Linfo IP v. The Gap: Patent Case Transferred to S.D. Texas in 135 Days
Linfo IP, LLC filed suit against The Gap, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US9092428B1 — a patent covering systems and methods for discovering and presenting information embedded in text content. Within 135 days, the parties jointly moved to transfer proceedings to the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
E.D. Texas patent action redirected to Houston on joint motion
On 31 December 2023, Linfo IP, LLC — a patent assertion entity — filed an infringement action against The Gap, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 6:23-cv-00635), asserting US9092428B1. The patent, filed under application number US13/709827, covers a system, methods, and user interface for discovering and presenting information within text content — technology relevant to e-commerce and digital retail experiences.
The case closed at the Eastern District level on 14 May 2024, when Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Transfer. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the action was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, for all further proceedings. Crucially, all existing scheduling deadlines were simultaneously vacated, resetting the litigation clock under the transferee court’s management.
The 135-day duration before transfer is notable: the joint nature of the motion suggests both sides agreed that Houston was the more appropriate venue, likely reflecting the defendant’s operational ties to that district. Because the transfer was consensual and occurred before substantive merits rulings, the public record does not disclose claim construction positions, discovery disputes, or the parties’ respective settlement postures. Substantive litigation risk now resides with the Southern District of Texas proceedings.
Filing to Case Transferred in 135 days
135 days from filing to transfer — well under the E.D. Tex. median time to first substantive ruling
What the transfer to S.D. Texas means for both parties
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a): transfer in the interest of justice
Section 1404(a) allows a district court to transfer a civil action to any district where it could have been brought, when doing so serves the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interest of justice. Here, a joint motion meant Judge Kernodle did not need to weigh competing convenience factors — both parties concurred, and the court granted transfer immediately without the standard Local Rule CV-83(b) delay.
Procedural transfer, no merits rulingLinfo IP’s claim survives — venue shifts, not the case
A § 1404(a) transfer does not terminate the underlying infringement claim or affect the asserted patent’s validity. Linfo IP retains all causes of action in the Southern District of Texas. However, the Houston Division’s docket characteristics and local patent rules differ from E.D. Texas, potentially altering the litigation timeline and the procedural posture Linfo IP relied on when selecting the Eastern District.
Claims intact, new venue dynamicsThe Gap secures a more convenient forum
By joining the transfer motion, The Gap likely signalled that the Southern District of Texas — specifically the Houston Division — better reflects where its relevant witnesses, documents, and operations are located. Defendants in patent cases frequently prefer to litigate in districts with stronger ties to their business. The transfer does not resolve the infringement allegations, but it shifts the battlefield to a forum The Gap helped select.
Forum secured through joint consentRetail sector faces continuing text-discovery patent risk
US9092428B1 covers technology that broadly applies to digital retail interfaces — search, product discovery, and content presentation systems widely deployed across e-commerce platforms. The Gap’s exposure as a defendant suggests that similar retailers using comparable text-discovery functionality may face analogous claims. The transfer to S.D. Texas preserves all enforcement options for Linfo IP and signals the assertion campaign is ongoing.
E-commerce IP risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Linfo IP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9092428B1 covering text-content information discoverySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Gap, Inc. | Company | The Gap, Inc. — major U.S. apparel and specialty retail chainSearch 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 | Eric Hugh Findlay | Attorney | Counsel for The Gap, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert Cruzen | Attorney | Counsel for The Gap, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Findlay Craft PC | Law Firm | Representing The Gap, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Klarquist, Sparkman LLP | Law Firm | Representing The Gap, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The transfer order reflects a purely procedural disposition: Judge Kernodle made no ruling on the merits of infringement, validity, or claim scope. The joint motion framing indicates both parties consented to venue change under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and the court’s directive to transfer ‘immediately and without delay’ suggests no contested issues remained before the Eastern District. The vacatur of all deadlines resets the scheduling framework entirely — substantive litigation risk now rests with the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.
US9092428B1 — Text-Content Information Discovery Systems
US9092428B1 (application no. US13/709827) protects a system, methods, and user interface directed at discovering and presenting information found within text content. The patent’s claims are likely to encompass automated identification, extraction, and surfacing of relevant information from unstructured or semi-structured text — functionality that underpins modern search, product discovery, and content recommendation features in digital commerce environments.
For the retail and e-commerce sector, this patent presents meaningful strategic risk. Text-based discovery and presentation systems are foundational to how consumers navigate product catalogues, search results, and editorial content online. The Gap’s involvement as a defendant suggests Linfo IP views major retail operators’ digital platforms as within the patent’s scope. With no claim construction ruling yet issued, the patent’s enforceable boundaries remain undefined — heightening uncertainty for any operator using analogous functionality.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9092428B1?
If your organisation operates a digital retail platform, e-commerce search engine, or content discovery interface that processes or surfaces text-based information, US9092428B1 warrants a freedom-to-operate assessment. The assertion against The Gap — a large-scale retailer with substantial digital presence — suggests Linfo IP is actively enforcing this patent against mainstream retail technology stacks. No claim construction has narrowed the patent’s scope, meaning its coverage remains broad on the public record.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US9092428B1 against your product’s technical architecture, identify prior art that may limit enforceability, and surface related Linfo IP family members or continuations that could extend the assertion risk. Running an FTO now — before a Houston merits ruling defines the patent’s scope — positions your legal and product teams to make informed design-around or licensing decisions.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9092428B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: text-content discovery systems in federal courts
Comparable patent assertion cases involving text-content discovery and digital retail interfaces in Texas federal courts, including E.D. and S.D. Texas district proceedings.
What this case signals for the digital retail IP landscape
A swift, consensual transfer inside 135 days reveals as much about litigation strategy as it obscures about the underlying patent risk.
Joint transfers signal negotiated forum — not case resolution
When both parties jointly move to transfer under § 1404(a) this early, it typically reflects a negotiated concession by the plaintiff in exchange for something — smoother litigation posture, settlement talks, or defendant cooperation. The case is live in Houston; the technology risk is unresolved.
US9092428B1 remains a live enforcement threat for e-commerce operators
The patent covers broad text-content discovery systems applicable to product search and content interfaces widely used in retail. No merits ruling has limited its scope. Companies operating text-driven discovery or recommendation features in their digital storefronts should assess their exposure before a Houston merits ruling sets precedent.
Linfo v Gap — key questions answered
Linfo IP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against The Gap, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on 31 December 2023, asserting US9092428B1. After 135 days, both parties jointly moved to transfer the case to the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Judge Kernodle granted the motion, vacated all deadlines, and directed immediate transfer. No merits ruling was issued in E.D. Texas.
US9092428B1 covers a system, methods, and user interface for discovering and presenting information within text content. In a retail context, this is relevant to product search, content recommendation, and digital discovery interfaces — core features of modern e-commerce platforms. Linfo IP’s assertion against The Gap suggests the patent is being applied to standard digital retail functionality.
The transfer was made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows transfer to a more convenient or appropriate venue in the interest of justice. The motion was filed jointly, meaning both Linfo IP and The Gap agreed to the Houston Division as the appropriate forum. The exact convenience factors agreed upon are not detailed in the public order beyond the statutory citation.
No. A § 1404(a) transfer is a procedural venue change — it does not dismiss, limit, or resolve the underlying infringement allegations. All claims under US9092428B1 transfer with the case to the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, where litigation continues under that court’s local patent rules and scheduling framework.
Linfo IP, LLC is represented by William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP, a firm known for patent assertion matters. The Gap, Inc. is represented by Eric Hugh Findlay and Robert Cruzen of Findlay Craft PC, along with Klarquist Sparkman LLP — firms with substantial patent litigation defence experience.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.