Linfo IP v. Brumate: Infringement Action Dismissed With Prejudice in 79 Days
Linfo IP, LLC filed suit against drinkware brand Brumate, Inc. in the District of Colorado, asserting US9092428B1 — a patent covering systems and methods for discovering and presenting information in text content. The case ended by voluntary dismissal with prejudice just 79 days after filing, before Brumate answered or moved for summary judgment.
A rapid pre-answer exit: Linfo IP drops suit with no way back
On February 14, 2024, Linfo IP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Brumate, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado (Case No. 1:24-cv-00440), before Judge N. Reid Neureiter. The asserted patent, US9092428B1, covers a system, methods, and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content — a broad software and information-retrieval technology domain. Brumate, Inc. is a consumer drinkware company, and the precise product nexus alleged by Linfo IP is not detailed in the public termination record.
The case closed on May 3, 2024, when Linfo IP filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Crucially, the dismissal was stipulated to be with prejudice as to the asserted patent. That designation means Linfo IP is permanently barred from reasserting US9092428B1 against Brumate in any future action. Each party agreed to bear its own legal costs, suggesting no settlement payment changed hands — though the public record does not confirm this.
A 79-day lifecycle from filing to dismissal is notably short even by pre-answer standards. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss without court approval before the defendant has answered, which Brumate had not done. The with-prejudice designation is unusual in this context — a plaintiff choosing prejudice voluntarily typically signals either a negotiated exit, a patent validity concern surfaced during early diligence, or a commercial resolution that made continued litigation unnecessary. The precise driver remains undisclosed on the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 79 days
79 days — resolved well before the typical 2–3 year district court patent trial lifecycle
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice: what the exit terms mean for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to exit — but at a cost
Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action as of right before the defendant files an answer or a motion for summary judgment — no court approval required. Here, Linfo IP exercised that right. However, the notice explicitly designates the dismissal as with prejudice, which goes beyond the rule’s default (without prejudice). A with-prejudice designation under Rule 41 carries the same claim-preclusive effect as a final judgment on the merits.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissalLinfo IP permanently forfeits its infringement claim against Brumate
By voluntarily dismissing with prejudice, Linfo IP, LLC has extinguished its right to pursue Brumate for infringement of US9092428B1 in any future proceeding. This is a significant strategic concession: the patent itself may remain valid and enforceable against other defendants, but this particular defendant is permanently shielded from reassertion. The public record does not disclose whether a confidential settlement payment accompanied this exit.
Claim-preclusion against BrumateBrumate exits without answering — and gains permanent immunity on this patent
Brumate, Inc. achieved a complete exit from this litigation without filing an answer, incurring trial exposure, or obtaining a court ruling on the merits. The with-prejudice dismissal provides Brumate with lasting protection: Linfo IP cannot bring the same claim under US9092428B1 again. Each party bearing its own costs means Brumate absorbed its own legal fees — though those are likely modest given the pre-answer posture of the case at termination.
Full immunity — no merit ruling neededUS9092428B1 remains live against others — sector should monitor Linfo IP’s next moves
The dismissal with prejudice only extinguishes claims against Brumate. US9092428B1 — covering text-based information discovery and presentation systems — remains a live enforcement asset against other defendants in the consumer tech and software space. Linfo IP’s rapid exit pattern and Ramey LLP’s involvement, a firm known for high-volume patent assertion, suggests other defendants operating in similar technology domains should assess their exposure to this patent.
Patent still enforceable elsewhereFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Linfo IP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9092428B1 covering text-based information discovery systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Brumate, Inc. | Company | Brumate, Inc. — consumer drinkware brand based in ColoradoSearch 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 | Bradley Mark Stohry | Attorney | Counsel for Brumate, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Reichel Stohry Dean LLP | Law Firm | Representing Brumate, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N. Reid Neureiter | Judge | Colorado District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly designates the exit as with prejudice as to the asserted patent — language that carries claim-preclusive effect equivalent to a final judgment on the merits. No court ruling on liability, validity, or claim construction was issued. The each-party-bears-own-costs clause removes any fee-shifting signal. The with-prejudice designation is the operative term: it fully insulates Brumate from future reassertion of US9092428B1 by Linfo IP, while leaving the patent enforceable against the broader market.
US9092428B1 — System and Methods for Discovering Information in Text Content
US9092428B1 (application number US13/709827) claims a system, methods, and user interface for discovering and presenting information embedded within text content. This positions the patent in the information retrieval and natural language processing adjacency — covering the structural and functional layer by which software identifies, surfaces, and displays relevant data from unstructured or semi-structured text. The patent’s grant as a B1 publication indicates it issued without a pre-grant publication, suggesting a relatively direct prosecution path.
From a competitive standpoint, a patent of this scope can implicate a wide range of digital products: content management platforms, search interfaces, browser extensions, e-commerce recommendation layers, and any consumer application that dynamically surfaces or annotates text-based information. For Brumate — primarily a drinkware brand — the technology connection to their core product is not immediately apparent, which may itself explain the rapid exit. For SaaS companies, content platforms, and consumer tech firms with text-analysis features, this patent warrants active monitoring.
Should your product team run an FTO against US9092428B1?
Any R&D or product team building features that discover, surface, annotate, or present information derived from text content should assess freedom-to-operate against US9092428B1. This includes search functionality, contextual content recommendation, in-app text highlighting, and NLP-driven information extraction. The patent’s broad system-and-methods claim structure means infringement risk is not limited to direct competitors of prior defendants — any product with a text-discovery interface layer could fall within scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map product features against the claim language of US9092428B1, identify prior art that may constrain enforceability, and benchmark against Linfo IP’s broader assertion portfolio. Given the with-prejudice exit in this case — which may signal claim scope limitations — a targeted Eureka analysis can help your team quantify residual risk before building or launching text-information features.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9092428B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: text-information discovery and software IP in Colorado federal court
Explore related patent infringement cases involving text-information discovery systems and software patents filed in the District of Colorado and nearby jurisdictions.
What this case signals for the text-information technology IP landscape
A pre-answer exit with prejudice from a patent assertion entity raises questions about enforcement strategy and patent scope worth tracking.
Pre-answer dismissals with prejudice are a red flag for patent quality concerns
When a plaintiff voluntarily exits with prejudice before the defendant even answers, it typically suggests something changed fast — early prior art surfaced, claim construction risk emerged, or a quiet commercial resolution was reached. Companies receiving demand letters from Linfo IP on US9092428B1 should treat this exit as a signal to conduct rigorous validity analysis before settling.
Ramey LLP’s involvement signals a high-volume assertion pattern worth monitoring
William P. Ramey III and Ramey LLP are associated with a substantial volume of patent assertion cases across multiple technology sectors. Defendants and potential targets in the text-information-discovery and consumer tech space should monitor Linfo IP’s broader portfolio for follow-on filings against similar product categories.
Linfo v Brumate — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice means Linfo IP, LLC is permanently barred from bringing another infringement claim against Brumate, Inc. based on US9092428B1. It carries the same legal effect as a final judgment on the merits. The patent may still be enforceable against other parties — only Brumate gains this permanent protection.
Under Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss as of right before the defendant answers. The with-prejudice designation here was voluntary and unusual — it typically signals either a negotiated exit, an early recognition of validity or claim scope risk, or a commercial resolution. The precise reason is not disclosed in the public record.
US9092428B1 (application US13/709827) is a U.S. patent covering a system, methods, and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content. It sits in the information retrieval and NLP-adjacent technology space. Its broad claim structure potentially implicates search tools, content recommendation systems, and any interface that surfaces information from text.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal only extinguishes Linfo IP’s claims against Brumate, Inc. US9092428B1 remains a live, enforceable patent against any other party. Companies operating in the text-information discovery, content platform, or NLP software space should independently assess their exposure.
Ramey LLP, led by William P. Ramey III, represented plaintiff Linfo IP, LLC. The firm is associated with a high volume of patent assertion cases across technology sectors in U.S. district courts. Their involvement is consistent with a patent assertion entity (PAE) enforcement strategy, where patents are licensed or litigated against multiple defendants across industries.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.