Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Siebert Financial Corp.

I'll research this case and its context before writing the overview.

Good baseline. Now let me dig into the parties, the patent's provenance, and the broader campaign.

Now let me pin down Siebert's business, the '782 patent's provenance, and whether any PTAB challenges exist.

Case Overview and Background

Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. Siebert Financial Corp., No. 1:26-cv-00299 (S.D.N.Y.)

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies is a Canadian patent monetization entity, not an operating company. It was incorporated in 2019 and has no products; it acquires patent portfolios — press and academic coverage has repeatedly tied its holdings to patents originating with Intellectual Ventures entities — and litigates them against large numbers of defendants across unrelated technology clusters (image processing, remote controls, JPEG compression). It is routinely ranked among the most prolific NPE filers in the U.S., has filed hundreds of suits, and does so almost exclusively through Isaac P. Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, who appears here as plaintiff's counsel and moved pro hac vice at filing (Dkt. 6). Its president, Greg Benoit, told IAM in March 2023 that Cedar Lane had obtained a roughly 96% settlement rate among terminated cases; defendants' bar coverage has described the campaign as "conventional patent-based nuisance litigation" that rarely survives past the pleadings (NPE Showcase – Cedar Lane Technologies). Cedar Lane's litigation history is not unblemished: in 2020, Judge Vince Chhabria of the N.D. Cal. sanctioned both the company and Mr. Rabicoff for positions taken "in bad faith" and referred him to that court's professional conduct committee (Cedar Lane Techs., Inc. v. Blackmagic Design, Inc.). Siebert Financial Corp. (Nasdaq: SIEB) is, by contrast, a genuine operating company — a New York holding company incorporated in 1934 whose main subsidiary, Muriel Siebert & Co., is a FINRA-member retail discount broker-dealer founded by the first woman to hold a NYSE seat, alongside an SEC-registered RIA (Siebert AdvisorNXT) and a second broker-dealer (RISE Financial Services); it is controlled by the Gebbia family. Notably, Siebert is not a trading-technology vendor — its order flow is cleared and routed through third parties such as National Financial Services (Fidelity), a fact that has obvious bearing on how a "make/use/sell" theory would be framed against it (note: the clearing relationship description comes from older company profiles and should be re-verified against Siebert's most recent Form 10-K).

The patent and the accused technology. Only one patent is asserted: U.S. Patent No. 8,577,782 B2, "Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants" (Application No. 12/756,929, filed April 8, 2010; issued November 5, 2013; classified G06Q 40/00; estimated term to April 8, 2030). In one line: it claims a computer-implemented method of tagging a trading participant with an anonymized identifier, building a profile from that participant's trade history (e.g., whether his trades were profitable), and letting a "liquidity provider" push a conditional price offer only to that identified participant — i.e., behavior-based, semi-anonymous price discrimination, aimed at managing "toxic trader" flow in dealer/market-maker markets. Independent claim 1 recites the processor-association, trade-history acquisition, profile-based offer, sole-recipient limitation, and processing through an exchange with a bid/offer spread. The complaint (Dkt. 1) attaches only the patent (Ex. 1) and a claim chart (Ex. 2); the accused instrumentality is identified generically as Siebert's electronic/online brokerage and order-handling platform, and contemporaneous complaint analyses in sister cases in this campaign note that the Exhibit 2 charts were not publicly available, so the specific accused product names and mapped features could not be verified — treat any granular infringement theory as unsourced.

Procedural posture, venue, and significance. The case was filed January 13, 2026 in Manhattan and assigned to Judge Lorna G. Schofield. Siebert never answered: its response deadline was adjourned from April 7 to May 7, 2026 (Dkt. 21), an initial conference was set for April 28 (Dkt. 22–23), and on April 21 the parties filed a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice (Dkt. 24–25). Judge Schofield so-ordered it on April 22 and it was entered April 23, 2026 — 100 days after filing — providing that "this case is dismissed with prejudice" and that "[e]ach party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees" (Dkt. 26). Defense counsel was Michael S. Weinstein of Cole Schotz. Venue is unremarkable in the doctrinal sense and significant in the strategic one: Siebert is at home in S.D.N.Y., so venue is unimpeachable under TC Heartland, and Cedar Lane has migrated this campaign into defendant-home forums — the same S.D.N.Y. docket-number block (No. 1:26-cv-00292 against Maxim Group and 1:26-cv-00294 against Morgan Stanley) indicates same-day batch filing, with parallel suits against Beech Hill, Empire Asset Management, First Manhattan, Percheron, Spartan Capital, Clear Street, BNY Mellon, TIAA-CREF, Citibank, Bank of America, Raymond James, TD Bank, LaSalle St. Securities, BTG Pactual and Aegis Capital (see the Stanford NPE Litigation Database entry for the '782 patent). That makes this case a data point in the more consequential story: a single 2010-vintage, 2030-expiring financial-method patent being run against the retail-brokerage and clearing industry in a compressed 2025–26 wave, producing near-uniform early with-prejudice dismissals (BNY Mellon in 78 days, Bank of America in 85, Citibank in 60) in which no court has reached § 101 eligibility, claim construction, or validity. I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM challenge to the '782 patent in PTAB or Unified Patents materials (Unified has challenged other Cedar Lane patents, e.g., U.S. 7,173,177, instituted March 18, 2020), so the patent's validity remains entirely untested — which both preserves its settlement leverage and means these dismissals supply zero guidance to the dozens of other broker-dealers receiving demand letters. Two sourcing cautions: the docket detail above comes from PACER-derived aggregators (Justia, PacerMonitor, CourtListener) rather than direct PACER retrieval, and the "no IPR" conclusion reflects search results rather than an exhaustive PTAB docket check.

I'll research this case across docket sources, PTAB records, and legal news.

Let me pull the full docket and check for PTAB proceedings and any motion practice.

Bottom line

This is a 100-day "file-and-settle" case, not a litigated patent dispute. Cedar Lane filed a five-page form complaint on US 8,577,782 on 2026-01-13, the defendant never answered, and the parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice on 2026-04-21, which Judge Lorna G. Schofield so-ordered the next day. There was no motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, no fee motion, and no appeal. I also found no IPR or PGR ever filed against the '782 patent.

One sourcing caveat up front: the free mirrors I could reach give full text for ECF Nos. 1–6 and 20–26, but only partial/blurred text for Nos. 7–19. Everything below about that gap is labeled as inference.

---

Chronological developments

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2026-01-13)

All seven opening documents were filed the same day — the classic Rabicoff Law template complaint used across the campaign:

• Court/judge: S.D.N.Y., assigned to Judge Lorna G. Schofield (Justia docket; Patsnap case record).
• Jury demand: plaintiff only.
• Defense counsel: Michael Saul Weinstein, Cole Schotz Meisel Forman & Leonard, P.A. (NJ) (PacerMonitor; Law360 firm page).

No answer and no counterclaims were ever filed. The response deadline was extended at least twice (once to 2026-04-07, then to 2026-05-07 by ECF No. 21), and the case settled before the May deadline.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None. Docket Nos. 7–19 appear to be service/status material, a scheduling order, and extension motions:

• The initial pretrial conference was originally set earlier and then reset to 2026-04-28 at 3:00 p.m. (ECF No. 18, "Order on Motion to Continue" — text not visible in free sources).
• ECF No. 20 (letter motion for extension of time) → ECF No. 21, 2026-04-03: answer deadline adjourned from 2026-04-07 to 2026-05-07.
• ECF No. 22 (2026-04-10, consent letter motion by Rabicoff) → ECF No. 23, 2026-04-10: April 28 conference to be held telephonically.

There is no Rule 12(b)(1)/(3)/(6) motion, no § 1404(a) or § 1406 venue transfer motion, and no § 1400(b) venue challenge in the docket. Notably, Siebert is a New York-headquartered broker-dealer, so venue in S.D.N.Y. would have been difficult to attack; Cedar Lane's own complaints plead venue on "established place of business" plus acts of infringement.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Did not occur. No scheduling order issued a patent schedule, no Joint Claim Construction Statement, no Markman briefing, no hearing. The case ended roughly three months after filing — well before any of that.

4. Discovery milestones

None of strategic significance. No Rule 26(f) conference or joint discovery plan appears on the docket; the Rule 16 initial conference was set for 2026-04-28 and never happened, because the dismissal order issued 2026-04-22/23. No document requests, interrogatories, or depositions are recorded.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial setting, no verdict, no JMOL/Rule 59 motion, and no § 285 fee motion. The dismissal order expressly disposed of costs: "Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees."

6. Final disposition (2026-04-21 → 2026-04-23)

• 2026-04-21 — ECF No. 24: Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal, "voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice against the defendant(s) Siebert Financial Corp. pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)." ECF No. 25: proposed order (Rabicoff).
• 2026-04-22 — Clerk notices that the stipulation was referred to Judge Schofield because a proposed order was filed; proposed order approved as to form.
• 2026-04-22 (signed) / 2026-04-23 (entered) — ECF No. 26, Order of Dismissal: "The request to dismiss this matter with prejudice is hereby GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. SO ORDERED."
• Terminated 2026-04-23. No appeal; no Federal Circuit activity.

Analytical note: a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation signed by all parties is normally self-executing, so the reference to the court and proposed order was belt-and-suspenders. Because Cedar Lane moved for dismissal of its own claims with prejudice, no settlement agreement, license, or consent judgment appears on the public docket — meaning the consideration, if any, is not public. Patsnap's record shows no USPTO-recorded license to Siebert, which is consistent with either a nuisance-value payment with no license, or a license that was never recorded. That cannot be resolved from public sources.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '782 patent

None found. My searches of PTAB/IPR databases and IPWatchdog/Unified Patents coverage returned no IPR or PGR petition against US 8,577,782 by Siebert or anyone else. Patsnap's case record likewise reports "Validity challenges: None recorded."

Cedar Lane's only well-documented PTAB history is on a different patent: Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., where the Board instituted on all challenged claims of US 7,173,177 (2020-03-18) and issued a final written decision holding the asserted independent claim unpatentable (2021-02-12) (Unified Patents). That outcome has no bearing on the '782 patent, but it explains why Cedar Lane's 2025–26 campaign moved to a different portfolio asset.

Effect on this litigation: none, because no petition was filed. The absence of a PTAB challenge is itself the notable point — the '782 patent remains administratively unchallenged at the Board despite 25+ assertions.

---

What this case actually is: one thread in a mass-filing campaign

The '782 patent — "Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants," issued 2013-11-05 from an application filed 2010-04-08 (expiry ~2030-04-08), G06Q 40/00 — has been asserted against a large swath of broker-dealers and banks. Filed the same day as Siebert (2026-01-13) were, among others:

• Cedar Lane v. Morgan Stanley, 1:26-cv-00294 (S.D.N.Y.)
• Cedar Lane v. Maxim Group, 1:26-cv-00292 (S.D.N.Y.)
• Cedar Lane v. Oppenheimer & Co., 1:26-cv-00297 (S.D.N.Y.)

Earlier waves include Bank of America (2:25-cv-01225, E.D. Tex.), Raymond James (7:26-cv-00022, W.D. Tex.), Citibank and Cantor Fitzgerald (Sept. 2025, per Law360), plus BNY Mellon, TIAA-CREF, First Manhattan, Empire Asset Management, Percheron, Spartan Capital, Beech Hill, Henley & Co., Middlegate, Safra Securities, Ingalls & Snyder, Firstrade, Joseph Gunnar, Lion Street Financial, and Prosperum Securities (Stanford NPE Database, patent 8577782). A later D. Del. wave followed in September 2026 (BTG Pactual, 1:26-cv-01178/01179; AlpacaDB, 1:26-cv-01260/01261).

The Oppenheimer comparator is the most instructive. In 1:26-cv-00297, Oppenheimer — represented by Fish & Richardson (Excylyn Janaize Hardin-Smith) — actually answered and counterclaimed on 2026-02-11 (ECF No. 14). Cedar Lane then stipulated out: claims dismissed with prejudice, Oppenheimer's counterclaims dismissed without prejudice, each side bearing its own fees (order signed 2026-02-26). That asymmetry — plaintiff's claims gone forever, defendant's invalidity/inEquitable-conduct counterclaims preserved for a refiling — is the campaign's signature settlement structure, and it is the term one would expect (but cannot confirm) in the Siebert stipulation. Siebert's docket is silent on the point because, unlike Oppenheimer, Siebert never pleaded counterclaims.

Practical read: Siebert took a low-cost, low-profile exit — PHV admission for Rabicoff was clean, no substantive motion was ever briefed, and the whole matter cost roughly three months of a Cole Schotz engagement. The dismissal with prejudice gives Siebert complete peace on the '782 patent as to the products charted in Exhibit 2; it does not, on its face, resolve any unasserted product lines, though in practice a with-prejudice dismissal of a campaign case usually accompanies a broader release.

---

Confidence and gaps

• High confidence: filing date, d

Counsel of record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Bottom line: Only one attorney appears for Cedar Lane on this docket — Isaac P. Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, appearing pro hac vice. No local counsel, no second plaintiff-side firm, and no in-house counsel appear in the retrieved docket; the case was filed and dismissed entirely by Rabicoff.

Docket support

• Dkt. 1 (Jan. 13, 2026) — Complaint against Siebert Financial Corp. asserting US 8,577,782, with Exhibits 1 (patent) and 2 (claim chart), filed by Rabicoff for Cedar Lane (Justia docket).
• Dkt. 2–5 (Jan. 13, 2026) — Civil cover sheet, Rule 7.1 disclosure ("No Corporate Parent"), summons request, AO 120 form — all filed by Rabicoff.
• Dkt. 6 (Jan. 13, 2026) — "MOTION for Isaac P. Rabicoff to Appear Pro Hac Vice," with his declaration and a certificate of good standing; clerk's office noted "no deficiencies." The PHV motion itself confirms he is not a member of the S.D.N.Y. bar and was appearing by pro hac vice rather than as local counsel.
• Dkt. 22 (Apr. 10, 2026) — Consent letter motion to appear telephonically at the April 28, 2026 initial conference, "addressed to Judge Lorna G. Schofield from Isaac Rabicoff" on behalf of Cedar Lane.
• Dkt. 24–25 (Apr. 21, 2026) — Stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice and proposed order, filed by Rabicoff for Cedar Lane; Dkt. 26 (Apr. 23, 2026) — Judge Schofield's order of dismissal with prejudice, each side bearing its own costs and fees (PacerMonitor).

PacerMonitor's party/counsel table lists only Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC) for Cedar Lane; the sole other name in the case is defendant's counsel, Michael Saul Weinstein of Cole Schotz.

Notes and caveats

1. No local counsel of record appears. In S.D.N.Y. practice, an out-of-state PHV admittee normally needs an in-district sponsor under Local Rule 1.3, but no New York firm entered an appearance here (contrast some earlier Cedar Lane matters in other districts, which used larger firms). If a local sponsor was named only in the PHV affidavit, it is not reflected in the public docket summaries I could retrieve.
2. PHV grant not confirmed. The retrieved docket shows the motion filed and cleared for deficiencies, but I could not verify the entry granting Dkt. 6 from the publicly indexed docket text (docket last fully indexed by PacerMonitor on 06/12/2026). Treat the PHV status as "motion filed, no deficiencies noticed" rather than a confirmed admission.
3. Relevant experience — with an important adverse item. Beyond the licensing campaigns, Rabicoff was sanctioned $1,000 and referred to the N.D. Cal. Standing Committee on Professional Conduct in Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Blackmagic Design Inc., No. 20-cv-01302-VC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2020), where Judge Chhabria found he was a serial filer not admitted in that district and had made misrepresentations; the Committee's final report describes an informal resolution requiring payment of ~$9,193 in unpaid pro hac vice fees (see the order and committee report). This is directly relevant to any venue/fee-and-cost exposure analysis, though it did not affect this S.D.N.Y. matter.
4. Campaign context: this suit is one of a 2025–2026 wave of Cedar Lane suits against broker-dealers and financial institutions on the same § 782 patent (e.g., Maxim Group 1:26-cv-00292, Morgan Stanley 1:26-cv-00294, BNY Mellon 1:25-cv-09488, TIAA-CREF 1:25-cv-09538), nearly all filed by Rabicoff and resolved by early stipulated dismissal — consistent with this case's 100-day life.

Sources: Justia docket (S.D.N.Y. 1:26-cv-00299); PacerMonitor case 62455862; Patsnap litigation record for 1:26-cv-00299; Rabicoff Law firm bio (rabilaw.com/rabicoff.html); PTAB filings listing Rabicoff Law's Alexandria, VA address; N.D. Cal. sanctions order and Standing Committee report in In re Rabicoff, No. 20-mc-80206-JD.

I'll search for the docket and counsel information on this case.

Initial results point to a defense-side firm. Let me dig into the docket entries and verify the specific appearances.

Confirmed the defense appearance. Now let me check the full appearance history and whether additional defense counsel (local counsel, other Cole Schotz attorneys, or in-house) appeared.

Counsel of record for Defendant Siebert Financial Corp.

Bottom line: Exactly one attorney appeared for Siebert on the docket — Michael Saul Weinstein of Cole Schotz P.C. No local counsel, no second firm, and no in-house lawyer appears in the record. The defense never answered or moved; it appeared and, three weeks later, joined a stipulated dismissal with prejudice.

---

1. Michael Saul Weinstein — lead counsel (sole attorney of record)

Docket footprint (all defense-side activity in this case):

• Dkt. 19 (Apr. 2, 2026) — Notice of Appearance by Michael Saul Weinstein on behalf of Siebert Financial Corp.
• Dkt. 20 (Apr. 2, 2026) — Letter motion for extension of time for Siebert to respond to the Complaint; Dkt. 21 (Apr. 3, 2026) — granted by Judge Lorna G. Schofield, adjourning the response deadline from April 7, 2026 to May 7, 2026.
• Dkt. 24–26 (Apr. 21–23, 2026) — stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (filed by plaintiff's counsel), proposed order, and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice signed by Judge Schofield on 4/22/2026, entered 4/23/2026: "Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees."

Relevant experience note: Weinstein is a member of Cole Schotz and chair of the firm's White Collar Defense & Government Investigations group; his practice is complex commercial and white-collar litigation rather than patent-first (Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America honoree in 2022 and 2025; prior matters include the Marchese v. Weinstein-era D.N.J. class litigation, Providence St. Joseph Health v. Actavis Holdco antitrust litigation, and criminal-defense representations such as United States v. Scanlon). Law360's attorney profile indexes this Cedar Lane case under "Patent," but I found no evidence of prior patent-infringement trial or IPR experience for him — consistent with a fast-settlement, broker-dealer NPE defense rather than a merits patent fight. (Law360 profile; Cole Schotz 2025 Lawdragon announcement)

---

Notable negative findings (please read before relying on this)

• No local counsel of record. S.D.N.Y. practice often pairs an out-of-state defense firm with New York counsel. Here, none appears. That is plausible because Weinstein is NY-admitted and Cole Schotz has a New York office, so no pro hac vice motion was needed. The docket shows no pro hac vice motion for any defense attorney — the only PHV motion on the docket is plaintiff's for Isaac P. Rabicoff (Dkt. 6, filed Jan. 13, 2026).
• No "of counsel" or in-house appearance is recorded for Siebert (compare plaintiff's side, where Cedar Lane's counsel of record is Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC).
• Nothing sealed affected this analysis; rather, the record is simply thin — Siebert filed no Rule 7.1 disclosure statement, no answer, no motion to dismiss, and no counterclaim. Had the case gone further, additional Cole Schotz IP litigators (the firm has a dedicated IP litigation group) or Siebert in-house counsel might well have appeared. I did not find any such appearance, and I have not named anyone who did not appear.
• Sourcing caveat: The Justia docket snapshot stops at the Jan. 13, 2026 opening filings, and I could not pull the PACER docket sheet itself; the appearance and dismissal entries above come from PacerMonitor's docket transcription (PacerMonitor case 62455862) and are corroborated by Patsnap's litigation record (Patsnap case page). A primary PACER pull (Dkt. 19 and Dkt. 26) would confirm verbatim.

Case-strategy context worth folding into the summary

This was one of a coordinated wave of '782 suits against broker-dealers and financial institutions (parallel S.D.N.Y. filings include Cedar Lane v. Maxim Group, 1:26-cv-00292, and Cedar Lane v. Morgan Stanley, 1:26-cv-00294, both filed in the same January 2026 window; earlier 2025 S.D.N.Y. targets included BNY Mellon, Beech Hill Securities, Empire Asset Management, First Manhattan, Percheron, and Spartan Capital). The defense pattern here — one appearance, one extension, then a stipulated dismissal with prejudice and each side bearing its own fees — matches the rapid-settlement signature seen across that campaign (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Raymond James, W.D. Tex. 7:26-cv-00022, closed in 32 days). That is why the defense-side docket is so sparse: there was never an adversarial phase in which additional counsel would have been needed.