Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. PixArt Imaging

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

Case Overview — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. PixArt Imaging Inc., No. 6:22-cv-01077 (W.D. Tex.)

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian corporation with a stated principal place of business in Nelson, British Columbia, and is characterized as a non-practicing entity/patent assertion entity in Stanford's NPE Litigation Database and in Unified Patents' tracking of its campaigns. Cedar Lane is a high-volume, mass-filing plaintiff in the camera/image-sensor space: the Stanford database lists well over a hundred Cedar Lane suits in districts including W.D. Tex., D. Del., D.N.J., E.D.N.Y., S.D.N.Y., W.D. Wash. and W.D. Pa., nearly all prosecuted by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, which is counsel of record here (D.I. 2). The defendant, PixArt Imaging Inc. (原相科技, TWSE/TPEx: 3227), is by contrast a genuine operating company — a fabless CMOS image sensor and optical-sensing IC designer founded in 1998 and headquartered in the Hsinchu Science Park in Taiwan, affiliated with the UMC group, and self-described as "the world-leading supplier in optical mouse sensor chips," with additional CMOS image sensor, gesture/motion-sensing, touch, PPG heart-rate and custom-ASIC lines, plus the sensor work behind Nintendo's Wii remote tracking. PixArt is the party in this case with real exposure to a "host interface for imaging arrays" theory, because its products are the sensor ICs that sit on the boundary between an imaging array and a host processor.

The accused technology and the patent. The complaint (D.I. 1, filed Oct. 12, 2022) is the standard Cedar Lane template: it names no accused product in the body, instead incorporating by reference claim-chart exhibits (D.I. 1, Exs. 1–6), and alleges direct infringement, plus induced and contributory infringement, by making, using, selling, offering for sale and importing the charted products and by having employees test them, with post-suit knowledge supplied by service of the complaint. U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 ("Host interface for imaging arrays"), filed Dec. 21, 2000 and issued Dec. 6, 2005, names Mark Suska as inventor and originally belonged to Psion Teklogix Systems Inc. (Canada) before reaching Cedar Lane; claim 1 recites an interface for receiving data from an image sensor and passing it to a processor system, comprising a memory that stores imaging-array data and clocking signals at a rate set by the sensor clock, a signal generator that issues a signal (e.g., an interrupt or bus request) to the processor in response to the quantity of buffered data, and a circuit that controls transfer out of the memory at a rate the processor determines — with the specification teaching a FIFO or addressable memory and on-die integration with the sensor. Technically, it is a mid-1990s/2000-era decoupling-of-clock-domains patent (asynchronous sensor-to-host buffering) whose claimed subject matter is now essentially ubiquitous in CMOS sensor SoCs. Two caveats on scope: (i) the case metadata in this system lists only the '790, but Stanford's NPE database also indexes this same civil action under U.S. Patent No. 6,473,527, and the six-exhibit complaint structure is the one Cedar Lane used in companion suits asserting the '790 alongside the '527 and/or the '242 divisional — so the exact patent count is best confirmed from the exhibits themselves, which I could not read; and (ii) publicly available databases record the '790 (and the '242) as expired, with an estimated expiry of Aug. 1, 2023 — I have not independently verified the terminal-disclaimer/PTA arithmetic, so treat that date as a database estimate rather than a checked fact.

Procedural posture and why it matters. Filed Oct. 12, 2022 in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas, the case was assigned to Chief Judge Alan D. Albright, with the assignment docket text noting it was made "due to related cases" — consistent with the wave of Cedar Lane Waco complaints filed in late 2022 (compare 6:22-cv-00955, -01079, -01197, -01305, -01307). Venue matters in the ordinary W.D. Tex. sense: Waco was the country's busiest patent venue in 2020–2022, valued by plaintiffs for its speed and for Judge Albright's detailed procedures, and Cedar Lane was one of its most prolific filers; the docket also shows the local practice of the court issuing summons promptly (D.I. 7, Oct. 13, 2022). What is unusual is how it ended: Cedar Lane filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on Nov. 1, 2022 (D.I. 8), only 20 days after filing, and the clerk transmitted the AO-120 report to the USPTO that same day (D.I. 9). No answer, motion, or appearance by PixArt appears in the public docket, and no return of service is reflected in the records I could access; under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) a notice filed before answer is self-effectuating, so no dismissal order was needed. The public record therefore supports only that the case was dropped almost immediately — it does not disclose a settlement, license, or payment, and I have found no court filing or reporting attributing a reason.

Why the case is notable. Three reasons. First, it illustrates the Cedar Lane assertion model at its purest: a Canadian NPE buying legacy sensor-interface patents originating with a Canadian terminal maker (Psion Teklogix) and asserting them on a template complaint against camera, sensor, and device makers in Waco, with most suits resolved within weeks — publicly reported economics are very low, e.g., the August 2021 Reolink Digital settlement at US$10,000 for a perpetual worldwide license across the same '790/'867/'242 family (Shenzhen IP Protection Center reporting). Second, the defendant profile is telling: Cedar Lane's campaign mostly targeted downstream device and camera sellers, and suing an upstream Taiwanese fabless sensor designer like PixArt — the actual source of the accused interface circuitry, and a company that had already litigated and cross-licensed its way through the Avago/Agilent optical-sensor wars — tests whether the model works against a component supplier with its own IP defense capability and foreign-service/jurisdictional friction (PixArt has no apparent U.S. manufacturing presence on this record). Third, the IPR linkage is conspicuous by its absence: I found no PTAB proceeding against the '790 in public databases (Patsnap records "validity challenges: None recorded"), unlike Cedar Lane's separate U.S. 7,173,177, which Unified Patents invalidated in a 2021 final written decision — so this case contributed district-court volume to the NPE statistics without generating any validity ruling, and the patent's expiry (~2023) closed the window before any substantive test of the claims occurred.

*Sourcing note: docket entries and dates above are from the Patexia/PACER docket mirror for No. 6:22-cv-01077; NPE characterization and case indexing from Stanford's NPE

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the core docket and patent records.

Case identified: 6:22-cv-01077 (W.D. Tex.), filed 2022-10-12. Let me pull the full docket and check for PTAB activity.

The PixArt case appears to have been short-lived. Let me verify the dismissal terms and check for PTAB activity and any refiling.

Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. PixArt Imaging Inc., No. 6:22-cv-01077 (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: this case never got past the pleadings. It was filed 2022-10-12 and terminated 2022-11-01 — twenty days — by Cedar Lane's unilateral notice of dismissal, before PixArt made any appearance. There are no answers, counterclaims, motions, claim construction, discovery, trial, or appeal. It is a "file-and-fold" case in Cedar Lane's mass-licensing campaign, not a litigated dispute, so most of the categories you asked about are inapplicable and I flag them as such rather than inventing events.

Chronological developments

2022-10-12 — Complaint filed. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Canada), through Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (its sole/house counsel in this wave), filed a Complaint for Patent Infringement with jury demand against PixArt Imaging Inc. in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas. Dkt. 1 (8 pp.) with Exhibits 1–6; Dkt. 2 (notice of appearance); Dkt. 3 (Rule 7.1 disclosure — no parents/affiliates); Dkt. 4 (summons request); Dkt. 5 (AO 120 patent form forwarded to USPTO); Dkt. 6 (Notice of Related Cases). Case assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, expressly "due to related cases" — i.e., it was flagged as related to Cedar Lane's other W.D. Tex. filings rather than drawn randomly. (Patexia docket; Stanford NPE Database, case 268845)

Pleading content followed Cedar Lane's boilerplate template exactly: infringement of "one or more claims" of the asserted patent(s) by "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified only in claim-chart exhibits, plus induced infringement and post-filing willfulness premised on the complaint itself as notice. No pre-suit knowledge allegations, no specific product identification in the body of the pleading. (This template is documented verbatim in the parallel Cedar Lane complaints, e.g. Cedar Lane v. Qualcomm, No. 6:22-cv-00046 (W.D. Tex.).)

2022-10-13 — Summons issued (Dkt. 7). No return of service appears on the public docket.

No responsive pleading. The public docket contains no answer, no Rule 12 motion, no counterclaim, and no appearance by PixArt or its counsel. This matters doctrinally: under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss without leave of court by notice filed before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment, and that dismissal is self-executing — no court order is required. That is why the docket shows a notice but no "Order of Dismissal."

2022-11-01 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. 8, with proposed order), and the Clerk's Report on Determination of an Action sent to the USPTO under 35 U.S.C. § 290 (Dkt. 9). Case terminated. (Patexia docket)

Categories with nothing to report

• Pre-trial motions of substance: none. No motion to dismiss, transfer (despite PixArt being a Taiwan-based entity — no § 1404/§ 1406 or TC Heartland challenge was ever filed), stay pending IPR, or summary judgment.
• Markman: none. No scheduling order, no Joint Claim Construction Statement, no Phillips briefing.
• Discovery: none of record. No Rule 26(f) conference, no infringement or invalidity contentions, no ESI order.
• Trial / verdict / JMOL / § 285 fees: none.
• Appeal: none; the dismissal was not appealed and there is no Federal Circuit docket.

Parallel PTAB proceedings

I found no IPR, PGR, or reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 — whether filed by PixArt or anyone else — in the sources retrievable here. My PTAB-specific search was cut short, so I would characterize this as "no proceeding identified" rather than a confirmed negative; it should be verified against the PTAB's Patent Trial and Appeal Board Endpoint / Unified Patents PTAB database before being relied on. Notably, Cedar Lane's '790 and '242 patents did attract third-party PTAB attention in at least one related campaign (an IPWatchdog roundup references Fintiv-based petition denials tied to Cedar Lane's AU Optronics matter, No. 5:20-cv-06769) — a lead worth chasing, but I could not confirm which patent was at issue. There is likewise no stay motion here, so no PTAB-vs.-district-court interaction to analyze.

Why it ended this way — and what it means

The 20-day lifecycle fits Cedar Lane's well-documented pattern across its campaign: dozens of complaints filed, then rapid Rule 41(a)(1) dismissals before any defense appearance (compare Cedar Lane v. Snap, D. Del. No. 1:22-cv-00058, dismissed 2022-01-25, nine days after filing; Cedar Lane v. Phytech, No. 1:22-cv-00054, dismissed 2022-02-15; Cedar Lane v. Phase One, No. 1:22-cv-00482, dismissed without prejudice 2022-05-10). In this campaign the dismissal usually signals either a quick confidential license/paid-up settlement or Cedar Lane's realization that the named defendant is a component supplier rather than an end-user seller. PixArt is a Taiwan-based CMOS image sensor designer — a plausible upstream supplier to Cedar Lane's other camera/module targets — but the record here does not disclose the reason, and the parties filed nothing explaining it. I would not assert a settlement without a licensing record.

Practical consequences of the disposition:

1. No merits adjudication whatsoever — no validity, infringement, or claim construction ruling on the '790 patent emerged from this case. It supplies zero precedent.
2. No preclusion. A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal by notice is without prejudice as a matter of law, and the docket reflects no stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. Cedar Lane could refile, subject to the statute of limitations. (The exact prejudice language, if any, appears in Dkt. 8's text, which I could not retrieve — the patexia entry shows only the caption and a proposed order.)
3. The '790 patent has since expired. Per a Shenzhen IP Protection Center risk advisory on this campaign, the '790 patent (filed 2000-12-21; issued 2005-12-06; inventor Mark Suska; original assignee Psion Teklogix Systems Inc.) carried an estimated expiration of 2023-08-01. Damages are therefore confined to the pre-expiration window — which explains the urgency of Cedar Lane's 2022 filing wave. The companion '527 patent had already expired. (bdipp.cn advisory)
4. Present posture: closed and inactive since 2022-11-01. No pending motions, no appeal, no ancillary fee or sanctions proceedings.

Two verification gaps to close

• Which patents were actually pleaded here. Your case metadata lists only the '790 patent, and this is a single-patent case as far as your summary goes. However, the Stanford NPE database's patent page for U.S. Patent No. 6,473,527 independently lists Cedar Lane v. PixArt Imaging, No. 6:22-cv-01077, among that patent's suits (Stanford, patent 6473527). The six-exhibit structure of Dkt. 1 matches Cedar Lane's three-patent template ('527 + '790 + '242), whereas its two-patent complaints carried four exhibits (compare Snap and Phytech, both 4 exhibits for '790 + '242). I would pull Dkt. 1 and its exhibits from PACER to confirm the asserted patent set rather than relying on either source.
• Dismissal terms and service. Whether Dkt. 8 specified "without prejudice" and whether PixArt was ever served are both unconfirmed from the docket text available to me.

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

Counsel of record for Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. — Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. PixArt Imaging Inc., No. 6:22-cv-01077 (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: Only one attorney ever appeared for the plaintiff on this docket — Isaac P. Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago, IL), who was lead (and sole) counsel of record. No local counsel, no co-counsel, and no pro hac vice sponsor appeared before the case was voluntarily dismissed 20 days after filing.

Counsel table

Docket support

The nine-entry docket is short and entirely Rabicoff-signed:

• 10/12/2022 — Dkt. 1, Complaint for Patent Infringement (asserting U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 and others), filed by Rabicoff; Dkt. 2, "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Rabicoff on behalf of Cedar Lane Technologies Inc."; Dkt. 3, Rule 7.1 disclosure; Dkts. 4–6, summons request, AO-120, notice of related cases.
• 10/13/2022 — Case assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, Waco Division, "due to related cases"; summons issued as to PixArt (Dkt. 7).
• 11/1/2022 — Dkt. 8, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by Cedar Lane (Rabicoff); Dkt. 9, Report on Patent/Trademark to the USPTO.

Sources: Patexia litigation docket for No. 6:22-cv-01077 (document list), https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-PixArt-Imaging-Inc-id-[181956](/patent/181956)/documents; Stanford NPE Litigation Database case record, https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/[268845](/patent/268845); Rabicoff Law firm bio, http://www.rabilaw.com/rabicoff.html; Law360 attorney profile, https://www.law360.com/firms/rabicoff-law/attorneys/isaac-p-rabicoff; USPTO PTAB filings listing Rabicoff as lead counsel with Reg. No. 74,147 (e.g., IPR2016-01464 Power of Attorney).

Caveats / things I could not verify

1. No pro hac vice record. The docket shows Rabicoff appearing directly (Dkt. 2) with no pro hac vice motion and no local-counsel appearance, even though W.D. Tex. Local Rule AT-3 generally requires local counsel for pro hac vice admittees. His published admissions list Illinois, the Seventh Circuit, the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court, and the E.D. Tex., N.D. Ill. and W.D. Wis. district courts — W.D. Tex. is not listed, though the bio may simply be stale. I cannot confirm from the sources available whether he was a W.D. Tex. bar member or whether the case closed before any admission issue was raised; I am not asserting either.
2. Contrast with Cedar Lane's Delaware suits. In the parallel D. Del. Cedar Lane actions (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Snap, 1:22-cv-00058; Cedar Lane v. Fantasia Trading, 1:21-cv-01428), local Delaware counsel David W. deBruin filed alongside Rabicoff. That local-counsel structure does not appear in the PixArt docket.
3. No in-house appearance. Cedar Lane is a Canadian-registered NPE; its founder Greg Benoit is reported to be an attorney (per a Shenzhen IP Protection Center risk advisory on Cedar Lane's 2022 W.D. Tex. filings, http://www.sziprs.org.cn/szipr/hwwq/jfydzd/content/post_839930.html), but no in-house or corporate officer entered an appearance here, and Cedar Lane's Rule 7.1 disclosure listed no parent/affiliates.
4. No sealed-material issue. Nothing on this docket is sealed; the gap is simply that the case was dismissed (Dkt. 8, 11/1/2022) before PixArt answered or appeared, so no additional plaintiff-side counsel ever had reason to file.
5. Don't confuse the filings. A related Cedar Lane complaint filed the same week, No. 6:22-cv-01079 (W.D. Tex., also pleading the '790 patent per the same advisory), and Cedar Lane v. PicsArt, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-03925 (N.D. Cal., where Steven A. Nielsen appeared) are different matters with different counsel — not counsel of record here.

Practical takeaway for the case file: for any future Rule 30(b)(6), service, or Rule 11/§ 285 correspondence directed at plaintiff's litigation conduct in this action, the sole point of contact of record is Isaac Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC, 73 W. Monroe St., Chicago, IL 60603 (isaac@rabilaw.com; (773) 669-4590).

Bottom line

No attorney ever appeared for PixArt Imaging Inc. in this case. The action — Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. PixArt Imaging Inc., No. 6:22-cv-01077 (W.D. Tex., Judge Alan D. Albright), on U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 — was filed October 12, 2022 and voluntarily dismissed by Cedar Lane 19 days later, on November 1, 2022, before PixArt answered, moved, or retained counsel of record. The entire docket is nine entries, none of which is a defendant-side appearance, answer, Rule 12 motion, or corporate disclosure statement. There is therefore no lead counsel, local counsel, of counsel, or in-house counsel to report, and nothing was sealed that would hide one (the docket contains no sealed entries and no motions for leave to file under seal).

Per the operating rules, I am reporting this as an explicit absence rather than inferring counsel from PixArt's other litigations.

The complete record (docket, No. 6:22-cv-01077)

Sources: Patexia Research docket for No. 6:22-cv-01077, https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-PixArt-Imaging-Inc-id-181956/documents ; Stanford NPE Litigation Database case record, https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/268845 (confirming the sole Cedar Lane–PixArt action and the W.D. Tex. venue). No separate suit between these parties appears in the Stanford database, so there is no companion case in which PixArt counsel might have appeared on the '790 patent.

Two additional points from the record:

• No return of service appears. The docket shows summons issued (Doc. 7) but no "Summons Returned Executed" entry, consistent with a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal taken as of right before PixArt's answer deadline ran. Cedar Lane used the identical pattern across the October 2022 W.D. Tex. wave (e.g., Parrot SA, No. 6:22-cv-01076, dismissed 10/26/2022; SZ DJI, No. 6:22-cv-01079, dismissed 11/01/2022).
• The dismissal was by notice, not by filed answer or settlement announcement, so the record contains no signature block, certificate of service, or joint stipulation that would name a PixArt lawyer even indirectly.

Counsel who should not be attributed to this case

Because PACER is silent, it is worth being explicit about names that may surface in secondary research and that do not represent appearances here:

• Keker & Van Nest LLP (San Francisco) — Daralyn J. Durie, Leo L. Lam, and Eugene M. Paige represented PixArt as plaintiff/counterclaim-defendant in Agilent Techs., Inc. v. PixArt Imaging Inc., No. C 03-4871 JW (N.D. Cal. 2003–2006). See, e.g., stipulations at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.15498/gov.uscourts.cand.15498.148.0.pdf and .154.0.pdf.
• Mayer Brown LLP (Palo Alto) — Cliff A. Maier and Duane D. Hough appeared for PixArt in Avago Techs. General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. PixArt Imaging, Inc., No. 5:10-cv-00544 (N.D. Cal.). See protective order at https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:2010cv00544/[224048](/patent/224048)/40/0.pdf.
• Yennim Chang — PixArt in-house counsel designated under the protective order in the same 2010 Avago case (same document).

These are historical PixArt patent-litigation relationships from other dockets, not counsel of record in No. 6:22-cv-01077. Any assertion that a Keker, Mayer Brown, or other firm lawyer appeared for PixArt in the Cedar Lane matter would be unsupported by the public record.

For completeness: plaintiff's side

The only attorney of record in the case is Isaac Phillip Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago, IL), sole counsel for Cedar Lane (Doc. 2). Rabicoff is the named plaintiff's counsel across the great majority of Cedar Lane's hundreds of '790/'527/'242 assertions filed in 2021–2022, and appeared again for Cedar Lane in the Delaware '790 suits (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Fantasia Trading LLC, No. 1:21-cv-01428 (D. Del.)). Rabicoff Law is a small patent-assertion practice; it is not a defendant-side firm here.

Verification caveat and recommended next step

My conclusion rests on the aggregator docket mirrors (Patexia, Stanford NPE, CourtListener/Justia indexes) rather than a live PACER pull. The Patexia listing appears complete (Docs. 1–9 are sequential and none is missing), and the 9-entry count is consistent with the pattern in the parallel October 2022 dismissals. If you need a belt-and-suspenders confirmation — for example, to satisfy a disclosure or conflicts check — pull the live PACER docket for 6:22-cv-01077 and check the "Attorneys" pane of the case summary, which will show Rabicoff only. If a PixArt appearance exists anywhere, it would have to be a post-November 1, 2022 filing in a closed case, which would itself be unusual and newsworthy.