Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Texas Instruments

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

Key finding already: the W.D. Tex. case was dismissed within two months. Let me dig into the details, the refiling, and the patent's status.

Now let me confirm the accused products and patent details from the actual complaints, plus check for PTAB challenges.

Case Overview & Background

The parties. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian non-practicing entity, incorporated in 2019 and listed at an address in Nelson, British Columbia; it is run by founder/president Greg Benoit, a lawyer with a long NPE-litigation background, and it acquires patent portfolios rather than developing technology (its asserted patents trace largely to Intellectual Ventures-linked sources). Cedar Lane was among the most prolific patent plaintiffs in the U.S. in 2021–2022 — Korean IP-observation reporting counts roughly 325–367 suits filed, Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies it as an "acquired patents" asserter, and IAM profiled it as the Canadian company that filed the most U.S. patent cases in 2022, with a reported ~96–98% settlement rate among terminated cases, a median case life measured in weeks, and no case ever tried. It was represented in this matter by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago), its near-exclusive counsel. Defendant Texas Instruments is a Dallas-headquartered, publicly traded semiconductor operating company — a manufacturer of analog and embedded-processing chips (processor SoCs, data converters, and interface silicon) with substantial Texas manufacturing. TI's counsel of record in both suits was Amanda Aline Abraham. Sources: UniCourt docket summary, Stanford NPE database, IAM profile of Cedar Lane, NPE Showcase write-up.

The patent and the accused technology. The sole patent identified in this case's metadata is U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242, "Host interface for imaging arrays" (issued Sept. 17, 2013; application filed Oct. 27, 2005; named inventor Mark Suska). In one sentence: it claims a method/apparatus for buffering image-sensor output in a FIFO memory, counting the buffered data with a FIFO counter, comparing that count to a programmable limit, and generating an interrupt/bus request so a host processor can pull the data at the processor's own pace — i.e., a glue-logic-free interface between a CMOS imaging array's continuous "video-style" data stream and a microprocessor's address-based bus, preferably integrated on the sensor die. The '242 is a member of the same family as U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 (issued Dec. 6, 2005), which Cedar Lane typically asserted alongside it, and its term is reported to have run to roughly August 1, 2023 (20 years from the Jan. 21, 2000 priority date, as extended). Caveat: Cedar Lane's complaints in this campaign are boilerplate and identify the accused "Exemplary Defendant Products" only inside exhibits rather than by name in the body; I was unable to retrieve the claim charts filed as Exhibits 1–4 in this docket, so the specific TI part numbers accused are not verified here — the plausible targets are TI's camera-input/video-processing SoCs with FIFO-buffered sensor interfaces, but that is inference, not sourced fact. Likewise, the case metadata lists only the '242 for this docket, while Cedar Lane's Texas re-filing against TI plainly asserted both the '790 and the '242 (KOTRA dispute record; Patsnap analysis of the '242 family); whether the W.D. Tex. complaint pleaded '790 as well cannot be confirmed from the public docket text.

Procedural posture, venue, and why the case matters. Cedar Lane filed No. 6:22-cv-00047-ADA in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas on January 12, 2022, before Judge Alan D. Albright — the same day it filed a companion suit against Qualcomm (6:22-cv-00046) — and the case was assigned per Judge Albright's then-current standing orders (Dkt. 1–6; Unified Patents portal). TI appeared through Ms. Abraham and obtained an agreed extension to March 21, 2022 (Dkt. 7–8), but before answering, Cedar Lane filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice on March 14, 2022 (Dkt. 9), with the AO-120 termination report following (Dkt. 10) — ending the W.D. Tex. case in 61 days with no answer, no motion practice, no claim construction, and no merits ruling. Two days later, on March 16, 2022, Cedar Lane re-filed the same dispute as No. 2:22-cv-00087 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap (Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne) — a court in which TI's Sherman, Texas fabrication presence plausibly supplied the venue hook, though the record I could retrieve does not state a reason for the move. That case fared no better: TI waived service (Dkt. 5), a scheduling conference was set for May 18, 2022 (Dkt. 6), and Cedar Lane again voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on May 13, 2022, with Judge Gilstrap's dismissal order entered May 18, 2022 (Dkt. 8–9) (Docket Alarm; Patexia). The case is therefore notable less for any ruling than as a clean specimen of the Cedar Lane/Rabicoff enforcement model and of Texas venue practice in 2022: a major operating company sued on an expiring, acquired imaging-interface patent in the plaintiff-friendliest division in the country, then dismissed and re-filed across districts within 72 hours — a "file, refile, and settle" pattern that, per IAM and the Korean IP-center data, resolves the overwhelming majority of Cedar Lane's hundreds of suits within weeks, often before any responsive pleading. Two further points of context: no PTAB challenge to the '242 appears in the public record (secondary databases record no validity challenge), so TI obtained neither an invalidity judgment nor IPR estoppel, and the patent's mid-2023 expiry has since closed the damages window, making dismissal economically consequence-free for Cedar Lane; and the campaign's credibility was separately clouded by Judge Vince Chhabria's 2020 sanctions/referral order in Cedar Lane v. Blackmagic Design (N.D. Cal.), which criticized Mr. Rabicoff as a serial filer and referred him to that court's professional-conduct committee — a history later cited by other districts weighing his admission practice. Unverified/flagged: the reason for the W.D. Tex. dismissal and the E.D. Tex. refiling, the specific TI products charted, and any settlement or license terms are not disclosed on the public dockets, and I found no reported damages figure, expert report, or transfer/venue motion in either case.

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with several searches in parallel.

Key finding: the W.D. Tex. case was dismissed very early. Let me dig into the sequence and whether there were refilings or PTAB proceedings.

Bottom line

This case never got past the pleadings. Cedar Lane filed in Waco on 2022-01-12, Texas Instruments never answered or counterclaimed, and Cedar Lane voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on 2022-03-14 — roughly two months after filing. Two days later Cedar Lane re-filed the same dispute in E.D. Tex. (Marshall), where it again voluntarily dismissed, with Judge Gilstrap's dismissal order entered 2022-05-18. There was no answer, no counterclaim, no motion to dismiss/transfer/stay, no Markman, no discovery of substance, no summary judgment, no trial, no JMOL/fees motion, and no appeal. No IPR or PGR on the '242 patent was identified. The dispute terminated by voluntary dismissal without prejudice in both venues, which in the context of Cedar Lane's documented business model is consistent with a small paid license — though no settlement document or terms appear on either docket.

---

Chronological developments

1. Filing and initial pleadings (W.D. Tex. 6:22-cv-00047)

Parties: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Canadian NPE; principal Greg Benoit) v. Texas Instruments, Inc. The complaint asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242 ("Host interface for imaging arrays," issued 2013-09-17). Notably, Cedar Lane's contemporaneous bulk filings that same week — e.g., against Qualcomm (6:22-cv-00046) and Verizon (6:22-cv-00043) — asserted three patents ('527, '790, '242); this case is docketed in your metadata on the '242 alone. The complaint's claim charts were in Exhibits 1–4; the narrative pleading was the standard Rabicoff short-form template alleging direct infringement plus induced infringement, and requesting an exceptional-case finding under § 285.

No answer and no counterclaims were ever filed by TI in this case (TI's response was due 2022-03-21; the case was dismissed eight days earlier).

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None. There was:

• no Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss;
• no § 1404(a) transfer motion (and no motion to transfer to Judge Albright's court from elsewhere, since Cedar Lane chose Waco);
• no motion to stay pending IPR (none was available — no IPR was filed);
• no summary judgment motion;
• no motion practice of any kind other than Cedar Lane's own dismissal filing.

This is itself the analytically significant fact: TI never got to test the '242's validity or the infringement theory in court, and Cedar Lane never got to take discovery into TI's image-sensor/ISP products.

3. Voluntary dismissal in W.D. Tex. (2022-03-14) and immediate refiling in E.D. Tex.

• 2022-03-14: Cedar Lane filed a "MOTION to Dismiss (Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice)" (Doc. 9), with proposed order; AO 120 report sent to USPTO (Doc. 10). The docket records a "Final Civil Docket 03-14-2022," closing the case. No separate dismissal order appears — consistent with Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which is self-executing where the defendant has not yet served an answer or MSJ. (Patexia document list, 6:22-cv-00047)
• 2022-03-16 (two days later): Cedar Lane filed a new complaint against TI in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division — 2:22-cv-00087, before Judge Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne, asserting the '790 and '242 patents. Waiver of service sent 2022-03-16; answer due 2022-05-15. (Docket Alarm; Patexia)
• 2022-04-14: Scheduling Conference set for 2022-05-18 before Judge Gilstrap (Doc. 6); Abraham again appears for TI (Doc. 7).

⚠️ Sourcing caveat on motive: neither docket explains the W.D. Tex. dismissal or the refiling. The two-day gap and the switch from Albright's Waco courtroom to Gilstrap's Marshall courtroom is a notable forum move, but I found no public filing, order, or reporting that explains it. It may have been

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

The docket is short (10 entries, dismissed in ~2 months). Let me verify the docket directly and research the plaintiff's counsel.

Let me verify the signature block on the complaint and Rabicoff's bar/admission status in W.D. Tex.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Short answer: Exactly one attorney appeared for the plaintiff in this case — Isaac P. Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, who filed the complaint, the appearance, the corporate disclosure, and the voluntary dismissal himself. No local counsel, co-counsel, or in-house attorney appeared on Cedar Lane's behalf on this docket.

---

1. Isaac Phillip Rabicoff — sole counsel of record (lead / trial counsel)

2. Local counsel

None appeared. The docket contains no notice of appearance, no motion for pro hac vice admission, and no designation of local counsel for Cedar Lane. Given W.D. Tex. practice, this is worth flagging: Rabicoff litigated this case (briefly) without any separately noticed local counsel, and no pro hac vice application appears on the docket — consistent with the pattern criticized in the N.D. Cal. proceeding referenced above. I cannot verify from public sources whether Rabicoff was at that time a member of the W.D. Tex. bar; that fact is not established by anything I found.

3. Co-counsel / in-house

No co-counsel (e.g., Napoli Shkolnik, which appears alongside Rabicoff Law in some other Cedar Lane matters) and no in-house counsel for Cedar Lane appeared here. Cedar Lane is a Canadian NPE with no disclosed in-house litigation staff on this docket.

---

Docket basis

• Dkt. 1 — Complaint for Patent Infringement, filed 1/12/2022, signed "(Rabicoff, Isaac)," asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242 against Texas Instruments, Inc.; assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright.
• Dkt. 2 — Notice of Attorney Appearance by Isaac Rabicoff on behalf of Cedar Lane (1/12/2022).
• Dkt. 3 — Rule 7 Disclosure Statement (1/12/2022).
• Dkt. 7 — Notice of Agreed Extension of Time for TI to respond to 3/21/2022 (1/18/2022).
• Dkt. 8 — Appearance of Amanda Aline Abraham for defendant TI (not plaintiff) (1/18/2022).
• Dkt. 9 — "Motion to Dismiss (Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice)" filed by Cedar Lane, signed Rabicoff, 3/14/2022.
• Dkt. 10 — Report on Patent/Trademark to USPTO (3/14/2022). Case terminated without prejudice roughly two months after filing; no answer, no scheduling order, no claim construction, no IPR activity on the '242 identified in connection with this docket.

Sources: Unified Patents litigation portal for 6:22-cv-00047 (full docket text); Patexia and UniCourt docket mirrors for 6:22-cv-00047; Docket Alarm/Patexia dockets for the companion E.D. Tex. case, Cedar Lane Techs. v. Texas Instruments, No. 2:22-cv-00087 (same sole counsel, voluntarily dismissed 5/18/2022); CourtListener/PACER counsel directory entries for Rabicoff Law LLC; N.D. Cal. Standing Committee Final Report, In re Isaac Rabicoff, No. 20-mc-80206-JD; Cedar Lane Techs. v. Blackmagic Design, No. 20-cv-01302-VC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2020).

Caveat on sealed material: nothing in this case appears sealed — the docket is only ten entries and all are public — so the absence of additional plaintiff counsel is a real absence, not an artifact of sealing. The one genuine gap is that I could not open the complaint PDF itself to quote its signature block verbatim; the firm address above is therefore drawn from Rabicoff's contemporaneous Cedar Lane filings in other districts rather than from Dkt. 1 in this case.

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

Counsel of Record for Defendant — Cedar Lane Techs. v. Texas Instruments, No. 6:22-cv-00047 (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line

This case was extraordinarily short-lived, and the defense appearance list reflects that: exactly one attorney entered an appearance for Texas Instruments on this docket. Cedar Lane filed the complaint on January 12, 2022 (Dkt. 1), the parties stipulated to an extension of TI's response deadline to March 21, 2022 (Dkt. 7), and Cedar Lane filed a Notice/Motion of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice on March 14, 2022 (Dkt. 9), with the AO 120 form transmitted the same day (Dkt. 10). Cedar Lane then re-filed against TI in the Eastern District of Texas on March 16, 2022, No. 2:22-cv-00087 (Judge Gilstrap), where the same sole defense counsel appeared (Dkt. 7, Apr. 14, 2022) before that case too was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on May 18–19, 2022 (Dkts. 8–10).

The one attorney of record

Explicit caveats

• No other defense counsel appeared. I found no appearance by Carl R. Roth or Brendan C. Roth (the Roth firm's name partners, who have jointly signed TI appearances in other matters), no appearance by TI's national coordinating patent counsel (e.g., Covington & Burling, which has represented TI in several matters), and no in-house TI attorney on this docket. I cannot rule out that non-appearing counsel were working behind the scenes on the agreed extension, but nothing of record reflects it.
• Nothing was sealed and nothing was litigated. No answer, Rule 12 motion, invalidity contentions, or IPR petition was filed in 6:22-cv-00047 before dismissal. I found no PTAB proceeding against U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242 stemming from this case.
• Docket sourcing. The above is reconstructed from public docket aggregators (UniCourt, Patexia, Unified Patents, Docket Alarm) that mirror the W.D. Tex. CM/ECF docket; I did not pull the native PACER docket sheet, so document numbering should be confirmed on PACER before being cited in a filing. Firm/bar details come from State Bar of Texas records, Martindale-Hubbell, and Justia/CourtListener filings in other cases.
• Firm name change. The docket text in this case shows "The Roth Law Firm" as the entity of record; her current practice is listed publicly as Roth & Abraham, PLLC (Marshall, TX), a 2–5 lawyer shop. If you are describing her "as of" the 2022 filing, use The Roth Law Firm, P.C.

Why it matters analytically

The single-appearance record is itself evidence of the Cedar Lane campaign's economics: this was a "file-and-dismiss" venue-shifting episode, not a litigated case. Cedar Lane (through Isaac Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC) filed in W.D. Tex. before Judge Albright on Jan. 12, 2022, then dismissed nine weeks later — two days before its own E.D. Tex. re-filing on the same '242 (and '790) patents — a pattern consistent with NPE forum-shopping amid the 2021–22 W.D. Tex. filing surge and Judge Albright's transfer practices. TI's response was correspondingly minimal: a stipulated extension and a single local-counsel appearance, with no substantive defense investment before dismissal.