Linfo IP v. Harbor Freight Tools: Split-Prejudice Dismissal After 404 Days
Linfo IP, LLC asserted US9092428B1 — a patent covering systems and methods for discovering and presenting information in text content — against retail giant Harbor Freight Tools USA. After 404 days of litigation in the Western District of Texas, the parties jointly stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice and defendant’s counterclaims dismissed without prejudice.
A split-prejudice exit: what the joint stipulation reveals
On April 14, 2023, Linfo IP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:23-cv-00279), asserting US9092428B1 — a patent covering systems, methods, and user interfaces for discovering and presenting information within text content. Harbor Freight, one of the largest US tool and equipment retailers, was represented by Fish & Richardson PC alongside Gillam & Smith LLP and Hawkinson Yang LLP — a notably well-resourced defence team for a single-patent case.
The case closed on May 22, 2024, via a joint stipulation of dismissal filed under Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Critically, the dismissal is asymmetric: Linfo IP’s infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice, permanently extinguishing Linfo’s right to re-assert those claims against Harbor Freight on the same patent. Harbor Freight’s counterclaims, however, were dismissed without prejudice, preserving the defendant’s ability to revive those challenges — most likely invalidity defences — if circumstances change.
The 404-day duration and the absence of any fee-shifting suggest a negotiated resolution, likely a confidential settlement, rather than a concession of weakness by either party. The split-prejudice structure is commercially significant: it is a hallmark of a negotiated exit where the patent holder agrees to foreclose future suit on this defendant in exchange for the defendant not pursuing an invalidity finding on the public record. The exact financial terms, if any, remain undisclosed.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 404 days
404 days — above the median for W.D. Texas patent cases settled before trial
Rule 41 joint stipulation: what the split-prejudice structure means
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): joint stipulation, not a court ruling
A dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires signatures from all parties who have appeared — no judicial approval is needed. This is a consensual exit. Plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice means no second bite at the apple against Harbor Freight on US9092428B1. The court does not adjudicate the merits; the parties themselves close the door.
Consensual — no merits rulingWith prejudice for plaintiff, without prejudice for defendant — why it matters
The split-prejudice structure is deliberate and telling. Linfo IP’s infringement claims are permanently barred against Harbor Freight — a binding concession typical of a settled dispute. Harbor Freight’s counterclaims (likely invalidity) are dismissed without prejudice, meaning they survive in latent form. If Linfo re-asserts the patent against others, Harbor Freight retains the option to re-enter as a challenger without having waived any prior-filed defences.
Plaintiff claims: final; Defendant counterclaims: preservedLinfo IP forecloses Harbor Freight — but the patent lives on
The with-prejudice dismissal of Linfo’s claims signals that Linfo accepted a resolution — whether monetary or otherwise — and agreed to permanently release Harbor Freight. The patent US9092428B1 is not invalidated and remains enforceable against other parties. Linfo retains the right to assert it in future actions against different defendants, consistent with a continuing assertion strategy.
Patent intact; this defendant releasedHarbor Freight exits cleanly, counterclaims preserved for leverage
Harbor Freight’s without-prejudice counterclaim dismissal is a strategic reserve. By not pressing for an invalidity ruling, Harbor Freight avoids the cost and uncertainty of IPR or trial — but preserves its ability to challenge US9092428B1 if Linfo reasserts in a related context. The engagement of Fish & Richardson, a top-tier patent litigation firm, suggests Harbor Freight was prepared for full litigation and negotiated from strength.
Clean exit; invalidity option preservedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Linfo IP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9092428B1 covering text content discovery systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INC | Company | Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. — major US discount tool and equipment 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 H. Martin | Attorney | Counsel for HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David C. Yang | Attorney | Counsel for HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew James Hawkinson | Attorney | Counsel for HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J. McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ricardo Joel Bonilla | Attorney | Counsel for HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson, PC | Law Firm | Representing HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Hawkinson Yang LLP | Law Firm | Representing HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA, INCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s asymmetric prejudice terms are the operative language. Plaintiff’s claims dismissed ‘with prejudice’ carries permanent res judicata effect — Linfo IP cannot relitigate the same infringement claims against Harbor Freight on US9092428B1. The carve-out preserving defendant’s counterclaims ‘without prejudice’ is equally deliberate, suggesting Harbor Freight negotiated retention of its invalidity arguments as a contingent deterrent. No merits finding was made by the court; claim scope and validity of US9092428B1 remain judicially unresolved.
US9092428B1 — Text Content Discovery and Information Presentation System
US9092428B1 (application No. US13/709827) protects a system, methods, and user interface for discovering and presenting information embedded within text content. The patent sits at the intersection of natural language processing, information retrieval, and user interface design — a technology domain that underpins search engines, e-commerce product discovery tools, content recommendation engines, and intelligent text annotation features. The granted patent reflects innovation in how structured or actionable information is surfaced from unstructured text at the system and UI level.
The strategic value of US9092428B1 lies in its breadth across a commercially pervasive function: any digital platform that parses text and surfaces relevant information to users could potentially fall within the patent’s claim scope. This makes it relevant not only to retailers with product-discovery features — like Harbor Freight’s own website — but also to SaaS platforms, mobile apps, and enterprise software with text-analysis capabilities. The absence of any claim construction ruling in this litigation means the boundaries of coverage remain untested and therefore broader in practical risk terms.
Should your team run an FTO against US9092428B1?
Any R&D or product team building features that parse text and surface, recommend, or visually present information derived from that text should evaluate their exposure to US9092428B1. This is especially relevant for e-commerce search and discovery layers, content tagging systems, NLP-driven recommendation engines, and in-app text annotation tools. The dismissal of this case without any invalidity ruling means the patent’s claims have not been narrowed or invalidated — FTO clearance cannot be inferred from the outcome.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the independent and dependent claims of US9092428B1 against your product’s technical architecture, identify relevant prior art that could support a design-around or challenge strategy, and surface any related continuation or family patents that may extend coverage. Given Ramey LLP’s active assertion posture in W.D. Texas, early FTO analysis is materially lower-cost than reactive litigation defence.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9092428B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar text-discovery and information-retrieval patent cases in W.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions asserting text-discovery and information-retrieval patents before the Western District of Texas, including cases filed by Ramey LLP.
What this case signals for the text-discovery patent IP landscape
Split-prejudice exits on assertion-entity cases in W.D. Texas consistently signal a pattern worth monitoring across the sector.
US9092428B1 remains live — other companies in the text-discovery space are exposed
The with-prejudice dismissal only bars Linfo IP from re-suing Harbor Freight. The patent is unscathed and still enforceable. Companies operating platforms, apps, or tools that parse, surface, or present information from text content should treat this patent as an active threat and conduct FTO analysis before assuming the case signals the patent’s weakness.
W.D. Texas + Ramey LLP: a high-volume assertion pattern to track
Plaintiff counsel William P. Ramey III and Ramey LLP are among the most active patent assertion filers in the Western District of Texas. Cases in this portfolio frequently resolve via stipulated dismissal after defence pressure builds. Monitoring Ramey LLP’s active docket provides early warning of where US9092428B1 — or related patents — may be asserted next.
Linfo v HARBOR — key questions answered
Linfo IP’s infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), permanently barring Linfo from re-asserting those claims against Harbor Freight on US9092428B1. This is a final resolution as between these two parties only — the patent remains enforceable against all other potential infringers.
Harbor Freight’s counterclaims — likely invalidity challenges — were preserved via a without-prejudice dismissal at the defendant’s insistence. This structure is consistent with a negotiated settlement where the defendant retains the ability to revive invalidity arguments if Linfo IP reasserts the patent in a related context, without having expended the cost of a full IPR or trial.
Yes. The joint stipulation contains no invalidity finding. No claim construction or summary judgment ruling was issued. US9092428B1 remains a granted, enforceable US patent and can be asserted against parties other than Harbor Freight. Companies operating text-discovery or information-presentation features should not assume the patent is weakened by this outcome.
Judge Albright of the W.D. Texas is among the most patent-case-experienced district judges in the US, having handled a high volume of patent assertions since 2018. Cases before Judge Albright tend to move on structured schedules with predictable claim construction timelines, which can create pressure on plaintiffs with weaker claim scope arguments to resolve before Markman. That pressure is consistent with the pre-trial resolution seen here.
William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP is one of the most prolific plaintiff-side patent assertion attorneys in the Western District of Texas, frequently representing non-practising entities and patent assertion entities. His involvement suggests Linfo IP operates as a patent assertion vehicle. Cases in this portfolio often resolve via stipulated dismissal after defendants deploy well-resourced defence teams — consistent with Harbor Freight’s engagement of Fish & Richardson and Gillam & Smith.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.