Linfo IP v. Soludos: Voluntary Dismissal After 88 Days in W.D. Texas
Linfo IP, LLC asserted US9092428B1 — a patent covering systems and methods for discovering and extracting information from text content — against eyewear retailer Soludos in the Western District of Texas. The case ended in a voluntary dismissal without prejudice just 88 days after filing, before the defendant served any responsive pleading.
An NPE assertion ends before any responsive pleading in W.D. Texas
On October 11, 2024, Linfo IP, LLC — a non-practising entity represented by Ramey LLP — filed a patent infringement action in the Western District of Texas against Waimate B LLC, operating under the trade name Soludos, an eyewear and footwear retailer. The sole patent asserted was US9092428B1, which covers a system with methods and a user interface for discovering information within text content and extracting and presenting that information. The connection to Soludos’s eyewear products is not elaborated in the public record.
On January 6, 2025 — just 87 days after filing — Linfo IP filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Soludos had not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, the notice was self-effectuating: the case terminated automatically without requiring a court order. The court formally acknowledged the dismissal on January 7, 2025, ordered each party to bear its own costs and fees, and directed the clerk to close the action.
An 88-day lifecycle — from filing to closure — is notably brief even by the standards of early-stage NPE assertions and suggests the parties may have reached a private resolution, or that Linfo IP elected to withdraw after assessing the defendant’s likely defences. No answer, counterclaim, or invalidity challenge appears in the public record, leaving the strength of US9092428B1 untested. The absence of any fee-shifting or cost award to either party is consistent with a clean exit rather than a contested dismissal.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 88 days
88 days — resolved well before the typical W.D. Texas discovery schedule kicks in
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41 dismissal means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): a self-effectuating exit before answer
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Soludos had not yet responded, Linfo IP’s notice automatically terminated the case. No judicial approval was required — the dismissal was effective the moment the notice was filed on January 6, 2025.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — self-effectuatingThe public record says ‘without prejudice’ — but what does that mean?
The court order expressly states the dismissal was without prejudice, meaning Linfo IP retains the legal right to refile the same infringement claims against Soludos in future. A dismissal with prejudice would permanently bar refiling. The distinction is significant: without prejudice preserves the plaintiff’s optionality, while with prejudice functions as a final adjudication on the merits. Here, the public record is explicit — this was without prejudice.
Without prejudice — refiling remains possibleSoludos exits without a merits ruling — but exposure is not extinguished
Soludos obtains a clean exit from this specific action with no adverse judgment and no cost liability. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, the infringement allegations under US9092428B1 have not been adjudicated and could be reasserted. Soludos filed no answer or counterclaim, so no invalidity or non-infringement record was established in this proceeding. A freedom-to-operate analysis remains advisable.
No merits ruling — exposure persistsUS9092428B1 remains active and unlitigated — a live risk for the sector
The patent covering text-content discovery and information extraction systems was never substantively challenged in this action. US9092428B1 survives with its claims intact and its validity untested in court. Companies deploying similar text-processing or content-discovery functionality — particularly in e-commerce and retail technology — should note that Ramey LLP has a documented pattern of NPE assertion campaigns, and an untested patent with a withdrawn suit is consistent with continued enforcement activity.
Patent unchallenged — enforcement risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Linfo IP, LLC | Company | Non-practising entity (NPE) — holder of US9092428B1, text content discovery systemSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Waimate B LLC d/b/a Soludos | Company | Waimate B LLC d/b/a Soludos — eyewear and footwear retailerSearch 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 N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms the dismissal was without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), self-effectuating upon filing because no answer or summary judgment motion had been served. Critically, the order contains no merits finding — validity and infringement of US9092428B1 remain entirely unresolved. The mutual cost-bearing provision is standard for this procedural posture and does not imply any negotiated settlement term, though it is equally consistent with one.
US9092428B1 — text content discovery and information extraction system
US9092428B1 is a granted US patent covering a system and associated methods for discovering information embedded in text content, and a user interface for extracting and presenting that information to users. Filed under application number US13/709827, the patent sits within the natural language processing and information retrieval domain. The granted patent reflects a specific technical approach to parsing and surfacing structured data from unstructured or semi-structured text — a capability relevant across search, e-commerce, and content platforms.
Strategically, text-content discovery and extraction patents occupy a contested space as e-commerce platforms, AI-driven search engines, and content-management systems all rely on similar underlying functionality. The patent’s assertion against a fashion and eyewear retailer — Soludos — suggests plaintiff may be targeting the product-description or content-search functionality of retail websites rather than core NLP infrastructure. Companies operating in adjacent verticals, particularly those with automated text-parsing, recommendation, or semantic search capabilities, should treat this patent as a live enforcement risk given that its claims were never tested in adversarial proceedings.
Should your platform run an FTO against US9092428B1?
Any e-commerce operator, SaaS platform, or retail technology provider that uses automated methods to discover, extract, or present information from text content should assess their exposure to US9092428B1. The patent’s subject matter — systems for finding and surfacing information within text — maps closely to product-search functionality, content recommendation engines, and data-extraction pipelines common across retail and content platforms. The voluntary dismissal here does not reduce the risk for third parties; the patent remains fully enforceable.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent claims of US9092428B1 against your product architecture, identify overlapping prior art that could support an IPR petition, and surface any continuation applications filed by Linfo IP that may carry broader or updated claims. Given Ramey LLP’s documented enforcement activity across multiple technology sectors, a proactive FTO and validity assessment is the most efficient way to quantify and manage exposure before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9092428B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar NPE text-content patent cases in W.D. Texas
Cases involving text-content discovery and information extraction patents filed by NPEs in the Western District of Texas, including Ramey LLP-represented plaintiffs.
What this case signals for the text-content and e-commerce IP landscape
A rapid voluntary dismissal without prejudice by a Ramey LLP-represented NPE is a pattern worth tracking across the retail-tech sector.
Pre-answer dismissals by NPEs often signal a private resolution or reassessment
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses before the defendant has even filed an answer, it typically signals one of two things: a confidential settlement was reached, or plaintiff’s counsel reassessed the strength of the case after filing. With no cost award and no counterclaim on record here, either scenario is plausible. Companies receiving similar demand letters should document all communications carefully from day one.
Ramey LLP’s filing patterns in W.D. Texas warrant portfolio-level monitoring
Ramey LLP is a prolific NPE litigation firm with a substantial filing history in the Western District of Texas. A single withdrawal does not indicate cessation of activity. Companies in the text processing, content discovery, or retail-tech sectors should monitor Ramey LLP’s docket and Linfo IP’s patent portfolio for subsequent assertion targets and continuation patents that may present broader claim coverage.
Linfo v Waimate — key questions answered
Linfo IP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Waimate B LLC d/b/a Soludos in the Western District of Texas on October 11, 2024, asserting US9092428B1. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on January 6, 2025, before Soludos filed any answer. The court closed the case on January 7, 2025, with each party bearing its own costs.
Soludos is free from this specific action with no adverse judgment or cost liability. However, a dismissal without prejudice means Linfo IP retains the right to refile the same infringement claims in future. No invalidity or non-infringement finding was made, so Soludos’s exposure under US9092428B1 has not been legally extinguished. A freedom-to-operate review remains advisable.
US9092428B1 covers a system with methods and a user interface for discovering information in text content and extracting and presenting that information. The public record does not detail the specific product functionality at Soludos that was alleged to infringe. The asserted products reference both the text-discovery system and eyewear, suggesting the claim may relate to Soludos’s website or product-search functionality rather than the eyewear itself.
No. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal is self-effectuating — it terminates the case automatically upon filing. In Linfo IP v. Soludos, the court confirmed this principle, noting no order was required and directing the clerk to close the case as a formal acknowledgment.
Yes, potentially. The voluntary dismissal without prejudice leaves US9092428B1 fully enforceable with its claims untested. Linfo IP and its counsel Ramey LLP have a documented enforcement history in W.D. Texas. Companies operating e-commerce platforms, content-search tools, or text-extraction pipelines should conduct a proactive claim-mapping and prior-art analysis to assess their exposure and determine whether an IPR petition is warranted.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.