Cedar Lane Technologies Inc v. Siebert Financial Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Siebert Financial Corp. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00299, S.D.N.Y., 01/13/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the district and committing alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s financial trading products and systems infringe a patent related to generating conditional, targeted trade offers for semi-anonymous market participants based on their historical trading data.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue operates within electronic financial markets, addressing the challenge of pricing risk for anonymous or semi-anonymous counterparties in high-speed trading environments.
• 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

Date	Event
2010-04-08	’782 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date)
2013-11-05	’782 Patent Issue Date
2026-01-13	Complaint Filing Date

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 increasing automation and anonymity of electronic trading systems prevents market participants (e.g., buyers and sellers) from knowing the identity of their counterparties, thereby precluding the use of counterparty-specific information in pricing transactions (’782 Patent, col. 1:11-15). This prevents market makers from distinguishing between different types of traders, such as those who may possess superior information (so-called "toxic traders") (’782 Patent, col. 6:33-36).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system and method where a trading entity (a "taker") can be associated with a persistent but semi-anonymous "identifier" (’782 Patent, col. 3:3-6). A liquidity provider can then access the trading history associated with this identifier, generate a "profile" that analyzes this history (e.g., to determine if past trades with this identifier were profitable for the provider), and generate a conditional trade offer that is targeted specifically to the entity associated with that identifier (’782 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This allows providers to customize pricing based on the perceived risk of a counterparty without knowing their actual identity (’782 Patent, col. 2:58-63).
• Technical Importance: This approach aims to re-introduce informed pricing into anonymous electronic markets, allowing liquidity providers to better manage risk and potentially offer improved pricing to "naïve" traders while charging a premium to more sophisticated or "toxic" traders (’782 Patent, col. 6:42-57).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following essential elements:
  • Associating a trading entity with an identifier using a processor.
  • Acquiring trade history information associated with that identifier.
  • Receiving an offer from a liquidity provider that is based on a profile generated from that trade history.
  • The profile must contain "information that indicates whether said trading transactions associated with said trading entity would generate a profit."
  • The offer must be "only made to said trading entity associated with said identifier."
  • The offer is processed through an exchange that handles transactions with a "bid/offer spread."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not specifically name any accused products. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16). This exhibit was not filed with the complaint document.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the unnamed products "practice the technology claimed by the '782 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that its infringement theory is detailed in claim charts provided in an exhibit that is not included with the filed complaint document (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 17). The complaint’s narrative theory states that Defendant's "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims of the ’782 Patent (Compl. ¶16). It further alleges direct infringement occurs through Defendant’s own internal testing and use of these products by its employees (Compl. ¶12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the claim language and the general nature of the allegations, the infringement analysis raises several potential questions for the court:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the claim limitation "offer being only made to said trading entity." The question for the court could be whether this requires a private, point-to-point communication, or if it can be read on a system where an offer is broadcast but is logically or technically restricted so that only the targeted entity can accept it.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's lack of detail on the accused products raises the evidentiary question of how, or if, the accused systems generate a "profile containing information that indicates whether said trading transactions... would generate a profit." The analysis will question what specific data analysis the accused systems perform on a trader's history and whether that analysis meets this specific claim limitation.

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"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention, as it defines the specific analytical basis for generating the conditional offer. The construction of this term will determine whether generic risk scoring systems infringe or if a more specific, profitability-focused prediction is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes an embodiment where a profile analyzer compares execution prices with prices "one minute later," suggesting a direct, albeit simple, profitability analysis (’782 Patent, col. 4:54-57). Parties arguing for a broader scope may contend that any historical data analysis used to adjust pricing based on counterparty risk "indicates" a likelihood of future profit or loss.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim’s use of "would generate a profit" suggests a forward-looking or predictive quality. Parties arguing for a narrower scope may point to this language to argue that a mere historical summary of trade outcomes is insufficient, and that the profile must contain a specific prediction about future transactions.

• The Term: "offer being only made to said trading entity"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the exclusivity and targeting of the patented offer. Its construction will be critical in determining whether the accused system’s method of disseminating offers meets the claimed limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Summary section states the offer is "only directed to the taker" (’782 Patent, col. 2:29-31) and later that the offer "may only be accepted by the trading entity" (’782 Patent, col. 2:42-44). This could support an interpretation where the key is restricted acceptance, not necessarily private transmission, potentially covering offers that are visible to others but only actionable by the target.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language "only made to" could be argued to require that the offer is communicated in a manner that is exclusively received by the target entity, such as a direct message, precluding any form of broader broadcast, even if acceptance is restricted.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells its products to customers and provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that service of the complaint and its (unattached) claim charts provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges that Defendant's continued infringement despite this knowledge entitles Plaintiff to enhanced damages, forming a basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement (Compl. ¶14; Prayer for Relief ¶D).

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Given the complaint’s failure to identify specific accused products or their functionality, a threshold question is whether Plaintiff can produce evidence demonstrating that Defendant’s systems actually perform the claimed functions of generating a profitability-based profile and transmitting an offer that is "only made to" a specific, identified trading entity.
• The case will also likely depend on a question of definitional scope: The dispute may center on whether the claim term "profile... that indicates whether said... transactions... would generate a profit" can be construed to cover generalized risk-scoring algorithms common in modern trading systems, or if it is limited to the more specific historical profit-and-loss analysis described in the patent’s embodiments.