Cedar Lane Tech Inc v. Empire Asset Management Co LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Empire Asset Management Company, LLC (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-09526, S.D.N.Y., 11/14/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Southern District of New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified financial trading products infringe a patent related to electronic trading systems that generate conditional, targeted offers based on the historical trading performance of semi-anonymous participants.
• Technical Context: The technology operates within the domain of high-frequency and electronic financial trading, where market participants seek to optimize pricing and manage risk by assessing counterparty behavior in otherwise anonymous environments.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,577,782, entitled "Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants," issued November 5, 2013 (the "’782 Patent"). (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 9).

U.S. Patent No. 8,577,782 - "Trading with conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants,"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that the trend toward automated electronic trading has increased anonymity, preventing participants from knowing the identity of their counterparties. (’782 Patent, col. 1:7-15). This anonymity precludes the ability to set prices based on a counterparty's trading history, such as identifying sophisticated or "toxic traders" who may possess superior information about future price movements. (’782 Patent, col. 6:32-45).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that allows a "Liquidity Provider" to make customized offers to specific traders ("Takers") in a semi-anonymous market. (’782 Patent, Abstract). The system associates a Taker with a unique identifier, acquires the trading history linked to that identifier, and generates a "profile" analyzing that history, for instance to determine if past transactions were profitable. (’782 Patent, col. 1:21-31). Based on this profile, an "offer generator" creates a conditional offer that is directed only to the Taker associated with that specific identifier, enabling differentiated pricing based on perceived trader skill without revealing the Taker's actual identity. (’782 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 4:46-65).
• Technical Importance: The described technology sought to reintroduce a form of counterparty risk analysis into anonymous electronic trading markets, allowing market makers to improve profitability and pricing efficiency by tailoring offers based on the historical behavior of different traders. (’782 Patent, col. 3:19-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and references "Exemplary '782 Patent Claims" identified in an attached chart, but this exhibit was not provided with the complaint. (Compl. ¶11). The analysis below focuses on independent claim 1 as a representative asserted claim.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • 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,
  • said offer being only made to said trading entity associated with said identifier,
  • said offer being processed through an exchange that processes trading transactions for items having a bid/offer spread.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but alleges infringement of "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any accused products or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts incorporated by reference but not attached to the publicly filed complaint. (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges only that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '782 Patent." (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the ’782 Patent, stating that they "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '782 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶16). However, the complaint incorporates these allegations by reference to claim charts in an "Exhibit 2" which is not provided, and it offers no specific factual allegations in the body of the complaint mapping product features to claim limitations. (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 17). As such, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the provided document.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Given the lack of specific factual allegations, any analysis of potential disputes must be based on the claim language itself.
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be the scope of the limitation "profile containing information that indicates whether said trading transactions... would generate a profit." The dispute could turn on whether the accused system’s user profile must contain a specific, forward-looking profitability indicator, or if a more general risk score or classification based on past trading success meets this requirement.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis may focus on the claim requirement that an offer be "only made to said trading entity." A key technical question will be what evidence the Plaintiff provides to show that the accused system implements this exclusivity, as opposed to a system that merely targets offers to certain traders but does not technically restrict their availability.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "profile containing information that indicates whether said trading transactions associated with said trading entity would generate a profit" (’782 Patent, cl. 1).

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's mechanism for differentiating traders. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the accused system's user data constitutes such a "profile." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a general risk assessment satisfies the claim or if a more specific, quantitative prediction of profitability is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes creating variables such as "SIMPROF" (simulated profit) and "ACTPROF" (actual profit) based on past trading data, suggesting that any profile derived from historical profitability analysis could fall within the claim's scope. (’782 Patent, col. 4:55-62, col. 5:1-4).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim's use of the conditional phrase "would generate a profit" could be argued to require a predictive element, rather than a purely historical one. A defendant might argue this requires a specific algorithm that forecasts future profitability, a higher bar than simply cataloging past results.

• The Term: "said offer being only made to said trading entity" (’782 Patent, cl. 1).

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the conditional and targeted nature of the offer. Infringement will depend on the degree of exclusivity required. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern trading systems often use sophisticated targeting, and the dispute will be whether such targeting is functionally equivalent to the claim's stricter "only made to" requirement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent summary states the offer is "only directed to the taker," which could support an argument that the key is the direction or targeting of the offer, not a rigid technical barrier preventing others from accepting it. (’782 Patent, col. 1:29-31).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language "only made to" suggests a high degree of exclusivity. The specification contrasts the invention with general broadcasts, stating offers "can be associated with identifiers for groups of Takers or individual Takers for which these offers are valid." (’782 Patent, col. 3:29-32). This could support a construction requiring a technical mechanism that limits acceptance to the identified entity.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users" to use the accused products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 15). The complaint notes these materials are referenced in the unprovided Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement." (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges that despite this knowledge, Defendant continues to infringe. (Compl. ¶14). This forms a basis for post-filing willful infringement. The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge but does ask the court to declare the case "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285. (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶E.i).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold issue will be whether the complaint's skeletal allegations, which rely entirely on an unprovided exhibit for the factual basis of infringement, can survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards.
• Definitional Scope: The case will likely hinge on the construction of the claim term "profile containing information that indicates whether said trading transactions... would generate a profit." The central question will be whether this requires a specific, predictive output regarding profitability, or if a general classification of a trader based on past performance is sufficient to infringe.
• Exclusivity of the Offer: A key factual question for infringement will be whether the accused system generates offers that are technically and exclusively "only made to" a specific profiled entity. The dispute will likely focus on whether the system's targeting mechanism meets this strict claim limitation or falls short, representing a non-infringing design choice.