Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. WPG Americas

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

Case Overview & Background

The parties. Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian non-practicing entity (NPE/PAE) incorporated in British Columbia in April 2019, with a registered address in Nelson, B.C. and a sole director, Gregory Benoit, a career patent monetization consultant (formerly Nortel/Alcatel-Lucent IP) who runs Patent Armory. Cedar Lane makes nothing and sells nothing; its portfolio consists of acquired patents, substantially sourced from Intellectual Ventures entities (and, for some assets, from intermediate NPEs such as AVInnov). It litigates through Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, and by 2021–2022 it was reportedly the single most prolific patent plaintiff in the United States (Lex Machina's 2022 Patent Litigation Report ranked it #1 for 2021 filings), with an estimated ~96% settlement rate among terminated cases and average case durations measured in months rather than years. Defendant WPG Americas Inc. (WPGA) is an operating company — a San Jose, California–headquartered franchised distributor of semiconductors, passives, electromechanical, interconnect and display products, founded in November 2007, and a member of Taiwan-based WPG Holdings, one of the world's largest electronics distributors (revenue described in WPGA press materials as ranging from ~$17B to ~$27.4B in recent years). WPGA designs nothing it accuses itself of infringing; it is a channel intermediary, which is central to how Cedar Lane pleaded the case (resale/importation plus inducement through product literature and website materials directed to downstream customers).

The accused technology. The publicly filed complaint materials in Cedar Lane's '790 campaign do not name accused products in the body of the pleading; they incorporate by reference claim-chart exhibits identifying "Exemplary Defendant Products." I could not retrieve the WPG Americas complaint or its claim charts through available search tools, so the specific accused products in this case are not verified. What can be said with confidence is the shape of the theory: U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790, titled "Host interface for imaging arrays" (filed Dec. 21, 2000; issued Dec. 6, 2005; reportedly assigned to Psion Teklogix in 2005 before reaching Cedar Lane by May 2019 assignment), claims an interface bridging an image sensor and a microprocessor — a FIFO-type memory buffering imaging-array data and clock signals, a counter/signal generator that issues an interrupt to the processor when the buffered data reaches a threshold, and circuitry clocking data out at a rate set by the processor (independent claim 1). In practice Cedar Lane asserted it against anything containing an image sensor and a host processor — cameras, phones, printers/scanners, security cameras, automotive modules, and, as here, distributors of sensor-bearing components and evaluation hardware. Cedar Lane's companion divisional, U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242, is a method version of the same disclosure and was typically pleaded alongside the '790 in these campaigns; only the '790 is at issue in this case per the case metadata.

Posture, venue, and significance. As of October 2020 the case was in the pleadings stage — no answer-and-counterclaim fight, Markman, or dispositive motion activity is reported. A contemporaneous campaign survey (Mondaq, Oct. 26, 2020) grouped it with Cedar Lane's open cases against Arrow Electronics and TCL Communication as still in pleadings, while the parallel LG Electronics case was stayed pending dismissal. I was unable to verify the docket number, division, or presiding judge for this specific case; the caption as given lacks a civil action number, and the 6:20-cv-00790 number that surfaces in searches belongs to unrelated matters (a Milestone IP case and a Honda IPR). What is well documented is the venue logic: Cedar Lane filed the overwhelming majority of its ~200–270 suits in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, before Judge Alan D. Albright, whose patent standing orders and speedy trial settings made the division a magnet — by one widely cited estimate roughly a quarter of all U.S. patent litigation was pending there in 2021, prompting Senators Tillis and Leahy to complain to the Chief Justice about a single judge "openly solicit[ing] cases." The case is notable on four axes: (1) it is a textbook end-of-life patent monetization play — the '790's term was running out (aggregator data put expiry around August 2023 once adjustment is counted), so the campaign maximized volume before expiration; (2) it illustrates the IV divestiture pipeline into high-volume NPEs that RPX flagged as a principal driver of Q3 2020 NPE filings; (3) suing a distributor rather than an OEM is a deliberate indemnity-pressure tactic, since WPGA's customers and upstream suppliers (not WPGA's own R&D) bear the real exposure; and (4) Cedar Lane's credibility as a plaintiff was itself in play — in 2020 Judge Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) sanctioned Cedar Lane and Rabicoff for "objectively frivolous" positions taken "in bad faith" and referred Rabicoff to the court's professional-conduct committee, material a well-resourced defendant could use on a motion to dismiss or an exceptional-case theory. On the PTAB side, Unified Patents challenged other Cedar Lane assets — U.S. Patent 7,173,177 (claims held unpatentable Feb. 12, 2021 in IPR2019-01264) and 8,165,867 (crowdsourced prior art) — but I found no inter partes review of the '790, and I could not verify how or when this particular case terminated; given Cedar Lane's pattern, a quick voluntary dismissal or settlement is the most likely disposition, but that is inference, not a sourced fact.

Sourcing notes / confidence. Verified: Cedar Lane's Canadian NPE status, Benoit/Rabicoff roles, IV provenance, filing volume and settlement rate (The Logic; IAM Media, Mar. 2023; Mondaq "NPE Showcase," Oct. 2022; RPX Q3 2020 data byte; Stanford NPE Litigation Database); the Chhabria sanctions (Mondaq/NPE Showcase); WPG Americas' distributor profile and WPG Holdings parentage (WPGA press releases); the '790's title, dates, claim 1 text, Psion Teklogix assignment and Cedar Lane's May 2019 acquisition (complaint excerpts in D. Del./W.D. Wash. cases; The Recycler); the October 2020 pleadings-stage status (Mondaq, Oct. 26, 2020); the Unified IPRs (Unified Patents insights pages); the Waco/Albright venue context (The Logic; Senate letter quoted therein). Not verified: this case's civil action number, division, judge, accused products, and disposition — treat those as open items to confirm on PACER/RPX.

I'll research this case, starting with broad searches on the parties and patent.

Bottom line up front

I was unable to verify a district‑court docket number, venue, or any substantive ruling for Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. WPG Americas from the sources I could reach in this session. What is verifiable is thin, and I want to be explicit about the difference between what is sourced and what is not, because almost every item on your checklist (answer, counterclaims, Rule 12 motions, transfer/stay, Markman, discovery, trial, fees, appeal) appears not to have occurred in this particular case — consistent with the metadata's "pleadings stage as of Oct. 2020" and with Cedar Lane's standard operating pattern of settling before any of those events.

---

Verified record

2020‑10‑26 — Sole confirmed status point. In a Law360/IPWatchdog-style campaign roundup republished by Mondaq ("Cedar Lane, Elsewhere Ordered To Show Cause In Light Of Failure To Prosecute, Targets Streaming Services In Another Round Of Suits," 2020‑10‑26), the author states: "Cedar Lane's suit against LG Electronics is stayed pending dismissal, while its open cases against Arrow Electronics, TCL Communication, and WPG Americas remain in the pleadings stage." (https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/[998106](/patent/998106))

• This confirms the case existed by late October 2020, was filed against a distributor defendant, and had generated no motion practice of substance as of that date.
• It does not identify the court or civil action number.

Campaign context in which the case sits. The same article dates the campaign's start to May 2019 and describes ~70 defendants across overlapping subsets of ~40 former Intellectual Ventures patents; Cedar Lane was formed in British Columbia on 2019‑04‑29. The article also confirms Cedar Lane's 2020 filings clustered in E.D. Tex., S.D.N.Y., C.D. Cal., N.D. Cal., and W.D. Tex.

Patent‑level facts (well sourced). U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790, "Host interface for imaging arrays," application filed 2000‑12‑21, issued 2005‑12‑06, estimated expiry 2023‑08‑01. Claim 1 (representative) claims an interface with a memory storing imaging‑array data at the sensor clock rate, a signal generator that signals the processor "in response to the quantity of data in the memory," and circuitry clocking data out at the processor's rate (FIFO/interrupt architecture). It is the most‑asserted patent in the Cedar Lane portfolio — the Stanford NPE Litigation Database and Patsnap litigation records show it in roughly 52–167 cases depending on counting methodology (Patsnap lists 52 with recorded outcomes; a Chinese NPE‑warning analysis from 2022 tallies 167 suits). The divisional sibling U.S. Pat. No. 8,537,242 ("'242," method claims) is typically asserted alongside it.

---

Chronological reconstruction, with sourcing status

---

Parallel PTAB activity

IPR2020‑00006, Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc., petition filed 2019‑10‑03. This is the one confirmed PTAB challenge to a Cedar Lane patent in this period; it appears in Patexia's "related cases" table for Cedar Lane's '790‑family suits (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Walt Disney, 6:20‑cv‑00949), which lists it alongside the co‑pending district‑court cases. A 2022 Chinese NPE analysis (gdoip.com, 2022‑07‑04) reports that Unified's challenge was the only successful invalidation of a Cedar Lane patent to that date, describing Cedar Lane as having "no other invalidation records" besides it.

Caveat: I could not confirm from an authoritative PTAB source that IPR2020‑00006 was instituted, that it targeted the '790 as opposed to another portfolio patent, or its final written decision. The related‑cases table establishes only that the IPR concerns a patent at issue in the '790‑family litigation. Any statement that the '790 itself was invalidated at the PTAB would be unsupported — and it is affirmatively undercut by the fact that Cedar Lane continued asserting the '790 into 2023 (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Vantage Robotics, D. Del. 1:23‑cv‑00336; Cedar Lane v. ZKTeco USA, D.N.J. 2:23‑cv‑01693). I found no IPR, PGR, or EPR on the '790 in this session.

---

Why the case is legally unremarkable — and what that means

The '790 patent's expiry on 2023‑08‑01 (plus the 20‑year term from the 2000‑12‑21 priority date) imposed a hard backstop on the entire campaign and explains both the compression of these suits and their settlement economics: a defendant's exposure was bounded, and Cedar Lane's leverage was the cost of defense rather than trial risk. WPG Americas, as a franchised distributor (WPG Holdings subsidiary, San Jose, CA), was a secondary target whose practical defense was indemnity from its supplier principals — the classic distributor-defendant posture that produces early nuisance-value settlements and a with-prejudice dismissal with no written opinion. Cedar Lane's counsel of record in this era was Isaac P. Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC).

Two adjacent data points illustrate what a contested Cedar Lane case looks like, in contrast to this one: in Cedar Lane v. Blackmagic Design (N.D. Cal.), Judge Vince Chhabria on 2020‑10‑01 struck a third amended complaint, dismissed the induced/contributory claims, and ordered Cedar Lane to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and why counsel should not be sanctioned for repeated Rule 15 violations and misrepresentations of Rule 15 — the case then settled (Mondaq, 2020‑10‑26). And in Cedar Lane v. Bank of America (E.D. Tex. 2:25‑cv‑01225), the modern template is visible in full: joint motion to stay all deadlines and notice of settlement (Dkt. 15, 2026‑03‑02), joint stipulation of dismissal (Dkt. 17, 2026‑03‑05), and order dismissing with prejudice, each party bearing its own costs and fees (Dkt. 18, signed 2026‑03‑11, entered 2026‑03‑12).

---

Research gaps and recommended verification

To close this out properly, the following should be pulled directly:

1. CourtListener / RECAP party search for "WPG Americas" restricted to 2020 — https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%22WPG+Americas%22&type=r — the docket will give the case number, judge, and termination entry.
2. PACER Case Locator party search, same parameters.
3. PTAB P-TACTS / TTABVUE-equivalent for IPR2020‑00006 to confirm the challenged patent, institution decision date, and final written decision — https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/ or the PTAB End‑to‑End search.
4. Stanford NPE Litigation Database entries for patent 6,972,790 and for the Cedar Lane party page, which list every civil action and filing date and should surface the WPG Americas row.

Once the docket number is in hand, the realistic expectation is a short docket (roughly 8–20 entries) ending in a notice of voluntary dismissal or a joint stipulation, with no answer, no motion practice, and no opinion — in which case the correct characterization of this litigation is: filed in 2020 as part of a mass NPE campaign, never litigated beyond pleadings, and terminated by early settlement/dismissal, with no substantive ruling on the '790 patent and no PTAB proceeding directed at that patent. I would rather flag the gap than invent a docket entry number, a judge, or a dismissal date.

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

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc.

Bottom line up front: Cedar Lane's filings in this campaign were handled almost exclusively by a single outside lawyer, Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago). Public records I could reach in this session confirm Rabicoff as Cedar Lane's counsel in its contemporaneous W.D. Tex. and other 2020 '790-family suits, but I was not able to pull the WPG Americas docket sheet itself (Dkt. 1 signature block / notice of appearance) to quote the entry directly — that specific confirmation is flagged below as unverified.

Confirmed counsel

Grounding:

• Patsnap litigation records for Cedar Lane's W.D. Tex. '790/'242 cases (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Vimar, 6:22-cv-00971; Cedar Lane v. Vanguard Integrated Solutions, 6:22-cv-00968) list "Isaac Rabicoff / Rabicoff Law LLC" as plaintiff's counsel, with Judge Albright presiding. https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/cedar-lane-technologies-v-vimar-spa-host-interface-imaging-patent-patsnap/
• Cedar Lane Techs. v. iHeartMedia, No. 1:20-cv-00472 (W.D. Tex.) docket shows Rabicoff signing the complaint, summons request, Rule 7 disclosure, and notice of appearance for Cedar Lane — same era and same campaign as the WPG Americas case. https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/1:20-cv-00472
• Shenzhen IP Protection Center risk advisory (Oct. 2022): "Cedar Lane主要委托的律所为Rabicoff Law LLC … 代理Cedar Lane的专利侵权诉讼案件共58件" (Cedar Lane's principal firm is Rabicoff Law LLC, which handled 58 of its patent suits). http://www.sziprs.org.cn/szipr/hwwq/jfydzd/content/post_839930.html

What I could not verify (do not treat as established)

1. The WPG Americas docket itself. I could not retrieve the civil action number or the Dkt. 1 signature block for Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. WPG Americas. The case's existence and procedural posture are corroborated only by secondary reporting: RPX/IPWatchdog's Oct. 26, 2020 roundup states that "Cedar Lane's open cases against Arrow Electronics, TCL Communication, and WPG Americas remain in the pleadings stage." https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/998106 It is consistent with Cedar Lane's practice that Rabicoff filed and appeared, but the appearance entry should be confirmed on PACER/ECF before it is cited in a filing or chart.
2. Local counsel. I found no separate local-counsel appearance for Cedar Lane in its W.D. Tex. matters — Rabicoff signed as sole counsel, and W.D. Tex. does not mandate local counsel. If a local appearance exists in the WPG Americas case, it did not surface in any public source I could reach. (Note: in Cedar Lane's parallel D. Del. and N.D. Cal. suits, different counsel appeared — e.g., Raeann Warner in Delaware and Michael Glenn in N.D. Cal. — so do not import those names into a Texas case.)
3. In-house counsel. Cedar Lane is an NPE with no litigation department; its principal, Greg Benoit (director/president, British Columbia; former CEO of Patent Armory; affiliated with Pigott & Co.), is a client representative, not counsel of record. Do not list him as counsel.
4. Sealed filings / non-appearance. Nothing in the sources indicates sealing, but I also found no order, answer, or scheduling order in this case — consistent with the "pleadings stage" metadata and with Cedar Lane's pattern of voluntary dismissal before answer.

Recommended verification (2-minute PACER check)

Pull the docket for the W.D. Tex. case (search party "WPG Americas" restricted to 2020, W.D. Tex.), then confirm: (a) Dkt. 1 signature block; (b) the "Notice of Attorney Appearance" entry naming Rabicoff; (c) whether any co-counsel or local counsel entered; (d) the dismissal entry, if any. Until then, the only name that should be asserted as plaintiff's counsel is Isaac Rabicoff, Rabicoff Law LLC, with the caveat that his appearance in this specific case is inferred from a documented, near-uniform pattern rather than a docket entry I read directly.

Bottom line

I was not able to verify any counsel of record for WPG Americas in this action from the sources I could reach, and I will not name attorneys I cannot source. The specific docket sheet for Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. WPG Americas did not surface in the searches I ran. What I can confirm is the procedural posture and the plaintiff-side representation; the defense side is unconfirmed.

What is confirmed

Case posture (as of the metadata date). Trade-press docket reporting from October 2020 places this case among Cedar Lane's then-open matters still in the pleadings stage: "Cedar Lane's suit against LG Electronics is stayed pending dismissal, while its open cases against Arrow Electronics, TCL Communication, and WPG Americas remain in the pleadings stage." (Mondaq, 26 Oct 2020) This is consistent with the case metadata and indicates that, as of late October 2020, no answer, motion to dismiss, or transfer motion had been docketed — i.e., a period in which defense counsel may either not yet have appeared or had appeared only via an extension stipulation.

Plaintiff's counsel (for context only). Cedar Lane was represented in this campaign by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Alexandria, Va.), who filed the great majority of the '790-family complaints and appears as plaintiff's counsel of record across the related W.D. Tex. suits (e.g., Doc. 2, Notice of Attorney Appearance, Cedar Lane v. Walt Disney Co., No. 6:20-cv-00949; Doc. 2 in the Dish Network and T-Mobile matters). This is plaintiff-side counsel, not defendant's.

Why no defense counsel appears in the record I could retrieve. In Cedar Lane's W.D. Tex. campaign, a large share of the complaints were resolved by notice of voluntary dismissal before any defense appearance, answer, or Rule 7.1 disclosure hit the docket (see, e.g., Cedar Lane v. Disney, Docs. 8–9, notice of voluntary dismissal Feb. 23, 2021; Cedar Lane v. Dish, Docs. 18–20, stipulation of dismissal Mar. 11, 2021). If this case followed that pattern, the docket may contain no defense counsel entries at all — in which case the correct answer is that no attorney appeared for WPG Americas before dismissal.

What is not confirmed — and what I will not do

• I did not locate a docket entry (notice of appearance, answer, Rule 7.1 disclosure, or pro hac vice motion) naming any attorney for WPG Americas in this case.
• I did not find a case number I can verify for this specific suit. Related Cedar Lane W.D. Tex. filings from the same window include Nos. 6:20-cv-00947 (Dish) and 6:20-cv-00949 (Disney), so the WPG Americas matter is likely in that same 6:20-cv-009xx block, but I have not confirmed the exact number and am not going to assert one.
• Todd Hambidge (who represented WPG Americas as plaintiff in an unrelated Tennessee contract case, WPG Americas Inc. v. Horticulture Lighting Group Corp., No. 3:24-cv-00317, E.D. Tenn.) is not evidence of any appearance here, and I am not attributing it to this case.
• I am not going to supply the typical "local Waco counsel + out-of-state patent counsel" roster as though it were fact. That is a general pattern in W.D. Tex. patent litigation, not a sourced fact about WPG Americas.

Recommended verification path

1. PACER / CourtListener RECAP — pull the docket for the WPG Americas case (search party "WPG Americas" in W.D. Tex., filed Sept.–Oct. 2020) and read the "Attorneys" pane and any Doc. 7/8 entries (appearances typically appear there under Judge Albright's practices).
2. W.D. Tex. Clerk's Office (Waco Division) — the CM/ECF "attorneys" report for the case will list counsel of record even where the public docket text is sparse.
3. Defendant's Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure — WPG Americas identifies WPG Holdings as its corporate parent (as it did in the E.D. Tenn. filing, Doc. 2), which would identify the entity whose in-house/outside counsel would have been involved.
4. If the case was dismissed before appearance, the honest entry for this section is: "No counsel of record appeared for WPG Americas; case terminated via voluntary dismissal prior to defense appearance."

If you can supply the case number or a docket PDF, I can complete the attorney-by-attorney table — name, role, firm, office, and patent-litigation background — with proper citations.