Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Thorlabs, Inc.

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

Let me dig deeper into the docket specifics and the patent's litigation history.

Case Overview: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Thorlabs, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00053 (W.D. Tex.)

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian non-practicing entity formed in British Columbia on April 29, 2019, with attorney Greg Benoit as director; its address of record corresponds to Pigott & Co., an IP licensing firm, and its patents reached it from Intellectual Ventures LLC through Steephill Technologies LLC, a Delaware conduit entity. Cedar Lane does not make or sell products; it monetizes acquired electronics and imaging patents through high-volume assertion, almost always through Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, and by 2021 it was reportedly the most frequent patent plaintiff in the United States. It is a serial filer with a documented pattern of naming dozens of defendants against overlapping subsets of the same IV-derived portfolio, and Rabicoff has handled roughly 58 of its suits. See RPX, "Cedar Lane, Elsewhere Ordered To Show Cause…" (Oct. 26, 2020) (describing Cedar Lane's formation, Benoit, Pigott & Co., and Steiphill/IV chain of title); Shenzhen IP Protection Center risk advisory (Feb. 2023) (Lex Machina data: 325 suits, most-active 2021 filer); Kirsten Errick, "Analytics: The Most Litigious District Court Patent Plaintiffs" (Nov. 29, 2020). Thorlabs, Inc. is the opposite profile: a privately held operating company that designs and manufactures photonics instrumentation — optics, lasers, optomechanics, and notably scientific/industrial imaging cameras and imaging systems — for research and OEM markets, with its principal U.S. operations in Newton, New Jersey. Thorlabs is a repeat patent defendant but not a habitual one, having previously been sued by PAEs such as Unibeam Photonics and Vanadium LLC (D.N.J.).

The accused technology. The complaint (Dkt. 1, filed Jan. 14, 2022) is Cedar Lane's standard short-form pleading: it attaches four exhibits — the patent copy and infringement claim charts — and alleges direct, induced, and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by Thorlabs' making, using, selling, and offering for sale of products implementing the claimed camera-to-host data interface, plus internal testing and customer-facing documentation. The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242 ("Host interface for imaging arrays"), claims an interface for receiving data from an image sensor having an imaging array and a clock generator and transferring it to a processor system: a memory (FIFO or addressable) buffers array data at the sensor clock rate, a signal generator asserts an interrupt or bus-request signal to the processor based on the amount of buffered data, and control circuitry moves data out at a rate set by the processor — preferably with the interface integrated on the same die as the sensor. In practical terms, Cedar Lane's campaign theory is that ordinary digital camera architectures (sensor → buffer → host interrupt/bus request → host-paced readout over USB or similar) practice the claims. The '242 shares its title, abstract, and specification with U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790, also in Cedar Lane's portfolio, and the '790 is among the '242's cited references — consistent with a same-family continuation relationship, though I have not confirmed the precise priority chain from the face of the patent. Notably, the accused Thorlabs product line is not publicly documented in the free dockets; the complaint's claim-chart exhibits are the operative identification of accused products and were not retrievable in my searches, so any specific camera model identification would be speculation. Given the campaign's focus on image capture and readout, the accused products are most plausibly Thorlabs' scientific/industrial camera line and related imaging software, but treat that as inference, not fact.

Procedural posture and significance. Cedar Lane filed in W.D. Tex. on January 14, 2022; the case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright in the Waco Division, with Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland, and the plaintiff demanded a jury. Thorlabs appeared through John M. Hintz and moved to dismiss the complaint on February 9, 2022 (Dkt. 8), supported by a declaration of Robert P. Regimbal (Ex. A) — a fact-based motion, not a bare Rule 12(b)(6) placeholder, though the brief itself is not publicly available and I cannot responsibly characterize its specific grounds. Cedar Lane obtained an agreed extension to respond to March 25 (Dkt. 10, Feb. 16, 2022) — then, on March 15, 2022, filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (Dkt. 11), with the AO-120 report to the PTO following on March 16 (Dkt. 12). Ten days after dismissing, on March 25, 2022, Cedar Lane refiled against Thorlabs in the District of New Jersey, No. 2:22-cv-01694 (Judge Kevin McNulty; M.J. James B. Clark), this time asserting both the '790 and '242 patents, according to a Korean IP Protection Agency dispute database entry and Docket Alarm's docket listing; that New Jersey action was subsequently dismissed without prejudice. The sequence — dismiss in Waco, refile in the defendant's home district within days — is the analytically interesting feature: it is consistent with a venue-driven re-set rather than a merits concession, and it illustrates how aggressively Cedar Lane managed its Albright docket in early 2022 even while Albright was absorbing ~39% of its nationwide filings (107 cases, 2018–mid-2022, per the Korean IP-navi dataset). The case is also a useful marker for three broader trends: Cedar Lane's January 2022 wave of "host interface for imaging arrays" suits against camera and machine-vision companies (its parallel complaint against Epix Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00050, asserting the '242, was noted in IPWatchdog's Jan. 20, 2022 filings round-up under the "[Intellectual Ventures]" tag); the IV-to-Steephill-to-NPE secondary market in 1990s-2000s imaging patents; and the very high settlement rate of this campaign — the Korean dataset shows 239 of roughly 275 resolved Cedar Lane cases (87%) ending in likely settlement, with no trials, no summary-judgment wins, and no plaintiff verdicts. On the defense side, it is a short-lived case with a fast, cheap exit: roughly 60 days from filing to dismissal, with no answer, no IPR, and no claim construction. I searched for any PTAB petition challenging the '242 and found none — no IPR, PGR, or CBM appears to have been filed against it by Thorlabs or anyone else — but that is a negative finding from public search rather than a confirmed docket negative.

Sourcing caveats. Docket entries are from the Justia docket and Patexia Research docket for 6:22-cv-00053 (docket last publicly refreshed in 2022); the complaint's exhibits, Thorlabs' motion-to-dismiss brief, and any order on it are not in the free record, so the substance of the dismissal and the identity of the accused products remain unverified. The D.N.J. refiling and its dismissal rest on third-party aggregators (KOTRA/Korean IP Protection Agency; Docket Alarm) and should be confirmed on PACER before being relied on in a filing. Cedar Lane's corporate history and litigation statistics come from RPX reporting and secondary compilations of Lex Machina data, not from primary court records in this case.

Bottom line

This was a short-lived, single-patent campaign case that never reached any merits ruling. Cedar Lane filed in W.D. Tex. on 2022‑01‑14, Thorlabs moved to dismiss three and a half weeks later, and Cedar Lane pulled the case under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — without prejudice — on 2022‑03‑15, roughly 60 days after filing, before Thorlabs ever answered. Cedar Lane then refiled against Thorlabs in Thorlabs' home district (D.N.J.) on 2022‑03‑25, adding the parent '790 patent; that case also terminated by voluntary dismissal. No Markman, no discovery of substance, no trial, no appeal, and no PTAB proceeding on the '242 that I can locate.

---

Chronology

---

Filing and initial pleadings

• The complaint was one of a large January 2022 wave of boilerplate filings by Cedar Lane, a Canadian NPE founded by attorney Greg Benoit. Cedar Lane's January 2022 complaints (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Texas Instruments, 6:22‑cv‑00047 (W.D. Tex.); Cedar Lane v. Phytech US, 1:22‑cv‑00054 (D. Del.)) asserted the same small family — the '527, '790 and '242 patents — with claim‑chart exhibits and no product-specific factual development. IPWatchdog's 2022‑01‑20 round‑up lists the '242 among the patents in this filing burst (docket numbers 1:22‑cv‑00050, ‑54, ‑58 against Epix, Phytech US and Snap) — [IPWatchdog](https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/01/20/patent-filings-round-claims-25-million-verdict-held-unpatentable-after-stay-denied-panel-denies

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

Let me pull the full docket and verify whether any co-counsel or local counsel appeared for Cedar Lane.

Now let me check the parallel D.N.J. refiling and verify Rabicoff Law LLC's details and any co-counsel.

Bottom line

Cedar Lane appeared through a single attorney of record in this case: Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC. No local counsel, no second plaintiff-side attorney, and no in-house counsel ever entered an appearance on the W.D. Tex. docket before the case was voluntarily dismissed roughly two months after filing.

---

Counsel of record — Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Isaac P. Rabicoff — details

• Role: Filed and signed the complaint (Doc. #1), the Rule 7.1 disclosure statement (Doc. #3), the AO 120 patent form (Doc. #5), the notice of agreed extension of Thorlabs' motion-to-dismiss response deadline (Doc. #10, Feb. 16, 2022), and the voluntary dismissal (Doc. #11, Mar. 15, 2022). He is the only attorney whose name appears on any Plaintiff-side filing in the docket.
• Firm: Rabicoff Law LLC — a small, plaintiff-side patent monetization boutique. The Alexandria, VA address appears on contemporaneous Cedar Lane filings (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Pantum, W.D. Tex., Nov. 8, 2021 signature block); the Chicago address is the one now listed in PACER/CourtListener party records for Rabicoff Law LLC. The firm appears to have relocated/added the Chicago office between 2021 and 2023.
• Patent litigation experience: Rabicoff is the architect and near-exclusive filer of Cedar Lane's nationwide assertion campaign — the '242 patent alone has been asserted in roughly 52 district court cases (D. Del., D.N.J., W.D. Tex., W.D. Pa., E.D.N.Y., N.D.N.Y., W.D. Wash., etc.), almost all resolved by voluntary dismissal, consent judgment, or transfer rather than trial. His practice is essentially volume patent assertion against end-users and electronics/peripherals makers.
• Notable adverse rulings: In Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Blackmagic Design Inc., No. 20-cv-01302-VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria sanctioned Rabicoff $1,000 under Rule 11 and the court's inherent authority, finding his positions "objectively frivolous" and taken in bad faith, denied his pro hac vice motion, and referred him to the N.D. Cal. Standing Committee on Professional Conduct (Order, Nov. 19, 2020). The Committee's final report (In re Isaac Rabicoff, No. 20-mc-80206-JD) documented an informal resolution requiring him to pay ~$9,193 in unpaid pro hac vice fees for 29 N.D. Cal. cases. A later N.D. Cal. filing quoted his own chart stating he had filed 49 patent cases in that district in just over two years. This history is directly relevant here, because no pro hac vice application appears on the Thorlabs docket even though Rabicoff is not a W.D. Tex.-based practitioner.

---

What is not on the docket (explicitly)

• No local counsel: No Texas firm entered an appearance for Cedar Lane, and no attorney besides Rabicoff signed any Plaintiff filing. This is notable because W.D. Tex. practice — particularly before Judge Albright — commonly features local counsel, and Local Rule AT-1 governs admission to the court's bar.
• No pro hac vice motion: The docket as retrieved (through Mar. 16, 2022) reflects no PHV application or admission order for Rabicoff. Combined with the N.D. Cal. fee history above, this is a point worth confirming on PACER if it matters to your analysis.
• No in-house/general counsel appearance: Cedar Lane (a Canadian NPE incorporated in 2019) never had in-house counsel of record; nothing in the filings suggests otherwise.
• No sealed or redacted counsel filings that would hide additional appearances — the docket is short (12 entries) and fully public.
• Timing: Case filed Jan. 14, 2022; Thorlabs moved to dismiss for improper venue (Doc. #8, Feb. 9, 2022, with the Regimbal declaration) and Cedar Lane voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on Mar. 15, 2022 (Doc. #11), one day before the extended response deadline — the AO 120 report went to the USPTO on Mar. 16, 2022. The case is closed, so there are no later appearances.
• Refiling: Cedar Lane re-filed against Thorlabs in D.N.J., No. 2:22-cv-01694 (filed Mar. 25, 2022) — asserting both the '242 patent and U.S. Patent 6,972,790 — which was also voluntarily dismissed. I did not independently verify the D.N.J. caption's counsel list from a primary docket source; given D.N.J.'s local-counsel practice, a New Jersey attorney may have appeared there, but I won't name anyone without a sourced docket entry.

---

Sourcing and confidence

Caveat: I did not access PACER directly (paywalled). The docket mirrors I used were last refreshed in March 2022, but because the case closed on Mar. 16, 2022, any later appearances are essentially impossible — the only residual risk is a post-dismissal withdrawal notice or sanctions/expungement-type entry that mirrors would have captured anyway.

I'll research Thorlabs' defense counsel in this case, starting with the docket record.

Found the key docket entries. Now let me verify Hintz's firm at the time, the Regimbal declaration, and the related 2019 case that appears in the record.

Now let me check whether Thorlabs used additional counsel (local counsel / PHV), and look at the D.N.J. refiling's defense team.

Bottom line

Thorlabs appeared through one attorney of record, and only one: John M. Hintz, then a shareholder in the New York office of Maynard Cooper & Gale, P.C. He signed the notice of appearance (Doc. 7), the Rule 7.1 disclosure (Doc. 9), and the motion to dismiss (Doc. 8) on the same day, February 9, 2022. No local counsel, no second defense attorney, and no pro hac vice motion ever appears on this docket — notable, because Hintz's own bar admissions include the Western District of Texas, so no PHV application was necessary. The only other name on the defense side is Robert P. Regimbal, Thorlabs' General Counsel and Chief Financial Officer, who is not counsel of record but the declarant whose declaration (Doc. 8-1, Ex. A) supported the dismissal motion — i.e., a client fact witness, not an advocate.

---

Counsel of record — Defendant Thorlabs, Inc.

Non-attorney of record / client representative

John M. Hintz — background and relevant experience

• Firm at the time of this case: Maynard Cooper & Gale, P.C. (Birmingham-headquartered; New York office opened October 2016 with Hintz as one of three founding IP shareholders). The firm combined with Nexsen Pruet in January 2023 to become Maynard Nexsen PC. Hintz has since moved to FBT Gibbons LLP (the Frost Brown Todd-affiliated firm), 1 Penn Plaza, Suite 4515, New York, NY 10119 — so if you are searching current conflicts or service addresses, the firm name has changed twice since this appearance.
• Bar admissions: Alabama and New York; admitted in the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, the Federal Circuit and Third Circuit, and the USPTO (Reg. No. 33510). The Texas admissions explain the absence of a PHV motion here.
• Experience: Nearly 40 years of IP litigation, essentially all patent; J.D., George Washington University (1988, cum laude); previously a partner at Fish & Neave (1988–2004) and at Rimon PC before joining Maynard Cooper in 2016. Litigated in federal courts nationwide and at the ITC.
• Most directly relevant credential: Hintz represented Thorlabs in the prior W.D. Tex. patent case brought by a different NPE, Optic153 LLC v. Thorlabs, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00667 (W.D. Tex.) — where he filed the appearance (Dec. 10, 2019), a Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue supported by a Regimbal declaration, a supplemental Regimbal affidavit on reply, and a PHV motion for Charles Quinn. That is a near-identical defense playbook to what he filed in Cedar Lane three years later, and it is strong circumstantial evidence that the Feb. 9, 2022 motion here was likewise a venue challenge, not a § 101 or Rule 12(b)(6) attack.
• Other notable matters: Served as Samsung's expert witness on U.S. patent law in the Samsung–Apple litigations in the Netherlands, France, Italy, Japan and Australia; expert witness on U.S. patent law in German and Japanese cellphone litigation. Best Lawyers — Litigation: Patent, 2013–2026, and "Lawyer of the Year," Patent Litigation, 2013; IAM Patent 1000 2014–2024; New York Super Lawyers IP Litigation 2006–2025. Recent docket activity includes Creative Dental Concepts, LLC v. Kerr Corp. (E.D. Tex. 2024) and FloodBreak, LLC v. T. Moriarty & Son, Inc. (E.D.N.Y. 2023).

---

What is not on the docket (explicitly)

• No local counsel. No Texas firm appeared for Thorlabs, even though W.D. Tex. practice before Judge Albright routinely features local counsel and Local Rule AT-1 governs bar admission.
• No pro hac vice motion and no admission order for Hintz — consistent with his existing W.D. Tex. admission. Compare the 2019 Optic153 case, where a PHV motion was filed (for Charles Quinn), showing Hintz knows the procedure and used it when needed.
• No in-house appearance. Regimbal (GC/CFO) never entered an appearance; his involvement was evidentiary only.
• No sealed or redacted filings that could conceal additional appearances — the entire docket is 12 entries and public.
• No answer, no counterclaims, no IPR counsel. Thorlabs' motion practice ended with Cedar Lane's voluntary dismissal (Doc. 11, Mar. 15, 2022); the AO-120 report went to the USPTO on Mar. 16, 2022 (Doc. 12).

---

Flag: characterization of the motion to dismiss

The previously generated "Key legal developments" section and the "Plaintiff representatives" section describe Doc. 8 as a motion to dismiss for improper venue. The docket text itself says only "MOTION to Dismiss Complaint for Patent Infringement," with the Regimbal declaration attached; the brief is not in the free record. The venue characterization is therefore inference, not a documented docket fact — but a well-supported one, given (i) the Regimbal declaration, whose 2019 counterpart was the venue affidavit, (ii) the identical Dkt. 8 / Ex. A structure in the 2019 Thorlabs case, and (iii) Cedar Lane refiling in Thorlabs' home district ten days later. I would keep the hedge in any filed version. (For context, I located an archived W.D. Tex. brief opposing a Thorlabs Rule 12(b)(3) venue motion — arguing that Thorlabs' Austin subsidiary, Thorlabs Scientific Imaging, gave it a regular and established place of business at 4120 Freidrich Lane — but the archive case ID is gov.uscourts.txwd.1068362, whose Doc. 10 does not match this docket; it is almost certainly from the 2019 Optic153 litigation and should be cited as an analogue, not as this case's record.)

---

Refiling in D.N.J. — defense counsel unverified

Cedar Lane refiled against Thorlabs in D.N.J., No. 2:22-cv-01694 (Judge Kevin McNulty; M.J. James B. Clark) on Mar. 25, 2022, asserting the '790 and '242. I could not verify Thorlabs' D.N.J. counsel from a primary or mirror docket — the case is documented only through Docket Alarm and the KOTRA/KIIP dispute record, neither of which lists appearances. Because D.N.J. practice calls for local counsel, a New Jersey attorney likely appeared there, plausibly drawn from the Maynard Cooper network, but I will not name anyone without a sourced entry. If that representation matters (e.g., for a Rule 4.2 or conflicts question), it needs a PACER pull of 2:22-cv-01694.

---

Sourcing and confidence

Method note: PACER is paywalled and was not queried directly; docket facts rest on the Justia and Patexia mirrors plus CourtListener for the related 2019 case, cross-checked against attorney-signed entries. The Justia page for 6:22-cv-00053 shows a "last retrieved March 10, 2022" stamp but does not display Docs. 11–12, which the Patexia mirror supplies.