Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Unitech America, Inc.

I'll research this case across multiple sources before drafting the overview.

Now let me dig into the complaint specifics, the patent's provenance, and any PTAB activity.

Case Overview & Background

Parties. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian patent-holding company incorporated in British Columbia (principal place of business: 560 Baker Street, Suite 1, Nelson, BC) — the address recited in its complaints. Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies it as an "acquired patents" asserter, and it is openly described in trade reporting as a non-practicing entity. It does not make or sell products; it monetizes a portfolio acquired largely from Intellectual Ventures, and per reporting on Lex Machina's 2022 patent-litigation report, Cedar Lane was the single most active patent plaintiff in the U.S. in 2021 by number of new suits (secondary sources put its cumulative filings in the hundreds). Its litigation is handled in-house-style by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago), who appeared in this case (Doc. 2). Defendant Unitech America, Inc. is the U.S. sales/support arm of Unitech Electronics Co., Ltd. (Taiwan, founded 1979), an automatic identification and data capture (AIDC) manufacturer of rugged handheld terminals/PDAs, barcode scanners and RFID devices; Unitech's Rule 7.1 disclosure identified Unitech Electronics Co., Ltd. as its affiliate (Doc. 8). Unitech's U.S. footprint per its own product literature is Los Angeles, Houston and Guadalajara — an operating company, not a PAE.

The patent and accused technology. The sole asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 10,346,105 B2, "Method and system for communicating between a remote printer and a server" (issued July 9, 2019; originally assigned to Intellectual Ventures I LLC, now recorded to Cedar Lane). In one line: it claims a printer–server protocol in which a computing device receives data identifying characteristics of a remote printer over a network, then handles authentication and chunked print-data transfer with per-portion print confirmation. Claim 1, as Cedar Lane quoted it in a parallel suit, covers "receiving, by a computing device from a remote printer, data identifying one or more characteristics of the remote printer, wherein the computing device … is communicatively coupled to the remote printer via a network." The patent belongs to the large Flexiworld/IV mobile-printing family (which also includes U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,388,321; 7,958,205; 8,645,500; 9,448,750; and 9,983,836). Caveat on the accused product: the docket and the AO 120 form identify only the '105 patent, and I was not able to retrieve the complaint PDF itself; based on Cedar Lane's parallel use of this patent against mobile-printing implementations (e.g., HTC smartphones' Mopria-certified mobile printing, as charted in Cedar Lane v. HTC, W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00420) and Unitech's product line (rugged PDAs such as the PA600 advertising Bluetooth communication "with other devices, such as mobile printers"), the accused functionality is most likely Unitech's mobile/Bluetooth printing or networked printing capability in its handheld terminals. That inference is not confirmed from the record I reviewed.

Procedural posture and venue. Filed October 15, 2021 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas (No. 2:21-cv-00387) before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with the case later referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne (Nov. 18, 2021). Unitech answered, counterclaimed (Doc. 7), and on November 10, 2021 moved to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) (Doc. 6) — the standard post-TC Heartland challenge for a defendant with no regular and established place of business in the district. Nine days later the parties filed a stipulated dismissal (Doc. 11), and on November 22, 2021 Judge Gilstrap dismissed all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (Doc. 12). Total docket life: roughly five weeks, twelve docket entries, no scheduling order, no Markman, no discovery. Venue choice matters here not because the case was litigated but because it wasn't: E.D. Tex. (and neighboring W.D. Tex.) gave Cedar Lane a credible trial-date threat, and the immediate venue motion shows the pressure point defendants had. Notably, the dismissal was with prejudice — unusual for a pure venue retreat (which is normally dismissed without prejudice to refiling) — consistent with a negotiated resolution or license, though the docket does not disclose whether any payment or license occurred, and I could not verify the terms.

Why It's Notable

The case is a compact specimen of the 2021 NPE "file-fast, settle-fast" model rather than a merits dispute. It is one of a wave of near-simultaneous filings Cedar Lane made in autumn 2021 against AIDC/printing and consumer-electronics defendants — including Zebra Technologies (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-01035, filed October 5, 2021, dismissed with prejudice December 21, 2021) and HTC (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00420) — and the '105 was cycled across defendants including Azpen Innovation (E.D. Tex. 2:21-cv-00078), Lenovo (D. Del. 1:22-cv-00051) and later Bell-Mark (D.N.J. 2:24-cv-10453). Second, timing: third-party databases (Patsnap) estimate the '105's term as expiring around December 2022 — roughly a year after this suit — which fits the pattern of asserting aging IV-origin rights before expiry rather than building a test case. Third, on PTAB linkage, I found no inter partes review of the '105 patent in the sources reviewed; the best-documented PTAB event in this portfolio is Unified Patents' earlier challenge to a different Cedar Lane patent (the '790 "host interface for imaging arrays" patent, filed October 2019), so any IPR-based defense here appears to have been unavailable or unattractive — I flag this as not exhaustively verified against PTAB's docket. Practically, the case's significance is as a data point on Cedar Lane's volume strategy and on how quickly a well-counseled venue challenge plus a stipulated dismissal can clear a PAE suit off a district's docket.

Sources: PACER docket text as mirrored by Unified Patents' litigation portal and Patexia (docs. 1, 5–13, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2:21-cv-00387); Stanford NPE Litigation Database (Cedar Lane party page); LawStreetMedia, "HTC Sued for Alleged Infringement of Various Patents Including Remote Printing" (quoting '105 claim 1); Google Patents/Unified Patents patent record for US 10,346,105 B2; Patsnap litigation records for Cedar Lane and for 2:24-cv-10453 (patent family/expiry); Unitech PA500/PA600 and MS337 product literature (company profile and Bluetooth-printer feature). Facts I could not source and have flagged above: the specific accused Unitech product named in the complaint, the nature of Unitech's counterclaim, the terms or existence

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

The docket reveals this was a short-lived case. Let me dig into the specifics of the venue motion, the dismissal, and any PTAB activity on the '105 patent.

Now let me examine the venue motion's substance, the parties' details, and PTAB activity specific to the '105 patent.

Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Unitech America, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00387 (E.D. Tex.) — Legal Developments & Outcome

Bottom line: This was a 38-day case. It was filed 2021-10-15, answered with counterclaims and a Rule 12(b)(3) venue motion on 2021-11-10, and dismissed with prejudice by stipulation on 2021-11-22 before any discovery, claim construction, stay motion, or PTAB proceeding. There is no Markman ruling, no summary judgment practice, no trial, no fee motion, and no appeal. It is a textbook Cedar Lane "fast-settlement" file, not a litigated patent dispute.

---

1. Complete docket timeline

Sources: Unified Patents litigation portal, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2:21-cv-00387; Patexia docket, https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Unitech-America-Inc-id-[155998](/patent/155998)/documents (both reproducing PACER docket text with entry dates).

2. Filing and initial pleadings

• Complaint (2021-10-15). Cedar Lane asserted only the '105 patent — "Method and system for communicating between a remote printer and a server," which issued 2019-07-09 off application 15/989,511 (filed 2018-05-25). It is the last continuation in an Intellectual Ventures family (the specification traces to an IV application filed in 2011; priority runs to 2002), and it was assigned from Intellectual Ventures Assets LLC to Cedar Lane, per the recorded assignment (updated 2020-08-17), https://www.plainsite.org/patents/assignment.html?id=[10200135](/patent/10200135). The '105's claim 1 recites a computing device receiving, from a remote printer over a network, data identifying printer characteristics — in the campaign charting, Cedar Lane pointed to Mopria-certified mobile printing on smartphones (see the identical allegations in its HTC complaint, https://lawstreetmedia.com/news/tech/htc-sued-for-alleged-infringement-of-various-patents-including-remote-printing/).
• Cedar Lane's boilerplate in this campaign asked not just for infringement damages but for declaratory judgments that the '105 is valid and enforceable (confirmed in the parallel W.D. Tex. complaint against Zebra Technologies dated 2021-10-05, https://tonernews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/111-Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc.-v.-Zebra-Technologies-Corporation-111.pdf). That pleading posture invites DJ counterclaims, which is what Unitech filed.
• Answer + counterclaims + venue motion (2021-11-10). Unitech answered and counterclaimed, and simultaneously moved to dismiss for improper venue. Filing both on the same day was a Rule 12(h)/12(g) preservation tactic — the venue defense had to be in the first Rule 12 motion or the answer to avoid waiver. The corporate disclosure (Dkt. 8) identifies Unitech America as an affiliate of Taiwan-based Unitech Electronics Co., Ltd.
• Verification limit: the text of Dkt. 6 (venue motion), Dkt. 7 (answer/counterclaims), and Dkt. 11 (stipulation) is not available on free sources; only the docket descriptions are. So I cannot quote the specific § 1400(b) arguments, the counterclaim counts, or the settlement terms. What is confirmed is that the motion was captioned as a challenge to venue — which, post-TC Heartland/In re Cray, would have rested on Unitech not "residing" in E.D. Tex. and lacking a regular and established place of business there. I have not found any listing of a Unitech facility in the Eastern District of Texas, but I am flagging that as an inference rather than a sourced fact.

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

• Only one substantive motion was filed: the Rule 12(b)(3) venue motion (Dkt. 6). It was never briefed to decision and never ruled on — the case was dismissed eight court days later.
• No motion to transfer under § 1404(a), no motion to stay pending IPR, no motion for summary judgment, no motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and no § 101 motion. The case never reached a scheduling order; there is no scheduling-order entry anywhere on the docket.

4. Claim construction

None. No Markman briefing, no claim-construction hearing, no order. The case terminated roughly one month after filing, well before any E.D. Tex. claim-construction schedule (which in Gilstrap/Payne cases typically runs 10–14 months).

5. Discovery milestones

None of record. No Rule 26(f) conference order, no discovery disputes, no motions to compel, no protective-order motion, and no infringement or invalidity contentions appear on the docket. Strategically, that is the point: the defendant never had to produce source code, sales/revenue data, or licensing documents, and Cedar Lane never had to serve contentions that could be tested.

6. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial setting, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, no Rule 54(d) or § 285 fee motion, and no appeal to the Federal Circuit. The docket's last substantive entries are the dismissal order and the AO 120 termination form (2021-11-22).

7. Final disposition and present posture

• Dismissed with prejudice on 2021-11-22 by Judge Gilstrap's order (Dkt. 12), on the parties' Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation. Because a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation requires the signatures of all parties, and because a dismissal with prejudice of Cedar Lane's claims is not something a plaintiff gives away for nothing, the practical reality is that a **settlement/license (or a covenant not to sue)

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

Let me dig into the docket detail and Rabicoff's firm background.

Let me confirm the full docket for any additional plaintiff counsel and the case disposition.

Bottom line

Only one attorney appeared for Cedar Lane Technologies in this case: Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC. He signed and filed the complaint, filed the Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure, and filed the stipulation of dismissal. No local E.D. Tex. counsel, no second firm, and no in-house counsel appear on the docket. Nothing in this case was sealed.

---

Counsel of record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Experience note: Rabicoff is Cedar Lane's near-exclusive outside counsel and one of the most prolific patent plaintiffs' filers in the country — reporting roughly 50+ Cedar Lane matters himself and described in third-party analyses as counsel in dozens of Cedar Lane suits; he is USPTO Reg. No. 74,147, licensed in Illinois (2013) and Virginia (2019), and also handles PTAB work (e.g., lead counsel for patent owner in Inter IKEA Systems v. Pointwise Ventures, IPR2025-00798). His track record includes a significant blemish directly relevant to this client relationship: in Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Blackmagic Design Inc., No. 20-cv-01302-VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria sanctioned him $1,000 under Rule 11 and the court's inherent authority, denied his pro hac vice motion, and referred him to the N.D. Cal. Standing Committee on Professional Conduct for serial filing without seeking admission (Doc. 61, Nov. 19, 2020). The Standing Committee's final report (Jan. 24, 2022) resolved the referral with an agreed payment of $9,193 in unpaid pro hac vice fees, paid by Feb. 2022; the Illinois ARDC closed its related file in July 2022 with a caution letter.

---

What the docket shows (and doesn't)

• Case No. 2:21-cv-00387-JRG, assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap; referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 11/18/2021. Filed 10/15/2021; complaint with 6 exhibits asserting U.S. Patent 10,346,105.
• Defendant Unitech America, Inc. appeared through Lance E. Wyatt, Neil J. McNabnay, and Ricardo Joel Bonilla (Fish & Richardson — the firm that has represented co-defendants in related Cedar Lane matters), answered, counterclaimed, and moved to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) on 11/10/2021 (Doc. 6).
• Cedar Lane stipulated to dismissal, and on 11/22/2021 Judge Gilstrap entered an order dismissing all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (Doc. 12) — i.e., the venue motion was never decided.
• No separate local counsel for Plaintiff appears in the E.D. Tex. docket, which is unusual for this district but consistent with Rabicoff's practice of appearing alone. I found no pro hac vice motion for Rabicoff in this case, which suggests he was already admitted to the bar of the E.D. Tex. (or that the issue was never litigated because the case resolved in ~5 weeks); I could not confirm his E.D. Tex. admission status from a primary source.

Caveats

• The foregoing is built from the PACER-derived docket mirrors (Unified Patents litigation portal, Patexia, CourtListener/Justia) rather than a direct PACER pull; the appearance and dismissal entries are consistent across all of them, but I did not view the signature blocks of the complaint PDF itself except as reflected in the excerpts.
• No sealed filings, no in-house counsel appearance, and no additional plaintiff-side firms were identified. If Cedar Lane used engagement counsel behind the scenes (as NPEs sometimes do), that would not appear on this docket.
• Rabicoff's current firm address is from CourtListener party records for his 2025–2026 Cedar Lane filings; his address at the time of this 2021 filing was the Chicago Monroe Street address.

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

Good — the docket shows three defense attorneys. Let me confirm their firms and roles.

Let me verify the full docket/party record and check whether any other counsel appeared.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Unitech America, Inc.

Bottom line: Three attorneys appeared for Unitech, all from the Dallas office of Fish & Richardson P.C. Lance Wyatt is the only defense attorney whose name appears on the substantive filings (the Answer/Counterclaim and the Rule 12(b)(3) venue motion), so he was the de facto lead, with principals McNabnay and Bonilla entering appearances the same day.

No local counsel, no in-house counsel, and no other firm appears on the docket. No defense-side filing in this case is sealed — the substantive papers (Dkt. 6, 7, 8) were filed publicly.

Experience notes

• Lance Wyatt — Patent litigator with an E.D. Tex./W.D. Tex./D. Del. practice; clerked for Judge Kara F. Stoll (Fed. Cir.) and Judge Gloria M. Navarro (D. Nev.); part of the Fish team that won a non-infringement jury verdict for Live Nation/Ticketmaster in Global eTicket Exchange Ltd. v. Ticketmaster (W.D. Tex.), defeating a claimed ~$112M damages award. He was a Fish associate in November 2021 and was elevated to Principal effective January 1, 2022 (Fish press release, 1/5/2022), which is consistent with an associate handling a short-lived NPE case. (fr.com/team/lance-wyatt)
• Neil J. McNabnay — Fish Principal and one of the most prolific patent-defense attorneys in the country; former law clerk to Chief Judge A. Joe Fish (N.D. Tex.); decades of E.D. Tex. NPE defense work (e.g., Clear With Computers, Unified Messaging Solutions, ArrivalStar, LBS Innovations). Docket Navigator's 2021 year-in-review ranked him #1 among attorneys representing patent defendants (148 cases). (fr.com/team/neil-j-mcnabnay; Fish news, "Fish Tops List of Most Active Firms…")
• Ricardo J. Bonilla — Fish Principal (associate in 2021) with a Federal Circuit-heavy § 101/§ 285 track record: affirmance of invalidity plus fees in Inventor Holdings v. Bed Bath & Beyond; affirmance of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals in Mantis Communications v. Baskin-Robbins, BSG Tech v. Buyseasons, NexRF v. Playtika, and venue/12(b) dismissal in Modern Font Applications v. Peak Restaurant Partners. Ranked #2 on the same Docket Navigator 2021 defendants list (106 cases). (fr.com/team/ricardo-bonilla)

Procedural context worth flagging

• Cedar Lane (through Isaac Phillip Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago) filed the complaint in E.D. Tex. on 10/15/2021 (Dkt. 1); Unitech answered and counterclaimed and simultaneously moved to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) on 11/10/2021 (Dkt. 6–7) — a venue challenge rather than the § 101 motion typical of Fish's Cedar Lane defense playbook.
• The venue motion was never ruled on: the parties stipulated to dismissal (Dkt. 11, 11/19/2021), and Judge Rodney Gilstrap dismissed all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on 11/22/2021 (Dkt. 12), with the AO 120 form filed at termination (Dkt. 13). The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 11/18/2021 but no substantive referral activity occurred. Total pendency: ~5 weeks.
• Unitech's Rule 7.1 disclosure (Dkt. 8) identified affiliate Unitech Electronics Co., Ltd. (the Taiwan parent).
• Sourcing caveat: I reconstructed the docket from the Unified Patents litigation portal and Patexia Research's docket reproduction rather than a live PACER pull. Those reproductions list the three appearances above; I cannot rule out that additional Fish attorneys were named inside the body of the Notice of Appearance PDFs (Dkt. 9–10) without being indexed in the docket text. I also found no PTAB proceeding filed by Unitech against U.S. Patent 10,346,105, but I did not exhaustively verify that.