Linfo IP vs. Blenders Eyewear: Voluntary Dismissal in Eyewear Patent Case

Updated on Dec. 8, 2025 | Written by Patsnap Team

Introduction

On January 6, 2025, Linfo IP, LLC’s patent infringement lawsuit against Blenders Eyewear, LLC concluded with a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. As a result, this dispute ended just 105 days after filing. The case was heard in the Texas Southern District Court before Chief Judge Keith P. Ellison. Specifically, it involved allegations that Blenders Eyewear’s eye wear product infringed U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428 B1.

Notably, the rapid resolution occurred before the defendant filed an answer or motion for summary judgment. Consequently, this raises strategic questions about litigation calculus. Furthermore, it has broader implications for eyewear patent infringement cases in 2024-2025. Therefore, this Linfo IP Blenders Eyewear patent case analysis offers key insights for patent holders and accused infringers navigating similar disputes.

Case Summary

Case Overview

The Parties

Linfo IP, LLC filed as plaintiff asserting patent infringement claims. Meanwhile, Blenders Eyewear, LLC was named as defendant in the action. However, no additional company background information appears in the court record.

The Patent at Issue

US9092428B1 was the sole patent asserted in this infringement action. Additionally, explore similar cases on Patsnap Eureka IP to research related patent families.

Legal Representation

First, plaintiff retained Ramey LLP, with attorney William P. Ramey, III leading litigation. However, no defense counsel appeared on record. This is consistent with pre-answer termination.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

October 11, 2024: Linfo IP filed in Texas Southern District Court, a venue with established patent litigation procedures. Texas Southern District Court patent cases benefit from experienced judiciary.

Case Assignment: Chief Judge Keith P. Ellison was assigned to the matter.

January 6, 2025: Linfo IP filed voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

January 24, 2025: Case officially closed. Full docket available via PACER.

💡 Key Insight: Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), plaintiffs may dismiss without court approval before defendant serves an answer—preserving strategic flexibility while avoiding adverse claim construction rulings.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The case terminated via voluntary dismissal without prejudice:

• ⚖️ All infringement claims withdrawn
• ⚖️ No admission of liability; each party bears own costs
• ⚖️ Patent validity preserved for future assertion
• ⚖️ No damages awarded or injunctive relief entered

Verdict Cause Analysis

Several factors typically drive early-stage terminations in patent infringement litigation:

Confidential Settlement: Private licensing agreements or covenant-not-to-sue arrangements frequently remain outside public filings. The “without prejudice” designation may suggest negotiated resolution.

Strategic Reassessment: Plaintiffs sometimes dismiss after evaluating claim construction risks, prior art exposure, or freedom-to-operate analyses.

Pre-Answer Negotiations: Though no responsive pleading was filed, defendant communications regarding patent validity or non-infringement positions may have influenced the outcome.

Track litigation trends with Patsnap Eureka IP for patterns in voluntary dismissal outcomes.

Strategic Observations

⚖️ For Patent Holders:

• Voluntary dismissal without prejudice preserves future enforcement options
• Early resolution avoids adverse claim construction precedent
• Texas venues continue attracting patent filings

⚖️ For Accused Infringers:

• Pre-answer negotiations can resolve disputes before substantial defense costs
• “Without prejudice” dismissals warrant monitoring for potential re-filing
• Review USPTO patent records for prosecution history

🔬 For R&D Teams:

• Eyewear patent assertions continue across consumer products
• FTO (freedom-to-operate) analysis warrants review of US9092428B1
• Design-around strategies merit consideration

Industry & Competitive Implications

The eyewear industry faces ongoing patent activity as companies compete on product innovation. Consequently, understanding these trends is essential for strategic planning.

📊 Market Impact: In this case, the resolution leaves no public injunction or mandated design changes on record.

📊 Sector Trends: Additionally, patent assertion in consumer products reflects broader IP monetization patterns. Therefore, analyze patent landscapes on Patsnap Eureka IP to identify exposure considerations.

📊 Competitive Intelligence: Importantly, the ‘428 patent remains enforceable. As a result, it could be asserted against other market participants in the future.

💡 Key Insight: Early dismissals often signal licensing agreements. Consequently, companies in adjacent product spaces should monitor for parallel assertions.

Key Takeaways

⚖️ For Patent Attorneys:

• Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals preserve reassertion rights
• Texas Southern District Court remains active patent venue
• Early resolutions minimize precedential risk

⚖️ For IP Professionals:

• Monitor US9092428B1 for future enforcement activity
• “Without prejudice” dismissals warrant portfolio tracking
• Research patent families on Patsnap Eureka IP

🔬 For R&D Teams:

• Consider FTO review for eyewear-related patents
• Maintain design documentation
• Implement competitive patent monitoring

Frequently Asked Questions

What patent was involved in Linfo IP v. Blenders Eyewear? U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428 B1 was asserted in this infringement action.

Can Linfo IP sue Blenders Eyewear again? The dismissal was entered “without prejudice,” which generally preserves the plaintiff’s ability to reassert claims in future litigation.

How does this affect eyewear patent litigation trends? This case reflects patterns in consumer products patent enforcement where early-stage resolutions may avoid costly discovery while preserving strategic options.

Case Reference: Linfo IP, LLC v. Blenders Eyewear, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-03891 (S.D. Tex.)

Resources: USPTO Patent Database | PACER Court Records | FRCP Rule 41

Start your patent research on Patsnap Eureka IP | Subscribe for patent litigation updates

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information presented is based on publicly available court records and should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with a qualified patent attorney. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this content. Readers should consult with licensed legal counsel regarding specific legal questions or matters.