Linfo IP v. Made In Cookware: Infringement Suit Dismissed With Prejudice in 69 Days
Linfo IP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Boston Foundry, Inc., operating as Made In Cookware, asserting US9092428B1 over cookware products. The case resolved in just 69 days when Linfo IP voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice — before the defendant ever filed an answer.
A swift exit: Linfo IP drops cookware patent suit before defendant answers
On October 11, 2024, Linfo IP, LLC filed a patent infringement action in the Western District of Texas against Boston Foundry, Inc., doing business as Made In Cookware, asserting US9092428B1 — a patent with application number US13/709827 — in connection with the defendant’s cookware products. Plaintiff was represented by William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP, a firm with a notable track record of asserting patents in Texas federal courts.
On December 18, 2024 — just 68 days after filing — Linfo IP filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Made In Cookware had not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment, the notice was self-effectuating, requiring no court order to terminate the case. The court formally closed the docket on December 19, 2024, ordering each party to bear its own costs and denying all pending motions as moot.
A dismissal with prejudice this early — before any substantive briefing — is atypical and raises questions about what transpired between the parties during the 69-day window. No settlement terms are disclosed in the public record. The speed of resolution, combined with the with-prejudice designation, suggests either a private resolution was reached or plaintiff determined the suit was not worth pursuing further. The public record is silent on whether any consideration changed hands.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 69 days
69 days — well below the median district court patent case duration of 2+ years
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i): self-executing dismissal before any response
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to unilaterally dismiss an action by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or summary judgment motion. No court order is needed — the filing itself closes the case. Here, Made In Cookware had not yet responded, so Linfo IP’s notice was immediately effective. The ‘with prejudice’ designation was Linfo IP’s own choice, going beyond what Rule 41 requires by default at this stage.
Self-effectuating under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i)With prejudice: Linfo IP cannot refile this claim against Made In Cookware
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring Linfo IP from re-asserting the same claims under US9092428B1 against Made In Cookware. This is materially different from a dismissal without prejudice, which would preserve the right to refile. The public record does not explain why Linfo IP chose the more restrictive with-prejudice option — it may reflect a negotiated resolution, but no settlement is disclosed.
Permanent bar on refiling same claimsMade In Cookware exits without filing a single brief
Boston Foundry, Inc. achieved a full exit from the litigation without serving an answer, engaging in discovery, or incurring the bulk of typical defense costs. No fee-shifting was imposed — each side bears its own costs. While the defendant faces no further exposure on these claims, the with-prejudice designation provides meaningful finality: the same patent cannot be weaponised again in the same action against Made In Cookware by this plaintiff.
No answer filed; own costs onlyUS9092428B1 remains live — other cookware makers should take note
The dismissal resolves only Linfo IP’s claims against Made In Cookware. US9092428B1 remains an active, enforceable patent that Linfo IP — or a future assignee — could assert against other cookware manufacturers or retailers. Companies operating in the premium cookware space should monitor this patent’s ownership status and assess their product designs against its claims, particularly given the plaintiff’s apparent willingness to file and quickly exit litigation.
Patent still enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Linfo IP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9092428B1 covering cookware technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Boston Foundry, Inc., d/b/a Made In Cookware | Company | Boston Foundry, Inc. d/b/a Made In Cookware — premium direct-to-consumer cookware brandSearch 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 ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms the dismissal was self-executing under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — no merits determination was made and no liability was found. The with-prejudice designation, chosen by Linfo IP itself, permanently bars refiling these specific claims against Made In Cookware. The cost order — each party bears its own — is standard for early voluntary dismissals and does not reflect any finding of misconduct or exceptional case status under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
US9092428B1 — cookware technology patent at the centre of this dispute
US9092428B1, filed under application number US13/709827, is the sole patent asserted in this action. The patent sits within the cookware technology domain and was enforced against Made In Cookware’s product line. As a granted US utility patent, it carries a presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. Because the case was dismissed before any claim construction or validity briefing, the scope and strength of its claims remain judicially untested in this proceeding.
The strategic relevance of US9092428B1 extends beyond this single case. Patent assertion entities holding cookware-related patents can target multiple defendants across the consumer goods sector. The patent’s continued enforceability — undiminished by this dismissal — means any manufacturer, retailer, or importer of cookware products with design features overlapping the patent’s claims faces potential exposure. Tracking ownership transfers and continuation applications stemming from US13/709827 is advisable for competitors.
Should your team run an FTO analysis against US9092428B1?
If your company designs, manufactures, imports, or retails cookware products in the US market, US9092428B1 warrants attention. The patent was actively asserted in federal court in 2024, and its claims remain untested and enforceable. Premium and direct-to-consumer cookware brands in particular — the profile that made Made In Cookware a target — should assess whether their product designs fall within the patent’s claim scope before expanding product lines or entering new distribution channels.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US9092428B1 against your product specifications, surface prior art that may bear on validity, and identify related continuation or divisional applications that could represent additional assertion risk. Eureka also enables real-time ownership monitoring, alerting your team if this patent changes hands — a common precursor to new assertion campaigns.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9092428B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar cookware and consumer goods patent cases in Texas federal courts
Cases involving patent assertion against consumer cookware and kitchen product brands in the Western District of Texas, including early dismissals and Ramey LLP filings.
What this case signals for the cookware and consumer goods IP landscape
A 69-day lifecycle and with-prejudice exit raises pointed questions about assertion strategy and the risks facing premium consumer product brands.
Early voluntary dismissals with prejudice often signal off-docket resolution
When a plaintiff dismisses with prejudice before the defendant has even answered, it typically suggests either a private settlement was reached or plaintiff concluded the suit lacked sufficient merit to continue. In either scenario, the absence of a public record means competitors and observers cannot rely on any merits finding — the patent’s validity and scope remain untested.
Ramey LLP’s filing pattern warrants systematic monitoring by consumer brands
Ramey LLP is a prolific patent assertion firm in Texas federal courts. Consumer goods and cookware brands that have not conducted a freedom-to-operate review against US9092428B1 and related patents in the portfolio should do so proactively — particularly if they manufacture or market cookware with features that may overlap with the patent’s claims.
Linfo v Boston — key questions answered
It means Linfo IP permanently gave up its right to sue Made In Cookware again on the same claims under US9092428B1. Dismissed with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the case closed without any merits ruling. No liability was found and no court-determined damages were awarded. The public record does not disclose whether a private settlement was reached.
No. The case was voluntarily dismissed before any substantive briefing, claim construction, or validity analysis. The patent’s validity and the infringement question were never adjudicated. US9092428B1 remains a presumptively valid, enforceable US patent that could be asserted against other parties.
The public record does not disclose the reason. Possible explanations include a private settlement between the parties, plaintiff’s assessment that the litigation was unlikely to succeed, or a business decision to exit before incurring further costs. The with-prejudice designation — which goes beyond the default under Rule 41 — suggests a deliberate choice, potentially as part of a negotiated resolution.
The court ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorney fees. This is a standard outcome for early voluntary dismissals and does not reflect any finding of bad faith, frivolous filing, or exceptional case status under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Made In Cookware received no fee award despite the case ending in its favour.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal bars only Linfo IP’s claims against Boston Foundry, Inc. d/b/a Made In Cookware. The patent remains fully enforceable against any other party. Linfo IP — or a future assignee of the patent — is free to assert US9092428B1 against other cookware manufacturers, retailers, or importers in subsequent litigation.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.