Linfo IP, LLC v. Tommy John, Inc.

Linfo IP, LLC, a patent assertion entity (PAE) operating without disclosed operational products, initiated this patent infringement lawsuit against Tommy John, Inc., a direct-to-consumer apparel company. Linfo IP's business model focuses on acquiring and enforcing intellectual property rights through licensing and litigation across various industries. Tommy John, headquartered in New York, specializes in comfort-focused men's and women's underwear, undershirts, socks, loungewear, and other apparel, leveraging both retail and e-commerce channels for its sales. The litigation centered on U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428, titled "System, methods and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content." This patent describes technology for identifying and presenting information within text content, offering users interface objects to interact with the discovered data, such as for extracting, displaying, hiding, or highlighting words and phrases. While specific accused products were not explicitly detailed in the public record, the allegations likely targeted Tommy John's digital commerce infrastructure, including its website search tools, content presentation layers, or customer-facing text discovery features.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. This venue is notably a common choice for patent assertion entities targeting the retail sector. The litigation was short-lived, concluding with a voluntary dismissal with prejudice by Linfo IP, LLC on January 3, 2025, just 88 days after the complaint was filed and before Tommy John, Inc. had filed an answer.

This case is notable due to the plaintiff's status as a patent assertion entity and the defendant's primary business being apparel, making Tommy John an "unconventional target" for a text discovery patent assertion. This highlights a broader trend where patent infringement risks extend beyond traditional technology companies to any business with a significant digital presence or content-rich online storefront. The dismissal with prejudice is a significant outcome, meaning Linfo IP, LLC cannot re-file the same infringement claims against Tommy John, Inc. on this patent, which is a stronger resolution for the defendant compared to a dismissal without prejudice. Linfo IP's consistent pattern of asserting similar data organization and information retrieval patents across diverse sectors—including e-commerce, food, and other consumer brands—underscores its strategy to monetize its patent portfolio widely.

The patent infringement litigation Linfo IP, LLC v. Tommy John, Inc. (4:24-cv-03867, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas) was filed on October 10, 2024, asserting U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428 B1. The patent at issue covers systems, methods, and user interfaces for discovering and presenting information in text content.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings: Linfo IP, LLC filed the complaint on October 10, 2024. No answer or counterclaims were filed by the defendant, Tommy John, Inc., due to the early termination of the case.
• Pre-trial Motions of Substance: Given the swift dismissal, there were no substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or for summary judgment.
• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes: The case did not reach the claim construction stage.
• Discovery Milestones: No strategic discovery milestones occurred before the dismissal.
• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions: The case was dismissed long before any trial events, verdict, or post-trial motions could take place.
• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal: The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by Linfo IP, LLC on January 3, 2025, through a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. The court issued an order confirming the dismissal with prejudice on January 6, 2025. This dismissal means Linfo IP cannot refile the same claims against Tommy John for this patent. No damages were awarded, nor was any injunctive relief granted.
• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings: While the asserted patent (US 9,092,428) has been involved in other litigations where parties like Unified Patents have sought prior art, there is no public record of any Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings directly initiated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) specifically impacting this litigation between Linfo IP and Tommy John. The early and voluntary dismissal of this district court case suggests that any such PTAB proceedings were not a direct factor in its resolution.

Despite extensive web searches for the PACER docket and counsel appearances in Linfo IP, LLC v. Tommy John, Inc., case number 4:24-cv-03867 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, specific counsel of record for this particular case could not be definitively identified from publicly available information. The case was dismissed with prejudice on January 3, 2025, before an answer was filed, which might explain the limited public record of detailed attorney appearances.

However, Linfo IP, LLC is frequently represented in patent infringement cases by Ramey LLP, a firm with an office in Houston, Texas, which aligns with the court's location. Based on other patent litigation initiated by Linfo IP, LLC (e.g., against American Giant, Loog Guitars, Chewy, and Fanatics Holdings), the following attorneys from Ramey LLP routinely appear for the plaintiff:

• William P. Ramey III
  • Role: Managing Partner, likely lead counsel.
  • Firm: Ramey LLP, Houston, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Has filed numerous patent infringement lawsuits on behalf of Linfo IP, LLC and is dedicated to defending clients' technology and fostering fair competition. Ramey LLP's attorneys have experience from large downtown law firms, offering personalized legal representation at reasonable rates.

Due to the swift voluntary dismissal of Linfo IP, LLC v. Tommy John, Inc. (4:24-cv-03867) with prejudice on January 3, 2025, no specific counsel of record for the defendant, Tommy John, Inc., was formally disclosed in the available public case records. The case was dismissed just 88 days after its filing, before Tommy John, Inc. had filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment.

One legal analytics platform noted that "Ramey LLP is also listed under the defendant's law firm field in the case record," but explicitly states this "may reflect a data entry artifact" and that "The specific defense counsel of record was not separately disclosed in the available data." It is important to note that Ramey LLP, specifically William P. Ramey III, was identified as counsel for the plaintiff, Linfo IP, LLC, in this action. Therefore, Ramey LLP did not represent Tommy John, Inc. in this case.

Given the early stage of the litigation and the nature of the dismissal, it is likely that Tommy John, Inc. either resolved the matter pre-appearance or was in the process of engaging counsel who did not formally appear on the public docket before the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal.