Linfo IP v. Vuori: Voluntary Dismissal After 297 Days
Linfo IP, LLC sued apparel brand Vuori, Inc. in the Western District of Texas alleging infringement of US9092428B1, a patent covering systems and methods for discovering and presenting information in text content. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice as to the asserted patent after 297 days, with each party bearing its own costs.
Text discovery patent suit against Vuori ends in voluntary dismissal
On December 19, 2022, Linfo IP, LLC — a patent assertion entity represented by Ramey LLP — filed suit against Vuori, Inc. in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright, asserting infringement of US9092428B1. The patent covers a system, methods, and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content. Vuori, a direct-to-consumer activewear brand, was the sole defendant.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal.' The docket order states that Linfo IP filed a notice pursuant to Federal Rule 41(a)(1), voluntarily dismissing all of its claims with prejudice as to the asserted patent, noting that Vuori had not yet answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. Each party was directed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees.
The case closed after 297 days without any substantive merits ruling. Because Vuori had not yet answered, the procedural window for a unilateral Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal remained open to Linfo IP. The specific commercial or strategic factors that prompted the dismissal are not disclosed in the available public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 297 days
297 days from filing to dismissal — resolved well before trial
US9092428B1 — Text Content Discovery and Presentation System
Any company operating a digital platform, e-commerce storefront, or content application that surfaces, highlights, or links information derived from text content should assess its exposure to US9092428B1. Linfo IP's willingness to assert this patent against an apparel brand like Vuori suggests a broad, sector-agnostic enforcement posture. The absence of any invalidity or non-infringement ruling means the patent retains its full legal presumption of validity.
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1), which allows unilateral plaintiff withdrawal before the defendant has answered. The express with-prejudice language as to the asserted patent narrows Linfo IP's future enforcement options against Vuori specifically. No validity or infringement finding was issued, leaving the patent's enforceability against third parties formally undetermined.
Voluntary dismissal: what the recorded outcome means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal filed before Vuori answered
Federal Rule 41(a)(1) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Linfo IP exercised this right, ending the case unilaterally. The notice states the dismissal is with prejudice as to the asserted patent, meaning Linfo IP cannot re-assert US9092428B1 against Vuori in a future action.
Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary noticeDismissal stated as with prejudice — but public record is the notice only
The dismissal notice expressly states 'with prejudice as to the asserted patent.' This forecloses Linfo IP from refiling the same claim against Vuori based on US9092428B1. However, the recorded Basis of Termination is simply 'Voluntary dismissal' without specifying prejudice. The specific terms or commercial considerations underlying this resolution are not disclosed in the available public record.
Prejudice limited to asserted patentVuori exits without admitting liability or paying costs
Because the dismissal was filed before Vuori answered, the defendant incurred no formal merits exposure. The cost-neutral outcome — each party bearing its own attorneys' fees and expenses — means Vuori faced no fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285. No infringement finding was made. Vuori's freedom to operate with respect to US9092428B1 is not formally adjudicated, however, as no court ruling on validity or non-infringement was issued.
No liability, no cost awardWith-prejudice bar limits re-assertion against Vuori; broader portfolio risk remains
The with-prejudice nature of the dismissal as to the asserted patent closes the door on Linfo IP pursuing Vuori again under US9092428B1. Other companies in the digital retail, e-commerce, or content-discovery space operating similar text-discovery systems may still fall within the patent's asserted scope, as no court has ruled on validity. Companies in adjacent sectors should assess their exposure to this patent.
Re-assertion risk for third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Linfo IP, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Vuori, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey Eugene Kubiak | Attorney | Counsel for Linfo IP, LLCSearch 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 | Alan G. Laquer | Attorney | Counsel for Vuori, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eva C. Ramos | Attorney | Counsel for Vuori, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | J. Hampton Skelton | Attorney | Counsel for Vuori, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Vuori, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Skelton & Woody | Law Firm | Representing Vuori, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the text-discovery and content-UI patent space
Forward-looking patent intelligence for teams developing content discovery, text presentation, or e-commerce search interfaces — informed by the Linfo IP v. Vuori assertion.
Linfo IP's patent holdings in text and UI discovery
Linfo IP's assertion of US9092428B1 against an activewear retailer suggests an intent to enforce broadly across consumer-facing digital platforms. Mapping the full extent of Linfo IP's patent portfolio — including related families and continuation applications — reveals the scope of risk for companies operating text-driven interfaces and discovery tools.
PAE portfolio riskFiling trends in text-discovery and content-presentation patents
Patent filing activity around text content discovery, NLP-driven UI, and in-text information surfacing has accelerated alongside growth in e-commerce personalisation and AI-assisted search. Tracking filing trends in this space identifies which technical approaches are attracting the most IP protection — and where assertion risk is concentrating for product teams.
Filing trend watchVuori's patent and IP position in digital retail
Vuori operates as a digitally native apparel brand with significant e-commerce infrastructure. Assessing Vuori's own patent filings — if any — and its reliance on third-party platforms for content discovery and text presentation reveals the degree to which direct-to-consumer brands are investing in proprietary IP versus licensing commercial stacks that carry third-party assertion risk.
DTC brand IP postureAdjacent innovation in contextual text surfacing and semantic UI
Beyond the claim scope of US9092428B1, adjacent white space exists in semantic text enrichment, AI-driven in-content linking, and multimodal content discovery interfaces. R&D teams investing in next-generation content presentation — particularly for retail and media — should map this white space to identify protectable innovation that avoids existing assertion risk.
Innovation white spaceSimilar patent cases: text-discovery and UI patents in W.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement cases involving text-discovery, content presentation, and user interface patents filed in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the text-discovery patent IP landscape
Early voluntary dismissals by PAEs in the W.D. Texas signal portfolio-level enforcement patterns worth monitoring across digital and e-commerce sectors.
Rule 41 exit before answer preserves PAE optionality on other defendants
Linfo IP's use of Rule 41(a)(1) before Vuori answered avoided any adverse merits ruling on US9092428B1. This tactic is consistent with PAE strategies that withdraw from individual defendants while keeping the patent viable for assertion against others. Companies in similar technology spaces should not read this dismissal as a validity determination.
Cost-neutral dismissal avoids § 285 exposure for both sides
The mutual cost-bearing arrangement removes any fee-shifting risk under 35 U.S.C. § 285. For defendants facing similar actions from Ramey LLP or Linfo IP entities, the absence of a fee award here provides limited precedent on exceptional-case arguments — the case ended before any such motion could be fully litigated.
Linfo v Vuori — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed by Linfo IP, LLC pursuant to Federal Rule 41(a)(1). The dismissal notice states the action was dismissed with prejudice as to the asserted patent, US9092428B1. Each party was directed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The case closed on October 12, 2023, after 297 days.
Linfo IP asserted US9092428B1 (application number US13/709827), which covers a system, methods, and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content. No court ruling was issued on the validity or infringement of this patent before the case was dismissed.
A dismissal with prejudice as to the asserted patent means Linfo IP is barred from re-asserting US9092428B1 against Vuori in a future action. However, it does not constitute a finding of invalidity or non-infringement. The patent retains its presumption of validity, and Linfo IP remains free to assert it against other defendants whose products may fall within its claim scope.
Federal Rule 41(a)(1) permits a plaintiff to file a notice of voluntary dismissal without a court order, provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal notice states that Vuori had not answered or filed a motion for summary judgment, making the unilateral filing procedurally available to Linfo IP.
Linfo IP was represented by Ramey LLP, with attorneys Jeffrey Eugene Kubiak and William P. Ramey III. Vuori was represented by Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP and Skelton & Woody, with attorneys Alan G. Laquer, Eva C. Ramos, and J. Hampton Skelton appearing for the defendant.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.