Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Silent Sentinel

I'll research this case across multiple sources.

Now let me dig into the parties, the patent's provenance, and IPR history.

Case Overview

Parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Silent Sentinel Ltd., No. 6:22-cv-00960 (W.D. Tex., filed Sept. 15, 2022), is one of the hundreds of infringement suits filed by Cedar Lane, a non-practicing entity incorporated in British Columbia in April 2019 by attorney Greg Benoit and funded by a portfolio acquired — directly or indirectly — from Intellectual Ventures LLC. Lex Machina ranked Cedar Lane the most prolific patent plaintiff in the U.S. in 2021 (176 new cases in 2022 alone, 202 across 18 districts for 2022–2024), and by January 2022 its first campaign had passed 150 defendants (Mondaq/RPX, "Defendant Count In Cedar Lane Technologies's Campaign Ticks Past 150," Jan. 31, 2022; Lex Machina 2025 Patent Litigation Report). Plaintiff's counsel throughout is Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Notices of Appearance, Dkts. 2, 8). The defendant, Silent Sentinel Ltd., is a small UK operating company (founded 2002; 11–50 employees; Stanstead Abbotts, Hertfordshire) that designs and manufactures ruggedized, long-range PTZ thermal and multi-sensor surveillance camera platforms for border, maritime, defense, and critical-infrastructure customers, with a U.S. affiliate (Silent Sentinel Inc., St. Petersburg, FL) and a Dubai subsidiary (Great.gov.uk supplier profile, Companies House No. 04556945). Silent Sentinel was acquired by Motorola Solutions in February 2024 and its product line has since been folded into Pelco (LinkedIn/corporate profile). It retained Neil J. McNabnay and Lance E. Wyatt Jr. (Fish & Richardson, Dallas) and answered with affirmative defenses and counterclaims on October 11, 2022 (Dkt. 10), plus a Rule 7.1 disclosure (Dkt. 11).

Patent and accused technology. The patent-in-suit per the case metadata is U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790, "Host interface for imaging arrays" — a January 2000-priority, December 6, 2005-issued patent naming Mark Suska and originally assigned to Symagery Microsystems Inc. of Ottawa (Google Patents; EPO register for counterpart EP1126697). Claim 1 covers an interface between a CMOS image sensor and a host processor comprising a memory (preferably FIFO) that buffers pixel data at the sensor's clock rate, a signal generator that interrupts the processor when the buffer reaches a threshold quantity of data, and a transfer circuit that lets the processor drain the buffer at its own rate — i.e., glue logic for asynchronous sensor-to-CPU data handoff, preferably integrated on the sensor die (see the claim reproductions in the parallel Cedar Lane complaints, e.g., Exhibit A in Cedar Lane v. Fantasia Trading, D. Del. 1:21-cv-01428). The complaint did not publicly name accused products; as in every Cedar Lane pleading, infringement is pled by reference to claim-chart exhibits ("Exemplary Defendant Products"), which in the camera-sector cases targeted the defendant's imaging/surveillance hardware. Stanford's NPE database also maps this same case number to U.S. 6,473,527 (JPEG/ADC interface module, expired June 1, 2019) and U.S. 8,537,242 (the '790 divisional, method claims), consistent with Cedar Lane's standard three-patent package for camera makers (Stanford NPE Litigation Database, patent 6972790 and 6473527); the complaint itself was not publicly retrievable, so the exact asserted set should be treated as probable rather than confirmed. Notably, the '790 patent's term (with PTA) ran only to roughly August 1, 2023, so recovery was already capped by the six-year lookback of 35 U.S.C. § 286.

Posture, venue, and significance. The case was filed in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas and directly assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright as a same-plaintiff/same-patent related case — the single most active patent docket in the country at the time. The docket is remarkably thin and entirely procedural: complaint (Dkt. 1), related-case notice (Dkt. 6), service on the UK defendant on September 23, 2022 (Dkt. 9), answer with counterclaims, and then a joint stipulation of dismissal filed October 12, 2022 (Dkt. 12), with the AO 120 report to the PTO entered the same day (Dkt. 13); UniCourt lists the case as disposed (docket; Patexia docket). There is no claim construction order, no summary judgment ruling, and no written opinion on the merits — so no merits citation exists. Its significance is as a specimen of the Cedar Lane model rather than as precedent: it was one of sixteen cases Cedar Lane filed in the week of September 12, 2022 alone, all in W.D. Tex. and all through Rabicoff Law (a firm that has handled dozens of Cedar Lane matters); roughly 80% of the campaign resolved by early settlement at a median of ~77–90 days, and none reached trial (LexBlog/Mondaq, "NPE Showcase – Cedar Lane Technologies," Oct. 2022). That description fits this docket, though the dismissal papers do not disclose settlement terms. Two contextual points matter: (1) the filings landed in the final stretch before W.D. Tex. moved to random cross-division assignment of patent cases (2023), i.e., while Waco filing still guaranteed Albright; and (2) the '790 patent was asserted in well over 100 suits yet, on the record I could locate, never invalidated at the PTAB — the one successful Unified Patents IPR against a Cedar Lane asset (filed October 2019) involved a different patent in the portfolio, and I found no IPR or reexamination of the '790 to confirm (Shenzhen IP Protection Center risk advisory).

I'll research this case across multiple sources.

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Silent Sentinel Ltd., No. 6:22-cv-00960 (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: This was a very short-lived NPE suit — filed 2022-09-15 and jointly dismissed roughly four weeks later, on/around 2022-10-12, immediately after the defendant answered and counterclaimed. There was no motion practice, no Markman proceeding, no discovery of substance, no trial, and (as far as public records show) no PTAB proceeding tied to this case. The only "legal development" of substance is the answer/counterclaims and the joint stipulation of dismissal. I flag below what is verified versus inferred, because the public docket trail for this case is thin.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Caveats:

• Cedar Lane's standardized complaint in this campaign typically asserted both the '790 patent and its divisional, U.S. Pat. No. 8,537,242. Public reporting on this docket lists only the '790 patent, consistent with the case metadata. I could not retrieve the text of D.I. 1 in Silent Sentinel to confirm whether '242 was also pleaded; treat "only '790" as what the public record reflects rather than as confirmed from the pleading itself.
• The counterclaims are docketed generically ("COUNTERCLAIM against Cedar Lane Technologies Inc."). Given the document's length (10 pp.) and Cedar Lane's standard posture in these suits, they almost certainly include declaratory-judgment counts of non-infringement and invalidity, but I have not verified the specific counts and do not represent them as confirmed.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None. The docket shows no Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, and no summary-judgment motion. The case terminated before the deadline for any such filing; under Judge Albright's Standing Order Governing Proceedings (Patent Cases) in force in September 2022, the Local Rule CV-4 / scheduling order, Markman briefing, and discovery had not yet begun.

The only "motion" on the docket is the joint stipulation of dismissal (D.I. 12, 2022-10-12), filed as a motion to dismiss with a proposed order. A formal order granting it is reflected in the case's "disposed/terminated" status (UniCourt: "Disposed"; Stanford NPE database records a termination entry), but the order's own docket number and exact signature date are not visible in the free sources I could reach — it was entered on or shortly after 2022-10-12.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Did not occur. No Markman briefing, no Markman hearing, no claim-construction order. The case never reached the point in Judge Albright's patent scheduling order at which the parties exchange proposed constructions (typically 2–3 months post-scheduling order).

4. Discovery milestones

None of strategic significance. No scheduling order issued, no protective order entered, no infringement or invalidity contentions served, no depositions, no document production. The case closed approximately 19 days after service of process.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial setting, no verdict, no JMOL / new-trial / § 285 fee motion.

6. Final disposition

• Joint dismissal, entered on or about 2022-10-12, roughly one day after Defendant filed its answer and counterclaims. The docket text ("Joint Stipulation of Dismissal") indicates it was by agreement of the parties, not a unilateral Rule 41(a) voluntary dismissal by Cedar Lane — a meaningful distinction versus Cedar Lane's practice in several of its contemporaneous cases.
• The stipulation's terms are not public — no consent judgment, no injunction, no disclosed payment. Whether a license or confidential settlement payment was part of the deal is not ascertainable from the public record. Given the one-day gap between answer and dismissal, the realistic inference is a fast nuisance-value resolution, but that is an inference, not a sourced fact.
• No appeal. No Federal Circuit docket exists for this case.
• Posture: closed and inactive as of today (2026-11-07). I found no refiling by Cedar Lane against Silent Sentinel in any district.

7. Parallel PTAB (IPR/PGR) proceedings

None identified, and none that could have affected this case. Because the suit was served on 2022-09-23 and dismissed in October 2022, Silent Sentinel's 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) one-year IPR bar would not have run until 2023-09-23, and there was no litigation left to stay.

I was unable to complete a PTAB docket sweep for the '790 patent within my search budget, so I will not represent that no IPR, PGR, or reexamination of the '790 patent has ever been filed. What I can say with confidence is that no PTAB proceeding is docketed as related to, or had any effect on, Cedar Lane v. Silent Sentinel. For the broader '790 campaign, note the following verifiable context: the Stanford NPE Litigation Database shows the '790 patent asserted in a very large number of district-court actions (the database's '790 entry lists Cedar Lane as an "Acquired patents" asserter across dozens of suits), and the patent's term was estimated to run to approximately 2023-08-01 based on its 2000-12-21 priority filing — i.e., the patent was nearing (and by now has passed) expiry, which materially caps the damages exposure in any residual dispute.

---

Strategic read

1. This case is a settlement artifact, not a litigated case. It belongs to Cedar Lane's September 2022 W.D. Tex. filing wave before Judge Albright — the same week it sued other physical-security/camera vendors. A directly comparable companion, Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. TKH Security B.V., No. 6:22-cv-00963 (W.D. Tex.), was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on 2022-10-10 (order 2022-10-11). Silent Sentinel's dismissal was instead joint/by stipulation — consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a walk-away.
2. The defense's leverage was structural, not doctrinal. With a 2000-priority patent approaching expiry (~2023-08-01) and a very large number of prior accused products, the rational defense play was to answer, put validity and § 101 exposure on the table, and settle cheaply — which is what the docket reflects.
3. Value of this case as precedent: essentially zero. No claim construction, no § 101 ruling, no damages decision, no PTAB estoppel. For any analysis of the '790 patent's strength, the useful data points lie in Cedar Lane's other cases, not this one.

Source gaps I want to name explicitly

• The order granting dismissal (docket number and exact entry date) — not retrieved.
• The patent(s) actually pleaded in D.I. 1 for this defendant — inferred from IPWatchdog/Stanford, not read from the pleading.
• The substance of the counterclaims (D.I. 10) — not read.
• Dismissal terms (with/without prejudice, license, payment) — not public.
• Complete PTAB/reexam history of U.S. 6,972,790 — not swept.

Key URLs: Stanford NPE case page https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/268537; docket reproduction https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Silent-Sentinel-Ltd-id-181099/documents; https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-silent-sentinel-ltd-1293124; IPWatchdog roundup https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/09/23/patent-filings-roundup-western-district-waters-tested-ip-edge-runs-disclosure-delaware/.

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

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Case: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Silent Sentinel Ltd., No. 6:22-cv-00960 (W.D. Tex., Judge Alan D. Albright), filed 9/15/2022; joint stipulation of dismissal (Dkt. 12) filed 10/12/2022 — a roughly four-week case, which is typical of Cedar Lane's campaign.

Plaintiff's counsel of record

Docket basis for Rabicoff's appearance:

• Dkt. 1 — Complaint for Patent Infringement, filed 9/15/2022 (signed/filed by Rabicoff).
• Dkt. 2 — Notice of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Rabicoff (9/15/2022); clerk's note: "Contacted Plaintiff's counsel due to incorrect document attached in this Notice."
• Dkt. 3 — Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement (Rabicoff).
• Dkt. 4 — Request for Issuance of Summons; Dkt. 5 — AO 120 Patent/Trademark form; Dkt. 6 — Notice of Related Case.
• Dkt. 8 — Corrected Notice of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Rabicoff (9/16/2022).
• Dkt. 9 — Summons Returned Executed (served 9/23/2022) (Rabicoff).
• Dkt. 12 — Joint Stipulation of Dismissal (Rabicoff for Cedar Lane) (10/12/2022).

Who did not appear for plaintiff (important negative findings)

• No local counsel of record. Notwithstanding W.D. Tex. practice of pairing out-of-state NPE counsel with Texas firms, no Texas attorney or firm appears on the docket for Cedar Lane; Rabicoff filed everything himself.
• No pro hac vice motion appears on the publicly mirrored docket. Because the case ended in three weeks, admissions practice was never tested; I could not confirm from a primary PACER pull whether Rabicoff was already admitted to the W.D. Tex. bar or was appearing under the court's general admission rules. Treat this as unsourced.
• Kenneth A. Matuszewski (Rabicoff Law LLC) appears as backup/lead PTAB counsel in other Rabicoff Law matters but did not enter an appearance here.
• David deBruin (Bayard, P.A.) is Cedar Lane's Delaware local counsel in its D. Del. filings (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Snap, v. Phytech) but is not of record in this W.D. Tex. case.
• Greg Benoit (Cedar Lane's founder/principal, himself an attorney) is not listed as counsel of record; the entity appeared only through Rabicoff.

Context worth noting for case assessment

• Cedar Lane is a Canadian NPE incorporated in 2019 that has filed 300+ patent suits, predominantly in W.D. Tex. before Judge Albright, and typically dismisses within weeks (median ~77 days in the Shenzhen IP Protection Center's study of its cases against Shenzhen entities). This case fits that pattern exactly — the joint dismissal came 27 days after filing and one day after Silent Sentinel answered and counterclaimed.
• Reputational/credibility flag on plaintiff's counsel: secondary reporting (Gadgets, Gigabytes & Goodwill, Oct. 2022, summarizing a 2020 N.D. Cal. decision by Judge Vince Chhabria) states that Cedar Lane and Rabicoff were sanctioned for taking "objectively frivolous" positions in bad faith and that Rabicoff was referred to the N.D. Cal. Standing Committee on Professional Conduct, in part for appearing without local admission. I have not verified the underlying order or its citation; treat that characterization as reported, not confirmed.
• Notably, defendant Silent Sentinel was represented by Neil J. McNabnay and Lance E. Wyatt, Jr. (Dkt. 10–11) — a heavyweight W.D. Tex. patent bench (McNabnay is a well-known Albright-court litigator), which likely explains the unusually fast, same-week stipulated dismissal after the answer and counterclaims.

Sourcing caveat

The docket detail above is drawn from third-party mirrors of the W.D. Tex. CM/ECF docket (UniCourt case record; Patexia litigation page for case ID 181099) rather than a direct PACER pull, and the case is closed with no sealed filings apparent. The docket reflects exactly one plaintiff-side attorney of record: Isaac Rabicoff.

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

The docket identifies two defense attorneys. Now let me verify their firms and roles, and check the full docket for any additional appearances.

Let me confirm the complete docket for any additional appearances (e.g., local counsel) and check the dismissal.

Counsel of Record — Silent Sentinel Ltd., W.D. Tex. No. 6:22-cv-00960

Case posture (context for the counsel question). Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. sued Silent Sentinel Ltd. on 9/15/2022 in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, before Judge Alan D. Albright; the case was directly assigned to him as a related Cedar Lane/'790-patent matter. Silent Sentinel was served 9/23/2022 (Dkt. 9); it answered and counterclaimed on 10/11/2022 (Dkt. 10–11); the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal on 10/12/2022 (Dkt. 12), and the AO-120 form went to the PTO the same day (Dkt. 13). The case never reached a scheduling order, Markman, or any substantive ruling. Sources: Patexia docket for No. 6:22-cv-00960 (https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Silent-Sentinel-Ltd-id-181099/documents); UniCourt docket summary (https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-silent-sentinel-ltd-[1293124](/patent/1293124)); Stanford NPE Litigation Database, US 6,972,790 (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/6972790).

Only two attorneys appear for Silent Sentinel in the docket records available. Both are Dallas principals of Fish & Richardson P.C. No in-house counsel, no separate local counsel, and no third outside attorney appears.

1. Neil J. McNabnay — lead counsel (substantive)

• Firm / office: Fish & Richardson P.C., 1717 Main Street, Suite 5000, Dallas, TX 75201.
• Appearance: Dkt. 10 (Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims, filed 10/11/2022); the docket text expressly notes "Attorney Neil J. McNabnay added to party Silent Sentinel Ltd. (pty:dft)." He signed the responsive pleading containing the counterclaims, which is the closest thing to a lead-counsel designation in a case this short-lived.
• Experience note: Longtime Dallas patent litigator (U. Michigan J.D. 1997; Texas bar 1997); decades of E.D. Tex. defendant-side patent work — e.g., the Clear With Computers/Orion IP campaign (obtaining dismissals/settlements for Canon, Uniden, Kohler, Callaway, eBay, Boeing, QVC, etc.), Constellation IP v. Travelocity/Sabre/Travelport/Orbitz, MHL Tek v. Subaru (Fed. Cir.), and Eolas v. Adobe. Profile: https://www.fr.com/team/neil-j-mcnabnay/ ; Best Lawyers listing (https://www.bestlawyers.com/lawyers/neil-j-mcnabnay/[186301](/patent/186301)).

2. Lance E. Wyatt, Jr. — second chair / co-counsel of record

• Firm / office: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX (direct line 214-760-6155 per his PTAB filings).
• Appearance: Dkt. 11 (Rule 7 Disclosure Statement for Silent Sentinel Ltd., filed 10/11/2022). He also handled the corporate-disclosure filing, i.e., the Rule 7.1 side of the appearance.
• Experience note: Registered patent attorney (Reg. No. 68,837) and Fish principal; active both in district-court defense and PTAB practice (e.g., listed as counsel for petitioner in IPR2023-00726, MOM Enterprises v. Vieth). He was Fish's appearing attorney for other Cedar Lane defendants in the same 2022 camera/IP-camera wave — notably Cedar Lane Techs. v. VIDEOR E. Hartig GmbH, No. 6:22-cv-00630 (W.D. Tex.) — and later in the Patent Armory campaign (American Income Life, USAA, Costco, Unum) and Secure Matrix v. Hanley-Wood. Sources: PTAB petition caption (ptacts.uspto.gov, IPR2023-00726); Law360 attorney page (https://www.law360.com/firms/fish-richardson/attorneys/lance-e-wyatt-jr); UniCourt/PACER Monitor dockets cited above.

Caveats / what is not confirmed

• No formal Notice of Attorney Appearance was filed by either Fish attorney; they entered through the Answer (Dkt. 10) and Rule 7 disclosure (Dkt. 11). The docket text of Dkt. 10 is the only entry affirmatively "adding" counsel for the defendant.
• No local counsel of record. W.D. Tex. practice frequently involves a local-counsel designation, but nothing in the available docket reflects one here. I could not retrieve the full 10-page Answer signature block, so I cannot rule out that additional Fish attorneys (or an unlisted local attorney) were named in the signature block without a separate appearance.
• No in-house counsel for Silent Sentinel appears on the docket.
• No sealed filings or sealed appearances appear in this docket; the case was dismissed by joint stipulation ~4 weeks after service, so the record on counsel is thin by nature.
• I did not find any Law360 or Reuters coverage of this specific case (unsurprising given the 27-day lifespan); the docket aggregators (Patexia, UniCourt, PACER Monitor/Justia) are the basis for the counsel identification. Firm affiliations are current as of the sources retrieved and may have changed since 2022.