Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Cedar Lane Technologies v. Maxim Group — Patent Infringement | PatSnap
Patent Litigation

Cedar Lane Technologies v. Maxim Group: Dismissed Without Prejudice in 69 Days

Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. asserted US8577782B2 — a patent covering trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants — against broker-dealer Maxim Group, LLC in the Southern District of New York. The parties reported a settlement in principle within 69 days, and the court dismissed the action without prejudice pending consummation of that settlement.

Resolution time
69days
69 days — from filing to dismissal order, a notably short litigation timeline
Patents asserted
1
US8577782B2 — trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants
Outcome
Dismissed without Prejudice
Action dismissed without prejudice; right to reopen preserved for 30 days pending settlement consummation
Cost ruling
No Costs Awarded
Court ordered dismissal without costs to either party
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Settlement in Principle Ends Conditional-Offer Trading Patent Suit in 69 Days

On January 13, 2026, Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Maxim Group, LLC in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:26-cv-00292. The asserted patent is US8577782B2, directed to trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants — a technology directly relevant to electronic trading and brokerage operations of the kind associated with Maxim Group's business.

The recorded basis of termination is dismissal without prejudice. The docket order — entered after the court was advised at ECF No. 13 that all claims had been settled in principle — dismissed the action without costs and without prejudice, preserving each party's right to reopen within 30 days if the settlement was not consummated. The court's order also noted that if the parties wished the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce any settlement agreement, they would need to submit the agreement for it to be 'so ordered' by the filing deadline. The specific terms of any settlement are not disclosed in the available record.

The 69-day resolution from filing to dismissal order is notably brief, suggesting the parties may have reached accommodation quickly once litigation commenced. What drove the settlement in principle — whether licensing terms, a covenant, or other commercial arrangement — is not disclosed in the available public record. The 30-day reopening window means the case could technically be revived if the settlement was not finalised, though no such application is reflected in the available record.

See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →
Case at a glance
CourtNew York Southern District Court
JudgeN/A
FiledJanuary 13, 2026
ClosedMarch 23, 2026
Duration69 days
OutcomeDismissed without Prejudice
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisDismissed without Prejudice
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / New York Southern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 69 days

69 days — from filing to dismissal order, a notably short litigation timeline

Case timeline: Complaint filed JAN 13 2026 — 69 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v Maxim Group, LLC from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, New York Southern District Court. JAN 13 2026 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings MAR 23 2026 Dismissed without Prejudice 69 DAYS TOTAL
Patent at issue

US8577782B2 — Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants

Publication No.US8577782B2
Application No.US12/756929
Patent details
ProductTrading systems using conditional offers for semi-anonymous market participants
Cited in actionJanuary 13, 2026
Technical brief · sourced from PatSnap patent database
Patent figurePatent figure
Representative claim (1 of 6 independent)
1. A method comprising: associating one of a plurality of trading entities with an identifier using a processor implemented at least partly in hardware; acquiring trade history information including a history of trading transactions associated with said identifier using a processor implemented at least partly in hardware; and receiving an offer to buy or to sell a trading item from a liquidity provider based on a profile generated from said trade history information, the profile containing information that indicates whether said trading transactions associated with said trading entity would generate a profit, usi…
Technical background
BACKGROUND The present invention relates to trading systems, and more specifically, to trading systems where conditional offers may be made by semi-anonymous participants. The trading of stocks and other securities has become increasingly automated by electronic trading systems in recent years. On-line trading sites have furthered the convenience and speed of securities trading. These trends have brought an increasing anonymity, so that in many instances, buyers and sellers of securities typically will not know the…
Patent family
5 family members across 1 jurisdiction (US)
PatSnap Eureka · FTO Search Agent
Should you run an FTO analysis against US8577782B2?

Any company operating electronic trading systems that incorporate conditional order types — including reserve orders, iceberg orders, or mechanisms that obscure counterparty identity ahead of execution — should consider running a freedom-to-operate analysis against US8577782B2. Broker-dealers, alternative trading system operators, and fintech platforms targeting institutional or semi-anonymous trading workflows are the most directly exposed. The patent has emerged from this litigation with no adverse ruling.

Run FTO in Eureka
Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

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.
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:26-cv-00292, New York Southern District Court

The court's dismissal order was entered upon notification at ECF No. 13 that all claims had been settled in principle. The order is styled as a dismissal without prejudice and without costs, with a conditional 30-day reopening right if the settlement was not consummated. No merits ruling — on infringement, validity, or claim construction — was issued. The order's reference to the court's Individual Rule No. 7 regarding jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement suggests the court did not automatically retain enforcement jurisdiction.

PACER case 1:26-cv-00292 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Dismissal terms

Dismissed without prejudice: what the court's order means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Dismissal without prejudice following settlement in principle

A dismissal without prejudice does not adjudicate the merits of the claims. The court ordered dismissal after being advised at ECF No. 13 that all asserted claims were settled in principle. Critically, the order preserved a 30-day window to reopen if the settlement was not consummated — a standard judicial mechanism to protect against failed negotiations. The specific terms of any settlement are not disclosed in the available record.

No merits adjudication
Patent holder outcome

US8577782B2 remains in force; claims survive without adverse ruling

Because the dismissal is without prejudice and the court made no merits ruling, Cedar Lane Technologies' patent US8577782B2 emerges from this litigation with no adverse judgment against it. The patent's validity and enforceability are unaffected by this dismissal. Cedar Lane retains the ability to assert the patent against other parties. Whether it obtained any commercial resolution from Maxim Group is not disclosed in the available record.

Patent validity unaffected
Defendant outcome

Maxim Group exits without a judgment entered against it

The dismissal without prejudice means no judgment was entered against Maxim Group, LLC. The defendant exits the litigation without an adverse ruling on infringement or validity. However, the absence of a merits ruling also means Maxim Group obtained no formal finding that it does not infringe or that the patent is invalid. The specific terms of any arrangement reached between the parties are not disclosed in the available record.

No adverse judgment
Commercial implications

US8577782B2 remains a live enforcement risk for electronic trading platforms

The swift resolution without a merits ruling leaves US8577782B2 with undiminished enforcement potential. Broker-dealers, electronic trading platforms, and fintech companies operating conditional-offer or semi-anonymous trading systems should be aware that the patent has survived this litigation intact. The absence of any invalidity or non-infringement ruling means potential targets cannot rely on this case as dispositive prior art or claim-construction authority.

Ongoing enforcement risk
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:26-cv-00292 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffCedar Lane Technologies, Inc.Company/Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantMaxim Group, LLCCompany/Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselIsaac RabicoffAttorneyCounsel for Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmRabicoff Law LLCLaw FirmRepresenting Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge N/AJudgeNew York Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
R&D signals

R&D signals in the conditional-offer trading technology space

Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence for electronic trading, conditional-offer mechanisms, and semi-anonymous market participation — informed by the Cedar Lane v. Maxim Group litigation.

Patent portfolio

Cedar Lane Technologies' patent portfolio in trading technology

Cedar Lane Technologies holds US8577782B2 covering conditional-offer trading for semi-anonymous participants. Exploring the full family around application US12/756929 — including any continuations, continuations-in-part, or related grants — will reveal the breadth of Cedar Lane's IP position in this domain and signal where future enforcement actions may be directed.

Portfolio breadth signal
Technology landscape

Patent filing trends in conditional-order and anonymous trading systems

The conditional-offer and semi-anonymous trading space has attracted filing activity from exchanges, fintech companies, and algorithmic trading firms. Tracking recent patent grants and published applications in this domain — particularly around order anonymisation, reserve order mechanisms, and conditional execution logic — will reveal the competitive IP landscape surrounding US8577782B2.

Filing trend signal
Defendant IP posture

Maxim Group's patent activity in electronic trading and brokerage

Maxim Group, LLC is a registered broker-dealer and investment bank. Assessing whether Maxim Group or affiliated entities hold patents in electronic trading infrastructure, order management, or brokerage technology will reveal its defensive IP posture and whether it has proprietary innovations that could be leveraged in future disputes in this space.

Defensive IP signal
White space

Adjacent innovation opportunities near conditional-offer trading systems

The conditional-offer and semi-anonymous trading space has potential white space in privacy-preserving execution mechanisms, cryptographic anonymisation for trading counterparties, and AI-driven conditional order routing. Companies innovating in these adjacent areas should map existing claim scope — including US8577782B2 — to identify patentable differentiation and freedom-to-operate corridors.

White space opportunity
Related litigation

Similar patent infringement cases in electronic trading technology — SDNY

Cases asserting trading-method and financial technology patents in the Southern District of New York, with comparable dismissal-without-prejudice outcomes and settlement-in-principle resolutions.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. patent enforcement history, New York Southern District Court case history, Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc.'s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Trading method patents SDNYCedar Lane prior filingsRabicoff Law assertion historyFintech patent settlements
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the electronic trading patent landscape

A 69-day resolution with no merits ruling keeps Cedar Lane's patent fully armed. Here is what IP teams should take away.

Swift resolutions without prejudice leave patents fully armed for future enforcement

This case resolved in 69 days with no invalidity finding, no claim construction, and no non-infringement ruling. US8577782B2 is as enforceable today as it was before filing. Any company operating conditional-offer or semi-anonymous trading technology should treat this outcome as a signal that the patent holder is active and willing to litigate.

Broker-dealers and fintech platforms face targeted risk from trading-method patents

The assertion of a conditional-offer trading patent against a registered broker-dealer such as Maxim Group illustrates that financial services firms operating electronic trading systems are squarely within scope of this patent family. In-house IP teams at broker-dealers and trading platform operators should audit their systems against US8577782B2 and any continuations in the same family.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock deeper enforcement intelligence on Cedar Lane's patent assertion activity in the Southern District of New York financial technology space.
Patent family continuationsEnforcement campaign scopeSimilar SDNY fintech cases
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Cedar v Maxim — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Track conditional-offer trading patent enforcement before it reaches your firm

US8577782B2 is active and unencumbered by adverse rulings. Run an FTO analysis and monitor Cedar Lane Technologies' portfolio for continuation filings that may expand the patent's reach across electronic trading platforms.

Disclaimer

This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.

Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.