Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Brother International Corporation

On August 25, 2021, Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (“Plaintiff”),  represented by  David W. deBruin of Gawthrop Greenwood, PC, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Brother International Corporation (“Defendant”), seeking an award of appropriate damages, including pre- or post-judgment interest, costs, and disbursements for the alleged infringement of United States Patents owned by the Plaintiff. This case was filed in the United States District Court in the District of Delaware.

The Plaintiff filed this complaint for the alleged infringement of United States Patent No. 6,473,527 (“the ’527 Patent”); United States Patent No. 6,972,790 (“the ’790 Patent”); United States Patent No. 8,645,500 (“the ’500 Patent”); United States Patent No. 9,983,836 (“the ’836 Patent”); United States Patent No. RE41,483 (“the ’483 Patent”); United States Patent No. RE42,528(“the ’528 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”) owned by the Plaintiff.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Defendant has been and continues to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’790 Patent in at least this District by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing, without limitation, at least the Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count below (among the “Exemplary Defendant Products”) that infringe at least the exemplary claims of the ’790 Patent also identified in the charts incorporated into this Count below (the “Exemplary ’790 Patent Claims”) literally or by the doctrine of equivalents.”

The Plaintiff further alleged that, “On information and belief, numerous other devices that infringe the claims of the ’790 Patent have been made, used, sold, imported, and offered for sale by Defendant and/or its customers. Defendant also has and continues to directly infringe, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the Exemplary ’790 Patent Claims, by having its employees internally test and use these Exemplary Products.”

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Despite such actual knowledge, Defendant continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import into the United States, products that infringe the ’790 Patent. On information and belief, Defendant has also continued to sell the Exemplary Defendant Products and distribute product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the ’790 Patent.”

Plaintiff has made similar claims for the alleged infringement of other Patents-in-suit.

There are six claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff, one for the alleged infringement of each of the Patents-in-suit.

In the prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the Court for a judgment that the Defendant has infringed directly one or more claims of the Patents-in-suit and that the Patents-in-suit are valid and enforceable; a judgment that awards the Plaintiff all appropriate damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for the Defendant's continuing or future infringement, including pre- or post-judgment interest, costs, and disbursements; a judgment that awards the Plaintiff all appropriate damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for the Defendant's past infringement; and an accounting that this case be declared exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 along with such further relief at law or in equity as the Court deems just and proper.

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.