Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Zenitel Group

I'll research this case across dockets, PTAB records, and litigation press coverage.

Now let me verify the docket specifics, the patents, and Zenitel's corporate profile.

Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Zenitel Group, No. 6:22-cv-01307 (W.D. Tex.)

The parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is not an operating company in any conventional sense — it is a Canadian patent-assertion entity formed in British Columbia on April 29, 2019, whose business model is acquiring seasoned portfolios and licensing them through litigation. Its holdings trace largely to Intellectual Ventures, acquired via AVInnov LLC and Steephill Technologies LLC, and its 560 Baker Street, Nelson, B.C. address corresponds to an IP licensing firm (RPX's account of the AVInnov→Cedar Lane assignment chain is the best public source: https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/news/59211). By the end of 2022 a Korean IP-office survey counted roughly 367 Cedar Lane suits, 310 of them closed by settlement, concentrated in W.D. Tex. before Judge Albright (https://kipo.go.kr/ko/kpoBultnFileDown.do?ntatcSeq=16800&ntatcAtflSeq=1&sysCd=SCD02&aprchId=BUT0000048); IAM described it as "America's top-filing NPE" with a ~96% settlement rate among terminated cases, and the Australian Financial Review later profiled the same campaign against Canva (https://www.afr.com/technology/patent-trolls-come-for-canva-as-it-prepares-for-share-sales-20250622-p5m9bg). Its litigation is run essentially by one lawyer, Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC. Zenitel (Zenitel Group / Zenitel NV) is the opposite profile: an Antwerp-based, century-old critical-communications incumbent (Vingtor-Stentofon heritage) selling IP intercoms, video door stations (the TCIV line), IP speakers, and public-address/voice-alarm systems through partners in 75+ countries — e.g., its TCIV-2+ video intercom at Salesforce Tower (https://www.zenitel.com/sites/default/files/2025-07/Salesforce%20Tower%20Case%20study.pdf). It is a publicly traded Belgian company; I did not independently verify its current Euronext Brussels listing status in this pass.

The patents and the accused technology. The suit is the "camera/imaging" package Cedar Lane deployed against camera, intercom, and video-surveillance vendors (GoPro, Hasselblad, Leica, Speco, Lorex, Skydio, Synectics, Urmet, TKH Security,

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and the asserted patents.

Good initial grounding. Now let me pull the actual docket and check for any transfer motion and PTAB activity.

Cedar Lane Techs., Inc. v. Zenitel Group, No. 6:22-cv-01307 (W.D. Tex.) — Litigation Timeline & Outcome

Bottom line: This is a short-lived, pleadings-stage case. It was filed 2022-12-28 and terminated 2023-11-01 by Cedar Lane's own Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal with prejudice — before Zenitel ever answered. There was no answer, no counterclaim, no motion practice of substance, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, and no appeal. The only substantive docket activity after the complaint was a single unopposed extension of Zenitel's answer deadline.

Verified chronology

Stages that never occurred (and why that matters)

• Answer / counterclaims: none. Because dismissal preceded any responsive pleading, Zenitel did not file invalidity or non-infringement counterclaims, and no declaratory-judgment or § 285 posture was ever created.
• Motions to dismiss / transfer / stay pending IPR: I found no such motion in this docket. (A 2023-07-20 "Redacted Copy of Doc. 43 Sealed Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Transfer" appears on an aggregator page that sweeps in docket text from other Cedar Lane-related matters — most likely the separate Bright Capture LLC case — and does not match a docket that stood at roughly 15 entries; I could not confirm any transfer briefing here. Treat that line as unverified for this case.)
• Markman: none. No scheduling order, no Joint Claim Construction Statement, no iPhone/Brooks procedure, no claim-construction order.
• Discovery: no Rule 26(f) conference, no infringement or invalidity contentions, no ESI or source-code production, no depositions. There are therefore no discovery rulings with strategic significance to report.
• Trial / JMOL / new trial / fee motions: none.
• Appeal: none; the dismissal was by the plaintiff under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), not a judgment, so no Federal Circuit jurisdiction attached.

The pleadings themselves — worth noting as a defect

The complaint was of the "form" variety that has drawn criticism in the Cedar Lane campaign: it did not identify the asserted claims (referring instead to "Exemplary '790 / '242 / '527 Patent Claims" in exhibits) and did not name the accused products, referring generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" supposedly identified in exhibits not attached to the pleading. Extrapolating from Zenitel's product lines (Turbine/Exigo/Connect Pro IP intercoms and door stations with integrated cameras), the likely theory was that Zenitel's camera-equipped IP intercom stations contain CMOS image sensors with FIFO-buffered host interfaces — but the complaint did not say so, and that inference is mine, not the record.

Why the case likely resolved the way it did (analysis, flagged as such)

1. The patents' commercial lives were expiring mid-case. The '790's estimated expiry is 2023-08-01 and the '527 was already expired; with no injunction available and damages windows narrowing (35 U.S.C. § 286's six-year lookback), the settlement value decayed monthly. The dismissal landed exactly three months after the '790's expiry date.
2. Cedar Lane's campaign is settlement-driven, not trial-driven. IAM's 2023-03-20 profile of Cedar Lane (interview with president Greg Benoit) reported a 96% settlement rate among terminated cases — and independent tallies put the campaign at 300+ suits with very few advancing past pleadings. This case fits that template precisely: extension by the plaintiff, then a with-preferential dismissal with each side bearing its own fees.
3. No public license or settlement agreement was filed; the dismissal notice's "each party shall bear its own costs" language is all the record discloses. Whether consideration changed hands is not verifiable from public sources.

Parallel PTAB proceedings

• No IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against the '790, '242, or '527 appears in my search results; the litigation databases record "Validity challenges: None recorded" for the '790. This is consistent with the population of Cedar Lane defendants, who overwhelmingly settled rather than paying for PTAB challenges (an IPR typically costs more than a Cedar Lane nuisance-value license).
• Consequently there was no § 315(b) bar issue, no Fintiv-style discretionary-denial fight, and no estoppel effect on this case. Caveat: I could not run the PTAB docket directly (P-TACTS/PTAB Center) before hitting my research limit; the "no IPR" conclusion rests on litigation-database and secondary-source absence of any petition, and should be confirmed against the Board's docket if it is load-bearing for your purposes.

Source quality notes

• Filing date, dismissal date, judge, basis of termination (with the verbatim Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) text), and the Dkt. 14 / 2023-08-01 extension entries are from litigation databases reproducing docket text (Patsnap litigation record; ExParte AI docket extract; Stanford NPE Litigation Database entries for both Cedar Lane and Zenitel). I could not retrieve the PACER docket itself to give you entry-by-entry numbering for the dismissal (likely Dkt. 15–17), so the dismissal's docket number is unconfirmed.
• Party names, court, case number, and the three patents are taken as authoritative from the case metadata, consistent with the sources above.
• Complaint-content characterizations (unnamed claims/products) come from an automated complaint-analysis page for this docket; they match the pattern I independently confirmed in Cedar Lane's parallel complaints (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Lorex, 6:22-cv-00654).

Present posture: Closed. No live proceeding exists at the district court, the Federal Circuit, or the PTAB as of 2026-11-06.

I'll research the plaintiff's counsel of record in this case.

Let me pull the docket sheet details and confirm all counsel who entered appearances.

Let me check the full docket sheet for any additional plaintiff counsel (e.g., local counsel) and the complaint signature block.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Zenitel Group, No. 6:22-cv-01307 (W.D. Tex.)

Summary finding

The docket reflects exactly one attorney appearing for Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.: Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC. No co-counsel, no Texas local counsel, and no in-house appearance are recorded in this case. The case was short-lived — filed 12/28/2022, closed 11/1/2023 by Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of dismissal with prejudice — and Zenitel never answered, so the plaintiff's-side record is thin (a handful of filings, all signed by Rabicoff).

---

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

Docket grounding: the 07/31/2023 proposed order and 08/01/2023 text order resetting Zenitel's answer deadline to 9/5/2023 are both recorded with "(Rabicoff, Isaac)" as filer, and the docket's party record lists Isaac Rabicoff / Rabicoff Law LLC for Cedar Lane. Case terminated ~11/1/2023, ~308 days after filing, with the dismissal notice stating: "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."

---

Notable professional-conduct history (relevant diligence for this counsel)

This is not a merits ruling in this case, but it is well documented and bears directly on assessing plaintiff's counsel:

• Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Blackmagic Design Inc., No. 3:20-cv-01302-VC (N.D. Cal.) — Judge Vince Chhabria's November 19, 2020 order sanctioned Rabicoff $1,000 under Rule 11 and the court's inherent authority for frivolous arguments and misrepresentations, found he was a "serial filer of patent lawsuits in the Northern District of California" who was not admitted there, declined to seek or pay pro hac vice fees in many cases, and referred him to the N.D. Cal. Standing Committee on Professional Conduct. (sanctions/referral order PDF)
• The Standing Committee's investigation (Durie/McIntyre) resulted in a January 24, 2022 informal resolution requiring payment of $9,193 in past-due pro hac vice fees, approved by the court February 4, 2022.
• A document appearing to be a California State Bar public reprimand without terms against Isaac P. Rabicoff references the Blackmagic matter and Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct 3.1. (Sourced to a third-party-hosted copy of the disciplinary decision; I could not independently verify it against the State Bar's own disciplinary records in this session — treat as reported, not confirmed.)
• He has since faced renewed Rule 11 / pro hac vice scrutiny in later N.D. Cal. matters (e.g., a 2025 order referencing 49 patent cases filed there in about two years).

---

Explicit gaps / what is not in the record

• No local counsel: Nothing in the available docket material shows a W.D. Tex.-based attorney appearing for Cedar Lane, which is notable given Local Rule AT-1 admission requirements and Rabicoff's documented pro hac vice history elsewhere. Whether he sought pro hac vice admission in this specific case is not verified — the case settled out in ~10 months with no answer, and no admission order surfaced in the records I could access.
• No in-house appearance: Cedar Lane's president/founder Greg Benoit (a Canadian lawyer with NPE-litigation background) is a corporate officer, not counsel of record here; he never entered an appearance in this docket.
• Sealed filings: I found no indication of sealed documents in this docket; the gap is simply that few substantive filings exist because the case terminated pre-answer.
• Docket access caveat: PACER itself was not directly queried; the docket entries above are drawn from aggregated docket mirrors (Ex Parte AI-Lab, Patsnap Litigation, Stanford NPE Database), which agree on the 12/28/2022 filing, Judge Albright assignment, the 7/31–8/1/2023 extension, and the 11/1/2023 dismissal. If you need the appearance date and any pro hac vice order certified, pull the PACER docket sheet for ECF Nos. 1–20 directly.

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

Let me pull the actual docket sheet and party/attorney records.

Bottom line

I could not verify any attorney of record for Zenitel Group in 6:22-cv-01307 from public sources. Rather than populate the requested table with names I cannot source, I am reporting that as the finding, together with what the docket does show about the defense side and exactly where the confirmation has to come from.

This is not an unusual outcome for this particular case. The publicly indexed docket activity is thin and every defense-side appearance marker I could locate is absent — which is itself consistent with a case that resolved before Zenitel ever litigated.

---

1. What the public record shows on the defense side

Two corroborating negatives:

• Patsnap's litigation record for this case lists Plaintiff counsel as Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC) and, for the Defendant, expressly records "Counsel — Not recorded; Firm — Not recorded."
• No NOTICE of Attorney Appearance, Rule 7.1 disclosure, answer, motion to dismiss, or motion to transfer by Zenitel surfaced in any indexed docket snapshot for this case number.

2. Where I cannot go further — and the two traps in the data

I found no source naming a Zenitel attorney, local W.D. Tex. counsel, or in-house counsel. I am therefore not supplying names, firms, or offices, and there is no "one-line experience note" to give, because doing so would require invention.

Two items I encountered that must not be attributed to this case:

1. "Redacted Copy of 43 Sealed ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER" (07/20/2023). This appears on a party-aggregator page that mixes several dockets. The Zenitel action never transferred: it remained in W.D. Tex. before Judge Albright and was dismissed there on 11/1/2023. Dkt. 43 in this case is not a transfer order on any record I could confirm. Do not cite it.
2. Cortney Alexander appears as a filer on a stipulation of dismissal on the same aggregator page — that signature is on a Bright Capture LLC pleading, not on any Cedar Lane v. Zenitel filing. (Rabicoff Law filed a cluster of complaints on 12/28/2022, including the adjacent 6:22-cv-01305 and 6:22-cv-01311, which is how the records bleed together.)

3. Practical reading of the posture

The filing pattern — plaintiff-driven unopposed extensions plus a dismissal recital that Zenitel "has not yet answered" — is consistent with Zenitel (a Belgian group; Zenitel NV is Antwerp-headquartered, though I did not independently verify the served entity here) resolving the matter through waiver of service and a pre-answer settlement, without ever engaging litigation counsel of record. That is an inference from docket mechanics, not a documented fact, and it is not proof that no attorney was ever involved behind the scenes — pre-appearance settlement counsel, foreign coordinating counsel, and insurer-appointed counsel would all leave no PACER trace.

Context worth noting for the case narrative: the '790 and '242 patents carried an estimated expiry of August 1, 2023, roughly three months before the November 1 dismissal, which plausibly shaped the settlement timing. Again, inference only.

4. How to close this out definitively

Because the case is closed and any appearance is now historical, the reliable path is a direct PACER pull, not secondary aggregators:

1. PACER docket for 6:22-cv-01307 (W.D. Tex.) — review every entry from Dkt. 1 through the ~Dkt. 20 range for (a) a WAIVER OF SERVICE return naming receiving counsel, (b) any NOTICE of Attorney Appearance, and (c) the local Rule AT-1/AT-3 admission records, which is where local counsel surfaces even when lead counsel never files.
2. The executed waiver of service form itself — it identifies the attorney who accepted service, which is often the only counsel name in a pre-answer disposition.
3. Settlement documents / Rule 41 stipulation signature blocks, and any sealed filings — several entries in this period are sealed, so a sealed appearance or settlement agreement is a live possibility.
4. W.D. Tex. Clerk's Office (Waco) for the attorney-of-record printout, which reflects appearances even after closure.

If the pull confirms no appearance, the correct characterization for the case file is: "No counsel of record entered an appearance for Zenitel Group; the action was dismissed with prejudice on November 1, 2023 before any responsive pleading, with each party bearing its own fees and costs."

---

Sourcing confidence