Linfo IP v. American Exchange & Aero Global: Dismissed With Prejudice at Pleadings
Linfo IP, LLC asserted US Patent No. 9,092,428 — covering systems and methods for discovering and presenting information in text content — against American Exchange Apparel Group and Aero Global, LLC in the Southern District of New York. The case ended when Judge Oetken granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing all claims with prejudice after 447 days.
Pleadings-stage defeat for a text-discovery patent assertion in SDNY
Filed on 18 April 2024 before Judge J. Paul Oetken in the Southern District of New York, this infringement action pitted Linfo IP, LLC — a patent assertion entity — against apparel and accessories businesses American Exchange Apparel Group, Corp. and Aero Global, LLC. The sole asserted patent, US9092428B1 (application no. US13/709827), claims a system, methods, and user interface for discovering and presenting information embedded within text content.
The case closed on 9 July 2025 when the court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). The court directed entry of judgment dismissing Linfo IP’s claims with prejudice — meaning the dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits and Linfo IP cannot re-assert the same claims against these defendants in a new action. This is a materially stronger outcome for defendants than a dismissal without prejudice.
Resolution at the pleadings stage after 447 days — before claim construction, discovery, or trial — is consistent with a successful § 101 or Rule 12(c) challenge targeting patent eligibility or failure to state a claim. The public record does not disclose the precise legal basis the court applied, but a with-prejudice judgment at this stage typically signals a fundamental legal deficiency in the patent claims or infringement pleading. The outcome leaves the underlying patent’s enforceability against other parties as an open question.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 447 days
447 days — resolved before any claim construction or trial phase
Judgment on the pleadings: what a with-prejudice dismissal means for each party
Rule 12(c) judgment on the pleadings: a merits-adjacent exit
A Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is decided on the face of the complaint and answer, without discovery. Granting it with prejudice means the court found no viable claim even accepting all of plaintiff’s factual allegations as true. This is a higher bar than a 12(b)(6) dismissal and signals a fundamental legal defect — commonly patent ineligibility under § 101 or failure to plead direct or indirect infringement sufficiently.
Decided on the pleadingsWith-prejudice dismissal forecloses re-filing against these defendants
A dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the merits. Linfo IP cannot re-file the same patent claims against American Exchange or Aero Global in any federal court. To pursue these defendants further, Linfo IP would need to succeed on appeal. The ruling also creates adverse persuasive authority that other accused infringers and courts may cite in future Linfo IP enforcement actions involving US9092428B1.
Re-filing barredFull dismissal with prejudice — maximum protection at minimum cost
American Exchange and Aero Global secured the strongest available pre-trial outcome: a with-prejudice judgment that permanently resolves this dispute without discovery, claim construction, or trial expense. Bochner PLLC’s Rule 12(c) strategy eliminated litigation risk at the earliest viable stage. The defendants may also be positioned to seek attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 if they can demonstrate the case was exceptional.
Maximum early-stage protectionSDNY pleadings win weakens US9092428’s enforcement posture
A with-prejudice dismissal at the pleadings stage signals to the broader market that US9092428B1 faces structural vulnerability — whether on § 101 eligibility, claim scope, or pleading sufficiency grounds. Companies in the text-information discovery and content-presentation technology sector that have received demand letters based on this patent should treat this outcome as material prior authority when evaluating their response strategy and settlement exposure.
Weakened enforcement postureFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Linfo IP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9092428B1, text information discovery systemSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | American Exchange Apparel Group, Corp. | Company | American Exchange Apparel Group and Aero Global LLC — apparel and accessories businessesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Aero Global, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David John Hoffman | Attorney | Counsel for Linfo IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for Linfo IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Law Office David J. Hoffman | Law Firm | Representing Linfo IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing Linfo IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew David Bochner | Attorney | Counsel for American Exchange Apparel Group, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Serge Krimnus | Attorney | Counsel for American Exchange Apparel Group, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Bochner PLLC | Law Firm | Representing American Exchange Apparel Group, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge J. Paul Oetken | Judge | New York Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s directive to enter judgment ‘dismissing Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice’ following a Rule 12(c) motion is a definitive merits-adjacent ruling. Judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) requires the court to find, as a matter of law, that the complaint fails even when all well-pleaded facts are accepted as true. A with-prejudice disposition — rather than leave to amend — indicates the court concluded no amendment could cure the underlying deficiency, providing defendants with a final and unreviewable (absent appeal) resolution of liability.
US9092428B1 — System and methods for text-based information discovery
US9092428B1, filed under application number US13/709827, claims a system, methods, and user interface for discovering and presenting information found within text content. The patent sits within the broadly-contested domain of software-implemented information retrieval and natural-language text processing — a technology space that has faced sustained eligibility scrutiny under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank since 2014. Patents of this character — claiming UI and method steps for surfacing content from text — are frequently challenged as directed to abstract ideas.
For companies operating in content platforms, search and discovery tools, text analytics, annotation software, or any product that surfaces information from written content, US9092428B1 represents a monitoring priority. PAE enforcement strategies often involve asserting broadly-drafted software patents against product features that bear only superficial resemblance to the claimed invention. The SDNY with-prejudice dismissal suggests the patent’s claims may carry eligibility or claim-scope vulnerabilities that could be exploited in future proceedings — including IPR petitions at the USPTO.
Should your product team run an FTO against US9092428B1?
Any product or platform that processes, indexes, or surfaces information derived from text content — including search engines, content recommendation systems, annotation tools, NLP pipelines, or text-enrichment APIs — should assess its exposure to US9092428B1. While the SDNY dismissal with prejudice weakens Linfo IP’s enforcement posture against these specific defendants, the patent remains in force and could be asserted against other parties, or transferred to a new holder who pursues fresh enforcement.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product legal teams to map claim language from US9092428B1 against your specific product architecture, identify prior art that may support an IPR petition, and surface related patents in the same family or held by associated entities. Running a structured FTO now — rather than after receiving a demand letter — is the most cost-effective way to quantify and manage this risk.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9092428B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar text-discovery patent infringement cases in federal district courts
Related patent assertion actions involving text-processing, information-discovery, and UI software patents litigated in the Southern District of New York and comparable federal venues.
What this case signals for the text-discovery patent IP landscape
An early pleadings victory against a PAE assertion suggests the patent faced a fundamental legal challenge that practitioners should understand.
Rule 12(c) is a viable and cost-effective weapon against software patent PAEs
Defendants secured a with-prejudice dismissal without entering discovery or claim construction. For accused infringers facing assertions of software-implemented text-processing patents — particularly from PAEs — an early Rule 12(c) or § 101 challenge should be evaluated before incurring the costs of full litigation. This outcome is consistent with that strategy delivering maximum value.
With-prejudice judgments create precedential leverage for future targets
Any future defendant receiving a demand letter referencing US9092428B1 can cite this SDNY dismissal as persuasive authority. Courts and parties in subsequent disputes will scrutinize whether the same legal deficiencies identified here apply. IP counsel advising clients on demand-letter responses should factor this outcome into any settlement valuation analysis.
Linfo v American — key questions answered
Judge J. Paul Oetken granted defendants’ Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed all of Linfo IP’s claims with prejudice. The case, filed 18 April 2024 and asserting US9092428B1, closed 9 July 2025 without reaching discovery, claim construction, or trial.
A with-prejudice dismissal following Rule 12(c) is a final adjudication on the merits. Linfo IP is permanently barred from re-asserting the same claims against American Exchange and Aero Global in any federal court. The only avenue for relief is a successful appeal. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, there is no opportunity to re-plead or cure deficiencies.
Linfo IP asserted US Patent No. 9,092,428 B1 (application no. US13/709827), which covers a system, methods, and user interface for discovering and presenting information found within text content. The patent falls within the software-implemented information retrieval and natural-language text-processing domain.
Following a with-prejudice judgment, defendants may evaluate a motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which requires showing the case was ‘exceptional’. A Rule 12(c) grant suggesting fundamental claim weakness or an objectively unreasonable assertion can support such a finding. Defendants should act promptly as fee motions carry timing requirements post-judgment.
The with-prejudice dismissal only binds Linfo IP against the specific defendants in this case. US9092428B1 remains in force and could be asserted against other parties. However, the SDNY ruling creates persuasive adverse authority that future targets and courts may cite, and it signals potential claim vulnerability that could inform IPR petition strategies at the USPTO.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.