Cedar Lane Technologies Inc v. Oppenheimer & Co Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00297, S.D.N.Y., 01/13/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant has an established place of business within the Southern District of New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s financial trading products and services infringe a patent related to electronic trading systems that generate conditional offers for semi-anonymous participants based on their trade history.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses electronic financial markets, enabling market makers to offer customized pricing to specific traders based on their historical trading behavior without fully revealing the traders' identities.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any pre-suit licensing negotiations, prior litigation involving the patent-in-suit, or any related administrative proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-04-08	U.S. Patent No. 8,577,782 Priority Date
2013-11-05	U.S. Patent No. 8,577,782 Issues
2026-01-13	Complaint Filed

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). (Compl. ¶9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in modern electronic trading systems where increased automation has led to greater anonymity between buyers and sellers. This anonymity prevents trading entities, particularly market makers ("liquidity providers"), from setting prices based on the specific trading history of a counterparty, which can lead to undifferentiated, and thus less efficient, pricing for all participants. (’782 Patent, col. 1:8-15, col. 2:50-58).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a trading entity ("taker") is associated with a unique identifier. This allows a liquidity provider to acquire the taker's transaction history, generate a profile analyzing that history (e.g., for profitability), and then create a conditional trade offer directed specifically to the entity associated with that identifier. This facilitates customized pricing within a semi-anonymous framework. (’782 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). The system architecture includes a "profile analyzer" and an "offer generator" to implement this targeted offering process. (’782 Patent, col. 4:51-61).
• Technical Importance: This method allows liquidity providers to better manage risk by adjusting the bid/ask spread for traders identified as "toxic" (i.e., those with superior short-term information), while potentially offering more favorable pricing to "naive" traders, thereby encouraging greater market liquidity and deal flow. (’782 Patent, col. 6:32-57).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and refers to "Exemplary '782 Patent Claims" detailed in an exhibit not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). For the purpose of analysis, independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's core method:

• 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 said trade history;
• the profile containing information that indicates whether said trading transactions would generate a profit;
• said offer being only made to said trading entity associated with said identifier; and
• said offer being processed through an exchange that processes transactions for items having a bid/offer spread. (’782 Patent, col. 10:57 - col. 11:6).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify the accused instrumentalities by name. It refers to them generally as "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in "charts incorporated into this Count." (Compl. ¶11). These charts, referenced as Exhibit 2, were not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused instrumentalities. It makes only conclusory allegations that the unnamed products "practice the technology claimed by the '782 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '782 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an unattached exhibit (Exhibit 2) to support its infringement allegations but does not provide them (Compl. ¶16-17). The narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant's "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly infringe the patent by satisfying all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). The complaint further alleges that Defendant's employees internally use and test these products, constituting additional acts of direct infringement (Compl. ¶12). Without the claim charts or a specific identification of the accused products, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the complaint alone.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the asserted technology and the typical function of financial trading platforms, several points of contention may arise:

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Defendant's system generates a "profile" that contains the specific type of information required by the claims—namely, "information that indicates whether said trading transactions... would generate a profit." The nature and analytical depth of the profiling will be a key issue.
• Technical Questions: It may be disputed whether offers made on Defendant's platform are "only made to said trading entity," as required by the claim. The analysis will question whether a generally broadcast offer that is programmatically executable by only one entity meets this limitation, or if the claim requires a private, point-to-point communication.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"profile containing information that indicates whether said trading transactions associated with said trading entity would generate a profit"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the analytical core of the patented method. The dispute will likely focus on what kind of "information" is sufficient and how directly it must relate to profitability. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from generic systems that might track trading volume or frequency without analyzing profitability.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's description of the "profile analyzer" could be argued to encompass various algorithms that use historical data to generate offers, potentially including those that use proxies for profitability rather than direct calculations. (’782 Patent, col. 4:51-54).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed embodiments where the system calculates specific variables like ACTPROF (actual profit from past transactions with the taker). This could support an interpretation that the "profile" must contain a concrete, calculated metric related to the provider's profitability when trading with that specific taker. (’782 Patent, col. 5:1-10).

"said offer being only made to said trading entity"

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the targeted, "conditional" nature of the offers. Its construction will determine whether the invention covers modern exchange architectures where offers might be widely visible but only executable by a specific counterparty.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that offers "may be broadcast through a centralized exchange," which suggests that the offer need not be private, as long as the system ensures it can only be accepted by the intended recipient. (’782 Patent, col. 4:5-8).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Abstract states the offer is "only made to the trading entity associated with one of said identifiers," and the Summary describes the offer as being "only directed to the taker." This language could support a requirement for a private, non-broadcast offer. (’782 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:29-31).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant encourages infringement by its customers and end users through "product literature and website materials." (Compl. ¶14). The allegation of knowledge is predicated on the service of the complaint itself. (Compl. ¶15).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not use the term "willful," but it lays a foundation for post-suit willfulness. It alleges that the service of the complaint and its attached (but unfiled) claim charts provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement," and that Defendant's continued infringing conduct despite this knowledge is ongoing. (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

The complaint, as filed, presents a skeletal infringement theory, deferring all substantive technical allegations to an unattached exhibit. Consequently, the case will likely turn on the resolution of several fundamental questions:

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Can the Plaintiff produce specific, technical evidence demonstrating how Defendant’s unnamed trading products perform each step of the asserted claims, particularly the generation of a "profile" that analyzes trader profitability? The current pleading leaves this foundational aspect of the case entirely unsubstantiated.
• A second core issue will be one of claim construction: What level of analytical rigor is required by the claim term "profile containing information that indicates whether said trading transactions... would generate a profit"? The resolution will determine whether the patent covers systems using general risk metrics or is limited to those performing the specific profitability calculations described in the patent's embodiments.
• Finally, a key question of definitional scope will be whether an offer visible on a general exchange but programmatically restricted to a single taker can be considered "only made to" that taker, or if the claim language necessitates a more private, targeted communication channel.