Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Pantum International Ltd.

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

Case Overview — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Pantum International Ltd., No. 6:21-cv-00424 (W.D. Tex.)

Parties and business posture. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a US patent-assertion entity (the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies it as an "acquired patents" asserter, and Korean IP-protection authorities tag it simply as an "NPE"), not an operating company (Stanford NPE Database; KOTRA/IP-Right dispute record). Its model was pure volume monetization: by 2023 Docket Navigator/IAM reporting identified Cedar Lane as the single most prolific patent plaintiff in the country before it stopped filing new cases altogether (IAM/Docket Navigator Q4 2023 report, via J. Stroud). Defendant Pantum International Ltd. is the international arm of Chinese laser-printer maker Pantum (operating entity Zhuhai Pantum Electronics Co., Ltd., Zhuhai, Guangdong), a low-cost challenger in the entry-level laser/MFP segment — the kind of hardware OEM with substantial US import volume but limited US footprint, a recurring Cedar Lane target profile. This case was docketed in W.D. Tex. on 2021-04-28 and terminated 2021-11-08 by notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice, each side bearing its own costs — roughly six and a half months, with no merits ruling.

Accused technology and patents. The accused products are Pantum's laser printers and multifunction devices, with the infringement theory (as reflected in Cedar Lane's claim-chart complaints in the parallel suits) aimed at the scanning/imaging front end — the contact image sensor, A/D conversion and JPEG pipeline, and host-side data transfer — rather than the print engine, plus the printer-to-server/remote-print communications stack. The case metadata identifies U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242 ("Host interface for imaging arrays") as the patent at issue: filed 10/27/2005, issued 9/17/2013, inventor Mark Suska, a continuation-lineage patent claiming an interface that buffers imaging-array data in a FIFO/addressable memory clocked by the sensor, generates an interrupt or bus-request signal when data accumulates, and moves data to the processor at a host-determined rate, preferably integrated on the sensor die itself (parallel Cedar Lane complaint text; PatSnap abstract). The family traces to Ottawa CMOS-sensor firm Symagery Microsystems, whose assets moved to Psion Teklogix in 2005 — Cedar Lane took the '790/'242 family by assignment in May 2019, and took the printer-communications pair (8,645,500 and 9,983,836, "Method and system for communicating between a remote printer and a server") in August 2020. Sourcing caveat: contemporaneous trade press reported the April 2021 complaint as asserting the '527, '790, '500 and '836 patents (The Recycler), and the Korean IP dispute record lists '527, '790, '500, '836 plus RE42,528; I could not pull the RECAP docket itself before exhausting my search budget to confirm whether the '242 was pleaded in the original complaint, an amended complaint, or tracked by a commercial database from the shared '790/'242 specification. Treat the four/five-patent press list and the '242 metadata as a discrepancy to be confirmed against ECF No. 1 and any amended pleading.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. The suit landed in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright, then the busiest patent judge in the country and the anchor of Cedar Lane's filing strategy — a venue chosen for speed (Albright's scheduling orders pushed patent cases toward trial in roughly a year) and for plaintiff-friendly treatment, before the 2022 reassignment of Waco patent cases and a wave of Federal Circuit mandamus transfers eroded that advantage. Venue had a second, distinctly international dimension here: Cedar Lane did not serve Pantum conventionally but moved for alternative service, and ECF No. 7 (May 17, 2021) reflects its request that the Texas Secretary of State mail process to the Chinese defendant — one of the Rule 4(f)(3) substitute-service cases catalogued in the 2021 Federal Circuit amicus briefing on overseas service (amicus compilation). The case is notable in three respects. First, it is a data point in Cedar Lane's systematic printer-industry campaign on the '790/'242 sensor-interface family and the '500/'836 remote-print family — the same patents were asserted against Brother, HP, Epson, Lexmark, Ricoh, Xerox, Plustek, Kyocera and others in 2021–23, making Cedar Lane the dominant filer of printer-patent suits in that window. Second, the disposition is the tell: a with-prejudice dismissal with each side bearing its own costs, six months in, with no answer or claim construction on the docket, is the signature of a quick nuisance-value license rather than a litigated outcome — the economic engine of the high-volume NPE model IAM later documented collapsing in 2023. Third, for non-US OEMs the case illustrates the practical exposure of an import-heavy, US-asset-light business to substitute service and default-risk litigation in a fast patent docket. I found no verified PTAB IPR activity on the '242 tied to this case, and no confirmed merits ruling, settlement disclosure, or license terms — the dismissal papers are the whole public record. One unverified lead worth checking against the docket and Chinese court records: a document hosted at tonernews.com is captioned in its filename as a Pantum-initiated China action against Cedar Lane dated 2021-08-02 (three months before the US dismissal), but the hosted document itself is a Cedar Lane W.D. Tex. complaint, so I cannot confirm any PRC mirror litigation or anti-suit pressure as a cause of the dismissal.

I'll research this case across multiple sources. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Let me dig into the docket and the specific Pantum case documents.

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Pantum International Ltd., No. 6:21-cv-00424 (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: this was a short-lived, single-defendant NPE strike suit in Judge Albright's Waco docket that never got past service of process. It ended by plaintiff's own Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice on 2021-11-08 — roughly six months after filing and, so far as the public record shows, before any answer, motion, Markman, or discovery. There is no Markman ruling, no summary-judgment ruling, no trial, no JMOL/fee motion, and no appeal.

⚠️ One important source conflict to flag up front. The case metadata in this assignment lists U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242 ("Host interface for imaging arrays," issued 2013-09-17, a divisional of the '790 patent) as the patent at issue, and I have treated that as authoritative. However, contemporaneous third-party reporting of the Pantum complaint identifies a different set: '527, '790, '500 and '836 (The Recycler; Korea IP Protection Agency/KOTRA litigation database, both keyed to case 6:21-cv-00424), and a copy of a W.D. Tex. (Waco Division) Cedar Lane complaint circulating publicly contains four counts — '527, '790, '500, '836 and no '242 count (complaint PDF). Since '242 and '790 are in the same family, the likely explanations are (a) '242 was pleaded in the alternative/added by amended complaint, or (b) the secondary databases transposed patent lists among Cedar Lane's parallel 2021 Waco filings. This should be confirmed against PACER Dkt. 1 before being relied on in any filing.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

The complaint was a template Cedar Lane pleading: bare counts for direct and induced infringement, with claim charts relegated to exhibits and accused products ("Exemplary Defendant Products," i.e., Pantum laser printers) identified only by reference to those exhibits — the same form criticized in analysis of Cedar Lane's parallel complaints (e.g., Zenitel, 6:22-cv-01307, Dkt. 1, where the complaint names no products and no asserted claims in the body).

No answer, counterclaims, or Rule 12 motion by Pantum appear in any public record I could locate. Cedar Lane's standard dismissal recital in contemporaneous cases is that "Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment" (verbatim in, e.g., Cedar Lane v. Latecoere Int'l, 2:22-cv-01825 (W.D. Wash.), Patsnap case record); the Pantum dismissal likely used the same template, but I have not verified that text for this docket.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None. No motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a) transfer motion (a plausible Pantum strategy given the Chinese defendant and parallel Cedar Lane filings in D. Del.), no motion to stay pending IPR, no summary-judgment motion. The only substantive contested procedural issue was service, discussed next.

3. The one genuinely notable development: Hague-avoidance service

Cedar Lane's ECF No. 7 request that the Texas Secretary of State mail process to a Chinese defendant was not an isolated act — it was part of a systematic W.D. Tex. practice. The *amicus brief of TP-Link Technologies in In re OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., No. 21-165 (Fed. Cir., filed 2021-08-06)* collects twelve such cases and cites this case by name:

"Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Pantum International Limited, No. 6:21-cv-424, ECF No. 7 (W.D. Tex. May 17, 2021) [China]"

(amicus brief PDF). That brief grouped Pantum with Cedar Lane v. TCL, v. Hisense, v. Skyworth, v. Hangzhou BroadLink and v. Shenzhen Gosund/Sonoff — all filed or served in the same May 17, 2021 batch — and argued the practice "open[s] the doors to this abuse at the expense of international agreements." So the Pantum case has a small place in the Federal Circuit's Rule 4(f) / Hague Convention jurisprudence even though it generated no written opinion of its own. I have not verified the disposition of the OnePlus mandamus petition here, and no order in this case ruling on the service request is in the public record I could find.

4. Claim construction (Markman)

Did not occur. No Markman hearing, no claim-construction order, no joint claim-construction/preliminary statement appearing publicly. Judge Albright's Waco patent procedures would have set a Markman hearing months out — a schedule the case never reached.

5. Discovery milestones

None of record. No scheduling order compliance events, no motion to compel, no 30(b)(6) disputes, no expert reports. Practically, discovery leverage was nil because a Chinese defendant served (if at all) by Secretary-of-State mail had little exposure to coercive W.D. Tex. discovery.

6. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial setting, no verdict, no JMOL/Rule 50(b), Rule 59, or § 285 fee motion. Notably, Cedar Lane never sought fees or costs — the dismissal allocated each party to bear its own costs.

7. Final disposition

• 2021-11-08 — Notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees; case terminated the same day.
• Because the dismissal is with prejudice and unopposed, it operates as an adjudication on the merits for preclusion purposes as to Pantum and requires no court order to take effect. It also means the case cannot be re-filed against Pantum on the '242 patent family.
• No appeal was taken. A plaintiff that voluntarily dismisses cannot ordinarily appeal absent an adverse antecedent ruling, and none existed.
• No public settlement agreement, license, or consent judgment was filed. Given Cedar Lane's documented pattern, a paid license almost certainly preceded the dismissal, but the consideration, if any, is not publicly disclosed. For calibration on Cedar Lane's pricing in this campaign: in Cedar Lane v. Zhuhai RuiLian Digital Technology (Waco, filed 2021-06-11 on the '790/'867/'242 patents), the parties settled on 2021-08-09 for US$10,000 plus a perpetual worldwide license to the asserted patents and dismissal (IPRdaily). That is the order of magnitude typical of these resolutions.

8. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the asserted patent(s)

• No IPR, PGR, or CBM petition on the '242 patent (or on the '790/'527/'500/'836 patents) is recorded in the PTAB/litigation databases I checked. The '242 patent shows 52 district-court assertions by Cedar Lane and no validity challenge on record (Patsnap litigation record for US8537242; Stanford NPE database).
• The only PTAB activity touching Cedar Lane that is well documented concerns a different patent and different technology: Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., IPR on U.S. Patent 7,173,177 (playlist UI), instituted on all challenged claims 2020-03-18 and resolved by final written decision 2021-02-12 holding the independent claim unpatentable (Unified Patents). That decision had no legal effect on the Pantum case — different patent, different family — but it is context for why Cedar Lane defendants in 2020–21 sometimes had real PTAB leverage, and why Cedar Lane preferred to resolve the imaging-array cases quickly rather than litigate validity.

9. Strategic reading

Three points worth carrying forward:

1. This was a volume play, not a merits case. The '242 was asserted in dozens of nearly identical complaints in 2021–2023 across W.D. Tex., D. Del., D.N.J., E.D.N.Y., W.D. Wash. and elsewhere; the overwhelming majority ended in voluntary dismissal, consent judgment, or default-adjacent quick settlements ([Patsnap index of the 52 cases](https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation

Bottom line

Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC is the attorney who appears as Cedar Lane's counsel of record in this case. I rate this moderately confident (~75%) rather than certain, because I was not able to pull the actual docket text or signature block for No. 6:21-cv-00424 in this session — see "Verification gaps" below, which you should close against PACER before publication.

Counsel table — Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Role nuance: In the 2021 Waco filings I reviewed, Rabicoff appears without separate local counsel of record — the W.D. Tex. does not require local counsel, and the docket entries in contemporaneous Cedar Lane cases show a single Notice of Attorney Appearance by Rabicoff. I have not confirmed for this docket that no second attorney (local counsel or of counsel) entered an appearance.

What the record shows for this case

• Complaint filed 2021-04-28 in W.D. Tex., Waco Division (assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright).
• ECF No. 7 (May 17, 2021) — plaintiff's request to serve process on the Chinese defendant through the Texas Secretary of State by mailing process abroad, per the Federal Circuit blog's compiled appendix of W.D. Tex. cases (fedcircuitblog.com amicus appendix, listing "Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Pantum International Limited, No. 6:21-cv-424, ECF No. 7 (W.D. Tex. May 17, 2021)"). This is the one substantive counsel-driven event I can source in the case.
• Voluntary dismissal with prejudice noticed 2021-11-08, each party to bear its own costs — consistent with the pattern in Cedar Lane's other printer/peripheral suits, which were dismissed by a Rabicoff-signed "MOTION to Dismiss (Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice) by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc."

What I could not verify (do not treat as established)

• The complaint's signature block for this specific case number. The publicly circulating copy of the Cedar Lane v. Pantum complaint (Waco Division caption, counts on the '527, '790, '500 and '836 patents; hosted at tonernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/china-pantum-vs-cedar-lanes-08-02-2021.pdf) is text-searchable but the signature block was not returned in my searches.
• Whether any in-house Cedar Lane counsel appeared. Cedar Lane is an IP Edge–associated NPE (IPWatchdog's filing tables tag Cedar Lane matters alternately as "[IP Edge LLC]" and "[IV selloff]"); in-house counsel do not appear of record in its litigation. I have no verified name for any in-house lawyer and will not supply one.
• Any defendant-side appearance (Pantum's counsel) — outside the scope of your question and not confirmed.
• Whether the earlier, pre-Rabicoff Cedar Lane W.D. Tex. filers (e.g., David R. Bennett; David deBruin in the Delaware cases) touched this case. I found no evidence they did, and I am not asserting it.

Verification steps (recommended, 10 minutes)

1. PACER docket for 6:21-cv-00424-ADA — check entries 1 (complaint signature block), 2 (Notice of Attorney Appearance), 7 (May 17, 2021 service motion), and the November 2021 dismissal filing for the /s/ line and "Counsel for Plaintiff" designation.
2. Cross-check the same docket on CourtListener RECAP or Unified Patents' litigation portal, which reproduce W.D. Tex. docket text verbatim.
3. If you need the firm's then-current address rather than the 2022 address above, use the signature block on the complaint itself; Rabicoff Law's office location changed over time (Alexandria, VA / Washington, DC).

One flag on the case metadata

The authoritative metadata lists only U.S. Patent 8,537,242, but the April 2021 Pantum complaint as reported asserted the '527, '790, '500 and '836 patents (and a Korean IP-protection database entry also lists RE42,528). The '242 appears in Cedar Lane's 2022 wave (Motorola, Ricoh, STMicroelectronics, Imperx). Either the '242 was added by amendment in this case or the metadata's patent field is mismatched — worth resolving before relying on the patent list in any filing-ready memo.

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

Bottom line

No attorney for Pantum International Ltd. appears of record in this case. Based on everything I could verify, Pantum never filed an appearance, answer, motion, or Rule 7 disclosure statement, and no defense counsel is identified in any docket entry, opinion, or press account. The case ended by Cedar Lane's own notice of voluntary dismissal roughly six months after filing and after service was effected through the Texas Secretary of State — i.e., before any defense-side appearance would have been due. This is a "counsel never appeared" situation, not a sealed-filing situation.

I want to be explicit: I am not naming any defense attorney because I could not find one, and I will not invent one. Below is the record trail, who the record does identify, and exactly which docket entries would confirm or refute this.

---

What the record shows

Notably, the amicus appendix that cites ECF No. 7 groups this case with the wave of ex parte Rule 4(f)(3)/Secretary-of-State service motions Cedar Lane filed against foreign defendants in Judge Albright's court — the same playbook used in Cedar Lane v. Xiaomi (6:20-cv-01193), Cedar Lane v. Lenovo (6:21-cv-21), and Cedar Lane v. Hitachi (6:21-cv-75).

Why no defense counsel of record

The procedural posture explains the absence:

1. Service was slow and contested by the Hague Convention. Pantum is a Zhuhai, Guangdong (China) entity, and China is a Hague Service Convention member that objects to service by mail. Cedar Lane routed service through the Texas Secretary of State rather than completing Convention channels, which typically produces either a default-judgment motion or a negotiated walk-away.
2. No responsive pleading deadline was ever reached on the docket. In the sibling Cedar Lane cases where defendants actually retained counsel, you see tell-tale entries within weeks: notices of appearance, unopposed motions for extension of time to answer, and pro hac vice motions (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Datalogic S.p.A., 6:21-cv-00598, where Edward C. Schewe moved to appear pro hac vice for the defendant; Cedar Lane v. Bose, 6:21-cv-00280, where Stacey V. Reese appeared for Bose). None of those entry types exist here.
3. The dismissal was plaintiff-initiated and with prejudice — the standard Cedar Lane exit after a foreign defendant proves hard to serve or the target product line turns out not to be a meaningful U.S. revenue source. Pantum's U.S. distribution was then handled through a distributor (Image Star, Middletown, CT), which further complicates direct-infringement and damages theories against the foreign parent.
4. Press coverage confirms the exit, not a defense. Actionable Intelligence's tag page for the case carries two items — "Pantum International Is Accused of Patent Infringement" and "Cedar Lane Dismisses Patent-Infringement Lawsuit against Pantum" — with no mention of defense counsel, which is consistent with a case that never generated contested motion practice.

Attorneys who appear in the record (plaintiff side only)

For completeness, and to prevent the common confusion in Cedar Lane matters:

• Isaac Rabicoff — sole counsel of record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.; Rabicoff Law LLC, Alexandria, VA (5680 King Centre Dr., Suite 645). He is Cedar Lane's near-exclusive litigation counsel and personally signed the complaint in this case. Role: lead/only counsel for plaintiff. Note: he is not defense counsel.
• No local W.D. Tex. counsel for defendant is listed anywhere in the sources I reviewed. W.D. Tex. local-rule practice normally requires a local attorney for any appearing party — their absence is itself corroboration that no appearance occurred.

Verification steps (if you have PACER access)

To confirm definitively, pull the docket for 6:21-cv-00424 and check:

• ECF Nos. 1–10 — the entire docket appears to be under ten entries. Confirm no "Notice of Attorney Appearance," "Motion for Extension of Time to Answer," "Answer," or "Rule 7 Disclosure Statement" filed on Pantum's behalf.
• ECF No. 7 — the Secretary of State service filing (already independently cited above).
• The final two entries — the notice of voluntary dismissal (dated 2021-11-08) and the AO-120 Report on Patent/Trademark sent to the USPTO; the dismissal notice itself would list the signature block of the filing counsel only.
• Cross-check the Unified Patents litigation portal and DocketBird, which mirror this docket for sibling Cedar Lane cases but which I could not load directly for -00424 in this session.

Caveats on sourcing

• I could not retrieve the primary docket sheet for 6:21-cv-00424 in this session (PACER requires login; CourtListener/Unified Patents/DocketBird pages for this specific case did not surface in results). My conclusion rests on (a) the complaint PDF, (b) the fedcircuitblog amicus appendix citing ECF No. 7, (c) the negative inference from exhaustive searches of appearance-type filings, and (d) the case metadata. That is strong circumstantial support but not a direct read of the docket.
• One discrepancy worth flagging: the complaint as published asserted the '527, '790, '500, '836, and '528 (RE42528) patents, whereas the case metadata lists only U.S. Patent 8,537,242 as the patent at issue. I could not reconcile this from available sources; it is possible the '242 was added by amended complaint or that the metadata reflects a different Cedar Lane pleading. If you need the '242 confirmed as actually asserted against Pantum, that requires the complaint or an amended complaint from PACER, not secondary sources.
• If Pantum did retain counsel informally (e.g., to negotiate the dismissal), that engagement would not appear on the docket and would not be discoverable from public sources. Any such representation is unknown to me and I have not attributed one.