Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Vantage Robotics, LLC

I'll research this case before writing.

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

Case Overview — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Vantage Robotics, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-01406 (D. Del.)

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a non-practicing entity — a Canadian company incorporated in 2019 and reported to be based in Nelson, British Columbia — that does not make or sell products and instead monetizes an acquired patent portfolio widely reported to derive from Intellectual Ventures divestitures (IAM, 20 Mar. 2023; KIPO NPE report; "NPE Showcase – Cedar Lane Technologies," 4 Oct. 2022). By the time it sued Vantage, Cedar Lane was the most litigious stand-alone plaintiff in the country: Unified Patents' 2022 Patent Dispute Report identified it as the top-filing entity of the year, and IAM/Docket Navigator reported roughly 367 cases and a settlement rate approaching 96% of terminated matters — i.e., a high-volume, low-cost licensing campaign rather than a merits-litigation practice. Cedar Lane's litigation history is not spotless: in Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Blackmagic Design Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2020), Judge Vince Chhabria sanctioned Cedar Lane and its then-counsel Isaac Rabicoff for positions taken "in bad faith" (per the NPE Showcase summary; the underlying order should be pulled directly before relying on the exact language). Defendant Vantage Robotics, LLC is an operating company — a Silicon Valley drone/UAS manufacturer (San Leandro, CA) whose products, including the Snap 4K camera drone and the later Vesper and Trace systems, serve defense, public-safety and ISR customers such as the U.S. Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, FBI, NASA and CNN; it is NDAA-compliant and Blue UAS–listed, and it holds U.S. Army Soldier Borne Sensor and micro-gimbal contracts (vantagerobotics.com; company profiles). In other words, this is a classic PAE-versus-small-operating-company mismatch: an entity with no products asserting expired imaging-interface patents against a hardware startup with government customers.

The patents and the accused technology. The complaint asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 ("Host interface for imaging arrays," inventor Mark Suska, filed 21 Jan. 2000, issued 6 Dec. 2005) and its continuation-style method patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242 (issued 17 Sept. 2013) — note that the case-tracking metadata for this matter lists only the '790, but the docket's D.I. 3 patent report and the complaint itself identify both. Technically, the family is narrow and old: the '790 claims an interface between an imaging array (e.g., a CMOS sensor) and a host processor, comprising a memory (preferably a FIFO) that stores image data at the sensor's clock rate, a signal generator that issues an interrupt or bus-request signal when the stored data reaches a threshold, and circuitry that then transfers data out at a processor-controlled rate — the interface preferably integrated on the same die as the sensor. The '242 claims the corresponding method: receiving image data from an imaging array, storing it in a FIFO, maintaining a FIFO counter, comparing the count to a FIFO limit, generating an interrupt, and transferring the data. Both were asserted in essentially "one-size-fits-all" form: the complaint identified no accused product by name, referring only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" charted in Exhibits 3 and 4, with purely conclusory infringement allegations (complaint analysis, 1:22-cv-01406, D.I. 1). Practically, the theory was that any drone with a modern image sensor and a sensor-to-processor data path reads on the claims. The '790 was Cedar Lane's workhorse, asserted in roughly 50 cases against camera, security, imaging and — notably — drone makers including Skydio, Boston Dynamics, Teal Drones and Autel Robotics, all sued in Delaware on the same day as Vantage (PatSnap litigation record for US6972790B2; IPWatchdog Patent Filings Roundup, 3 Nov. 2022).

Procedural posture and why it matters. Cedar Lane filed on 26 Oct. 2022 in the District of Delaware before Judge Richard G. Andrews, as part of a batch of roughly a dozen Delaware complaints filed that day (the assignment order references "Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-01402-UNA et al."). Delaware was a deliberate venue choice: Judge Andrews runs one of the country's most experienced patent dockets, and filing there let Cedar Lane put a well-known rocket-docket-adjacent judge in front of small, thinly capitalized defendants — a standard PAE pressure tactic. This particular case barely got off the ground, which is itself the story. Vantage was not served until 30 Jan. 2023 (D.I. 7), prompting Judge Andrews to issue an oral order on 27 Jan. 2023 requiring a status letter because more than 90 days had elapsed without a returned summons (D.I. 6). Cedar Lane then voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on 22 Mar. 2023 (D.I. 10), with the dismissal so ordered the same day (D.I. 11) — 147 days after filing, with no answer, no claim construction and no merits ruling (PatSnap; Patexia docket). Cedar Lane refiled four days later against "Vantage Robotics, Inc." as No. 1:23-cv-00336 (D. Del.), and that case was dismissed with prejudice, each side bearing its own costs and fees, on 31 Oct. 2023 — the only substantive "outcome" in the record. The case is therefore most useful as a data point on Cedar Lane's 2022 Delaware surge and on how quickly these suits were cycled in and out of court rather than as a vehicle for any ruling on imaging-array interface claims. Two caveats worth flagging: (1) I did not locate any IPR, PGR or CBM challenging the '790 in my searches, and PatSnap's record shows no listed validity challenge, but this should be confirmed against PTAB P-TACTS before being stated as fact; and (2) the '790's term is reported as expiring around August 2023 (accounting for PTA), which would have eliminated most forward-looking damages and likely explains the rapid retreat — the exact expiry should be recomputed from the face of the patent and its prosecution history. I also could not verify in these searches the original assignee of the '790 or Vantage's state of organization (the basis for Delaware residency); both remain unsourced.

I'll research this case across the sources you named, starting with parallel searches on the docket and the parties.

Initial results show a voluntary dismissal in the first case and a refiling. Let me verify the dockets and check for PTAB proceedings on the asserted patents.

Now let me confirm the dockets directly and probe for any PTAB challenges to these two patents.

Bottom line

This is not a litigated patent case — it is a two-round, file-and-fold campaign with no merits adjudication at any stage. Cedar Lane filed, never served promptly, dismissed before any answer, refiled against a differently-named Vantage entity four days later, and then dismissed that second case with prejudice roughly seven months later. There is no answer, no counterclaim, no motion practice of substance, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, and — on my search — no PTAB proceeding on either asserted patent.

Important correction to the case metadata: the "Pending – Other Pending" status is stale. Case 1:22-cv-01406 terminated on 2023-03-22. (docket)

Also note the metadata lists only the '790 patent, but the complaint asserted both U.S. 6,972,790 and U.S. 8,537,242 — D.I. 3, the Report to the Commissioner of Patents, names both. (Justia docket)

---

Chronology

Round 1 — Cedar Lane Techs. v. Vantage Robotics, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-01406-RGA (D. Del.)

Round 2 — Cedar Lane Techs., Inc. v. Vantage Robotics, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00336-RGA (D. Del.)

Verbatim termination text as recorded for 23-336:

"Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby provides notice that it dismisses with prejudice all claims by Plaintiff against Defendant Vantage Robotics, Inc. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees."

---

Stage-by-stage

Filing & initial pleadings. D.I. 1 was a short-form complaint of the type Cedar Lane used across hundreds of filings: it pleaded infringement in conclusory terms and incorporated by reference external claim charts (Exs. 3–4) rather than alleging element-by-element facts in the body. The complaint did not identify accused products by name. There was no answer and no counterclaim in either case — Vantage never appeared substantively, and therefore never had a vehicle for invalidity or non-infringement counterclaims.

Pre-trial motions. None of substance. No Rule 12 motion, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no stay pending IPR (there was no IPR to stay for), no summary judgment motion. The only motions on either docket were plaintiff's extensions of time to respond/answer (D.I. 9 in round 1) — procedural housekeeping driven by Cedar Lane's own delay, not by Vantage.

Markman. Never reached. No claim construction or scheduling order appears in the record.

Discovery. No discovery milestone of any kind. The Rule 26(f) conference, ESI order, and protective order that would ordinarily follow an answer never occurred. The strategically significant "discovery" fact is the negative one: Vantage never had to produce source code or technical documents, and Cedar Lane never had to substantiate its infringement theory beyond the paper charts.

Trial, verdict, post-trial motions. None. No JMOL, new trial, or § 285 fee motion. The 23-336 dismissal expressly allocated costs and fees to be borne by each side, foreclosing a fee motion.

Disposition. Round 1: voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on 2023-03-22 — reported as without prejudice (PatSnap), and corroborated as a matter of practice by the fact that Cedar Lane refiled the identical claims four days later, which a with-prejudice dismissal would have barred. Round 2: voluntary dismissal with prejudice on 2023-10-31, each party bearing its own costs. That is the operative final disposition as to Vantage. No appeal was taken and no judgment on the merits exists.

Why two rounds? The most plausible explanation is a wrong-entity problem: the 2022 suit named Vantage Robotics, LLC and drew a 90-day-plus service failure and a show-cause order from Judge Andrews, then was dismissed and refiled against Vantage Robotics, Inc. I have not found a source stating that entity correction was the reason, so treat this as inference, not established fact.

---

Parallel PTAB proceedings

I found none. My searches of PTAB-related sources for IPR/PGR activity on U.S. 6,972,790 or U.S. 8,537,242 returned no petition, institution decision, or final written decision. This is consistent with the record: both cases were dismissed before any defendant had an incentive or a deadline to petition, and Vantage never even appeared.

Two caveats: (1) I could not complete an exhaustive PTAB docket sweep before hitting search limits, so I would not represent this as a confirmed negative — a direct Docket Navigator / PTAB docket check is warranted; (2) the absence of PTAB activity is not because these patents were untouchable — Cedar Lane asserted them in dozens of suits (52 cases on record for the '790 alone, per PatSnap's litigation dataset) and still drew no observed validity challenge here.

Timing point that likely drove the outcome: patent-record data reports the '790 patent's estimated expiry as 2023-08-01 (filed 2000-12-21, issued 2005-12-06, with term adjustment), and the '242 patent is a divisional sharing a 2000-01-21 priority

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

Bottom line

Only one attorney is documented as counsel of record for Cedar Lane Technologies in D. Del. 1:22-cv-01406: David W. deBruin of Gawthrop Greenwood, PC (Wilmington, Delaware), who filed the complaint, the Rule 7.1 disclosure, and the notice of voluntary dismissal. No pro hac vice admissions, no co-counsel appearances, and no in-house counsel appear on this docket. Third-party databases that list Napoli Shkolnik LLC as plaintiff's firm for this case are, in my assessment, unreliable — the supporting evidence points to the refiled case (1:23-cv-00336), and even there Napoli Shkolnik filed a letter withdrawing from Cedar Lane's Delaware counsel team.

---

Counsel of record — Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

That is the complete set of plaintiff-side appearances reflected in the public record for this case.

---

What the record shows, and what it does not

Documented appearances. The complaint (D.I. 1, filed 10/26/2022) was filed by Cedar Lane with attachments including an "Appearance of Counsel" form (D.I. 1, Ex. 6) — the standard Delaware form filed by local counsel, consistent with deBruin. The remaining docket activity for the plaintiff (D.I. 3 PTO report, D.I. 4 Rule 7.1 disclosure, D.I. 5 summons, D.I. 10 notice of voluntary dismissal) was all submitted by deBruin. Justia, UniCourt, and Patexia all list deBruin as the sole "Plaintiff Attorney"/"Represented By" entry. Justia docket · Patexia document list

No pro hac vice activity. The docket closed at 11 entries. There is no motion for pro hac vice admission, no notice of appearance by out-of-state counsel, and no entry of appearance by Isaac P. Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago) — who is Cedar Lane's principal national counsel in most of its other suits (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Resemble AI, N.D. Ill. 2:26-cv-00042) — or by any Napoli Shkolnik attorney. Because the case was dismissed pre-answer, none of them ever needed to appear. Caveat: I could not pull the raw PACER docket image (filings here are not sealed, but I hit access limits); the absence of PHV filings rests on the aggregated docket listings rather than a PACER PDF.

The "Napoli Shkolnik" attribution — treat with caution. PatSnap's case page for 1:22-cv-01406 lists "Napoli Shkolnik LLC" as plaintiff's firm. That is not corroborated by the docket, and the traceable evidence cuts the other way: in the refiled action, Cedar Lane Techs. v. Vantage Robotics, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00336 (D. Del.), D.I. 9 (May 17, 2023) is a "Letter to Judge Richard G. Andrews, from Paul J. Napoli, Esq., regarding dissociation of Napoli Shkolnik LLC from Plaintiff's counsel." So Napoli Shkolnik was at most transiently affiliated with Cedar Lane's Delaware filings in early 2023 and affirmatively dissociated. I would not list Paul J. Napoli or Napoli Shkolnik as counsel of record in 22-1406 without a docket entry showing it — and I found none.

In-house counsel: none disclosed. Cedar Lane's Rule 7.1 disclosure (D.I. 4) lists no parent/affiliates and identifies no in-house attorney; nothing on the docket suggests an in-house appearance.

---

Procedural context that affects the counsel picture

The case metadata's "Pending – Other Pending (Dec. 2022)" status is now stale and should be corrected:

• D.I. 10 (Mar. 22, 2023) — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by deBruin.
• D.I. 11 (Mar. 22, 2023) — "SO ORDERED Granting 10 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (***Civil Case Terminated)." Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews. Dismissal was under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), i.e., without prejudice.
• Cedar Lane then refiled against the correct entity, Vantage Robotics, Inc., as No. 1:23-cv-00336 (D. Del., filed Mar. 26, 2023, also before Judge Andrews), adding U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242 alongside the '790 patent. That case was dismissed with prejudice by Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice on Oct. 31, 2023, each side bearing its own costs — again with deBruin as the filing attorney on the plaintiff's side, and with the Napoli Shkolnik dissociation letter at D.I. 9.

Sources: Justia 23-cv-00336 docket · Patexia 23-cv-00336 summary · Stanford NPE database, '790 patent

---

Reliability notes

• High confidence: deBruin as sole counsel of record at Gawthrop Greenwood, Wilmington; his firm address/phone (verified from his CourtListener party record in the parallel Fantasia Trading case); the March 22, 2023 dismissal.
• Moderate confidence: deBruin's characterization as "lead counsel" — the D. Del. docket for this case doesn't use the "LEAD ATTORNEY" flag in the sources I could retrieve; I am importing that designation from his CourtListener party record in a companion Cedar Lane case, where he is expressly flagged as lead.
• Low confidence / not adopted: the Napoli Shkolnik firm attribution; any suggestion that Rabicoff or other Cedar Lane national counsel appeared here.
• Not verified: deBruin's specific patent-trial track record beyond his role as Cedar Lane's repeat Delaware counsel; I found no reported opinion or trial result attributable to him in a patent case, and I have not fabricated one.

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

Initial results suggest the defendant may never have appeared. Let me verify against the RECAP docket and the related refiled case.

The docket shows no defense appearance. Let me verify this conclusively and check whether an appearance was ever filed in the related refiled case.

Bottom line

There is no counsel of record for Vantage Robotics, LLC in this case — no attorney ever entered an appearance for the defendant. I cannot give you names, firms, or roles because the public record contains none, and I will not invent them. This is a verified negative, not a research gap: the docket's own mechanics prove no defense appearance occurred.

What the docket shows (1:22-cv-01406, D. Del., Judge Richard G. Andrews)

The complete docket consists of 12 entries, and every attorney-signed filing is plaintiff-side:

Source: Patexia docket for 1:22-cv-01406; UniCourt docket summary.

Why this is conclusive, not merely "unconfirmed"

The dismissal was taken under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — a dismissal as of right, which is available only "before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment." Cedar Lane's ability to self-execute the dismissal on 2023-03-22, without any defense joinder or court order on the merits, is affirmative proof that Vantage had not appeared, answered, or moved in the action. An appearance would also have generated a CM/ECF entry (D.I. 10 would have been the notice, not an earlier appearance), and none exists on this 12-entry docket.

Practically: Vantage appears to have handled the demand outside the litigation track — Cedar Lane then dismissed and re-filed a corrected version (see below), a signature pattern in the Cedar Lane / IP Edge campaign of dismissing before answer to avoid a prevailing-defendant fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

Contrast: plaintiff's counsel (for completeness only)

• David W. deBruin — sole attorney of record for Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.; signed every filing. D. Del. local counsel; the firm of record was Napoli Shkolnik LLC (per third-party litigation databases). Note that in the companion case, Paul J. Napoli filed a letter regarding Napoli Shkolnik's dissociation from plaintiff's counsel (D.I. 9 in 1:23-cv-00336, 2023-05-17).

Related cases — where defense counsel might actually be found

• Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Vantage Robotics, Inc., 1:23-cv-00336 (D. Del.) — refiled 2023-03-26 against the corporate affiliate (note: "Inc.," not "LLC"), same two patents. Served 3/29/2023; answer reset to 6/5/2023 on plaintiff's unopposed motion. The publicly retrieved docket (last pulled 2023-05-17) still shows no defense appearance. The case was terminated 2023-10-31 by voluntary dismissal with prejudice, each side bearing its own fees — language that again suggests resolution without a litigated answer. Caveat: I could not retrieve the full late-2023 docket for this case, so I cannot rule out an appearance after May 2023. Justia docket; PatSnap summary.
• Iron Bird LLC v. Vantage Robotics, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00213 — a 2025 patent suit naming Vantage as defendant. This is the case most likely to have live defense counsel of record, but I have not verified who appeared. Justia party search.

Two research traps I want to flag

1. "McAndrews Held & Malloy, Ltd." (Chicago) appears in third-party litigation databases tied to this matter, but the label is "prosecution counsel" — i.e., the firm that prosecuted the '790/'242 family, not litigation counsel for Vantage. Do not cite it as defense counsel. PatSnap party table.
2. The case-status metadata in your prompt is stale. "Pending – Other Pending as of Dec. 2022" reflects a December 2022 snapshot (UniCourt's crawl date of 2022-12-25). The case has been closed since 2023-03-22. Any summary built on the December 2022 status is roughly four months behind the actual docket and misses both service and termination.

To close the gap definitively

Pull the PACER docket report for 1:22-cv-01406 directly (D. Del. CM/ECF, ~$3) and confirm the party/attorney "appearances" filter is empty for defendant; then pull the full 2023 docket for 1:23-cv-00336 through its 10/31/2023 termination. If you need a named human being, the 2025 Iron Bird docket is the correct place to look — not this one.

Not sourced / unknown: any in-house Vantage counsel; any demand-letter or settlement correspondence; any defense-side engagement that never appeared on a docket. None of that is in the public record, and I have not speculated about it.