Linfo IP v. 5.11, Inc.: Text Discovery Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Linfo IP, LLC asserted US9092428B1 — covering systems and methods for discovering and presenting information in text content — against tactical apparel and gear maker 5.11, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed after 194 days via joint stipulation, with plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice and defendant’s counterclaims dismissed without prejudice.
Text-Discovery Patent Assertion Ends in Bilateral Stipulated Dismissal
On April 12, 2024, Linfo IP, LLC filed an infringement action against 5.11, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00241), asserting US9092428B1. The patent, originating from application No. US13/709827, covers systems, methods, and a user interface for discovering and presenting information embedded in text content — a broad software-interaction technology claim.
The case resolved on October 23, 2024, through a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal accepted by the court. Under the stipulation’s asymmetric terms, all of Linfo IP’s claims against 5.11, Inc. were dismissed with prejudice — permanently barring Linfo IP from re-asserting the same claims against 5.11 on this patent. However, 5.11’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving the defendant’s ability to revive those claims in a future proceeding. Each party bears its own legal costs.
At 194 days, the resolution falls well within the window typically associated with pre-discovery or early-stage settlements, suggesting the parties reached a commercial resolution before substantive litigation costs accumulated. The public record does not disclose any licensing terms, financial consideration, or the nature of 5.11’s counterclaims. The with-prejudice dismissal of plaintiff’s claims is the defining outcome, and its asymmetry relative to the counterclaims without prejudice may reflect negotiated leverage or unresolved validity questions that 5.11 chose to keep open.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 194 days
194 days — resolved before claim construction, consistent with pre-trial settlement
Asymmetric stipulated dismissal: what the with/without prejudice split means
With prejudice means Linfo IP cannot re-file these claims against 5.11
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits. Linfo IP, LLC is permanently barred from asserting the same patent claims under US9092428B1 against 5.11, Inc. in any future action. This is the maximum procedural concession a plaintiff can make short of a trial loss, and in patent cases it typically signals a settlement or licensing arrangement, though no terms are disclosed here.
Plaintiff foreclosed from re-filing5.11’s counterclaims survive — dismissed without prejudice
The court accepted a split dismissal: Linfo IP’s claims dismissed with prejudice, 5.11’s counterclaims dismissed without prejudice. A without-prejudice dismissal leaves the door open — 5.11 could theoretically revive its counterclaims (potentially invalidity or non-infringement declarations) in a later proceeding. This asymmetry is notable and may reflect a negotiating point 5.11 was unwilling to surrender, or it may be a standard protective posture when counterclaims are not yet fully developed.
5.11 counterclaims remain revivableNo fee-shifting — each party absorbs its own litigation costs
The stipulation explicitly provides that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, with no fee award to either side. In patent cases, fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 requires a finding of exceptionality. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with a negotiated resolution and suggests neither party pressed for — or could sustain — an exceptional-case argument at this early stage.
No § 285 fee awardUS9092428B1 remains enforceable against other defendants
The with-prejudice dismissal is bilateral as to the 5.11 dispute only. The patent itself is unaffected — US9092428B1 remains in force and Linfo IP retains the right to assert it against other parties. Companies operating text-based discovery, recommendation, or content-surfacing systems should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk, particularly given Linfo IP’s apparent willingness to litigate in the Eastern District of Texas.
Patent still active enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Linfo IP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9092428B1 covering text information discovery systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | 5.11, Inc. | Company | 5.11, Inc. — tactical apparel, gear, and footwear manufacturer and retailerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for Linfo IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing Linfo IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexander Hale Martin | Attorney | Counsel for 5.11, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for 5.11, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ricardo Joel Bonilla | Attorney | Counsel for 5.11, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing 5.11, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing 5.11, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a dual-track disposition unusual in its explicit asymmetry: plaintiff’s claims extinguished with prejudice while defendant’s counterclaims are preserved without prejudice. The phrasing ‘ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES’ indicates the court exercised no independent merits review — the outcome was entirely party-driven. The denial of all pending relief ‘as moot’ confirms no substantive rulings were made on infringement or validity, leaving the patent’s legal strength untested on the record.
US9092428B1 — Text Information Discovery System and User Interface
US9092428B1 issued from application US13/709827 and covers a system, methods, and user interface for discovering and presenting information within text content. The patent sits at the intersection of natural language processing, content surfacing, and UI design — a broad technical footprint that potentially encompasses any digital product that identifies, extracts, or highlights meaningful entities or concepts from text and surfaces them to a user. The ‘B1’ designation indicates it issued without post-issuance amendment.
The commercial relevance of US9092428B1 extends well beyond tactical apparel retail. Any product that processes user-generated text, article content, search results, or documents and presents linked or contextual information could fall within the patent’s scope — including e-commerce platforms, content management systems, enterprise search tools, and mobile apps with annotation or recommendation features. The fact that 5.11, Inc. was targeted suggests Linfo IP may be asserting the patent broadly across industries with web or app-based text interfaces, making this a cross-sector risk.
Should your product team run an FTO check against US9092428B1?
Any R&D or product team building features that discover, extract, highlight, or present information derived from text content should assess exposure to US9092428B1. This includes contextual linking, entity recognition in UI, smart annotations, in-app search surfacing, and recommendation engines that process text. The patent’s broad claim language and the plaintiff’s demonstrated willingness to assert it in E.D. Texas against a non-software company amplify the risk for technology-adjacent businesses.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the claim scope of US9092428B1, identify prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and flag related patent families held by Linfo IP. Early FTO analysis is significantly cheaper than litigation defence — and given the 194-day resolution pattern seen here, understanding your exposure before a demand letter arrives is the most cost-effective risk management posture.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9092428B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Text-Discovery and Software Interface Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving software information-discovery and text-presentation patents asserted in the Eastern District of Texas, including other Linfo IP and Ramey LLP matters.
What this case signals for the text-discovery software IP landscape
A rapid, cost-neutral resolution in E.D. Texas carries distinct signals for software patent holders and potential defendants.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for software patent assertions
Linfo IP’s choice of the Eastern District of Texas for a software-interface patent is consistent with the court’s continued attractiveness for patent assertion entities. Companies with text-processing or content-discovery features in their products — even tangentially — should monitor docket filings in this district as an early warning system.
Early resolution does not extinguish the patent — monitor for repeat assertions
With-prejudice dismissal binds only these two parties on these claims. US9092428B1 is still live. The 194-day cycle suggests Linfo IP may pursue a volume-litigation model: file, negotiate, resolve, and move to the next target. Product teams deploying text-based information-surfacing UI should conduct or refresh FTO analysis against this patent.
Linfo v 5.11 — key questions answered
The with-prejudice dismissal of Linfo IP’s claims means Linfo IP is permanently barred from bringing the same patent infringement claims under US9092428B1 against 5.11, Inc. again. It functions as a final adjudication on those specific claims. Linfo IP retains rights to enforce the patent against other parties.
The joint stipulation specifically preserved 5.11’s counterclaims by dismissing them without prejudice, meaning 5.11 can revive them in future proceedings. This asymmetry suggests 5.11’s counsel — Fish & Richardson — negotiated to retain optionality, possibly on invalidity or non-infringement grounds, as a protective measure even if no immediate plans to refile exist.
US9092428B1 covers systems, methods, and a user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content. Products at risk include e-commerce platforms, content apps, enterprise search tools, and any UI that extracts or surfaces contextual information from text. The patent’s breadth makes it relevant across industries beyond 5.11’s tactical gear sector.
The public court record does not disclose any financial settlement terms or licensing arrangement. The stipulation only confirms mutual cost-bearing and the dismissal terms. Any commercial resolution between the parties remains confidential, which is typical for patent settlements reached before trial.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal applies only to claims against 5.11, Inc. in Case No. 2:24-cv-00241. US9092428B1 remains an enforceable patent, and Linfo IP retains full rights to assert it against other defendants. Companies with text-based discovery or information-surfacing features in their products remain potential targets.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.