Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. v. Philips Electronics North America 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 Philips Electronics North America Corporation (“Defendant”), seeking damages and declaratory reliefs along with prejudgement and post-judgement interests among other reliefs for the alleged infringement of the United States Patent 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 the United States Patent No. 8,165,867 entitled “Methods for translating a device command” (the “Patent-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 ’867 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 ’867 Patent also identified in the charts incorporated into this Count below (the “Exemplary ’867 Patent Claims”) literally or by the doctrine of equivalents.”

Further, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Defendant also has and continues to directly infringe, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the Exemplary ’867 Patent Claims, by having its employees internally test and use these Exemplary Products” and “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 ’867 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 ’867 Patent.”

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “At least since being served by this Complaint and corresponding claim charts, Defendant has actively, knowingly, and intentionally continued to induce infringement of the ’867 Patent, literally or by the doctrine of equivalents, by selling Exemplary Defendant Products to their customers for use in end-user products in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the ’867 Patent.”

There is one claim for relief laid down by the Plaintiff for the alleged infringement of the Patent-in-suit.

In the prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the Court for judgement that the Defendant has infringed directly and indirectly one or more claims of the ’867 Patent; an accounting of all damages not presented at trial; a judgment that awards the Plaintiff all appropriate damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for the Defendant's continuing or future infringement, up until the date such judgment is entered with respect to the ’867 Patent, including pre- or post-judgment interest, costs, and disbursements as justified under 35 U.S.C. § 284 along with reasonable attorneys fees, costs and expenses and any other relief 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.