InnoMemory v. Asustek: Dual RAM Patent Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
InnoMemory, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Asustek Computer in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting two integrated circuit memory patents covering burst-read and low-power refresh architectures. The case closed after 340 days when InnoMemory voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41 — leaving the door open for re-filing.
RAM Patent Assertion Ends in Voluntary Exit — But the Case Isn’t Closed
On 21 July 2023, InnoMemory, LLC — a patent assertion entity — filed suit against Asustek Computer, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of US7057960B1 (covering integrated circuit RAM capable of reading one or more data words per clock cycle) and US6240046B1 (covering a method and architecture for reducing power consumption in memory refresh operations). The Eastern District of Texas is a historically plaintiff-friendly venue for patent cases, and the dual-patent assertion suggests a broad licensing posture.
The case closed on 25 June 2024, approximately 340 days after filing, when InnoMemory filed a Notice of Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court accepted the notice and dismissed all claims without prejudice. Critically, a without-prejudice dismissal does not adjudicate the merits: InnoMemory retains the right to re-assert both patents against Asustek in a future action, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any res judicata constraints that might arise.
The relatively short lifecycle — under one year — and the absence of any defendant response on record are consistent with a pre-litigation licensing negotiation that either concluded privately or stalled before Asustek engaged formally. The public record is silent on whether a settlement or license was reached. The choice of dismissal without prejudice, rather than with prejudice, is a meaningful strategic signal: InnoMemory preserves maximum optionality for future enforcement of both patents.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 340 days
340 days from filing to voluntary dismissal — shorter than the median E.D. Texas patent trial
Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice: what the ruling means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): Plaintiff’s unilateral exit before defendant answers
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order — and without defendant consent — before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This is the earliest and cleanest form of voluntary dismissal. The court here accepted the notice, directed closure, and denied all other pending relief as moot. No merits were examined and no findings of fact or law were made.
Procedural exit — no merits rulingWithout prejudice: InnoMemory keeps its legal options open
A dismissal without prejudice means the claims are extinguished for this action only — InnoMemory is not barred from re-filing the same patent claims against Asustek in a future lawsuit. This contrasts sharply with a with-prejudice dismissal, which would permanently bar re-litigation on those claims. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement, license, or strategic reassessment drove the decision. Practitioners should note: a second dismissal of the same claims against the same defendant typically operates as a dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(B).
Re-filing remains possibleInnoMemory retains full enforcement rights over both patents
By dismissing without prejudice, InnoMemory preserves the ability to pursue Asustek again — or to use these patents against other defendants in the memory and consumer electronics space. The early-stage exit before any substantive court ruling means neither patent has been subjected to claim construction, validity challenge, or infringement analysis on the merits. Both US7057960B1 and US6240046B1 remain active enforcement tools.
Patents remain enforceableAsustek avoids a merits ruling — but faces residual litigation risk
Asustek exits this action without a liability finding, but without prejudice means the threat is not extinguished. Companies in Asustek’s position — manufacturing or selling RAM-integrated devices — typically seek patent landscape intelligence to assess whether a re-filing is likely and whether design-arounds or invalidity arguments merit development. No attorney fees or cost award was made, consistent with a pre-answer exit where no exceptional case finding could arise.
No liability found — risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | InnoMemory, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7057960B1 and US6240046B1 (RAM architecture patents)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Asustek Computer, Inc. | Company | Asustek Computer, Inc. — major Taiwan-based manufacturer of motherboards, laptops, and consumer electronics incorporating RAMSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for InnoMemory, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing InnoMemory, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a purely ministerial acceptance of InnoMemory’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice — the language ‘ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES’ confirms no discretionary review was applied. The dismissal without prejudice carries no preclusive effect: no claim construction was issued, no validity determination was made, and no infringement finding was reached. The denial of ‘all pending requests for relief as moot’ confirms there were no outstanding motions that could have generated substantive rulings either party might rely upon in future proceedings.
US7057960B1 & US6240046B1 — RAM Burst-Read and Low-Power Refresh Architecture
US7057960B1 covers an integrated circuit random access memory architecture capable of reading either one or more than one data word in a single clock cycle — a burst-read capability central to modern DRAM and SRAM performance optimisation. US6240046B1 protects a method and hardware architecture for reducing power consumption during memory refresh operations, a perennial challenge in mobile, embedded, and high-density DRAM design. Both patents carry US application priority dates in the early 2000s, placing them within the engineering generation that shaped DDR and low-power LPDDR memory standards.
The strategic relevance of these patents extends well beyond Asustek. Burst-read efficiency and low-power refresh are foundational to virtually every DRAM, LPDDR, and embedded memory product sold today — implicating motherboard OEMs, laptop and tablet manufacturers, memory module suppliers, and SoC designers. An unlitigated patent in this domain, held by an assertion entity with no apparent product business, represents a durable licensing risk for any company in the RAM supply chain. The absence of IPR petitions to date against either patent increases the urgency for at-risk parties to conduct validity analysis.
Should your team run an FTO against US7057960B1 and US6240046B1?
Any company designing, sourcing, or integrating DRAM, LPDDR, SRAM, or embedded memory modules — particularly those with burst-read modes or power-optimised refresh cycles — should treat these two patents as active FTO concerns. The without-prejudice dismissal means InnoMemory has not relinquished any rights, and the patents have not been narrowed or invalidated through litigation. OEMs, contract manufacturers, and memory IP licensors operating in E.D. Texas-accessible markets face the most immediate exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US7057960B1 and US6240046B1 against your product architecture, identify prior art relevant to IPR petitions, and surface related patents in InnoMemory’s portfolio or cited in the same technology cluster. R&D teams evaluating burst-read DRAM designs or low-power refresh circuits can use Eureka to generate automated claim charts, spot design-around opportunities, and benchmark claim breadth against invalidating prior art — all before committing to a product architecture.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7057960B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar DRAM & Memory IC Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Explore comparable memory IC and RAM architecture patent infringement actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas by patent assertion entities.
What this case signals for the memory IC and consumer electronics IP landscape
A without-prejudice exit in E.D. Texas before answer is a recognised PAE playbook move — and both memory patents remain live enforcement threats.
Early voluntary dismissal is a known PAE tactic — not a concession
Patent assertion entities frequently file in E.D. Texas, open negotiations, and dismiss without prejudice if licensing talks succeed or stall at an inconvenient stage. The absence of any defendant filing suggests Asustek may not have formally engaged in court. Competitors and licensees of either party should not interpret the dismissal as a validity or non-infringement finding — it is neither.
Both RAM patents remain active and unlitigated on the merits
US7057960B1 and US6240046B1 have not been subjected to claim construction, IPR, or any merits adjudication in this action. Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing products incorporating burst-read DRAM or low-power refresh architectures should treat these patents as live risks and consider FTO analysis or IPR filings as proactive mitigation strategies.
InnoMemory v Asustek — key questions answered
A without-prejudice dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means InnoMemory retains the right to re-file the same patent claims against Asustek. No merits were adjudicated — there is no validity, claim construction, or non-infringement ruling. The patents US7057960B1 and US6240046B1 remain fully enforceable against Asustek and third parties.
InnoMemory asserted two patents: US7057960B1, covering an integrated circuit RAM capable of reading one or more data words per clock cycle (burst-read capability), and US6240046B1, covering a method and architecture for reducing power consumption in memory refresh operations. Both patents relate to core DRAM and low-power memory architecture.
The public record does not disclose the reason. The dismissal was filed unilaterally before Asustek served an answer, which is procedurally consistent with either a private licensing resolution, a settlement in principle, or a strategic decision to re-file in more favourable circumstances. The without-prejudice designation preserves InnoMemory’s full enforcement options.
Based on the available case record, neither US7057960B1 nor US6240046B1 appears to have been subjected to an IPR petition in this litigation. No IPR was identified in the case data. Companies at risk should independently verify current USPTO PTAB records and consider whether a pre-emptive IPR petition is warranted given the unlitigated status of both patents.
The Eastern District of Texas has historically been one of the most plaintiff-favourable venues for patent litigation in the US, offering favourable local patent rules and an established body of patent case law. PAEs frequently file there to maximise settlement leverage. Asustek, as a Taiwan-based company with US product sales, is subject to personal jurisdiction in federal courts where its products are sold.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.