Cedar Lane Tech Inc v. Percheron Asset Management Group Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Percheron Asset Management Group, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-09531, S.D.N.Y., 11/14/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the Southern District of New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s financial trading products infringe a patent related to electronic trading systems that generate conditional, semi-anonymous offers based on a participant's trading history.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses risk management in anonymous electronic trading markets by enabling liquidity providers to create profiles of trading counterparties and tailor offers to them without fully revealing their identities.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

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

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that the trend toward automated, electronic trading systems has increased anonymity, preventing buyers and sellers from knowing the identity of their counterparties (’782 Patent, col. 1:7-14). This anonymity can expose market participants, particularly liquidity providers, to risks from "toxic traders" who possess superior knowledge about a security's future price direction (’782 Patent, col. 6:33-47).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system for "informed, semi-anonymous, trading" where a trading entity, or "taker," is associated with an identifier (’782 Patent, col. 2:59-63; Fig. 1). A "liquidity provider" can acquire the trade history associated with this identifier, generate a profile based on that history (e.g., to assess profitability or risk), and then generate a conditional offer that is directed only to the entity associated with that specific identifier (’782 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:25-38). This allows for customized pricing based on counterparty behavior without revealing the full identities of the participants.
• Technical Importance: This approach allows market makers to adjust pricing based on the perceived risk of a counterparty, potentially offering better prices to "naive" traders while protecting themselves from losses to more informed "toxic" traders (’782 Patent, col. 6:48-57).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "exemplary claims" without specifying claim numbers, instead referring to an attached but unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented method.
• Independent Claim 1 elements:
  • Associating one of a plurality of trading entities with an identifier using a processor.
  • Acquiring trade history information including a history of trading transactions associated with said identifier.
  • Receiving an offer to buy or sell a trading item from a liquidity provider based on a profile generated from the trade history, where the profile contains information indicating whether the transactions would generate a profit.
  • The offer is only made to the trading entity associated with the identifier.
  • The offer is processed through an exchange that handles transactions for items with a bid/offer spread.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but its general allegations encompass "one or more claims of the '782 Patent" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint does not identify the accused instrumentality by name, referring only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" detailed in an external exhibit that was not provided for this analysis (Compl. ¶11, 16). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint's substantive infringement allegations are made by incorporating an external claims chart document, Exhibit 2, which was not provided for this analysis (Compl. ¶16, 17). The complaint itself does not contain narrative infringement allegations sufficient to construct a claim chart or analyze the plaintiff's theory of infringement.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Lacking a specific infringement theory, analysis of the patent claims against the general technological context suggests potential disputes may arise over several key issues.
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the defendant's system generates a "profile" that "indicates whether said trading transactions... would generate a profit," as required by claim 1. The dispute could center on whether the accused system performs this specific type of profitability analysis or uses a different, more generalized risk assessment metric that falls outside the claim's scope.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be how the accused system ensures an offer is "only made to said trading entity." The complaint provides no evidence on the technical mechanism for targeting or restricting offers, raising the question of whether the accused system implements the claimed exclusivity or a different form of targeted marketing.

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" (from claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's mechanism for identifying and pricing trades with potentially "toxic" counterparties. The definition will determine whether the claim covers any form of counterparty risk analysis or is limited to specific methods of predicting profitability.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines "trading history" broadly as "any relevant information relating to the trader, including information relating to the past trades of the trader, the identity of the trader, a classification of the trader, etc." (’782 Patent, col. 2:65-col. 3:2). This could support a reading where any profile derived from such history that informs pricing satisfies the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific examples of how profitability is calculated, such as creating variables ("SIMPROF," "ACTPROF") by comparing execution prices to prices "one minute later" or by tracking the liquidity provider's actual profit from past trades with the entity (’782 Patent, col. 4:50-col. 5:10). This could support a narrower construction limited to profiles that perform a direct analysis of historical or projected trade profitability.

• The Term: "said offer being only made to said trading entity" (from claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the conditional and targeted nature of the offer. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused system's offers are exclusive in a manner contemplated by the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a system where offers can be "broadcast through a centralized exchange" and a "trade matching system can match the best available offers with the trading entities for which those offers are valid" (’782 Patent, col. 3:30-38). This language may support an interpretation where a widely disseminated offer that is logically restricted (i.e., only acceptable by a specific identifier) meets the "only made to" requirement.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract states that the "offer being only made to the trading entity associated with one of said identifiers" (’782 Patent, Abstract). This phrasing, combined with the patent's focus on conditional offers, could be argued to require a more direct targeting mechanism than a general broadcast with a filter, suggesting a technically exclusive communication path.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement based on Defendant distributing "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '782 Patent" (Compl. ¶14). It alleges this conduct has occurred "at least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the word "willful" but alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" based on the service of the complaint and its attached claim charts (Compl. ¶13). This allegation of post-suit knowledge could form the basis for a later claim for enhanced damages.

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

Given the complaint's lack of factual detail, the case will likely be defined by evidence produced during discovery and the court's interpretation of key claim terms.

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary proof: What are the specific functionalities of the "Exemplary Defendant Products"? The resolution of the case depends entirely on evidence yet to be produced regarding whether the accused systems create user profiles, how those profiles are used to generate offers, and what technical mechanisms are used to target those offers to specific users.
• A second core issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the claim phrase "profile containing information that indicates whether said trading transactions... would generate a profit"? The case may turn on whether this language is limited to the specific profitability metrics described in the patent's embodiments or if it can be read more broadly to cover general counterparty risk-scoring systems.
• Finally, a key question will be one of technical implementation: Does the accused system's method of targeting offers meet the limitation that an offer is "only made to" a specific trading entity? The distinction between a logically filtered public broadcast and a technically private offer will be a critical point of contention.