Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Zicom Technology Inc.

Case Overview — Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Zicom Technology Inc., No. 2:22-cv-06222 (D.N.J.)

Parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is a Canadian entity incorporated in 2019 that does not make or sell products; it is a classic patent assertion entity (PAE/NPE) built on a portfolio acquired — directly or indirectly — from Intellectual Ventures LLC. By early 2022 it had sued more than 150 defendants across roughly 50 acquired patents, in overlapping clusters covering image processing, remote-control/streaming functionality, and JPEG compression, and it is described by defense-side commentators as one of the most prolific NPE filers in the market (Seyfarth Shaw, "NPE Showcase – Cedar Lane Technologies," JD Supra, Oct. 2022; RPX/Mondaq, "Defendant Count In Cedar Lane Technologies's Campaign Ticks Past 150," Jan. 31, 2022). In this action Cedar Lane was represented by David W. deBruin (Napoli Shkolnik, LLC), one of its regular East Coast counsel — distinct from Isaac Rabicoff, who handles its high-volume Western District of Texas docket. The defendant, Zicom Technology Inc., is the weakest-documented piece of the picture: Zicom Electronic Security Systems Ltd. is a Mumbai-based, BSE-listed electronic-security company (founded 1995) selling CCTV cameras, DVR/NVR recorders, video door phones, access control and intrusion-detection gear, including HD-TVI camera/DVR lines and CMOS-sensor cameras. I could not verify from any source the corporate form, state of incorporation, or affiliate relationship of the named U.S. entity "Zicom Technology Inc." to that Indian group, and the complaint-level allegations about it are not publicly readable without PACER; treat that link as plausible but unconfirmed. Zicom never appeared or answered, and no defense counsel appears on the docket.

Asserted patent and accused technology. The case metadata lists a single patent: U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242, "Host interface for imaging arrays" (issued Sept. 17, 2013). Technically, the '242 patent is a divisional of the application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 (Dec. 6, 2005), and the family shares an estimated priority date of January 2000. The claimed subject matter is an interface — preferably integrated on the same die as a CMOS image sensor — that buffers "video-style" streaming pixel output in a memory (e.g., a FIFO) and asserts a request/interrupt signal to the host processor when the buffer reaches a threshold, so the processor can pull data at its own pace over a conventional memory/data bus; independent claims are directed to an interface and to an integrated circuit embodying it. Read against Zicom's product line, the theory is the familiar Cedar Lane one: CMOS-sensor cameras and DVR/NVR host electronics that buffer sensor output for a host processor (identical allegations were leveled at Wyze cameras, Basler surveillance cameras, Hanwha Techwin, and ZKTeco, all in this same campaign). One caution: AI-generated litigation summaries (e.g., PatSnap's page for this docket) state that three patents — the '242, the '790 and U.S. Pat. No. 6,473,527 (JPEG compression) — were asserted here. That aggregation appears to be borrowed from Cedar Lane's parallel complaints (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Basler, v. Hanwha Techwin, v. Zenitel), which did assert three patents; the authoritative case metadata for 2:22-cv-06222 lists only the '242, and I could not retrieve the complaint itself to confirm. Verify against Dkt. 1 before relying on a three-patent theory. The complaint also does not appear to identify accused products by name — Cedar Lane's pleadings in this campaign characteristically refer to "Exemplary Defendant Products" in exhibits.

Posture, venue and why it matters. Filed October 21, 2022 in the District of New Jersey, assigned to Judge John Michael Vazquez with Magistrate Judge Jose R. Almonte; jury demand; AO120 patent form filed; summons issued October 26, 2022. It was one of a batch of D.N.J. complaints Cedar Lane filed that same day (e.g., No. 2:22-cv-06218 v. ZKTeco USA), which is the real significance of the venue: D.N.J. was one of Cedar Lane's chosen low-friction fora in 2022, not a venue with any technical or market nexus to the patent. The case then collapsed on service. On February 23, 2023, the Clerk issued a notice of call for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), returnable March 15, 2023 — the standard signal that a defendant has not been served within 90 days. Rather than serve, Cedar Lane filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice on March 3, 2023 (Dkt. 6), and Judge Vazquez entered the order of dismissal without prejudice on March 8, 2023 (Dkt. 7) — 138 days after filing, pre-answer, with no Rule 12 motion, no invalidity contentions, and no merits ruling. That sequencing (4(m) show-cause → plaintiff's own dismissal) is the campaign's signature: Cedar Lane's suits in this era rarely progress past pleadings, and no case in the campaign has gone to trial. The practical consequences are that the '242 patent's validity and infringement were never adjudicated, no estoppel or license attaches, and Cedar Lane remains free to refile against Zicom — although the patent's term is a serious constraint: with an estimated January 2000 priority, the 20-year term (plus any patent term adjustment shown on the patent's face, which I did not verify) would have run out around 2020, which is why the campaign's later waves shifted to other patents and other sectors (the Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists 2025 Cedar Lane filings against financial-services firms in S.D.N.Y./E.D.N.Y. and a D. Colo. case against WideOpenWest). As a litigation matter, this docket is therefore a data point about NPE filing and exit behavior in D.N.J. rather than a ruling of any precedential value; I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against the '242 patent in my searches, but that should be confirmed on the PTAB docket before asserting it as fact — Unified Patents' portal does carry the '242 as an NPE-asserted patent.

Sourcing notes / open items. Well-sourced: docket entries 1–7 (Justia docket; Patexia document list), judge assignment, filing/dismissal dates, and the Rule 4(m) → voluntary-dismissal sequence; Cedar Lane's IV-derived portfolio and campaign scale (RPX/Mondaq; Seyfarth/JD Supra); the 2020 N.D. Cal. sanctions against Cedar Lane and Rabicoff in Cedar Lane Techs. v. Blackmagic Design (Judge Chhabria); the '242 patent's title, issue date, and divisional relationship to the '790 (complaint analyses of parallel Cedar Lane pleadings; PatSnap patent record). Not verified and flagged as such: Zicom Technology Inc.'s corporate identity/affiliates and U.S. operations; whether the Zicom complaint asserted one patent or three; the specific accused products; the exact expiration date of the '242; and the absence of PTAB challenges.

Case snapshot

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

2022-10-21 — Complaint (Dkt. 1). Cedar Lane filed a § 271 patent infringement complaint with a jury demand and a "Related Case Selected" designation, attaching six exhibits (patent copies plus infringement claim charts), a civil cover sheet, a Rule 7.1 disclosure statement, a notice of appearance, a summons, and the AO120 patent report. The pleading follows Cedar Lane's high-volume template: it does not name accused products in the body, instead incorporating "Exemplary Defendant Products" and "Exemplary Patent Claims" by reference to chart exhibits (a format criticized in other Cedar Lane actions). Cedar Lane pleaded itself as a Canadian corporation (Nelson, B.C.) and assignee of the patents.

2022-10-23/24 — Case assignment and Dkt. 2, Cedar Lane's corporate disclosure statement (no parents/affiliates).

2022-10-26 — Dkt. 3 (AO120 patent form) and Dkt. 4 (summons issued as to Zicom).

No answer, no counterclaims, no Rule 12 motion. Zicom Technology never appeared, never answered, and asserted no invalidity, non-infringement, or unenforceability defenses on the record. There is therefore no defendant-side pleading history to report — a point that matters for the preclusive effect discussed below. (Justia docket; Patexia document list)

Sourcing note on the patents at issue. The case metadata (authoritative for this memo) lists only the '242 patent. However, the docket shows six complaint exhibits — consistent with patent copies plus charts for multiple patents — and PatSnap's docket-derived summary of 2:22-cv-06222 says Cedar Lane asserted three patents: the '242, the '790 (also "Host interface for imaging arrays") and the '527 ("Module and method for interfacing analog/digital converting means and JPEG compression means"). That trio is exactly the set Cedar Lane pleaded in contemporaneous actions (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Qualcomm, W.D. Tex. No. 6:22-cv-00046; Cedar Lane v. DivioTec, D. Del. No. 1:22-cv-01056). I could not retrieve Dkt. 1 itself to confirm, so treat the three-patent scope as probable but unverified; the metadata's single-patent listing may reflect only the patent the docketing system recorded.

Also worth flagging as a docket oddity: a companion case, No. 2:22-cv-06221, was filed the same day (2022-10-21) and is captioned on third-party aggregators as "v. CEDAR LANE TECHNOLOGIES INC. et al," listing both Cedar Lane and Zicom as defendants. The plaintiff name is not shown in the public aggregator records. This may be a mis-captioned or derivative docket (e.g., a declaratory-judgment or related filing), and I could not verify it; it should not be relied upon without pulling the PACER record.

2. Service failure and the Rule 4(m) predicate

2023-02-23 — Dkt. 5, Clerk's "Notice of Call for Dismissal Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)," returnable 2023-03-15. This is the pivotal event. The Clerk issued the automatic 4(m) notice because no proof of service on Zicom appears on the docket — i.e., Cedar Lane had not effected service within the 90-day window, which expired on or about 2023-01-19 (90 days from the 2022-10-21 filing). The docket contains no summons return, no waiver of service, no stipulation extending time to answer, and no request for an extension of the service period. Practically, Zicom was never brought before the court.

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

None. The case never reached the motion stage:

• No motion to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(2), (3), (6)) — no defendant appearance.
• No motion to transfer venue — relevant because Cedar Lane's parallel 2022 filings were scattered across D. Del., W.D. Tex., D.N.J., E.D.N.Y., W.D.N.Y., W.D. Pa., N.D.N.Y., N.D. Tex., W.D. Wash., and D. Colo.; § 1404(a) transfer and TC Heartland venue fights were common in these actions but never materialized here.
• No motion to stay pending IPR — and, as discussed in § 7, there was no IPR to stay for.
• No summary judgment — indeed no scheduling order, no Rule 26(f) conference, and no case management order ever issued.

The only "motion-like" event was the Clerk's sua sponte 4(m) dismissal call, decided on the papers.

4. Claim construction (Markman)

Did not occur. No claim construction scheduling order, no simultaneous claim charts, no Markman hearing, no claim construction opinion. Cedar Lane's '242 claims were never construed by any court in this action. (For context, I found no published D.N.J. or Federal Circuit construction of the '242 or '790 claims arising from any Cedar Lane action.)

5. Discovery milestones

Did not occur. No Rule 26(f) report, no initial disclosures, no written discovery, no depositions, no expert reports, no Daubert practice. Because Zicom never appeared, no discovery could be compelled against it. Cedar Lane's infringement contentions were conveyed only through the complaint's incorporated claim-chart exhibits, and no invalidity contentions were ever served.

6. Trial, verdict, and post-trial motions

None. No trial date, no pre-trial order, no jury empanelment, no verdict. Correspondingly, no JMOL motion, no motion for new trial, and no fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or Rule 54(d). There is no exception-to-prevailing-party question to analyze because there was no prevailing party and no merits adjudication.

7. Final disposition

2023-03-03 — Dkt. 6, "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice" filed by deBruin for Cedar Lane, invoking Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — dismissal as of right because Zicom had served neither an answer nor a motion for summary judgment. The notice took effect upon filing, without need of court action.

2023-03-08 — Dkt. 7, "Order of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice," signed by Judge Vazquez, formally closing the case. Terminated at 138 days, pre-answer.

Consequences of this specific exit mechanism:

• No claim preclusion, no issue preclusion. Because the dismissal was without prejudice and there was never an adjudication, Cedar Lane retains the right to refile against Zicom on the same patents. Zicom obtained a clean, cost-free exit but no estoppel protection and no license or covenant not to sue on the public record.
• No § 285 fee exposure for Cedar Lane and no fee entitlement for Zicom (a defendant that never appeared could not be a "prevailing party" in any litigated sense).
• The public record is silent on why Cedar Lane walked away. The most likely explanations, given the absence of service, are (a) inability to locate/serve Zicom (a foreign or defunct-entity service problem, common in Cedar Lane's campaign), (b) a behind-the-scenes license or small settlement that made the case unnecessary, or (c) triage of a large docket — Cedar Lane filed on the order of dozens of these suits in 2022 and dismissed the great majority within months. I found no public filing, press release, or Law360/Reuters item evidencing a settlement, and I will not assert one.
• No appeal was taken (none could be — no judgment), and no Federal Circuit proceeding exists.

Whether the dismissal order was formally necessary is worth a footnote: under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) the notice alone terminates the action, so Dkt. 7 is arguably administrative closure confirming the notice's effect. The docket's "Basis of Termination" field reads simply "Voluntary dismissal," while both Dkt. 6 and Dkt. 7 expressly state without prejudice — so the without-prejudice character is well established by the two controlling documents.

8. Parallel PTAB proceedings

None identified on the '242 (or the '790/'527) as of this writing. I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition challenging the '242 patent, no institution decision, no final written decision, and no Federal Circuit appeal from any such proceeding. Consequently, there was no PTAB proceeding to motivate a stay motion, no § 315(e) estoppel, and no PTAB-driven validity ruling affecting this case — which is itself the analytically significant point: the '242's validity was never tested administratively in connection with this suit.

Two context items, offered with appropriate hedging:

• Cedar Lane's actual PTAB loss was on a different patent. On 2021-02-12, the Board issued a final written decision in Unified Patents, LLC v. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. holding the asserted independent claim of U.S. Pat. No. 7,173,177 unpatentable — a playlist/UI patent from a different Cedar Lane portfolio, not the imaging-array family. (Unified Patents news) This shows Cedar Lane was on the PTAB's radar as a patent owner, but it does not touch the '242.
• The '242 appears to have expired. Patent-record aggregators list the '242's legal status as inactive/expired, with an estimated expiry of 2023-08-01 (consistent with a 20-year term measured from the earliest non-provisional filing in the '790 chain (2000-12-21) as adjusted by patent term adjustment, with the '242 being a divisional filed 2005-10-27 and issued 2013-09-17). If accurate, the patent's term ran out roughly five months after this dismissal. That timing is a plausible strategic explanation for the wave of 2023 dismissals across Cedar Lane's imaging-array campaign, though I could not confirm the expiry date against USPTO Patent Center records and it should be verified there before being relied on. Note also that no IPR was recorded against the

Counsel of record for Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. — Cedar Lane Techs. Inc. v. Zicom Tech. Inc., No. 2:22-cv-06222 (D.N.J.)

Bottom line

Only one attorney ever appeared for Cedar Lane in this case: David W. deBruin, who signed and filed the complaint, the Rule 7.1 disclosure statement, and the notice of voluntary dismissal. No other appearance (no co-counsel, no separate local counsel, no in-house counsel) appears in the docket text, and the case died pre-answer, so there was no motion practice that would have flushed out additional counsel.

The attorney

Docket grounding

• D.I. 1 (Oct. 21, 2022) — Complaint, jury demand, filed by DEBRUIN, DAVID; attachments included the civil cover sheet, a notice-of-appearance exhibit, a Rule 7.1 disclosure exhibit, summons, and AO120 patent report. (Justia docket)
• D.I. 2 (Oct. 24, 2022) — Corporate Disclosure Statement by Cedar Lane, filed by deBruin.
• D.I. 3–4 (Oct. 26, 2022) — AO120 patent form and summons issued; no return of service ever docketed against Zicom.
• D.I. 5 (Feb. 23, 2023) — Clerk's Rule 4(m) notice of call for dismissal, returnable Mar. 15, 2023 (consistent with Zicom never having been served or appearing).
• D.I. 6 (Mar. 3, 2023) — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, filed by deBruin.
• D.I. 7 (Mar. 8, 2023) — Order of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, Judge John Michael Vazquez. (Patexia document list)

Negative findings (important for candor)

• No appearance by Isaac Rabicoff (Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago) in this docket. Rabicoff was Cedar Lane's signature counsel in its parallel W.D. Tex. cases (e.g., Cedar Lane v. Avycon, 6:22-cv-00456; Cedar Lane v. i3 International, 6:22-cv-00631), so it is worth flagging that he did not appear in the New Jersey Zicom matter.
• No defendant-side counsel of record was ever entered for Zicom; the Justia party record for the companion/mis-captioned case 2:22-cv-06221 lists deBruin as the only "represented by" name.
• Nothing is sealed here — the file is simply thin (7 docket entries, 138 days, pre-answer). There is no appearance, admission pro hac vice application, or Law360/Reuters report identifying any additional Cedar Lane counsel, and I found no source naming one.

Initial results show no defendant appearance in the docket. Let me verify with additional sources and check for related litigation where Zicom may have retained counsel.

The docket shows no defendant appearance. Let me check CourtListener/RECAP for the full docket and investigate the companion case 2:22-cv-06221 that also named Zicom.

Bottom line: there is no counsel of record for the defendant

Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. Zicom Technology Inc., No. 2:22-cv-06222 (D.N.J.) — no attorney ever entered an appearance for Zicom Technology Inc. No answer, no Rule 12 motion, no Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure, no counterclaim, and no notice of appearance by any defense attorney appears on the public docket. The case was dismissed by the plaintiff before Zicom responded. Accordingly, there is no lead counsel, local counsel, of counsel, or in-house contact to report — and I will not supply names that the record does not support.

What the docket actually shows

The complete public docket for the case is seven entries, all filed by the plaintiff or the Clerk:

The Rule 4(m) notice is the key corroboration: the Clerk generated it because no proof of service on Zicom had been filed, which in turn explains why no defense counsel appears. Independent aggregators agree — PatSnap's party-and-counsel table for this case lists only plaintiff counsel (David W. deBruin, Napoli Shkolnik, LLC) and no defense-side entry (PatSnap case profile); Unified Patents' litigation record for the '242 patent shows the case as closed with no defense-side representation noted (Unified Patents portal).

By contrast, in Cedar Lane's parallel October 2022 D.N.J. wave (e.g., Cedar Lane v. ZKTeco USA LLC, No. 2:22-cv-06218), the pattern is the same — plaintiff-only appearances and pre-answer Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals. This was a mass-filing campaign filed against many defendants on the same day, and several of the New Jersey defendants were never served or never appeared.

For context: who is on the record (plaintiff side)

• David W. deBruin — plaintiff's counsel of record; the only attorney who appeared in the case. Filings are docketed under his CM/ECF login (DEBRUIN, DAVID), and the complaint itself was filed by him. Firm affiliation per aggregator data is Napoli Shkolnik, LLC; deBruin is a prolific filer of Cedar Lane's patent suits. He is the plaintiff's lawyer, not Zicom's — included only so the record is complete.

Required caveats

1. No fabrication available to fill the gap. Because Zicom never appeared, there is nothing to report on firm, office location, role, or patent-litigation track record. Any name offered for a "Zicom defense team" in this case would be invented.
2. Docket retrieval limits. The Justia snapshot was last pulled 2022-10-26 and the Patexia listing reflects the closed docket; a fresh PACER pull of the full docket (and the D.N.J. CM/ECF attorney query for "Zicom") is the definitive check. My research did not surface any later-filed appearance, and the March 8, 2023 dismissal order closes the case, so a post-dismissal appearance is essentially impossible.
3. Sealed materials. No entries on this docket are sealed — the public record is complete on its face. The absence of counsel is a genuine absence, not a sealing artifact. What is not on the record is any pre-suit correspondence, demand letter, or informal engagement between Cedar Lane and Zicom (or its parent/licensee), which could exist outside the court file and would not show up as an appearance.
4. Entity confusion to avoid. "Zicom Technology Inc." here should not be conflated with Zicom Group Limited (ASX-listed Australian engineering group) or with Sequrinet Inc. dba Zicom Technology (Fairfield, N.J.). Import/registration data suggests a possible link between the N.J. entity and Sequrinet, but I found no court filing or reliable source confirming which entity was served, nor any counsel retained by any of them for this matter. Treat that as unsourced.
5. One record discrepancy worth noting. The case metadata in this file lists only U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242, while third-party analyses of the complaint describe three asserted patents (7,?790 and 6,473,527 in addition to the '242). The '242 divisional family is common to all of Cedar Lane's suits, so this does not affect the counsel question, but the patent count should be confirmed against the complaint (Dkt. 1) if it matters downstream.

If you need a positive identification

The practical paths are: (a) PACER docket report for 2:22-cv-06222, checking the "Attorneys" pane — it will show only deBruin; (b) the D.N.J. CM/ECF attorney search by party name; and (c) Cedar Lane's docket in any refiled action against Zicom (none appears in the litigation records I reviewed — the '242 and '790 patent dockets list only this single D.N.J. case against Zicom). If Cedar Lane re-filed after the without-prejudice dismissal, that refiled docket is the one place a Zicom defense team would surface.