Eireog Innovations v. HP: Memory Patent Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice After 477 Days
Eireog Innovations, Ltd. filed suit against Hewlett-Packard in the Western District of Texas asserting two memory interface patents — US9436626B2 and US9442870B2 — against a broad range of HP laptops, desktops, and workstations. The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) after 477 days, with each side bearing its own fees and costs.
Memory Interface Patents Meet Broad HP Product Line in W.D. Texas
On June 11, 2024, Eireog Innovations, Ltd., an Irish innovation entity, filed a patent infringement action against Hewlett-Packard Co. in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright. The complaint asserted two patents — US9436626B2 and US9442870B2, both filed on application numbers from 2012 — against an exceptionally broad product portfolio spanning HP consumer laptops, Chromebooks, desktops, all-in-one systems, workstations, and mobile workstations, as well as AMD Zen-based CPU configurations embedded within those devices.
On September 30, 2025, both parties filed a joint motion to dismiss without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Judge Albright granted the motion the following day, closing the case on October 1, 2025. Critically, the dismissal was entered without prejudice, meaning Eireog retains the right to refile substantially the same claims. Each party agreed to bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses — a mutual walk-away that does not imply a financial settlement on disclosed terms.
The 477-day duration suggests the parties engaged in meaningful pretrial activity — likely including claim construction preparation and discovery — before reaching their joint decision to exit. The without-prejudice designation is commercially significant: it preserves Eireog’s enforcement options and keeps HP exposed to potential refiling. What drove the resolution — whether licensing discussions, technical claim weaknesses, or commercial settlement — remains undisclosed on the public docket.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 477 days
477 days — above the W.D. Texas median for patent cases resolved before trial
Dismissed without prejudice: what Rule 41 means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): stipulated dismissal by joint motion
A dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires both parties to sign and file a stipulation — no court merits ruling is issued. Crucially, under Fifth Circuit precedent cited in the order (Def. Distributed v. U.S. Dep’t of State), the court loses jurisdiction the moment the stipulation is filed, meaning the dismissal is self-executing. The court’s order here is confirmatory, not dispositive.
No merits adjudicatedWithout prejudice: Eireog’s enforcement options remain open
A without-prejudice dismissal does not extinguish the underlying patent claims. Eireog may refile suit against HP — or any other defendant — on US9436626B2 and US9442870B2, subject to any applicable statute of limitations. No court has ruled on infringement, validity, or claim scope. This contrasts sharply with a with-prejudice dismissal, which would bar refiling against the same defendant on the same claims.
Claims may be refiledHP faces continued uncertainty on these memory patents
Despite the case closure, HP has not obtained a merits ruling, an invalidity finding, or a covenant not to sue. The without-prejudice nature of the dismissal means HP’s product lines — spanning laptops, Chromebooks, desktops, workstations, and AMD Zen-based systems — remain theoretically exposed to re-assertion of the same patents. HP also bears its own legal costs from 477 days of litigation.
No defensive judgment obtainedMutual cost-bearing signals a negotiated, not litigated, exit
The each-party-pays-own-costs structure is characteristic of a negotiated resolution where neither side won a clear litigation advantage. It may suggest licensing discussions occurred off-record, or that both sides found continued litigation unattractive. For the broader PC and workstation sector, the case illustrates continued NPE enforcement activity around memory interface IP in Judge Albright’s court — a forum historically favourable to patent plaintiffs.
Negotiated exit likelyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Eireog Innovations, Ltd. | Company | Irish IP licensing entity — holder of US9436626B2 and US9442870B2 (memory interface)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hewlett-Parkard, Co. | Company | HP Inc. — global PC and workstation manufacturer targeted across its full consumer and enterprise compute portfolioSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amy Hayden | Attorney | Counsel for Eireog Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brett E. Cooper | Attorney | Counsel for Eireog Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Drew B. Hollander | Attorney | Counsel for Eireog Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Randy Yim | Attorney | Counsel for Eireog Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael G. McManus | Attorney | Counsel for Eireog Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rudolph Fink , IV | Attorney | Counsel for Eireog Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott Edward Kolassa | Attorney | Counsel for Eireog Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Seth Raymond Hasenour | Attorney | Counsel for Eireog Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ty Wilson | Attorney | Counsel for Eireog Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William E. Davis , III | Attorney | Counsel for Eireog Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | BC Law Group, PC | Law Firm | Representing Eireog Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Davis Firm, P.C. | Law Firm | Representing Eireog Innovations, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Aaron P. Pirouznia | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Cynthia D. Vreeland | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David M. Hoffman | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Dominic E. Massa | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ethan J. Rubin | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason H. Liss | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeffrey A. Shneidman | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph J. Mueller | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Louis W. Tompros | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Madeleine C Laupheimer | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | S. Dennis Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sarah R. Frazier | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson – Jeffrey Shneidman | Law Firm | Representing Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC | Law Firm | Representing Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The September 30, 2025 joint stipulation is a procedural exit, not a merits ruling — no court has assessed infringement, invalidity, or claim construction of US9436626B2 or US9442870B2. The order’s explicit citation of Fifth Circuit precedent on jurisdictional loss upon Rule 41 filing confirms the court had no discretion to impose conditions. The mutual cost-bearing clause is the only substantive term visible in the public record, and it neither favours nor disadvantages either party on the underlying patent dispute.
US9436626B2 & US9442870B2 — Memory Interface Technology for Compute Systems
US9436626B2 and US9442870B2 are both issued US patents originating from application numbers filed in 2012 (US13/570874 and US13/570843 respectively). The patents sit within the memory interface and computer architecture domain — technology that governs how processors access, manage, and communicate with system memory. This foundational layer of compute hardware is present in virtually every modern laptop, desktop, and workstation, which explains the breadth of products identified in Eireog’s complaint.
Memory interface patents with 2012 priority dates cover a generation of compute architecture that underpins current AMD Zen and Intel-based platforms. Because these implementations are typically baked into CPU and chipset designs shared across OEMs, a successful infringement finding would theoretically affect not just HP but any manufacturer using compatible silicon. For competitors and component suppliers in the PC and workstation supply chain, these patents represent an active enforcement asset that has survived this litigation without validity challenge.
Should you run an FTO against US9436626B2 and US9442870B2?
Any company shipping laptops, desktops, workstations, or Chromebook-class devices — particularly those incorporating AMD Zen-based CPUs or analogous memory interface architectures — should treat these two patents as live enforcement risks. Eireog’s complaint against HP targeted the full compute stack, from consumer notebooks to rack workstations. If your product line overlaps with that scope, an FTO analysis is warranted before your next product launch or platform refresh.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US9436626B2 and US9442870B2 claim language against your product specifications and component architecture, flagging overlap risks and identifying prior art that could support a validity challenge or design-around. With no invalidity ruling from this case and both patents emerging unscathed, Eureka’s claim charting and IPR candidate scoring tools provide the fastest path to defensible FTO clearance for compute hardware teams.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9436626B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Memory Interface Patent Cases in W.D. Texas
Cases involving memory interface and compute architecture patents before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas, including NPE enforcement actions against major PC OEMs.
What this case signals for the PC and memory interface IP landscape
Two asserted memory interface patents, one of the world’s largest PC makers, and a mutual walk-away — the strategic read matters for anyone operating in compute hardware.
W.D. Texas remains a live venue risk for PC and compute hardware makers
Judge Albright’s docket continues to attract NPE filings targeting major hardware OEMs. HP’s exposure across its entire product portfolio — from consumer Chromebooks to enterprise workstations — illustrates how broadly memory interface patents can be asserted. Hardware companies should monitor this docket actively and maintain up-to-date FTO coverage on foundational compute patents.
Without-prejudice dismissals preserve plaintiff leverage in licensing negotiations
When a patent holder exits without prejudice after extended pretrial activity, the public record often masks a licensing discussion or royalty arrangement. Competitors and licensees of HP-style compute products should treat this case as unresolved, not closed. Eireog retains full enforcement rights and the 477-day litigation record may inform any future refiling strategy.
Eireog v Hewlett-Parkard — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice. On September 30, 2025, both parties filed a joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and the court ordered dismissal without prejudice on October 1, 2025. This means Eireog retains the right to refile claims on US9436626B2 and US9442870B2 against HP or other defendants.
Eireog asserted two patents: US9436626B2 (application no. US13/570874) and US9442870B2 (application no. US13/570843). Both patents relate to memory interface technology and were filed in 2012. They were asserted against a broad range of HP products including laptops, Chromebooks, desktops, all-in-one systems, workstations, and AMD Zen-based CPU configurations.
The accused products spanned HP’s full compute portfolio: consumer laptops (Envy, Pavilion, Spectre, Omen, EliteBook, Victus, Dragonfly), Chromebook lines, desktops (Envy, Pavilion, Omen, Slim), all-in-one desktops, business desktops, workstations (Z2 through Z8 series), mobile workstations (ZBook series), and AMD Zen-based CPU configurations across multiple HP product families.
The case was presided over by Judge Alan D. Albright in the Western District of Texas. Judge Albright’s court has historically attracted a high volume of NPE patent filings due to its plaintiff-friendly reputation and case management practices. The case ran for 477 days before the parties jointly stipulated to dismissal.
The dismissal order directed that all attorneys’ fees, costs of court, and expenses be borne by the party that incurred them — meaning neither side was required to reimburse the other. This structure is typical of negotiated exits and does not indicate a winner or loser. It contrasts with a fee-shifting outcome under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would require one party to pay the other’s fees in exceptional cases.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.