Cedar Lane Tech Inc v. Toronto Dominion Bank

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Cedar Lane Technologies Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Toronto-Dominion Bank (Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00044, E.D. Tex., 01/22/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because the Defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unnamed financial trading products and services infringe a patent related to generating conditional, semi-anonymous trade offers based on a participant's trading history.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses risk management in anonymous electronic financial markets by enabling market makers to selectively price offers based on a counterparty's historical trading behavior.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or inter partes review proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-04-08	’782 Patent Priority Date
2013-11-05	’782 Patent Issue Date
2026-01-22	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: In modern electronic trading systems, the anonymity of participants prevents market makers ("Liquidity Providers") from setting prices based on information about the counterparty, such as their historical trading patterns (’782 Patent, col. 1:8-15). This makes it difficult to manage the risk of trading with potentially more informed "toxic traders" who may possess special knowledge about a security's future price direction (’782 Patent, col. 6:32-41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a trading participant ("Taker") is associated with an identifier. A Liquidity Provider can acquire the trading history linked to this identifier, generate a profile to assess the participant's trading behavior (e.g., profitability), and then generate a conditional trade offer based on that profile. The system is designed so that this conditional offer is directed only to the specific participant associated with that identifier, allowing for customized pricing in a semi-anonymous environment (’782 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:18-31). The overall system architecture is depicted in Figure 1, showing the interaction between a Liquidity Taker, an Exchange, and a Liquidity Provider (’782 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This method allows market makers to differentiate between traders and adjust their bid/ask spreads accordingly, potentially offering better prices to "naive" traders while protecting themselves from losses to "toxic traders" (’782 Patent, col. 6:47-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims without specifying them, referring only to "Exemplary '782 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶11). Claim 1 is the first independent method claim.
• Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
  • Associating a trading entity with an identifier using a processor.
  • Acquiring trade history information associated with the identifier.
  • Receiving an offer from a liquidity provider based on a profile generated from that trade history.
  • The profile must contain information indicating whether the trading entity's past transactions "would generate a profit."
  • The offer is "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."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count below (among the 'Exemplary Defendant Products')" (Compl. ¶11). However, the referenced charts (Exhibit 2) are not attached to the filed complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges only that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '782 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an "Exhibit 2" that was not provided with the pleading (Compl. ¶17). As such, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The complaint's narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant’s "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly infringe by making, using, and selling systems that "practice the technology claimed by the '782 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '782 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: A primary question will be whether discovery reveals that the unnamed accused products perform the specific steps of the asserted claims. For instance, what evidence will show that Defendant's system generates a "profile" based on a user's trade history that specifically "indicates whether said trading transactions...would generate a profit," as required by Claim 1?
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may focus on whether the accused system generates an offer that is "only made to said trading entity," as required by Claim 1. The question will be whether a generally accessible trading platform can be shown to make an offer that is exclusively available to a single, identified counterparty in the manner described by the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "a profile containing information that indicates whether said trading transactions associated with said trading entity would generate a profit" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to the infringement analysis, as it dictates the specific type of analysis the accused system must perform. Practitioners may focus on this term because it requires not just tracking history, but generating a specific, forward-looking or analytical output related to profitability.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Parties may argue that any metric correlating past trades with subsequent market moves could "indicate" a propensity to generate a profit, giving the term a broad meaning.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of how profitability might be assessed, such as by comparing a taker's execution prices "with the prices one minute later" or by analyzing the "actual profits which the Liquidity Provider earned from the transactions of an identified taker" (’782 Patent, col. 4:50-56; col. 5:1-2). A defendant may argue these examples limit the scope of the term to these more concrete calculations.

• The Term: "said offer being only made to said trading entity associated with said identifier" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the exclusivity of the patented method. Proving infringement will require showing that the accused system directs offers in this specific, targeted manner, distinguishing it from a general broadcast to all market participants.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue this language is met if a system logically or functionally restricts acceptance of an offer to a single entity, even if the offer data is technically accessible more broadly.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a "trade matching system" that "matches the best available offers with the trading entities for which those offers are valid" using the provided identifiers (’782 Patent, col. 3:32-37). This suggests a specific technical implementation for ensuring exclusivity, which could be used to argue for a narrower construction.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "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).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it alleges that Defendant has "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" from the date of service of the complaint (Compl. ¶13). This allegation may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement or enhanced damages.

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

1. A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Given the complaint’s lack of specificity regarding the accused products, a key question is whether Plaintiff can produce evidence showing that Defendant’s systems perform the highly specific profiling and targeted-offering functions required by the patent's claims.

2. The case may turn on a question of technical implementation: How will the claim limitation "offer being only made to said trading entity" be interpreted, and can Plaintiff demonstrate that Defendant's trading architecture meets this requirement for exclusivity?

3. A further question will be one of functional specificity: Does the accused system's analysis of trade history rise to the level of creating a "profile containing information that indicates whether said trading transactions...would generate a profit," or does it perform a more generic data aggregation that falls outside the claim scope?