Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. Orlando Rentco, LLC
Infringement action filed 29 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and closed 1 Mar 2023, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US6972790B2US8537242B2US6473527B1
- Case no.
- 4:22-cv-01054
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- N.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Reed C. O Connor
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 29 Nov 2022 – 1 Mar 2023
- Duration
- 92 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Host interface for imaging arrays · Module and method for interfacing analog/digital converting means and JPEG compression means
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
Also asserted in this case
1 moreThe docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc.
- Core tech
- H01L27/146G06T1/60H04N23/40H04N25/00
- Counsel
- D. Bradley Kizzia · Isaac Philip Rabicoff · Jay B Johnson
- Firm
- Kizzia & Johnson PLLC, Rabicoff Law LLC
Orlando Rentco, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| D. Bradley Kizzia | Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Isaac Philip Rabicoff | Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Jay B Johnson | Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby dismisses this action without prejudice. Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment.”
Case 4:22-cv-01054 · N.D. Tex. · closed 1 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 4:22-cv-01054?
4:22-cv-01054 is a patent infringement action brought by Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. against Orlando Rentco, LLC, filed on 29 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The case closed on 1 March 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 4:22-cv-01054?
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; US6473527B1 (“Module and method for interfacing analog/digital converting means and JPEG compression means”), assigned to CEDAR LANE TECHNOLOGIES INC.. The record also lists Host interface for imaging arrays and Module and method for interfacing analog/digital converting means and JPEG compression means.
How was case 4:22-cv-01054 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby dismisses this action without prejudice. Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment.”
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 4:22-cv-01054 take?
92 calendar days, from filing on 29 Nov 2022 to closure on 1 March 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 4:22-cv-01054?
Chief Judge Reed C. O Connor presided. D. Bradley Kizzia, Isaac Philip Rabicoff and Jay B Johnson are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 4:22-cv-01054 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.