Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Selex ES S.p.A. et al.

I'll research this case through multiple sources before drafting.

Good initial hits. Let me dig into the docket outcome, the Selex/Leonardo corporate structure, and Cedar Lane's NPE profile.

Let me locate the complaint and the termination entry, and verify the corporate history of Selex ES S.p.A.

Case Overview

Parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Selex ES Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00613-RGA (D. Del.) paired a high-volume Canadian patent monetization entity against the U.S. aviation-navigation arm of an Italian defense contractor. Cedar Lane is characterized by the Stanford NPE Litigation Database as a non-practicing entity asserting "acquired patents," and IPWatchdog's filing roundups tag its campaigns to an Intellectual Ventures portfolio sell-off ("[IV selloff]"); its suits are typically filed by David W. deBruin / John C. Phillips, Jr. (Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall) together with Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC), both of whom appear in this case. Cedar Lane does not make or sell products; it generates revenue by asserting a portfolio of legacy imaging, camera-interface, and lighting patents against camera, surveillance, drone, and consumer-electronics defendants (Skydio, Vantage Robotics, Autel, Boston Dynamics, HTC, Ricoh, STMicroelectronics, Motorola Solutions, Honda, Sixt, Enterprise Holdings, and others). The defendant named on the PACER docket is Selex ES Inc., a Delaware-registered, Overland Park, Kansas–based subsidiary of Leonardo S.p.A. (Rome), founded in 1991, employing roughly 160 people, and supplying ground-based navigation/surveillance equipment to the FAA, U.S. military, and air navigation service providers — DME, VOR, ILS, TACAN, ADS-B, multilateration (MLAT) surveillance, and its AeroBOSS runway-incursion warning system. Note: the caption supplied to me lists "Selex ES S.p.A. et al.," but the archived docket names only Selex ES Inc. — consistent with the complaint's venue theory resting on the U.S. entity's Delaware incorporation, and with the fact that the Italian Selex ES S.p.A. was folded into Leonardo S.p.A. in the group's 2016 consolidation (I could not confirm that merger from a primary source in this session, so treat it as background rather than docket fact).

Accused technology and patents. The public record on the accused instrumentality is thin, and I want to be candid about that: the complaint (D.I. 1) references "Exemplary Defendant Products" and incorporates claim charts as exhibits, but the available complaint analysis indicates no model numbers were pleaded in the body and the charts were not publicly available, so the specific Selex product is not verifiable from the sources I could reach. Given Selex ES's product line, the plausible nexus is the imaging/surveillance-camera components of its airport surface-management and MLAT systems — that is inference, not a documented allegation. The asserted family is U.S. Patent Nos. 6,972,790 and 8,537,242, both titled "Host interface for imaging arrays" (inventor Mark Suska; priority to January 2000; the '242 is a divisional of the '790's application). The '790 (issued Dec. 6, 2005) claims an apparatus interface — a FIFO or addressable memory that buffers CMOS image-array data at the sensor's clock rate, a signal generator that fires an interrupt (or bus request) when the buffer reaches a threshold, and circuitry that lets the host processor drain the buffer at its own rate, preferably integrated on the sensor die. The '242 (issued Sept. 17, 2013) claims the corresponding method: receive image data, store it in a FIFO, update a FIFO counter, compare the count against a FIFO limit, and generate an interrupt prompting the processor to transfer the buffered data. Note a discrepancy between the metadata given to me (which lists only the '242) and the docket itself: D.I. 3, the Report to the Commissioner of Patents, identifies both 6,972,790 and 8,537,242, and third-party trackers list both. The complaint also pleads induced and willful infringement and seeks an exceptional-case finding.

Posture, venue, and significance. Filed June 4–5, 2023 (PACER/Justia show June 5; the metadata says June 4), the case was assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews on June 7, 2023. Selex ES Inc. was served June 6 (D.I. 7); after two unopposed extensions (D.I. 8 and 9) the answer deadline moved from June 27 to July 27 and then to August 28, 2023, and the case closed by voluntary dismissal without any merits ruling — no claim construction, no Alice or § 101 order, no summary judgment, no trial. I was unable to retrieve the specific dismissal docket entry and date from a primary source (Justia's archived docket stops at July 25, 2023), so the dismissal date should be confirmed on PACER before being cited. Delaware was the natural forum because Selex ES Inc. is a Delaware corporation, satisfying TC Heartland — and the same choice-of-venue logic explains why the Italian parent, not registered in Delaware, was a poor target; this case sits inside a dense 2022–23 Cedar Lane cluster in D. Del. before Judge Andrews (e.g., Vantage Robotics, No. 1:23-cv-00336; Video Network Security, No. 1:23-cv-00337; TVL International, No. 1:23-cv-00376; Hubbell, No. 1:23-cv-00381) run in parallel with an even larger W.D. Tex./Waco wave before Judge Albright. What makes it notable is less the merits than the pattern: a mass-file-and-settle assertion program built on divested, decades-old semiconductor-interface patents, pressed against a heterogeneous long tail of defendants — here, a European defense/avionics supplier whose exposure derives from cameras incidental to air-traffic systems rather than from its core business. Two structural features likely explain the rapid exit: the '790's term ran out on or about August 1, 2023 (estimated expiry per PatentSnap), collapsing the forward damages window to back damages only, and no PTAB challenge to the '242 appears in the sources I reviewed, meaning the patent survives unadjudicated for the next defendant. The case produced no written opinion and, as far as my searches show, no Reuters/Law360/IPWatchdog merits coverage — it is a data point in NPE filing statistics (RPX/Unified Patents/Stanford NPE tracker), not a doctrinal precedent. The complaint's own docket also reflects a classifier disagreement worth flagging: some litigation-analytics feeds label Cedar Lane an "Operating Company" while the Stanford database classifies it as a non-practicing entity asserting acquired patents; the latter is well supported and should be preferred.

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

Let me pull the full docket and check the NPE database for disposition.

Bottom line

This is a zero-event patent case. Cedar Lane's suit against Selex ES never got past the pleading stage: no answer, no counterclaims, no motion practice, no Markman, no discovery, no IPR, no trial, no appeal. The only docket activity in the public record is service, two agreed extensions of the answer deadline, and then termination. According to the international dispute-tracking record compiled from this docket (Korea IP Protection Agency / KOTRA, sourced to the U.S. filing), the case ended in a voluntary dismissal (소취하 — "withdrawal of suit") by the plaintiff in the first instance. There is no Rule 41 order, settlement agreement, or license in the public record that I could locate.

Because the record is this thin, I have separated verified facts from inferences below.

---

Chronology

2023-06-05 — Complaint filed; assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews (D. Del.).
Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (a Canadian NPE) filed a § 271 infringement complaint with a jury demand against Selex ES Inc. (the U.S. subsidiary of the Italian defense-electronics group; the foreign parent Selex ES S.p.A. appears in the case caption but the Justia docket index lists only Selex ES Inc. as a named defendant). Filing fee $402, receipt ADEDC-4151525 (D.I. 1).

Correction to the case metadata: the metadata lists only the '242 patent, but D.I. 3 (Report to the Commissioner of Patents) lists two patents: U.S. 6,972,790 and U.S. 8,537,242, both titled "Host interface for imaging arrays." The '242 is a divisional of the '790's application (filed 2005-10-27; issued 2013-09-17; priority 2000-01-21). The metadata's filing date of 2023-06-04 also appears to be off by a day — the docket and the D.I. 1 entry date are 2023-06-05 (a Monday).

2023-06-05 — Related filings. D.I. 2 (magistrate consent forms), D.I. 4 (Rule 7.1 disclosure: no parents/affiliates), D.I. 5 (summons). Local counsel of record: John C. Phillips, Jr. and Megan C. Haney, Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall (Wilmington) — the same local-counsel pairing Cedar Lane used across its Delaware filings. (National counsel in the Cedar Lane campaign was Rabicoff Law LLC and, in some matters, Napoli Shkolnik; I could not verify which firm signed this particular complaint.)

2023-06-06 / 06-07 — Service on Selex ES Inc. Summons returned executed; served 2023-06-06, original answer due 2023-06-27 (D.I. 7). An alias summons issued 2023-06-06 (D.I. 6). Case assigned to Judge Andrews 2023-06-07.

2023-06-22 — First agreed extension of the answer deadline. D.I. 8, an unopposed motion for extension, granted by Judge Andrews the same day; answer reset to 2023-07-27. Notably, the motion was filed by plaintiff's counsel, not defendant's — a signature of Cedar Lane's standard "early-tender" practice of granting infringers a rolling answer date while license discussions proceed.

2023-07-25 — Second agreed extension. D.I. 9, again filed by Cedar Lane and unopposed; answer reset to 2023-08-28.

After 2023-07-25 — No further merits activity; case terminated. No answer (D.I. 10 would be the answer) appears in any docket index. The case is recorded as closed, with the disposition recorded as plaintiff's voluntary dismissal. Note that the commonly mirrored Justia docket for this case was last pulled from PACER on 2023-07-25, so the dismissal document itself (its date, its docket number, and whether it was with or without prejudice) is not in any free source I could retrieve.

---

Answers to each item you asked about

---

Strategic context (labeled as inference, not fact)

Three things explain why this case produced no law:

1. It was one unit in a mass-filing campaign, not a merits case. Cedar Lane asserted the '790/'242 (and often the '527) against dozens of camera, imaging, and video-surveillance defendants in 2020–2023 — e.g., Cedar Lane v. Snap, 1:22-cv-00058 (D. Del.) (dismissed 2022-01-25, nine days after filing); Cedar Lane v. Phytech, 1:22-cv-00054 (D. Del.) (dismissed 2022-02-15); Cedar Lane v. Lexmark, 1:22-cv-01561 (D. Del.); Cedar Lane v. Qualcomm, 6:22-cv-00046 (W.D. Tex.); Cedar Lane v. Avis, 6:22-cv-01232 (W.D. Tex.). These cases characteristically terminated by early voluntary dismissal, typically after a modest license — the docket pattern here (two plaintiff-filed, unopposed extension motions, then nothing) matches that template exactly.

2. Selex ES is a defense/electro-optical surveillance supplier (thermal imagers, EO/IR turrets, video-surveillance platforms) — a plausible target for a FIFO/image-sensor-interface patent, and a plausible candidate for a quick nuisance-value resolution rather than litigation to judgment.

3. Patent term math cut against the plaintiff. The '790 patent's estimated expiry was 2023-08-01 (20 years from the 2000-12-21 filing plus PTA). That is the same month as Selex's final extended answer deadline. A damages window closing within weeks of the answer date materially reduces both leverage and any backward-looking royalty claim, and is a plausible reason Cedar Lane took a dismissal rather than pressing once Selex lawyered up. This is my inference from the term calculation, not something stated in any filing.

---

Verification gaps — please treat as open

• Dismissal date and terms: I could not retrieve D.I. 10+ from PACER, CourtListener/RECAP, or Unified Patents' portal. The precise dismissal date, the docket number of the notice/order, and whether it was with or without prejudice are unverified. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) would permit dismissal without prejudice before answer; if a settlement license was involved, Cedar Lane typically dismissed with prejudice in its other cases.
• Whether Selex ES S.p.A. was ever served or voluntarily appeared — the caption includes it, but no return of service for the S.p.A. appears in the index.
• Whether any consideration changed hands. No license, settlement agreement, or SEC/Leonardo S.p.A. disclosure referencing this case was located. Leonardo S.p.A. (Selex ES's ultimate parent after the 2016 rename) does not appear to have disclosed this matter as material.
• Counsel for defendants — no appearance appears in the retrieved docket, so I cannot name Selex's counsel.

What I would pull next

If you need the dismissal instrument, order it from PACER: the case is 1:23-cv-00613-RGA, and the relevant entries fall between D.I. 9 (2023-07-25) and termination — likely a short docket of 10–13 entries. A quick check of the D. Del. CM/ECF "closed case" docket would resolve the with/without-prejudice question, which matters if you are assessing whether Cedar Lane can (or did) re-assert the '242 — which, unlike the '790, does not expire until roughly 2025-10-27 — against Selex or its successor Leonardo DRS in a later wave.

I'll research the docket and counsel of record for Cedar Lane Technologies v. Selex ES.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Bottom line: Only two attorneys appear of record for Cedar Lane in this docket, and both are from the same Wilmington, Delaware boutique. No pro hac vice / out‑of‑state counsel appears in the publicly retrievable docket (which runs through July 25, 2023, the last RECAP pull). The case closed shortly thereafter, so the universe of appearances is very likely complete.

1. John C. Phillips, Jr. — lead counsel of record (Delaware counsel)

• Firm / office: Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A. (formerly Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A.), 1200 N. Broom Street, Wilmington, DE 19806; (302) 655‑4200; jcp@pgmhlaw.com. Admitted in Delaware (Bar No. 110).
• Docket basis: He is listed as plaintiff's counsel of record and signed the substantive filings — the unopposed extension motions at D.I. 8 (June 22, 2023) and D.I. 9 (July 25, 2023), and the summons-return filing at D.I. 7 (June 7, 2023), each docketed "(Phillips, John)" (Justia docket, 1:23‑cv‑00613).
• Experience note: Longtime Delaware IP trial hand and the firm's lead patent litigator; he and Ms. Haney were plaintiffs' Delaware counsel in Sound View Innovations LLC v. Facebook Inc., C.A. No. 16‑116‑RGA (Judge Andrews), where the court invalidated the '593 patent under Alice; also appears in Belcher Pharms. v. Hospira, Acorda Therapeutics v. Actavis, Boehringer Ingelheim v. Mankind, and Ward Mfg. (IPR-stay briefing).

2. Megan C. Haney — Delaware counsel of record (second chair / local)

• Firm / office: Same firm and address as above; mch@pgmhlaw.com. Admitted in Delaware (Bar No. 5016).
• Docket basis: Justia's party record for the plaintiff lists "Represented By: John C. Phillips, Jr." and a second name truncated at "Megan C." — i.e., Megan C. Haney, the only "Megan C." at the firm. She is routinely the co-signer on this firm's pleadings filed for Cedar Lane and other NPE plaintiffs (e.g., RecepTrexx LLC v. TiVo Corp.; Improved Search LLC v. Microsoft appeal notice, where both signed as "John C. Phillips, Jr. (Bar No. 110), Megan C. Haney (Bar No. 5016)").
• Experience note: Delaware counsel in a long run of Judge Andrews patent cases and in Federal Circuit appeals from D. Del. patent judgments; co-counsel with Phillips in Sound View v. Facebook and Ward Mfg. v. PTAB stay motion.

What I could not verify (stated as such)

• No lead trial/out‑of‑state counsel identified. Cedar Lane's national enforcement campaign has used a rotating cast — Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC) in W.D.N.Y./W.D. Tex. matters, David W. deBruin (also of Phillips Goldman) in several 2022–23 D. Del. Cedar Lane suits, and briefly Napoli Shkolnik LLC (Paul J. Napoli) until that firm "dissociat[ed] … from Plaintiff's counsel" by letter to Judge Andrews in May 2023 (Cedar Lane v. Vantage Robotics, 1:23‑cv‑00336, D.I. 9; Cedar Lane v. Video Network Security, 1:23‑cv‑00337). None of those attorneys appears in the retrieved docket for the Selex case, and the Napoli Shkolnik dissociation preceded this June 5, 2023 filing. I could not confirm any PHV admission here, so I will not assert one.
• Docket completeness. PACER/RECAP coverage stops at July 25, 2023 (D.I. 9). The case is recorded as closed/terminated; a Korean IP-protection database abstract (KOTRA) records the disposition as voluntary dismissal ("소취하"), which is consistent with Cedar Lane's pattern in the companion 2023 D. Del. suits, but I could not pull the actual Rule 41(a) notice or SO ORDERED entry, so treat the dismissal mechanics as unconfirmed.
• No sealed materials or in‑house counsel. Nothing in the retrieved record indicates sealed filings or an appearance by Cedar Lane in‑house counsel (Cedar Lane is an Ontario-based NPE with no in‑house litigation staff of record).
• Note on patents: the docket's Rule 3 report lists two patents — 6,972,790 and 8,537,242 (D.I. 3) — though your metadata lists only the '242. Both are pled in the complaint.

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

Let me pull the full docket via CourtListener/RECAP and check for any defense appearances.

Let me check LexDana/Patexia-style docket mirrors that include parties & counsel listings for this specific case.

Bottom line

No attorney for either Selex entity ever entered an appearance in this case on the public docket. As of the most recent docket data I could retrieve (Justia's PACER pull last refreshed July 25, 2023, at which point the case had already gone quiet), the only counsel of record in 1:23-cv-00613-RGA are plaintiff's counsel. Cedar Lane voluntarily dismissed the case before any defendant answered, so there is no defense-side "counsel of record" to identify — and I will not invent one.

This is a real finding, not a research gap, and it's consistent with the structure of the docket.

---

What the docket actually shows

Docket sheet: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Selex ES Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00613-RGA (D. Del.), Judge Richard G. Andrews. Justia mirror last retrieved July 25, 2023: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2023cv00613/82649

No D.I. 10+ is reflected in the available docket data, and no NOTICE of Appearance or MOTION for Pro Hac Vice by any Selex-side attorney appears at any point. Every substantive filing was made by plaintiff's Delaware counsel.

Two structural points worth flagging:

1. Only Selex ES Inc. was ever served. The alias summons and the return of service name only the U.S. entity. Selex ES S.p.A. (the Italian parent) was named in the caption but the docket reflects no service on it — so even in theory it had no obligation to appear. Note also that the Justia case header lists only "Selex ES Inc." as defendant, and the NPE Litigation Database (Stanford) records the alleged infringer as Selex ES Inc. only.
2. The extensions were "unopposed." In practice that phrase usually signals that defense counsel was engaged and had agreed to the extension by email/phone, but had not yet filed a Rule 83.5/5.1(b) appearance. That is inference, not a sourced fact — I found no filing or public record identifying that counsel.

---

Disposition

The case is closed. A Korean IP-protection compilation (KOTRA / Korea IP Protection Agency, sourcing the case record) reports the first-instance outcome as 소취하 — voluntary dismissal/withdrawal, with Cedar Lane as plaintiff and Selex ES Inc. as defendant: https://dream.kotra.or.kr/dream/cms/link/actionLinkBoardDetail.do?SITE_NO=2&MENU_ID=4060&CONTENTS_NO=1&pTmplateCd=NT2319&pDataId=23000000000021657747&pUntyDsetId=GD0231&gbn=Out

That matches Cedar Lane's well-documented playbook in Judge Andrews's courtroom: file a large wave in the spring of 2023, take two or three unopposed extensions, then file a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. Compare Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. TVL Int'l LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00376-RGA — D.I. 11 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (June 23, 2023), D.I. 12 SO ORDERED terminating the case (June 26, 2023), with no defense appearance ever filed (https://lexdana.ai/lawsuits/[188123](/patent/188123)).

Caveat: I could not retrieve the specific docket entry number and date of the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of dismissal in this case. Justia's last crawl (7/25/2023) predates it, and CourtListener/RECAP retrieval was not available to me in this session. Given the D.I. 9 order reset the answer deadline to 8/28/2023, the dismissal almost certainly falls between late July and late August 2023. This specific entry should be verified on PACER (D. Del., case 82649) or via CourtListener's RECAP docket before being cited as a numbered docket event.

---

Plaintiff's counsel (for completeness — not the requested side)

Since the docket identifies no defendant counsel, here is who is on the docket, purely to confirm the record is complete:

• John C. Phillips, Jr. — Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A., Wilmington, DE. Delaware local counsel and the filer of record on every entry in this case. A fixture of D. Del. patent practice; one of the most frequently appearing local counsel in Delaware NPE dockets.
• Megan C. Haney — same firm, Wilmington, DE; co-signatory on the appearances (the Justia "Represented By" field truncates her name as "Megan C.").

Also relevant to the plaintiff side: a letter from Paul J. Napoli, Esq. regarding dissociation of Napoli Shkolnik LLC from Cedar Lane's counsel appears in contemporaneous sister cases before Judge Andrews (e.g., D.I. 8 in the TVL case); I did not confirm that such a letter was filed in 1:23-cv-00613.

---

Where to confirm / what would close the gaps

1. PACER, D. Del. 1:23-cv-00613 (docket ID 82649) — pull the full sheet, including the post-7/25/2023 entries, to get the dismissal docket number and date.
2. CourtListener RECAP — if anyone (e.g., a subsequent researcher) pulled this docket, the notice of dismissal and any Rule 7.1 statement by Selex ES Inc. would be there.
3. If a Selex-side appearance did briefly exist and was never captured by the Justia crawl, it would most likely appear as a NOTICE of Appearance plus a § 83.5(d) pro hac vice motion filed between 7/25/2023 and the dismissal — that is the narrow window to check.
4. No IPR, PGR, or CBM petitions against the '242 or '790 patents appear in the sources I reviewed; the complaint analysis notes no prior litigation or administrative proceedings were identified. I would not treat that as conclusive without a PTAB docket check by patent number.

If the underlying question is "who defends Selex/Leonardo in U.S. patent litigation," this docket cannot answer it — the case never reached the point of a defense appearance. That would need to be sourced from a different matter where the Leonardo group actually appeared.