Litigation

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Samriddhi Automations

Patents at issue (1)

6972790

Summary

Named in Stanford NPE Litigation Database entry for US 6,972,790.

Case overview & background

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

I'll research this case and the asserted patent across multiple sources.

Good initial findings. Now let me dig into the patent, IPR history, and litigation campaign context.

Now let me verify the IPR landscape, the complaint details, and Cedar Lane's campaign profile.

Case Overview: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Samriddhi Automations Pvt. Ltd., No. 6:22-cv-00956 (W.D. Tex.)

The parties. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a patent monetization entity — the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies it as a Non-Practicing Entity whose asserted patents fall in the "Acquired patents" category (Stanford NPE entry). Its title to the '790 patent is a textbook PAE chain of title: inventor Mark Suska assigned to Symagery Microsystems (Ottawa) in Dec. 2000; the company became Psion Teklogix Systems; the patent passed to Harusaki Technologies LLC (recorded 12/13/2007), then Intellectual Ventures Assets 99 LLC (nunc pro tunc, Dec. 2018), then Steephill Technologies LLC (12/28/2018), and finally to Cedar Lane (recorded 5/13/2019, Reel/Frame 049155/0893) (USPTO assignment abstract; patentcut assignment history). Cedar Lane is represented in this suit by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago, who filed the appearance on the filing date (Dkt. 2). Defendant Samriddhi Automations Pvt. Ltd. is a genuine operating company — a Navi Mumbai-based designer and manufacturer of electronic security and video surveillance equipment sold under the "Sparsh" brand (CCTV cameras, DVRs, NVRs, IP cameras), incorporated in 2005, with roughly 101–500 employees and ISO 9001/CE/FCC certifications; it markets itself as India's first indigenous CCTV camera manufacturer and did CCD board camera design work for Sony Singapore (IndiaMART company profile; [Make in India

Key legal developments & outcome

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

I'll research this case using targeted searches.

Plaintiff representatives

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

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. — Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Samriddhi Automations Pvt. Ltd., No. 6:22-cv-00956 (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: The docket reflects a single attorney of record for Cedar Lane — Isaac P. Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago, Illinois) — who filed the case, signed every substantive filing, and dismissed it. No local Texas counsel, no second firm, and no in-house counsel ever appeared.

Counsel table

# Attorney Role Firm / office Experience note
1 Isaac Philip Rabicoff (Ill. bar; USPTO Reg. No. 74,147) Lead counsel of record — filed the complaint and notice of appearance (Docs. 1–2, Sept. 15, 2022); sole signatory on all later filings Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago, IL (73 W. Monroe St., Chicago 60603 in 2018–2020 PTAB filings; 4311 N. Ravenswood Ave., Suite 315, Chicago 60613 in later district-court filings); tel. (773) 669-4590; isaac@rabilaw.com Founder of Rabicoff Law, described by Lex Machina as a top-3 most-active patent litigation firm (2017). Registered patent attorney admitted in Illinois, N.D. Ill. (Trial Bar), E.D. Tex., W.D. Wis., 7th Cir., Fed. Cir., and the U.S. Supreme Court; has argued before the Federal Circuit and defended patent owners in IPR/CBM proceedings (e.g., denial of institution in a Mastercard CBM). Rabicoff was the filing attorney in essentially all of Cedar Lane's 2020–2023 campaign (hundreds of suits), including the parallel W.D. Tex. cases against Qualcomm (6:22-cv-00046) and scores of others.

Sourcing and docket detail

What is not on the record

  • No local counsel and no pro hac vice papers. The docket contains no motion for pro hac vice admission and no appearance by any Texas firm — notable for a W.D. Tex. patent case and consistent with Cedar Lane's low-cost, high-volume model. (Rabicoff's firm bio does not list W.D. Tex. among his admissions; he nonetheless filed dozens of W.D. Tex. cases in this period, so his admission status there is not documented in the sources I could reach — treat as unverified.)
  • No other Rabicoff Law attorneys appeared in this action. Kenneth A. Matuszewski (USPTO Reg. No. 74,791) is Rabicoff's frequent co-counsel/backup counsel in PTAB matters at the same firm, but he is not listed on this docket and should not be reported as counsel here.
  • No in-house counsel appeared for Cedar Lane (a Canadian NPE incorporated in 2019); nothing in the docket suggests in-house participation.
  • No defendant-side appearance is reflected before the case ended; the docket shows no answer or Rule 12 motion by Samriddhi.
  • Nothing sealed is implicated in the counsel question; the docket is complete and public.

How the representation ended

After service on Samriddhi (9/21/2022) and no defendant appearance, Judge Albright issued an Order to Show Cause on April 26, 2023 (Doc. 9) requiring Cedar Lane to explain the absence of a scheduling/consent-related filing and why the case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. Rabicoff responded by filing a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on April 28, 2023 (Doc. 11), and the case was terminated with the AO-120 report sent to the PTO (Doc. 12). This fits the pattern noted by Seyfarth — Cedar Lane cases rarely progress past pleadings.

Caution on one commonly cited item

Seyfarth and secondary sources report that in 2020 Judge Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) sanctioned Cedar Lane and Rabicoff for positions that were "objectively frivolous" taken in bad faith, noted Rabicoff was not admitted in that district, and referred him to the court's standing committee on professional conduct. I could not verify the precise N.D. Cal. case number or reporter citation within this session, so cite it via the Seyfarth piece (linked above) rather than to a specific opinion unless you confirm the docket number.

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 for the defendant in this case.

Initial docket results suggest the defendant may never have appeared. Let me verify against RECAP/CourtListener and the case docket directly.

Let me pull the actual CourtListener/RECAP docket and check the WDTX docket for any defense appearances.

Bottom line

There is no counsel of record for the defendant. Samriddhi Automations Pvt. Ltd. never appeared in this case — no notice of appearance, no answer, no Rule 12 motion, no corporate disclosure statement, and no local counsel designation ever hit the docket. The case was filed, served, and then voluntarily dismissed by Cedar Lane roughly seven months later without the defendant ever participating.

Because no attorney appeared, I cannot provide names, firms, or experience notes for defense counsel. I'm flagging that explicitly rather than guessing — any name offered for a defense-side appearance in this docket would be fabricated.

What the docket actually shows

Case No. 6:22-cv-00956 (W.D. Tex.), Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Samriddhi Automations Pvt. Ltd., assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright with referral to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland. Twelve docket entries total:

Date Doc. Event Party
09/15/2022 1–7 Complaint (6 exhibits), Notice of Appearance (Isaac Rabicoff), Rule 7 disclosure, Summons request, AO 120, Notice of Related Case, Summons issued Plaintiff only
09/21/2022 — Defendant served (per Doc. 8); answer due 10/12/2022 —
09/30/2022 8 Summons Returned Executed Plaintiff
04/26/2023 9 Order to Show Cause — Cedar Lane ordered to explain "the absence of a CRSR" and why the case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution Court
04/27/2023 10 Order: case no longer referred to Mag. J. Gilliland Court
04/28/2023 11 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Rabicoff) Plaintiff
04/28/2023 12 AO 120 report sent to USPTO Clerk

(Sources: Patexia Research docket, services.patexia.com/lawsuits/.../documents; UniCourt mirror of the WDTX docket, unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-...1293121.)

Why the absence matters evidentially

Several independent signals confirm the defendant was never represented:

  1. The "Attorney/Law Firm Details" field in the court-data mirror lists only Isaac Rabicoff for the plaintiff. UniCourt's docket extract (last synced 11/14/2022, and consistent with the later entries) shows a single attorney on the case.
  2. The April 26, 2023 Order to Show Cause (Doc. 9) targets only the plaintiff and complains about the absence of a CRSR — the Case Readiness Status Report that Judge Albright's patent standing order requires. A CRSR presupposes that the answer/pleadings stage has occurred; the court's order is best read as a signal the case had been sitting dormant with no defense response since service. That is inconsistent with an appearing defendant.
  3. The case terminated by unilateral notice of voluntary dismissal (Doc. 11), not by stipulation of dismissal. Cedar Lane's dismissals in its campaign are frequently unilateral notices (compare Cedar Lane v. KT&C America, D.N.J. 2:22-cv-05065, Doc. 9; Cedar Lane v. Watchnet, W.D.N.Y. 1:22-cv-00665, Doc. 11), which is the path of least friction when the other side has no counsel to sign a stipulation.
  4. Unified Patents' litigation portal records the case status as "closed", with Samriddhi as the sole defendant and no defense-side representation listed (portal.unifiedpatents.com).

Context on the defendant and the case posture

  • Samriddhi Automations Pvt. Ltd. is an Indian manufacturer of video surveillance equipment (brand "SPARSH"), headquartered in the Delhi NCR/Navi Mumbai area — a foreign defendant in a WDTX case, which is the profile where default/dormancy is most common in high-volume NPE campaigns.
  • The asserted patent, US 6,972,790, is one of the former Intellectual-Venture-family assets Cedar Lane deployed against camera and imaging-device makers; IPWatchdog's September 23, 2022 filing roundup records this suit as Cedar Lane v. Samriddhi over the '790 patent (ipwatchdog.com).
  • Cedar Lane's campaign is documented as overwhelmingly non-litigated: IAM reported a ~96–98% settlement rate across its terminated cases and no case reaching trial (iam-media.com). That is consistent with a quick settlement-license resolution here, but I have no source confirming settlement as the reason for the April 2023 dismissal — treat that as inference, not fact.

Caveats on sourcing

  • I was unable to open PACER directly; the docket detail above comes from third-party mirrors (Patexia, UniCourt, Unified Patents) that reproduce the WDTX CM/ECF text. These are reliable for entry-level docket text but would not reflect a sealed appearance, an ex parte sealed filing, or a defense appearance made under a pseudonym/for a non-party. I found no indication of any sealed filing in this docket.
  • It is possible Samriddhi retained Indian or US counsel for settlement correspondence only — such counsel would never enter an appearance and would not appear in any public record. No public source identifies any such attorney, and I will not speculate as to a name.
  • For completeness on the other side of the "v.": plaintiff Cedar Lane was represented by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago), who filed the complaint and the dismissal pro se on Cedar Lane's behalf. Rabicoff is a prolific filer of Cedar Lane's hundreds of suits and was sanctioned in 2020 by Judge Vince Chhabria in the N.D. Cal. for frivolous positions taken in bad faith in a Cedar Lane matter — context worth noting if this case's handling is ever compared to its companion dockets.
Record id: 6972790-cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-samriddhi-automations · edit in Admin