Cedar Lane Technologies v. STMicroelectronics: Voluntarily Dismissed After 204 Days
Cedar Lane Technologies filed suit against STMicroelectronics in the Western District of Texas asserting two patents covering host interfaces for imaging arrays. The action was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice after 204 days, with each party bearing its own fees and costs.
Imaging array patent suit ends pre-answer in W.D. Texas
On October 26, 2022, Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. filed an infringement action against STMicroelectronics, Inc. in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:22-cv-01120) before Judge Alan D. Albright. The complaint asserted two patents — US6972790B2 and US8537242B2 — covering host interface technology for imaging arrays, a foundational interface layer used in image sensor and camera system architectures.
The recorded basis of termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with each party to bear its own fees and costs. The notice was filed before STMicroelectronics had served an answer or motion for summary judgment, satisfying the procedural threshold for a unilateral Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal.
The case resolved in 204 days without substantive merits litigation on the record. The specific circumstances or negotiations — if any — that preceded the dismissal are not disclosed in the available public record. The with-prejudice designation means Cedar Lane Technologies is barred from refiling these specific claims against STMicroelectronics on the same patents.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 204 days
204 days — resolved well before trial, consistent with early pre-answer resolution
US6972790B2 & US8537242B2 — Host Interface for Imaging Arrays
Any R&D or product team developing host interface circuitry for CMOS image sensors, camera-on-chip modules, or imaging SoC architectures should consider an FTO review against these two patents. The dismissal with prejudice binds only STMicroelectronics — all other market participants remain potential enforcement targets. This is particularly relevant for teams working on automotive camera modules, machine vision systems, or edge-AI imaging platforms.
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly includes a with-prejudice designation — an unusual election under a provision that defaults to without-prejudice effect. The notice further specifies that each party bears its own fees and costs. No merits ruling, claim construction, or validity finding appears on the record; the case ended on procedural grounds before any substantive judicial engagement.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 notice means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): unilateral pre-answer dismissal
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice at any time before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Because STMicroelectronics had not yet answered, Cedar Lane could file unilaterally. The dismissal is self-executing upon filing — no judicial approval was required.
Pre-answer, no court order neededWith prejudice: Cedar Lane cannot refile these claims
Although Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals are ordinarily without prejudice by default, Cedar Lane expressly designated this dismissal as with prejudice. That election bars Cedar Lane from asserting the same claims under US6972790B2 and US8537242B2 against STMicroelectronics in any future action. The specific terms beyond the prejudice designation are not disclosed in the available record.
Bars re-filing against same defendantSTMicroelectronics exits without admissions or adverse finding
STMicroelectronics never served an answer or dispositive motion, so no validity, infringement, or claim construction rulings entered against it. The with-prejudice dismissal provides permanent protection from Cedar Lane on these two patents. No fee award was ordered — each party bears its own costs.
No liability finding; permanent protectionPatents remain live; third parties unaffected by this dismissal
The with-prejudice dismissal resolves only the dispute between Cedar Lane and STMicroelectronics. US6972790B2 and US8537242B2 remain in force and Cedar Lane retains the right to assert them against other parties in the imaging array and image sensor interface space. Companies in that sector should monitor Cedar Lane's enforcement posture independently.
Patents enforceable against third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | STMicroelectronics, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Karlee Nicole Wroblewski | Attorney | Counsel for STMicroelectronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Scott Stevens | Attorney | Counsel for STMicroelectronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Alston & Bird, LLP | Law Firm | Representing STMicroelectronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the imaging array host interface space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Cedar Lane v. STMicroelectronics dispute — mapped to filing trends, portfolio gaps, and competitive positioning in the image sensor interface domain.
Cedar Lane's imaging interface portfolio beyond the two asserted patents
Cedar Lane holds at least two patents in the imaging array host interface space. Understanding whether the entity holds continuations, divisionals, or adjacent claims covering protocol handling, data bus architecture, or sensor control signalling is critical for any company active in this technology area. Portfolio mapping can reveal assertion risk before it materialises in litigation.
PAE portfolio riskFiling trends in image sensor host interface and readout architecture
Patent filings in image sensor interface architecture — covering MIPI CSI, parallel bus, and SPI-based readout protocols — have grown alongside the expansion of automotive and edge-AI imaging. Identifying which assignees hold the densest claim coverage in host interface protocols can inform both FTO strategy and R&D prioritisation for next-generation sensor SoC designs.
Sensor interface filing trendsSTMicroelectronics' defensive IP position in imaging and sensor ICs
STMicroelectronics is a significant filer in the image sensor and microelectronics domain. Analysing its patent portfolio around imaging interface, readout circuitry, and sensor SoC architecture can reveal how well-defended its product lines are against assertion campaigns and where gaps in its defensive coverage may exist relative to Cedar Lane's claimed scope.
STMicro defensive portfolioAdjacent innovation gaps in imaging array interface design
As imaging systems migrate toward AI-accelerated edge processing, novel host interface architectures — including high-bandwidth, low-latency interfaces for multi-sensor fusion — may represent under-claimed white space. Mapping existing patent density around claimed interface topologies in US6972790B2 and US8537242B2 against emerging sensor-to-processor link designs could surface patentable differentiation opportunities.
Interface white-space mappingSimilar imaging array and sensor interface patent cases in W.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions involving imaging sensor and host interface technology filed in the Western District of Texas, including cases before Judge Albright.
What this case signals for the imaging array IP landscape
An early with-prejudice exit in W.D. Texas suggests a calculated enforcement posture — and leaves open questions for others in the image sensor sector.
With-prejudice election signals deliberate finality, not abandonment
Cedar Lane's choice to dismiss with prejudice — rather than defaulting to the without-prejudice outcome a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice ordinarily produces — suggests an intentional decision. Whether driven by a side agreement or a strategic pivot, the public record does not say. Other imaging array IP stakeholders should treat this as a resolved, not withdrawn, enforcement attempt.
Both patents remain enforceable against the broader imaging sensor market
US6972790B2 and US8537242B2 are unaffected by this dismissal beyond the Cedar Lane–STMicroelectronics relationship. Companies developing or commercialising host interface technology for imaging arrays — particularly in automotive, industrial, and consumer camera segments — face continued exposure and should conduct independent FTO analysis against these patents.
Cedar v STMicroelectronics — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The dismissal was filed before STMicroelectronics served an answer or motion for summary judgment, with each party bearing its own fees and costs. No merits ruling was issued.
Cedar Lane asserted two patents: US6972790B2 (application no. US09/742723) and US8537242B2 (application no. US11/259791). Both cover host interface technology for imaging arrays. The specific infringing products alleged are not detailed in the available public record beyond the general product category of host interfaces for imaging arrays.
STMicroelectronics is permanently protected from Cedar Lane asserting the same claims under US6972790B2 and US8537242B2 in any future action. No liability, validity, or infringement findings were made. The with-prejudice designation was elected by the plaintiff — it is not the default outcome of a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice, which ordinarily produces a without-prejudice dismissal.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice binds only the relationship between Cedar Lane Technologies and STMicroelectronics. Both patents remain in force and Cedar Lane retains full rights to assert them against other parties. Companies in the imaging sensor and camera module supply chain should conduct independent FTO analysis against these patents.
The Western District of Texas, particularly before Judge Alan D. Albright, has been a popular venue for patent assertion entities due to its case management practices and historically fast docket pace. The specific basis for venue selection by Cedar Lane in this instance is not detailed in the available public record.
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.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.