Linfo IP v. Trustpilot: § 101 Kills Text-Discovery Patent in 266 Days
Linfo IP, LLC asserted US Patent 9,092,428 — covering systems for discovering and presenting information in text content — against Trustpilot, Inc. in the Southern District of New York. Judge Jesse M. Furman granted Trustpilot’s motion to dismiss, finding the patent’s claims directed to an abstract idea and ineligible for protection, and denied leave to amend, closing the case in under nine months.
A § 101 takedown: how Trustpilot killed a text-discovery patent at the pleadings stage
On 12 April 2024, Linfo IP, LLC filed suit against Trustpilot, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting infringement of US Patent 9,092,428, which claims a system, methods, and user interface for discovering and presenting information embedded in text content. Trustpilot, an online consumer-review platform, was accused of infringing through its core product functionality. The case was assigned to Judge Jesse M. Furman.
Trustpilot moved to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101, arguing the asserted claims are directed to an abstract idea and therefore patent-ineligible under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. Judge Furman agreed, holding the claims substantively ineligible. Critically, the court had already granted Linfo one prior opportunity to amend and had explicitly warned that no further amendment would be permitted — making the denial of leave to amend effectively inevitable. Judgment was entered in favour of Trustpilot on 3 January 2025.
The 266-day resolution is notably swift, reflecting that § 101 challenges decided at the motion-to-dismiss stage frequently terminate cases before discovery. The prior amendment opportunity — and Linfo’s failure to plead facts capable of curing the § 101 deficiency — proved decisive. The public record does not reveal whether Linfo intends to appeal, though the futility finding substantially narrows any appellate pathway on the pleadings.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Defendant in 266 days
266 days — faster than the median SDNY patent case, resolved at motion-to-dismiss stage
Dismissed with prejudice: what Judge Furman’s § 101 ruling means for both parties
§ 101 abstract-idea dismissal — no patent-eligible subject matter
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, patent claims directed to abstract ideas are ineligible for protection unless they add an ‘inventive concept’ transforming the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application (Alice step two). Judge Furman found the ‘428 patent failed at step one — the claims are directed to an abstract idea — and the case was dismissed on the pleadings, before any claim construction or discovery.
35 U.S.C. § 101 / AliceLinfo loses the patent and any future re-filing path in this court
Because the court found the deficiency substantive — not merely a pleading failure — leave to amend was denied as futile. Linfo had already used its one granted opportunity to amend. The complaint is dismissed with prejudice, meaning Linfo cannot re-file the same claims against Trustpilot in SDNY. An appeal to the Federal Circuit remains theoretically available, but the futility finding creates a high threshold for reversal.
Dismissed with prejudiceTrustpilot escapes liability — judgment entered in its favour
Judgment was formally entered in Trustpilot’s favour, providing a binding merits ruling that the ‘428 patent is ineligible. This is more protective than a settlement or procedural dismissal: it creates record precedent that can be cited if Linfo — or a related entity — asserts the same patent against other review-platform operators. Willful, induced, and contributory infringement claims were additionally deemed abandoned by the court.
Full defence verdictAbstract-idea ruling weakens NPE leverage across text-discovery IP
A § 101 invalidity finding at the pleadings stage signals that courts will scrutinise text-content discovery and information-extraction patents with particular scepticism. Platforms processing user-generated text — reviews, comments, structured data extraction — should monitor whether related Linfo or similarly-structured NPE portfolios contain additional patents. The speed of dismissal (266 days, pre-discovery) also signals low litigation cost for well-prepared defendants in this technology space.
NPE / § 101 risk signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Linfo IP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9092428B1 covering text-content information discovery systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Trustpilot, Inc. | Company | Trustpilot, Inc. — global consumer-review platform headquartered in New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David John Hoffman | Attorney | Counsel for Linfo IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Law Office David J. Hoffman | Law Firm | Representing Linfo IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Aashish G. Kapadia | Attorney | Counsel for Trustpilot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Bennett Kratenstein | Attorney | Counsel for Trustpilot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kevin J. Meek | Attorney | Counsel for Trustpilot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kyle S. Sorenson | Attorney | Counsel for Trustpilot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | McDermott Will & Emery LLP | Law Firm | Representing Trustpilot, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jesse M. Furman | Judge | New York Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
Judge Furman’s ruling is a full merits adjudication under § 101 — not a procedural or technical dismissal. The finding that the ‘428 patent’s claims are ‘directed to an abstract idea’ and ‘not eligible for patent protection’ extinguishes the patent’s enforceability in this proceeding. The denial of leave to amend on futility grounds — reinforced by Linfo’s prior amendment opportunity and its failure to identify any curing facts — converts what could have been a soft dismissal into a hard barrier to re-litigation. The court’s additional finding that willful, induced, and contributory infringement claims were abandoned further narrows any residual argument on appeal.
US9092428B1 — System and UI for discovering information in text content
US Patent 9,092,428 (application no. US13/709827) claims a system, methods, and user interface directed at discovering and presenting information found within text content. The patent sits within the broader software and information-retrieval domain — a field that has faced sustained § 101 scrutiny since Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014). Judge Furman’s ruling that the claims are directed to an abstract idea is consistent with a pattern of courts invalidating text-extraction and information-presentation patents that lack a concrete, inventive technical implementation.
For competitors and potential defendants, the ruling effectively removes US9092428 as an enforcement instrument, at least against Trustpilot. However, entities operating in adjacent text-analytics, NLP, or review-aggregation spaces should assess whether Linfo holds related continuation or divisional patents — which may carry narrower but potentially more defensible claims. The patent’s invalidation also serves as prior art context in any future claim construction or IPR proceeding involving similar information-discovery claim language.
Should your team run an FTO against US9092428B1?
Any company building systems that parse, extract, categorise, or surface information from user-generated text — including review platforms, content aggregators, search overlays, or NLP-driven analytics tools — should be aware of US9092428 and its portfolio family. While Judge Furman’s ruling renders this specific patent ineligible as enforced against Trustpilot, related continuation or sibling patents from the same application family may carry structurally similar but reworded claims that survive § 101 scrutiny in other proceedings.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full citation and continuation network around US9092428, flag any live related applications, and benchmark claim language against recent § 101 case outcomes in SDNY and the Federal Circuit. R&D and product teams shipping text-discovery or review-intelligence features should run a targeted FTO to confirm no live family members remain as enforcement vectors before launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9092428B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar § 101 patent dismissals in text-analytics and software information-retrieval
Cases involving § 101 abstract-idea challenges to software and text-information patents in SDNY and Federal Circuit, raising comparable Alice step-one and step-two analyses.
What this case signals for the text-analytics and review-platform IP landscape
Judge Furman’s ruling reinforces that software-implemented text-discovery claims face acute § 101 exposure in SDNY — even after amendment.
Early § 101 motions remain the most efficient defence against NPE text-tech claims
Trustpilot resolved this case in under nine months without entering discovery — a textbook outcome for a well-executed Alice motion. Companies in the review, search, or text-analytics space should evaluate § 101 viability as the first line of defence when faced with broad information-discovery claims, particularly from non-practising entities.
A prior amendment opportunity dramatically narrows the plaintiff’s appellate options
The court’s explicit prior warning that no further amendment would be permitted — combined with Linfo’s failure to identify curing facts — effectively sealed the case. In-house teams tracking NPE assertions should note whether plaintiffs have already exhausted amendment rights; this materially affects the risk calculus and likely settlement leverage.
Linfo v Trustpilot — key questions answered
Judge Furman dismissed the complaint because US9092428’s claims are directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applying the Alice Corp. two-step framework. The court found the deficiency substantive and denied leave to amend as futile, entering judgment in Trustpilot’s favour on 3 January 2025.
US9092428B1 claims a system, methods, and user interface for discovering and presenting information within text content. Judge Furman held the claims are directed to an abstract idea — a characterisation consistent with post-Alice case law on information-retrieval and text-extraction software — and found no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claims into eligible subject matter.
The court had previously granted Linfo one opportunity to amend and explicitly warned that no further amendment would be permitted. When Linfo sought a second amendment, it failed to identify any specific facts capable of curing the § 101 deficiency. The court held amendment would be futile and denied the request, making the dismissal with prejudice final.
Trustpilot argued in the alternative that willful, induced, and contributory infringement claims should be dismissed even if the primary § 101 motion failed. Linfo did not respond to this argument in its opposition brief. Judge Furman deemed those claims abandoned under SDNY precedent that treats non-responsive silence as concession, though the § 101 ruling mooted the issue entirely.
An appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is theoretically available, as this is a final judgment in a patent case. However, the futility finding — reinforced by the prior amendment warning and Linfo’s failure to identify curing facts — creates a substantial hurdle. The Federal Circuit reviews § 101 rulings de novo, meaning it conducts its own analysis rather than deferring to the district court, which offers some appellate opportunity but no guarantee of a different outcome.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.