apply — W.D. Tex. was effectively a free-choice forum. And the forum choice mattered: in 2021–22 Albright's Waco docket was the highest-volume patent docket in the country, with an aggressive scheduling order that pushed cases toward trial dates roughly a year out, which is precisely the leverage a volume plaintiff wants. On notability, three things stand out. First, this is a data point in the largest NPE campaign of its era — the '527 patent alone appears in roughly 124 district court filings and was asserted in some 38 complaints, the '790 in about 46 — and Cedar Lane was reportedly the most frequent patent plaintiff in the country in 2021. Second, the asserted patent had already expired 37 months before suit, which caps the case structurally: under 35 U.S.C. § 286 the recoverable window ran only from roughly June 2016 to June 1, 2019, so the realistic damages period was about three years, typically measured by a reasonable-royalty apportionment to a JPEG-interface component — a low-per-unit exposure that pushes toward nuisance-value settlements and explains the campaign's velocity. Third, the target profile is notable: Moxa is an OT/industrial-networking vendor being reached through the imaging functionality in its edge devices, illustrating how the 2019–2022 NPE wave used broad image-compression and sensor-interface claims to reach industrial and IoT hardware rather than consumer electronics.

Sourcing notes and open items. Firmly sourced: docket events and dates (Patexia/PACER-derived); filing date, division, judge; patent number, title, inventor, original assignee, filing/issue/expiration dates, and assignment to Cedar Lane (complaint analysis + The Recycler); Cedar Lane's NPE status, founder, IV provenance, campaign size and disposition patterns (RPX/Mondaq; Stanford NPE database; Shenzhen IP Protection Center). Not well sourced and flagged above: (1) whether '790 and '242 were pleaded alongside '527 in this specific docket, given the metadata lists only '527; (2) the specific accused Moxa product models; (3) whether any IPR was petitioned against the '527 patent — my search surfaced none, but I could not exhaustively confirm a negative from PTAB sources and would not assert one; (4) the reason for the voluntary dismissal, and whether any payment changed hands. If you want, I can next pull the complaint PDF itself from RECAP to confirm the patent count and the actual named products, and run a PTAB proceeding search on the '527 patent.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and any reported developments.

Initial docket findings are clear (filed 2022-07-13; voluntarily dismissed). Let me dig into the details and the parallel PTAB picture.

Now let me get the full docket and check for any re-filing or PTAB activity.

Bottom line

This is not a litigated case in any meaningful sense — it is a short-fuse NPE licensing suit that terminated by voluntary dismissal without prejudice roughly three months after service, before Moxa ever answered. There is no answer, no counterclaim, no motion practice of substance, no Markman, no discovery of record, no trial, and no PTAB proceeding. The only substantive legal events are the complaint, the waiver of service, the notice/motion to dismiss, and the dismissal order.

One metadata correction up front: the case caption lists only the '527 patent, but the complaint as filed asserted three patents — U.S. 6,473,527 ("Module and method for interfacing analog/digital converting means and JPEG compression means"), U.S. 6,972,790 and U.S. 8,537,242 (both "Host interface for imaging arrays"). The PTAB-adjacent and docket sources consistently list all three for this case number.

---

Chronological record

2022-07-13 — Complaint filed (Doc. 1). Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. sued Moxa Inc. in W.D. Tex. (Waco Division), No. 6:22-cv-00778, assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright. Same-day filings: notice of appearance by Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC) (Doc. 2), Rule 7.1 disclosure statement (Doc. 3), summons request (Doc. 4), AO-120 patent report to the PTO (Doc. 5), summons issued (Doc. 6). Rabicoff Law was Cedar Lane's captive-volume filer — a Chinese IP-protection-center risk advisory counted ~58 Cedar Lane cases handled by that firm and ~325 total Cedar Lane district-court suits.

A notable pleading defect flagged in complaint-analysis sources: the complaint asserted "one or more claims" of each patent and incorporated claim charts by reference to Exhibits 4, 5 and 6, but did not attach those exhibits to the filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 15–16, 19, 24–25, 28, 33). The asserted '527 claim 1 is a means-plus-function claim ("read control means," "memory means," "output control means"), so the case's infringement theory would have turned on §112(f) structure corresponding to the disclosed read-control/memory/output-control arrangement.

2022-07-19 — Service on Moxa; original answer deadline 2022-08-09 (Doc. 7, summons returned executed, filed 2022-08-23).

2022-08-30 — Waiver of service sent; answer deadline extended to 2022-11-28 (Doc. 8, filed 2022-09-09). This is the last defendant-side event in the case.

2022-09-16/17 — Albright updated standing orders entered on the docket (text-only entry directing compliance with the Standing Order Governing Proceedings – Patent Cases).

2022-09-26 — Cedar Lane moves to dismiss its own case (Doc. 9): captioned "MOTION to Dismiss (Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice)," with proposed order. Timing matters: this was filed 75 days after filing and 27 days after the waiver of service, while Moxa's answer was still ~2 months out. That is the classic Cedar Lane signature — extract a license/paid settlement before the defendant's answer and IPR clock start. IAM interviewed Cedar Lane president Greg Benoit in March 2023 and reported a 96% settlement rate among terminated Cedar Lane cases; the Shenzhen IP Protection Center advisory reported a median ~77-day termination cycle for Cedar Lane's cases against Shenzhen entities.

2023-03-06 — Dismissal order (Doc. 10) signed by Judge Albright granting Doc. 9, plus Doc. 11, the Rule 21/patent-report transmittal to the USPTO. Case closed.

Unresolved timing point (flag): there is a ~5-month gap between the 2022-09-26 motion and the 2023-03-06 order. Available sources do not explain it — it may reflect settlement-finalization hold, the motion being docketed as a combined notice/motion requiring a signed order, or ordinary Waco docket lag. I found no order setting a deadline, no extension motion, and no joint stipulation in the docket listings. Treat the reason as unsourced.

---

Pre-trial motions of substance

None. Specifically, no record of:

• Rule 12(b)(6) motion — Moxa never answered or moved; the §101/eligibility attack that these imaging-interface patents would invite never materialized.
• §1404(a) transfer motion — none. (Moxa, a Taiwan-headquartered industrial-networking company, would have been a plausible transfer candidate, but the case ended first.)
• Stay pending IPR — none, because no IPR was filed and no answer was due to be filed.
• Summary judgment — none.
• Discovery motions, protective orders, ESI disputes — none of record; no scheduling order or discovery order appears in the docket listings, which is consistent with the case terminating before the Rule 26(f) conference.

Claim construction

The case never reached Markman. No joint claim-construction/preliminary statement, no Markman hearing, no claim-construction order. If the '527 claim had been construed, the live battleground would have been the §112(f) corresponding structure for "memory means" — whether the term is limited to the disclosed small line buffer sized to the JPEG compressor's built-in memory (col. 3:5–16) or reaches generalized memory architectures in the accused products.

Discovery milestones

None of strategic significance. Service was completed 2022-07-19; the case was dismissed 2022-09-26, i.e., within roughly 10 weeks — well before any document production, deposition, or expert disclosure. The only "discovery-adjacent" event is the waiver of service (2022-08-30), which had the practical effect of pushing Moxa's answer date past the point at which Cedar Lane pulled the plug.

Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial setting, no verdict, no JMOL/Rule 59/Rule 54(d)/§285 fee motion. Given a without-prejudice dismissal with no adjudication of infringement, there was no prevailing party for fee purposes.

Final disposition / present posture

Dismissed without prejudice on 2023-03-06 (Doc. 10), case closed. There is no judgment on the merits and no injunction. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Cedar Lane retained the ability to re-sue Moxa on the same patents — but the Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists only this one case naming Moxa as an alleged infringer, and no re-filed Cedar Lane v. Moxa action appeared in any search. The present posture is therefore: terminated, most likely via a paid license or covenant, with no public settlement document. I could not confirm the existence or terms of any settlement — no Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation and no public license announcement surfaced.

Parallel PTAB proceedings

None affecting this case. I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition on the '527, '790, or '242 patents filed by or involving Moxa, and no PTAB proceeding that was cited in or stayed this litigation. Cedar Lane's asserted patents were widely challenged across its campaign generally, but I could not verify any specific instituted IPR on the '527 patent from available sources, and nothing in this docket reflects PTAB involvement. Treat "no parallel PTAB proceeding as to this case" as well-supported and "no IPR ever on the '527 patent" as unverified.

Strategic read

1. This is a data point, not a precedent. It belongs to Cedar Lane's 2022 W.D. Tex. wave (neighboring filings against Hitron, EverFocus, GeoVision, Dynacolor, Fuho and others in late June/July 2022, all before Judge Albright). Value in a portfolio-monitoring sense is the pattern: file in Waco, serve, take a waiver, dismiss without prejudice ~2–3 months later.
2. The '527 patent was already expired. Per a Chinese IP-protection-center advisory, the '527 patent (filed 1999-06-01, issued 2002-10-29) lapsed on 2019-06-01, and had been asserted in ~124 district-court cases. That caps recoverable damages under 35 U.S.C. § 286 to the six years pre-suit — in practice only the window 2016-07-13 through 2019-06-01 — and eliminates any injunctive leverage. Any defendant doing the math on this patent faces a short, backward-looking royalty exposure, which explains how quickly these cases convert to licenses.
3. The claimed-by-reference exhibits are the exploitable vulnerability for future defendants: a complaint that asserts "one or more claims" and refers to un-attached claim charts is a soft target for a Rule 12(b)(6) or §101 motion, and Cedar Lane's model depends on resolving cases before such a motion is briefed.
4. Absence of PTAB activity is itself informative for defense strategy — the fastest exit here was not an IPR (which would have cost more and taken longer than the case lasted) but simply waiting out a license demand against an expired patent with a compressed damages window.

---

Sources and confidence

Docket entries (Doc. numbers and dates) are drawn from a Patexia docket transcription of No. 6:22-cv-00778 (services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Moxa-Inc-id-165251/documents) and cross-checked against the Ex Parte case page (ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txwd/6:22-cv-00778/..., listing status "Closed," filed 07/13/22, Judge Albright) and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database (npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/6473527; .../party/moxa-inc). Patent identification and the '527 expiry date come from a Shenzhen IP Protection Center risk advisory reproduced at sziprs.org.cn and bdipp.cn (2022-10-20 / 2023-02-16), and a Chinese-language filing report at IP WEEKLY. The 96% settlement rate and Benoit interview are from IAM Media (2023-03-20).

Confidence: high on filing date, party names, counsel, asserted patents, dismissal-without-prejudice, and dismissal date. Medium on the 2023-03-06 order signing (single docket-transcription source) and on the reason for the five-month gap. Low/unverified: settlement existence and terms; whether any IPR was ever filed on the '527 patent; accused Moxa product models (the complaint's claim charts were not attached and I found no public reproduction of them). I could not query PACER directly, so I have not personally reviewed the complaint or the dismissal order text.

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

Let me get the actual docket sheet and complaint signature block.

Bottom line

Only one attorney appeared of record for Cedar Lane in this case: Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago, Illinois). He signed and filed every plaintiff-side paper on the docket (Dkt. 1–5, 7–9), and no other attorney — no local W.D. Tex. counsel, no second firm, no in-house lawyer — ever entered an appearance before the case was voluntarily dismissed. This is consistent with Cedar Lane's litigation model in its 2021–2022 W.D. Tex. wave, where Rabicoff filed as sole counsel. Note that in Cedar Lane's later (2025) W.D. Tex. cases, e.g., Cedar Lane Techs. v. Booking Holdings, No. 7:25-cv-00148 (W.D. Tex.), Jeremy J. Taylor of Baker Botts appeared alongside him — but no such co-counsel appears in this 2022 docket.

Counsel of record — Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Docket support for the appearance

• Dkt. 1 — Complaint for Patent Infringement, filed 07/13/2022 (signed/filed by Rabicoff).
• Dkt. 2 — Notice of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Rabicoff on behalf of Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., filed 07/13/2022.
• Dkt. 3 — Rule 7 Disclosure Statement (Rabicoff for Cedar Lane), 07/13/2022.
• Dkt. 4 — Request for Issuance of Summons; Dkt. 5 — AO 120 patent form, 07/13/2022.
• Dkt. 7 — Summons Returned Executed (Moxa served 7/19/2022), 08/23/2022.
• Dkt. 8 — Waiver of Service Returned Executed (waiver sent 8/30/2022), 09/09/2022.
• Dkt. 9 — Motion to Dismiss (Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice) by Cedar Lane, 09/26/2022.
• Dkt. 10 — Order granting Dkt. 9, signed by Judge Alan D. Albright, 03/06/2023; Dkt. 11 — AO 120 termination report.
• Sources: Patexia docket for No. 6:22-cv-00778, https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Moxa-Inc-id-165251/documents ; docket index at https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txwd/6:22-cv-00778/cedar-lane-tech-inc-v-moxa-inc ; NPE/Stanford database entry, https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/[257709](/patent/257709)

Relevant experience / notable matters (for context on Rabicoff)

• Firm bio: https://rabilaw.com/rabicoff.html — J.D., Loyola University Chicago (Trial Advocacy Certificate); B.S. Physics, University of Kansas; registered patent attorney; admitted in Illinois, the Federal Circuit, the Seventh Circuit, and several district courts.
• Adverse professional-conduct history worth knowing (public record, and relevant if you are assessing counsel): in In re Isaac Rabicoff, No. 20-mc-80206-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria sanctioned Rabicoff $1,000 under Rule 11 and referred him to the N.D. Cal. Standing Committee on Professional Conduct in a November 19, 2020 order in Cedar Lane Techs. v. Blackmagic Design Inc., No. 20-cv-01302-VC; the Committee's final report (resolved by an informal agreement under which Rabicoff paid ~$9,193 in unpaid pro hac vice fees) is available at https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/3:2025cv00103/[173189](/patent/173189)/37/0.pdf (attached as an exhibit in a later case).

Explicit caveats

• The document list above is drawn from RECAP/Patexia/Ex Parte aggregator dockets, not a live PACER pull. The docket is short (11 entries) and the aggregator listing appears complete, but I did not independently verify against the court's CM/ECF docket sheet today.
• The docket shows no pro hac vice motion and no designation of local counsel; Rabicoff's appearance was docketed on the filing date by a Chicago-based attorney. Whether he was separately admitted to the W.D. Tex. bar or appeared under a procedure not reflected in the entries above is not established by the sources I could access — I'm flagging it rather than assuming.
• No in-house Cedar Lane attorney and no second law firm appear anywhere on the docket. Nothing in this case was sealed; the case closed by voluntary dismissal without prejudice (Dkt. 9–10) before Moxa answered, so there is no defendant-side briefing in which additional plaintiff counsel might have been named.
• I found no court opinion, Law360, or Reuters item naming any additional plaintiff counsel in 6:22-cv-00778; if you need court-certified confirmation, the ECF "attorney list" report for the case is the authoritative source.

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

Important finding emerging: the docket appears to show no defense appearance at all. Let me verify against the full docket.

Bottom Line

There is no counsel of record for Defendant Moxa Inc. in this case — none ever appeared. The action was filed July 13, 2022 and voluntarily dismissed without prejudice roughly ten weeks later, before Moxa filed an answer, a Rule 12 motion, a corporate disclosure statement, or any notice of attorney appearance. The docket contains only plaintiff-side filings plus the court's dismissal order. Any request for "defense counsel of record" for this case therefore has an empty answer set, and I will not manufacture names to fill it.

Docket Evidence

Full docket for Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Moxa Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00778-ADA (W.D. Tex.), per the PACER-derived docket transcript:

Every entry bearing an attorney signature is signed by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, counsel for Plaintiff Cedar Lane. Not one filing in the case is captioned for, or signed by, counsel for Moxa. Sources: Patexia docket transcript, No. 6:22-cv-00778; Ex Parte case page; Stanford NPE Litigation Database entry.

Why No Defense Counsel Appeared

• Doc. 8 is a waiver of service, not an appearance. Moxa (or someone acting for it) executed a waiver of service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d), which was returned to the court on September 9, 2022, setting an answer deadline of November 28, 2022. Executing a waiver is an administrative act; it does not place an attorney on the docket. In W.D. Tex. practice an attorney must separately file a Notice of Attorney Appearance (as Mr. Rabicoff did in Doc. 2) to become counsel of record — and no such notice was ever filed for Moxa.
• The dismissal preceded the answer deadline by two months. Cedar Lane moved to dismiss on September 26, 2022 — before the November 28 answer date — so Moxa never had an obligation to respond, and never did.
• This was part of a serial voluntary-dismissal pattern. Cedar Lane filed a large wave of '527/'790/'242 cases on and around July 13, 2022 (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Longse Tech., No. 6:22-cv-00655, dismissed Oct. 24, 2022; Cedar Lane v. Konica Minolta, No. 6:22-cv-01074, dismissed Nov. 14, 2022, where plaintiff's notice expressly recited that "Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment"). These quick, pre-answer dismissals are the campaign's standard exit and typically leave no defense-side docket footprint. See Konica Minolta notice of voluntary dismissal; Longse docket.

The One Possible Lead — and Its Limits

The only document that might name a Moxa-side attorney is Doc. 8, the executed waiver of service. Rule 4(d) waiver forms are typically signed either by in-house counsel or by retained outside counsel, and often bear the signatory's firm and contact block. I was unable to retrieve the actual PDF of Doc. 8; it is not in the free RECAP/Patexia image sets I could access, and the docket text identifies only the filing party (Cedar Lane), not the signatory. I therefore cannot name any Moxa-side attorney without fabricating it, and I decline to do so. If you need the signatory identified, the reliable path is: (1) pull Doc. 8 from PACER for No. 6:22-cv-00778 (cost ~$0.10/page, 1 page); or (2) contact Cedar Lane's counsel of record, Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC), who corresponded with Moxa's representative to obtain the waiver.

What I Did Not Find

• No answer, motion to dismiss, motion to transfer, invalidity contentions, or IPR petition by or on behalf of Moxa in this case or at the PTAB relating to the '527 patent. No PTAB proceeding naming Moxa as petitioner surfaced in searches.
• No Law360 or Reuters coverage of this specific docket — unsurprising given it never generated a contested ruling.
• No indication that any part of the file is sealed. The absence of defense counsel is a matter of the case having ended pre-appearance, not of sealing.

Practical Implication for Your Analysis

If your work product needs an "opposing counsel" entry for this case, the accurate characterization is: "No appearance entered; defendant waived service (Doc. 8, 9/9/2022) but was never represented by counsel of record before plaintiff's voluntary dismissal without prejudice (Docs. 9–10)." Any name inserted here — including firms that represent Moxa in unrelated matters — would be unsupported by the record of this docket.