Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. NEXCOM International Co., Ltd.

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

Good initial hits. Let me dig into the complaint specifics, the dismissal, and the patent's litigation history.

Let me locate the actual complaint and docket, plus verify the patent's provenance and any PTAB activity.

Case Overview & Background

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is not an operating company. It is a British Columbia–formed patent-assertion entity (organized April 29, 2019, with licensing attorney Greg Benoit as director and an address tied to IP licensing firm Pigott & Co.) that acquired portfolios out of Intellectual Ventures, largely through the Delaware intermediary Steephill Technologies LLC (Mondaq/Cedar Lane campaign profile; Seyfarth NPE Showcase summary). By the time it filed this suit, Cedar Lane was, by IAM's count, the single most prolific patent plaintiff in the country — the top-filing NPE of 2022, with a reported ~96% settlement rate across terminated cases and a heavy preference for W.D. Tex. (IAM, "Examining the practice of Cedar Lane Technologies – America's top-filing NPE," Mar. 20, 2023). NEXCOM International Co., Ltd. is a Taiwanese industrial-computing manufacturer headquartered in New Taipei City, with a U.S. subsidiary (NEXCOM USA, Fremont, CA), selling embedded boards, industrial panel PCs, network/security appliances, in-vehicle and maritime computers, and kiosk/digital-signage systems (NEXCOM corporate/product catalog). In other words, a two-year-old Canadian licensing shell suing a 30-year-old Taiwanese hardware OEM — a textbook acquired-patent PAE matchup, not a competitor dispute.

The patent and the accused technology. The sole asserted patent per the case metadata is U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242, "Host interface for imaging arrays" (issued Sept. 17, 2013; inventor Mark Suska; earliest priority Jan. 2000; estimated expiry Aug. 1, 2023). It is a divisional of U.S. 6,972,790, and in one line: it claims an interface — preferably integrated on the same die as the image sensor — that buffers imaging-array data in a FIFO/addressable memory clocked at the sensor's rate, generates an interrupt or bus-request signal when the buffer's data quantity crosses a threshold, and then drains that data to the host processor at the processor's rate, reconciling the two clock domains (patent text/abstract via Unified Patents; claim summary). The infringement theory, as run across Cedar Lane's companion suits in this wave, is architectural rather than product-specific: any device pairing a CMOS image sensor with a host SoC via a buffered sensor interface is said to practice the claims. Caveat on the accused product: I could not retrieve the NEXCOM complaint (Dkt. 1) or its claim-chart exhibits, and in the parallel pleadings Cedar Lane referred only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in exhibits rather than naming products (complaint analysis, 6:22-cv-01307). Given that NEXCOM was sued in the same mid-September 2022 cluster as IP-camera, NVR and video-surveillance vendors (Uniview, Provision-ISR, Synectics, Silent Sentinel, Planet Technology, Vimar, Tattile, Onvu, Vanguard, Pryntec, etc. — IPWatchdog Roundup, Sept. 23, 2022), the accused technology is most plausibly NEXCOM's camera-equipped/edge-video products rather than its bare industrial PCs. That is an inference from the campaign pattern, not a documented fact.

Posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed Sept. 13, 2022 in W.D. Tex., Waco Division (the "6:" prefix), by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, with a jury demand. The case was initially assigned to Judge Fred Biery under the court's July 25, 2022 patent-case assignment order, then reassigned directly to Judge Alan D. Albright and referred to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland on Sept. 15, 2022 as related to Cedar Lane's other '790/'242 suits (Dkt. 7 Notice of Related Case; text entry, Sept. 14–15, 2022). NEXCOM was served Sept. 22, 2022 (Dkt. 8), with an answer due Oct. 13, 2022 — and Cedar Lane filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on Nov. 8, 2022 (Dkt. 9), with the AO-120 report to the PTO following on Nov. 9 (Dkt. 10), closing the case roughly eight weeks after service and before any answer, motion, or scheduling order (docket via Patexia). The docket does not disclose whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice or whether a license/ settlement was taken; Cedar Lane's typical practice in this campaign was dismissal without prejudice or with-prejudice dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) after a payment, and terms are non-public — I found no source confirming a payment here. Notability runs along three axes: (1) it is a datapoint in the post-July-2022 W.D. Tex. assignment-reform period, where new patent filings were spread across judges but "related case" notices pulled Cedar Lane's docket straight back to Judge Albright's famously fast courtroom — precisely the dynamic that critics of the district's judge-assignment rules flagged; (2) it illustrates the sunset-assertion economics of acquired IV portfolios: the '242 carries a 2000 priority date and an estimated Aug. 1, 2023 expiry, meaning Cedar Lane was asserting a ~23-year-old patent in its final months of term, with damages necessarily limited to the six-year § 286 lookback (post-Sept. 2016 activity) and no realistic injunctive leverage; and (3) unlike campaigns where PTAB petitions became the defendants' main defense, I found no record of any IPR or PGR on the '242 (Patsnap logs "validity challenges: none recorded"; Unified Patents tracks the patent and this case but shows no proceeding) — so the defense economics here were litigation-cost driven, which is consistent with a sub-ten-week, pre-answer exit.

Sourcing caveats: The docket-event sequence, judge assignment, and dismissal timing are well grounded (PACER-derived dockets via Patexia; the docket text itself). Party background is well grounded (Mondaq, IAM, Seyfarth). The specific NEXCOM products accused, the dismissal's prejudice status, and any settlement consideration are not documented in the sources I could reach and should be confirmed against the Dkt. 1 complaint and Dkt. 9 notice on PACER before being stated as fact.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and then parallel PTAB proceedings.

The docket snapshot shows an early voluntary dismissal. Let me verify the full docket and check for PTAB activity.

Let me look for the complaint document itself and check whether the '790 patent was also asserted.

Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. NEXCOM Int'l Co., Ltd., No. 6:22-cv-00946 (W.D. Tex.) — Litigation Timeline

Bottom line up front

This case has no merits history. It was filed 2022-09-13 and voluntarily dismissed by Cedar Lane 2022-11-08 — 56 days, before NEXCOM ever answered, appeared, or moved. There was no Rule 12 motion, no transfer motion, no stay motion, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, no appeal, and no PTAB proceeding. The only substantive development in the entire docket is the dismissal itself. That is the outcome.

Sourcing caveat: I could not pull the W.D. Tex. PACER docket directly. The reconstruction below relies on the PACER-derived document list published by Patexia (URL in table) and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database. The document list runs 1–10 with no gap, which suggests it is complete, but text-only/paperless orders are the one category such lists sometimes omit; I located no dismissal order, consistent with a self-executing Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice.

Docket reconstruction

Source: https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-NEXCOM-International-Co-Ltd-id-[181067](/patent/181067)/documents

Stage-by-stage

Filing & initial pleadings. The complaint was one of a batch: Cedar Lane filed sixteen W.D. Tex. suits in the week of September 12, 2022 alone, all through Rabicoff Law, and this case is listed among the family of § 271 actions in that wave (see the NPE campaign overview at https://www.gadgetsgigabytesandgoodwill.com/2022/10/npe-showcase-cedar-lane-technologies/). Cedar Lane is a Canadian entity incorporated in 2019 that acquired its portfolio from Intellectual Ventures entities and has asserted the '242 in roughly 52 cases (https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/patent/us8537242b2/). The pleading style is boilerplate: the complaint names no accused products in the body, incorporating by reference claim-chart exhibits, and asserts "one or more claims" without identifying them. U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242, Host interface for imaging arrays, issued 2013-09-17 and is a divisional of the '790 patent; claim 1 is a method claim covering FIFO buffering of image-sensor data, counter comparison, and interrupt generation.

Note on the patents-in-suit: case metadata lists only the '242. The Stanford NPE database cross-indexes No. 6:22-cv-00946 under both U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,972,790 and 8,537,242 (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/6972790; https://npe.law.stanford.edu/party/nexcom-international-co-ltd), and Cedar Lane's template complaints in this period routinely paired the two. I could not retrieve the NEXCOM complaint text to confirm, so treat the '790 as probably, but not verifiably, asserted here.

Answer & counterclaims. None. NEXCOM's response deadline was 2022-10-13. No answer, no Rule 12 motion, no counterclaim, and no attorney appearance for NEXCOM appears on the docket. The case was dismissed 26 days after that deadline with no extension motion and no order compelling a response — NEXCOM effectively defaulted into non-appearance, and Cedar Lane dismissed rather than pursue.

Pre-trial motions of substance. None. No motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a) transfer motion (notable given a Taiwanese defendant with a U.S. subsidiary), no motion to stay pending IPR, no summary judgment motion. Cedar Lane also never filed a notice of readiness or an agreed scheduling order.

Claim construction (Markman). Never reached. No Albright-style scheduling order, no joint claim construction statement, no Markman hearing, no claim construction order.

Discovery. No discovery of any kind — no Rule 26(f) conference, no initial disclosures, no infringement or invalidity contentions, no ESI order, no depositions.

Trial, verdict, post-trial motions. None. No trial setting, no verdict, no JMOL/Rule 59/Rule 54(d) or § 285 fee motion. Cedar Lane's campaign has reportedly never taken a case to trial.

Disposition. Cedar Lane filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on 2022-11-08 (Dkt. 9), attaching a proposed order; the AO 120 report followed on 2022-11-09 (Dkt. 10), terminating the case. Because NEXCOM had neither served an answer nor a motion for summary judgment, a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice is self-executing and dismisses without prejudice by operation of law — which explains the absence of a signed dismissal order on the docket. Everything in the record is consistent with that reading, but I did not locate an express "without prejudice" recital, and Cedar Lane's later-era dismissals in other cases were frequently with prejudice (often as part of settlements, e.g., Zenitel, No. 6:22-cv-01307, dismissed with prejudice). Treat the prejudice status as unverified.

Parallel PTAB proceedings. None identified. No IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against the '242 by NEXCOM or anyone else surfaced in searches of PTAB data; NEXCOM's PTAB footprint shows no petitions filed or faced (https://ipverse.greyb.com/competitive-analysis/company/nexcom-international-co,-ltd.), and no PTAB proceeding had any effect on this litigation. Because the case died in under two months, the absence of an IPR stay motion is unsurprising — but it also means the '242's validity was never tested by NEXCOM in any forum.

Strategic read

This docket is best characterized as case-and-desist litigation: a volume-filer's complaint used to open a licensing conversation, resolved (or abandoned) before any adversarial content was generated. Three points matter for the broader picture:

1. The dismissal is not a merits win for either side. No claim was held invalid or not infringed; NEXCOM obtained no judgment, no fee award, and no estoppel. Cedar Lane remains free to refile (subject to limitations), and the '242 has been asserted in dozens of other cases since.
2. The absence of any Markman or validity ruling means this case contributes nothing to '242 claim-scope law. For substantive guidance on the '242/'790 family, one must look to other Cedar Lane matters.
3. Local practice footnote: the case was filed under the W.D. Tex. July 25, 2022 order assigning patent cases across judges, landed with Judge Biery, then was pulled to Judge Albright as a same-plaintiff/same-patent companion — a reassignment dynamic worth noting when comparing Cedar Lane's 2022 W.D. Tex. filings.

Context flag (not this docket): In 2020, Judge Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) sanctioned Cedar Lane and Rabicoff for positions taken "in bad faith" and referred Rabicoff to that district's standing committee on professional conduct. That history colors how this campaign is characterized generally, but it is not an event in No. 6:22-cv-00946 and should be attributed to the campaign, not to this case.

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

The docket shows initial activity. Let me confirm no additional appearances and verify counsel's firm details.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Bottom line: This case had exactly one attorney of record for the plaintiff, and he signed every plaintiff-side filing. There was no separate local counsel, no "of counsel," no in-house appearance, and no defendant-side appearance at all before the case was voluntarily dismissed 56 days after filing.

Docket support (counsel appearances)

• Doc. 1 — Complaint for Patent Infringement, filed 9/13/2022 (signed by Rabicoff).
• Doc. 2 — Notice of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Rabicoff on behalf of Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., filed 9/13/2022. This is the only appearance of counsel on the plaintiff side in the entire docket.
• Doc. 3 — Rule 7 Disclosure Statement (Rabicoff), 9/13/2022.
• Doc. 4 / Doc. 5 — Summons request and AO 120 Patent/Trademark Form (Rabicoff), 9/13/2022.
• Doc. 7 — Notice of Related Case (Rabicoff), 9/14/2022.
• Doc. 8 — Summons Returned Executed (Rabicoff), 9/30/2022 — NEXCOM served 9/22/2022, answer due 10/13/2022.
• Doc. 9 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Rabicoff), 11/8/2022.
• Doc. 10 — Report on Patent/Trademark sent to USPTO, 11/9/2022 (case terminated).

Judge assignment note: case was randomly assigned to Judge Fred Biery on filing, then directly reassigned to Judge Alan D. Albright with referral to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland on 9/14–9/15/2022 as a related case (same plaintiff and patent), consistent with Cedar Lane's Waco filing program.

Explicit caveats

1. Source quality. The docket detail above is drawn from a third-party docket mirror (Patexia Research's docket page for case 6:22-cv-00946) and cross-checked against unified/Stanford NPE database entries; I was not able to pull the PACER docket sheet directly in this session. The set of filings is internally consistent and typical for these Cedar Lane cases, but I would confirm against PACER before filing anything that depends on it.
2. Pro hac vice status is unresolved. The docket shows no pro hac vice motion for Rabicoff, and his published firm bio lists admissions to Illinois, the U.S. Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, the Seventh Circuit, E.D. Tex., N.D. Ill. (trial bar), and W.D. Wis. — but not W.D. Tex. Either he was admitted to the W.D. Tex. bar by the time of filing, or admission paperwork is not reflected in the mirrored docket. I cannot confirm which from available sources.
3. No other counsel appeared. Because NEXCOM never answered or appeared (dismissal came before the 10/13/2022 response deadline), there was no occasion for additional plaintiff-side counsel to be added, and no sealed appearances exist that I could identify. Cedar Lane's principal, Greg Benoit, is a lawyer but did not appear as counsel in this case — do not list him.
4. Do not import counsel from other Cedar Lane matters. Co-counsel that appears in other Cedar Lane suits (e.g., Garteiser Honea attorneys such as Randall Garteiser, Christopher Honea, or Michael Scott Fuller; or Kizzia Johnson) do not appear on this docket. Any such attribution for 6:22-cv-00946 would be fabricated.

I'll research the counsel of record for NEXCOM in this case.

The docket search shows something important: the case was voluntarily dismissed. Let me verify whether any defense counsel ever appeared.

Let me verify against a full docket sheet (Justia/CourtListener RECAP) to confirm no defense appearance was ever filed.

Bottom line: no defense counsel ever appeared in this case

I could not identify any attorney as counsel of record for NEXCOM International Co., Ltd. — not because the information is sealed, but because NEXCOM never made an appearance before the case was dismissed. The case was resolved by a plaintiff-side Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice.

What the docket shows (all 10 entries)

Source: docket mirror at Patexia, Case 6:22-cv-00946; case reflects as closed on Unified Patents portal, US 8,537,242; listing confirmed in Stanford NPE Litigation Database.

There is no answer, no Rule 12 motion, no Rule 7.1 disclosure statement, no pro hac vice motion, no notice of appearance, and no extension motion on behalf of NEXCOM anywhere on the docket. Those are precisely the filings that would name defense counsel, and none exist.

Why no counsel of record exists — the procedural posture

• NEXCOM (a Taiwanese corporation, served via its U.S. presence on 9/22/2022, answer due 10/13/2022) never responded on the docket.
• On 11/8/2022 Cedar Lane filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. 9). Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), that notice is self-executing and requires no court order only if the defendant has not served an answer or a motion for summary judgment — which Cedar Lane's notice (Doc. 9) implicitly represented as true. No dismissal order appears because none was needed.
• The dismissal was without prejudice; there is no adjudication of infringement, validity, or enforceability of the '242 patent, and no estoppel effect.
• Note one wrinkle I could not resolve from the public record: the dismissal came roughly three weeks after NEXCOM's answer deadline. If an informal or email-granted extension existed, it was never docketed. I found no document explaining the gap; the public docket is silent.

The only counsel of record in the case

• Isaac Rabicoff — Rabicoff Law LLC (Dallas, TX). Sole counsel of record, appearing for Plaintiff Cedar Lane (Doc. 2, 9/13/2022). Rabicoff is Cedar Lane's near-exclusive national filing counsel and, per Shenzhen IP Protection Center monitoring, has handled roughly 58 Cedar Lane patent suits, concentrated in W.D. Tex. before Judge Albright. He is not defense counsel and should not be listed as such.

Caveats on sourcing

• I was unable to retrieve a native PACER docket sheet or a CourtListener RECAP docket for this case number directly; the docket reconstruction above relies on the Patexia docket mirror, which tracks PACER but may omit sealed entries. I found no indication of any sealed filing in this case.
• I found no Law360, Reuters Legal, or court-opinion coverage of this case — unsurprising for a 56-day, pre-answer NPE dismissal.
• I did not find any public record identifying the firm NEXCOM retained (if any) to evaluate the demand pre-suit; Cedar Lane's dismissals in this campaign were typically driven by licensing/settlement outreach handled outside the docket. Any named NEXCOM attorney would be speculation, and I have not supplied one.

Recommended next step if a name is required

Pull the PACER docket for W.D. Tex. 6:22-cv-00946 directly (Waco Division) to confirm the absence of an appearance, then check NEXCOM International's other U.S. patent cases — e.g., the earlier ACQIS LLC v. IBM et al., No. 6:09-cv-00148 (E.D. Tex.), in which NEXCOM was a defendant and did appear, and any 2023–2025 NEXCOM matters — for the firm that normally represents the company. That would give you a likely rather than actual counsel for this case, and the distinction should be stated in any work product.

---

Would you like me to (a) chase NEXCOM's counsel in its other U.S. patent litigations to identify its customary outside patent firm, or (b) build out the plaintiff-side counsel profile and the broader Cedar Lane v. NEXCOM-family filing pattern instead?