Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Walmart

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

Let me verify the complaint details, dismissal, and any PTAB challenges.

Let me pull the actual complaint to resolve which patent(s) were asserted against Walmart.

Case Overview — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Walmart Inc., No. 6:21-cv-01234 (W.D. Tex.)

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is not an operating company. It is a Canadian entity — the complaints in its campaign identify a principal place of business at 560 Baker Street, Suite 1, Nelson, British Columbia — incorporated in April 2019 and listed in Stanford's NPE Litigation Database under the "acquired patents" asserter category (Stanford NPE DB; Cedar Lane complaint, W.D. Tex. Waco Div.). Its portfolio was assembled from Intellectual Ventures LLC, and its suits are signed by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Dkt. 2), with Gawthrop Greenwood appearing in some districts. By the time it sued Walmart, Cedar Lane had become the single most prolific patent plaintiff in the country — Lex Machina's 2022 Patent Litigation Report ranked it #1 for 2021 filings, and by January 2022 RPX counted more than 150 defendants in a campaign launched in May 2019, with asserted patents (all IV-derived, directly or indirectly) nearing 50 (Mondaq/RPX, Jan. 31, 2022). Walmart Inc. is the operating retailer-defendant — a Bentonville, Arkansas company with stores and e-commerce operations throughout the Western District of Texas, which is the basis on which Cedar Lane pleads venue and personal jurisdiction.

The patent and the accused technology. Case metadata lists U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790, "Host interface for imaging arrays" (issued Dec. 6, 2005; application filed Dec. 21, 2000; earliest priority Jan. 21, 2000; inventor Mark Suska; estimated expiry Aug. 1, 2023). The '790 is a chip-architecture patent, not a consumer-feature patent: it claims an interface — preferably integrated on the same die as a CMOS image sensor — that buffers pixel data and clocking signals in a FIFO or addressable memory, generates a signal (e.g., an interrupt) to the host processor "in response to the quantity of data in the memory," and then lets the processor clock data out at its own rate, decoupling sensor timing from processor timing and eliminating external "glue logic" (see '790 Abstract and col. 1:37–66; representative claim 1 as reproduced in this complaint analysis). Cedar Lane's standard '790 pleading accuses products identified only in claim-chart exhibits, plus induced infringement through product literature and website materials instructing customers to use the products in the infringing manner. One sourcing caveat: the complaint (Dkt. 1) attached only two exhibits, and the docket text does not name the patent. RPX-derived reporting on this specific case number states that Cedar Lane asserted a single patent against Walmart — U.S. Patent No. 8,165,867 ("Methods for translating a device command") — accusing the onn. Android Streaming Device and Voice Remote through their Google Assistant support, while describing the '790 and '242 as the image-processing patents asserted against other defendants such as Wyze (Mondaq/RPX). That account fits poorly with the '790's sensor-interface subject matter, and the December 2021 retail patent litigation report lists 6,972,790 among the Cedar Lane patents-in-suit for that month (Retail Patent Litigation Report). I could not obtain the Dkt. 1 exhibits directly, so the precise asserted patent(s) and accused onn. product line should be confirmed against PACER.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Cedar Lane filed on November 30, 2021 in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright (case suffix -ADA); Walmart obtained an extension to February 7, 2022 (Dkt. 7) and answered with affirmative defenses the same day (Dkt. 8), represented by Eric H. Findlay and Debra E. Gunter (Dkt. 8, 10). The case never reached claim construction, venue briefing, or an IPR: on April 29, 2022 — roughly five months after filing — Cedar Lane filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (Dkt. 13), and the AO 120 report went to the PTO the same day (Dkt. 14) (full docket; Patexia docket). No settlement terms were disclosed, and I found no record of Cedar Lane refiling against Walmart. Venue is the story here: Waco/Albright was the highest-volume patent venue in the country in 2021, and Cedar Lane was its most frequent filer — the pairing of a mass-filing NPE with a plaintiff-friendly, fast-docketed division drawn from a Canadian shell with no Texas nexus is precisely the pattern that drove the 2021–22 mandamus wave over Albright's practice of keeping cases in Waco and the court's subsequent 2022 move toward random division assignment (the latter postdates this dismissal). The case is also instructive on the economics and the limits of the campaign: the '790 already had an estimated August 2023 expiry when Walmart was sued, so Cedar Lane was monetizing a nearly dead asset in a six-year-lookback window; the patent has no recorded IPR, PGR, or CBM challenge, and it was never adjudicated for validity or infringement in any of the scores of cases in which it was asserted. Cedar Lane's campaign is reported to resolve roughly 80% of suits in settlement in about 90 days on average, which is consistent with this docket's trajectory.

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

Let me pull the actual docket and complaint details, since I'm seeing a potential discrepancy about which patent was asserted against Walmart.

Good progress — I have the full docket trail. Now let me verify the asserted patent (there's a conflict between the metadata and secondary reporting) and check PTAB proceedings.

Bottom line

This is an early-exit case. Cedar Lane filed on 2021-11-30 and voluntarily dismissed Walmart without prejudice on 2022-04-29 — roughly five months later, three months after Walmart answered, and before any scheduling order, claim construction, discovery, or PTAB activity could attach to it. There is no Markman ruling, no summary judgment, no trial, no verdict, no fee motion, and no appeal. The only substantive defense-side filing was the answer with affirmative defenses; no counterclaims were pleaded.

⚠️ Source conflict on the patent — read this first. Your metadata identifies the patent at issue as 6,972,790. I could not retrieve the complaint (Doc. 1) or the AO 120 patent report (Doc. 5) to confirm the asserted patent number directly. However, the two most specific contemporaneous sources on this docket state that the Walmart suit asserted a single patent, 8,165,867 — the "remote device control" patent — against Walmart's onn. Android Streaming Device and Voice Remote, via its Google Assistant integration:

• RPX, Defendant Count In Cedar Lane Technologies's Campaign Ticks Past 150 (2022-01-31), republished on Mondaq: "In its suit against Walmart, Cedar Lane asserts a single patent (8,165,867)… Walmart is accused of infringement through the support of the Google Assistant platform in the onn. Android Streaming Device and Voice Remote." — https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/[1155682](/patent/1155682)/
• Same article syndicated at https://darik.news/colorado/cedar-lane-technologies-campaign-has-more-than-150-defendants-intellectual-property

Corroborating (weaker) evidence: the Walmart case appears in neither the Stanford NPE Litigation Database case list for '790 nor the Patsnap 52-case list for '790 (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/6972790, https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/patent/us6972790b2/), while a companion suit filed two days later — Cedar Lane v. Wyze Labs, 1:21-cv-01704 (D. Del., 2021-12-02) — asserted '790, '867, and '242 together (Doc. 3 report lists all three). Per your instruction I treat '790 as the patent at issue, but the analyst-level takeaway is that the better-sourced account of this docket says '867. This should be resolved against Doc. 1/Doc. 5 before the entry is memorialized in a database.

---

Chronological development

Docket sources: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2021cv01234/[1154877](/patent/1154877) and https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Walmart-Inc-id-[159781](/patent/159781)/documents

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2021-11-30 → 2022-02-09)

• Complaint (Doc. 1, 2021-11-30). Filed by Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago — Cedar Lane's near-exclusive counsel and its only appearance in this docket, Doc. 2). Two exhibits, consistent with the standard Cedar Lane template of the patent copy plus an infringement claim chart. No preliminary injunction sought.
• Answer (Doc. 8, 2022-02-07). A short (6-page) answer asserting affirmative defenses only. The docket reflects no counterclaims — notable, because the natural counterclaim in an NPE case of this vintage would be a DJ count of invalidity/non-infringement, and Cedar Lane's campaign generated very few of them. Defense counsel was Findlay Craft (Eric H. Findlay), a Tyler, Texas firm that handled a substantial share of the Cedar Lane campaign; Debra E. Gunter entered a second appearance two days later (Doc. 10).
• No motions to dismiss, no Rule 12(b)(3) transfer motion, and no answer-stage motion practice of any kind are reflected.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None. No motion to dismiss on the merits, no § 1404(a) transfer motion (Walmart would have had a plausible Waco-averse transfer argument, but the case ended before it materialized), no motion to stay pending IPR, no summary judgment motion, no Daubert motion. The only "motion" in the entire docket is Doc. 13, which is functionally a notice of voluntary dismissal with a proposed order attached.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Not reached. The case was dismissed five months after filing, before any scheduling order set a Markman date. Consistent with the campaign generally — RPX's January 2022 piece noted Cedar Lane "has not yet advanced any of its cases beyond arguments." There is no Cedar Lane v. Walmart claim construction opinion in W.D. Tex. or anywhere else.

4. Discovery milestones

None of strategic significance. No Rule 26(f) conference order, no protective order, no ESI order, and no infringement or invalidity contentions are reflected on the docket before dismissal. No third-party discovery, no source-code production (the '790 is a hardware/interface patent — "Host interface for imaging arrays," issued 2005-12-06, priority ~January 2000, acquired from Intellectual Ventures — so source code was unlikely to be central anyway).

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial setting, no verdict, no JMOL, no new-trial motion, no § 285 fee motion, and no sanctions activity in this docket.

6. Final disposition

Voluntary dismissal without prejudice, 2022-04-29. The docket text is unusual — Doc. 13 is captioned "MOTION to Dismiss (Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice)," i.e., Cedar Lane filed the dismissal as a self-effectuating notice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) but packaged it as a motion with a proposed order, and simultaneously triggered the AO 120 report to the PTO (Doc. 14). The case is closed. No appeal was taken, and none was possible on a no-prejudice voluntary dismissal. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Cedar Lane retained the ability to re-assert against Walmart; I did not identify any later Cedar Lane–Walmart suit in the databases I reviewed, but treat that as unverified rather than as confirmation that none exists.

Practical read: dismissal three months after answer, with no motion practice and no motion to stay, is the signature of a quick nuisance-value resolution (settlement or license), not of a merits loss. Cedar Lane's campaign-wide settlement economics were small — the Korean IPO disclosure for a parallel '790/'867/'242 suit against Reolink Digital describes a settlement of US$10,000 plus a worldwide paid-up license, with dismissal following receipt of funds (IPRdaily, 2024-04-05, https://ciipr.njust.edu.cn/15/ae/c11094a333230/page.htm). That figure is from a different defendant and should be treated as context for the campaign's price point, not as evidence of the Walmart terms, which are not public.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings

No IPR or PGR on the asserted patent(s) is documented in connection with this case. With the case lasting five months, Walmart's § 315(b) one-year IPR window (which would have run to roughly 2023-02-07, one year from service) never came into play, and no petition was filed by or on behalf of Walmart that I could locate. I was unable to run a definitive Patent Trial and Appeal Board docket sweep on '790 or '867 before exhausting my research steps, so I would characterize this as "no IPR identified" rather than "no IPR exists" — worth a direct PTAB docket check as a follow-up.

For campaign context, the one Cedar Lane PTAB proceeding I did verify is on a different patent: Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., IPR2020-00006, on U.S. Patent 7,173,177 — instituted 2020-03-18 (Kaiser, Beamer, Howard), final written decision 2021-02-12 holding the asserted independent claim unpatentable (claims 1–15, 23 invalidated), rehearing denied 2021-12-08. See https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2021/2/12/cedar-lane-patent-held-unpatentable and https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Unified-Patents-LLC-v-Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-id-[128967](/patent/128967). That result does not touch '790 or '867 and had no effect on the Walmart litigation, but it is emblematic of the validity pressure on the IV-derived Cedar Lane portfolio.

---

Caveats on sourcing

• I was unable to open the complaint (Doc. 1) or the AO 120 report (Doc. 5) for this docket; my characterization of the accused products comes from RPX's contemporaneous reporting, not the pleading itself.
• The Justia docket is stale (last retrieved 2021-12-10); the Patexia docket supplies entries through 2022-04-29 but skips Doc. 9. I cannot characterize Doc. 9 — most likely a routine motion or order (e.g., extension or pro hac vice), but I will not guess.
• No court opinion, verdict, or appellate citation exists for this case because it generated none.
• Attorneys identified: Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC) for Cedar Lane; **Eric H.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Case: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Walmart Inc., No. 6:21-cv-01234 (W.D. Tex., Judge Alan D. Albright), filed 11/30/2021; voluntarily dismissed without prejudice 4/29/2022 (Doc. 13).

Bottom line

The docket shows exactly one attorney of record for the plaintiff — Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago, IL) — appearing as lead and sole counsel. No local counsel, no of-counsel, and no in-house counsel for Cedar Lane ever appeared in this case. Nothing in the case was sealed; the absence of additional counsel is a fact reflected on the face of the docket, not an inference from sealed filings.

---

Attorney of record

Isaac Phillip Rabicoff — Lead counsel (sole counsel of record)

• Firm / office: Rabicoff Law LLC, 73 W. Monroe St., Chicago, IL 60603 (tel. 773-669-4590; isaac@rabilaw.com). USPTO Reg. No. 74,147.
• Appearance: Notice of Attorney Appearance, Doc. 2 (11/30/2021); he also signed the Complaint (Doc. 1), Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement (Doc. 3), Summons Request (Doc. 4), AO-120 Patent/Trademark Form (Doc. 5), the Notice of Extension of Walmart's response deadline to 2/7/2022 (Doc. 7), and the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. 13, 4/29/2022). No other plaintiff-side signature appears anywhere on the docket.
• Experience note: Founder of Rabicoff Law, which he states was among Lex Machina's top 3 most active patent litigation firms in 2017; he has run licensing campaigns against Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, Sony, LG and Huawei, argued before the Federal Circuit, and defended patent owners in IPR/CBM proceedings (including defeating institution of a Mastercard CBM). He is the regular, repeat counsel for Cedar Lane across its 150+ defendant assertion campaign, doing the same lead-counsel role in the sister '790/'867-family suits (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Wyze Labs, v. Vizio, v. Amazon, and the 2022 W.D. Tex. wave).

Local counsel — none

W.D. Tex. practice would ordinarily require a pro hac vice motion for an Illinois attorney, but no pro hac vice application and no local-counsel appearance for Cedar Lane appears on the docket before the case was dismissed roughly five months after filing (the docket, as reflected in the Justia and Patexia docket mirrors, shows only plaintiff's own filings and Walmart's answer). This is consistent with Mr. Rabicoff's own account, in a later filing in the N.D. Cal. matter, that he historically deferred PHV admission in short-lived cases on local counsel's advice — conduct that drew scrutiny from that court's standing committee. I flag this as context on the record, not as a ruling in this case.

Defendant side (for contrast only)

Walmart was represented by Eric H. Findlay (local counsel, Findlay Craft, Tyler, TX) — Answer, Doc. 8 (2/7/2022); Rule 7.1 statement, Doc. 11; and Debra E. "Debby" Gunter — Notice of Appearance, Doc. 10 (2/9/2022), for whom the clerk issued a pro hac vice letter, Doc. 9 (2/7/2022).

---

Sourcing notes and caveats

• Docket entries above are drawn from the Justia docket sheet (retrieved 12/10/2021, so it stops at Doc. 7) and the Patexia docket mirror, which carries the later entries through Docs. 13–14: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2021cv01234/1154877; https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Cedar-Lane-Technologies-Inc-v-Walmart-Inc-id-159781/documents
• Firm bio and credentials: http://www.rabilaw.com/rabicoff.html; Law360 attorney profile (1,400+ docket entries, Chicago): https://www.law360.com/firms/rabicoff-law/attorneys/isaac-p-rabicoff
• I could not retrieve the Complaint PDF itself, so I cannot verify from the signature block whether any second attorney was named but never entered an appearance. Based on the docket, that possibility is not material — no such attorney appeared.
• One discrepancy worth flagging: the case metadata lists U.S. Patent 6,972,790 as the patent at issue, but RPX/Mondaq's reporting on this specific docket states that the Walmart complaint asserted a single patent, U.S. 8,165,867 (remote device control), accused of infringement via Google Assistant support in the onn. Android Streaming Device and Voice Remote. The Complaint attached two exhibits, consistent with either reading. Per your instruction I have treated the metadata as authoritative on the patent, but the secondary reporting should be verified against the Doc. 1 exhibit list if the patent identification matters to your analysis.

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

Now let me identify and verify the specific attorneys.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Walmart Inc. — Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Walmart Inc., No. 6:21-cv-01234 (W.D. Tex.)

Both attorneys who appeared for Walmart came from the same firm, Findlay Craft, P.C. (Tyler, Texas). There is no indication in the public docket that Walmart in-house counsel or any other national/IP firm entered an appearance — the case was a short-lived, two-appearance defense that ended in voluntary dismissal.

Docket grounding

• Doc. 7 (Dec. 10, 2021) — Cedar Lane's notice extending Walmart's response deadline to Feb. 7, 2022; deadline reset.
• Doc. 8 (Feb. 7, 2022) — Defendant Walmart Inc.'s Answer to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses; docket text notes "Attorney Eric H. Findlay added to party Walmart Inc." This is the operative appearance making Findlay counsel of record.
• Doc. 9 (Feb. 7, 2022) — Pro Hac Vice Letter to Walmart Inc. for attorney "Debby Gunter" — i.e., the Clerk flagged that Gunter was not admitted in the W.D. Tex. and would need to seek PHV admission.
• Doc. 10 (Feb. 9, 2022) — Notice of Attorney Appearance by Debra E. Gunter on behalf of Walmart Inc.
• Doc. 11 (Feb. 9, 2022) — Walmart's Rule 7 Disclosure Statement, filed by Findlay (identifying no corporate parent).
• Doc. 13 (Apr. 29, 2022) — Cedar Lane's notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice (styled as a motion to dismiss); Doc. 14 — AO-120 report to the PTO. The case closed before any scheduling order, claim construction, or motion practice.

Secondary sources: Justia docket, Patexia document list, RPX litigation profile.

Caveats and sourcing limits

• No PACER pull. The docket text above comes from aggregators (Justia's copy is stale — "last retrieved December 10, 2021" — while Patexia carries the full 1–14 sequence). I could not independently confirm via PACER whether a PHV motion/order for Gunter was ever docketed; only the Clerk's PHV letter (Doc. 9) is reflected. Her appearance (Doc. 10) nonetheless makes her counsel of record, and dismissal came ~11 weeks later.
• No in-house counsel identified. Nothing in the public filings lists a Walmart legal-department attorney or an unsealed corporate-counsel appearance; if Walmart legal ops participated, it was not on the record.
• Signature blocks not verified. I did not view the PDF of Doc. 8 or Doc. 10, so the "lead" vs. "of counsel" characterization is inferred from who filed the Answer and Rule 7 statement (Findlay) rather than from an express designation. The W.D. Tex. does not require a formal lead-counsel designation at this stage.
• Patent mismatch to flag for the case summary. The case metadata lists U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 ("Host interface for imaging arrays"), but contemporaneous reporting on this specific docket states Cedar Lane asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,165,867 ("Methods for translating a device command") against Walmart over its onn. Android streaming device and voice remote, with the '790 asserted against other defendants in the campaign (e.g., Wyze, Basler). See Mondaq/Lexology, "Defendant Count In Cedar Lane Technologies's Campaign Ticks Past 150" (Jan. 31, 2022) and the December 2021 Retail Patent Litigation Report. I am deferring to the case metadata as instructed, but the '790 attribution for this docket should be reconciled against the Doc. 1 complaint and its Exhibit 1 before it is relied on.
• No PTAB parallel. I found no IPR/PGR petition challenging the asserted patent naming Walmart in this matter; the case was dismissed roughly five months after filing, consistent with the campaign-wide pattern (no Cedar Lane case has proceeded past pleadings).