Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.

I'll research this case and its parties before drafting the overview.

Now let me research the '867 patent specifically, the termination, and any IPR linkage.

Let me pull the docket details and check for any IPR challenges to the '867 patent.

Case overview and background

Parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian patent-assertion entity (an NPE/PAE), formed in British Columbia on April 29, 2019, with attorney Greg Benoit listed as director; its corporate address corresponds to IP licensing firm Pigott & Co., and it has disclosed in court that it has no parent and no publicly held parent corporation (RPX, "In a Matter of Months, Former IV Portfolio Bounces Off One NPE to Land in New Cedar Lane Complaints," Nov. 9, 2019; UniCourt docket summary). It does not make or sell products; it acquires patents and litigates. Its portfolio came from AVInnov LLC, which had bought a large package of roughly 40+ patents from Intellectual Ventures LLC in December 2018 and then assigned the whole portfolio to Cedar Lane in late 2019 (RPX, Nov. 9, 2019). By January 2022 RPX reported that Cedar Lane's campaign had passed 150 defendants with close to 50 asserted patents (RPX/Mondaq, "Defendant Count In Cedar Lane Technologies's Campaign Ticks Past 150," Jan. 31, 2022), and IAM later identified Cedar Lane as the single top-filing NPE in the U.S. in 2022, with a reported 96% settlement rate among terminated cases (IAM, "Examining the practice of Cedar Lane Technologies – America's top-filing NPE," Mar. 20, 2023). Cedar Lane was represented here by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Illinois), who filed a pro hac vice motion on the filing date (Dkt. 6–7). Sirius XM Radio Inc. is the operating satellite-radio and streaming-audio company (Nasdaq: SIRI; parent Liberty Media at the relevant time, now Sirius XM Holdings) — a conventional operating-company defendant. I was not able to verify Sirius XM's counsel of record in this docket from the sources retrieved; the only docket activity I found is plaintiff-side and joint extension practice.

Accused technology and patents. The patent confirmed in the case metadata is U.S. Patent No. 8,165,867 B1, "Methods for translating a device command" — filed September 15, 2000 as the U.S. national stage of PCT/US2000/025613 (published as WO2002023389A1, "Systems and methods for translating an item of information using a distal computer"), issued April 24, 2012, from a family of six (Google Patents US8165867B1; RPX Insight patent page). In one line: it claims a method in which a first device (e.g., a phone) captures a spoken or visual human-understandable command, sends it to a remote/distal computer that acts as a command-translation service and converts it into a machine-formatted command, which is then sent to a second device (e.g., an appliance or media device) that executes it — essentially cloud-side voice recognition and command translation, the architecture behind Google-Assistant-style voice control. Cedar Lane's own claim charts in sibling suits map claim 1 onto Google Assistant-enabled products and apps (Cedar Lane v. Fantasia Trading, D. Del. 1:21-cv-01428, Dkt. 1-5; RPX/Mondaq, Jan. 31, 2022, describing the Walmart suit accusing the onn. Android Streaming Device and Voice Remote via Google Assistant support). For Sirius XM specifically, contemporaneous commentary describes the suit as targeting its "media streaming services and related products" (Chinese-language campaign summary); I could not verify the specific accused Sirius XM products or services from the complaint or a docket-derived source, so treat any product-level description as unconfirmed — RPX Insight's case page lists 17 accused products but does not name them publicly (RPX Insight docket). One reconciliation note: RPX Insight counts 8 patents-in-suit in this case, and a KIPI/Korean IP-protection-agency table lists the asserted set as the '609, '194, '411, '489, '177, '394, '443 and '867 patents (KOTRA/KIPI dispute record). Because the case metadata here designates the '867 as the patent at issue, I treat the '867 as controlling for this case, while flagging that the complaint attached 20 exhibits (Dkt. 1, Atts. 1–16b), which is consistent with multiple patents having been pleaded and with the '867 appearing as Exhibit 8 as noted in the existing summary.

Procedural posture and significance. Filed May 11, 2020 in the Southern District of New York, the case was initially assigned to Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil and then reassigned to Judge J. Paul Oetken as a "Patent Judge" under the district's Patent Pilot Program, with Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave designated; it was docketed as Patent Pilot Program–eligible (UniCourt docket). The only contested-calendar activity in the retrieved record is answer-date housekeeping — deadline extended to July 6, 2020 (Dkt. 10–11), then to August 5, 2020 (Dkt. 12–13, granted June 30, 2020 by Judge Oetken) — and the case was closed April 16, 2021 after 341 days with no claim construction, summary judgment, or trial (RPX Insight). I could not retrieve the terminal PACER entry (e.g., a Rule 41 notice or stipulation) or any settlement terms, so the dismissal mechanism and any payment remain unverified — though early voluntary dismissal was manifestly Cedar Lane's standard exit across the campaign (see, e.g., Cedar Lane v. Bose, W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00280, Dkt. 9 notice of voluntary dismissal, Apr. 27, 2021; Cedar Lane v. Neato Robotics, D. Del. 1:21-cv-00405, dismissal with prejudice). Venue matters here in two respects: SDNY was proper because Sirius XM is a New York-headquartered company, and Cedar Lane's choice of a Patent Pilot Program judge in Manhattan is a marked departure from its dominant W.D. Tex./D. Del./E.D. Tex. filing pattern in the same campaign — a useful reminder that this campaign's venue selection was defendant-residence-driven as much as rocket-docket-driven. The case is notable for four reasons. First, scale and business model: it is one small slice of the assertion wave that made Cedar Lane the most prolific NPE filer in the country, built entirely on acquired former–Intellectual Ventures assets, with a settlement rate in the high 90s and almost no merits adjudication. Second, timing: the '867 carries a September 15, 2000 priority date and RPX records its status as "expired due to term" ([RPX patent page](https://insight.rpxcorp.com

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

Let me get the full docket detail and check for parallel PTAB proceedings.

Cedar Lane Techs. v. Sirius XM Radio — Liturgical Chronology & Disposition

Scope caveat up front. The free-source record for this docket is thin after mid‑2020. PACER entry texts past Dkt. 13 are not reproduced by Justia, UniCourt, or RPX's public page; I could retrieve the opening pleadings, scheduling/extension orders, the case‑closure metadata, and the parallel PTAB record, but not the terminal docket entry itself. I flag each inference below rather than filling gaps. Everything stated as fact is sourced; everything else is labeled as inference.

---

1. Chronology

---

2. What the case did not reach

This is the single most important structural finding: the litigation terminated before any substantive merits event. I found no record of:

• a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, motion to transfer, or motion to stay pending IPR;
• a scheduling order, Rule 26(f) report, or discovery order;
• a Markman/claim-construction hearing or order;
• any summary-judgment motion;
• any trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial, or § 285 fee motion;
• any appeal to the Federal Circuit.

Given closure 341 days after filing and the absence of any opinion citation from S.D.N.Y. on the ’867, the case is best characterized as administratively abandoned rather than adjudicated. There is no reported decision on the ’867 from this district.

---

3. Answer and counterclaims — unresolved on the public record

Dkt. 13 gave Sirius XM until 2020‑08‑05 to “answer or otherwise respond.” Free dockets stop there (UniCourt's crawl is dated 2020‑07‑10; Justia's is dated 2020‑05‑11). I could not verify whether Sirius XM:

• answered and pleaded counterclaims for declaratory judgment of invalidity/non‑infringement (standard in this posture and, if pleaded, would survive a without-prejudice dismissal only by separate motion), or
• instead moved to dismiss, or
• obtained a further extension.

Treat the answer/counterclaim question as open. RPX's “17 Accused Products” figure indicates Sirius XM's streaming/app products were charted, but that comes from the complaint exhibits, not from a pleading.

One plausible tactical read (inference only): the nearly four-month gap between the August 5 deadline and April 16 closure, combined with the ’177 PTAB final written decision landing on 2021‑02‑12, is consistent with a decision by Cedar Lane to walk away rather than litigate validity of an IV‑lineage portfolio in a Patent Pilot courtroom. I have no document confirming that causal chain.

---

4. Final disposition

Terminated 2021‑04‑16, with no judgment on the merits. The procedural vehicle is almost certainly a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — that is Cedar Lane's uniform exit pattern across the campaign, documented in contemporaneous sister cases:

• Cedar Lane v. AT&T, W.D. Tex. 6:21‑cv‑00251 — notice of voluntary dismissal filed 2021‑03‑18 (Dkt. 7).
• Cedar Lane v. FLIR Systems, E.D. Va. 2:21‑cv‑00054 — notice 2021‑03‑23 (Dkt. 12); order granting without prejudice 2021‑03‑24 (Dkt. 13).
• Cedar Lane v. Philips Elecs. N.A., D. Del. 1:21‑cv‑01208 — notice 2021‑09‑01; so-ordered 2021‑09‑07.
• Cedar Lane v. Infinova, D. Del. 1:21‑cv‑00648 — so-ordered dismissal 2021‑06‑22.
• Cedar Lane v. Verizon, W.D. Tex. 6:22‑cv‑00043 — 2022‑02‑09.

I could not retrieve the actual dismissal paper in 1:20‑cv‑03635. The RPX closure date (2021‑04‑16) and the absence of any judgment, opinion, or fee award are consistent with a without-prejudice dismissal, but the specific docket number and the words “with or without prejudice” should be confirmed on PACER before being stated as established.

Practical consequence: a without-prejudice dismissal leaves no res judicata, no claim-preclusive effect, and no fee-shifting predicate. Cedar Lane could in principle refile on the ’867 — and remains free to do so, subject to the ’867's own validity posture (see § 5).

---

5. Parallel proceedings and their effect

A. The N.D. Tex. duplicate (3:20‑cv‑01103). Cedar Lane filed in N.D. Tex. on 2020‑05‑01 against the same defendant on the same eight patents, then filed again in S.D.N.Y. ten days later. The Texas case is recorded as withdrawn. This is a venue-shopping correction, not a merits event: the S.D.N.Y. filing carries the identical exhibit set including the ’867 as Exhibit 8. No transfer motion under § 1404(a) or first-to-file analysis appears to have been litigated; Cedar Lane simply refiled.

B. PTAB — the ’177 IPR. Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Techs., FWD 2021‑02‑12: the PTAB held the asserted independent claim of US 7,173,177 unpatentable. The ’177 is one of the eight patents asserted in this very complaint (though not the patent the case metadata identifies as the ’867). Unified was represented in-house by Michelle Callaghan and Roshan Mansinghani, with Husch Blackwell as outside counsel. This is the most consequential parallel proceeding for the Sirius XM matter: a co-asserted patent in the same complaint went down at the Board roughly two months before the S.D.N.Y. case closed.

C. PTAB — no IPR on the ’867 located. My searches across PTAB/Unified portals returned no instituted or filed IPR or PGR petition against US 8,165,867. What exists is a defensive prior-art crowdsourcing effort: Unified's PATROLL contest ran 2021‑01‑20 to 2021‑03‑01 on at least claim 1 of the ’867, with a $3,000 prize awarded 2021‑04‑20. The ’867 is the Cedar Lane patent that (per Unified) was asserted against D‑Link, Disney, Dish, Comcast, LG, iHeartMedia, ViacomCBS, TCL, and Sirius XM — i.e., a wide campaign with no validity adjudication.

Caveat: absence of a found petition is not proof none was filed. A Freedom-of-Information-Act-grade check of PTO PTAB‑E2E or Docket Navigator would be needed to close that gap definitively.

D. Effect on the litigation. The Board's ’177 ruling materially weakened Cedar Lane's leverage across the campaign; the ’867, however, was never tested at the PTAB and never construed in court. So the ’867's validity remains legally unadjudicated in every forum as of today — an unusual and litigation-relevant posture.

---

6. Present posture (as of 2026-11-11)

• Closed. No pending motions, no appeal, no judgment.
• No live controversy between Cedar Lane and Sirius XM on the ’867 in S.D.N.Y.
• No estoppel attaching to Cedar Lane (no adverse judgment, no IPR estoppel under § 315(e) since Cedar Lane was the patent owner, not petitioner).
• The ’867 remains assertable. Cedar Lane's post‑2021 filings invoking the ’867 (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Altice USA, D. Del. 1:22‑cv‑00470, complaint 2022‑04‑12 and dismissal 2022‑06‑21; Cedar Lane v. Cox, 1:22‑cv‑00471; Cedar Lane v. FirsTech, 1:22‑cv‑00327; Cedar Lane v. Whirlpool, 1:21‑cv‑00529) show continued, if desultory, assertion through 2022.
• Campaign context: Cedar Lane is a Nelson, British Columbia NPE incorporated in 2019, monetizing former Intellectual Ventures patents, with a director linked to Patent Armory. Stanford's NPE database lists 50+ Cedar Lane suits; many terminated by voluntary dismissal within weeks of service.

---

7. Analytical takeaway

For synthesis purposes, three points matter:

1. This docket contributes essentially zero merits law. It is a nullity as precedent. Any analysis treating it as a construed or tried case

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

Let me get the full docket and confirm Rabicoff's firm and any local counsel.

Bottom line

Only one attorney appears on the plaintiff's side in the publicly available docket for Cedar Lane Techs., Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03635 (S.D.N.Y.): Isaac Philip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago), acting as sole/lead counsel. No local S.D.N.Y. counsel, no co-counsel firm, and no in-house counsel for Cedar Lane appear in the docket entries I could retrieve. Notably, his pro hac vice motion was filed but flagged as deficient by the Clerk, and I could not find a corrected re-filing or an order granting admission in the free docket snapshots.

Counsel of record — Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

No other plaintiff-side counsel identified. No "of counsel," no local counsel, and no in-house Cedar Lane attorney appears in the retrieved docket. Cedar Lane is a Canadian NPE (Nelson, BC) that litigates through outside counsel; its complaints in this campaign are signed by Rabicoff alone.

Docket grounding

• Dkt. 1 (Complaint, filed 5/11/2020) — filed by Rabicoff; 21 attachments including Exhibit 8 ('867 patent), matching the earlier-summary point that the '867 patent was pleaded as Exhibit 8 (compl. ¶ 22). Justia docket
• Dkt. 2 (Civil Cover Sheet), Dkt. 3 (Rule 7.1 statement — "No Corporate Parent"), Dkt. 4 (AO 120), Dkt. 5 (summons request) — all filed 5/11/2020 by Rabicoff.
• Dkt. 6 (Motion for Isaac Rabicoff to Appear Pro Hac Vice, $200 fee) and Dkt. 7 (Proposed Order), both 5/11/2020 — entered by Rabicoff himself as ECF filer.
• Same-day Clerk's notice (5/11/2020): the PHV motion was deficient — "expired Certificate of Good Standing from Illinois; missing Proposed Order," with instructions to re-file a corrected motion with certificates issued within 30 days.
• Dkt. 10 (6/2/2020) and Dkt. 12 (6/30/2020) — joint letter motions for extensions of Sirius XM's answer deadline, "addressed to Judge J. Paul Oetken from Isaac Rabicoff"; both granted (Dkt. 11 and Dkt. 13). This confirms Rabicoff continued to function as counsel of record into mid‑2020 notwithstanding the deficient PHV motion.
• No notice of appearance by any other plaintiff-side attorney appears in the Justia or UniCourt snapshots (UniCourt updated through ~July 10, 2020). UniCourt docket
• Case closed 4/16/2021 per RPX Insight (341 days in litigation; 8 patents-in-suit, 17 accused products). RPX Insight The specific dismissal filing (presumably a notice of voluntary dismissal signed by Rabicoff) is not shown in the free docket snapshots, which stop mid-2020.

Signature block confirmation: Plaintiff's filings in the parallel Cedar Lane campaign carry: "Isaac Rabicoff (Pro Hac Vice admission to be filed), RABICOFF LAW LLC, 73 W Monroe St, Chicago, IL 60603, 773-669-4590, isaac@rabilaw.com, Attorneys for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc." (RPX litigation document 13602304).

Caveats / sourcing gaps

1. PHV admission unresolved on the free record. Because Dkt. 6 was rejected as deficient, nothing in the accessible docket shows a corrected motion or a granting order. This matters: Rabicoff was sanctioned $1,000 and referred to the N.D. Cal. Standing Committee in Cedar Lane Techs. 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" who repeatedly failed to seek or pay for pro hac vice admission; the committee matter, In re Isaac Rabicoff, No. 20-mc-80206-JD, ended with an informal resolution requiring payment of ~$9,193 in unpaid PHV fees. The same pattern (motion filed, fee paid, but no corrected re-filing visible) is consistent with what happened here. Confirming the disposition of the PHV motion requires pulling the full PACER docket.
2. Defense counsel not verified. I did not retrieve appearances for Sirius XM Radio Inc.; if you want the defense side, that needs a separate PACER pull.
3. Related parallel filing. Cedar Lane first sued Sirius XM in N.D. Tex., No. 3:20-cv-01103 (filed 5/1/2020, Rabicoff as sole counsel), voluntarily dismissed 5/7/2020 — four days before this S.D.N.Y. complaint — after the court ordered designation of local counsel under L.R. 83.10(a). That history is a plausible explanation for the S.D.N.Y. filing and for why no local counsel was engaged the second time.

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

Let me dig into the docket entries and Sirius XM's counsel.

Bottom line

I could not verify any counsel of record for Sirius XM Radio Inc. in this case. Every free docket mirror I could reach (Justia, UniCourt, RPX Insight, Patexia, Unified Patents litigation portal) reports only plaintiff-side activity, and none lists a defense-side attorney, firm, or party counsel block for Sirius XM. Rather than guess, I'm flagging this as unverified, with the reasons and a concrete path to confirm below.

What the docket actually shows

All entries I can source are from filing day, and all are filed by plaintiff's counsel Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC) — who is plaintiff's counsel, not defendant's:

• Dkt. 1 — Complaint against Sirius XM (Exhibit 8 = the '867 patent, per the complaint text: "A true and correct copy of the '867 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 8")
• Dkt. 2–5 — Civil cover sheet, Rule 7.1 disclosure (no parent), AO-120 patent form, summons request
• Dkt. 6–7 — Motion for Rabicoff to appear pro hac vice, plus proposed order
• Same-day clerk notice: PHV motion deficient (expired Illinois certificate of good standing; missing proposed order)
• Later entry: case reassigned to Judge J. Paul Oetken as patent judge (Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil no longer assigned)

Source: Justia docket 1:20-cv-03635; UniCourt; RPX Insight (shows closed 04/16/2021, 341 days in litigation).

Justia's capture stops at the May 11, 2020 filing burst; UniCourt's last update is July 10, 2020. Neither reflects any post-answer activity, motion practice, or scheduling order — the usual markers of a defense appearance.

Why the absence of defense counsel is plausible, not just a data gap

There is a documented procedural story that explains why Sirius XM may never have appeared in S.D.N.Y.:

1. Cedar Lane first sued Sirius XM in N.D. Tex., No. 3:20-cv-01103 (filed 2020-05-01), on the same patent family including the '867 patent.
2. Judge Ed Kinkeade entered an electronic order (Dkt. 8, 5/4/2020) requiring local counsel under L.R. 83.10(a), then denied Cedar Lane's motion for leave to proceed as out-of-town counsel (Dkt. 10, 5/6/2020), ordering it to designate local counsel within 20 days and warning that unsigned filings would be stricken. (Order text via Cadwalader's docket archive)
3. Cedar Lane filed a Notice of Dismissal two days later (Dkt. 11, 5/7/2020), terminating the Texas case — before any Sirius XM appearance.
4. It then refiled the same campaign in S.D.N.Y. on 2020-05-11, and that case was closed 2021-04-16.

A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) unilateral dismissal — available only before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment — combined with a closed docket that shows no defense filings, is the most likely explanation for why no Sirius XM attorney appears in the public record. I have not located the actual closing entry (stipulation vs. notice of dismissal), so treat that as inference, not finding.

What I could not confirm

• Whether Sirius XM filed a notice of appearance, waiver of service, extension letter, answer, or Rule 7.1 statement at any point between July 2020 and April 2021 — those documents are not in any free mirror.
• The identity of the 04/16/2021 terminating entry and whether it was with or without prejudice.
• Whether any defense-side engagement letter or stipulation (which would name counsel) is publicly available. Nothing in the indexed record is sealed that I can identify; the gap appears to be coverage, not sealing.

Caution on attribution

Sirius XM is a frequent IP-litigation defendant and has used Weil, Gotshal & Manges, King & Spalding, and Jones Day in other matters (e.g., the BMI rate proceeding, 1:24-cv-06896 (KPF), and the Carovillano/Harris subscriber class actions in S.D.N.Y.). Those are different cases and I have found no evidence linking any of those firms to No. 1:20-cv-03635. Do not import them into this matter.

To close the gap

Pull the PACER docket for S.D.N.Y. No. 1:20-cv-03635 (PACER case ID 536916) and check (a) the "Attorneys" panel on the docket header, which lists counsel of record even for parties that appeared only briefly, and (b) the docket text for entries 8 through the closing entry dated on or about 04/16/2021. If the attorney panel is empty for Sirius XM, that is itself the answer: Sirius XM never appeared, and it has no counsel of record in this action.