Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. ZKTeco USA, LLC

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

Let me verify the patent set, parties, and NPE background.

Case Overview and Background

Parties. Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. is not an operating company. It is a patent-assertion entity — Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies it as a non-practicing entity whose asserted patents are "acquired patents," and Korean IP-protection-agency dispute data labels it a Canadian-based NPE (Stanford NPE DB; KOTRA/IP dispute record). By March 2023 it was one of the most prolific filers in the country, running a serial campaign against camera, surveillance, and imaging-hardware companies (its '790 patent alone appears in roughly 52 recorded suits per Patsnap's litigation index; Unified Patents separately describes Cedar Lane as "an NPE" that acquired patents out of AVInnov/Intellectual Ventures — Unified Patents). ZKTeco USA, LLC is the U.S. sales/service arm of ZKTeco Co., Ltd., the Chinese multi-biometric verification manufacturer founded in 1998 with manufacturing in Dongguan; ZKTeco USA markets, sells, services and warranties the ZKTeco range across the U.S. and Canada, with a product line running from fingerprint/facial/palm-vein readers and access-control terminals to turnstiles, metal detectors and x-ray scanners (zktecousa.com; ZKTeco company profile; Security Journal Americas interview with founder Manish Dalal). The accused instrumentality was never publicly specified: the complaint refers only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and incorporates by reference claim-chart exhibits, so the public record does not name the accused SKUs (complaint analysis, 2:23-cv-01693). As a practical matter — and this is inference, not record — the theory fits ZKTeco's camera-equipped facial-recognition and video terminals, which pair CMOS image sensors with embedded processors.

Patents. The case metadata lists U.S. Patent No. 8,537,242, "Host interface for imaging arrays" (issued Sept. 17, 2013, named inventor Mark Suska, 2000 priority). It is a method patent: buffer image data from an imaging array in a FIFO, track the fill level with a counter, compare against a FIFO limit, and generate an interrupt so the host processor — rather than the sensor clock — paces data transfer. Its parent, U.S. Patent No. 6,972,790 (issued Dec. 6, 2005), claims the corresponding apparatus (memory, signal generator responsive to the quantity of buffered data, and a transfer control circuit), and third-party docket and pleading analyses indicate the complaint in this case asserted both the '790 and '242 patents, with four exhibits attached (DE 1) (Patsnap case record; UniCourt docket). That discrepancy with the single-patent case metadata is worth confirming against the complaint PDF. Two technical/procedural facts matter for exposure: the '790 is estimated to have expired around August 1, 2023 (Patsnap estimate), and the '242 is reportedly subject to a terminal disclaimer over the '790, tying their terms together — so the entire family's damages window was closing as this suit was filed.

Posture and venue. Filed March 24, 2023 in D.N.J. (the "2" prefix indicating the Trenton vicinage), assigned to District Judge John Michael Vazquez with Magistrate Judge Jose R. Almonte (Justia docket). ZKTeco USA was served March 29 (DE 5); Cedar Lane itself — not the defendant — moved for an unopposed extension of ZKTeco's response deadline to May 19 (DE 6), granted April 13 (DE 7); Cedar Lane

I'll research this case across docket sources, PTAB records, and legal news. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Good — the docket is short. Now let me check PTAB proceedings, the patent's expiry, and whether Cedar Lane refiled or pursued related actions.

No PTAB results surfaced yet. Let me probe PTAB databases directly and check for refiling or validity rulings on these patents.

Bottom line

This was a 41-day, pleadings-only case. Cedar Lane filed, served ZKTeco, took one uncontested extension of the defendant's deadline, and then voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before ZKTeco ever answered, appeared through counsel of record, or filed counterclaims. There was no motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, no fee motion, and no appeal. I found no PTAB proceeding against either asserted patent in the public record.

One record correction before the chronology: the case metadata lists only the '242 patent, but the docket's AO120 Patent Form and the complaint exhibits reflect two patents — U.S. 6,972,790 and U.S. 8,537,242, both titled "Host interface for imaging arrays" (the '242 is a divisional of the '790). Docket No. 4 (2023-03-27) reports both; Patsnap's case record and the complaint analysis both list both. The safest statement is: Cedar Lane asserted the '790 and '242 as a pair, as it did in dozens of parallel suits.

---

Chronology of substantive developments

Duration: 2023-03-24 → 2023-05-04 (41 days).

---

Stage-by-stage

Filing & initial pleadings. Complaint and corporate disclosure only. No amended complaint. No answer and no counterclaims were ever filed — meaning ZKTeco never put invalidity, unenforceability, or non-infringement at issue, and never sought declaratory judgment. This is the single most consequential fact in the case: the entire defense-side record is blank.

Pre-trial motions of substance. None. No Rule 12(b)(3)/(b)(6) motion, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, no summary judgment motion. The sole motion (D.I. 6) was a calendar extension.

Claim construction. Never reached. No scheduling order, no exchange of claim terms, no Markman briefing or hearing. The likely technical battleground never materialized — the natural dispute would have been whether accused products generate a signal "in response to the quantity of data in the memory" (the FIFO/counter-to-interrupt causal link), which the complaint analysis flagged as the central claim-limitation question.

Discovery. None of record — no Rule 26(f) conference, no initial disclosures, no infringement or invalidity contentions, no depositions.

Trial / post-trial. None. No verdict, no JMOL, no new-trial motion, no § 285 fees, no appeal to the Federal Circuit.

Final disposition. Dismissal without prejudice by court order on 2023-05-04. The case is closed and was not refiled against ZKTeco as of this writing (I found no 2024–2025 Cedar Lane v. ZKTeco action in any district).

Parallel PTAB proceedings. None found. Searches of the PTAB public materials, Unified Patents' patent portal for US-8537242-B2, and litigation databases returned no IPR, PGR, or CBM against the '242 or the '790; Patsnap's patent-level records for both list "Validity challenges: None recorded." ZKTeco never filed a petition, and the § 315(b) bar date (2024-03-29) passed unused. Caveat: I could not run an exhaustive patent-number query against PTAB Casefinder/P-TACTS directly in this session, so treat "no IPR" as well-supported but not certified; the absence of any stay motion or IPR reference anywhere in the docket is consistent with there being none.

---

Strategic read

This case is best understood as a campaign docket entry, not a litigation. Cedar Lane Technologies (registered in Canada in 2019; founded by attorney Greg Benoit) has been reported to have filed roughly 325 U.S. patent suits, and the '790/'242 pair was its workhorse assertion — the '790 alone has been reported in the range of ~226 district court cases. The same two patents, the same claim charts, and often the same complaint template appear against a long list of defendants: W.D. Tex. before Judge Albright (Rabicoff Law), D. Del. before Judge Andrews (deBruin), W.D. Wash. (Mann Law Group). In that campaign, rapid Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal with no answer on file was the norm, not the exception — e.g., Phytech (dismissed 15 days after filing), Drift Innovation (8 days), DivioTec, Infinova, Snap, and Raytheon (dismissed with prejudice days after Raytheon answered and counterclaimed).

Why the D.N.J. case died in 41 days. The public record does not state a reason, and no settlement or license was disclosed. Three non-exclusive explanations fit the record: (1) a private, undocumented resolution/license reached after the 2023-04-13 extension (the pattern in this campaign); (2) Cedar Lane's recognition that ZKTeco's accused access-control/biometric hardware did not practice the FIFO-to-interrupt architecture, making the claim charts weak; or (3) term exhaustion — third-party databases list an estimated expiry of 2023-08-01 for both patents, so Cedar Lane's damages window was months from closing. Google Patents shows the '790 as "Expired – Lifetime" and the '242 as "Expired – Fee Related," the latter suggesting a maintenance-fee lapse. On timing grounds this is a plausible driver, but I want to flag it as inference, not a documented ruling — I have not verified the expiry computation (parent application 09/742,723 was filed 2000-12-21, which would ordinarily yield a 2020-12-21 term absent PTA).

Residual exposure. Because dismissal was without prejudice, claim preclusion does not attach and Cedar Lane was free to refile — but any refiling would have to overcome the patents' expiration and the intervening years, and no refiling occurred. ZKTeco obtained a clean exit with no injunction, no damages, no admission, and no fee exposure.

Verification gaps. (i) No PACER pull — docket text here comes from Justia, Patexia, and UniCourt mirrors of the N.J. docket, all consistent with each other. (ii) The complaint's civil cover sheet checked "Related Case Selected," indicating companion Cedar Lane D.N.J. matters in early 2023; I could not identify those case numbers and am not guessing at them. (iii) ZKTeco's retention of counsel is inferred solely from the plaintiff-filed "unopposed" extension motion; the attorney's name is not in the record.

Sources: Justia docket, https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-jersey/njdce/2:2023cv01693/[510101](/patent/510101) · UniCourt, https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-casegu3b53ccf19ca7-[1443007](/patent/1443007) · Patexia, https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/CEDAR-LANE-TECHNOLOGIES-INC-v-ZKTECO-USA-LLC-id-[187863](/patent/187863)/documents · Patsnap case record, https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/cedar-lane-technologies-v-zkteco-usa-patent-dismissal-patsnap

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc.

Bottom line: exactly one attorney appeared for the plaintiff in this case. There is no separate local-counsel entry, no pro hac vice motion, no second signature block, and no in-house appearance anywhere on the docket.

1. David W. deBruin — sole attorney of record / lead counsel (functionally also local counsel)

2. No other plaintiff-side counsel

• No defendant-side appearance was ever entered either — ZKTeco USA, LLC never answered, and its 30-day extension was obtained via a motion filed by the plaintiff (Doc. 6, granted Doc. 7, 4/13/2023), consistent with Patsnap's observation that the case closed before ZKTeco formally appeared.
• Nothing on the docket is sealed. The docket is short and fully public: Docs. 1–9, ending with Judge Vazquez's order of voluntary dismissal without prejudice (Doc. 9, 5/4/2023).

3. Relationship to the earlier ZKTeco suit (useful for context)

This was Cedar Lane's second suit against ZKTeco USA on the same patents. The first, Cedar Lane Techs. v. ZKTeco USA, No. 2:22-cv-06218 (D.N.J., filed 10/21/2022), is also signed throughout by deBruin and was dismissed by Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (Doc. 7, 3/17/2023), with the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) order entered March 24, 2023 — the same day the instant complaint was filed. Same counsel, same judges (Vazquez, J.; Almonte, M.J.), same outcome (Patexia docket 2:22-cv-06218).

Sources / limitations

Grounded in the Justia, UniCourt and Patexia docket mirrors of 2:23-cv-01693 and 2:22-cv-06218, CourtListener party records, Law360 firm pages, and Patsnap litigation data. PACER itself is paywalled and I could not pull the Doc. 1-6 appearance page; the firm-name and office-location line is therefore the least well-sourced item here, and I have flagged it rather than resolving it by assumption.

I'll verify the docket record for any defense-side appearance, then check the earlier 2022 ZKTeco suit for counsel who may have been engaged.

No defense-side entry appears on the 2023 docket. Let me check whether ZKTeco appeared through counsel in the related 2022 D.N.J. case, and in other patent suits against the same defendant (relevant for identifying its retained counsel).

Confirmed no defense appearance in either Cedar Lane suit. Now checking other patent cases against the same defendant where counsel did appear — useful to identify ZKTeco's actual retained patent counsel.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — ZKTeco USA, LLC

Bottom line: there is no counsel of record for the defendant in this case. No attorney ever entered an appearance for ZKTeco USA, LLC in No. 2:23-cv-01693. The docket consists of nine entries, all of which were filed by plaintiff's counsel (David W. deBruin) or issued by the Clerk/Court. ZKTeco never answered, never moved, never filed a corporate disclosure statement, and never signed anything. Patsnap's case record, built from the PACER docket, independently lists defendant-side counsel as "Not recorded" (Patsnap case record).

Docket verification

Sources: Justia docket · Patexia document list · UniCourt mirror

One common misreading to correct: the "Appearance of Counsel" attachment to D.I. 1 (D.I. 1-6) is plaintiff's appearance form, not a defense appearance. The same is true of the "Exhibit Notice of Appearance" attached to the complaint in the 2022 predecessor case. Neither is a ZKTeco filing.

The only evidence of defense-side engagement (inferred, not of record)

The single signal that ZKTeco had retained or was evaluating counsel is D.I. 6 — styled as an "Unopposed Motion" and filed by plaintiff to extend "Defendant ZKTeco USA LLC['s]" time to respond to 2023-05-19, granted by Magistrate Judge Almonte the same day (D.I. 7). An "unopposed" motion presupposes communication with someone on the defense side. But that attorney's name appears nowhere in the public record, and no appearance followed — consistent with the prior section's conclusion in this case summary. I will not speculate as to identity.

Same result in the adjacent ZKTeco patent dockets

This is not an anomaly of this one case; ZKTeco has a consistent pattern of exiting NPE suits pre-answer, which is why no defense counsel name has ever been captured in a public patent docket for it:

Where ZKTeco has appeared through counsel (non-patent, contextual only)

For completeness — and clearly labeled as not counsel in this case — ZKTeco USA has appeared in other litigation through:

• Bryan Eliot Curry and Jason Edward Hunter, Litchfield Cavo LLP, 303 W. Madison St., Suite 300, Chicago, IL 60606 — counsel for ZKTeco USA in the BIPA biometric-privacy putative class action, Jiang v. ZKTeco USA LLC, No. 1:25-cv-12826 (N.D. Ill., filed 2025-10-21). A general-liability/insurance-defense shop, not a patent boutique; Curry shows as terminated 12/12/2025 (CourtListener parties; summary at ClaimWatch).
• In the earlier Illinois product-injury matter Ramos v. ZK Technology LLC, No. 1:21-cv-02074 (N.D. Ill.), ZKTeco USA was dismissed by stipulation in May 2021; the UniCourt party record reflects David J. Fish among its counsel (Fish Potter Bolaños), but the name field is partially truncated and I could not confirm the full appearance list (UniCourt).

These names should be treated as leads for who ZKTeco might retain in a future patent matter, not as counsel in No. 2:23-cv-01693. Neither firm appears anywhere in the Cedar Lane dockets.

Verification gaps (stated explicitly)

1. PACER not pulled directly. All docket text above comes from three mirrors (Justia, Patexia, UniCourt) that are internally consistent and were last refreshed at case closure (Justia: "last retrieved on May 4, 2023"). Because the case is closed, a later defense appearance is vanishingly unlikely — but I did not view the PACER docket sheet itself.
2. D.I. 6's full text not obtained. The four-page motion might name defense counsel in a certificate of conference. That would be the single best source for identifying who was representing ZKTeco off-docket, and I could not open it.
3. Nothing is sealed. The absence of defense counsel is an absence of filing, not an artifact of sealing.
4. No contradiction with the case metadata, except the previously flagged two-patent ('790 + '242) issue, which does not affect the counsel question.

Net answer for the case file: defendant's counsel of record — none. ZKTeco USA, LLC was unrepresented on the public docket and exited by plaintiff's Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal 41 days after filing.