InnoMemory v. Crockett National Bank: DDR Memory Patent Case Ends in Dismissal
Que souhaitez-vous faire ensuite ?
Choisissez votre parcours en fonction de vos besoins actuels :
📋 Résumé de l'affaire
| Nom de l'affaire | InnoMemory, LLC v. Crockett National Bank |
| Numéro de dossier | 5:22-cv-00903 (W.D. Tex.) |
| Tribunal | Tribunal fédéral de première instance pour le district ouest du Texas |
| Durée | Aug 2022 – Oct 2023 14 months |
| Résultat | Dismissal with Prejudice (Stipulated) |
| Brevets en cause | |
| Produits incriminés | DDR memory (DDR2, DDR3, DDR4, LPDDR3, LPDDR4, LPDDR4X, LPDDR5) in servers, desktops, laptops, tablets, and ATMs |
Aperçu du dossier
Les parties
⚖️ Demandeur
A patent assertion entity (PAE) focused on memory technology intellectual property, asserting patents against businesses that incorporate DDR memory into standard computing operations.
🛡️ Défendeur
A community financial institution based in Texas, involved in patent litigation for its everyday use of computing equipment incorporating DDR memory modules.
Les brevets en cause
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.
Chronologie du litige et historique de la procédure
| Plainte déposée | August 17, 2022 |
| Demande conjointe de rejet déposée | 18 octobre 2023 |
| Décision judiciaire clôturant l'affaire | 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.
Résultat et portée juridique
Résultat
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.
Signification juridique
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).
Analyse de la liberté d'exploitation (FTO)
This case highlights critical IP risks for enterprises using ubiquitous memory technology. Choose your next step:
📋 Comprendre l'impact de cette affaire
Découvrez les risques et les implications spécifiques liés à ce litige.
- Consulter les brevets en vigueur dans ce domaine technologique
- Découvrez quelles entreprises sont les plus actives dans le domaine des brevets liés à la mémoire.
- Understand assertion trends against end-users
🔍 Vérifier les risques liés à mon produit
Effectuez une analyse FTO complète pour votre propre technologie ou produit.
- Saisissez la description de votre produit ou ses caractéristiques techniques.
- L'IA identifie les brevets susceptibles de constituer un obstacle
- Obtenir un rapport d'évaluation des risques exploitable
Zone à haut risque
Use of commodity DDR memory in enterprise hardware
2 brevets revendiqués
Plus others in PAE portfolio
Limited Design-Around
For standard DDR components
✅ Points clés à retenir
Stipulated dismissals under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) are self-executing and provide a procedurally clean exit mechanism.
Rechercher la jurisprudence connexe →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.
Analyser les dossiers judiciaires →Foire aux questions
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.
Prêt à renforcer votre stratégie en matière de brevets ?
Rejoignez plus de 18 000 professionnels de la propriété intellectuelle qui utilisent PatSnap Eureka pour effectuer des recherches d'antériorité, rédiger des brevets et analyser le paysage concurrentiel avec une précision optimisée par l'IA.
Références
- 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
- Institut d'information juridique de Cornell — Règle fédérale de procédure civile n° 41
- Supreme Court of the United States — Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.
Cet article est publié à titre purement informatif et ne constitue en aucun cas un avis juridique. Toutes les informations relatives aux affaires sont tirées de dossiers judiciaires accessibles au public. Pour en savoir plus sur les fonctionnalités de la plateforme, rendez-vous sur PatSnap.