Linfo IP v. Rhone Apparel — Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice After 73 Days
Linfo IP, LLC asserted US9092428B1 — a patent covering systems and methods for discovering and presenting information in text content — against apparel brand Rhone Apparel, Inc. in the Western District of Texas. The case closed after just 73 days when Linfo voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice before the defendant had answered, preserving the right to re-file.
A pre-answer dismissal that leaves the door open for Linfo IP
On 22 July 2024, Linfo IP, LLC filed an infringement action against Rhone Apparel, Inc. in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:24-cv-00389), asserting US9092428B1 — a patent directed to systems, methods, and user interfaces for discovering and presenting information within text content. Rhone Apparel is a premium performance apparel brand, and the asserted patent suggests Linfo IP targeted functionality related to content discovery or information surfacing in digital commerce or editorial contexts.
The case terminated on 3 October 2024 — just 73 days after filing — when Linfo IP filed a voluntary notice of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Crucially, the dismissal was expressly stated to be WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the asserted patent, and each party was directed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Because Rhone Apparel had not yet answered or filed a motion for summary judgment, Linfo IP was entitled to dismiss as of right, requiring no court order.
A 73-day lifecycle before a pre-answer voluntary dismissal without prejudice is consistent with several strategic scenarios: early settlement negotiations, licensing discussions, a decision to re-file in a different venue, or a tactical reassessment of claim scope. The public record does not disclose whether any licensing agreement was reached. The without-prejudice designation means Linfo IP retains the ability to assert US9092428B1 against Rhone Apparel — or other defendants — in future proceedings, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 73 days
73 days — well below the median time-to-termination for patent cases in W.D. Texas
Voluntarily dismissed: what this without-prejudice exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right, no court approval needed
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the opposing party has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Rhone Apparel had not yet responded, Linfo IP could file this notice unilaterally. The dismissal takes effect immediately upon filing — no judicial discretion is involved, and no merits ruling was issued.
Pre-answer dismissal as of rightWithout prejudice: the distinction that matters most here
A dismissal without prejudice does not resolve the underlying dispute — it extinguishes this particular action only. Linfo IP expressly preserved its position as to the asserted patent, meaning it retains the right to re-file against Rhone Apparel or any other party within the applicable limitations period. A dismissal with prejudice, by contrast, would have barred re-litigation. The public record does not disclose whether any licensing agreement accompanied this exit.
Patent rights preservedRhone Apparel escapes this action — but infringement risk persists
Rhone Apparel obtained a dismissal without ever filing a substantive response, avoiding litigation costs at this stage. However, without prejudice means the threat is not extinguished. No invalidity ruling, no non-infringement finding, and no covenant not to sue have been entered on the public record. Rhone Apparel and similarly situated companies should treat US9092428B1 as a live enforcement risk unless a license or covenant is confirmed privately.
No merits adjudicationEach party bears own fees — no fee-shifting, no exceptional case finding
The notice expressly provides that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. At this early pre-answer stage, defendant’s costs would have been minimal. No 35 U.S.C. § 285 exceptional case motion was filed or decided. The absence of fee-shifting is unremarkable at this procedural stage but confirms no adverse cost consequences flow from the dismissal for either side.
No fee award enteredFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Linfo IP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9092428B1 covering text-based information discovery systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Rhone Apparel, Inc. | Company | Rhone Apparel, Inc. — premium performance apparel brand operating digital commerce platformsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey Eugene Kubiak | 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 ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge David Alan Ezra | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The voluntary dismissal notice is unambiguous in two critical respects: it invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) as the mechanism — meaning it required no judicial approval — and it explicitly designates the dismissal as without prejudice as to the asserted patent. This phrasing directly preserves Linfo IP’s enforcement rights. No merits determination was made, no claim construction occurred, and the validity or infringement of US9092428B1 remains entirely unresolved. The cost-bearing provision is standard for this procedural posture and carries no precedential significance.
US9092428B1 — System, methods and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content
US9092428B1 (application no. US13/709827) is a granted US patent covering systems, methods, and user interfaces for discovering and presenting information embedded within text content. The patent sits at the intersection of natural language processing, information retrieval, and user interface design — all commercially significant areas in digital product development. Its grant as a B1 patent indicates it issued without any post-publication amendment, suggesting the claims were allowed substantially as originally filed.
The strategic value of this patent lies in the breadth of potential applications: any digital platform that surfaces, annotates, or contextually links information within text-based content could fall within its scope. This spans e-commerce product descriptions, editorial CMS platforms, SaaS content tools, and in-app recommendation layers. Linfo IP’s decision to assert against Rhone Apparel — an apparel brand with a digital storefront — suggests the claims may be interpreted to cover front-end content discovery features common in modern commerce platforms. Competitors and adjacent technology providers should treat this patent as a live enforcement instrument.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9092428B1?
Any product team building or maintaining features that discover, extract, or present information from text content should assess exposure to US9092428B1. This includes e-commerce platforms with contextual product recommendations, CMS tools with semantic tagging, in-text linking engines, SaaS content intelligence layers, and editorial platforms that surface related information dynamically. The without-prejudice dismissal in this case confirms the patent remains asserted — there is no covenant not to sue on the public record.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to run a structured freedom-to-operate analysis against US9092428B1 in minutes. Eureka maps your product’s feature set against the patent’s independent claims, identifies the most relevant prosecution history, surfaces prior art that could support invalidity arguments, and flags related continuation or continuation-in-part applications that may extend the patent family’s reach. Use Eureka to assess whether design-arounds or licensing conversations are the right next step.
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 W.D. Texas and beyond
Explore related patent infringement actions involving information discovery and text content systems filed in W.D. Texas and comparable federal venues.
What this case signals for the text content discovery IP landscape
A pre-answer without-prejudice exit in W.D. Texas typically signals an unresolved dispute, not a resolved one. US9092428B1 remains in play.
Without prejudice dismissals in patent cases often precede re-filing or licensing
When a plaintiff dismisses pre-answer without prejudice, the most common explanations are: a licensing deal reached privately, a strategic decision to re-file against a higher-value defendant, or a reassessment of litigation venue. None of these can be confirmed from the public record here. Companies in digital retail and content technology with similar text-discovery functionality should monitor Linfo IP’s future filing activity.
US9092428B1 carries continued enforcement risk for digital commerce operators
The patent’s focus on surfacing and presenting information within text content is broadly applicable to e-commerce product pages, editorial platforms, and content management systems. Rhone Apparel is one example of a potential target class — any brand or platform using automated content discovery or contextual linking features should assess whether their implementation falls within the patent’s claim scope.
Linfo v Rhone — key questions answered
A without-prejudice dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means the action is terminated but Linfo IP’s substantive patent rights are fully preserved. Linfo IP may re-file against Rhone Apparel or assert US9092428B1 against other defendants in the future, subject to the applicable six-year statute of limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 286. No merits ruling, invalidity finding, or non-infringement determination was entered.
US9092428B1 is a granted US patent (application no. US13/709827) covering systems, methods, and user interfaces for discovering and presenting information within text content. The patent is relevant to digital platforms that contextually surface, annotate, or link information in text — including e-commerce storefronts, CMS tools, content recommendation engines, and SaaS content intelligence products.
The public record does not disclose the reason. A 73-day pre-answer voluntary dismissal without prejudice is consistent with several scenarios: a private licensing agreement, early settlement, a decision to pursue higher-value targets, or a tactical reassessment of claim scope or venue. The fact that each party bore its own costs and no covenant not to sue was filed publicly suggests the dispute may not have been fully resolved.
Yes, potentially. The without-prejudice designation means Linfo IP retains full rights to re-assert US9092428B1 against Rhone Apparel. No invalidity ruling, no non-infringement finding, and no public covenant not to sue appear on the docket. Unless Rhone Apparel has confirmed a private license or covenant, it should treat the patent as a continuing enforcement risk and consider an FTO analysis of its digital content features.
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order as of right, provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Rhone Apparel had not responded, Linfo IP could dismiss unilaterally — no judicial approval was required and no merits adjudication occurred. This mechanism is frequently used by patent assertion entities to exit cases quickly and cleanly while preserving all enforcement rights.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.