Linfo IP v. Old Navy: Patent Infringement Suit Settled in 2 Days
Linfo IP, LLC asserted US9092428B1 — covering systems and methods for discovering and presenting information in text content — against apparel retailer Old Navy, Inc. in the Southern District of Texas. The parties reached an amicable settlement with prejudice just 48 hours after filing, suggesting a pre-negotiated resolution was likely already in place at the time of suit.
A pre-packaged settlement: Linfo IP v. Old Navy resolved in 48 hours
On September 23, 2024, Linfo IP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Old Navy, Inc. in the Southern District of Texas (Case No. 4:24-cv-03574), before Judge Lee H. Rosenthal. The sole patent asserted was US9092428B1, which covers a system, methods, and user interface for discovering and presenting information embedded in text content — technology relevant to e-commerce product discovery, content tagging, and interactive retail interfaces.
Within two days of filing, counsel for both parties notified the court that an amicable settlement had been reached. Judge Rosenthal dismissed the case on the merits, with prejudice, while preserving a 60-day window for reinstatement should the settlement fail to complete. All pending motions were denied, with a 14-day refiling right tied to any reinstatement motion. A dismissal with prejudice bars Linfo IP from re-asserting the same claims against Old Navy on the same patent.
A two-day resolution strongly suggests the parties had reached, or were very close to finalising, a licensing or settlement agreement before the complaint was filed — a pattern commonly associated with non-practising entity licensing campaigns. The public record does not disclose financial terms, royalty structure, or whether a licence to US9092428B1 was granted. Ramey LLP, counsel for Linfo IP, is a prolific filer of NPE patent suits in Texas, which adds further context to the speed of resolution.
Filing to Case Settled in 2 days
Closed in 2 days — among the fastest resolutions on record for patent infringement actions in S.D. Texas
Settled with prejudice: what the dismissal order means for both parties
Dismissed on the merits, with prejudice — a final resolution
A dismissal with prejudice on the merits is the most final form of civil dismissal. It extinguishes Linfo IP’s right to bring the same infringement claims against Old Navy under US9092428B1 in any court. The 60-day reinstatement window is a standard safeguard allowing the court to reopen proceedings only if the settlement agreement itself breaks down before execution — not a path to relitigating the merits.
Claim-barring dismissalLinfo IP: likely achieved licensing terms, but forfeits future claims
The with-prejudice dismissal is consistent with Linfo IP having secured a financial settlement or licence from Old Navy. In NPE enforcement campaigns, a fast settlement typically reflects an agreed royalty or lump-sum payment. However, by accepting a with-prejudice dismissal, Linfo IP permanently surrenders the right to bring further infringement claims against Old Navy on this patent — a significant concession if Old Navy’s alleged infringement was ongoing or growing in scale.
Likely licensed; future claims barredOld Navy: cleared of future exposure on this patent
The with-prejudice dismissal provides Old Navy with permanent protection against further litigation by Linfo IP on US9092428B1. Whether Old Navy obtained a formal licence or simply negotiated a release, the practical result is identical: it cannot be sued again by this plaintiff on these claims. The terms — including any payment made — remain confidential under the settlement agreement and are not disclosed in the public docket.
Future exposure eliminatedSpeed of settlement signals active NPE licensing campaign around US9092428B1
A two-day filing-to-settlement timeline is a hallmark of pre-negotiated NPE resolutions. Retailers and e-commerce operators with text-based product discovery, content tagging, or interactive information presentation features should treat this case as a signal that US9092428B1 is being actively monetised. Other defendants in the same campaign may face similar demand letters or filings. A freedom-to-operate assessment against this patent is advisable for any platform with comparable functionality.
NPE campaign signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Linfo IP, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US9092428B1 covering text-based information discovery systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Old Navy, Inc. | Company | Old Navy, Inc. — US apparel and retail brand, 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 | 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 Lee H Rosenthal | Judge | Texas Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms dismissal on the merits with prejudice — language that goes beyond a standard administrative closure. The phrase ‘dismissed on the merits’ signals that the court treats the settlement as a substantive resolution of the claims, not merely a procedural withdrawal. The 60-day reinstatement safeguard is standard practice in settlement-contingent dismissals and does not dilute the finality of the order. For Old Navy, the with-prejudice language is the operative protection: it forecloses any future action by Linfo IP on the same claims under US9092428B1.
US9092428B1 — Text-based information discovery and presentation system
US9092428B1, filed under application number US13/709827, claims a system, methods, and user interface for discovering and presenting information embedded within text content. The patent sits at the intersection of natural language processing, content interaction, and information retrieval — covering the mechanisms by which a platform identifies, surfaces, and displays contextually relevant data in response to text inputs or content. This technical domain is directly relevant to e-commerce search, shoppable editorial content, and in-page recommendation interfaces.
For retail technology operators, US9092428B1 represents a meaningful enforcement risk because the claimed functionality maps broadly to features widely deployed across e-commerce platforms: product discovery from text queries, annotated search results, and interactive content presentation layers. The patent’s assertion against a major apparel retailer — and its rapid settlement — suggests the claim scope is considered commercially credible by at least one defendant. Competitors with comparable implementations should assess their exposure before receiving a demand letter.
Should you run an FTO against US9092428B1?
Any retail, e-commerce, or content-commerce platform operating a system that discovers and presents information within text content — including product tagging, shoppable content, search annotation, or in-page recommendation engines — should consider a formal FTO assessment against US9092428B1. The rapid settlement in this case indicates the patent is being actively enforced and that defendants are calculating settlement to be commercially preferable to litigation. That dynamic is a strong signal for adjacent players to act proactively.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US9092428B1 against your product architecture, identify prior art that may support an invalidity argument, and surface any continuation or related applications that could extend the enforcement risk. For IP teams preparing a response to a demand letter or conducting pre-launch clearance on a new content discovery feature, Eureka provides claim-level analysis at a fraction of the cost of traditional FTO counsel.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9092428B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar text-content and e-commerce patent suits in S.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement cases involving text-based information discovery systems and NPE enforcement campaigns in the Southern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the retail technology IP landscape
A 48-hour settlement in S.D. Texas by a Ramey LLP-represented NPE is a recognisable enforcement pattern with clear implications for e-commerce and retail tech IP teams.
Pre-filed settlements are a core NPE tactic — watch for demand letters first
When a patent suit settles within days of filing, the resolution was almost certainly negotiated before the complaint was served. In-house teams at retail and e-commerce companies should treat demand letters asserting US9092428B1 as high-priority — the filing itself may be a formality to lock in settlement terms, not an opening salvo.
Ramey LLP’s filing history warrants a standing watch on US9092428B1
Ramey LLP operates one of the highest-volume NPE dockets in the Southern District of Texas. Companies in the retail technology sector should monitor new filings from this firm and maintain an up-to-date claim map of US9092428B1 against their text content and product discovery interfaces. Early engagement consistently produces better financial outcomes than reactive defence.
Linfo v Old — key questions answered
US9092428B1 is a US patent covering a system, methods, and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content. Filed under application US13/709827, it claims technology relevant to text-based information retrieval and interactive content presentation — features common in e-commerce search, shoppable content, and product discovery interfaces.
A two-day filing-to-settlement timeline strongly suggests the parties had reached a negotiated resolution — likely a licensing agreement or financial settlement — before or immediately upon filing. This pattern is common in NPE enforcement campaigns where the complaint is filed to formalise pre-agreed terms rather than initiate contested litigation. The public record does not disclose the settlement terms.
A with-prejudice dismissal on the merits is the most final form of civil dismissal available. It permanently bars Linfo IP from bringing the same patent infringement claims against Old Navy under US9092428B1 in any court. Old Navy cannot be sued again by Linfo IP on these claims, regardless of any future product changes. The 60-day reinstatement window applies only if the settlement agreement itself fails to execute.
Linfo IP, LLC is a patent licensing entity represented by Ramey LLP, a law firm that operates one of the highest-volume NPE patent dockets in the Southern District of Texas. Based on publicly available filing patterns, Linfo IP appears to be a non-practising entity whose primary activity is patent licensing and enforcement rather than product commercialisation. The public record does not disclose its ownership or portfolio breadth beyond US9092428B1.
Any company operating a platform that uses systems or interfaces to discover and present information within text content — including e-commerce retailers, content-commerce publishers, and marketplace operators — may fall within the scope of US9092428B1’s claims. The rapid settlement with Old Navy suggests active monetisation of this patent. Retailers and digital platforms with product discovery or text annotation features should conduct an FTO assessment and monitor Linfo IP’s filing activity.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.