Linfo IP v. Lamps Plus: Dismissed with Prejudice in 90 Days
Linfo IP, LLC asserted US9092428B1 — a patent covering systems and methods for discovering and presenting information in text content — against Lamps Plus, Inc. in the Western District of Texas. The parties jointly stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41, with each side bearing its own costs, in just 90 days.
A patent assertion resolved bilaterally before discovery opened
On April 14, 2023, Linfo IP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Lamps Plus, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Waco Division), before Judge Alan D. Albright. The single patent at issue was US9092428B1 (application no. US13/709827), directed to systems, methods, and a user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content — a technology with broad potential application in e-commerce search and product discovery contexts.
The case closed on July 13, 2023, just 90 days after filing. The recorded basis of termination is 'Dismissed with Prejudice.' The docket order reflects a joint stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with prejudice as to all of Plaintiff's claims, and with each party agreeing to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms underlying the parties' agreement, if any, are not disclosed in the available public record.
A 90-day resolution — before any substantive motion practice or claim construction would typically occur in W.D. Tex. — suggests the parties reached an understanding very early in the litigation. Whether that reflects a licensing arrangement, a validity concern, or a commercial decision is not determinable from the public record. The with-prejudice dismissal means Linfo IP cannot re-file the same claims against Lamps Plus on this patent.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 90 days
90-day resolution — well below the W.D. Tex. district median for patent cases
US9092428B1 — information discovery and presentation in text content
Any R&D or product team developing systems that discover, extract, or present information from text content — including site-search engines, recommendation interfaces, contextual content layers, or digital catalogue navigation tools — should assess freedom-to-operate against US9092428B1. The patent emerged from this litigation with no adverse validity or claim-scope ruling, meaning its enforceability posture is unchanged. Specialty retail, SaaS search, and e-commerce platform teams are particularly exposed.
Official order — verbatim text
The joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) terminates all of Linfo IP's claims against Lamps Plus with prejudice, foreclosing any re-filing on the same patent and claims. The mutual cost-bearing provision indicates the parties elected a symmetrical exit. No merits findings — on infringement, validity, or claim scope — appear in the available record.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) joint stipulation: what dismissal with prejudice means
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is a jointly signed, court-filed stipulation that permanently terminates the action. 'With prejudice' means the plaintiff is barred from bringing the same claims against the same defendant on the same patent again. No judicial merits ruling was issued — the case ended by party agreement, not adjudication.
Permanent bar on re-filingLinfo IP forfeits the right to re-assert US9092428B1 against Lamps Plus
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Linfo IP, LLC permanently relinquished its right to reassert US9092428B1 against Lamps Plus on the claims raised in this action. The patent itself remains in force and may be asserted against other defendants. The specific terms of any agreement between the parties are not disclosed in the available record.
Patent survives; this defendant protectedLamps Plus secures permanent closure — at its own cost
Lamps Plus, Inc. achieved a with-prejudice dismissal, shielding it from any future re-filing of these specific claims by Linfo IP under US9092428B1. The cost-neutrality clause — each party bears its own fees — means Lamps Plus received no fee award, consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a contested win on the merits.
No fee recovery; full claim barEarly resolution limits precedent but confirms patent's enforcement posture
The absence of any claim construction ruling or validity finding means US9092428B1 emerges from this litigation with its claims legally untested. Other companies operating text-based information discovery or e-commerce search systems cannot rely on this case as prior art challenge precedent. Linfo IP retains full enforcement capability against third parties.
Patent untested; third parties remain at riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Linfo IP, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Lamps Plus, Inc. | Company | /Search 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 | Jennifer Klein Ayers | Attorney | Counsel for Lamps Plus, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP | Law Firm | Representing Lamps Plus, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the information discovery and search UI patent space
Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from Linfo IP v. Lamps Plus — tracking filing trends, portfolio activity, and white space around US9092428B1 and the information discovery technology domain.
Linfo IP's assertion activity and continuation filing posture
Linfo IP's enforcement of US9092428B1 against a retail defendant signals active monetisation of the US13/709827 patent family. IP teams should monitor whether Linfo IP has filed continuation or divisional applications extending the original priority date into broader or narrower claim sets — each representing a fresh enforcement vector against text-discovery products.
Portfolio monitoring priorityFiling trends in text-based information discovery and e-commerce search UI
The technology domain of US9092428B1 — discovering and presenting information from text content — sits at the intersection of NLP, e-commerce search, and UI/UX design. Patent filing activity in this space has intensified as retailers invest in AI-driven product discovery. Understanding the competitive filing landscape helps teams identify freedom-to-operate corridors and defensive publication opportunities.
High-activity filing domainLamps Plus's own patent activity in product search and digital retail
Lamps Plus operates a large e-commerce platform where text-based product discovery is central to the customer experience. Assessing whether Lamps Plus holds defensive patents in search, navigation, or content presentation could reveal whether the company is building an IP shield in this technology area — or relying solely on litigation exits to manage assertion risk.
Defensive portfolio signalAdjacent claim space: AI-driven contextual text presentation systems
US9092428B1 was applied for before large language models transformed text-discovery architecture. The adjacent claim space around AI-assisted contextual information extraction and dynamic UI presentation of text-derived data may represent underprotected territory. R&D teams investing in next-generation discovery systems should evaluate whether novel technical contributions in this space are patentable and strategically defensible.
AI-adjacent white spaceSimilar patent cases: information discovery systems in W.D. Texas
Explore comparable patent infringement actions asserting text-based information discovery and UI patents in the Western District of Texas before Judge Albright.
What this case signals for the information discovery IP landscape
A 90-day with-prejudice exit in W.D. Tex. raises questions every e-commerce IP team should be asking about US9092428B1.
US9092428B1 is unscathed — no validity ruling protects third parties
Because the case was resolved before any substantive ruling, US9092428B1 carries no judicial invalidity finding. Companies operating text-based information discovery or product-search UIs should treat this patent as fully enforceable. An FTO analysis against the asserted claims is advisable for any product in this technology space.
W.D. Tex. before Judge Albright: pre-discovery resolution is a known pattern
The Waco Division's scheduling intensity often accelerates early settlement. A 90-day resolution before claim construction is consistent with defendants seeking rapid exit to avoid Markman-phase costs. IP teams monitoring Linfo IP's portfolio should note this enforcement pattern when assessing litigation risk exposure.
Linfo v Lamps — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on July 13, 2023. Each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. No merits ruling was issued. The specific terms of any underlying agreement are not disclosed in the available public record.
Linfo IP, LLC asserted US9092428B1 (application number US13/709827), a patent directed to a system, methods, and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content. The case was filed in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, before Judge Alan D. Albright.
A dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Linfo IP from re-filing the same claims against Lamps Plus under US9092428B1. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable, and Linfo IP retains the right to assert it against other defendants. Only Lamps Plus receives the benefit of the with-prejudice bar from this specific action.
The public docket records a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and a mutual agreement that each party bears its own costs. Whether any separate agreement — such as a license or covenant — accompanied the stipulation is not disclosed in the available public record.
US9092428B1 emerged from this litigation without any adverse claim-scope or invalidity ruling, meaning its enforceability is judicially untested. Companies operating e-commerce search, text-based product discovery, or contextual content presentation systems should consider a freedom-to-operate analysis against the patent's claims, particularly given Linfo IP's demonstrated willingness to assert the patent in litigation.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.