Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Videotec Security, Inc.

I'll research this case and Cedar Lane's broader campaign before drafting.

Case Overview

Parties. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian non-practicing entity, not an operating company. Corporations Canada records show it was incorporated in April 2019 in British Columbia (Nelson, BC; 560 Baker St.), with Gregory Benoit as sole director — a former Nortel and Alcatel‑Lucent IP professional who now runs Patent Armory, a patent-monetization consultancy (The Logic). Its portfolio is overwhelmingly acquired paper: a Chinese IP-protection-center analysis reports 193 U.S. patents, 191 of them acquired and only 22 then active, with roughly 325 suits filed by early 2023 (Shenzhen IP Protection Center risk advisory). IAM profiled Cedar Lane as America's top-filing NPE, noting a 96% settlement rate among terminated cases and a strong W.D. Tex. preference; its counsel of record here, Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Alexandria, VA), is the same lawyer on most of those filings (IAM, 20 Mar. 2023; Justia docket; Patsnap case record). Defendant Videotec Security, Inc. is the U.S. arm of Videotec S.p.A., an Italian video-surveillance manufacturer founded in 1986 and headquartered in Schio (Vicenza), which builds ruggedized and explosion-proof PTZ cameras, stainless-steel marine/offshore housings, LED illuminators and on-board video analytics for oil & gas, ports and critical-infrastructure perimeter security; its U.S. subsidiary is listed at 35 Gateway Drive, Suite 100, Plattsburgh, N.Y. (Clinton County) (asmag supplier profile; SDM, PSA partnership announcement). In short: a serial NPE versus a small, genuinely manufacturing foreign OEM's U.S. affiliate

I'll research this case across multiple sources. Let me start with broad searches.

The docket here is notably short. Let me verify the docket details and check for PTAB proceedings on the asserted patents.

Let me dig into the defendant, the unusual venue, and any related litigation history.

Case roadmap: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Videotec Security, Inc., No. 8:23-cv-00037 (N.D.N.Y.)

Bottom line up front: this case is a 21-day "file-and-fold" — a complaint filed 2023-01-10, a notice of voluntary dismissal filed the very next day (2023-01-11), and an order closing the case on 2023-01-31. There was no answer, no counterclaim, no motion practice, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, no appeal, and no PTAB proceeding that I could locate on the asserted patents. The dominant legal development is the absence of contested proceedings, plus a metadata discrepancy about how many patents were actually asserted.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• Assigned judges: Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn (presiding) with Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart referred. (Justia docket)
• Plaintiff's counsel: Isaac Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC (Alexandria, VA) — Cedar Lane's long-time sole/trial counsel.
• Answer / counterclaims: None. The docket, last retrieved 2023-02-02, shows no appearance by defendant, no answer, no Rule 12 motion, and no counterclaim. The case closed before the answer deadline was even set by service.
• Patent-count discrepancy — flag this. Your case metadata lists only 6,473,527. The docket is explicit that three patents were asserted: the AO-120 reports at Dkts. 2 and 8 list '527, '790 and '242, and the complaint carried five exhibits (consistent with Cedar Lane's standard three-patent, multi-exhibit chart package). Third-party litigation databases likewise record this case as a 3-patent case (Patsnap; KOTRA/KIIP record). I would treat the three-patent set as the operative record and correct the metadata.

Why N.D.N.Y.? This was not a stray filing. Videotec Security, Inc. is a New York domestic business corporation in Clinton County, with its principal office at 35 Gateway Drive, Suite 100, Plattsburgh, NY 12901 — squarely in N.D.N.Y. It was formed 2013-01-10 as "Videotec Security USA, Inc." and renamed 2013-03-13; it is the U.S. arm of the Italian video-surveillance manufacturer Videotec S.p.A. (Schio, Italy). (NY DOS entity record; D&B listing) So venue and personal jurisdiction were proper and the choice of forum was defendant-specific.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None. No motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, no summary judgment motion, no sanctions motion. The case did not survive long enough for any of these. Notably, the G.O. 25 conference date (2023-04-10) and disclosure deadline (2023-04-03) were mooted by the dismissal order.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Did not occur. No scheduling order ever issued beyond the G.O. 25 form, no claim construction briefing or hearing, no Markman order. Cedar Lane's boilerplate complaints in this campaign did preview the likely battleground — the '527 patent's means-plus-function limitations ("read control means," "memory means," "output control means," § 112(f), with corresponding structure in Fig. 2 read control device 22 / memory 24 / output control device 23) — but nothing was ever litigated here. (Complaint analytics on the parallel '527 pleadings)

4. Discovery milestones

None. No Rule 26(f) conference, no initial disclosures, no written discovery, no depositions, no expert reports. The only discovery-adjacent deadline (2023-04-03 mandatory disclosures) never arrived.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial date, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, no § 285 fee motion, no bill of costs.

6. Final disposition

• Present posture: closed, dismissed without prejudice, 21 days after filing. No appeal was taken; no reopening or refiling by Cedar Lane against Videotec appears on the docket.
• Procedural note worth making in any write-up: because no answer or summary-judgment motion had been filed, Cedar Lane's dismissal was available as of right under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i); the court nonetheless entered a signed order (Dkt. 7), which reads more like a Rule 41(a)(2) disposition. Either way the dismissal is without prejudice, so it carries no claim-preclusive or issue-preclusive effect, and Cedar Lane could have refiled within the '527 patent's § 286 damages window.
• No public settlement document, license, or consideration is on the docket. The near-instant dismissal is consistent with a pre-suit or same-day resolution (license or covenant), but that is inference, not record — I found no filed settlement agreement, no Rule 41(a)(1)(B) dismissal, and no press release. Do not state as fact that a settlement occurred.

Campaign context (well-sourced): Cedar Lane (Nelson, BC, Canada) is a patent-assertion entity holding former Intellectual Ventures/Mustek portfolio assets; a Shenzhen IP Protection Center alert documents 325+ U.S. suits and notes it was the most prolific patent plaintiff in the U.S. in 2021, with US 6,473,527 already expired (2019-06-01) at the time of suit — meaning recovery was limited to the six-year lookback under 35 U.S.C. § 286. (SZIPRS alert) Korean IP office data through 2022 recorded 367 Cedar Lane suits, of which 310 settled and 13 ended "for other reasons." Videotec fits that template exactly — as do the same-three-patent cases against GoPro (D. Del. 1:21-cv-01319, dismissed 2021-10-12), DivioTec (D. Del. 1:22-cv-01056, dismissed 2022-09-01), Snap One (D. Del. 1:22-cv-01626, dismissed 2023-02-02), and Video Network Security (D. Del. 1:22-cv-01405 / 1:23-cv-00337, dismissed 2023-03-22).

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings

No IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding on US 6,473,527, 6,972,790, or 8,537,242 was located. My searches of PTAB-related sources and litigation databases surfaced no petition against any of the three patents and no Federal Circuit appeal from the Board concerning them. Given the case died in 21 days and no defendant ever appeared, the § 315(b) one-year clock effectively never mattered here. Caveat: this is a negative finding from public search, not a verified PTAB docket check — before relying on it, confirm against the USPTO Patent Center "Proceedings" tab and PTAB's AIA/PTAB End-to-End review search for each patent number.

---

What to say if you need a one-paragraph description

Cedar Lane Technologies sued Videotec Security, Inc. in N.D.N.Y. on 2023-01-10, asserting US 6,473,527, 6,972,790 and 8,537,242 (the metadata's single-patent listing omits '790 and '242, which the AO-120 reports confirm). Videotec is a Plattsburgh, NY corporation — the U.S. affiliate of Italy's Videotec S.p.A. — making N.D.N.Y. a defendant-specific, not default, venue. Cedar Lane filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on 2023-01-11, one day after filing, and Senior Judge Kahn granted dismissal without prejudice on 2023-01-31 (Dkt. 7), with the AO-120 report following on 2023-02-02 (Dkt. 8). There was no answer, no counterclaim, no motion practice, no Markman, no discovery, no trial and no appeal, and no PTAB proceeding on the asserted patents was identified. The only unresolved factual question — whether the dismissal reflected a license or settlement — is not documented on the public docket.

Sourcing confidence

• High confidence (docket-grounded): filing date, docket entries 1–8, dismissal date and terms, judges, plaintiff's counsel, the three asserted patent numbers.
• Medium confidence (secondary databases): Videotec's corporate identity and the Cedar Lane campaign statistics.
• Low/unverified: any inference of settlement or licensing; the absence of PTAB proceedings (negative search result); the precise Rule 41 subsection invoked.

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

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Bottom line: Exactly one attorney appeared for the plaintiff on this docket. The case lived 21 days (complaint filed 1/10/2023; notice of voluntary dismissal filed 1/11/2023; dismissal order 1/31/2023), so no local counsel, no pro hac vice motion, and no second chair ever appear in the record. Defendant Videotec Security never appeared at all.

Docket support

• D.I. 1 — Complaint with jury demand, filed 1/10/2023 (filer: "Rabicoff, Isaac").
• D.I. 3 — FRCP 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement (Rabicoff).
• D.I. 6 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., filed 1/11/2023, signed "(Rabicoff, Isaac)," with proposed order.
• D.I. 7 — Order granting voluntary dismissal without prejudice, signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn, 1/31/2023.
• D.I. 8 — AO-120 report to the PTO listing three patents: 6,473,527 B1; 6,972,790 B2; 8,537,242 B2.
• Source: Justia docket sheet, https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nyndce/8:2023cv00037/[136635](/patent/136635); Patsnap litigation record, https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/cedar-lane-technologies-v-videotec-security-patent-infringement-patsnap/

Points a litigator should flag

1. No pro hac vice motion and no N.D.N.Y. local counsel of record. Mr. Rabicoff is admitted in Illinois and the District of Texas/Illinois/Wisconsin bars, not N.D.N.Y. The docket contains no appearance by an in-district attorney and no PHV application — the case was dismissed before admission issues could surface. (This pattern is precisely what drew judicial criticism elsewhere; see below.) Treat the appearance as effective on the docket but never formally vetted by the court.
2. Unverified: whether a second name appeared in the complaint's signature block. Cedar Lane complaints filed in the same window sometimes listed Philip P. Mann (Mann Law Group PLLC, Bainbridge Island, WA) with Rabicoff "pro hac forthcoming" — e.g., Cedar Lane v. Alps Alpine N. Am., W.D. Wash. No. 2:23-cv-00001, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.[317813](/patent/317813)/gov.uscourts.wawd.317813.1.0.pdf. I could not open the D.I. 1 PDF for Videotec to confirm whether Mann (or anyone else) was named there. No attorney other than Rabicoff took any action on this docket.
3. Admission/disciplinary context worth knowing. In Cedar Lane Techs. v. Blackmagic Design, No. 20-cv-01302-VC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Chhabria sanctioned Mr. Rabicoff $1,000 under Rule 11 and referred him to the court's Standing Committee on Professional Conduct (Nov. 19, 2020), finding he filed dozens of patent suits without seeking PHV admission and often dismissed before the issue was detected. He later paid $9,193 in retroactive PHV fees (Feb. 2022) under an informal resolution. See https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01302/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-01302-9.pdf. A subsequent state-bar disciplinary charges document (dated 12/12/2022) recounts the same conduct; I viewed only excerpts, so treat that proceeding's disposition as unconfirmed.
4. Plaintiff's business model. Cedar Lane is a Canadian NPE (founder Greg Benoit) with roughly 325 asserted suits; Rabicoff Law is reported to have represented it in ~58 of them. This Videotec case fits the template: three camera/imaging patents asserted against a surveillance-camera vendor, dismissed within three weeks — almost certainly upon a settlement/license rather than on the merits.
5. Metadata discrepancy. The case metadata lists only '527 as the patent at issue; the docket's AO-120 report (D.I. 2 and 8) and the complaint show three patents — '527, '790, and '242. The '527 patent expired 8/1/2023.

Not found / not asserted here: no sealed filings, no defendant counsel of record (no appearance, answer, or waiver of service on the docket), and no attorney other than Isaac Rabicoff ever appeared for the plaintiff.

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

Initial docket results show only plaintiff's counsel. Let me verify whether any defense appearance was ever entered.

The docket is unusually short. Let me check CourtListener/RECAP for the full docket and look for any defense appearance or related refiling.

Bottom line

No attorney appeared for Videotec Security, Inc. in this case. There is no defense counsel of record to identify.

This is not a sealing issue and not a research gap — the docket affirmatively shows the defendant never answered, moved, or entered an appearance before the case was dismissed. I will not name anyone as "defense counsel" here, because doing so would be fabrication.

---

Docket evidence (the entire docket is only 8 entries)

The complete docket for N.D.N.Y. No. 8:23-cv-00037, as captured by Justia's PACER mirror (last retrieved 2023-02-02, i.e., after the case closed, so it is effectively complete):

Source: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nyndce/8:2023cv00037/136635

What is absent from the docket is dispositive:

• No summons returned executed — the record does not show service on Videotec Security, Inc. Compare the near-identical Cedar Lane complaints filed in D. Del., where a "SUMMONS Returned Executed" entry typically appears within days (e.g., No. 1:23-cv-00337, D.I. 6, served 3/27/2023).
• No answer, Rule 12 motion, waiver of service, extension motion, or corporate disclosure statement by the defendant.
• No notice of appearance or pro hac vice motion by any attorney other than Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago) for plaintiff.

The timing explains it: Cedar Lane filed its voluntary dismissal on 2023-01-11, one day after filing the complaint, and Judge Kahn granted it on 2023-01-31. The window in which defense counsel could have appeared essentially never opened. Third-party litigation databases agree — Patsnap's case record lists defendant counsel as "Not recorded" for the Videotec entry, while recording Rabicoff for plaintiff (https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/cedar-lane-technologies-v-videotec-security-patent-infringement-patsnap/).

---

One thing that can be mistaken for defense counsel (it isn't)

The New York Department of State lists Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP, 1350 Broadway, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10018 as Videotec Security, Inc.'s registered agent for service of process (N.Y. DOS entity no. 4343789; agent change filed 2022-05-12). Principal office is 35 Gateway Drive, Suite 100, Plattsburgh, NY 12901 (https://www.city-data.com/business-entities/NY/VIDEOTEC-SECURITY-INC-4343789-NY.html).

That is a statutory service-of-process agent designation, not an appearance or counsel of record. Tarter Krinsky never filed anything in 8:23-cv-00037. Note also that the change of registered agent was filed in May 2022, i.e., before suit — so the designation was in place when Cedar Lane filed, yet no summons return was ever docketed. If you need to know who would have handled the defense, the honest answer is that the record does not say.

---

Two corrections/additions to the case metadata you gave me

1. Patents in suit. Your metadata lists only 6,473,527. The face of the docket (D.I. 2 and D.I. 8) and the complaint report three patents: 6,473,527 ("Module and method for interfacing analog/digital converting means and JPEG compression means"), 6,972,790 and 8,537,242 (both "Host interface for imaging arrays"). This matches Cedar Lane's standard three-patent camera/image-sensor package asserted across its 2022–2023 wave.
2. The dismissal looks like a misfire, not a settlement. A notice of dismissal filed one day after the complaint, with no service docketed, is characteristic of a party-name/entity error caught at filing. Videotec Security, Inc. is the U.S. subsidiary of the Italian manufacturer Videotec S.p.A.; Cedar Lane's parallel filings that winter named U.S. importers/distributors. I could not find any refiling against Videotec (U.S. or Italian entity) in the subsequent dockets I reviewed, so treat the "why" as inference, not fact.

---

If you need a negative confirmed for the record

Pull the full PACER docket report (the "Attorney List"/"Attorneys" tab in N.D.Y.N. CM/ECF) for case 8:23-cv-00037. Given the case closed 2023-01-31 and the Justia snapshot postdates that, I expect confirmation of zero defense appearances — but PACER is the only authoritative check, and I cannot access it directly. A Westlaw/Lex Machina docket pull or a PACER "Docket Report" with the participant list would give you the citable negative.

Do not cite Trademarkia/UniCourt-style aggregators for a defense-attorney name in this case — several such sites auto-populate counsel from the plaintiff's side or from the registered agent, which is precisely the error to avoid here.