Linfo IP v. The Children’s Place: Infringement Suit Ends in Dismissal With Prejudice
Linfo IP, LLC asserted US9092428B1 — covering systems and methods for discovering and presenting information in text content — against children’s apparel retailer The Children’s Place in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice just 151 days after filing, permanently surrendering its infringement claims.
A short-lived E.D. Texas patent assertion ends in permanent surrender
On December 29, 2023, Linfo IP, LLC — a patent assertion entity represented by Ramey LLP — filed suit against The Children’s Place Retail Stores, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:23-cv-00633), asserting infringement of US9092428B1. The patent covers systems, methods, and user interface elements for discovering and presenting information found within text content, a technology relevant to e-commerce search and content surfacing on retail platforms.
The case closed on May 28, 2024, just 151 days after filing. Linfo IP filed a Notice of Dismissal voluntarily dismissing the case with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court accepted and acknowledged the notice, formally dismissing all claims and causes of action with prejudice and denying all remaining relief requests as moot. A dismissal with prejudice is a permanent and complete resolution — Linfo IP is barred from asserting the same claims against The Children’s Place in any future action.
The rapid timeline — less than five months from filing to closure — suggests the parties likely reached a private resolution or that Linfo IP concluded continued litigation was not commercially viable after early case activity. The public record is silent on whether any licensing agreement or payment accompanied the dismissal. Fish & Richardson and Gillam & Smith jointly defended The Children’s Place, a well-resourced defence that may have signalled significant litigation resistance.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 151 days
151 days — resolved well under the median E.D. Texas patent case timeline
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary withdrawal means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff-initiated dismissal with permanent effect
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, Linfo IP elected to dismiss with prejudice — a stricter standard than the default — meaning the court’s acceptance is final. No claims under US9092428B1 against The Children’s Place can be relitigated in any federal forum.
Permanent claim barLinfo IP permanently relinquishes infringement claims against this defendant
By choosing dismissal with prejudice — rather than without prejudice — Linfo IP has waived its right to re-assert US9092428B1 against The Children’s Place. This is a more complete concession than a standard voluntary dismissal. It may reflect a negotiated exit, but the public record discloses no settlement terms. The patent itself remains in force and may be asserted against other defendants.
Claims extinguishedThe Children’s Place secures permanent immunity from this specific assertion
The Children’s Place, defended by Fish & Richardson and Gillam & Smith, exits with the strongest available procedural protection short of a full merits victory. The with-prejudice dismissal provides absolute certainty that Linfo IP cannot revive this action. No finding of invalidity or non-infringement was made, so the patent’s broader enforceability against third parties is unaffected.
Defendant fully protectedUS9092428B1 remains live — other e-commerce operators stay at risk
The dismissal resolves only this defendant’s exposure. US9092428B1 covering content discovery and text-based information presentation UI is potentially relevant to any retailer operating a product search or content surfacing feature. Competitors and peers of The Children’s Place in the e-commerce retail space should treat this patent as active and consider freedom-to-operate analysis, particularly given the plaintiff’s demonstrated willingness to assert it in E.D. Texas.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Linfo IP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9092428B1 covering text-based content discovery UISearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Children’s Place Retail Stores, Inc. | Company | Specialty children’s apparel retailer operating e-commerce and brick-and-mortar stores across North AmericaSearch 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 | Alexander Hale Martin | Attorney | Counsel for The Children’s Place Retail Stores, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for The Children’s Place Retail Stores, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for The Children’s Place Retail Stores, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ricardo Joel Bonilla | Attorney | Counsel for The Children’s Place Retail Stores, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing The Children’s Place Retail Stores, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing The Children’s Place Retail Stores, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing The Children’s Place Retail Stores, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is procedural rather than substantive — it accepts Linfo IP’s voluntary notice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and formally enters dismissal with prejudice. No claim construction, infringement finding, or validity determination was made. The phrase ‘with prejudice’ is legally significant: it operates as a final adjudication on the merits for preclusion purposes, permanently barring Linfo IP from re-asserting these specific claims against The Children’s Place. The denial of all other pending relief ‘as moot’ confirms no collateral issues — such as fees or sanctions — were left open by the court.
US9092428B1 — System, methods and UI for discovering information in text content
US9092428B1, filed under application number US13/709827, protects systems, methods, and user interface features for discovering and presenting information found within text content. The patent addresses the technical challenge of surfacing relevant information from unstructured or semi-structured text — a capability central to e-commerce search, product discovery, and content recommendation engines. Its inclusion in an infringement action against a retail operator suggests the asserted claims may cover front-end UI interactions and back-end retrieval methods used in online shopping environments.
For the e-commerce and retail technology sector, US9092428B1 represents a meaningful assertion risk. Retailers deploying natural language search, contextual product surfacing, or AI-driven content discovery interfaces may find their implementations within the claim scope. The patent was asserted in E.D. Texas — a plaintiff-friendly venue historically receptive to patent assertion entity cases — which amplifies the enforcement risk for any retailer that has not conducted a freedom-to-operate review. The patent’s survival following this dismissal means it remains a live enforcement tool.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9092428B1?
Any e-commerce operator, retail technology provider, or SaaS platform that integrates text-based content discovery, contextual search, or UI-driven information surfacing into its product should treat US9092428B1 as a priority FTO target. The patent has been actively asserted in E.D. Texas, and the with-prejudice dismissal against The Children’s Place does not reduce its enforceability against other parties. The risk is particularly acute for retailers with product search, recommendation, or tagging features exposed to end users.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can run a rapid claim-by-claim mapping of US9092428B1 against your product architecture, identifying which features — if any — fall within the asserted claim scope. Eureka also monitors Linfo IP and Ramey LLP’s broader filing activity, so you receive early warning if a demand letter or new complaint is incoming. Start with the independent claims and work outward to identify design-around opportunities before litigation risk materialises.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9092428B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases: content discovery and e-commerce UI in E.D. Texas
Cases involving UI and content discovery patents asserted against retail e-commerce defendants in the Eastern District of Texas follow patterns worth benchmarking against this Linfo IP action.
What this case signals for the e-commerce content discovery IP landscape
A rapid with-prejudice exit in E.D. Texas typically signals either a confidential licence or a defendant with the resources to resist. Both scenarios carry lessons.
E.D. Texas PAE filings often resolve before any substantive ruling
This case closed in 151 days with no claim construction, no invalidity ruling, and no merits finding. That pattern is consistent with early-stage settlement or licence negotiations. Retailers targeted by similar assertions should assess the cost-benefit of early resolution versus contested litigation, factoring in the strength of their own invalidity arguments.
Dismissal with prejudice protects the defendant — but not the market
The Children’s Place is fully insulated, but US9092428B1 survives intact. Any e-commerce operator using algorithmic or UI-driven text content discovery systems — from product recommendation engines to search results pages — should monitor this patent and Linfo IP’s broader assertion activity in the Eastern District of Texas.
Linfo v Children’s — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice means Linfo IP has permanently relinquished its infringement claims under US9092428B1 against The Children’s Place. The court entered the dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) based on Linfo IP’s own notice. No future action asserting the same claims against the same defendant is permissible in any federal court.
No. The case ended through voluntary dismissal with no substantive merits ruling. The court made no findings on claim construction, infringement, or validity. US9092428B1 remains in force and fully enforceable against third parties not covered by this dismissal.
The public record does not disclose the reason. The 151-day timeline and the involvement of Fish & Richardson and Gillam & Smith on the defence side are consistent with either a negotiated licence or an early assessment that continued litigation carried unfavourable cost-benefit dynamics. No settlement terms were filed publicly.
US9092428B1 is a US patent filed under application number US13/709827 that protects systems, methods, and user interface features for discovering and presenting information within text content. It is relevant to e-commerce search, product discovery, and content recommendation UI — capabilities widely deployed by online retailers.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal protects only The Children’s Place. Linfo IP retains full rights to assert US9092428B1 against any other party. Other e-commerce and retail operators with text-based content discovery or search UI features should consider conducting a freedom-to-operate review and monitoring Linfo IP’s litigation activity.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.