IP Verse

Linfo Ip, Llc V. Trustpilot, Inc. - 1:24-cv-02796

Explore the details of the Linfo Ip, Llc V. Trustpilot, Inc. case under case number 1:24-cv-02796 involving a cause of action for Patent Infringement. Review key information about the parties involved, the patents in question, and the docket entries.

Case Details

Case Number
1:24-cv-02796
Filing Date
Apr 12, 2024
Cause of Action
Patent Infringement
Status
-
Nature of Suit
Patent

Parties Involved in the Case

The following parties are involved in this case, with their respective legal representatives for the case.

NameRepresented By
Linfo IP, LLC -
Trustpilot, Inc. -

Patents Involved in the Case

Patents not found - set an alert to get notified when patents are added.

Docket Entries

The Docket Entries section provides a chronological list of all significant filings and court actions in this case.

DateDocket EntryType

Set alerts for critical docket entry

Aug 5, 2024 ORDER, It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file any amended complaint by August 26, 2024. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 15.1, available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rules, any amended complaint should be filed with a redline showing all di fferences between the original and revised filings. Plaintiff will not be given any further opportunity to amend the complaint to address issues raised by the motion to dismiss. If no amended complaint is filed, Plaintiff shall file any opposition to the motion to dismiss by August 26, 2024. Defendant's reply, if any, shall be filed by September 2, 2024. Finally, it is further ORDERED that the initial pretrial conference previously scheduled for August 9, 2024 is adjourned sine die. SO ORDERED. ( Amended Pleadings due by 8/26/2024., Responses due by 8/26/2024, Replies due by 9/2/2024.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/5/24) (yv)PACER Document
Sep 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)PACER Document
Jan 3, 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, Tr ustpilot'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 w ould 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 state ment 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 res ponse 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 39;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.PACER Document
Jan 3, 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. S ee 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. Mgm t. 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) (citin g 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 allegat ions 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., Cl ark 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 T echnoMarine 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 opp ortunity 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)PACER Document