On July 9, 2025, Judge J. Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y) found that collateral estoppel barred plaintiff Linfo IP, LLC from relitigating the validity of its asserted patent and dismissed Linfo’s infringement claims against Aero Global, LLC with prejudice. In January 2025, Judge Jesse M. Furman ruled that Linfo’s asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,092,428 is invalid for being directed to subject matter not eligible for patenting pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Linfo IP, LLC v. Trustpilot, Inc., 761 F. Supp. 3d 679, 686 (S.D.N.Y. 2025). In the seminal Blonder-Tongue case, the Supreme Court held that once a patent is declared invalid, collateral estoppel (also known as issue preclusion) prevents the patentee from relitigating validity even in a lawsuit filed against a different defendant. Accordingly, Judge Oetken found that “Linfo is collaterally estopped from asserting infringement of the ’428 Patent here.”
Then, in “belt and suspenders” fashion, the Court found that “[e]ven if preclusion did not apply, Defendant's motion [for judgment of invalidity on the pleadings] would be granted on the merits for the reasons stated in Judge Furman’s opinion,” i.e., “the ’428 Patent’s claims are directed to the abstract idea of extracting and presenting information,” and “do[] not add an inventive concept to that abstract idea.”
Linfo IP, LLC v. Aero Global, LLC, No. 24-CV-2952 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2025)
