LINFO IP v. Steve Madden: Infringement Suit Dismissed With Prejudice in 193 Days
LINFO IP, LLC asserted US9092428B1 — a patent covering systems and methods for discovering and presenting information in text content — against footwear retailer Steve Madden, Ltd. in the Western District of Texas. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss plaintiff’s claims with prejudice and defendant’s counterclaims without prejudice, closing the action in under seven months.
A Fast Resolution With Permanent Consequences for LINFO IP’s Patent Claim
Filed on April 12, 2024, in the Western District of Texas (Midland-Odessa Division), LINFO IP, LLC brought a patent infringement action against Steve Madden, Ltd. asserting US9092428B1, which covers systems, methods, and user interfaces for discovering and presenting information within text content. Steve Madden — a major publicly-traded fashion footwear and accessories company — was the sole defendant. Ramey LLP represented the plaintiff; Fish & Richardson LLP appeared for the defence.
The case closed on October 22, 2024, just 193 days after filing, pursuant to a joint stipulation of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Critically, the stipulation is asymmetric: LINFO IP’s infringement claims are dismissed with prejudice — meaning they cannot be re-filed against Steve Madden on the asserted patent — while Steve Madden’s counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice, preserving the company’s ability to pursue those claims in a future proceeding if warranted.
The sub-seven-month resolution is notably swift for a patent case in this district and is consistent with a negotiated settlement or licence arrangement, though the public record is silent on any financial terms. The absence of fee-shifting — each party bearing its own costs — suggests the parties reached an amicable resolution rather than a contested dismissal. What drove LINFO IP to accept a with-prejudice dismissal, and whether a licensing payment was exchanged, remains undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 193 days
193 days — resolved well under the W.D. Texas median for patent infringement cases
Asymmetric dismissal: what the with-prejudice ruling means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal requires no court approval
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a plaintiff may dismiss an action by filing a stipulation signed by all appearing parties — no judicial approval is required and the dismissal is effective automatically on filing. The court’s order here is confirmatory, not operative. This mechanism is commonly used when parties have reached a resolution they wish to formalise quickly and without public disclosure of terms.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — automatic on filingWith-prejudice dismissal permanently bars LINFO IP from re-asserting this patent against Steve Madden
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits. LINFO IP cannot refile the same infringement claim under US9092428B1 against Steve Madden in any US court. This is the most consequential aspect of the stipulation for the patent holder. Unless a licence or settlement payment accompanied the dismissal — which the record does not disclose — LINFO IP has permanently surrendered its enforcement avenue against this defendant.
Claim permanently extinguished vs. Steve MaddenSteve Madden’s counterclaims survive — dismissed without prejudice
Steve Madden’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they were not resolved on the merits and can theoretically be re-raised. In patent cases, defendant counterclaims often include invalidity and non-infringement declaratory judgments. Preserving these without prejudice is a standard protective posture for defendants who have accepted a resolution of the main claim but wish to retain optionality — particularly if the patent is later asserted against others in the same space.
Counterclaims survive for potential future useSymmetric cost order and swift close suggests negotiated resolution
The court ordered each party to bear its own attorney fees and costs — a neutral outcome inconsistent with one side having clearly prevailed. Combined with the 193-day timeline and the absence of any substantive motion practice reaching the public docket, the resolution is consistent with a confidential settlement or licence. Companies in retail technology and e-commerce operating text-content or search-driven discovery features should note that US9092428B1 remains active and enforceable against other potential defendants.
Patent remains active against other defendantsFull 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 | STEVE MADDEN, LTD., | Company | Steve Madden, Ltd. — publicly-traded US fashion footwear and accessories retailerSearch 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 STEVE MADDEN, LTD.,Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J. McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for STEVE MADDEN, LTD.,Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing STEVE MADDEN, LTD.,Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s asymmetry is legally significant: the with-prejudice standard for plaintiff’s claims carries res judicata effect, permanently foreclosing LINFO IP from asserting US9092428B1 against Steve Madden. The without-prejudice treatment of defendant’s counterclaims — likely including invalidity declarations — is a deliberate carve-out that preserves Steve Madden’s procedural optionality. The court’s confirmatory order adds no additional legal weight beyond the automatic Rule 41 filing effect, as affirmed by the Fifth Circuit in Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church.
US9092428B1 — Text-Content Information Discovery System and UI
US9092428B1 (application no. US13/709827) is a US utility patent granted to the assignee covering systems, methods, and user interfaces directed at discovering and presenting information embedded in text content. The patent sits at the intersection of natural language processing, information retrieval, and UX design — a domain with broad applicability across e-commerce product pages, search features, editorial content platforms, and any interface that surfaces structured data from unstructured text.
The commercial significance of this patent lies in its potential reach across the retail-technology sector. Any platform that parses, highlights, links, or dynamically surfaces information from text — including product descriptions, reviews, or editorial copy — could fall within the claim scope depending on implementation. The fact that a fashion e-commerce defendant was targeted suggests the assertion theory may relate to on-site search or product discovery features, making this a material risk for retailers with sophisticated digital storefronts.
Should your product team run an FTO against US9092428B1?
Any company operating a consumer-facing digital platform that processes, indexes, or presents information derived from text content should assess exposure to US9092428B1. This includes e-commerce retailers with search or recommendation engines, content publishers with dynamic annotation or linking features, and SaaS platforms offering text analytics or knowledge extraction. The Steve Madden litigation confirms the patent holder is actively enforcing — and W.D. Texas is a favoured filing venue.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables your R&D and legal teams to run a structured freedom-to-operate analysis against US9092428B1: mapping independent claim elements against your product’s technical architecture, surfacing prior art that could support an invalidity argument, and identifying design-around opportunities. Proactive FTO analysis before a demand letter arrives is significantly less costly than litigation defence.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9092428B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Cases: Text-Content Discovery & Information Retrieval
Patent infringement cases asserting information retrieval and text-content discovery patents in the Western District of Texas, including comparable PAE enforcement actions.
What this case signals for the text-content discovery IP landscape
The LINFO IP–Steve Madden outcome illustrates how PAE enforcement of UX and information-retrieval patents can resolve quickly and quietly in W.D. Texas.
US9092428B1 remains live — other retailers and tech platforms face exposure
The with-prejudice dismissal only bars LINFO IP’s claims against Steve Madden. The patent is still enforceable, and Ramey LLP — a prolific patent litigation firm — has a track record of serial assertion. E-commerce platforms, content aggregators, and any product with text-based search and discovery UI should treat this patent as an active risk and consider an FTO analysis.
W.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for PAE infringement suits
The Western District of Texas continues to attract patent assertion entity filings despite post-Waco scrutiny. The 193-day lifecycle here is short even by this district’s standards, suggesting the case resolved before substantial discovery or claim construction. For defendants, early engagement and a strong prior art/invalidity counterclaim strategy — as Fish & Richardson deployed — can accelerate a favourable resolution.
LINFO v STEVE — key questions answered
A with-prejudice dismissal of plaintiff’s claims operates as a final adjudication on the merits. LINFO IP, LLC cannot refile its infringement claims under US9092428B1 against Steve Madden, Ltd. in any US court. The dismissal was entered pursuant to a joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on October 21, 2024, and became effective automatically upon filing without requiring judicial approval.
The public record does not disclose any settlement terms or licensing payment. However, the 193-day resolution timeline, the mutual agreement to dismiss, and the neutral cost order (each party bearing its own fees) are all consistent with a confidential negotiated resolution. The absence of substantive docket activity before dismissal suggests the dispute did not proceed to claim construction or significant discovery.
LINFO IP asserted US9092428B1 (application number US13/709827), a patent covering systems, methods, and user interfaces for discovering and presenting information in text content. The patent’s subject matter spans information retrieval and UX design for text-based content, with potential applicability to e-commerce search, product discovery, and content annotation features.
This asymmetric structure is a standard negotiating outcome in patent stipulated dismissals. The plaintiff agreed to a final, non-revivable dismissal of its infringement claims, while the defendant preserved its counterclaims — likely invalidity and non-infringement declarations — without prejudice. This gives Steve Madden the option to pursue those counterclaims in a future proceeding, including potentially via IPR at the USPTO, if the patent is later asserted against it or others in the sector.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice only bars LINFO IP from asserting US9092428B1 against Steve Madden specifically. The patent remains active and enforceable against other parties. No invalidity finding was entered, and no IPR proceeding against this patent appears in the public record from this case. Companies in e-commerce, retail technology, and content discovery should consider a freedom-to-operate assessment.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.