Linfo IP v. ThirdLove: Joint Dismissal With Prejudice After 185 Days
Linfo IP, LLC asserted US9092428B1 — a patent covering systems and methods for discovering and presenting information in text content — against lingerie retailer ThirdLove, Inc. in the Eastern District of California. The parties reached a joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing plaintiff’s claims with prejudice and defendant’s counterclaims without prejudice, with each side bearing its own costs.
Text-content discovery patent asserted against ThirdLove ends by joint stipulation
Linfo IP, LLC filed this patent infringement action against ThirdLove, Inc. on 12 April 2024 in the Eastern District of California before Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. The sole asserted patent, US9092428B1 (application no. US13/709827), covers a system, methods, and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content — technology that appears relevant to how e-commerce platforms surface and display textual product or content information to users.
The case closed on 14 October 2024 via a joint stipulation of dismissal filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Critically, the parties agreed to asymmetric dismissal terms: Linfo IP’s infringement claims are dismissed with prejudice, permanently barring re-litigation of those claims against ThirdLove on US9092428B1, while ThirdLove’s counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice, preserving ThirdLove’s ability to revive those claims in future proceedings. Neither party was awarded costs, expenses, or attorneys’ fees.
Resolution in under six months — before any substantive merits rulings are publicly available — is consistent with an early-stage settlement or licensing negotiation that rendered continued litigation unnecessary. The with-prejudice dismissal of Linfo IP’s claims suggests the parties reached a commercially satisfactory resolution, though the public record does not disclose the financial terms. The asymmetry in dismissal terms, with counterclaims preserved, may reflect ongoing leverage retained by ThirdLove or simply reflect standard practice when counterclaims have not been fully briefed.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 185 days
185 days from filing to closure — shorter than the median district court patent case lifecycle
Rule 41 joint dismissal: what the asymmetric terms mean for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — voluntary dismissal by joint stipulation
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits parties to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a signed stipulation. Because both parties signed, the court had no discretion to modify the terms. The dismissal is effective upon filing. This mechanism is commonly used when parties have resolved their dispute privately and simply need to formally close the docket without requiring judicial involvement or findings on the merits.
No merits adjudicationWith-prejudice dismissal bars Linfo IP from reasserting US9092428B1 against ThirdLove
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. Linfo IP cannot refile this infringement action against ThirdLove on US9092428B1 in any court. This is the most consequential term for the patent holder: the patent remains in force against third parties, but enforcement against ThirdLove is permanently foreclosed. The outcome suggests Linfo IP received sufficient consideration — financial or otherwise — to accept this bar.
Enforcement against ThirdLove foreclosedThirdLove’s counterclaims survive — preserved without prejudice for future use
ThirdLove’s counterclaims — which in patent cases typically include invalidity and non-infringement defences — are dismissed without prejudice, meaning they can be revived if circumstances change. While this asymmetry may simply reflect the fact that counterclaims were not fully briefed, it also means ThirdLove retains theoretical leverage should any dispute arise over the scope or terms of any private resolution reached between the parties.
Counterclaims preservedUS9092428B1 remains a live enforcement risk for other e-commerce platforms
The with-prejudice dismissal resolves Linfo IP’s claims only as to ThirdLove. US9092428B1 — covering text content discovery and presentation systems — remains valid and enforceable against other e-commerce operators that surface or personalise textual content for users. The swift, pre-merits resolution and absence of any fee award or invalidity ruling means the patent’s scope has not been judicially tested, preserving its full assertion value for future targets.
Patent remains enforceable vs. third partiesFull 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 | Third Love, Inc. | Company | ThirdLove, Inc. — direct-to-consumer lingerie and apparel e-commerce retailerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Susan S.Q. Kalra | 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 Third Love, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J. McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Third Love, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ricardo J. Bonilla | Attorney | Counsel for Third Love, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rodeen Talebi | Attorney | Counsel for Third Love, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardsin PC | Law Firm | Representing Third Love, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr | Judge | California Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation is precise in its asymmetry: plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice — a permanent, merits-equivalent bar — while defendant’s counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice, preserving ThirdLove’s ability to revive them. The explicit mutual cost-bearing clause forecloses any fee-shifting argument under 35 U.S.C. § 285. No claim construction, invalidity ruling, or non-infringement finding was made, so the public record provides no guidance on US9092428B1’s enforceable scope.
US9092428B1 — System and methods for discovering and presenting information in text content
US9092428B1 (application US13/709827) covers a system, methods, and user interface for discovering and presenting information embedded in text content. The patent’s technical domain sits at the intersection of natural language processing, content indexing, and user interface design — specifically addressing how software identifies, extracts, and surfaces relevant information from text for end users. The application date and grant trajectory suggest the patent was developed during the early expansion of content-rich web and mobile platforms.
For e-commerce operators, this patent is strategically significant because modern product discovery, recommendation engines, and AI-driven content surfacing tools all operate on comparable principles of extracting and presenting structured information from unstructured or semi-structured text. Any platform that analyses product descriptions, reviews, or editorial content to surface recommendations to users could fall within the patent’s potential scope. The absence of any invalidity ruling in this case means US9092428B1 retains its full presumption of validity, making it a credible enforcement instrument against a wide range of digital commerce and content platforms.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9092428B1?
If your product or platform includes features that analyse, index, or present information derived from text content — including product recommendation engines, content personalisation layers, or search result presentation interfaces — US9092428B1 warrants a freedom-to-operate review. The patent has now been asserted in litigation, confirming the holder’s willingness to enforce. The with-prejudice dismissal against ThirdLove does not limit its enforceability against any other party.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map US9092428B1’s claim language against their own feature implementations, identify prior art that was not raised in this litigation, and benchmark the patent’s citation landscape to assess assertion risk. Eureka can also surface related continuation or family patents held by Linfo IP that may present overlapping risk to text-content discovery and UI features.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9092428B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: text content discovery and e-commerce UI patents
Cases involving text content discovery, information presentation systems, and e-commerce UI patents litigated in California federal district courts — mapped by outcome and claim scope.
What this case signals for the e-commerce content discovery IP landscape
A pre-merits, with-prejudice exit in under six months is a pattern worth monitoring for any platform that surfaces or personalises text content.
Linfo IP’s with-prejudice exit pattern suggests licensing-first enforcement strategy
PAEs that accept with-prejudice dismissals this early — without any public merits ruling — typically do so because they have secured licensing revenue. For e-commerce and content platforms, this signals that US9092428B1 may be actively licensed, and that Linfo IP views pre-litigation resolution as commercially viable. Companies in the target profile should monitor Linfo IP’s docket for repeat assertion patterns.
No fee award and no invalidity ruling leaves patent scope fully intact
Because the case closed before claim construction or summary judgment, there is no judicial guidance on the scope or validity of US9092428B1. Any company operating a text-content discovery or recommendation interface — particularly in e-commerce — should treat this patent as unresolved and potentially asserted. A proactive FTO analysis is advisable before building or scaling such features.
Linfo v Third — key questions answered
The with-prejudice dismissal bars Linfo IP from ever reasserting US9092428B1 against ThirdLove specifically. However, the patent remains fully valid and enforceable against all other parties. No invalidity or non-infringement ruling was made, so the patent’s scope is judicially untested and retains its presumption of validity.
This asymmetry is a negotiated outcome under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The parties jointly agreed to different terms for each side’s claims. Without prejudice for counterclaims — which typically include invalidity — preserves ThirdLove’s ability to revive those defences if future disputes arise, while Linfo IP accepted a permanent bar on its infringement claims, consistent with having received consideration from ThirdLove.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing a stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared. It requires no judicial approval and is effective on filing. It is the standard procedural mechanism used when both parties have reached private resolution and wish to close the docket cleanly without further court involvement.
The mutual cost-bearing agreement explicitly forecloses any fee-shifting claim between these parties arising from this action. Under 35 U.S.C. § 285, a court may award fees in exceptional cases, but the parties have contractually resolved that issue by stipulation. Neither party can later seek attorneys’ fees from the other in connection with this specific litigation.
Yes. The dismissal resolved only the dispute between Linfo IP and ThirdLove. No court ruled on the validity, infringement, or scope of US9092428B1. The patent retains its statutory presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282 and can be asserted against any third party whose products or services fall within its claims.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.