Linfo Ip, LLC v. Trustpilot, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: July 6, 2026
• Docket: 25-1368
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-1368 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 07/06/2026

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

LINFO IP, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

TRUSTPILOT, INC., Defendant ______________________

2025-1368 ______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in No. 1:24-cv-02796-JMF, Judge Jesse M. Furman. ______________________

Decided: July 6, 2026 ______________________

WILLIAM PETERSON RAMEY, III, Ramey LLP, Houston, TX, for plaintiff-appellant. ______________________ Case: 25-1368 Document: 37 Page: 2 Filed: 07/06/2026

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, CHEN, Circuit Judge, and BISSOON, Chief District Judge. 1 PER CURIAM. Linfo IP, LLC (Linfo) appeals the United States Dis- trict Court for the Southern District of New York’s dismis- sal of its patent infringement action. See Linfo IP, LLC v. Trustpilot, Inc., 761 F. Supp. 3d 679, 683 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) (Decision). The district court reviewed the claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428 (’428 patent) under the two-step framework outlined in Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Inter- national, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), and determined they were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Decision, 761 F. Supp. 3d at 683. While this appeal was pending, Linfo and Trustpilot, Inc. (Trustpilot) entered into a settlement agreement (Agreement) in which Linfo granted Trustpilot a license to the ’428 patent. Because we find that Linfo and Trustpi- lot’s Agreement ended the controversy between the parties, we dismiss the appeal as moot. BACKGROUND Linfo is the owner of the ’428 patent, entitled “System, Methods and User Interface for Discovering and Present- ing Information in Text Content.” The ’428 patent dis- closes “[a] system with methods and user interface for discovering and presenting information in text content with different view formats.” ’428 patent at Abstract. On April 12, 2024, Linfo initiated this litigation against Trustpilot. Linfo alleged that Trustpilot, through its web- site which enables users to review and rate businesses, di- rectly and indirectly infringed claims 1–20 of the ’428 patent. Decision, 761 F. Supp. 3d at 683–84. In response,

1 Honorable Cathy Bissoon, Chief District Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. Case: 25-1368 Document: 37 Page: 3 Filed: 07/06/2026

LINFO IP, LLC v. TRUSTPILOT, INC. 3

Trustpilot filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the claims of the ’428 patent are ineligible under § 101. Id. at 684. The district court granted Trustpilot’s motion, finding the claims were invalid under the Alice framework, and dismissed Linfo’s infringement suit. Id. at 690. Linfo timely appealed. Trustpilot declined to partici- pate and informed the court that it had entered into an agreement with Linfo. See ECF No. 17. In response, we ordered Linfo to provide (1) a copy of the Agreement with Trustpilot and (2) supplemental briefing addressing whether this appeal was moot. ECF No. 33. Linfo submit- ted additional briefing and the Agreement in compliance with our order. See ECF Nos. 34 (Suppl. Br.), 35 (Agree- ment). 2 DISCUSSION Article III of the Constitution limits our jurisdiction to “cases and controversies.” We have described the case and controversy requirement as limiting our review to “con- crete, living contests between adversaries.” Aqua Marine Supply v. AIM Machining, Inc., 247 F.3d 1216, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). “[A]n actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 71–72 (2013) (citation omitted). On appeal, a case becomes moot “when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest

2 Section 5 of the Agreement states its terms are con- fidential and limits disclosures “to the extent reasonably necessary.” Agreement § 5. We thus limit our disclosures of the Agreement’s terms to those we deem “reasonably necessary” to conduct our jurisdictional inquiry. Our dis- cussion of the relevant terms is also in line with Linfo’s de- scription of the Agreement in its supplemental briefing. Case: 25-1368 Document: 37 Page: 4 Filed: 07/06/2026

in the outcome.” Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013). Linfo and Trustpilot’s Agreement triggers a jurisdic- tional inquiry for this court because, if the Agreement ended the controversy between the parties, we must dis- miss this case as moot. See Genesis, 569 U.S. at 72. Be- cause the Agreement settled all claims in the underlying lawsuit, we determine the Agreement has ended the con- troversy. Section 2.1 of the Agreement grants Trustpilot a “worldwide and irrevocable license” to “make . . . use, offer for sale, [and] sell” products or services covered by the ’428 patent “[s]ubject to [Trustpilot’s] payment of the Settle- ment Fee.” Agreement § 2.1(a); see also id. §§ 1.3–1.4 (de- fining “Licensed Patents” as including Linfo’s “Patents-in- Suit”). The Agreement further states that “[i]n considera- tion of the settlement of all claims in the Lawsuits, [and] the license and covenants granted in Section 2.1 of this Agree- ment,” Trustpilot’s payment of the Settlement Fee “shall be made within forty-five (45) business days of the Effective Date of this Agreement.” Id. § 3.1 (emphasis added). The term of the Agreement runs from the Effective Date, March 8, 2025, “until the expiration of the last to expire of the Li- censed Patents.” Id. § 8; see also id. at 1, 12. Though the Agreement requires Trustpilot to “cove- nant[] and warrant[] that it shall not contest or assist in the contest in any forum, including Federal Courts . . . that the Licensed Patents are valid and enforceable,” it includes a carve out for Trustpilot’s ability to participate in this ap- peal. Id. § 2.1(d) (“[N]othing in this Paragraph or in this Agreement shall prevent [Trustpilot] from fully participat- ing in the pending Linfo IP, LLC v. Trustpilot, Inc., [Case] No. 25-1358 appeal.”). The Agreement also notes that if the Southern District of New York lawsuit “resumes in any manner, or the Federal Circuit . . . remands [this] case to Case: 25-1368 Document: 37 Page: 5 Filed: 07/06/2026

LINFO IP, LLC v. TRUSTPILOT, INC. 5

the District Court, [Linfo] . . . shall file a Stipulated Dis- missal with Prejudice.” Id. § 4(b). Altogether, the Agreement demonstrates that Trustpi- lot no longer has a stake in the outcome of this litigation. We encountered a similar situation in Aqua Marine, in which the patent owner, Aqua Marine, contested the dis- trict court’s determination that its patent was invalid. 247 F.3d at 1218. Before the notice of appeal was filed, the par- ties entered into an agreement “to settle all the claims now pending between them” which required that the parties file a joint proposed order to vacate the district court’s invalid- ity judgment. Id. at 1218–19. The district court refused, and Aqua Marine persisted in its appeal. Id. at 1219. We noted that “[w]hile in some circumstances the op- posing party’s lack of interest will not bar adjudication on the merits, the outcome is different when the appellant is responsible for the opposing party’s lack of continued inter- est, for example, as here by a settlement.” Id. at 1220 (in- ternal citation omitted) (emphasis added). In dismissing Aqua Marine’s appeal, we held, “where, as here, the alleged infringer has settled the infringement issue, and no longer professes any interest in defending its declaratory judg- ment of invalidity, the case has become moot as a result of the voluntary act of the patentee.” Id. Here, Linfo is responsible for Trustpilot’s lack of inter- est in this case and thus mooted this appeal. Linfo may have an interest in further asserting the ’428 patent, but, like the patent owner in Aqua Marine, its actions have pre- cluded its invalidity challenge. The Agreement’s grant of a license to the ’428 patent solves the issue of infringement upon which this lawsuit is premised. See Agreement § 2.1(a). If the district court litigation “resumes in any manner,” Linfo will dismiss the action with prejudice. See id. § 4.1(b). Linfo and Trustpilot are no longer adversaries in this litigation; instead, due to the settlement, Trustpilot Case: 25-1368 Document: 37 Page: 6 Filed: 07/06/2026

“no longer professes any interest in defending” the invalid- ity determination, and, as such, “the case has become moot as a result of the voluntary act of the patentee.” Aqua Ma- rine, 247 F.3d at 1220. In supplemental briefing, Linfo argues the appeal is not moot because § 2.1(d)’s preservation of Trustpilot’s right to fully participate in this appeal, § 4(b)’s discussion of the district court litigation, and the recitals’ language all indicate the parties understood a controversy still exists between the parties. Suppl. Br. 2–4. Further, Linfo argues that this court’s decision in Avid Identification Systems, Inc. v. Crystal Import Corp., 603 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2010) demonstrates Trustpilot’s freedom to participate in the ap- peal is sufficient to prove there is a live controversy. Suppl. Br. 7–9. Neither argument is availing. First, Linfo’s position is plainly contradicted by § 3.1 which states the Settlement Fee is “[i]n consideration of the settlement of all claims in the Lawsuits.” Agreement § 3.1 (emphasis added). This term looks very similar to the one referenced in Aqua Marine that led to our dismissal. See 247 F.3d at 1219 (noting a provision of the settlement agreement stating the parties “have now entered into an agreement to settle all the claims now pending between them”). Linfo also highlights a recital which states, “[whereas], the Parties disagree as to the validity, enforceability, and infringement of the Patents-In-Suit.” Agreement at 1. This sole statement is unpersuasive. It defies logic to con- tend that, after Trustpilot has been granted a license to the ’428 patent, it still has a stake in the patent’s “validity, en- forceability, and infringement.” Id. Further, such a con- tention is not borne out by Trustpilot’s actions; Trustpilot declined to participate in this appeal shortly after the Agreement’s effective date. See ECF No. 17. Second, Linfo misreads Crystal Import in arguing that stipulations to a case or controversy are sufficient to Case: 25-1368 Document: 37 Page: 7 Filed: 07/06/2026

LINFO IP, LLC v. TRUSTPILOT, INC. 7

demonstrate Article III standing. Though we stated in Crystal Import that “[a] live controversy still exists because [Defendant] remained free under the settlement agree- ment to oppose [the] appeal on the merits,” the settlement agreement also included consideration that was tied to the outcome of the litigation. 603 F.3d at 971–72. In Allflex USA, Inc. v. Avid Identification Systems, Inc., we discussed the importance of consideration in determining mootness of an appeal. 704 F.3d 1362, 1367–69 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Spe- cifically, we explained how the value of consideration tied to a litigation’s outcome influences mootness. Id. In doing so, we compared the consideration at issue in Allflex to the consideration in Crystal Import, which equaled “the en- tirety of the jury award for patent infringement, which [De- fendant] would have been legally obligated to pay . . . if the ’326 patent were not held unenforceable.” Crystal Import, 603 F.3d at 971–72. In contrast, the consideration in All- flex was “completely untethered to the value of any of the issues on appeal,” and thus we dismissed the case. See 704 F.3d at 1369. Rather than supporting Linfo’s arguments, these cases demonstrate that “the arrangement leading to the one- party appeal” must “reflect[] the existence of a legitimate, continuing case or controversy.” Id. at 1369. Linfo has failed to prove Trustpilot has a stake in this appeal, and thus this appeal lacks a “legitimate, continuing case or con- troversy.” CONCLUSION We have reviewed the remainder of Linfo’s arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss. DISMISSED COSTS No costs.