Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. Maxim Group, LLC
Infringement action filed 13 Jan 2026 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and closed 23 Mar 2026, with US8577782B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8577782B2
- Application no.
- US12/756929
- Case no.
- 1:26-cv-00292
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- S.D.N.Y.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- New York
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 13 Jan 2026 – 23 Mar 2026
- Duration
- 69 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed without Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants
- 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
Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants
According to one embodiment of the present invention, a method for generating conditional offers for semi-anonymous trading participants is provided. According to one embodiment of the present invention, a method comprises associating a trading entity with an identifier; acquiring trade history information including a history of trading transactions associated with said identifier; and receiving an offer from a Liquidity Provider based on said trade history information, said offer being only made to the trading entity associated with one of said identifiers.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 5 Nov 2013
- Est. expiry
- 8 Apr 2030
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- PETRUZZI, CHRISTOPHER R.
- Classification
- G06Q40/00
- Prosecution counsel
- LAW OFFICE OF DONALD L. WENSKAY
- Examiner
- NIGH, JAMES D
Parties of record
Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc.
- Core tech
- G06Q40/00
- Counsel
- Isaac Rabicoff
- Firm
- Rabicoff Law LLC
Maxim Group, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Isaac Rabicoff | Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“The Court having been advised at ECF No. 13 that all claims asserted herein have been settled in principle, it is ORDERED that the above-entitled action be and is hereby DISMISSED and discontinued without costs, and without prejudice to the right to reopen the action within thirty days of the date of this Order if the settlement is not consummated. To be clear, any application to reopen must be filed by the aforementioned deadline; any application to reopen filed thereafter may be denied solely on that basis. Further, requests to extend the deadline to reopen are unlikely to be granted. If the parties wish for the Court to retain jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcing any settlement agreement, they must submit the settlement agreement to the Court by the deadline to reopen to be “so ordered” by the Court. Per the Court’s Individual Rule No. 7, unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court will not retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement unless it is made part of the public record.ny pending motions are moot. All conferences are canceled. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. SO ORDERED.”
Case 1:26-cv-00292 · S.D.N.Y. · closed 23 March 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 1:26-cv-00292?
1:26-cv-00292 is a patent infringement action brought by Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. against Maxim Group, LLC, filed on 13 Jan 2026 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case closed on 23 March 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 1:26-cv-00292?
US8577782B2 (“Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants”), assigned to CEDAR LANE TECHNOLOGIES INC., currently active. The record also lists Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants.
How was case 1:26-cv-00292 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “The Court having been advised at ECF No. 13 that all claims asserted herein have been settled in principle, it is ORDERED that the above-entitled action be and is hereby DISMISSED and discontinued without costs, and without prejudice to the right to reopen the action within thirty days of the date of this Order if the settlement is not consummated. To be clear, any application to reopen must be filed by the aforementioned deadline; any application to reopen filed thereafter may be denied solely on that basis. Further, requests to extend the deadline to reopen are unlikely to be granted. If th
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 1:26-cv-00292 take?
69 calendar days, from filing on 13 Jan 2026 to closure on 23 March 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:26-cv-00292?
Isaac Rabicoff is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:26-cv-00292 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.