Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Linfo IP v. Lamps Plus | Patent Lawsuit 6:23-cv-00281

Linfo IP, LLC v. Lamps Plus, Inc.

6:23-cv-00281 W.D. Tex. Closed US9092428B1
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 14 Apr 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 13 Jul 2023, with US9092428B1 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US9092428B1
Application no.
US13/709827
Case no.
6:23-cv-00281
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
W.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
Alan D Albright
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
14 Apr 2023 – 13 Jul 2023
Duration
90 days
Basis of termination
Dismissed with Prejudice
Products & marks
System, methods and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 6:23-cv-00281, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US9092428B1 Active App. US13/709827

System, methods and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content

A system with methods and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content with different view formats, including steps of identifying the grammatical, semantic, contextual, and topical attributes of the words or phrases in the text content, and providing user interface objects to allow the user to specify an attribute of the words or phrases in the content and perform an action on the words or phrases. The supported actions include extracting, displaying in a specific format, showing or hiding, or highlighting the words or phrases.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
28 Jul 2015
Earliest priority
9 Dec 2011
Est. expiry
16 Oct 2033
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06F17/28
Examiner
OPSASNICK, MICHAEL N
US9092428B1 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US9092428B1 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“Pursuant to Federal Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(ii), the Plaintiff, Linfo IP, LLC and Defendant, Lamps Plus, Inc., hereby jointly stipulate the dismissal of this action for all of Plaintiff’s claims WITH PREJUDICE. The Parties further jointly stipulate and agree that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.”

Case 6:23-cv-00281 · W.D. Tex. · closed 13 July 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 6:23-cv-00281?

6:23-cv-00281 is a patent infringement action brought by Linfo IP, LLC against Lamps Plus, Inc., filed on 14 Apr 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 13 July 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 6:23-cv-00281?

US9092428B1 (“System, methods and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content”), assigned to LINFO IP LLC, currently active. The record also lists System, methods and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content.

How was case 6:23-cv-00281 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(ii), the Plaintiff, Linfo IP, LLC and Defendant, Lamps Plus, Inc., hereby jointly stipulate the dismissal of this action for all of Plaintiff’s claims WITH PREJUDICE. The Parties further jointly stipulate and agree that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.”

What does dismissal with prejudice mean?

A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.

How long did case 6:23-cv-00281 take?

90 calendar days, from filing on 14 Apr 2023 to closure on 13 July 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:23-cv-00281?

Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. William P. Ramey III is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Linfo IP. Jennifer Klein Ayers appears for defendant Lamps Plus.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 6:23-cv-00281 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:23-cv-00281 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.