Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. Leica Camera, Inc.
Infringement action filed 22 Oct 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and closed 8 Mar 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US6972790B2US8537242B2
- Case no.
- 2:22-cv-06226
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D.N.J.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- New Jersey
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 22 Oct 2022 – 8 Mar 2023
- Duration
- 137 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Host interface for imaging arrays
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
Host interface for imaging arrays
An interface for receiving data from an image sensor having an imaging array and a clock generator and for transferring the data to a processor system is described. The interface comprises a memory for storing the imaging array data and the clocking signals at a rate determined by the clocking signals. In response to the quantity of data in the memory, a signal generator generates a signal for transmission to the processor system and a circuit controls the transfer of the data from the memory at a rate determined by the processor system. The memory may be a first-in first-out (FIFO) buffer or an addressable memory. The interface is preferably integrated on the same die as the image sensor. The signal generator may generate either an interrupt signal for transmission to the processor system or a bus request signal for transmission to a bus arbitration unit for the processor system.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 6 Dec 2005
- Est. expiry
- 1 Aug 2023
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SUSKA, MARK
- Classification
- H01L27/146G06T1/60H04N23/40H04N25/00H04N25/78
- Prosecution counsel
- MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD
- Examiner
- TRAN, THAI
Host interface for imaging arrays
An interface for receiving data from an image sensor having an imaging array and a clock generator and for transferring the data to a processor system is described. The interface comprises a memory for storing the imaging array data and the clocking signals at a rate determined by the clocking signals. In response to the quantity of data in the memory, a signal generator generates a signal for transmission to the processor system and a circuit controls the transfer of the data from the memory at a rate determined by the processor system. The memory may be a first-in first-out (FIFO) buffer or an addressable memory. The interface is preferably integrated on the same die as the image sensor. The signal generator may generate either an interrupt signal for transmission to the processor system or a bus request signal for transmission to a bus arbitration unit for the processor system.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 17 Sep 2013
- Earliest priority
- 21 Jan 2000
- Est. expiry
- 1 Aug 2023
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SUSKA, MARK
- Classification
- H04N5/76H04N5/228H04N5/235G06T1/60H01L27/146H04N23/40H04N25/00H04N25/78
- Prosecution counsel
- MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD
- Examiner
- DIEP, TRUNG
Parties of record
Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc.
- Core tech
- H01L27/146G06T1/60H04N23/40H04N25/00
- Counsel
- David W. deBruin
- Firm
- Napoli Shkolnik, LLC
Leica Camera, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Arnold B. Calmann · Katherine Ann Escanlar
- Firm
- Saiber LLC
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| David W. deBruin | Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Arnold B. Calmann | Leica Camera, Inc. | Defendant |
| Katherine Ann Escanlar | Leica Camera, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Order of Voluntary Dismissal”
Case 2:22-cv-06226 · D.N.J. · closed 8 March 2023
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 2:22-cv-06226?
2:22-cv-06226 is a patent infringement action brought by Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. against Leica Camera, Inc., filed on 22 Oct 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case closed on 8 March 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 2:22-cv-06226?
US6972790B2 (“Host interface for imaging arrays”), assigned to CEDAR LANE TECHNOLOGIES INC., currently inactive; US8537242B2 (“Host interface for imaging arrays”), assigned to CEDAR LANE TECHNOLOGIES INC., currently inactive. The record also lists Host interface for imaging arrays.
How was case 2:22-cv-06226 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Order of Voluntary Dismissal”
What does voluntary dismissal mean?
A voluntary dismissal is one the plaintiff asks for rather than one the court imposes. Where both sides stipulate to it, it commonly signals a settlement that is not filed on the public docket.
How long did case 2:22-cv-06226 take?
137 calendar days, from filing on 22 Oct 2022 to closure on 8 March 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:22-cv-06226?
David W. deBruin is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies. Arnold B. Calmann and Katherine Ann Escanlar appear for defendant Leica Camera.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:22-cv-06226 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.