Linfo IP v. Old Navy: Joint Transfer to S.D. Texas After 135 Days
Linfo IP, LLC asserted US9092428B1 — covering systems and methods for discovering and presenting information in text content — against Old Navy, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. Within 135 days, both parties jointly moved to transfer the case to the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, signalling a significant venue shift before any substantive merits ruling.
Text content discovery patent lands in S.D. Texas after joint venue shift
On 31 December 2023, Linfo IP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Old Navy, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 6:23-cv-00634, before Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle. The asserted patent, US9092428B1, covers a system, methods, and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content — technology with potential relevance to e-commerce product discovery and retail search interfaces.
The case closed on 14 May 2024 — 135 days after filing — when Judge Kernodle granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Transfer to the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). All scheduling deadlines previously set under the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 18) were vacated, and the Clerk was directed to execute the transfer immediately, bypassing the delay ordinarily required under Local Rule CV-83(b). The case now continues in the Houston Division, meaning the E.D. Texas docket is closed but the underlying dispute remains live.
The speed and joint nature of the transfer — mutually agreed rather than contested — suggests both parties concluded that the Southern District of Texas offered a more appropriate or convenient forum, possibly tied to witnesses, evidence, or corporate presence in the Houston area. The public record does not disclose what, if any, substantive negotiations accompanied the transfer agreement, and no claim construction, discovery rulings, or merits decisions were issued in E.D. Texas prior to closure.
Filing to Case Transferred in 135 days
135 days in E.D. Texas before joint transfer motion granted — no merits ruling issued
Joint venue transfer: what moving to S.D. Texas means for both parties
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a): transfer for convenience and justice
Section 1404(a) allows a district court to transfer a civil action to any district where it might have been brought, in the interest of justice or for the convenience of parties and witnesses. Here, both parties jointly moved for transfer — an unusual posture that removes the adversarial burden of proof. Judge Kernodle granted the motion and directed immediate transfer without the Local Rule CV-83(b) delay, signalling judicial efficiency priorities.
Consensual transfer under § 1404(a)Linfo IP preserves its infringement claims in a new forum
A transfer is not a dismissal. Linfo IP retains all claims against Old Navy in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The patent, US9092428B1, remains in force and the infringement action continues. Agreeing to transfer may suggest Linfo IP accepted the Houston forum as equally or more favourable than E.D. Texas, possibly due to proximity to relevant witnesses, counsel location, or tactical case management considerations.
Claims survive — new venue, same disputeOld Navy secures a preferred venue without dismissal motion
Old Navy’s agreement to joint transfer — rather than contesting the E.D. Texas venue through a motion to dismiss or transfer — suggests the Houston Division was an acceptable or preferred forum for the defence. By avoiding contested motion practice, Old Navy likely reduced early litigation costs and delay. All prior scheduling deadlines were vacated, effectively resetting the procedural clock in the new court.
Venue reset; no merits concessionRetail tech IP disputes: venue strategy matters as much as claim strength
This case illustrates that even in high-volume patent assertion jurisdictions like E.D. Texas, defendants in the retail technology sector can negotiate venue shifts early. The S.D. Texas, Houston Division carries its own docket dynamics and judicial tendencies distinct from E.D. Texas. Companies deploying text content discovery or product recommendation technology in e-commerce should monitor the case as it proceeds in its new forum.
Watch S.D. Texas for substantive rulingsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Linfo IP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9092428B1 covering text content discovery systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Old Navy, Inc. | Company | Old Navy, Inc. — major US specialty apparel retailer and subsidiary of Gap Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jacob Bruce Henry | Attorney | Counsel for Linfo IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for Linfo IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Blank Rome LLP (Houston) | Law Firm | Representing Linfo IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing Linfo IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric Hugh Findlay | Attorney | Counsel for Old Navy, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert Cruzen | Attorney | Counsel for Old Navy, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Roger Brian Craft | Attorney | Counsel for Old Navy, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Findlay Craft PC | Law Firm | Representing Old Navy, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Klarquist, Sparkman LLP | Law Firm | Representing Old Navy, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The transfer order is procedural, not substantive — it contains no finding on infringement, validity, or claim construction. The court’s direction to bypass the Local Rule CV-83(b) delay indicates judicial efficiency was a priority. The joint nature of the motion means neither party contested the new forum, and no adverse inference can be drawn against either side regarding the merits of the underlying US9092428B1 infringement claims, which remain fully live in the Southern District of Texas.
US9092428B1 — Text content discovery and information presentation system
US9092428B1, filed under application number US13/709827, covers a system, methods, and user interface for discovering and presenting information embedded within text content. This type of technology is broadly applicable to e-commerce platforms, content recommendation engines, and in-app information surfacing — areas central to modern retail digital experiences. The patent’s claims, if broad, could encompass automated product discovery, contextual linking, or search-driven content presentation features widely deployed by online retailers.
For the retail technology sector, US9092428B1 represents a meaningful enforcement risk given the ubiquity of text-based product discovery and recommendation features across e-commerce platforms. Linfo IP’s decision to assert this patent against a major apparel retailer like Old Navy — a subsidiary of Gap Inc. — suggests confidence in claim applicability to commercial retail interfaces. Competitors and technology vendors supplying similar features to retailers should treat this patent as a live enforcement risk pending the S.D. Texas outcome.
Should you run an FTO against US9092428B1?
If your product, platform, or client solution includes any form of text content discovery, contextual information presentation, or in-app search and recommendation interfaces — particularly in e-commerce or retail applications — US9092428B1 warrants an FTO assessment. Linfo IP’s active enforcement against Old Navy confirms this patent is being asserted commercially, not merely held. Retailers, SaaS vendors, and platform providers supplying discovery or content surfacing tools to retail clients face potential exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables rapid claim-mapping against US9092428B1, surfacing relevant prior art, identifying claim scope boundaries, and benchmarking against related patents in the text content discovery space. With the case now proceeding in S.D. Texas, real-time docket monitoring through Eureka ensures your IP team stays ahead of any claim construction rulings or settlement signals that could affect your freedom to operate.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9092428B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar text content discovery patent cases in Texas federal courts
Cases involving text content discovery and e-commerce interface patents litigated in E.D. Texas and S.D. Texas, including PAE enforcement actions.
What this case signals for the retail tech and e-commerce IP landscape
A quick joint transfer before any merits ruling reveals tactical dynamics that matter for anyone operating in the text content discovery and e-commerce search space.
Joint transfers signal early negotiation leverage — monitor for settlement
When both parties agree to transfer within 135 days of filing, it often indicates active behind-the-scenes negotiation. No merits concession was made by either party, but the willingness to jointly reset the forum suggests the dispute may be tracking toward resolution. Companies in adjacent technology areas should monitor the S.D. Texas docket for further activity.
US9092428B1 remains active and enforceable — FTO review is warranted
The transfer does not affect the validity or enforceability of US9092428B1. Any company operating text content discovery, in-app information surfacing, or e-commerce product recommendation systems should assess exposure against this patent’s claims. Linfo IP’s willingness to litigate in federal court confirms active enforcement intent.
Linfo v Old — key questions answered
Linfo IP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Old Navy, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on 31 December 2023, asserting US9092428B1. After 135 days, the parties jointly moved to transfer the case to the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Judge Kernodle granted the motion and ordered immediate transfer, vacating all prior scheduling deadlines. The case continues in S.D. Texas.
US9092428B1 covers a system, methods, and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content. Its relevance to Old Navy suggests Linfo IP believed Old Navy’s e-commerce or digital retail platform employed technology falling within the patent’s claims — potentially including product discovery interfaces, contextual content presentation, or in-app search features. No claim construction ruling was issued before transfer.
A § 1404(a) transfer is purely procedural and carries no merits determination. Both parties agreed to move to S.D. Texas, Houston Division, meaning all infringement claims survive intact in the new forum. Neither party conceded anything on validity, infringement, or damages. The transfer resets procedural scheduling and may reflect convenience of witnesses, counsel geography, or early negotiation dynamics.
Yes. The transfer order does not affect the validity or enforceability of US9092428B1. The patent remains in force and Linfo IP retains all rights to pursue infringement claims in the Southern District of Texas. Companies with potentially overlapping technology should assess FTO exposure, as the patent is actively asserted in ongoing federal litigation.
Linfo IP is represented by Blank Rome LLP (Houston) and Ramey LLP, with attorneys Jacob Bruce Henry and William P. Ramey III named on the docket. Old Navy is represented by Findlay Craft PC and Klarquist Sparkman LLP, with Eric Hugh Findlay, Robert Cruzen, and Roger Brian Craft listed as defence counsel. Ramey LLP is a known plaintiff-side patent litigation firm with an active docket in Texas federal courts.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.