Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Videology Imaging Solutions Inc.

I'll research this case and its context before writing the overview.

Let me dig into the patent itself, the parallel cases, and any PTAB proceedings.

Now let me verify the patent's expiration/term and check for PTAB proceedings, plus counsel details.

Case Overview — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Videology Imaging Solutions Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00157-RGA (D. Del.)

The parties. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a non-practicing entity — a Canadian company (Nelson, British Columbia, per its recorded USPTO assignments) incorporated in 2019 by Greg Benoit, a lawyer with a background in patent monetization. Cedar Lane does not make or sell anything; it assembles portfolios of acquired patents, largely sourced from Intellectual Ventures entities, and licenses them through litigation. By early 2022 its first campaign had passed 150 defendants (RPX via Mondaq, Jan. 31, 2022); a Chinese IP-protection-center risk alert put its total U.S. filings at roughly 325, noted that it was the most frequent patent plaintiff in the U.S. in 2021, and reported a 96% settlement rate among terminated cases (Shenzhen IP Protection Center, Oct. 2022; IAM interview with Greg Benoit, Mar. 20, 2023). Cedar Lane's Delaware filings in this period used local counsel David W. deBruin, while most of its volume work ran through Isaac Rabicoff's firm, largely in W.D. Tex. Defendant Videology Imaging Solutions Inc. is the opposite kind of company: a genuine operating manufacturer of video cameras, based in Greenville, Rhode Island, in business since 1991, making OEM board and housed cameras, USB 2.0 camera families and dome cameras for machine-vision, biometrics, badging, surveillance, industrial and medical-imaging customers, with a European arm in Uden, Netherlands (Videology capabilities brochure). Its Rule 7.1 disclosure stated no parent or affiliate (D.I. 8). (Note: do not conflate Videology Imaging Solutions with "Videology, Inc.," an unrelated Delaware ad-tech company.)

The accused technology and the patents. The complaint was filed with six exhibits — the patents and claim charts — and, consistent with Cedar Lane's template of that era, targeted Videology's camera products rather than any particular service; the operative claim charts are not publicly available in the docket extract I could access, so the precise accused models cannot be confirmed from public sources. The Form AO-120 patent report in this case lists three patents — U.S. 6,473,527, 6,972,790 and 8,537,242 (D.I. 12) — even though case-tracking metadata identifies only the '527 as at issue, so treat the '790/'242 assertions here as docket-supported but not independently confirmed. The '527 patent ("Module and method for interfacing analog/digital converting means and JPEG compression means"), inventor Chia-Ying Wang, originally assigned to Mustek Systems Inc. of Hsinchu, Taiwan, filed June 1, 1999 and issued Oct. 29, 2002 with 11 claims, claims an interface circuit between an A/D converter and a JPEG codec that buffers only a few image lines (e.g., eight) and feeds 8×8 blocks directly into the codec's built-in block memory, eliminating a separate external RAM (US6473527). Independent claim 1 is written in means-plus-function form ("read control means," "memory means," "output control means"), which makes construction — and non-infringement — highly structure-specific. The companion patents, from a separate family with a common January 2000 priority, are '790 ("Host interface for imaging arrays," issued Dec. 2005) and its divisional '242 (issued Sept. 2013), both claiming an on-chip interface that buffers imaging-array data (a FIFO-type memory) and signals the host processor when a programmed amount of data has accumulated so the sensor and host can run at different rates (complaint analysis of the parallel Cedar Lane v. Teledyne case). Chain of title for the '527 runs Mustek → Intellectual Ventures (nunc pro tunc assignment executed Dec. 2018, recorded Jan. 2019) → Cedar Lane (executed May 3, 2019, recorded May 13, 2019) (USPTO Assignment Abstract of Title).

Procedural posture, venue and why the case matters. Cedar Lane filed on Feb. 3, 2022 in the District of Delaware; the case was assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews on Feb. 9, 2022 as a companion to Cedar Lane v. Magic Leap, No. 1:22-cv-00158-RGA, filed the same day on the '790/'242 patents. Videology was served Feb. 10, 2022, answered and counterclaimed with a jury demand on March 3, 2022 (D.I. 7), and moved in Neil J. McNabnay and Lance E. Wyatt pro hac vice (D.I. 9, granted the same

I'll research this case and the broader Cedar Lane litigation campaign.

Let me dig into the docket details, counsel, the companion case, and any PTAB challenges.

Executive snapshot

This was a short-lived, settlement-track NPE case. From complaint to dismissal with prejudice took 41 days, and the docket never reached any substantive motion practice — no Rule 12 motion, no transfer motion, no stay, no Markman, no discovery disputes, no summary judgment, no trial, no fee motion, no appeal. The legal-significance story here is almost entirely campaign-level (Cedar Lane's mass-filing model and the Delaware consolidation of its suits before Judge Andrews), not case-specific.

One flag on the record: the case metadata lists only U.S. Patent No. 6,473,527 as at issue, but the docket's AO-120 Patent/Trademark Report (D.I. 12, filed 2022-03-16; and the initial report at D.I. 3) lists three patents: 6,473,527; 6,972,790; and 8,537,242. I treat the metadata as controlling per my instructions but note the discrepancy because it materially changes the scope of what was asserted and, correspondingly, what the with-prejudice dismissal extinguished. (Source: PACER docket as mirrored at Unified Patents Portal and DocketBird; also IPWatchdog's docket roundup listing 6473527, 8537242, 6972790 for this case, IPWatchdog, 2022-02-11.)

---

Chronology

1. Filing — 2022-02-03 (D.I. 1)

• Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. filed a complaint for patent infringement with a jury demand against Videology Imaging Solutions Inc. in D. Del., with Exhibits 1–6 (the exhibits are the claim charts, incorporated by reference rather than pleaded in full — Cedar Lane's standard template). Filing fee $402; receipt ADEDC-3795195.
• Summons issued the same day. AO-120 form transmitted to the PTO listing 6,473,527; 6,972,790; 8,537,242.
• Cedar Lane filed its Rule 7.1 disclosure (no parent/affiliate — consistent with its status as a privately held Canadian NPE).

Context on the asserted family. The three patents are a single technical family acquired by Cedar Lane from Mustek Systems Inc. (Taiwan):

• '527 — "Module and method for connecting an analog/digital conversion device and a JPEG compression device," inventor Wang Chia-Ying, filed 1999-06-01, issued 2002-10-29, and (per a Chinese IP-protection-center risk alert) expired 2019-06-01. Independent claims 1 (module) and 8 (method) read on a line-buffer feeding a JPEG compressor's built-in memory.
• '790 — "Host interface for imaging arrays" (FIFO/threshold-interrupt interface integrated on the sensor die), issued 2005-12-06.
• '242 — divisional of the '790 application, same disclosure, issued 2013-09-17.
• Because '527 expired before suit, recovery would have been limited by the 35 U.S.C. § 286 six-year lookback (i.e., damages only for 2016–2019 conduct). (Source for the '527 prosecution/expiration data and the § 286 point: Shenzhen IP Protection Center risk alert, sziprs.org.cn, 2022-10-20 — a secondary source; I did not independently verify expiration against the USPTO Patent Center in this session.)

2. Service, assignment, and companion case — 2022-02-09 / 2022-02-10

• 2022-02-09: Case assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews with the express note of associated case 1:22-cv-00158-RGA. Per IPWatchdog's filing table, 22-158 is Cedar Lane v. Magic Leap, Inc., asserting the '242 patent and filed the same day. Judge Andrews was, by this point, the de facto clearinghouse for Cedar Lane's Delaware docket — a LexDana related-case list for a later Cedar Lane suit enumerates roughly fifty companion matters in D. Del. before him.
• 2022-02-10: Videology served; answer due 2022-03-03 (D.I. 6, filed 2022-02-11).

3. Answer and counterclaims — 2022-03-03 (D.I. 7)

• Videology answered, demanded a jury, and asserted counterclaims against Cedar Lane (D.I. 7, 10 pages). The counterclaim counts are not readable from the public docket text; given the standard defense package in this campaign they would be declaratory-judgment counts for non-infringement and invalidity (and possibly unenforceability). I have not verified the specific counts or theories — treat that as inference, not fact.
• Same day: Rule 7.1 disclosure (D.I. 8); motion for pro hac vice admission of Neil J. McNabnay and Lance E. Wyatt (D.I. 9), granted by Judge Andrews the same day (2022-03-03), with both added to the electronic noticing rolls. Delaware counsel of record filing for Videology was Jeremy Anderson; plaintiff's Delaware filings were signed by David W. deBruin. (I did not verify the firms of record for either side in this session and will not guess at them.)
• Notably, Videology did not move to dismiss, did not move to transfer, and did not file an IPR-based stay motion — the answer went in on the pleadings deadline with counterclaims, and the case was over thirteen days later.

4. Dismissal with prejudice — 2022-03-16 (D.I. 10–12)

• 2022-03-16: The parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal (D.I. 10). Judge Andrews SO ORDERED it the same day, dismissing with prejudice and terminating the case (D.I. 11). The AO-120 report to the PTO (D.I. 12) recited all three patents.
• No public settlement agreement, license, or covenant-not-to-sue was filed, and the financial terms are undisclosed. There is no indication in the docket of a Rule 41(a) voluntary dismissal by plaintiff alone — it was a stipulated dismissal, which in this campaign typically reflects a paid or no-cost license/standstill rather than a unilateral retreat.
• No motion for attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 was filed before termination, and no notice of appeal appears on the docket. The dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment, but nothing was appealed; the case is fully and finally concluded.

---

What did not happen (and why that is the point)

Mapping your checklist against the docket:

The entire docket is twelve entries, of which only three are contested-ish filings (answer/counterclaim, PHV motion, stipulation).

---

Parallel PTAB proceedings

I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against the '527, '790, or '242 patents. Multiple searches across PTAB/Patexia/Unified Patents dockets turned up no post-grant challenge to any of the three asserted patents, and consequently no stay motion and no estoppel effect in this case.

The only Cedar Lane PTAB proceeding my searches surfaced is on a different patent: Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., IPR2020-00006 (filed 2019-10-03; instituted on all challenged claims 2020-03-18; final written decision 2021-02-12; panel Christopher M. Kaiser, Norman H. Beamer, Scott B. Howard), involving U.S. Patent 7,173,177 (playlist UI patent asserted against Charter/Spectrum) — unrelated to the imaging-array family here. (Sources: Patexia IPR2020-00006 summary; Unified Patents insight, 2020-03-24.)

Strategic read: the absence of any PTAB challenge is consistent with (a) the patents being expired or near-expired, which caps exposure and depresses the ROI of a $300k+ IPR, and (b) a defense strategy of a fast, cheap nuisance-value resolution. Where defendants in this campaign did fight (e.g., the '177 patent), Cedar Lane's patents fared poorly at the Board — but that lever was never pulled against Videology.

---

Campaign-level context (the legally interesting layer)

• Cedar Lane is a Canadian NPE formed in 2019 by Greg Benoit, a lawyer with prior NPE experience; it held roughly 193 U.S. patents, 191 acquired, only ~22 then-active, and had filed on the order of 325 district court patent suits. It was reportedly the most prolific patent plaintiff in the U.S. in 2021. Its principal counsel in the Texas docket was Rabicoff Law LLC (Isaac Rabicoff); D. Del. filings ran through local counsel. (Source: Shenzhen IP Protection Center alert, 2022-10-20, citing Lex Machina data.)
• The same report puts the median time-to-settlement in Cedar Lane's China-defendant matters at ~77 days, with 9 of 10 closed by settlement. Videology's 41-day disposition is faster than that median — a lean, early-exit case even by Cedar Lane standards.
• The '527 patent alone had 124 prior district court suits attributed to it, which is the single best indicator of how this case was always going to end: the patent is a licensing

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

Let me pull the CourtListener docket for this specific case and check Cedar Lane's typical national counsel.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Bottom line: On this docket, exactly one attorney appeared for Cedar Lane — a Delaware local/lead counsel. No out-of-state plaintiff-side counsel ever moved pro hac vice, and no in-house lawyer appeared, before the case was dismissed with prejudice 41 days after filing.

1. David W. deBruin — Lead counsel of record (Delaware counsel)

Sources: D. Del. docket 1:22-cv-00157 (Doc. Nos. 1, 6, 10) as reproduced at https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Videology-Imaging-Solutions-Inc/ded-1:2022-cv-00157 and https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1:22-cv-00157; attorney/firm identification from CourtListener party records in the companion case Cedar Lane Techs. v. Snap Inc., 1:22-cv-00058 (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/62601280/parties/cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-snap-inc/).

2. What is not on the record — and one important caveat

• No pro hac vice motion by plaintiff. The only PHV papers in this case were filed by the defendant: D.I. 9, motion for appearance of Neil J. McNabnay and Lance E. Wyatt (Fish & Richardson, Dallas), granted 3/3/2022. There is no corresponding plaintiff-side PHV entry, so no out-of-state Cedar Lane lawyer was admitted in 1:22-cv-00157.
• Bragalone Conroy PC (Dallas) — unconfirmed for this case. Cedar Lane's national patent-enforcement team in this era was Jeffrey R. Bragalone and Nicholas C. Kliewer of Bragalone Conroy PC, 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4500W, Dallas, TX 75201, who appear as Cedar Lane-side counsel in contemporaneous PTAB and district court matters. Cedar Lane complaints in this campaign were commonly signed by Bragalone Conroy attorneys alongside Mr. deBruin. However, I could not verify the signature block of D.I. 1 in this particular case, and neither attorney appears on the 1:22-cv-00157 docket. Treat their involvement here as probable-but-unconfirmed; do not cite them as counsel of record in this case without pulling the complaint PDF from PACER.
• No in-house counsel for Cedar Lane appeared. Cedar Lane is a patent-assertion entity; IPWatchdog's filing roundup tagged it as an Intellectual Ventures-linked plaintiff, though that affiliation is a matter of secondary reporting rather than docket record.

3. Practical note for citation purposes

If you are citing "counsel of record" in a brief or memo, the accurate statement is: "Plaintiff was represented by David W. deBruin of Gawthrop Greenwood, PC." Anything broader (Bragalone Conroy, or a "lead trial counsel" designation) goes beyond what the 1:22-cv-00157 docket supports, because the case resolved on a stipulated dismissal with prejudice (D.I. 10–11, entered 3/16/2022) before any scheduling order, protective order, or trial-team appearances were entered — and before any plaintiff-side PHV admission.

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

I've found the docket counsel entries. Now let me identify their firms and roles.

Let me confirm the firms at the time of filing and check for any additional appearances.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Videology Imaging Solutions Inc.

Bottom line: Three attorneys appeared for Videology in this case — one Delaware counsel of record (who signed the answer and counterclaim) and two Fish & Richardson principals admitted pro hac vice on the same day the answer was filed. No in-house counsel appeared on the docket. All three were counsel of record when the case was dismissed with prejudice on March 16, 2022, only six weeks after filing.

1. Jeremy D. Anderson — Delaware counsel of record (local counsel; signed the substantive pleadings)

• Firm at the time: Fish & Richardson P.C., Delaware office — 222 Delaware Avenue, Wilmington, DE 19801.
• Docket footprint: Filed the Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim (D.I. 7, Mar. 3, 2022), the Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement (D.I. 8), and the pro hac vice motion (D.I. 9). Because D. Del. Local Rule 83.5(d) requires Delaware-registered counsel to file all papers, he was the sole ECF filer of record for Videology.
• Experience note: Long-time Fish principal (elevated 2014) whose practice spans patent, trade secret, and Chancery/commercial litigation; repeatedly named an IAM Patent 1000 "Leading Patent Professional" in Delaware and one of the most active defendant-side patent litigators nationally (Docket Navigator listed him with 48 defendant-side patent cases in 2021). Listed matters include Pfizer Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (D. Del.).
• Caveat on current affiliation: Public profiles now list a Jeremy D. Anderson as a partner at Baker & Hostetler LLP (BakerHostetler) in Wilmington, and his Fish team page appears to be a cached/legacy page. I could not verify the date of any move; treat "Fish & Richardson" as his firm as of this 2022 docket, and his current firm as unsettled/unconfirmed on my sources.

2. Neil J. McNabnay — pro hac vice, lead out-of-state counsel

• Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX — 1717 Main Street, Suite 5000, Dallas, TX 75201.
• Docket footprint: Named in the pro hac vice motion (D.I. 9), granted by Judge Andrews on March 3, 2022, with ECF noticing added the same day.
• Experience note: One of the most prolific patent-defense attorneys in the country — ranked #1 among attorneys representing defendants in new patent cases in Docket Navigator's 2021 review (148 cases) after being credited with 66 such cases in 2018. Career defense work includes the Clear With Computers/Orion IP campaign (dozens of retailer/manufacturer defendants), Constellation IP, MHL Tek v. Subaru, and Eolas v. Adobe/Go Daddy (E.D. Tex.). This matches Fish's standard rapid-response defense model for NPE suits, which is what this case looks like.

3. Lance E. Wyatt, Jr. — pro hac vice, supporting patent counsel

• Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX (same office).
• Docket footprint: Also named in D.I. 9 and admitted pro hac vice March 3, 2022. Elevated to Fish principal effective January 1, 2022 — i.e., roughly two months before this appearance.
• Experience note: Patent litigator with district-court, PTAB and prosecution practice; former law clerk to Judge Kara F. Stoll (Fed. Cir.) and Judge Gloria M. Navarro (D. Nev.). Credited with 44 defendant-side patent cases in 2021. Notable work includes Global eTicket Exchange v. Ticketmaster (W.D. Tex.) — defense verdict of non-infringement defeating a $112M damages demand — and numerous NPE defenses in D. Del., E.D. Tex., W.D. Tex., and D. Nev.

Notes, gaps, and sourcing

• No in-house counsel and no additional law-firm appearances appear on this docket; the entirety of the defense appearance activity is D.I. 7, 8, and 9 plus the March 3, 2022 text order. Nothing was sealed (the answer and disclosure statement are public docket entries), so there is no "sealed appearance" ambiguity here.
• The PHV motion was granted the same day it was filed and the case was dismissed 13 days later (D.I. 10 stipulation; D.I. 11 order granting dismissal with prejudice), so no deposition, claim construction, or IPR activity by this defense team is reflected in this case.
• Patent-count discrepancy worth flagging: the complaint (D.I. 1) and the Rule 21 Patent/Trademark Report (D.I. 12) list three patents — 6,473,527; 6,972,790; and 8,537,242 — while the case metadata for this summary lists only 6,473,527.
• Sources: D. Del. docket sheet for 1:22-cv-00157-RGA as mirrored by Unified Patents (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1:22-cv-00157), DocketBird (docketbird.com/court-cases/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Videology-Imaging-Solutions-Inc/ded-1:2022-cv-00157), and Patexia (services.patexia.com/lawsuits/...-id-161852/documents); firm bios at fr.com (McNabnay, Wyatt, Anderson legacy page) and bakerlaw.com; Law360 attorney pages for Wyatt; Fish press releases (Jan. 2022 elevation; 2021 Docket Navigator rankings; 2019 MIP rankings).
• Cedar Lane was represented by Delaware counsel David W. deBruin (he filed the summons return, D.I. 6, and the stipulation of dismissal, D.I. 10), included only for completeness since you asked about defendant's counsel.

Confidence: High on names, firms-as-of-2022, offices, and docket roles (all directly from the docket). Medium on Jeremy Anderson's current firm and any lateral move date — I recommend confirming against his current firm page or the D. Del. attorney roll before publishing that detail.