Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. Descript, Inc.
Infringement action filed 29 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 13 Apr 2026, with US8438485B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8438485B2
- Application no.
- US12/726230
- Case no.
- 1:25-cv-01567
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- Jennifer L. Hall
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 29 Dec 2025 – 13 Apr 2026
- Duration
- 105 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- System, method, and apparatus for generating, customizing, distributing, and presenting an interactive audio publication
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
System, method, and apparatus for generating, customizing, distributing, and presenting an interactive audio publication
Systems, methods, and apparatuses for generating, customizing, distributing, and presenting an interactive audio publication to a user are provided. A plurality of text-based and/or speech-based content items is converted into voice-navigable interactive audio content items that include segmented audio data, embedded visual content, and accompanying metadata. An audio publication is generated by associating one or more audio content items with one or more audio publication sections, and generating metadata that defines the audio publication structure. Assembled audio publications may be used to generate one or more new custom audio publications for a user by utilizing one or more user-defined custom audio publication templates. Audio publications are delivered to a user for presentation on an enabled presentation system. The user is enabled to navigate and interact with the audio publication, using voice commands and/or a button interface, in a manner similar to browsing visually-oriented content.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 7 May 2013
- Earliest priority
- 17 Mar 2009
- Est. expiry
- 28 Dec 2030
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KULIS, ZACHARY R. · KULIS, KIRSTEN B.
- Classification
- G06F3/16
- Prosecution counsel
- WEAVER IP L.L.C.
- Examiner
- TRAN, TUYETLIEN
Parties of record
Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc.
- Core tech
- G06F3/16
- Counsel
- Brian E. Lutness
- Firm
- Silverman, McDonald & Friedman
Descript, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Brian E. Lutness | Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby dismisses with prejudice all claims by Plaintiff against Defendant Descript, Inc. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No party has filed an answer or motion for summary judgment in this action.”
Case 1:25-cv-01567 · D. Del. · closed 13 April 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 1:25-cv-01567?
1:25-cv-01567 is a patent infringement action brought by Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. against Descript, Inc., filed on 29 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 13 April 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 1:25-cv-01567?
US8438485B2 (“System, method, and apparatus for generating, customizing, distributing, and presenting an interactive audio publication”), assigned to UNEWS, LLC, currently active. The record also lists System, method, and apparatus for generating, customizing, distributing, and presenting an interactive audio publication.
How was case 1:25-cv-01567 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby dismisses with prejudice all claims by Plaintiff against Defendant Descript, Inc. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No party has filed an answer or motion for summary judgment in this action.”
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 1:25-cv-01567 take?
105 calendar days, from filing on 29 Dec 2025 to closure on 13 April 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:25-cv-01567?
Chief Judge Jennifer L. Hall presided. Brian E. Lutness is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:25-cv-01567 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.