Linfo Ip, LLC v. Trustpilot, Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 P ETERSON R AMEY , III, Ramey LLP, Houston,
TX, for plaintiff-appellant.
______________________
Case: 25-1368 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 07/06/2026

-- 1 of 7 --

LINFO IP, LLC v. TRUSTPILOT, INC. 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, CHEN, Circuit Judge, and
BISSOON, Chief District Judge.1
P ER 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: 2 Filed: 07/06/2026

-- 2 of 7 --

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
D ISCUSSION
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: 3 Filed: 07/06/2026

-- 3 of 7 --

LINFO IP, LLC v. TRUSTPILOT, INC. 4
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: 4 Filed: 07/06/2026

-- 4 of 7 --

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: 5 Filed: 07/06/2026

-- 5 of 7 --

LINFO IP, LLC v. TRUSTPILOT, INC. 6
“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: 6 Filed: 07/06/2026

-- 6 of 7 --

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.
Case: 25-1368 Document: 37 Page: 7 Filed: 07/06/2026

-- 7 of 7 --