Litigation

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Philips Electronics North America Corp.

voluntary dismissal

1:21-cv-01208

Court
D. Del.
Filed
2021-08-25
Terminated
2021-09-07

Patents at issue (1)

8165867

Summary

Cedar Lane sued Philips Electronics North America in the District of Delaware asserting US 8,165,867. The court granted voluntary dismissal on 2021-09-07.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research the parties, the patent, and the procedural context before drafting.

Case Overview: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Philips Electronics North America Corp., No. 1:21-cv-01208-RGA (D. Del.)

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian entity — a corporation organized under the laws of British Columbia with a principal place of business at 560 Baker Street, Suite 1, Nelson, BC — and is a classic non-practicing entity: it makes no products, and its business is patent enforcement. It appears in Stanford's NPE Litigation Database as a patent asserter whose asserted portfolio is entirely "acquired patents," and Seyfarth's NPE Showcase profile describes it as one of the more prolific NPEs in the market, a Canadian company that began filing at scale around 2019 and has sued hundreds of defendants, largely on patents it acquired from Intellectual Ventures entities (Stanford NPE database; Seyfarth NPE Showcase summary). Consistent with that provenance, USPTO assignment records show 2013-recorded assignments of the '867 family to a Wilmington, Delaware entity at 2711 Center ville Road — Intellectual Ventures' registered address. The defendant, Philips Electronics North America Corporation, is the U.S. operating subsidiary of Royal Philips, a Dutch health-technology and consumer-electronics company; it is a Delaware corporation with its established place of business at 3000 Minuteman Road, Andover, Massachusetts, as alleged in the complaint (complaint text via RPX Insight, D.I. 1). So the case pits a two-person-style enforcement vehicle against a large, deep-pocketed operating company.

The patent and the accused technology. Cedar Lane asserted a single patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,165,867, titled "Methods for translating a device command," which issued April 24, 2012, from an application filed September 15, 2000 (Compl. ¶ 9). In one line: the '867 patent claims methods for translating or converting a command issued at one device into a form usable to wirelessly control another electronic device, in real time — essentially remote-control/command-conversion functionality (Unified Patents' PATROLL listing describes it as relating to "wirelessly controlling an electronic device with another electronic device in real time"). The complaint is a five-page, single-count pleading that follows Cedar Lane's standard template verbatim: it pleads direct infringement, infringement by internal testing, induced infringement, and actual knowledge as of service, and it does not name any accused product in narrative text. Instead, it identifies "Exemplary Defendant Products" only by cross-reference to a 22-page claim chart filed as Exhibit 2 (D.I. 1, Ex. 2), which was attached but is not reproduced in the free sources I could access. I therefore cannot verify from the public record which specific Philips product or product line was charted — a real gap rather than a detail I should guess at. The surrounding campaign is suggestive, though: the '867 patent was asserted in 2021 against a cluster of consumer-electronics and smart-home/lighting companies, including Ledvance (an LED lighting maker) in Delaware, Bose, Whirlpool, Neato Robotics, Belkin, Vizio, TiVo and Fantasia Trading, plus the defendants Unified Patents catalogues — D-Link, Disney, Dish Network, Comcast, LG, iHeartMedia, ViacomCBS, TCL Communication and SiriusXM (Unified Patents PATROLL contest). Smart-home control products (including Philips Hue lighting, whose brand and business passed to Signify N.V. in the 2018 Philips Lighting spin-off) would fit that theory, but that is inference, not docket fact.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Cedar Lane filed on August 25, 2021 in the District of Delaware — the defendant's state of incorporation, which satisfies § 1400(b) post-TC Heartland and is pleaded as such (Compl. ¶ 7: venue proper because defendant "has an established place of business in this District" and is incorporated in the state). The case was assigned on September 1, 2021 to Judge Richard G. Andrews as one of three same-day Cedar Lane filings (the assignment entry lists associated cases 1:21-cv-01206-RGA, -01207-RGA and -01208-RGA). That same day, local counsel David deBruin filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (D.I. 6), which Judge Andrews so-ordered on September 7, 2021 (D.I. 7, "***Civil Case Terminated"), with the patent report to the Commissioner following on September 8 (D.I. 8).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case and its broader context, since the D. Del. docket lasted only 13 days and the real story likely lies in parallel filings.

Now let me dig into the specific docket, the related Delaware filings, and any PTAB activity on the '867 patent.

Bottom line

This case has essentially no merits history. It was a 13-day placeholder suit: complaint filed 2021-08-25, voluntarily dismissed on Cedar Lane's own notice 2021-09-01, and terminated by order 2021-09-07. There was never an appearance by Philips, an answer, a counterclaim, a motion, an IPR stay motion, a Markman proceeding, discovery, trial, or appeal. The litigation-significant story is therefore (a) why it died so fast, (b) the parallel-filing context it belonged to, and (c) what did and did not happen at the PTAB on the '867 patent.

Chronological developments

2021-08-25 — Complaint filed (D.I. 1). Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Nelson, BC, Canada) sued Philips Electronics North America Corporation in D. Del., asserting a single patent, US 8,165,867 ("Methods for translating a device command," issued 2012-04-24, application filed 2000-09-15). One count of direct and induced infringement, jury demand. Attachments were limited to Exhibit 1 (the patent, 8 pp.) and Exhibit 2 (a single 22-page claim chart) — a notably thinner filing than Cedar Lane's companion complaints that day, which carried six exhibits. Same-day filings included 1:21-cv-01206 (v. Arlo Technologies) and 1:21-cv-01207 (v. Brother International), both also assigned to Judge Andrews.
Complaint text: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/14368090

2021-08-25 — Ancillary filings. Rule 7.1 disclosure statement (no parents/affiliates) (D.I. 4); AO-120 patent report (D.I. 3); summons issued (D.I. 5). Filing fee $402.

2021-09-01 — Case assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews, expressly associated with 1:21-cv-01206-RGA and -01207-RGA. Judge Andrews thereafter handled most of Cedar Lane's Delaware docket.

2021-09-01 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Cedar Lane (D.I. 6), signed by local counsel David W. deBruin. This was a self-executing Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice, filed before any responsive pleading or motion by Philips — and, so far as the docket shows, before Philips was ever served (no proof of service appears on the docket; in the companion cases service was effected 2021-09-09).

2021-09-07 — Order granting dismissal (D.I. 7). "SO ORDERED Granting [6] Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (***Civil Case Terminated). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews." Because dismissal was by unilateral notice rather than stipulation, it is without prejudice as a matter of law under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

2021-09-08 — AO-120 report to the Commissioner of Patents listing 8,165,867 (D.I. 8).

Docket source: https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Philips-Electronics-North-America-Corporation-id-[154149](/patent/154149)/documents

Categories the question asks about — all empty

Stage What happened
Answer / counterclaims None. No appearance by Philips; no Rule 12 response; no declaratory-judgment counterclaims of invalidity or non-infringement.
Motions to dismiss / transfer / stay pending IPR None. Notably, no § 1406(a) venue motion and no § 1404(a) transfer motion were ever reached — even though the complaint's venue allegation was the weakest part of the pleading (see below).
Markman / claim construction None. No scheduling order, no § 282 disclosure, no Markman briefing or hearing.
Discovery None. No Rule 26(f) conference, no ESI order, no infringement/invalidity contentions, no source-code review.
Trial / verdict / JMOL / new trial / fees None.
Judgment / settlement / appeal Voluntary dismissal without prejudice, 2021-09-07. No settlement agreement is on the docket, no Rule 54(b) or Rule 58 judgment, no Federal Circuit appeal. No motion for attorneys' fees under § 285 was filed (and Cedar Lane's unilateral notice would have cut off prevailing-party status).
Present posture Closed. No refiling by Cedar Lane against Philips on the '867 patent surfaced in my searches through 2026-11-11; the dismissal being without prejudice, refiling is not legally barred, but the statute of limitations and the patent's term (priority 2000-09-15) make a late revival of low value.

Why it collapsed: the most defensible reading

No source states a reason, so treat the following as analysis, not fact.

  1. Wrong/ambiguous defendant entity. The complaint names "Philips Electronics North America Corporation" — a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Andover, MA. Cedar Lane's boilerplate venue paragraph nonetheless asserted an "established place of business in this District." Under TC Heartland / § 1400(b), incorporation in Delaware supplies residence, so venue was technically defensible; but the practical target was almost certainly the Philips entity that markets Google Assistant-compatible TVs, soundbars, and Hue products. A quick dismissal followed by refiling against the correct affiliate is the ordinary explanation for a 13-day life.
  2. Batch-filing campaign mechanics. This complaint was one of a large wave filed 2021-08-25 in D. Del. against consumer-electronics defendants (Arlo, Brother, Philips), drafted from a template shared across dozens of '867 cases. Cedar Lane's modus operandi was to file broadly, then prune. By January 2022 the campaign exceeded 150 defendants (Mondaq, 2022-01-31: https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/[1155682](/patent/1155682)/).
  3. Comparator behavior in the same wave. The two cases filed alongside this one survived longer and both ended the same way — by plaintiff-side dismissal, not adjudication:
  • Cedar Lane v. Arlo, 1:21-cv-01206 — notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice; order 2022-02-15.
  • Cedar Lane v. Brother Int'l, 1:21-cv-01207 — joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice (docket closed Apr. 2022).
    This confirms that the Philips dismissal was not an anomaly but the campaign's standard exit.
  1. Enforcement risk on the patent itself. See PTAB discussion below: Unified Patents had publicly targeted claim 1 of the '867 patent for invalidity in early 2021. A plaintiff facing a well-funded, well-counseled defendant (Philips) on a 2000-priority business-method-adjacent remote-control patent has strong incentives to dismiss early rather than litigate validity.

Parallel PTAB / post-grant proceedings on US 8,165,867

I found no IPR or PGR ever instituted — or, in the accessible record, even filed — against the '867 patent. Searches of PTAB-related sources for "8,165,867" returned only district-court materials. If an IPR exists, it is not surfaced in the public indexes I could reach, and I will not fabricate a case number.

What does exist is pre-litigation invalidity pressure outside the PTAB:

The PATROLL program is a precursor to an IPR petition, and the timing (a completed prior-art hunt five months before the Philips complaint) is the single most relevant piece of PTAB-adjacent context: Philips would have had a ready-made invalidity package available. I cannot confirm that Unified ever converted the '867 contest into a petition.

For contrast — a PTAB loss that was real but on a different patent: Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., IPR2020-00006, Final Written Decision 2021-02-12, holding the asserted independent claim of US 7,173,177 unpatentable. https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2021/2/12/cedar-lane-patent-held-unpatentable. That decision does not touch the '867 patent, but it is the backdrop against which Cedar Lane's 2021 filings — including

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

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

Bottom line

This case lived for 13 days, so the plaintiff's-side appearance record is unusually thin: two attorneys are identified on the face of the complaint, but only one of them ever actually appeared in the case. There is no notice of appearance, no pro hac vice motion, no answer, no scheduling order, and no protective order in the docket — the case was filed 2021‑08‑25 and dismissed on the plaintiff's own notice 2021‑09‑07.

Counsel for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Attorney Role Firm / Office Notes
David W. deBruin (D. Del. Bar #4846) Delaware counsel of record / local counsel — the only attorney who actually filed papers in this case Gawthrop Greenwood, PC, 3711 Kennett Pike, Suite 100, Wilmington, DE 19807 (firm HQ West Chester, PA) A high-volume Delaware patent-litigation local counsel for NPE plaintiffs; contemporaneously the Delaware filer for other Cedar Lane matters (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Arlo Techs., 1:21‑cv‑01206; Cedar Lane v. Hilton Worldwide, 1:21‑cv‑01070) as well as BE Labs, Cassiopeia IP, Fusion IP, Sockeye Licensing, and InvesTrex. Later practicing at Napoli Shkolnik, then The deBruin Firm LLC.
Isaac P. Rabicoff Out-of-state / lead counsel listed on the complaint — "Pro hac vice application forthcoming"; never formally appeared before dismissal Rabicoff Law LLC, then at 5680 King Centre Dr., Suite 645, Alexandria, VA 22315 (the firm later relocated to 4311 N. Ravenswood Ave., Chicago, IL) Cedar Lane's habitual national filing counsel, and a prolific filer of NPE patent suits (Cedar Lane, Sockeye Licensing, BE Labs, etc.). Notably sanctioned $1,000 under Rule 11 and referred to the N.D. Cal. Standing Committee on Professional Conduct in Cedar Lane Techs. v. Blackmagic Design Inc., No. 3:20‑cv‑01302‑VC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2020), where Judge Chhabria described him as a "serial filer" of patent lawsuits who sought to avoid pro hac vice fees; he later paid $9,193 in back PHV fees and received a public reprimand.

No in-house counsel for Cedar Lane appears anywhere in the record (Cedar Lane is a Canadian entity based in Nelson, BC, with no in-house lawyer on the docket), and no second local counsel appeared.

Docket record supporting this

  • D.I. 1 (Aug. 25, 2021) — Complaint for patent infringement, U.S. Patent No. 8,165,867, with Exhibits 1–2 and civil cover sheet. The signature block reads: "/s/ David W. deBruin (#4846), Gawthrop Greenwood, PC, 3711 Kennett Pike, Suite 100, Wilmington, DE 19807 … ddebruin@gawthrop.com" and "Isaac Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC (Pro hac vice application forthcoming) … isaac@rabilaw.com — Counsel for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc." (Complaint text via RPX Insight, litigation document 14368090.)
  • D.I. 4 (Aug. 25, 2021) — Rule 7.1 disclosure statement ("No Parents or Affiliates Listed"), filed by Cedar Lane.
  • D.I. 6 (Sept. 1, 2021) — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, filed by Cedar Lane and entered on the docket under the filer tag "(deBruin, David)."
  • D.I. 7 (Sept. 7, 2021) — "SO ORDERED Granting [6] Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (***Civil Case Terminated). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews."
  • D.I. 8 (Sept. 8, 2021) — Form AO‑120 patent report to the Commissioner.
  • Case was consolidated for assignment purposes with two same‑day Cedar Lane filings, 1:21‑cv‑01206‑RGA and 1:21‑cv‑01207‑RGA, before Judge Andrews.

Explicit caveats

  • No pro hac vice motion for Mr. Rabicoff is on the docket. The complaint said the application was "forthcoming," but the case was dismissed before it was filed, so he never became an attorney of record. Treat his "lead counsel" characterization as descriptive of his actual drafting role (consistent with how he described himself in the Blackmagic matter), not as a formal admission.
  • No notice of appearance by Mr. deBruin appears; he is identified through the complaint's signature block and as the ECF filer of D.I. 6.
  • Nothing in this docket is sealed, but the record is skeletal — nothing beyond D.I. 1–8 exists. I did not locate a publicly posted PACER image of the docket beyond the aggregator listings cited above (Patexia docket sheet for No. 1:21‑cv‑01208, CourtListener/Unified Patents dockets for the companion cases), so the above rests on those transcriptions plus the complaint text itself.
  • The obvious rejoinder: given the near-instant dismissal, no defense counsel activity, and the "PHV forthcoming" designation, this filing fits the pattern criticized in Blackmagic — a short-lived complaint used as a settlement lever before counsel's admission was ever tested. That inference is mine, not a finding in this case.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

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

Let me pull the full docket and check whether any defense appearance was ever filed.

The docket appears to end at the dismissal order with no defense appearance. Let me verify against another docket source and check for any related Cedar Lane–Philips suits where Philips did appear.

Bottom line

There is no counsel of record for the defendant in this case — none ever appeared. Philips Electronics North America Corp. never answered, moved, or filed a notice of appearance, because the case was dismissed on Cedar Lane's unilateral notice 13 days after filing and before any defendant response was due.

I want to be direct about that rather than populate a counsel table that would be fabrication: any attorney name attached to "defense counsel" in this action would be invented.

What the docket actually shows

The complete docket (8 entries, D.I. 1–8) contains no filing by Philips or anyone on its behalf:

Date D.I. Filing Filer
2021-08-25 1 Complaint for Patent Infringement (Exs. 1–2, civil cover sheet) Cedar Lane
2021-08-25 2 Magistrate consent/referral forms Clerk
2021-08-25 3 Patent/Trademark Report ('867) Clerk
2021-08-25 4 Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement (no parents/affiliates) Cedar Lane
2021-08-25 5 Summons Issued (electronic) Clerk
2021-09-01 6 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (deBruin, David) Cedar Lane
2021-09-07 7 Order: "SO ORDERED Granting [6] Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (***Civil Case Terminated)." Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews Court
2021-09-08 8 Report to Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks re 8,165,867 (with Order attached) Clerk

Source: the PACER-derived docket reproduced at Patexia, Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., No. 1:21-cv-01208 (D. Del.), https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Philips-Electronics-North-America-Corporation-id-154149/documents

Three negative indicators confirm the absence of defense counsel, and they are mutually corroborating:

  1. No Notice of Appearance, answer, Rule 12 motion, or extension stipulation by Philips appears on the docket.
  2. No summons return of service was filed. In the two companion cases filed the same day, service returns were filed showing service on September 9, 2021 — two days after this case was already closed. See No. 1:21-cv-01206-RGA (Arlo Techs.) ("served on 9/9/2021, answer due 9/30/2021") and No. 1:21-cv-01207-RGA (Brother Int'l) (same), https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1:21-cv-01206 and .../case/1:21-cv-01207. The '867 campaign was served in a batch; the Philips case exited the batch first.
  3. No Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure or corporate-parent filing by Philips (the only § 7.1 statement in the file, D.I. 4, is Cedar Lane's own).

Why dismissal foreclosed any appearance

Cedar Lane filed its notice on September 1, 2021, twelve days before the answer deadline that would have run from the September 9 service date. A plaintiff may dismiss without prejudice as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment — so the dismissal was self-executing, and Judge Andrews' September 7 order (D.I. 7) was a so-ordering of an already-effective dismissal. Philips had no occasion to retain Delaware counsel, and no such retention appears.

For contrast, the companion case shows what a defense appearance in this campaign looked like: Brandon Ryan Harper filed a Notice of Appearance for Brother International Corp. in No. 1:21-cv-01207 (Delaware counsel; Harper is a Wilmington litigator, per firm directory, at Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor — treat the firm attribution as reported, not docket-confirmed), followed by pro hac vice admissions of Dov Hirsch, Michael B. Powell, Danielle V. Tully, and John T. Moehringer. That pattern did not occur here.

Counsel who are of record (plaintiff's side only)

The only attorneys appearing in this file are Cedar Lane's:

  • David W. deBruin — Delaware local counsel of record; signed the notice of voluntary dismissal (D.I. 6). Wilmington, Del. (Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A. — firm attribution reported, not docket-confirmed).
  • The complaint's signature block identifies "Counsel for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc."; in the parallel '867 suits the plaintiff-side team included Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago), Cedar Lane's highest-volume filer. I could not retrieve the '867 complaint's full signature block to confirm which attorneys signed this complaint, so I flag that as unverified rather than assert it.

One caution against inference

Philips entities do have well-documented outside patent counsel — e.g., John D. Carlin, Michael P. Sandonato, and Natalie Lieber of Venable LLP (New York) appeared for Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips Electronics North America Corp., and affiliates in In re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation, No. 4:18-cv-01885-HSG (N.D. Cal.). None of those attorneys — and no Venable attorney — appears on this docket. Their involvement in other Philips matters is not evidence of any role here, and I am not suggesting otherwise.

Verification note

I did not have direct PACER access; the docket above comes from an aggregator mirror of the court's CM/ECF docket, and my searches did not surface a CourtListener RECAP page for this specific docket to cross-check. Because the case closed in 13 days with a handful of entries, an aggregator truncation is conceivable in principle. If you need this nailed down for a brief or a conflicts check, the confirming step is a single PACER docket-sheet pull for No. 1:21-cv-01208-RGA (D. Del.) — the whole docket is 8 entries, roughly $0.80 — and the absence of any appearance would then be established directly.