Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Ricoh Company Ltd. et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Let me dig into the docket, the complaint specifics, and the patent's litigation history.

Let me locate the actual complaint and docket to pin down asserted patents and accused products.

Case Overview — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Ricoh Company Ltd. et al., No. 6:22-cv-01119 (W.D. Tex.)

The parties. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian patent-holding entity formed in 2019 and is characterized as a non-practicing entity in Stanford's NPE Litigation Database (asserter category: "acquired patents") — it makes and sells nothing and has no business beyond licensing and litigation. Its portfolio is largely patent assets acquired out of the Intellectual Ventures ecosystem; IPWatchdog's filing roundup tagged the Ricoh complaint as an "IV selloff" assertion, and the asserted patent's original assignees of record are the inventor, Mark Suska, and Harusaki Technologies LLC, an IV-linked vehicle. Cedar Lane is one of the most prolific filers of the 2020–2023 period — a Shenzhen IP Protection Center alert put its federal docket at roughly 325 suits, and Seyfarth's "NPE Showcase" described it as "one of the more prolific NPEs in the patent enforcement market," noting that none of its cases had reached trial. It was represented here by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, its near-exclusive campaign counsel (in other matters joined by Napoli Shkolnik). Defendants are Ricoh Company Ltd., the Japanese imaging and electronics manufacturer (printers, multifunction peripherals, scanners, projectors, and Theta cameras), and its U.S. subsidiary Ricoh USA, Inc. — i.e., a large operating company rather than an NPE. Only Ricoh USA, Inc. actually appeared: the docket shows summons issued solely to Ricoh USA and pro hac vice admission of Baker Botts attorneys Robert L. Maier, Jennifer C. Tempesta, and Michael E. Knierim, with Jose Carlos Villarreal as local counsel (Dkts. 9–15). I found no public record of Ricoh Company Ltd. being served or appearing.

The asserted patent and accused technology. The case profile's patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242, "Host interface for imaging arrays" (issued Sept. 17, 2013; application filed Oct. 27, 2005; earliest priority Jan. 21, 2000; inventor Mark Suska). In one line: it claims an interface — preferably integrated on the same die as the sensor — that buffers pixel data from a CMOS imaging array in a FIFO or addressable memory at the sensor's clock rate and signals the host processor (via interrupt or bus request) when a quantity of data is ready, then clocks data out at the host's rate. It is a divisional sharing the specification of U.S. Pat. No. 6,972,790, and third-party databases estimate its term as expiring around August 1, 2023 — i.e., it was in its final months when suit was filed. Notably, the complaint as summarized in available analyses appears to have asserted the '242 alongside family members '790 and '527 (Patsnap records "3 patents asserted"), while the case-level metadata and IPWatchdog's docket table list only the '242; I could not resolve that discrepancy from a primary docket copy. The pleading's infringement theory was generic: it referred to "Exemplary Defendant Products" charted against "Exemplary '242 Patent Claims" in exhibits rather than naming products in the body. I could not verify which specific Ricoh products were accused — no public source I found identifies the accused Ricoh models (plausibly Ricoh imaging/MFP hardware, but that is inference, not record). Cedar Lane's parallel '242 suits in this wave targeted devices with image-sensor and image-processing pipelines.

Procedural posture and why it matters. Filed October 26, 2022 in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright — the docket notes the case was "[a]ssigned to Judge Alan D

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with searches on the docket and parties.

Initial results give me the core disposition. Let me pull the docket and check for PTAB proceedings and any Ricoh-specific filings.

The IPWatchdog roundup confirms the asserted patent. Let me pull the actual docket and complaint, plus check PTAB history on the '242.

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Ricoh Co., Ltd. et al., No. 6:22-cv-01119 (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: This was a short-lived nuisance-value NPE suit that never reached any adversarial merits stage. It was filed 2022‑10‑26, Baker Botts appeared for Ricoh USA in December 2022, and Cedar Lane voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on 2023‑03‑06 — 131 days after filing — before an answer, counterclaim, motion, Markman, or discovery exchange ever occurred. No IPR/PGR on the '242 patent is recorded.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

Answer / counterclaims: none. Ricoh never filed a responsive pleading, and the docket contains no Rule 12 motion and no invalidity or non-infringement counterclaim. This is materially different from, e.g., the Johnson Controls and NXP matters where Cedar Lane had to move affirmatively to dismiss.

Source discrepancy to note: The user-supplied metadata and the IPWatchdog docket roundup for the filing week both list only the '242 patent for this case (IPWatchdog, "Patent Filings Roundup," 2022‑11‑03: "6:22‑cv‑01119 | Filed | Cedar Lane Technologies Inc [IV selloff] | Ricoh Company Ltd | 8537242"). Patsnap's litigation database instead reports "3 patents," adding the '790 and the '527. I could not obtain the complaint PDF itself to resolve this; the complaint's claim charts were attached as exhibits not reproduced in public summaries, and the complaint body identifies no claims or products by name. Treat the '242 as the sole confirmed patent-in-suit and the '790/'527 entries as probable database bleed-over from Cedar Lane's parallel filings.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None. No motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, no motion to sever Ricoh Company Ltd., no summary judgment motion, no Fintiv-style stay fight. The only motions on the docket are the four pro hac vice applications. The dismissal notice itself recites the absence of any dispositive motion ("Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment").

3. Claim construction

Did not occur. No scheduling order, no joint claim construction statement, no Markman hearing or order. Cedar Lane's Waco cases overwhelmingly died before the Albright court's claim construction stage, and this one was no exception.

4. Discovery milestones

None of record. No Rule 26(f) conference, no initial disclosures, no infringement or invalidity contentions served, no ESI or damages discovery. The case was dismissed roughly seven weeks after Ricoh's appearance and two months before the extended answer deadline — the practical signal that a license/settlement payment, not litigation, resolved it.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial setting, no verdict, no JMOL/Rule 59/Rule 54 fee motion. Cedar Lane expressly agreed that "Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees," thereby waiving any § 285 fee claim — a standard term in its dismissal notices.

6. Final disposition

2023‑03‑06 — voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Per Patsnap's verbatim docket quote (dismissal document in 6:22‑cv‑01119):

"Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby dismisses this action with prejudice. Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees."

Because no answer or summary judgment motion had been filed, Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permitted dismissal by notice without a court order; the case closed that same day (2023‑03‑06). No appeal was taken, no judgment was entered, and there is no live posture — the case is terminated on the docket.

Terms of the resolution are not public. The record shows only the notice; nothing discloses whether consideration was paid. The procedural signature (dismissal days before the answer deadline, with prejudice, mutual cost-bearing) is the classic Cedar Lane settlement template — see the substantively identical notices in Cedar Lane v. Konica Minolta, No. 6:22‑cv‑01074 (2022‑11‑14, without prejudice) and Cedar Lane v. Ortiz-style filings.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings

None identified on the '242 patent. No IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against U.S. Pat. No. 8,537,242 appears in the public record; patent-litigation databases list the '242 family with "validity challenges: none recorded," and no Fintiv stay motion was ever filed in this case (Ricoh's IPR deadline under § 315(b) would have run in December 2023, long after dismissal). No ex parte reexamination or district-court invalidity challenge is recorded either — Cedar Lane's imaging-array family was never adjudicated on validity in any forum.

For portfolio context: third-party challenger Unified Patents did attack a different Cedar Lane patent — U.S. Pat. No. 7,173,177 — obtaining institution on 2020‑03‑18 and a final written decision on 2021‑02‑12 holding the asserted independent claim unpatentable (Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Techs., IPR). That is the only known PTAB precedent against this plaintiff.

---

Strategic read

• Zero merits adjudication. The '242 patent emerged from this case judicially untouched on both infringement and validity; the dismissal with prejudice binds only Cedar Lane and Ricoh as to the claims actually asserted.
• Venue and timing. Filed in the Sept–Oct 2022 wave of Waco filings (Cedar Lane filed at least 16 suits in one week of September 2022 alone, all by Isaac Rabicoff), this case sits alongside contemporaneous '242 assertions against Vantage Robotics, Avis Budget, Sixt, Zhuhai RaySharp, Watts Innovations, Snap, Lexmark, 3xLogic, Phytech, and others — nearly all resolved by early voluntary dismissal.
• Counsel. Cedar Lane: Isaac Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC (Alexandria, VA). Ricoh: Baker Botts LLP — Robert L. Maier, Jennifer C. Tempesta, Michael E. Knierim (pro hac vice) and Jose Carlos Villarreal (local).
• Reputational overhang. Cedar Lane and Rabicoff were sanctioned in 2020 by Judge Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) for positions the court called "objectively frivolous" taken in bad faith, with Rabicoff referred to that court's Standing Committee on Professional Conduct — relevant background to how its Texas filings were received, though it played no role in this docket.

Facts I could not verify (flagged, not asserted)

1. Whether Ricoh Company, Ltd. was ever served or separately dismissed. The caption names it, but the only summons issued was to Ricoh USA and no Rule 4(f)/Hague service papers appear on the docket as reported. Cedar Lane's own dismissal text speaks of a single "Defendant," suggesting Ricoh Company Ltd. was dropped informally or never perfected.
2. The precise patent count in the complaint (1 vs. 3, per the Patsnap/IPWatchdog conflict above).
3. Whether any payment changed hands. Not disclosed.
4. Exact patent term / damages window. The '242 claims priority to 2000‑01‑21 through a 2005 divisional chain; Patsnap estimates expiry for the sibling '790 at 2023‑08‑01. If the '242 term ran from the 2000 priority date, the § 286 six-year damages look-back would have been the binding constraint on any recovery — but I have no primary-source confirmation of the '242's computed expiration and would not rely on this without checking the patent's terminal disclaimer/PTA record.

Primary sources: PACER docket 6:22‑cv‑01119 (W.D. Tex.) as mirrored on UniCourt (docket snapshot through Dkt. 15, 2022‑12‑25) and Patsnap Litigation Data (verbatim termination text, closure 2023‑03‑06); IPWatchdog Patent Filings Roundup, 2022‑11‑03; Stanford NPE Litigation Database, case 268991 and patents 6473527/6972790; Unified Patents PTAB portal (’177 IPR). I was unable to retrieve a CourtListener RECAP copy of the complaint or dismissal notice itself.

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

Let me verify against the docket sheet and check for any additional plaintiff counsel appearances.

Let me pull the full docket entries (including 2023 activity) and confirm whether any other plaintiff-side attorney appeared.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Bottom line

Only one attorney appears on the plaintiff's side of this docket: Isaac Philip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago), who is plaintiff's sole counsel of record. No local counsel, no second chair, and no in-house counsel appear. He signed the complaint, the agreed extension, and the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal.

---

Attorney detail

Docket support for Rabicoff's appearance:

• Dkt. 1 — Complaint for Patent Infringement, filed 10/26/2022 (signed/filed by Rabicoff, Isaac).
• Dkt. 8 — Notice of Agreed Extension of Time for Ricoh USA to answer to 1/9/23, filed 11/21/2022, expressly "by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. re #1 Complaint, (Rabicoff, Isaac)."
• Rabicoff is the only attorney listed under "Plaintiff Attorney" in the UniCourt/PACER-derived docket for 6:22-cv-01119, and the only Cedar Lane attorney recorded in Patsnap's litigation record for the case ("Counsel — Isaac Rabicoff; Firm — Rabicoff Law LLC").
• The Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal with prejudice (recorded termination 3/6/2023; "Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. Each party shall bear its own costs…") was plaintiff's filing in that same representation.

Sources: https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-ricoh-usa-inc-[1324812](/patent/1324812) ; https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/cedar-lane-technologies-v-ricoh-usa-imaging-patent-dispute-patsnap/ ; https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/11/03/patent-filings-roundup-old-ip-edge-filings-explode-no-new-discretionary-denials-fortress-backed-divx-rolls/ (listing 6:22-cv-01119, Cedar Lane v. Ricoh Company Ltd., patents 8537242 / 6473527 / 6972790) ; https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/268991

---

Caveats and sourcing limits

• No PACER/courtlistener primary docket sheet was directly retrievable in this session. The appearance list above is reconstructed from PACER-derived aggregator dockets (UniCourt, whose snapshot runs through 12/25/2022) plus Patsnap's case record covering the full 10/26/2022–3/6/2023 life of the case. Both independently record only Rabicoff for plaintiff. I could not independently confirm whether any additional Cedar Lane appearance was filed in Jan.–Mar. 2023; nothing in the available record suggests one, but I am flagging it rather than asserting a negative.
• Nothing on this docket is under seal as to counsel; the filings were ordinary civil patent pleadings, and the case ended by voluntary dismissal before Ricoh answered.
• Defendants' side (for contrast, not requested): Ricoh USA was represented by Baker Botts LLP — Jose Carlos Villarreal (local/Waco), with Robert L. Maier, Jennifer C. Tempesta, and Michael E. Knierim admitted pro hac vice (Dkts. 9–15, Dec. 2022). This confirms the asymmetry: a four-lawyer Baker Botts team against a single plaintiff's lawyer.
• Patent discrepancy worth noting for the case file: the case metadata lists only the '242 patent, but the complaint and IPWatchdog's filing roundup show Cedar Lane asserted three patents — U.S. 8,537,242, 6,472,527, and 6,972,790 (all IV-acquired "host interface for imaging arrays" / JPEG-interface patents), with claim charts at Exhibits 4–6. The '242 is the only one your metadata carries.
• No in-house counsel for Cedar Lane appears; Cedar Lane (Nelson, B.C., Canada) has no reported in-house litigation staff in this record.
• I did not find any Latham/Law360 or Reuters coverage of this specific case — it is one of dozens of near-identical Cedar Lane complaints filed that week and drew no press beyond trade-press roundups (Actionable Intelligence covered the Cedar Lane printer-industry campaign generally).

I'll research the defense side, starting with the docket and firm records for the Ricoh defendants.

Docket-level appearance data confirmed. Now let me pull the individual appearance entries and attorney backgrounds.

Counsel of Record for Defendants Ricoh Company Ltd. and Ricoh USA, Inc.

Bottom line

Four attorneys appeared, all from Baker Botts L.L.P., and all appearing expressly "on behalf of Ricoh USA, Inc." — the U.S. subsidiary only. The Japanese parent, Ricoh Company Ltd., never appeared and never had counsel of record before the case was dismissed. The team was split between a Texas-admitted partner as the docket anchor (Jose Carlos Villarreal, Austin) and a New York–based registered-patent-attorney core (Robert L. Maier, Jennifer C. Tempesta) with Michael E. Knierim rounding out the team — the same Baker Botts Ricoh defense group that handled Gladiator IP v. Ricoh.

---

Docket support

• Dkt. 9 (entered 12/16/2022) — "NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jose Carlos Villarreal on behalf of Ricoh USA, Inc." This is the only defense appearance whose entry text I could retrieve verbatim; it postdates plaintiff's Nov. 2022 agreed extension (Dkt. 8), and it is the appearance that put Ricoh on the docket.
• UniCourt's PACER-derived docket (snapshot through 12/25/2022) lists exactly four "Defendant Attorneys": Michael E. Knierim, Jose Carlos Villarreal, Jennifer C. Tempesta, Robert L. Maier — with firm Baker Botts LLP.
• Patsnap's litigation record for 6:22-cv-01119 independently records the same four names, same firm, appearing for Ricoh USA.
• Baker Botts' own website bio for Maier lists this case by name, which is the strongest confirmation tying all four to the Ricoh engagement and to the subject matter ("digital compression and storage technologies").
• No answer, no Rule 12 motion, no invalidity contentions, no protective order, and no scheduling order ever issued — plaintiff dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on 3/6/2023 (131 days after filing), representing that "Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment." Consequently, no formal "lead counsel" designation exists of record; the roles above are inferred from appearance sequence, office, registration status, and the firm's public descriptions.

Sources: https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-ricoh-usa-inc-1324812 ; https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/cedar-lane-technologies-v-ricoh-usa-imaging-patent-dispute-patsnap/ ; https://www.bakerbotts.com/people/m/maier-robert ; https://www.bakerbotts.com/people/v/villarreal-jose ; https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70735688/parties/beijing-iqiyi-science-technology-co-ltd-v-the-individuals-and/ (Villarreal's Austin Baker Botts address of record in W.D. Tex.) ; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2017-01356/... (Maier/Tempesta/Knierim Baker Botts mandatory notices) ; https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1550354](/patent/1550354)/... (Maier Reg. 54,291; Tempesta Reg. 59,021).

---

Two corrections / flags against the earlier-generated section

1. "Jose Carlos Villarreal (local/Waco)" — office location needs correcting. His address of record in W.D. Tex. matters is Baker Botts, 401 South 1st Street, Suite 1300, Austin, TX 78704, i.e., Austin, not Waco. He functions as the Texas-admitted anchor for a New York–centric team — which is functionally "local counsel" in the W.D. Tex. sense, but the office is Austin.
2. "admitted pro hac vice (Dkts. 9–15, Dec. 2022)" — partially unverified. Dkt. 9 is confirmed as Villarreal's appearance. I could not retrieve the text of Dkts. 10–15 in this session, so the specific PHV motion/order numbers and dates for Maier, Tempesta, and Knierim are not independently confirmed; what is confirmed is that all three are recorded as Ricoh USA's attorneys of record on PACER-derived dockets. Treat "Dkts. 9–15" as the prior section's reconstruction rather than verified entry text. (Note the practical point: because the case died on 3/6/2023 — about eleven weeks after the appearance — PHV motion practice may have been truncated or never fully completed.)

Other points worth flagging for the file

• Ricoh Company Ltd. was never represented. The complaint named both the Japanese parent and Ricoh USA, but every appearance, the agreed extension (Dkt. 8), and the dismissal all run to Ricoh USA, Inc. only. There is no counsel of record for Ricoh Company Ltd. — consistent with Cedar Lane's pattern of naming foreign parents and never perfecting service before settling/dismissing.
• Repeat-player defense counsel. Maier's bio also lists Gladiator IP LLC v. Ricoh USA, Inc. (W.D. Tex., multifunction-printer patents), showing Baker Botts is Ricoh's standing patent-defense firm in this district — which matters if you are assessing why this NPE suit resolved in ~4 months.
• No seal. Nothing on this docket was filed under seal as to counsel; the appearances are ordinary public filings.
• No PTAB activity by Ricoh found. I did not locate any IPR/PGR petition filed by Ricoh against the '242, '527, or '790 in this session — but I did not exhaustively search PTAB dockets, so treat that as "not found," not as a verified negative.
• Post-case career note (use with caution): a LinkedIn post indicates Jackson Walker hired a "Baker Botts partner" named Jose Villarreal to build its Austin patent-litigation practice, and a Martindale entry now shows him at Wilson Sonsini. Baker Botts' own site (current as of the 2026 IAM 1000 rankings) still lists him. These third-party directory records conflict and may be stale or misidentified; for purposes of this 2022–23 case, he was Baker Botts, Austin.