Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Zhuhai RaySharp

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search.

Let me dig into the docket, the parties' backgrounds, and any PTAB history.

Case Overview & Background

Parties. Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. Zhuhai RaySharp Technology Co., Ltd., No. 6:22-cv-01030 (W.D. Tex.) paired a Canadian, Nelson, British Columbia–based patent assertion entity against a Chinese security-surveillance hardware manufacturer. Cedar Lane was incorporated in 2019, is characterized in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database as an "acquired patents" asserter, and by late 2022 had filed roughly 325 U.S. district court suits (including against Huawei, MediaTek, Apple and TCL), making it — per Lex Machina data cited in a Shenzhen IP Protection Center risk advisory — the most active patent plaintiff in the United States in 2021. It is represented in this campaign by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, who filed dozens of Cedar Lane complaints in the W.D. Tex. Waco Division in the September–October 2022 window. (Cedar Lane's founder, Greg Benoit, and a 2020 sanctions order against Cedar Lane and Rabicoff by Judge Vince Chhabria in the N.D. Cal. are reported in secondary commentary — NPE Showcase, JD Supra/Gadgets, Gigabytes & Goodwill — and I have not independently verified the underlying order.) Zhuhai RaySharp (深交所: 301042), founded 2007 and ChiNext-listed in August 2021, is an ODM-oriented maker of consumer and engineering-market video surveillance gear — embedded DVRs, NVRs, network/coaxial HD cameras, vehicle DVRs — with roughly 965–1,257 employees and revenue predominantly from North America and Europe. It is an operating manufacturer, not a patent plaintiff; the Stanford database records no assertion activity by RaySharp.

Technology and patents. The asserted patent, U.S. 6,972,790 ("Host interface for imaging arrays," issued Dec. 6, 2005; inventor Mark Suska; application filed Dec. 21, 2000, claiming priority to Jan. 21, 2000; prosecuted by McAndrews Held & Malloy), claims an interface that sits between a CMOS image sensor's continuous "video-style," clock-synchronized pixel stream and a microprocessor's random-access memory architecture. Representative claim 1 recites a memory (e.g., a FIFO or addressable buffer) storing imaging-array data at the sensor's clock rate, a signal generator that issues an interrupt or bus-request signal "in response to the quantity of data in the memory," and a circuit that then drains the buffer at the processor's rate; dependent/die-level claims place the interface on the same die as the sensor to eliminate external "glue logic." Cedar Lane's complaint also pleaded the '790 patent's divisional, U.S. 8,537,242 (issued Sept. 17, 2013; filed Oct. 27, 2005), which claims the corresponding method — FIFO counter, comparison to a FIFO limit, interrupt generation, and transfer — according to PatSnap's PACER-derived docket record for this case (which lists two patents). Caveat: case metadata here lists only the '790; the presence of the '242 in this particular complaint is sourced to PatSnap's docket data and was not independently confirmed against the PACER file. The accused instrumentality is described in Cedar Lane's boilerplate pleadings only as "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in claim-chart exhibits — i.e., RaySharp's camera and DVR/NVR product lines incorporating image-sensor-to-host interfaces. No product-specific infringement theory is publicly documented, and no merits ruling exists.

Procedural posture and why it matters. Filed October 4, 2022 in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright — then the nation's busiest patent judge, with a reputation for rapid trial scheduling and historically low transfer rates — the case was voluntarily dismissed by Cedar Lane on May 30, 2023, 238 days after filing, on a notice of voluntary dismissal with a proposed order (per the docket text quoted by PatSnap). No defendant counsel appears on the public record, suggesting the matter resolved before appearance; the record does not disclose whether dismissal was with or without prejudice, whether a license or payment was involved, or any terms. Venue selection is the story: Cedar Lane used Waco as a volume-filing venue against foreign manufacturers with no meaningful U.S. presence, and RaySharp — a Chinese ODM whose U.S. exposure runs through importation and channel sales — fit that profile. The dismissal came roughly two months before the '790's estimated expiry of August 1, 2023, which, combined with the six-year damages lookback of 35 U.S.C. § 286, effectively extinguished the recovery window on this patent family. I found no PTAB inter partes review or other validity challenge against the '790; PatSnap records "validity challenges: none recorded," and the patent's claim scope was therefore never tested in any forum — the case is notable less for doctrine than as a data point in Cedar Lane's high-volume, short-duration, settlement-oriented campaign (no Cedar Lane case is reported to have reached trial), and as an illustration of Waco's role as a clearinghouse for NPE assertions against Asian hardware suppliers. One post-script worth flagging: on October 30, 2024, the U.S. Treasury's OFAC added Zhuhai RaySharp Technology Co. Ltd. (same address and unified social credit code) to the SDN list under the Russia sanctions program (E.O. 14024) — a development entirely unrelated to this patent suit but relevant to any judgment-enforcement or licensing analysis involving this defendant.

Sourcing note: Party facts, filing/dismissal dates, judge, case number and docket text are drawn from Stanford NPE Litigation Database records and PatSnap's PACER-derived docket summaries; the '790 technical description is from the patent's abstract/claims as reproduced in complaint analyses of parallel Cedar Lane suits. I did not locate a Reuters, Law360, IPWatchdog or RPX write-up specific to this docket, and I could not retrieve the PACER docket itself, so the prejudice status of the dismissal and the exact claim charts remain unverified.

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

Now let me get the actual docket from CourtListener and look for PTAB proceedings on the '790 patent.

Let me pull the actual docket and search for any PTAB challenges.

Bottom line

This is a short, merits-free case. Cedar Lane filed on 2022-10-04, and on 2023-05-30 — 238 days later — it filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with a proposed order. There was no answer or counterclaim on the public record, no motion practice, no Markman, no discovery of consequence, no trial, no PTAB proceeding, and no appeal. The case never produced a single ruling on infringement, validity, or damages.

---

1. Case identity and chronology

Note on the patent list: the case metadata for this matter lists only the '790 patent. The PACER-derived litigation databases record two patents on the docket, '790 and its divisional '242. Cedar Lane virtually always pleaded these two together in this campaign (the same '790/'242 pair appears in its Qualcomm, Snap, Vector Security, Dynacom, and Video Network Security complaints). I have treated both as pleaded, but flag that the '242 assertion rests on third-party docket compilations rather than the complaint text I was able to review.

---

2. Filing and initial pleadings

2022-10-04 — Complaint filed. Cedar Lane filed a three-count (or two-count, per the '790/'242 version) infringement complaint in the Waco Division before Judge Albright. The pleading follows Rabicoff Law's standardized template for this portfolio:

• Asserted claims: the complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying claim numbers, incorporating infringement contentions by reference to claim-chart exhibits. Representative independent claim 1 of the '790 patent recites an interface comprising (a) a memory storing imaging-array data and clocking signals at the sensor's clock rate, (b) a signal generator generating a signal to the processor in response to the quantity of data in memory, and (c) a circuit controlling transfer out of memory at the processor's rate.
• Accused products: not named in the body of the complaint — referred to only as "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in exhibits. This is a deliberate feature of Cedar Lane's pleadings in this campaign, and it is a standing § 101/112 and Iqbal vulnerability that defendants in the sibling cases attacked.
• Theories: direct infringement plus induced infringement premised on defendant's product literature and website materials instructing end users, with actual knowledge dated to service of the complaint and claim charts.
• Relief sought: § 284 damages with pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and a § 285 exceptional-case finding.

No answer, counterclaims, or Rule 12 motion appear on the public record. Per the PACER-derived compilation, no defendant counsel ever entered an appearance. Zhuhai RaySharp is a Zhuhai, Guangdong-based manufacturer, so service would have run through the Hague Convention — a process that routinely consumes four to eight months and is a plausible explanation for the absence of any appearance before dismissal. I could not independently confirm the service docket entries, so treat this as inference rather than established fact.

---

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

None. There was no motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a)/§ 1406 transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, no preliminary injunction motion, and no summary judgment motion. Compare the sibling cases, where out-of-district defendants routinely moved to transfer out of Waco and where Cedar Lane's thin pleadings drew Rule 12(b)(6) attacks — here the case ended before any of that machinery engaged.

---

4. Claim construction (Markman)

Never reached. No claim construction order, no joint claim construction statement, no Markman hearing. The '790 patent's claim terms — principally "signal generator," "clocking signals," and the two-rate memory architecture — remain unconstrued by any court. Because no IPR reached the PTAB either, the '790 patent's claim scope is entirely untested in any adjudicative forum.

---

5. Discovery milestones

None of strategic significance on the public record. No scheduling order milestones of note, no discovery disputes, no motion to compel, no expert reports. The 238-day pendency, minus service time under the Hague Convention, leaves essentially no window for meaningful discovery.

---

6. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial date, no verdict, no JMOL, no new-trial motion, and no fee motion under § 285. No damages were awarded and no liability was established.

---

7. Final disposition

2023-05-30 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. The docket text, as captured verbatim by litigation databases:

"NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Rabicoff, Isaac) (Entered: 05/30/2023)."

Procedure: a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal is available as of right only before the defendant serves an answer or a summary judgment motion. If Zhuhai RaySharp never appeared — consistent with the absence of defense counsel on the docket — Cedar Lane's dismissal was effective on filing, without need for a court order, and the proposed order was belt-and-suspenders. That also means the dismissal is without prejudice by default under Rule 41(a)(1)(B), since no stipulation of dismissal with prejudice is reflected in the record text. The available docket extract does not disclose prejudice status, so I flag this as an inference from the Rule 41 mechanics rather than a verified docket entry.

Current posture: closed, with no appeal. There is no live litigation between these parties on the '790 patent, and none is realistically available going forward — see the expiration point below.

---

8. Parallel PTAB proceedings

None. I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against US 6,972,790 — not by Zhuhai RaySharp and not by any other party. Patent-database tracking of the '790 patent records "validity challenges: none," and there is no Federal Circuit or PTAB decision touching the '790 patent. This matters for two reasons:

• No stay motion was ever available, so the case's trajectory was not PTAB-driven.
• No estoppel or adverse validity record attaches to the '790 or '242 patents. Cedar Lane's licensing leverage against the rest of the surveillance-camera industry was therefore unimpaired by anything that happened here.

One practical reason no IPR was filed: the '790 patent is expired or expiring. Database estimates put its term end at approximately 2023-08-01 (reflecting patent term adjustment on a 2000-12-21 filing). A petition filed in late 2022 would have faced a strong mootness/expedited-issuance argument, since the patent would lapse before any final written decision. I flag the 2023-08-01 date as database-derived and not independently verified, but the underlying logic — that the asserted patent's life was running out during the case — is well supported and probably explains both the absence of IPR activity and the speed of Cedar Lane's exit.

---

9. Strategic significance and campaign context

Reading this case in isolation would be misleading; it is one data point in a large, standardized enforcement program.

• The campaign. Cedar Lane is a high-volume NPE holding a portfolio acquired out of the Psion Teklogix / Intellectual Ventures chain. The USPTO assignment record for the '790 family shows the nunc pro tunc IV assignment recorded 2019-01-23, a transfer to Rabicoff's Spokane, WA address recorded 2019-03-11, a further transfer to Nelson, BC recorded 2019-05-13, and a secured-party release recorded 2022-09-29 — i.e., Cedar Lane's chain of title was being cleaned up literally weeks before this suit was filed. The '790 patent has been asserted in roughly 52 cases per PACER-derived compilations, across D. Del., D.N.J., W.D. Pa., N.D.N.Y., E.D.N.Y., W.D. Tex., W.D. Wash., and W.D.N.Y.
• The filing wave. Zhuhai RaySharp was sued in a September–October 2022 cluster of Waco filings against surveillance and imaging-hardware makers (Nexcom, Silent Sentinel, Synectics, Vimar, Pryntec, Uniview, Provision-ISR, Planet Technology, Samriddhi, Vanguard Integrated, and others). The pattern — file in Waco before Judge Albright, plead unidentified accused products, extract a small paid license, dismiss — is the campaign's signature.
• The economics. A directly comparable Cedar Lane '790/'242 resolution is instructive: in a 2021-06-11 W.D. Tex. suit against Reolink-affiliated 睿联数字 asserting '790, '867, and '242, the parties settled on 2021-08-09 for US$10,000 plus a perpetual, worldwide license to the patents running to the defendant and its affiliates, with a covenant not to sue, and Cedar Lane then withdrew the case. That figure — five figures, not six or seven — is the realistic benchmark for what a case like Zhuhai RaySharp was worth to Cedar Lane, and explains why so few of these matters were litigated to a merits ruling. (Source: IPRdaily, 2024-04-01, reporting on Reolink's IPO disclosure. This is the Reolink/睿联 matter, not this case — I use it as a comparable, not as a fact about Zhuhai RaySharp.)
• Why the dismissal is the interesting event. A voluntary dismissal in Waco before Judge Albright — a venue Cedar Lane chose for its speed — is anomalous. Three non-exclusive explanations are consistent with the record: (i) Hague Convention service against a Chinese manufacturer made the timeline unacceptable and the defendant unreachable in the U.S.; (ii) the '790 patent's expiry extinguished forward-looking relief and compressed the

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc.

Case: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Zhuhai RaySharp Technology Co., Ltd., No. 6:22-cv-01030 (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.), Judge Alan D. Albright — filed Oct. 4, 2022; closed May 30, 2023 on plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal.

Lead counsel

Sources: PatSnap litigation record for No. 6:22-cv-01030 (records Rabicoff / Rabicoff Law LLC as plaintiff counsel of record and quotes the dismissal entry verbatim) — https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/cedar-lane-technologies-v-zhuhai-raysharp-patent-dismissal-patsnap-2/ ; firm bio — http://www.rabilaw.com/rabicoff.html ; Law360 attorney profile — https://www.law360.com/firms/rabicoff-law/attorneys/isaac-p-rabicoff ; Shenzhen IP Protection Center risk advisory (identifies Rabicoff Law LLC as Cedar Lane's counsel and describes the campaign) — http://www.sziprs.org.cn/szipr/hwwq/jfydzd/content/post_839930.html .

Secondary / other counsel — status

• Kenneth A. Matuszewski (Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago; USPTO Reg. No. 74,791) is Rabicoff's customary "backup counsel" on PTAB and district-court filings and appears alongside Rabicoff in many Cedar Lane and Grecia matters. I could not confirm from a docket record that he entered an appearance in No. 6:22-cv-01030, so he should not be listed as counsel of record here without a docket check.
• Local counsel: None is identified in the public litigation records for this case. This is notable because Rabicoff's published admissions (Illinois; E.D. Tex.; N.D. Ill.; W.D. Wis.; 7th Cir.; Fed. Cir.; U.S. Supreme Court) do not include W.D. Tex., so an appearance in Waco would ordinarily require a pro hac vice motion, often paired with local counsel. No such co-counsel name surfaces in the accessible record — treat "no local counsel" as unverified rather than established.
• In-house / corporate: Cedar Lane's principal, Greg Benoit, is himself a Canadian lawyer and the company's founder; he is not shown as counsel of record in this action.
• Defendant side: PatSnap notes that no defense counsel appears on the public record, consistent with the case resolving before Zhuhai RaySharp appeared or answered.

Caveats on sourcing

I was not able to pull the PACER/CourtListener docket sheet itself for 6:22-cv-01030 (CourtListener doesn't appear to have a RECAP docket for this number, and Justia's W.D. Tex. index did not surface it). The counsel identification above rests on (a) PatSnap's PACER-derived docket extraction, which quotes the dismissal filing with Rabicoff's CM/ECF login, and (b) the Shenzhen IP Protection Center report naming Rabicoff Law LLC as Cedar Lane's counsel in its 2022 W.D. Tex. wave. Both are consistent; neither is the docket sheet. If you need a citation-grade confirmation, the two documents to order from PACER are Dkt. 1 (complaint, showing the signature block and any co-signers) and the pro hac vice order, if any, in the 6:22-cv-01030 file.

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

Let me dig deeper into the actual docket to confirm whether any defense appearance was ever filed.

Let me try to locate the actual docket on CourtListener/RECAP and check for any service-related filings.

Bottom line

I could not identify any counsel of record for Zhuhai RaySharp Technology Co., Ltd. — and the best available evidence indicates that no defense attorney ever entered an appearance in this case. The action was voluntarily dismissed by Cedar Lane roughly eight months after filing, before any answer, motion, or notice of appearance by the defendant.

• Case: Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. Zhuhai RaySharp Technology Co., Ltd., No. 6:22-cv-01030 (W.D. Tex.), before Judge Alan D. Albright
• Filed 4 Oct 2022; closed 30 May 2023 (238 days); basis of termination: voluntary dismissal by plaintiff
• Entry cited as the closing event: "NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Rabicoff, Isaac) (Entered: 05/30/2023)"

Defendant counsel of record

I am deliberately not naming any attorney here. Naming a firm for this defendant would be fabrication.

What the record does show (and sourcing)

1. Litigation-database summary of the docket explicitly states no defense counsel appears. PatSnap's docket-derived case page for 6:22-cv-01030 records the defendant's counsel field as "Not recorded" and states: "No defendant counsel appears on the public record, which may suggest the case resolved before formal appearance or engagement." It lists only Isaac Rabicoff / Rabicoff Law LLC for the plaintiff. (PatSnap case page; PatSnap analysis page)
2. Same source answers the direct question: "Judge Alan D Albright presided. Isaac Rabicoff is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies" — and no defendant attorney is listed in the party/representation table, which contains only plaintiff-side entries.
3. The Stanford NPE Litigation Database confirms the case exists and identifies Zhuhai RaySharp as alleged infringer, but does not carry defense counsel data for it. (Stanford NPE — US 6,972,790; Zhuhai RaySharp party page)
4. For comparison, in Cedar Lane's other cases defense counsel does appear — e.g., in Cedar Lane v. Qualcomm (6:22-cv-00046), Deron R. Dacus is listed as defendant's attorney. That contrast supports the conclusion that Zhuhai RaySharp's "no counsel" status is case-specific, not an artifact of the data source. (UniCourt case summary)

Important caveats on sourcing

• I did not obtain a PACER pull or a RECAP/CourtListener docket sheet for 6:22-cv-01030 directly. W.D. Tex. docket access is paywalled, and my searches did not surface a public RECAP docket for this particular case number (CourtListener hits were for unrelated Cedar Lane matters). My conclusion rests on litigation-database summaries of that docket, not the primary file.
• Whether any defense filing is sealed is unknown to me. If a sealed appearance or sealed stipulation exists, it would not appear in the aggregator data. Nothing in the available record, however, indicates sealing in this case.
• Prejudice status of the dismissal is not established in the public summaries — I could not confirm whether the 30 May 2023 dismissal was with or without prejudice, and I am not asserting either.

A plausible (but unverified) explanation

The pattern — foreign manufacturer, ~8 months of pendency, no appearance, plaintiff-initiated dismissal — is consistent with service of process never being perfected on the Chinese entity, a common outcome given Hague Convention service timelines in China. This is inference, not a documented finding; I found no filing in the available summaries (e.g., a motion for alternative service, waiver of service, or return of summons) to confirm it. Separately, Zhuhai RaySharp Technology Co., Ltd. appears on OFAC's SDN list (published 30 Oct 2024, Russia-related EO 14024 program) — a post-dismissal development that may bear on any future U.S. engagement, but it is outside this case's record and I have not verified entity identity beyond the name and address match.

How to confirm definitively (recommended before relying on this)

1. Pull the full docket for 6:22-cv-01030 (W.D. Tex.) on PACER and review the "Attorneys" tab / party listing — this is the controlling check.
2. Scan docket entries between 4 Oct 2022 and 30 May 2023 for: Summons Returned Executed/Unexecuted, Request for Waiver of Service, Motion for Alternative Service, Notice of Attorney Appearance, Answer, or any Rule 12 motion.
3. Check the 30 May 2023 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and any accompanying proposed order for the prejudice designation and any recitals regarding service or settlement.
4. Check RECAP/CourtListener under the docket number to see if a free copy of the docket has been archived.

If you can supply the PACER docket text or a PDF of the docket sheet, I will parse it and produce the counsel table with names, firms, offices, and role designations immediately.