Linfo IP v. DYLN: Infringement Suit Voluntarily Dismissed Without Prejudice in 43 Days
Linfo IP, LLC filed suit against DYLN, Inc. in the Western District of Texas asserting US9092428B1, a patent covering the discovery and extraction of information from text content. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by plaintiff just 43 days after filing, before the defendant had served any responsive pleading.
A Pre-Answer Exit: Linfo IP’s Swift Withdrawal Against DYLN
On November 25, 2024, Linfo IP, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against DYLN, Inc. in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 7:24-cv-00302), asserting US9092428B1 — a patent directed to discovering information within text content and extracting and presenting that information. DYLN, Inc. is the accused defendant, though no answer or responsive motion was filed before the case closed.
On January 6, 2025, Linfo IP filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because DYLN had not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment, the notice was self-effectuating under binding Fifth Circuit authority, requiring no court order to terminate the case. The court issued a formal order on January 7, 2025, confirming closure and directing each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorney fees.
The 43-day lifespan of this case is notably brief, suggesting the parties may have reached an early-stage understanding, or that plaintiff reassessed its litigation position shortly after filing. The public record does not disclose whether any licensing discussions, claim mapping issues, or demand letters preceded or followed the dismissal. Critically, a without-prejudice dismissal preserves Linfo IP’s right to refile the same claims against DYLN — meaning this termination may not represent a final resolution of the underlying dispute.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 43 days
43 days — resolved before defendant filed any answer or summary judgment motion
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): a self-effectuating dismissal right
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order, simply by filing a notice, provided the opposing party has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, DYLN had served neither, making Linfo IP’s notice immediately effective. The Fifth Circuit has confirmed such notices are self-effectuating and require no judicial action to close the case.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissalWithout prejudice: the public record is silent on finality
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ means the plaintiff retains the right to refile the same claims in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and other procedural constraints. A dismissal ‘with prejudice,’ by contrast, would bar refiling permanently. The court’s order and Linfo IP’s notice both expressly state the dismissal is without prejudice — meaning no merits determination was made and the underlying patent dispute between these parties may not be finally resolved.
Refiling remains possibleLinfo IP exits early — but preserves all future options
By dismissing without prejudice, Linfo IP avoids adverse merits rulings, claim construction proceedings, or invalidity findings that could weaken US9092428B1. The plaintiff bears its own costs and receives no damages award from this case. However, it retains US9092428B1 as an enforcement asset and may pursue DYLN or other parties in subsequent proceedings if commercially justified.
Patent enforcement optionality preservedDYLN avoids judgment — but faces lingering exposure
DYLN, Inc. benefits from no adverse infringement finding and pays no damages or fees. However, the without-prejudice nature of the dismissal means DYLN cannot treat this case as a final resolution. Companies in DYLN’s position should consider whether to seek a license, challenge the patent’s validity proactively, or monitor Linfo IP’s future assertion activity to manage ongoing exposure to US9092428B1.
No permanent shield for defendantFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Linfo IP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9092428B1 covering text information extractionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | DYLN, INC. | Company | DYLN, Inc. — accused infringer; filed no answer before dismissalSearch 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 N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms the dismissal was triggered by Linfo IP’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice filed January 6, 2025, with DYLN having served no answer or summary judgment motion. The Fifth Circuit’s Amerijet standard makes such a notice self-effectuating — the court’s order is confirmatory rather than dispositive. No merits adjudication occurred. The without-prejudice designation is legally significant: US9092428B1 remains valid and enforceable, and Linfo IP retains standing to refile identical claims against DYLN or assert the patent against other parties.
US9092428B1 — Discovering and Extracting Information from Text Content
US9092428B1 is a granted US patent (Application No. US13/709827) directed to systems and methods for discovering information embedded within text content and extracting and presenting that information to a user. This technical domain sits at the intersection of natural language processing, information retrieval, and content parsing — areas of significant commercial activity across enterprise software, mobile applications, and AI-driven content tools.
Patents covering text information extraction have broad potential reach across software categories, including search engines, knowledge management platforms, browser extensions, and any application that parses or surfaces structured data from unstructured text. For companies developing NLP-adjacent products, US9092428B1 represents a non-trivial assertion risk, particularly given its assertion in a jurisdiction — the Western District of Texas — known for active patent enforcement activity. The patent’s continued validity post-dismissal means it remains a live competitive and legal consideration for the sector.
Should your product team run an FTO against US9092428B1?
Any team building software that automatically identifies, extracts, or surfaces information from text — including NLP engines, document analysis tools, content aggregation platforms, smart annotation features, or AI search products — should assess their exposure to US9092428B1. This case demonstrates the patent is actively being asserted, and a without-prejudice dismissal confirms it remains enforceable. Early FTO analysis is materially cheaper than defending a future suit.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to run structured freedom-to-operate queries against US9092428B1, map claim language against your product architecture, identify design-around opportunities, and monitor Linfo IP’s assertion activity in real time. Proactive FTO work now reduces the risk of receiving a demand letter without a prepared response strategy.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9092428B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Text Extraction Patent Suits in W.D. Texas and Beyond
Explore related patent infringement cases involving text information extraction and NLP technologies filed in the Western District of Texas and comparable federal courts.
What this case signals for the text information extraction IP landscape
A 43-day lifespan and pre-answer exit from a Texas patent suit suggests calculated assertion strategy — and persistent risk for accused parties.
Pre-answer dismissals in W.D. Tex. often precede re-filed or redirected suits
Patent assertion entities operating in the Western District of Texas frequently use early voluntary dismissals to recalibrate strategy — whether to negotiate a license, change venue, or retarget defendants. A without-prejudice exit preserves full enforcement flexibility. Companies accused under US9092428B1 or related text-extraction patents should treat this as an open rather than closed risk.
Each party bears own costs: no financial resolution signal either way
The cost allocation order — each party bearing its own expenses — is standard for Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals and provides no signal of a settlement payment, licence fee, or concession by either side. The absence of a fee-shifting order means neither party formally prevailed, and no licensing terms are disclosed in the public record.
Linfo v DYLN — key questions answered
It means Linfo IP retains the right to refile identical infringement claims against DYLN in the future. No merits determination was made, US9092428B1 remains valid and enforceable, and the dismissal provides DYLN with no permanent legal shield against future suits based on the same patent.
The asserted patent is US9092428B1 (Application No. US13/709827), covering the discovery of information within text content and the extraction and presentation of that information. The product domain identified in the complaint relates to discovering information in text content and extracting and presenting it.
The public record does not disclose the reason. Possible explanations include early-stage licensing negotiations, a reassessment of the infringement claim mapping, a decision to refile in a different venue, or a pre-litigation settlement. The without-prejudice nature of the dismissal is consistent with any of these scenarios.
The court ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorney fees. This is the default outcome for a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal and does not signal a payment from either party or a concession. No licensing terms or settlement amounts are disclosed in the public record.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. In this case, DYLN had not served either, so Linfo IP’s January 6, 2025 notice was self-effectuating and immediately terminated the case under Fifth Circuit precedent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.