LINFO IP v. Pacific Sunwear: Text Discovery Patent Action Ends in Stipulated Dismissal
LINFO IP, LLC brought a patent infringement action against Pacific Sunwear of California, LLC in the Western District of Texas, asserting US9092428B1 — a patent covering systems and methods for discovering and presenting information in text content. The case resolved in 193 days via a joint stipulation that dismissed plaintiff’s claims with prejudice and defendant’s counterclaims without prejudice.
Joint stipulation ends LINFO IP’s text-discovery patent claim against PacSun
On April 12, 2024, LINFO IP, LLC filed an infringement action against Pacific Sunwear of California, LLC in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 7:24-cv-00098), asserting US9092428B1. The patent, filed under application number US13/709827, covers systems, methods, and user interfaces for discovering and presenting information embedded in text content — a technology area with broad applicability to e-commerce search and content recommendation platforms.
The action closed on October 22, 2024, following a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed by both parties on October 21, 2024, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Under the stipulation’s terms, LINFO IP’s claims against Pacific Sunwear were dismissed with prejudice as to the asserted patent, meaning LINFO IP cannot re-assert US9092428B1 against Pacific Sunwear in future litigation. Pacific Sunwear’s counterclaims, by contrast, were dismissed without prejudice, preserving the company’s right to revive those claims if circumstances change.
At 193 days from filing to closure, the case resolved relatively quickly for a patent infringement action in the Western District of Texas, suggesting the parties reached an accommodation — whether through licensing, settlement, or a strategic decision to withdraw — before significant litigation costs accumulated. The court’s fee order, requiring each side to bear its own costs, is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a contested merits outcome. The public record does not disclose the financial terms, if any, that may have accompanied the stipulation.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 193 days
193 days — resolved well inside the median WDTX patent case lifecycle, suggesting early settlement pressure
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): automatic stipulated dismissal
A stipulated dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) takes effect automatically upon filing — no judicial approval is required. The court confirmed this in its order, citing the Fifth Circuit’s Yesh Music ruling. The split structure is legally significant: plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice (patent cannot be re-asserted against this defendant), while defendant’s counterclaims are preserved without prejudice.
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)LINFO IP loses the right to re-assert US9092428B1 against PacSun
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits for LINFO IP’s specific claims. LINFO IP cannot refile this infringement action against Pacific Sunwear on the same patent. This is a materially stronger concession than a without-prejudice exit, and typically signals either a settlement payment to the plaintiff, a licensing agreement, or a decision that the litigation economics no longer justified pursuit.
Bars re-filing against PacSunPacSun’s counterclaims survive — dismissed without prejudice
Pacific Sunwear’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they can theoretically be revived if new circumstances arise — for example, if LINFO IP were to assert the same patent against PacSun via a different vehicle. This asymmetric structure is consistent with a negotiated resolution where the defendant retained optionality in exchange for closing the case, and suggests Fish & Richardson secured meaningful protective terms for their client.
Counterclaims preservedSplit dismissal structure signals a negotiated exit, not a merits ruling
The combination of a with-prejudice dismissal of plaintiff’s claims, a without-prejudice dismissal of defendant’s counterclaims, and a mutual fee-bearing order is a classic profile of a confidential settlement or licensing arrangement. Third parties — particularly other e-commerce retailers who may face similar assertions from LINFO IP on US9092428B1 — should note that no merits determination was issued, leaving the patent’s validity and claim scope unresolved on the public record.
No merits ruling issuedFull 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 | PACIFIC SUNWEAR OF CALIFORNA, LLC., | Company | Pacific Sunwear of California, LLC — US specialty apparel and accessories retailer (PacSun)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jacob Bruce Henry | Attorney | Counsel for LINFO IP, LLC,Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for LINFO IP, LLC,Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing LINFO IP, LLC,Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexander H. Martin | Attorney | Counsel for PACIFIC SUNWEAR OF CALIFORNA, LLC.,Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J. McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for PACIFIC SUNWEAR OF CALIFORNA, LLC.,Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ricardo Joel Bonilla | Attorney | Counsel for PACIFIC SUNWEAR OF CALIFORNA, LLC.,Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing PACIFIC SUNWEAR OF CALIFORNA, LLC.,Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms the automatic effect of the joint stipulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), requiring no judicial merits analysis. The asymmetric dismissal — plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims without prejudice — is the operative legal distinction. The with-prejudice component permanently forecloses LINFO IP from re-asserting US9092428B1 against Pacific Sunwear, while the without-prejudice component preserves PacSun’s counterclaim rights. The mutual cost-bearing order suggests neither party extracted a fee-shifting concession, consistent with a balanced negotiated exit.
US9092428B1 — System and methods for discovering and presenting information in text content
US9092428B1, filed under application number US13/709827, covers systems, methods, and user interface components designed to identify, extract, and present relevant information embedded within text content. The patent sits at the intersection of natural language processing, content indexing, and user interface design — technologies foundational to e-commerce search, product description parsing, and content recommendation engines. The B1 designation indicates the patent issued without any post-grant amendment, suggesting the claims as granted reflect the original prosecution history.
For specialty retailers operating digital storefronts with search and content-discovery features, US9092428B1 represents a meaningful assertion risk. The patent’s broad framing around ‘discovering and presenting’ information in text could plausibly be read to cover product search overlays, contextual content widgets, or auto-suggest interfaces common to retail platforms. The absence of any claim construction ruling in this case means the patent’s scope boundary has not been judicially defined — making independent FTO analysis essential for any platform operator offering similar functionality.
Should your platform run an FTO analysis against US9092428B1?
Any e-commerce platform, content management system, or retail digital experience team deploying text-based search, content discovery, or information-surfacing interfaces should treat US9092428B1 as a live FTO consideration. LINFO IP has demonstrated willingness to assert this patent in federal court, and the absence of a validity ruling means the patent retains full enforceability. R&D teams building or procuring text-extraction, annotation, or recommendation UI features are particularly exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US9092428B1 against your product’s feature set, identify prior art that could support an invalidity argument, and surface related continuation or family patents that may extend LINFO IP’s assertion reach. Running a structured FTO now — before a demand letter arrives — positions your legal and product teams to respond from a position of informed preparedness rather than reactive urgency.
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 US district courts
Cases involving text content discovery and UI patent assertions in the Western District of Texas and comparable NPE-active venues, relevant to e-commerce and retail defendants.
What this case signals for the text content discovery IP landscape
LINFO IP’s action against PacSun reflects a broader pattern of patent assertion targeting e-commerce platforms over user-facing content and search technologies.
With-prejudice dismissal bars LINFO IP from reasserting this patent against PacSun
The dismissal with prejudice of LINFO IP’s claims creates a permanent bar specific to Pacific Sunwear. However, US9092428B1 remains an active, enforceable patent against other parties. Retailers and e-commerce platforms operating text-discovery or content-recommendation features should monitor LINFO IP’s assertion history and assess exposure independently.
No validity or infringement ruling — patent scope remains untested in court
Because the case settled before any substantive ruling, the patent’s claims were never construed by the court, and no finding of invalidity or non-infringement was issued. This means US9092428B1 retains its full presumption of validity. Companies evaluating freedom-to-operate in the text content discovery space cannot rely on this case as clearing precedent.
LINFO v PACIFIC — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice of LINFO IP’s claims means LINFO IP is permanently barred from reasserting the same patent — US9092428B1 — against Pacific Sunwear in any future action. It operates as a final adjudication on the merits of the specific claims raised in this case. LINFO IP retains the ability to assert the patent against other parties who were not part of this stipulation.
The joint stipulation preserved Pacific Sunwear’s counterclaims by dismissing them without prejudice, meaning PacSun retains the right to revive those claims in future proceedings if warranted — for example, if LINFO IP were to attempt to assert the same patent again through a different legal vehicle. This asymmetric outcome is consistent with a negotiated settlement in which the defendant secured ongoing optionality.
US9092428B1 covers systems, methods, and user interfaces for discovering and presenting information in text content. Its relevance to a specialty apparel retailer like Pacific Sunwear likely relates to digital commerce features — such as product search, content overlays, or text-based recommendation interfaces — that could arguably fall within the patent’s claim scope. No court ruling was issued on infringement or validity, so the specific basis of the assertion remains unresolved on the public record.
The court ordered that each party shall bear and pay their own respective attorney fees and costs. No fee-shifting was awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or any other provision. This mutual cost-bearing arrangement is typical in stipulated dismissals that reflect a negotiated resolution, where neither party has obtained a prevailing-party judgment that would anchor a fee motion.
The case closed in 193 days from filing to closure — a relatively short duration for a patent infringement action in the Western District of Texas, where cases can run 18–36 months through trial. The swift resolution suggests the parties reached an accommodation early in the litigation lifecycle, likely before substantial claim construction or discovery activity had accumulated significant costs.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.