Trustpilot Inc

General

Total Cases1

Active Cases--

Patents--

CourtsS.D. New York

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

--

--

--

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 )	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)
01/03/25	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 )	OPINION AND ORDER re: [31] MOTION to Dismiss . filed by Trustpilot, Inc. For the foregoing reasons, 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. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 31, to enter judgment in favor of Trustpilot consistent with this Opinion and Order, and to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/3/25) (yv) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing. (Entered: 01/03/2025) OPINION AND ORDER re: [31] MOTION to Dismiss . filed by Trustpilot, Inc. For the foregoing reasons, 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. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 31, to enter judgment in favor of Trustpilot consistent with this Opinion and Order, and to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/3/25) (yv) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing. (Entered: 01/03/2025)
10/07/24	Linfo IP LLC v. Trustpilot Inc 1:24-CV-02796 ( S.D. NY )	DECLARATION of Andrew B. Kratenstein in Support re: [31] MOTION to Dismiss .. Document filed by Trustpilot, Inc.. (Attachments: # [1] Exhibit 1: Linfo v. Academy Resp. Br, # [2] Exhibit 2: Princess Polly Resp. Br, # [3] Exhibit 3: Academy Op. Br).(Kratenstein, Andrew) (Entered: 10/07/2024)
10/07/24	Linfo IP LLC v. Trustpilot Inc 1:24-CV-02796 ( S.D. NY )	REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: [31] MOTION to Dismiss . . Document filed by Trustpilot, Inc...(Kratenstein, Andrew) (Entered: 10/07/2024)
09/30/24	Linfo IP LLC v. Trustpilot Inc 1:24-CV-02796 ( S.D. NY )	RESPONSE to Motion re: [31] MOTION to Dismiss . . Document filed by Linfo IP, LLC. (Attachments: # [1] Proposed Order Denying Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint).(Hoffman, David) (Entered: 09/30/2024)
09/17/24	Linfo IP LLC v. Trustpilot Inc 1:24-CV-02796 ( S.D. NY )	ORDER denying as moot [27] Motion to Dismiss In light of Defendants new motion to dismiss, see ECF No. 31, Defendant's earlier motion to dismiss filed at ECF No. 27 is hereby DENIED as moot. Plaintiff's opposition to the new motion to dismiss is due by September 30, 2024. Defendants reply, if any, is due by October 7, 2024. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 27. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/17/2024) (jca) (Entered: 09/17/2024) ORDER denying as moot [27] Motion to Dismiss In light of Defendants new motion to dismiss, see ECF No. 31, Defendant's earlier motion to dismiss filed at ECF No. 27 is hereby DENIED as moot. Plaintiff's opposition to the new motion to dismiss is due by September 30, 2024. Defendants reply, if any, is due by October 7, 2024. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 27. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/17/2024) (jca) (Entered: 09/17/2024)
09/17/24	Linfo IP LLC v. Trustpilot Inc 1:24-CV-02796 ( S.D. NY )	Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 9/30/2024 Replies due by 10/7/2024. (jca) (Entered: 09/17/2024)