Linfo IP LLC

General

Total Cases96

Active Cases21

Patents38

CourtsW.D. Texas S.D. Texas E.D. Texas

TypeNPE

Elite Ratings

--

--

--

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

L2

E

PTAB

L2

D

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
01/08/25	Linfo IP LLC v. Trustpilot Inc 1:24-CV-02796 ( S.D. NY )	NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT from [37] Memorandum & Opinion,,,,,,,,,, [38] Clerk's Judgment,,,,,,,,,,. Form 7 and Form 22 are due within 14 days. Document filed by Linfo IP, LLC. Filing fee $ 605.00, receipt number ANYSDC-30428089..(Hoffman, David) Modified on 1/8/2025 (km). (Entered: 01/08/2025)
01/08/25	Linfo IP LLC v. Trustpilot Inc 1:24-CV-02796 ( S.D. NY )	NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT from [37] Memorandum & Opinion,,,,,,,,,, [38] Clerk's Judgment,,,,,,,,,,. Form 7 and Form 22 are due within 14 days. Document filed by Linfo IP, LLC. Filing fee $ 605.00, receipt number ANYSDC-30428089..(Hoffman, David) Modified on 1/8/2025 (km). (Entered: 01/08/2025)
01/08/25	Linfo IP LLC v. Trustpilot Inc 1:24-CV-02796 ( S.D. NY )	Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: [40] Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit.(km) (Entered: 01/08/2025)
01/08/25	Linfo IP LLC v. Trustpilot Inc 1:24-CV-02796 ( S.D. NY )	Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: [40] Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit.(km) (Entered: 01/08/2025)
01/07/25	Linfo IP LLC v. DYLN Inc 7:24-CV-00302 ( W.D. TX )	ORDER. Signed by Judge David Counts. (slt) (Entered: 01/07/2025)
01/06/25	Linfo IP LLC v. DYLN Inc 7:24-CV-00302 ( W.D. TX )	NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Linfo IP, LLC (Ramey, William) (Entered: 01/06/2025)
01/03/25	Linfo IP LLC v. Trustpilot Inc 1:24-CV-02796 ( S.D. NY )	AO 120 FORM PATENT - CASE TERMINATED - SUBMITTED. In compliance with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 290, the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is hereby advised that a final decision was rendered on 1/3/2025 in a court action filed on the following patent(s) in the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York. Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office electronically notified via Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF).(km) (Entered: 01/03/2025) AO 120 FORM PATENT - CASE TERMINATED - SUBMITTED. In compliance with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 290, the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is hereby advised that a final decision was rendered on 1/3/2025 in a court action filed on the following patent(s) in the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York. Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office electronically notified via Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF).(km) (Entered: 01/03/2025)
01/03/25	Linfo IP LLC v. Trustpilot Inc 1:24-CV-02796 ( S.D. NY )	AO 120 FORM PATENT - CASE TERMINATED - SUBMITTED. In compliance with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 290, the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is hereby advised that a final decision was rendered on 1/3/2025 in a court action filed on the following patent(s) in the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York. Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office electronically notified via Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF).(km) (Entered: 01/03/2025) AO 120 FORM PATENT - CASE TERMINATED - SUBMITTED. In compliance with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 290, the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is hereby advised that a final decision was rendered on 1/3/2025 in a court action filed on the following patent(s) in the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York. Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office electronically notified via Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF).(km) (Entered: 01/03/2025)
01/03/25	Linfo IP LLC v. Trustpilot Inc 1:24-CV-02796 ( S.D. NY )	CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: [37] Memorandum & Opinion in favor of Trustpilot, Inc. against Linfo IP, LLC. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated January 3, 2025, the 428 Patent's claims are directed to an abstract idea and, on that basis, not eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, Trustpilot's motion to dismiss must be and is GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED. Linfo requests leave to amend. See Pl.'s Oppn 13-14. Although leave to amend should be freely given "when justice so requires," Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), it is "within the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny leave to amend, Broidy Cap. Mgmt. LLC v. Benomar, 944 F.3d 436, 447 (2d Cir. 2019). Here, the problem with Linfo's claims is substantive, so amendment would be futile. See, e.g., Roundtree v. NYC, No. 19-CV-2475 (JMF), 2021 WL 1667193, at 6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2021) (citing cases); Ghaly Devices, 443 F. Supp. 3d at 434 (denying leave to replead where patent claims were found ineligible). Notably, in seeking leave to amend, Linfo states only that it "is warranted, to permit [P]laintiff to assert factual allegations and theories, so that Plaintiffs case can be adjudicated on its merits." Pl.s Oppn 13-14. But this conclusory statement offers no suggestion that Linfo is in possession of facts that would cure the problems with its claims. See, e.g., Clark v. Kitt, No. 12-CV-8061 (CS), 2014 WL 4054284, at 15 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2014) ("A plaintiff need not be given leave to amend if [it] fails to specify how amendment would cure the pleading deficiencies in [its] complaint."); accord TechnoMarine SA v. Giftports, Inc., 758 F.3d 493, 505-06 (2d Cir. 2014). Finally, the Court granted Linfo leave to amend in response to Trustpilot's first motion to dismiss and explicitly warned that it would "not be given any further opportunity to amend the complaint to address issues raised by the motion to dismiss." ECF No. 29. "Plaintiffs failure to fix deficiencies in its previous pleadings is alone sufficient ground to deny leave to amend sua sponte." Transeo S.A.R.L. v. Bessemer Venture Partners VI L.P., 936 F. Supp. 2d 376, 415 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing cases)). Accordingly, Linfo's request for leave to amend is DENIED. Judgment is entered in favor of Trustpilot; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Tammi M Hellwig on 1/3/2025) (Attachments: # [1] Appeal Package) (km) (Entered: 01/03/2025) CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: [37] Memorandum & Opinion in favor of Trustpilot, Inc. against Linfo IP, LLC. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated January 3, 2025, the 428 Patent's claims are directed to an abstract idea and, on that basis, not eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, Trustpilot's motion to dismiss must be and is GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED. Linfo requests leave to amend. See Pl.'s Oppn 13-14. Although leave to amend should be freely given "when justice so requires," Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), it is "within the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny leave to amend, Broidy Cap. Mgmt. LLC v. Benomar, 944 F.3d 436, 447 (2d Cir. 2019). Here, the problem with Linfo's claims is substantive, so amendment would be futile. See, e.g., Roundtree v. NYC, No. 19-CV-2475 (JMF), 2021 WL 1667193, at 6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2021) (citing cases); Ghaly Devices, 443 F. Supp. 3d at 434 (denying leave to replead where patent claims were found ineligible). Notably, in seeking leave to amend, Linfo states only that it "is warranted, to permit [P]laintiff to assert factual allegations and theories, so that Plaintiffs case can be adjudicated on its merits." Pl.s Oppn 13-14. But this conclusory statement offers no suggestion that Linfo is in possession of facts that would cure the problems with its claims. See, e.g., Clark v. Kitt, No. 12-CV-8061 (CS), 2014 WL 4054284, at 15 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2014) ("A plaintiff need not be given leave to amend if [it] fails to specify how amendment would cure the pleading deficiencies in [its] complaint."); accord TechnoMarine SA v. Giftports, Inc., 758 F.3d 493, 505-06 (2d Cir. 2014). Finally, the Court granted Linfo leave to amend in response to Trustpilot's first motion to dismiss and explicitly warned that it would "not be given any further opportunity to amend the complaint to address issues raised by the motion to dismiss." ECF No. 29. "Plaintiffs failure to fix deficiencies in its previous pleadings is alone sufficient ground to deny leave to amend sua sponte." Transeo S.A.R.L. v. Bessemer Venture Partners VI L.P., 936 F. Supp. 2d 376, 415 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing cases)). Accordingly, Linfo's request for leave to amend is DENIED. Judgment is entered in favor of Trustpilot; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Tammi M Hellwig on 1/3/2025) (Attachments: # [1] Appeal Package) (km) (Entered: 01/03/2025)
01/03/25	Linfo IP LLC v. Trustpilot Inc 1:24-CV-02796 ( S.D. NY )	CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: [37] Memorandum & Opinion in favor of Trustpilot, Inc. against Linfo IP, LLC. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated January 3, 2025, the 428 Patent's claims are directed to an abstract idea and, on that basis, not eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, Trustpilot's motion to dismiss must be and is GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED. Linfo requests leave to amend. See Pl.'s Oppn 13-14. Although leave to amend should be freely given "when justice so requires," Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), it is "within the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny leave to amend, Broidy Cap. Mgmt. LLC v. Benomar, 944 F.3d 436, 447 (2d Cir. 2019). Here, the problem with Linfo's claims is substantive, so amendment would be futile. See, e.g., Roundtree v. NYC, No. 19-CV-2475 (JMF), 2021 WL 1667193, at 6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2021) (citing cases); Ghaly Devices, 443 F. Supp. 3d at 434 (denying leave to replead where patent claims were found ineligible). Notably, in seeking leave to amend, Linfo states only that it "is warranted, to permit [P]laintiff to assert factual allegations and theories, so that Plaintiffs case can be adjudicated on its merits." Pl.s Oppn 13-14. But this conclusory statement offers no suggestion that Linfo is in possession of facts that would cure the problems with its claims. See, e.g., Clark v. Kitt, No. 12-CV-8061 (CS), 2014 WL 4054284, at 15 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2014) ("A plaintiff need not be given leave to amend if [it] fails to specify how amendment would cure the pleading deficiencies in [its] complaint."); accord TechnoMarine SA v. Giftports, Inc., 758 F.3d 493, 505-06 (2d Cir. 2014). Finally, the Court granted Linfo leave to amend in response to Trustpilot's first motion to dismiss and explicitly warned that it would "not be given any further opportunity to amend the complaint to address issues raised by the motion to dismiss." ECF No. 29. "Plaintiffs failure to fix deficiencies in its previous pleadings is alone sufficient ground to deny leave to amend sua sponte." Transeo S.A.R.L. v. Bessemer Venture Partners VI L.P., 936 F. Supp. 2d 376, 415 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing cases)). Accordingly, Linfo's request for leave to amend is DENIED. Judgment is entered in favor of Trustpilot; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Tammi M Hellwig on 1/3/2025) (Attachments: # [1] Appeal Package) (km) (Entered: 01/03/2025) CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: [37] Memorandum & Opinion in favor of Trustpilot, Inc. against Linfo IP, LLC. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated January 3, 2025, the 428 Patent's claims are directed to an abstract idea and, on that basis, not eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, Trustpilot's motion to dismiss must be and is GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED. Linfo requests leave to amend. See Pl.'s Oppn 13-14. Although leave to amend should be freely given "when justice so requires," Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), it is "within the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny leave to amend, Broidy Cap. Mgmt. LLC v. Benomar, 944 F.3d 436, 447 (2d Cir. 2019). Here, the problem with Linfo's claims is substantive, so amendment would be futile. See, e.g., Roundtree v. NYC, No. 19-CV-2475 (JMF), 2021 WL 1667193, at 6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2021) (citing cases); Ghaly Devices, 443 F. Supp. 3d at 434 (denying leave to replead where patent claims were found ineligible). Notably, in seeking leave to amend, Linfo states only that it "is warranted, to permit [P]laintiff to assert factual allegations and theories, so that Plaintiffs case can be adjudicated on its merits." Pl.s Oppn 13-14. But this conclusory statement offers no suggestion that Linfo is in possession of facts that would cure the problems with its claims. See, e.g., Clark v. Kitt, No. 12-CV-8061 (CS), 2014 WL 4054284, at 15 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2014) ("A plaintiff need not be given leave to amend if [it] fails to specify how amendment would cure the pleading deficiencies in [its] complaint."); accord TechnoMarine SA v. Giftports, Inc., 758 F.3d 493, 505-06 (2d Cir. 2014). Finally, the Court granted Linfo leave to amend in response to Trustpilot's first motion to dismiss and explicitly warned that it would "not be given any further opportunity to amend the complaint to address issues raised by the motion to dismiss." ECF No. 29. "Plaintiffs failure to fix deficiencies in its previous pleadings is alone sufficient ground to deny leave to amend sua sponte." Transeo S.A.R.L. v. Bessemer Venture Partners VI L.P., 936 F. Supp. 2d 376, 415 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (citing cases)). Accordingly, Linfo's request for leave to amend is DENIED. Judgment is entered in favor of Trustpilot; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Tammi M Hellwig on 1/3/2025) (Attachments: # [1] Appeal Package) (km) (Entered: 01/03/2025)