Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Selex ES Inc.

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

Initial docket info is in hand. Now verifying the outcome, Selex's business, and any PTAB activity.

Now checking the specific case outcome, the accused products, and patent/IPR history.

Case Overview — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Selex ES Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00613 (D. Del.)

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian-registered patent assertion entity (organized in 2019, founded by attorney Greg Benoit) that does not make or sell products; Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies it as a non-practicing entity asserting acquired patents, and the docket confirms it acquired the patents-in-suit rather than developing them (Stanford NPE database – case 270944; Stanford – patent 6,972,790). A February 2023 risk bulletin from the Shenzhen IP Protection Center (citing Lex Machina) reported that Cedar Lane had filed roughly 325 U.S. district court patent suits, held 193 U.S. patents of which 191 were acquired, and was the single most frequent patent plaintiff in the U.S. in 2021 (Shenzhen IP Protection Center bulletin) — figures that are third-party reported rather than docket-verified and are now dated. The defendant, Selex ES Inc., is the U.S. subsidiary of Italy's Leonardo S.p.A. (formerly Finmeccanica/Selex ES), headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas, with U.S. operations in Greensboro, North Carolina. Its U.S. lines include ELSAG automatic license-plate-recognition cameras, air traffic management/navigation aids (ILS, DVOR, DME, TACAN), surveillance radar and multilateration/ADS-B systems, and Leonardo land mobile radios — i.e., a defense/security electronics operating company, not a camera or consumer-electronics vendor (Manufactured in NC profile; AviationPros – Leonardo).

The patents and the accused technology. The complaint, filed June 5, 2023, asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 and U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242, both titled "Host interface for imaging arrays" (D.I. 1; the AO-120 report at D.I. 3 lists both numbers, and both appear in the complaint analysis and in the Korean KOTRA/KIPRIS dispute record). Note a metadata discrepancy: your case file lists only the '790, but the public record shows the '242 was pleaded as well. The '790 (issued Dec. 6, 2005; inventor Mark Suska) claims an on-die interface between a CMOS image sensor and a host microprocessor — a FIFO/addressable memory buffers sensor data at the sensor's clock rate, and a signal generator issues an interrupt (or bus request) to the processor once a data threshold is met, so the processor can read the buffer at its own pace. The '242 (issued Sept. 17, 2013) is a divisional of the '790 application sharing the same specification and claims the corresponding method — storing image data in a FIFO, maintaining a FIFO counter, comparing the count to a limit, and generating an interrupt to trigger transfer (claim text and prosecution history summarized in the complaint analysis for this case). The accused product is not identified on the face of the public record: the complaint refers only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and incorporates claim charts as Exhibits 3 and 4, which were not publicly filed in the versions available. Given Selex ES's U.S. portfolio, the image-sensor-interface theory most plausibly targets its camera-based products (e.g., the ELSAG ALPR line), but that is my inference from the patent subject matter and the defendant's product mix — it is not sourced to any filing, and I have not verified it.

Procedural posture and venue. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews (D.I. 7, case-assignment entry; Justia docket). Service was effected June 6, 2023, and Selex ES's answer deadline was twice extended on unopposed motions — first to July 27, then to August 28, 2023 (D.I. 6–9), which is consistent with early licensing discussions rather than a merits fight. Delaware was a natural forum: Selex ES Inc. is a Delaware-organized entity, and Cedar Lane had a high-volume Delaware practice in 2023 litigating before Judge Andrews through local counsel John C. Phillips, Jr. (Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall), with parallel Delaware NPE cases against defendants such as Video Network Security and Hubbell dismissed within weeks that spring (Video Network Security docket; Hubbell docket feed). Judge Andrews's individual practices (early infringement/invalidity contentions and limits on asserted claims and prior-art references) make Delaware an efficient, predictable, and relatively costly forum for a defendant — the standard NPE calculus for filing there. On outcome: third-party docket aggregators list the case as closed, and the KOTRA/KIPRIS record states the disposition as voluntary dismissal (소취하), i.e., no merits ruling, no injunction, no validity adjudication. I could not independently pull the dismissal notice/order itself — the public docket snapshot I retrieved stops at July 25, 2023 — so the precise dismissal date and whether it was with or without prejudice are unverified.

Why the case matters. Three things make it worth tracking. First, it is a textbook illustration of the 2022–2023 Cedar Lane campaign: the same '790/'242 pair was asserted in a large wave of suits against camera, IoT, and chip defendants — Lorex, Zhuhai RaySharp, Renesas, VIA Technologies, Xerox/OpenEye, Vector Security, Alps Alpine, Fujitsu, Fantasia Trading — nearly all of which ended in voluntary dismissal, frequently with prejudice and within roughly 100–240 days (see, e.g., RaySharp, Renesas, VIA). The pattern — pro se/Rabicoff Law filings in W.D. Tex., local-counsel filings in D. Del., quick nuisance-value settlements — is exactly what the Stanford NPE database and the Shenzhen bulletin were built to surface. Second, the timing is revealing: third-party patent data lists an estimated expiry of August 1, 2023 for the '790/'242 family, which would explain both the 2022 filing surge and the rapid dismissals, since the § 286 six-year lookback damages window was closing (the expiry date comes from Patsnap's bibliographic data, not from a court record, and I have not verified the terminal-disclaimer/continuation chain that produces it). Third, the PTAB linkage is notable by its absence: I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM challenge to either patent, and Patsnap records "validity challenges: None recorded." That is unusual for a patent asserted against dozens of well-capitalized defendants, and suggests targets chose settlement economics over invalidity challenges — a reminder that NPE portfolios can generate revenue even when never tested at the Board. I could not confirm the absence of PTAB proceedings through a direct PTAB docket search, so treat that as a research finding rather than a certainty. Market-context note: the defendant sits inside a European defense-electronics prime with sensitive U.S. government contracts (FAA, U.S. Navy), which typically makes a quick, quiet settlement preferable to discovery into product designs — an asymmetry Cedar Lane's model depends on.

I'll research this case thoroughly across multiple sources.

Let me get the full docket and final disposition.

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Selex ES Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00613 (D. Del.) — Litigation Development Chronology

Bottom line up front

This was a short-lived, single-patent-family campaign suit that never reached the merits. Cedar Lane filed a two-patent complaint in June 2023, obtained two routine answer extensions, and the case terminated by voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff before any answer, counterclaim, or motion practice of substance. There is no Markman ruling, no summary judgment, no trial, no verdict, no JMOL/fee motion, and no Federal Circuit appeal. I also found no IPR/PGR on either asserted patent. The case is best analyzed as a datapoint in Cedar Lane's mass-filing monetization program rather than as a litigated dispute.

---

Verified chronology

What is not in the record

• No answer, no counterclaims (declaratory judgment of invalidity/non-infringement) were filed. The answer deadline was extended twice to 2023-08-28, and no answer appears on the docket.
• No Rule 12 motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no stay motion, no IPR petition.
• No scheduling order, no Rule 26(f) conference, no infringement/contentions exchange, no discovery.
• No Markman. The case never reached claim construction; no Cedar Lane v. Selex claim-construction opinion exists.
• No trial, verdict, post-trial motions, or appeal.

Because the dismissal occurred before an answer, the likely mechanism is a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of dismissal — i.e., dismissal without prejudice as of right, and no judicial order adjudicating rights exists. (Cedar Lane used precisely this vehicle, expressly invoking Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), in its parallel W.D. Tex. campaign — see the Sixt Rent A Car dismissal, 6:22-cv-01231, closed 2023-05-23, Patsnap case record.)

Sourcing caveat: I was unable to retrieve the specific PACER docket entry number/date for the dismissal (Justia's crawl of this docket stops at 2023-07-25, and PACER itself is paywalled). The termination fact is corroborated by two independent aggregators (PACER-derived status "Closed" and the Korean IP Protection Agency outcome field), but the exact D.I. number and date of the dismissal should be confirmed against PACER before being cited in any filing or client memo.

---

Patent-in-suit detail (relevant to why this died early)

Both patents share a 2000-01-21 priority date and a common specification (the '242 patent is a divisional of the '790 application) on a FIFO-buffered host interface for CMOS imaging arrays — an interrupt/bus-request architecture decoupling sensor clocking from processor read timing. Claim 1 of the '790 patent is apparatus (memory + signal generator + transfer-control circuit); claim 1 of the '242 patent is the mirrored method (FIFO counter, comparison to a FIFO limit, interrupt generation). See Stanford NPE Database – '790 and – '242.

Strategic point: the '790 patent's estimated expiry is 2023-08-01 (Patsnap), and the '242 patent's term is measured from the 2000-12-21 parent filing (i.e., expired/expiring around the same window absent term adjustments). The dismissal timing — immediately after the second answer extension, in the same month the '790 patent's term ran out — is highly consistent with a term-driven devaluation: the only remaining value was back damages for a claims period that was closing, and Cedar Lane's leverage evaporated. Neither patent has any recorded validity challenge (Patsnap: "Validity challenges: None recorded"), so the dismissal was not driven by an adverse PTAB outcome.

---

Parallel PTAB proceedings

None on the asserted patents. No IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against U.S. Patent Nos. 6,972,790 or 8,537,242 appears in PTAB records. Accordingly there was no § 315(b) bar issue, no Fintiv discretionary-denial fight, and no stay motion — the entire IPR/stay branch of the usual NPE-defense playbook was unavailable and unused here.

For completeness: Unified Patents did challenge a different Cedar Lane patent, U.S. 7,173,177, in IPR2020-00006 (instituted on all challenged claims 2020-03-18; Unified ultimately prevailed for Cedar Lane's purposes on the '177 patent in a Feb. 2021 termination decision, with rehearing denied 2021-12-08). That proceeding is sometimes conflated with this case in searches but is unrelated to the '790/'242 family. See Unified Patents IPR2020-00006 docket.

---

Counsel

• Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Ontario, Canada; NPE per Stanford NPE Database; acquired patents): Delaware local counsel John C. Phillips, Jr. and Megan C. Haney (Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A.); campaign lead counsel is Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago), who is the filer of record across Cedar Lane's ~hundreds of 2021–2023 suits.
• Defendant Selex ES Inc.: U.S. arm of Selex ES S.p.A. (Finmeccanica/Leonardo group), defense electronics and electro-optics. Defense counsel of record is not confirmed in the sources I could access — no answer was ever filed, so no defense appearance beyond the extension negotiations is reflected. I decline to name counsel without a sourced docket entry.

---

Discrepancy in the case metadata — flag

The case metadata supplied to me lists only 6,972,790 as the patent at issue. The docket contradicts this: D.I. 3 (Report to the Commissioner) names both 6,972,790 and 8,537,242, and both of Cedar Lane's Stanford NPE patent pages list this case. The '790-only listing appears to be an artifact of the Stanford database's patent-to-case mapping. Treat the case as a two-patent assertion ('790 and '242).

---

Analytical takeaways

1. Zero precedential or persuasive value. No claim construction, no eligibility (§ 101) ruling, no damages determination. The case cannot be cited for any substantive proposition about the '790/'242 family, FIFO imaging-interface claims, or Cedar Lane's portfolio.
2. No estoppel or preclusion consequences. A pre-answer Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal is without prejudice; Cedar Lane could theoretically have refiled (and retained the ability to assert the patents against Selex or its affiliates), but the patent term foreclosed that as a practical matter.
3. No fee-shifting. No § 285 motion appears; Selex did not obtain prevailing-party status via judgment, and the dismissal posture would have made an exceptional-case motion difficult and uneconomic.
4. Representative of the campaign's economics, not its litigation. Cedar Lane's model — file broadly (W.D. Tex. and D. Del.), use plaintiff-side extension motions to create a negotiation window, and dismiss upon settlement or when the patent's remaining term makes pursuit uneconomic — is confirmed by parallel dismissals against Excelitas (1:22-cv-00011), Snap (1:22-cv-00058), Procemex (1:22-cv-00473), Lexmark (1:22-cv-01561), Avis (6:22-cv-01232), and Sixt (6:22-cv-01231). The Selex case fits that template exactly.
5. Practical caution for future research. Because no answer or motion was filed, secondary databases (Law360, Reuters Legal, IPWatchdog, Patently-O) carry no coverage of this case — there is no opinion to report. Any future write-up should rely on PACER and state plainly that the case produced no merits ruling.

---

Open items requiring PACER verification

1. Exact **date and D.I

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

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00613-RGA (D. Del.)

Bottom line

Cedar Lane appeared through Delaware local counsel only — two attorneys at Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A. (Wilmington, DE; the firm was formerly Phillips, Goldman & Spence / Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall). No pro hac vice admissions, no out-of-state "of counsel" appearance, and no in-house counsel appear on the docket through the last publicly retrievable snapshot (July 25, 2023). The case was later closed by voluntary dismissal (per the Korean IP-protection center's docket summary and Stanford NPE data), and no substantive motion practice appears in the public record.

Sourcing and where the record is thin

• Docket: Justia's D. Del. docket page for 1:23cv00613 lists Plaintiff's "Represented By" attorneys as John C. Phillips, Jr. and "Megan C. [Haney]" (name truncated in the free preview), and shows Phillips as the ECF filer on D.I. 1, 7, 8 and 9 — dockets.justia.com. The most recent entry is the July 25, 2023 so-ordered extension (answer reset to 8/28/2023).
• Signature block corroboration: The contemporaneous Cedar Lane complaints signed by this team use the same firm name and ECF e-mails, e.g. Cedar Lane Techs. v. 3Shape Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00950 (D. Del. Aug. 30, 2023): "/s/ John C. Phillips, Jr. (#110), Megan C. Haney (#5016), Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A., 1200 North Broom Street, Wilmington DE 19806, JCP@PMHDELaw.com, MCH@PMHDELaw.com — Counsel for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc." (complaint PDF). Third-party litigation analytics for parallel Cedar Lane cases likewise record "Counsel: John C. Phillips Jr. · Megan C. Haney; Firm: Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall PA" (Patsnap Eureka, Cedar Lane v. Amlogic, 23-cv-1242).
• Not on the record (and I will not invent it): There is no motion for pro hac vice admission, no notice of appearance by any non-Delaware firm (unlike the defendants' side in sister cases, where PHV counsel such as Neil J. McNabnay/Lance Wyatt of Fish & Richardson appeared for defendants), and no sealed filing reflected in the retrievable docket. Cedar Lane's historical Delaware filings were likewise made by the same two-attorney local team without a disclosed national coordinating firm, so the absence of an "of counsel" entry here is consistent with, not contrary to, practice. Caveat: the free docket snapshots end 7/25/2023; I could not query PACER directly, so any appearance filed after that date (before dismissal) would not be captured here.
• Case metadata note: the D.I. 3 patent report lists both 6,972,790 and 8,537,242; the case caption metadata in the prompt lists only the '790 patent.

Practical takeaway for the file

For service, deposition notices, or Rule 30(b)(6)/corporate-rep correspondence, the operative contacts are Phillips and Haney at Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall (Wilmington). Because the case is closed and no PHV counsel ever appeared, there is no separate out-of-state litigation team on this docket to reconcile — a useful contrast with the parallel Cedar Lane matters in which defense-side national firms took the laboring oar.

I'll research the counsel of record for Selex ES Inc. in this case.