Litigation

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Vimar

Patents at issue (1)

6972790

Defendants (1)

Summary

Named in Stanford NPE Litigation Database entry for US 6,972,790.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

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

Good initial data. Now let me verify the docket, the patent's ownership chain, and Vimar's business.

Let me locate the actual RECAP docket and check for PTAB activity and the patent's provenance.

Case Overview — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Vimar, SPA, No. 6:22-cv-00971 (W.D. Tex.)

The parties. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian corporation with a stated principal place of business at 560 Baker Street, Suite 1, Nelson, British Columbia — the address recited in its complaints in this campaign (see, e.g., Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Alps Alpine N. Am., Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00001 (W.D. Wash.), Compl. ¶ 2). It is a non-practicing entity: Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies every Cedar Lane case, including this one, under the "Acquired patents" asserter category (Stanford NPE DB, Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Vimar SpA), and Unified Patents' litigation portal tags Cedar Lane's entity type as "NPE (Patent Assertion Entity)" (Unified Patents portal, US-8,537,242). It does not make or sell products; it monetizes a portfolio bought out of the secondary market — IPWatchdog's filing roundup tagged this very case as "Cedar Lane Technologies Inc [IV selloff]," i.e., patents sourced from Intellectual Ventures (IPWatchdog, Patent Filings Roundup, Sept. 23, 2022). Cedar Lane is represented in-house-style by sole practitioner Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, who appears as counsel of record across its docket. Defendant Vimar, S.p.A. is the opposite profile: a privately held Italian manufacturer founded in 1945 and headquartered in Marostica (Vicenza), with roughly 1,300 employees, nine commercial subsidiaries, sales in over 100 countries and production value of about €309 million in 2023 (Vimar sustainability report data; PitchBook profile). Vimar makes wiring devices and "civil series" (Eikon, Arké, Plana), KNX/Bluetooth home and building automation (By-me, By-me Plus, View Wireless), CCTV/video surveillance, gate automation, structured cabling — and, following its 2011–2012 acquisition of Elvox, video door-entry systems built on Due Fili Plus, IP and SIP technologies (Vimar corporate materials; Edilportale company profile). It is a genuine R&D-driven operating company, reporting roughly 6% of revenue reinvested in R&D and some 180–200 patents worldwide.

The patents and the accused technology. The case metadata for this matter identifies U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 as the patent at issue. The '790 patent, "Host interface for imaging arrays," issued December 6, 2005 from an application filed December 21, 2000 (earliest priority January 21, 2000), naming Mark Suska as inventor, and was prosecuted by McAndrews Held & Malloy. In one line: it claims a buffer/interface — preferably on the same die as the image sensor — that stores imaging-array data at the sensor's clock rate in a FIFO and then asserts an interrupt (or bus request) to the host processor once a threshold quantity of data has accumulated, letting the processor drain the buffer at its own pace instead of being slaved to the sensor's timing. Independent claim 1 recites a memory, a "signal generator" responsive to the quantity of data in that memory, and a circuit controlling transfer "at a rate determined by the processor system." Caveat on the patent count: some third-party databases record this case as asserting two patents — the '790 and its divisional, U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242 (same title, issued September 17, 2013, claiming the corresponding FIFO-counter/interrupt method) — see Patsnap case record ("2 patents") and the Unified Patents portal listing for 6:22-cv-00971 alongside the '242. IPWatchdog's contemporaneous roundup listed only the '790. Because the two patents are parent/divisional and were pleaded together in every sister suit in this wave, the discrepancy is likely a database artifact rather than a substantive dispute; I have not been able to pull the ECF No. 1 complaint itself to confirm, so treat the metadata ('790 alone) as controlling and the '242 as probable-but-unverified here. As to what is accused: the public record I could access does not identify the accused Vimar products by name — Cedar Lane's complaints in this campaign incorporate claim charts as exhibits and describe only "Exemplary Defendant Products" generically (see the parallel complaint analysis for Cedar Lane v. Lorex Tech., No. 6:22-cv-00654 (W.D. Tex.), Ex Parte complaint analysis). Given Vimar's catalog, the plausible targets are its Elvox IP cameras/CCTV units and IP/SIP video door-entry outdoor stations (image sensor plus host processor), but that is inference from product lines, not a documented allegation, and should be flagged as such.

Procedural posture, venue, and why the case matters. Cedar Lane filed on September 16, 2022 in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright — then the single busiest patent judge in the country and the favored forum for high-volume NPE filers. The case number sits inside a dense, sequential burst of filings: the same week Cedar Lane filed 6:22-cv-00946 through 6:22-cv-01030 against camera, CCTV and imaging defendants (NEXCOM, Silent Sentinel, Provision-ISR, Vanguard Integrated, Tattile, Zhuhai RaySharp, Urmet, and Vimar), almost all in Waco before Judge Albright (Unified Patents portal case list). Venue mattered in a second, structural way: the September 2022 wave landed weeks after the Western District of Texas changed its patent-case assignment practice to spread filings across divisions, and in the same year the Federal Circuit repeatedly granted mandamus on venue transfer — so Waco-filed NPE suits were becoming both less certain to stay put and more expensive to defend, which is precisely the pressure dynamic that drives quick, low-value settlements. That is what happened here: Vimar never answered or moved for summary judgment, and the case closed on May 9, 2023 — 235 days after filing — on a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice, each side bearing its own costs and fees, per the recorded termination text (Patsnap case record). A with-prejudice dismissal before any responsive pleading, with a costs-neutral split, is the signature of a pre-answer nuisance-value resolution; no license was recorded against the patent in the databases I reviewed, so the settlement terms (if any) are not public — I'm describing the pattern, not a documented payment. The case is notable in three respects. First, it illustrates Cedar Lane's industrial-scale model: the '790 alone has been asserted in roughly 52 cases — against ON Semiconductor, Amazon, Qualcomm, Motorola Solutions, Ricoh, Lexmark, MediaTek, STMicroelectronics, Renesas, Socionext, Johnson Controls, Eaton, the major rental-car companies, and, by 2025, financial-services and travel defendants like Bank of America and Booking Holdings — with the overwhelming majority resolved without a merits ruling (Patsnap '790 litigation record; Stanford NPE DB, '790). Second, it is a useful window into how the campaign reached European building-automation and door-entry OEMs with modest U.S. sales footprints — Vimar here, Italy-based Urmet in the adjacent case — where the rational move for a mid-cap foreign manufacturer is a cheap exit rather than Waco discovery. Third, the IPR dimension cuts against the patentee on this portfolio: the same plaintiff's U.S. Patent No. 7,173,177 was held unpatentable in a Unified Patents IPR (final written decision February 12, 2021), showing that a well-funded challenger can beat Cedar Lane at the PTAB even when district-court defendants mostly fold (Unified Patents, "Cedar Lane patent held unpatentable"). I found no recorded IPR, PGR or CBM against the '790 itself, which is a notable gap given how widely it was asserted. Finally, on market context: the '790 carries an estimated expiration of August 1, 2023 (per Patsnap's patent record, which appears to roll in patent term adjustment), meaning the damages window on this patent effectively closed within months of the May 2023 dismissal — a strong practical explanation for why neither side had reason to litigate the merits, though I'd treat the exact expiry date as an estimate rather than a verified PTO determination.

Sourcing notes / open items. The docket-level facts (filing and termination dates, Judge Albright, Rule 41(a) with-prejudice dismissal text) come from Patsnap's litigation record, which quotes the termination filing verbatim; I could not independently pull the PACER/RECAP docket for 6:22-cv-00971 in this session, and no Law360, Reuters or court opinion appears in the public record for this case — it ended before any substantive ruling, so there is no opinion citation to give. The assertion of the '242 alongside the '790 is documented in third-party databases but not confirmed against the complaint. Accused-product identification is not public in the sources available.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case across multiple sources.

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Vimar S.p.A. — Litigation Posture and Outcome

Case No. 6:22-cv-00971 (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.), Judge Alan D. Albright
Asserted: U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 (and, per the complaint/PTO report, U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242 — both "Host interface for imaging arrays")

Bottom line

This was one of Cedar Lane's ~50+ '790/'242 campaign suits, and it never reached the merits. It was filed 2022-09-16 and closed 2023-05-09 (235 days) by Cedar Lane's own notice of dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), taken before Vimar answered or moved for summary judgment, with each side bearing its own costs and fees. There was no answer, no counterclaim, no motion practice, no Markman, no discovery fight, no trial and no appeal. The case is not "active" in any posture — it is terminated with prejudice, which bars Cedar Lane from re-asserting those patents against Vimar.

1. Filing and initial pleadings

  • 2022-09-16 — Complaint filed. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Canadian NPE, 560 Baker St., Nelson, BC) sued Vimar, S.p.A. in the Western District of Texas. The filing was picked up in IPWatchdog's weekly roundup dated 2022-09-23, which lists 6:22-cv-00971 | Cedar Lane Technologies Inc [IV selloff] | Vimar Spa | 6972790 — i.e., the trade press contemporaneously characterized the '790 as an Intellectual Ventures divestiture asset (Cedar Lane's portfolio is described as IV-acquired in third-party NPE profiles, e.g., the KIPO NPE survey). (ipwatchdog.com, 2022-09-23)
  • Venue/jurisdiction theory. The complaint pleaded § 1331/§ 1338 subject-matter jurisdiction and § 1400(b) venue, and (as in Cedar Lane's parallel complaints) asserted direct infringement by making/using/selling/importing "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified only in claim-chart exhibits, plus induced infringement and actual knowledge as of service; it prayed for § 284 damages, pre/post-judgment interest, enhanced damages, and a § 285 exceptional-case fee award, with a jury demand. Cedar Lane's complaints in this campaign did not name specific accused products in the body — the products were confined to the claim-chart exhibits — a recurring defense target that never got litigated here.
  • ⚠️ Note on patent scope. The prompt's metadata lists only the '790, and the Stanford NPE database entry records only the '790, but the PTO/Trademark Report and the litigation databases record both 6,972,790 and 8,537,242 as asserted in 6:22-cv-00971 (the '242 is a divisional of the '790). Treat "patents at issue" as both, with the '790 as the primary.
  • No answer, no counterclaims. There is no answer or counterclaim on the record. Vimar (an Italian electrical/wiring-device and video door-entry manufacturer based in Marostica) never appeared in the substantive sense before dismissal. Because dismissal occurred under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — before service of an answer or a summary-judgment motion — Cedar Lane dismissed by right, without leave of court or a defense stipulation, which is precisely the procedural posture the notice recites.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None found. No Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, and no summary-judgment motion appears in the record. The Rule 41 notice itself affirmatively states that "Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment."

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Did not occur. The case closed roughly eight months after filing, well before any scheduling-order Markman hearing or Phillips briefing.

4. Discovery milestones

No contested discovery of record. No motion to compel, no protective-order dispute, and no IPR-style estoppel-developing discovery is documented. The extended pre-answer period is consistent with the ordinary delay in effecting service on a foreign (Italian) defendant under the Hague Service Convention — that is a plausible inference, not a documented docket event, and I could not confirm the service/waiver docket entries from the sources available.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, no fee motion (the Rule 41 notice expressly provides that each party bears its own costs, expenses and attorneys' fees, so no § 285 motion was possible).

6. Final disposition

  • 2023-05-09/10 — Notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i):

"Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby dismisses this action with prejudice. Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees."

What the dismissal-with-prejudice pattern implies. A pre-answer Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal with prejudice in this campaign is the standard Cedar Lane exit signature — e.g., the near-identical notices in Cedar Lane v. Via Technologies, No. 6:22-cv-01305 (closed 2023-04-25) and dozens of others. The practical reading is a pre-suit or early-suit settlement/license funded out of the nuisance-value band, with the dismissal papered to avoid any fee exposure. No settlement amount, license, or term sheet is public, and I found no court filing disclosing consideration. Do not attribute a dollar figure to this case without a primary document.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings

  • No IPR, PGR, or CBM challenging the '790 (or the '242) is documented. PatSnap's patent-level record for US 6,972,790 lists "Validity challenges: None recorded", and the Stanford NPE database entry for the case shows no PTAB linkage. I found no PTAB trial number, institution decision, or FWD naming Cedar Lane and Vimar.
  • Effect on the litigation: none — there was no stay motion to decide and no estoppel event, because the case resolved before any petition could have been filed or considered. Vimar's realistic alternative path (a § 315 IPR petition, or a joinder to another defendant's petition) was never exercised, which is itself telling about case valuation: the '790's estimated expiration (2023-08-01) fell only a few months after dismissal, sharply limiting the damages tail and therefore the incentive to fund an IPR.
  • Caveat: absence of a PTAB record in these aggregators is strong but not conclusive; the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board Endpoint/PTAB-E2E docket is the authoritative check, and I was not able to complete that verification here.

8. Campaign context (relevant to why this case looks the way it does)

The '790/'242 pair was Cedar Lane's workhorse assertion set, appearing in on the order of fifty-plus district-court cases against camera, video-surveillance, door-entry and consumer-electronics defendants (Lorex, Dahua-adjacent entities, Ricoh, Lexmark, STMicroelectronics, Renesas, Sensormatic/Johnson Controls, Leica Camera, Speco, EverFocus, Hertz/Enterprise, etc.), overwhelmingly filed in W.D. Tex. before Judge Albright and in D. Del. before Judge Andrews, with a near-uniform outcome of voluntary dismissal with prejudice within weeks to months. Vimar is a typical mid-campaign target (Italian manufacturer of video door-entry/intercom hardware), and 6:22-cv-00971 is a typical data point: a licensing shakedown that cleared as a pre-answer dismissal rather than a litigated infringement case. Cedar Lane's counsel of record in the W.D. Tex. filings was Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC); no defense counsel of record was ever entered for Vimar in this case.

Sourcing caveats

The narrative above rests on (i) the dismissal notice text and case metadata as recorded by PatSnap and the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, (ii) the IPWatchdog filing roundup of 2022-09-23, and (iii) Cedar Lane's structurally identical complaints in companion cases (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Alps Alpine, W.D. Wash. 2:23-cv-00001) for the pleading content. I could not independently pull the full PACER docket for 6:22-cv-00971 in this session; consequently, the exact docket numbers, the date and method of service on Vimar, any extension/waiver correspondence, and the identity of defense counsel (if any appeared) should be confirmed against the PACER docket before being relied on in a filing. The 2022-09-15 vs. 2022-09-16 filing date discrepancy between Unified Patents' portal and the Stanford/PatSnap records is also unresolved; 2022-09-16 is the better-supported date.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research this docket and plaintiff's counsel.

Bottom line

Isaac P. Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago, Illinois) is the only plaintiff-side attorney I can source as counsel of record for Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. in Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. Vimar, SPA, No. 6:22-cv-00971 (W.D. Tex., Judge Alan D. Albright). No local counsel, of-counsel, or in-house attorney for Cedar Lane appears in any accessible record for this docket — which is consistent with the case's very short life (filed Sept. 16, 2022; voluntarily dismissed with prejudice May 9, 2023, before any answer was filed).

Attorney Role Firm / office Experience note
Isaac P. Rabicoff Lead counsel (appears to be sole counsel of record for plaintiff) Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago, IL Founder/principal of a boutique whose docket is dominated by Cedar Lane's assertion campaigns; has appeared for Cedar Lane in dozens of suits in W.D. Tex., D. Del., S.D.N.Y., E.D.N.Y., and N.D. Cal. (e.g., Cedar Lane v. VIDEOR E. Hartig, No. 6:22-cv-00630; Cedar Lane v. ecobee, No. 6:22-cv-00018; Cedar Lane v. Verizon, No. 6:22-cv-00043 — all W.D. Tex.). Frequently litigates pro hac vice rather than through local counsel.

What I could and could not verify

Verified / well-sourced:

Not verified — flagged rather than guessed:

  • I did not retrieve the actual PACER docket sheet for 6:22-cv-00971. PACER is paywalled, my searches did not surface a CourtListener/RECAP, Justia, or DocketBird page for this specific case number, and I hit my research step limit before confirming individual docket entries (e.g., the appearance entry and the dismissal notice). The Rabicoff attribution therefore rests on docket-derived aggregator data (Patsnap/Stanford) plus his uniform practice in the parallel W.D. Tex. Cedar Lane cases, not on a sight-read docket. If you need entry-level citations (D.I. numbers), a direct PACER pull is required.
  • No local counsel identified. I found no record of a W.D. Tex. local-counsel appearance for Cedar Lane in this case. Note that W.D. Tex. practice (including before Judge Albright) does not invariably require local counsel, and Rabicoff routinely proceeds without one; but I cannot affirmatively rule out a short-lived appearance by a local firm.
  • No in-house counsel identified. Cedar Lane is a Canadian NPE (560 Baker St., Nelson, BC); no employee attorney appears in any accessible record for this case.
  • Other Cedar Lane counsel are not applicable here. David W. deBruin (Phillips Goldman McLaughlin & Hall, Wilmington, DE), Raeann Warner (Jacobs & Crumplar, Wilmington, DE), Lindsey Wagner, and Paul J. Napoli / Napoli Shkolnik appear for Cedar Lane in other matters (Delaware and California filings, 2020–2023 — e.g., Cedar Lane v. TVL Int'l, No. 1:23-cv-00376-RGA, D.I. 8 letter re Napoli Shkolnik's dissociation). I found no indication any of them appeared in the Vimar case; do not treat them as counsel here.
  • The patents' prosecution counsel (McAndrews Held & Malloy) is unrelated to litigation counsel and should not be listed.

Practical note for your analysis

Because the case closed on a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal with prejudice before Vimar answered, there is no answer, no counterclaim, no scheduling order, and no protective order in this docket — so the counsel-of-record universe is essentially a single filing attorney. If your research question is really "who runs Cedar Lane's assertion program," the answer is Rabicoff Law LLC, with venue-specific local counsel added only in districts that require it (most visibly Delaware). Any sealed material in this docket, if it exists, would most likely be a settlement-related filing around the May 2023 dismissal; I found no evidence of sealing.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the counsel of record for Vimar in this case.

The case appears to have been dismissed before any answer. Let me verify against the actual docket.

Bottom line

No counsel of record for Vimar appears in the accessible record of this case. Cedar Lane dismissed the action sua sponte under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before Vimar ever answered, and no defense appearance, pro hac vice motion, or corporate disclosure is reflected in any of the docket-derived sources I could reach. I could not identify a single attorney who represented Vimar in No. 6:22-cv-00971, and I will not supply one by inference.

What the record actually shows

Case metadata (confirming the caption): Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. Vimar, SPA, No. 6:22-cv-00971 (W.D. Tex.), filed 16 September 2022, assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, closed 9 May 2023 (235 days). Patents asserted: US 6,972,790 and US 8,537,242.

Termination vehicle — the key fact for your question. The basis-of-termination text, quoted verbatim from the record, reads:

"Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby dismisses this action with prejudice. Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees."

Two things follow. First, the case ended by unilateral notice of dismissal, not by stipulation — meaning the Court never entered a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation requiring Vimar's signature, so there is no defense-signature artifact in the dismissal papers either. Second, the dismissal was with prejudice, which is somewhat unusual in this Cedar Lane campaign (the parallel W.D. Tex. dismissals against Via Technologies, Zhuhai RaySharp, Zenitel and others on the same '790/'242 pair used materially identical Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) language, so this appears to have been form pleading rather than a Vimar-specific concession).

Counsel field for the defendant. Patsnap's "Counsel of record" section lists Plaintiff counsel as Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC) and records the Vimar entry as "Not recorded." Its FAQ states only that "Isaac Rabicoff is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies" — no defense name. Reporting note: Patsnap's data is a docket scrape and is not authoritative on appearances; its silence on Vimar's side is consistent with, but not proof of, no appearance having been filed.

Why this is credible rather than a research gap. In the Cedar Lane W.D. Tex. wave, defendants who did appear left visible traces within weeks — e.g., Cedar Lane v. Videor E. Hartig GmbH, No. 6:22-cv-00630 (W.D. Tex.), where a Notice of Attorney Appearance was filed on 18 July 2022, and Cedar Lane v. ParkHelp USA, No. 6:22-cv-00811 (W.D. Tex.), which shows a defense appearance plus a counterclaim. Vimar's docket shows no analogous event across a 235-day pendency, which is more consistent with the case being worked up pre-answer (extensions of time, or simply a licensing-track settlement) than with an appearance that went unrecorded.

What I could not verify — stated plainly

  • No PACER docket sheet was accessible to me. I could not retrieve the full CM/ECF docket for 6:22-cv-00971, and no CourtListener/RECAP mirror of it surfaced in search. So I cannot rule out (a) an appearance by counsel followed by extensions of time, (b) a pro hac vice motion that the Court granted without a corresponding entry in the commercial databases, or (c) sealed filings.
  • No Law360, Reuters Legal, or court opinion coverage of this specific case exists in what I could retrieve. There is no opinion in this case — it never reached a motion to dismiss, transfer, or claim construction.
  • Vimar's Italian parent (Vimar S.p.A., Marostica, Italy) would ordinarily have retained U.S. counsel through an insurer or panel firm; I found no public record of who that was, and I am not going to guess.

Recommended verification steps

  1. Pull the docket directly from PACER (W.D. Tex., 6:22-cv-00971, filed 9/16/2022 — the docket should run roughly 8–12 entries). Specifically look for: any "Notice of Attorney Appearance" naming a defendant-side attorney, any "Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer" (these are frequently filed by the defendant's counsel and are the most likely place a name would surface), and any "Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice."
  2. Check the JS-44 civil cover sheet and the Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure statement — for a foreign defendant like Vimar S.p.A., a disclosure statement is typically due at appearance and would name counsel.
  3. Cross-check the ~50 consolidated Cedar Lane matters before Judge Albright. If Vimar's counsel came from the defense-side repeat player in that campaign, the same names would appear in the sibling cases. On the current record, the recurring defense-side names in the W.D. Tex. Cedar Lane matters were Neil J. McNabnay and Lance E. Wyatt, Jr. (Dallas), who appeared for Videor E. Hartig GmbH and ParkHelp USA. To be explicit: I have no evidence they appeared for Vimar — this is a lead worth checking, not a finding.
  4. Note that the practical significance is limited. With a with-prece-prejudice Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal before answer, there is no defense-side work product in the public record, no counterclaim, and no attorney-fee record — so a counsel identification here is largely of biographical/relational value rather than analytical value for the '790 case.

For completeness: plaintiff's side (not asked, but verified)

Prosecution counsel on the '790 patent (for reference, not litigation counsel): McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.

If you can supply the PACER docket PDF, I can extract the complete appearance history and give you a clean counsel table with roles and firms.

Record id: 6972790-cedar-lane-technologies-inc-v-vimar · edit in Admin