Linfo IP v. Blenders Eyewear: Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice
Linfo IP, LLC filed suit against Blenders Eyewear, LLC in the Southern District of Texas asserting US9092428B1 over eyewear products. After just 105 days, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice before the defendant had answered — leaving the patent fully intact for potential future enforcement.
Pre-answer dismissal keeps eyewear patent live for re-assertion
On October 11, 2024, Linfo IP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Blenders Eyewear, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas before Judge Keith P. Ellison. The complaint centered on US9092428B1, an issued patent directed to eyewear product technology. Linfo IP is represented by William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP, a firm with a well-documented record of patent assertion activity.
On January 6, 2025 — just 87 days after filing — Linfo IP filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), citing that Blenders Eyewear had not yet answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal was expressly stated to be without prejudice as to the asserted patent, and each party was directed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. The case formally closed on January 24, 2025.
The 105-day resolution is notably brief even for pre-answer dismissals. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement was reached privately, whether Linfo IP identified a claim mapping issue, or whether the parties reached an alternative licensing arrangement. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, US9092428B1 remains fully enforceable and Linfo IP retains the right to refile against Blenders Eyewear or assert the patent against other eyewear market participants.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 105 days
105 days — resolved before defendant answered, suggesting early-stage strategy shift
Voluntarily dismissed: what the without-prejudice ruling means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit before answer
Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order if the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This is the most permissive dismissal mechanism available — it requires no judicial approval and is effective upon filing. Because Blenders Eyewear had not yet responded, Linfo IP exercised this right unilaterally.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissalWithout prejudice: the critical qualifier in this dismissal
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ means the claims are not adjudicated on the merits and Linfo IP retains the right to refile the same infringement claims against Blenders Eyewear or any other party. Contrast this with a ‘with prejudice’ dismissal, which would bar refiling. The notice expressly preserves the patent’s enforceability. The public record does not disclose any confidential settlement or licensing term that may have accompanied this filing.
Patent remains enforceableBlenders Eyewear exits this action — but faces continued exposure
Blenders Eyewear avoided a merits adjudication and incurred no fee award in this proceeding. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, the defendant cannot treat this as a final resolution of its infringement exposure under US9092428B1. The risk of re-assertion — by Linfo IP or a successor assignee — remains live. Competitors operating in the same product space face the same unresolved patent risk.
Exposure not extinguishedUS9092428B1 remains a live enforcement risk for the eyewear sector
The without-prejudice dismissal signals that this patent has not been tested, limited, or invalidated by any court. For eyewear brands and product designers, the patent’s scope is legally unresolved. Companies active in optical and eyewear product development should consider whether their offerings intersect with the claims of US9092428B1, particularly given the plaintiff’s demonstrated willingness to assert it in federal court.
Sector-wide patent overhangFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Linfo IP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9092428B1 covering eyewear technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Blenders Eyewear, LLC | Company | Blenders Eyewear, LLC — eyewear product company based in the United StatesSearch 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 ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Keith P Ellison | Judge | Texas Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and explicitly states the dismissal is without prejudice as to the asserted patent. This phrasing is legally significant: it forecloses any argument that the patent claims were resolved on the merits and preserves Linfo IP’s full enforcement rights. The absence of a fee award to either party is consistent with pre-answer dismissal norms and does not indicate litigation misconduct or exceptional case findings under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
US9092428B1 — eyewear product technology
US9092428B1 (application number US13/709827) is an issued U.S. patent asserted by Linfo IP, LLC in this infringement action. The patent relates to eyewear product technology. As an issued utility patent, it carries a presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282, meaning any challenger bears the burden of proving invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. No claim construction or invalidity ruling has been entered in this case.
The eyewear and optical accessories market has seen increasing patent assertion activity in recent years, with NPEs targeting both established brands and direct-to-consumer challengers. US9092428B1 has not been tested in IPR proceedings based on the available record, which means its claims remain at full presumptive strength. For eyewear product manufacturers and retailers, this patent represents an unresolved competitive and legal variable worth monitoring.
Should your eyewear products be cleared against US9092428B1?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing eyewear products in the U.S. market should assess whether its offerings intersect with the claims of US9092428B1. The voluntary dismissal without prejudice means this patent remains fully enforceable, and the plaintiff has demonstrated a willingness to litigate in federal court. Brands in the sunglasses, sports eyewear, and optical accessories segments are particularly relevant candidates for an FTO review.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and legal teams to map product features against the claims of US9092428B1, identify relevant prior art that could support invalidity arguments, and flag related pending applications in the same patent family. Running a proactive clearance search now — before any demand letter arrives — is significantly more cost-effective than responding to litigation under time pressure.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9092428B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar eyewear patent infringement cases in U.S. district courts
Browse related patent infringement actions asserting eyewear and optical product patents in U.S. district courts, including other Ramey LLP-filed cases.
What this case signals for the eyewear and optical IP landscape
A pre-answer withdrawal without prejudice rarely signals case weakness alone — it often reflects licensing strategy, portfolio positioning, or an off-record resolution.
Pre-answer dismissals by NPEs often precede re-assertion or licensing demands
When a patent assertion entity like Linfo IP withdraws before the defendant answers, it typically signals a strategic pivot rather than abandonment. Common drivers include a private licensing agreement, a decision to target a higher-value defendant, or a refinement of infringement claim charts. The patent remains available for immediate re-assertion.
Each-party-bears-own-costs language does not confirm or deny settlement
The cost allocation clause in the dismissal notice is standard Rule 41 language and does not itself indicate whether a confidential settlement was reached. In NPE litigation, private licensing payments often accompany these filings. The public record is silent on any financial terms exchanged between Linfo IP and Blenders Eyewear.
Linfo v Blenders — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice. Linfo IP filed a voluntary dismissal notice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on January 6, 2025, expressly stating that the dismissal of its claims shall be without prejudice as to the asserted patent US9092428B1. This means Linfo IP retains the right to refile infringement claims based on the same patent.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. In this case, Blenders Eyewear had not yet answered, so Linfo IP was entitled to file the dismissal unilaterally. No judicial approval was required, and the dismissal was effective upon filing.
Linfo IP asserted US9092428B1 (application number US13/709827) against Blenders Eyewear. The patent relates to eyewear product technology. As of the case’s closure, no claim construction or invalidity determination had been made, leaving the patent at full presumptive strength.
Linfo IP was represented by William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP. Ramey LLP is a Houston-based firm with an extensive record of patent assertion litigation on behalf of non-practicing entities across a wide range of technology sectors. No defendant counsel was listed in the public record, consistent with the case ending before an answer was filed.
Yes. Because the dismissal was entered without prejudice, Linfo IP retains the right to refile infringement claims against Blenders Eyewear based on US9092428B1 in the future. However, a second voluntary dismissal of the same claims against the same defendant would typically operate as a dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(B), commonly called the ‘two-dismissal rule.’
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.