Linfo IP v. LOOG Guitars: Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice After 55 Days
Linfo IP, LLC asserted US9092428B1 — a patent covering text-content information discovery and extraction systems — against LOOG Guitars, LLC in the Southern District of New York. Before the defendant answered, plaintiff elected voluntary dismissal without prejudice, leaving the asserted patent available for future enforcement. The case resolved in just 55 days.
Pre-answer dismissal preserves Linfo IP’s enforcement options
On 27 November 2024, Linfo IP, LLC filed an infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against LOOG Guitars, LLC, a manufacturer of simplified guitars. The complaint centred on US9092428B1, which claims systems, methods, and user interfaces for discovering, extracting, and presenting information found within text content. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. was assigned to the case.
On 21 January 2025 — just 55 days after filing — Linfo IP invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) to voluntarily dismiss all of its claims. Critically, the notice expressly stated that the dismissal is WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the asserted patent. Because LOOG Guitars had not yet answered or filed a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff was entitled to dismiss as of right. Each party was directed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
The speed of resolution — 55 days with no responsive pleading on record — is consistent with several scenarios: a licensing discussion that did not reach agreement, a strategic reassessment of the target defendant, or a pivot to alternative enforcement channels. The public record does not disclose whether any commercial arrangement was reached. The without-prejudice designation means Linfo IP retains the right to re-file against LOOG Guitars or assert US9092428B1 against any other party at any time before the patent expires.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 55 days
55 days — resolved before defendant filed any responsive pleading
Dismissed without prejudice: what the ruling means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right, no court approval needed
Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because LOOG Guitars had filed neither, Linfo IP could file the notice unilaterally. The court plays no gatekeeping role, and no merits ruling is made. The dismissal takes effect immediately upon filing.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice: the patent and all claims survive intact
A without-prejudice dismissal erases the case from the record as though it was never litigated. Linfo IP retains the full right to assert US9092428B1 again — against LOOG Guitars or any other party — without being barred by res judicata or claim preclusion. The patent’s enforceability is unaffected. This outcome is strategically neutral-to-positive for the plaintiff: it preserves optionality at no legal cost.
Patent enforceability intactLOOG Guitars escapes this action — but exposure is not extinguished
LOOG Guitars avoided a merits ruling and any damages award in this action. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, the company remains exposed to a re-filed suit on the same patent. The absence of any answer or counterclaim means LOOG Guitars has not placed the patent’s validity on the record. Defendants in this position often seek freedom-to-operate analysis or monitor plaintiff activity post-dismissal as a prudent risk-management step.
Re-filing risk remainsText-extraction IP remains active: others in the sector should take note
US9092428B1 covers a broad-sounding claim space — systems for discovering and extracting information from text content — that could plausibly extend beyond guitar-related software to any product with text-parsing or information-retrieval features. The without-prejudice dismissal signals that Linfo IP is still enforcing this patent. Companies building text analysis, content discovery, or UI-driven extraction tools should assess their exposure before a new complaint is filed.
Ongoing enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Linfo IP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9092428B1, text information discovery systemSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | LOOG Guitars, LLC | Company | LOOG Guitars, LLC — maker of simplified, reduced-string guitars for beginnersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David John Hoffman | Attorney | Counsel for Linfo IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Law Office David J. Hoffman | Law Firm | Representing Linfo IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. | Judge | New York Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The notice of voluntary dismissal expressly invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and designates the dismissal as WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the asserted patent. This phrasing is legally significant: it confirms no claim-preclusive effect attaches to Linfo IP’s infringement allegations, and the patent’s validity was never placed at issue. The each-party-bears-own-costs provision forecloses any fee-shifting argument. No merits finding was made by the court.
US9092428B1 — Text Information Discovery, Extraction and Presentation System
US9092428B1 (application number US13/709827) claims a system encompassing methods and a user interface designed to discover information embedded within text content, extract that information, and present it to the user. The technical domain sits at the intersection of natural language processing, information retrieval, and UI design — a space that underpins a broad range of modern software products from content intelligence platforms to annotation tools and search-adjacent applications.
The patent’s claim scope, as described in this litigation, is notable for its potential breadth: any product that takes unstructured text and surfaces structured or highlighted information to a user could fall within its ambit. For companies developing text analytics, knowledge management, document review, or content discovery features, US9092428B1 represents a live enforcement risk given Linfo IP’s demonstrated willingness to litigate and the without-prejudice posture of this dismissal.
Should you run an FTO against US9092428B1?
Any R&D team building features that parse, highlight, or extract information from unstructured text should treat US9092428B1 as a priority FTO target. The patent’s product description — a system with methods and a UI for discovering information in text content and extracting and presenting it — is broad enough to implicate NLP pipelines, annotation layers, content summarisation tools, and search result extraction interfaces. The without-prejudice dismissal in this case confirms the patent remains active and its holder is enforcement-minded.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent lets you map your product’s feature set against the claim language of US9092428B1 in minutes. Upload your technical specification, and Eureka will identify claim overlap, flag prior art candidates that could support an invalidity argument, and surface related patents in Linfo IP’s portfolio that may require separate clearance — giving your legal team a defensible starting point before any complaint lands.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9092428B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar text-extraction and information-discovery patent cases in SDNY
Explore related patent infringement actions asserting text-discovery and information-extraction IP in the Southern District of New York and comparable federal courts.
What this case signals for the text-extraction and content-discovery IP landscape
A 55-day pre-answer dismissal without prejudice is rarely the end of an enforcement campaign — it is often a pause.
Without-prejudice dismissals preserve the plaintiff’s full re-filing optionality
Linfo IP’s invocation of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before any responsive pleading means the patent is untouched by this litigation. Any company in the text-discovery or information-extraction space should treat this outcome as a signal of continued enforcement intent rather than a retreat.
Speed of dismissal suggests strategic realignment, not defeat
Cases dismissed in under 60 days before the defendant answers typically suggest the plaintiff identified a problem with the target selection, pricing of a licence, or tactical timing — not a weakness in the patent itself. US9092428B1 has not been substantively challenged in this record.
Linfo v LOOG — key questions answered
A without-prejudice dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means no merits ruling was made and no claim-preclusive effect attaches. Linfo IP retains the full right to re-assert US9092428B1 against LOOG Guitars or any other defendant at any time before the patent expires. The patent’s validity and enforceability are wholly unaffected by this case.
The case was dismissed just 55 days after filing, before LOOG Guitars had filed any answer or summary judgment motion. This is consistent with strategic reassessment of the defendant, a failed early licensing negotiation, or a decision to pursue different targets. The public record does not disclose the specific reason. The without-prejudice designation preserves all of plaintiff’s options going forward.
US9092428B1 (application no. US13/709827) is a U.S. patent claiming a system with methods and a user interface for discovering information in text content, then extracting and presenting that information to users. The technology domain spans information retrieval, natural language processing, and UI design — relevant to a wide range of software products that surface structured insights from unstructured text.
The plaintiff is Linfo IP, LLC, a patent assertion entity holding US9092428B1, represented by the Law Office of David J. Hoffman. The defendant is LOOG Guitars, LLC, a maker of simplified guitars. The case was filed in the Southern District of New York and assigned to Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. LOOG Guitars filed no answer or other responsive pleading before dismissal.
Yes. The explicit statement that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees in the Rule 41 notice forecloses any subsequent fee-shifting motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or Rule 54 in this action. It also removes any ambiguity about financial obligations on termination. This provision is standard in uncontested pre-answer dismissals but is nonetheless legally binding.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.