Linfo IP v. Rockler Companies: Infringement Suit Ends in With-Prejudice Dismissal
Linfo IP, LLC asserted US9092428B1 — a patent covering systems and methods for discovering and presenting information in text content — against woodworking retailer Rockler Companies in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties resolved the dispute and filed a joint stipulation of dismissal after 228 days, with plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice and defendant’s counterclaims dismissed without prejudice.
Patent assertion against a specialty retailer ends at the pleadings stage
On January 26, 2024, Linfo IP, LLC — a Texas-based IP holding entity — filed a patent infringement action against Rockler Companies, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00055). The asserted patent, US9092428B1, covers systems, methods, and user interfaces for discovering and presenting information embedded in text content. Rockler Companies is a specialty retailer of woodworking tools, hardware, and related products, making it a non-obvious target for a text-discovery patent assertion.
The case closed on September 10, 2024, when the court accepted a joint stipulation of dismissal filed by both parties. Critically, the dismissal is asymmetric: Linfo IP’s claims against Rockler are dismissed with prejudice, permanently extinguishing those specific claims and barring refiling. Rockler’s counterclaims, however, were dismissed without prejudice, leaving them theoretically available for future assertion. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — a standard resolution clause that forecloses any fee-shifting dispute under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
The 228-day duration suggests the parties reached a resolution relatively early in the litigation lifecycle — before claim construction or substantive motion practice would typically have concluded. The public record does not disclose settlement terms, licensing arrangements, or the commercial consideration, if any, exchanged between the parties. The with-prejudice dismissal of Linfo’s claims is the most legally significant element: it signals finality for Rockler on this particular patent, though Linfo retains the right to assert US9092428B1 against other defendants.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 228 days
228 days — resolved well under the median E.D. Texas patent case timeline
Asymmetric dismissal: what the joint stipulation means for each party
With-prejudice dismissal bars Linfo from re-asserting these claims
A dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Linfo IP cannot refile the same patent infringement claims against Rockler Companies based on US9092428B1. This is the most protective outcome available to a defendant short of a full invalidity or non-infringement judgment — it creates a permanent estoppel on those specific claims.
Claims permanently extinguishedDefendant’s counterclaims survive — dismissed without prejudice
While Linfo’s infringement claims are gone permanently, Rockler’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice — meaning they could theoretically be refiled. In patent cases, counterclaims typically include invalidity and non-infringement declarations. The public record does not disclose why the parties agreed to this asymmetric structure, but it is a pattern consistent with negotiated resolution where the defendant preserves optionality without the plaintiff conceding validity.
Counterclaims preserve optionalityNo fee-shifting: each party absorbs its own litigation costs
The court ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. This precludes any post-dismissal motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 — which requires a finding of an ‘exceptional case.’ The mutual cost-bearing clause is standard in negotiated dismissals and typically signals that neither party sought to characterise the litigation as objectively unreasonable or brought in bad faith.
§ 285 fee motion foreclosedLinfo IP retains enforcement rights against other defendants
A with-prejudice dismissal against Rockler is defendant-specific. Linfo IP retains full rights to assert US9092428B1 against other companies operating text-discovery or content-presentation systems. Companies in e-commerce, digital publishing, or content management — where text information discovery features are core to the product — should treat this case as a signal that US9092428B1 remains an active enforcement asset.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Linfo IP, LLC | Company | IP assertion entity — holder of US9092428B1 covering text information discovery systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Rockler Companies, Inc. | Company | Rockler Companies, Inc. — specialty retailer of woodworking tools, hardware, and related productsSearch 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 | Lisa Beth Ellingson | Attorney | Counsel for Rockler Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nadeem William Schwen | Attorney | Counsel for Rockler Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Winthrop & Weinstine PA | Law Firm | Representing Rockler Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The joint stipulation produces an asymmetric outcome: Linfo IP’s infringement claims are dismissed with prejudice — a permanent bar to refiling — while Rockler’s counterclaims exit without prejudice, preserving future optionality. The court’s acceptance of the stipulation without issuing a substantive ruling means there is no judicial determination on infringement, validity, or claim construction. The mutual cost-bearing clause forecloses any subsequent fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The phrasing ‘resolved’ in the stipulation is commercially neutral and does not confirm or deny any financial consideration.
US9092428B1 — Text Information Discovery Systems and User Interfaces
US9092428B1 is a utility patent (application no. US13/709827) covering systems, methods, and user interfaces for the automated discovery and contextual presentation of information found within text content. The patent’s scope addresses how software identifies, surfaces, and displays relevant data points to a user from within unstructured or semi-structured text — a technical area underpinning modern search, content recommendation, and in-page contextual linking technologies. The grant of a B1 designation indicates no prior publication, suggesting the application proceeded directly to grant without a pre-grant publication.
Strategically, this patent sits at an intersection of search UX, content management, and e-commerce product discovery — meaning potential infringement exposure is not limited to traditional software companies. Any digital platform featuring contextual in-text information surfacing, hover-based content previews, or AI-driven text annotation tools could fall within claim scope depending on claim construction. The assertion against Rockler — a bricks-and-mortar-adjacent retailer — suggests Linfo IP may be targeting website-based product information discovery features rather than core enterprise software, broadening the pool of potential defendants across the retail and media sectors.
Should your product team run an FTO against US9092428B1?
Any company operating a website, app, or platform that automatically identifies terms, topics, or data points within user-facing text and presents supplementary information — whether via tooltips, sidebars, overlays, or recommendation panels — should treat US9092428B1 as a live FTO risk. The Rockler case demonstrates that Linfo IP is willing to assert this patent against non-software companies based on website functionality, meaning e-commerce operators, digital publishers, and SaaS platforms with content discovery features are all within scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US9092428B1 against your product’s technical architecture in minutes. Eureka identifies prior art, prosecution history disclaimers, and claim scope limitations that could narrow infringement exposure — and surfaces related family members or continuation applications you may need to monitor. For R&D and product teams building or acquiring text-discovery UI features, a documented FTO analysis is the first line of defence against assertion risk from entities like Linfo IP.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9092428B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar text information discovery patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions involving text discovery, content presentation systems, and UI patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the text discovery and content-tech IP landscape
An early asymmetric dismissal in E.D. Texas suggests a private resolution — and Linfo IP’s patent remains in play for future assertions.
E.D. Texas filing pattern: Linfo IP signals active enforcement posture
Filing in the Eastern District of Texas — a historically plaintiff-friendly venue — combined with a rapid resolution is consistent with a licensing-focused enforcement strategy. Companies receiving demand letters referencing US9092428B1 should assess claim scope carefully before assuming early settlement is inevitable.
With-prejudice dismissal protects Rockler — but only for this patent
Rockler has secured permanent protection against re-assertion of US9092428B1 claims in this specific action. However, related continuation patents or future patents in the same family could still present exposure. A thorough patent family review is warranted for any company operating text-discovery or content-presentation user interfaces.
Linfo v Rockler — key questions answered
Linfo IP’s infringement claims against Rockler Companies are permanently extinguished. A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits, barring Linfo IP from refiling the same claims based on US9092428B1 against Rockler in any future action. Rockler cannot be sued again by Linfo on these specific claims.
The asymmetric dismissal structure was agreed by both parties in a joint stipulation and accepted by the court. It is consistent with negotiated resolutions where the plaintiff concedes finality on its infringement claims while the defendant preserves counterclaims — typically invalidity or non-infringement declarations — as residual leverage. The public record does not disclose the commercial rationale behind this arrangement.
No. The dismissal was entered by joint stipulation without any substantive ruling on infringement or validity. No claim construction order was issued. The patent remains in force and Linfo IP retains full rights to assert US9092428B1 against other defendants. The dismissal is defendant-specific and carries no precedential weight on patent merits.
Not on the same claims dismissed with prejudice. The with-prejudice dismissal creates a permanent bar against Linfo IP refiling those specific infringement claims against Rockler based on US9092428B1. However, if Linfo IP were to assert a different but related patent — such as a continuation or divisional in the same family — that would constitute a separate cause of action not barred by this dismissal.
It means neither party can seek attorneys’ fees or litigation costs from the other. In U.S. patent cases, fee-shifting is available under 35 U.S.C. § 285 only in ‘exceptional’ cases. By agreeing to mutual cost-bearing in the joint stipulation, both parties foreclose any post-dismissal fee motion. This is standard in negotiated resolutions and does not reflect any judicial finding about the merits or conduct of either party.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.