Linfo IP v. Levi Strauss: Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice in 148 Days
Linfo IP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Levi Strauss in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US9092428B1 — a patent covering systems and methods for discovering and presenting information in text content. The case ended in a voluntary dismissal with prejudice filed by the plaintiff after just 148 days, closing the door on any future refiling of the same claims.
A rapid end to Linfo IP’s infringement action against Levi Strauss
On January 24, 2024, Linfo IP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Levi Strauss in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00038), asserting US9092428B1 — a patent directed to systems, methods, and user interfaces for discovering and presenting information embedded in text content. Plaintiff was represented by William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP, a firm frequently associated with patent assertion activity in the Eastern District. Levi Strauss was represented by Robert A. McFarlane of Hanson Bridgett LLP.
The case closed on June 20, 2024 — just 148 days after filing — when Linfo IP filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The Eastern District court accepted and acknowledged the notice and ordered all pending claims dismissed with prejudice. Critically, a dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits as a matter of preclusion: Linfo IP is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims against Levi Strauss based on the same patent.
The short 148-day lifespan and plaintiff-initiated dismissal with prejudice is consistent with a negotiated resolution — whether a settlement, licence, or covenant not to sue — though the public record does not confirm any financial terms. Alternatively, it may reflect a strategic withdrawal following early case assessment or pre-motion pressure from the defence. What remains unknown is whether any commercial agreement underlies the dismissal, and whether Linfo IP continues to assert US9092428B1 against other defendants.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 148 days
148 days — resolved well under the Eastern District of Texas median time to termination
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Rule 41 dismissal with prejudice forecloses future claims
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. When that dismissal is filed ‘with prejudice,’ as here, it operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Linfo IP cannot refile this action against Levi Strauss on US9092428B1. The court accepted and acknowledged the notice and formally closed the case.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — with prejudiceLinfo IP permanently surrenders its claims against Levi Strauss
By filing a voluntary dismissal with prejudice, Linfo IP made a final, unilateral exit from this litigation. The plaintiff retains ownership of US9092428B1 and may continue to assert it against other parties, but the specific claims against Levi Strauss are extinguished. This outcome is distinct from a dismissal without prejudice, which would preserve the option to refile. The public record does not disclose whether any consideration was exchanged.
Claims against Levi Strauss permanently closedLevi Strauss is shielded from this patent claim going forward
Levi Strauss achieves a permanent resolution without a trial or merits ruling. The with-prejudice dismissal bars Linfo IP from reasserting the same claims based on US9092428B1 against this defendant. Levi Strauss did not need to obtain a finding of non-infringement or invalidity to reach this result. Whether the defence strategy — including any pre-motion filings or licensing discussions — drove the early exit is not reflected in the public docket.
Defendant protected — no refiling permittedPatent remains live — other defendants face continued exposure
A with-prejudice dismissal resolves the dispute only between these two parties. US9092428B1 is not invalidated and remains enforceable. Companies operating text discovery, content presentation, or information extraction interfaces — particularly in retail and e-commerce — should note that Linfo IP retains full rights to assert this patent elsewhere. The case’s short lifespan may signal a pattern of demand-and-resolve tactics worth monitoring across the patent’s assertion history.
US9092428B1 remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Linfo IP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9092428B1 covering text information discovery systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Levi Strauss | Individual | Levi Strauss & Co. — global apparel brand targeted in text-interface patent infringement actionSearch 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 | Robert A. McFarlane. | Attorney | Counsel for Levi StraussSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Hanson Bridgett LLP | Law Firm | Representing Levi StraussSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order tracks the plaintiff’s own notice closely, accepting the with-prejudice characterisation without independent merits analysis. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss as of right before the defendant serves a responsive pleading, meaning the court’s role here was ministerial rather than adjudicatory. The with-prejudice designation is binding: it carries res judicata effect as between these parties on these claims, functionally equivalent to a judgment on the merits despite no substantive ruling having been issued.
US9092428B1 — Text Information Discovery System and User Interface
US9092428B1, filed under application number US13/709827, is directed to systems, methods, and user interfaces for discovering and presenting information within text content. The patent addresses the technical challenge of automatically identifying, extracting, and surfacing relevant information embedded in unstructured or semi-structured text — a capability foundational to search engines, content recommendation systems, e-commerce product pages, and digital publishing platforms. The B1 designation indicates the patent issued without any post-grant amendments at the USPTO.
The commercial relevance of US9092428B1 extends well beyond apparel retail. Any platform that processes user-generated text, product descriptions, articles, or interface copy to extract and present structured information is a plausible assertion target. Linfo IP’s decision to sue Levi Strauss — a consumer brand with significant digital retail infrastructure — suggests the patent is being read broadly against front-end text processing and information presentation features. Competitors and adjacent technology providers should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk until its claims are narrowed or invalidated through inter partes review or litigation.
Should your product team run an FTO against US9092428B1?
Any R&D team building or procuring systems that identify, extract, or present information from text content — including site search, product tagging, content discovery feeds, recommendation widgets, or NLP-driven UI features — should assess their exposure to US9092428B1. The fact that this patent was asserted against a major apparel brand suggests it is being read against commercial digital interfaces, not just pure software infrastructure. An FTO analysis is advisable before launching or scaling such features.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US9092428B1 against your specific product architecture, surface prior art that may support an invalidity argument, and identify continuation or related applications that could extend the assertion risk. Eureka also tracks Linfo IP’s full assertion history, helping you understand how claims have been characterised in litigation and where the patent’s practical enforcement boundaries lie.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9092428B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: text information discovery disputes in E.D. Texas
Cases involving text processing and information discovery patents asserted in the Eastern District of Texas by patent assertion entities against consumer technology and retail defendants.
What this case signals for the text information discovery IP landscape
A 148-day lifecycle and plaintiff-led exit with prejudice raises questions about assertion strategy, portfolio depth, and commercial resolution patterns.
Eastern District filings by Ramey LLP warrant early docket monitoring
Ramey LLP is a prolific filer in the Eastern District of Texas. Cases that resolve in under five months — especially via plaintiff-filed with-prejudice dismissals — are consistent with demand-letter-plus-litigation strategies. Companies receiving assertions from this firm should assess whether early defensive positioning accelerates resolution on favourable terms.
US9092428B1 remains a live enforcement risk for text and content interface products
The dismissal did not invalidate US9092428B1. Any business deploying systems or user interfaces that discover and present information from text content — including retail search, recommendation engines, or content tagging tools — should consider whether their products fall within the claims of this patent before dismissing the risk.
Linfo v Levi — key questions answered
A dismissal with prejudice in this case means Linfo IP permanently relinquished its patent infringement claims against Levi Strauss based on US9092428B1. Filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits between these two parties. Linfo IP cannot refile the same claims against Levi Strauss, though the patent itself remains enforceable against other defendants.
US9092428B1 covers systems, methods, and user interfaces for discovering and presenting information in text content. Levi Strauss, a global apparel company with significant e-commerce and digital retail operations, was named as a defendant in what was characterised as an infringement action. The specific product features alleged to infringe are not detailed in the public docket as the case resolved before substantive motions were filed.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the 148-day voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Such outcomes are typically consistent with a negotiated resolution — including a licence, settlement payment, or covenant not to sue — or with a plaintiff’s reassessment of litigation risk after early case activity. No financial terms are disclosed in court filings.
No. A voluntary dismissal with prejudice resolves claims between the named parties only. It does not invalidate US9092428B1, narrow its claims, or affect its enforceability against any third party. The patent remains in force and Linfo IP retains the right to assert it against other defendants. Only a USPTO inter partes review or a court judgment of invalidity would affect the patent’s validity.
The Eastern District of Texas has historically been a preferred venue for patent assertion entities due to its plaintiff-friendly procedural reputation, though venue reforms following TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods (2017) altered filing patterns. Cases filed by Ramey LLP in this district frequently resolve quickly, and a sub-150-day dismissal with prejudice is consistent with a demand-and-resolve dynamic common among PAE litigation strategies.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.