InnoMemory v. Crockett National Bank: DDR Memory Patent Case Ends in Dismissal
Was möchten Sie als Nächstes tun?
Wählen Sie Ihren Weg entsprechend Ihren aktuellen Bedürfnissen:
📋 Fallzusammenfassung
| Fallbezeichnung | InnoMemory, LLC v. Crockett National Bank |
| Fallnummer | 5:22-cv-00903 (W.D. Tex.) |
| Gericht | US-Bezirksgericht für den westlichen Bezirk von Texas |
| Dauer | Aug 2022 – Oct 2023 14 months |
| Ergebnis | Dismissal with Prejudice (Stipulated) |
| Streitige Patente | |
| Beschuldigte Produkte | DDR memory (DDR2, DDR3, DDR4, LPDDR3, LPDDR4, LPDDR4X, LPDDR5) in servers, desktops, laptops, tablets, and ATMs |
Fallübersicht
Die Parteien
⚖️ Kläger
A patent assertion entity (PAE) focused on memory technology intellectual property, asserting patents against businesses that incorporate DDR memory into standard computing operations.
🛡️ Beklagter
A community financial institution based in Texas, involved in patent litigation for its everyday use of computing equipment incorporating DDR memory modules.
Die streitigen Patente
Two U.S. patents were asserted, both within the DDR (Double Data Rate) memory technology domain — a foundational semiconductor memory standard used universally in modern computing hardware:
- • U.S. Patent No. 7,057,960 B1 — directed to memory technology architecture
- • U.S. Patent No. 6,240,046 B1 — covering earlier-generation memory access or interface innovations
Using DDR Memory in your products or operations?
Check if your technology might infringe these or related patents before potential litigation.
Zeitplan des Rechtsstreits und Verfahrensgeschichte
| Beschwerde eingereicht | August 17, 2022 |
| Gemeinsamer Antrag auf Klageabweisung eingereicht | 18. Oktober 2023 |
| Gerichtsbeschluss zur Einstellung des Verfahrens | July 22, 2024 |
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas — a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs. The approximately 14-month period from filing to stipulated dismissal is consistent with pre-trial settlement timelines common in patent assertion entity cases where litigation costs incentivize early resolution. The case proceeded at the first-instance (district court) level and did not advance to claim construction, summary judgment motions, or trial prior to dismissal.
Ergebnis und rechtliche Bedeutung
Ergebnis
The case was resolved via a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed October 18, 2023, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court ordered the clerk to close the action, confirming that all claims, counterclaims, and defenses were dismissed with prejudice, and each party bears its own costs and attorneys’ fees. No damages award or injunctive relief was entered.
Rechtliche Bedeutung
This case contributes to the growing body of end-user patent assertion activity in the memory technology sector. While it produces no binding precedent, it reflects several dynamics relevant to practitioners:
- Downstream user targeting: Asserting DDR memory patents against banks and enterprises — rather than manufacturers — circumvents exhaustion defenses that would apply if licensed manufacturers were sued.
- Western District of Texas venue: Despite procedural reforms, the district remains a filing destination for patent plaintiffs.
- Pre-trial resolution economics: The case resolved without claim construction, suggesting litigation cost rather than legal merit drove the outcome.
The decision for each party to bear its own fees is notable, suggesting neither party pursued — or succeeded in — an exceptional case designation under Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. (2014).
Freedom-to-Operate-Analyse (FTO)
This case highlights critical IP risks for enterprises using ubiquitous memory technology. Choose your next step:
📋 Die Auswirkungen dieses Falls verstehen
Informieren Sie sich über die spezifischen Risiken und Auswirkungen dieses Rechtsstreits.
- Aktive Patente in diesem Technologiebereich anzeigen
- Sehen Sie, welche Unternehmen am aktivsten im Bereich Speicherpatente sind.
- Understand assertion trends against end-users
🔍 Das Risiko meines Produkts überprüfen
Führen Sie eine umfassende FTO-Analyse für Ihre eigene Technologie oder Ihr eigenes Produkt durch.
- Geben Sie Ihre Produktbeschreibung oder technischen Merkmale ein.
- KI identifiziert potenziell blockierende Patente
- Erhalten Sie einen umsetzbaren Risikobewertungsbericht
Hochrisikogebiet
Use of commodity DDR memory in enterprise hardware
2 geltend gemachte Patente
Plus others in PAE portfolio
Limited Design-Around
For standard DDR components
✅ Wichtigste Erkenntnisse
Stipulated dismissals under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) are self-executing and provide a procedurally clean exit mechanism.
Verwandte Rechtsprechung suchen →End-user infringement assertions require careful analysis of patent exhaustion doctrine before litigation.
Explore legal doctrines →Monitor PAE activity in memory technology patents; U.S. Patent Nos. 7,057,960 and 6,240,046 remain active in InnoMemory’s portfolio.
Track PAE portfolios →Mutual fee-bearing resolutions without exceptional case findings preserve both parties’ reputations in the litigation record.
Prozessakten analysieren →Häufig gestellte Fragen
U.S. Patent No. 7,057,960 B1 and U.S. Patent No. 6,240,046 B1, both directed to DDR memory technology.
The parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on October 18, 2023, with each party bearing its own costs. No public explanation for the settlement was provided.
It reinforces that end-user patent assertions in the memory space often resolve pre-trial, and that downstream technology users should implement IP risk management strategies proactively.
Sind Sie bereit, Ihre Patentstrategie zu stärken?
Schließen Sie sich den über 18.000 Fachleuten aus dem Bereich des geistigen Eigentums an, die PatSnap Eureka nutzen, um mit KI-gestützter Präzision Recherchen zum Stand der Technik durchzuführen, Patentanmeldungen zu erstellen und Wettbewerbslandschaften zu analysieren.
Referenzen
- PACER — Case 5:22-cv-00903, Western District of Texas
- USPTO Patent Full-Text Database — U.S. Patent No. 7,057,960 B1
- USPTO Patent Full-Text Database — U.S. Patent No. 6,240,046 B1
- Cornell Legal Information Institute – Bundeszivilprozessordnung § 41
- Supreme Court of the United States — Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.
Dieser Artikel dient ausschließlich zu Informationszwecken und stellt keine Rechtsberatung dar. Alle Angaben zu den Fällen stammen aus öffentlich zugänglichen Gerichtsakten. Informationen zu den Funktionen der Plattform finden Sie auf PatSnap.