This case was last updated from PACER on 10/20/2021 at 07:35:52 (UTC).

LINFO IP, LLC v. Walmart, Inc.

Case Summary

On October 19, 2021, Linfo IP, LLC (“Linfo” or “Plaintiff”), represented by William P. Ramey, III attorney at Ramey & Schwaller, LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Walmart, Inc. (“Walmart” or “Defendant”), seeking injunctive relief and damages along with pre- and post-judgement interest for the alleged infringement of United States Patents owned by Plaintiff. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Texas with Judge Alan D. Albright presiding.

 

Plaintiff filed this complaint for the alleged infringement of United States Patent No. 9,092,428 (“the ‘428 patent”) entitled “System, methods and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text Content” (referred to as the “Patent-in-Suit”) owned by Plaintiff.

 

In the complaint Plaintiff alleged that, “The ‘428 patent relates to a novel and improved methods and apparatuses for conducting electronic commerce.  WALMART maintains, operates, and administers systems that facilitate discovering and presenting information in text content with different view formats that infringes one or more claims of the ‘428 patent, including one or more of claims 1-20, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Defendant put the inventions claimed by the ‘428 Patent into service (i.e., used them); but for Defendant’s actions, the claimed-inventions embodiments involving Defendant’s products and services would never have been put into service. Defendant’s acts complained of herein caused those claimed-invention embodiments as a whole to perform, and Defendant’s procurement of monetary and commercial benefit from it.”

 

Plaintiff further alleged that, “WALMART has and continues to induce infringement. WALMART has actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers and/or the customers of its related companies), and continues to do so, on how to use its products and services (e.g., discovering and presenting information in text content with different view formats) such as to cause infringement of one or more of claims 1–20 of the ‘428 patent, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Moreover, WALMART has known of the ‘428 patent and the technology underlying it from at least the date of issuance of the patent.”

 

Plaintiff also alleged that, “WALMART has and continues to contributorily infringe. WALMART has actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers and/or the customers of its related companies), and continues to do so, on how to use its products and services (e.g., discovering and presenting information in text content with different view formats) and related services such as to cause infringement of one or more of claims 1–20 of the ‘428 patent, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. WALMART has caused and will continue to cause LINFO damage by direct and indirect infringement of (including inducing infringement of) the claims of the ‘428 patent.”

 

There is only one claim for relief laid down by Plaintiff which deals with the alleged infringement of the Patent-in-Suit.

 

In its prayer for relief Plaintiff has requested the court to award Plaintiff damages in an amount sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for Defendant’s infringement of the ‘428 patent in an amount no less than a reasonable royalty or lost profits, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest and costs. Further, Plaintiff requested the court to declare this case to be “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and award LINFO its attorneys’ fees, expenses and awards a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant and those in association with Defendant from infringing the claims of the Patents-in-Suit.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    6:21-CV-01089

  • Filing Date:

    10/19/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Intellectual Property - Patent

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Alan D Albright

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

LINFO IP, LLC

Defendant

Walmart, Inc.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

William P. Ramey, III

Attorney at Ramey & Schwaller, LLP

5020 Montose Blvd., Suite 800

Houston, TX 77006

 

Court Documents

#1

1 #1

Exhibit US9092428

1 #2

Civil Cover Sheet

#2

#3

#4

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/19/2021
  • DocketCase assigned to Judge Alan D Albright. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (lad) (Entered: 10/19/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) Summons Issued as to Walmart, Inc.. (lad) (Entered: 10/19/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2021
  • DocketAll parties shall comply with the Standing Orders located at https://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/judges-information/standing-orders/. (lad) (Entered: 10/19/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS by LINFO IP, LLC. (Ramey, William) (Entered: 10/19/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120). AO 120 forwarded to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (Ramey, William) (Entered: 10/19/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0542-15349280), filed by LINFO IP, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit US9092428, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Ramey, William) (Entered: 10/19/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where WALMART is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer William P. Ramey, III