InnoMemory v. Capital One: Memory Patent Suit Dismissed After 532 Days
InnoMemory, LLC brought a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas against Capital One Financial, asserting two integrated circuit memory patents covering RAM read-cycle efficiency and low-power refresh architecture. After 532 days of litigation, Capital One’s counterclaims were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice — leaving both patents and underlying claims unresolved on the merits.
Memory patent suit ends without merits ruling in E.D. Texas
InnoMemory, LLC — a patent assertion entity holding integrated circuit memory IP — filed this infringement action on 4 March 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas against Capital One Financial, Corp. The complaint centred on two patents: US7057960B1, covering an integrated circuit RAM capable of reading one or multiple data words in a single clock cycle, and US6240046B1, covering a method and architecture for reducing power consumption during memory refresh operations. The accused products and services were not specified in the public record beyond the patent descriptions.
The case closed on 18 August 2025 following a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of Capital One, N.A.’s counterclaims, accepted and acknowledged by the court pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court further denied as moot all pending requests for relief not explicitly addressed. Critically, the dismissal was without prejudice, meaning neither party is permanently barred from re-filing related claims — the underlying patent validity and infringement questions were never adjudicated on the merits.
A 532-day duration before voluntary dismissal without prejudice is consistent with cases that reach advanced motion practice or early discovery before resolving through negotiation or strategic withdrawal. The public record does not disclose whether a confidential settlement was reached between the parties, nor does it confirm whether InnoMemory’s affirmative infringement claims were separately resolved. The absence of a merits ruling means both patents remain of uncertain enforceability against Capital One and potentially other financial sector defendants.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 532 days
532 days — longer than the median E.D. Texas patent case reaching voluntary dismissal
Voluntarily dismissed: what the without-prejudice ruling means for both parties
Rule 41 dismissal without prejudice: no final adjudication
The court accepted Capital One, N.A.’s Notice of Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), extinguishing its counterclaims without prejudice. This procedural mechanism requires no judicial approval at the filing stage and leaves no preclusive finding on patent validity or infringement. All other pending relief was denied as moot. The underlying action’s disposition on InnoMemory’s affirmative claims is not separately detailed in the publicly available order.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — no merits rulingThe public record confirms without prejudice — but no more
A dismissal without prejudice means Capital One, N.A. retains the right to re-assert its counterclaims in future proceedings — it is not permanently barred. A with-prejudice dismissal would have foreclosed re-filing. The order explicitly states ‘WITHOUT PREJUDICE,’ so the distinction is clear for the counterclaims. However, whether InnoMemory’s affirmative infringement claims were settled, withdrawn, or otherwise disposed of is not stated in the public termination record.
Without prejudice — counterclaims onlyInnoMemory’s patents survive — enforceability remains untested
Because the case ended without a merits ruling, US7057960B1 and US6240046B1 were not found invalid or non-infringed by the court. InnoMemory retains both patents in their current form and, subject to any confidential agreement with Capital One, may pursue enforcement against Capital One or third parties in future actions. The without-prejudice nature of the dismissal is consistent with this optionality being preserved deliberately.
Patents unresolved — enforcement possibleFinancial sector memory IP risk remains live
Capital One’s use of integrated circuit memory technology in its banking infrastructure — from transaction processing to data centre operations — was the apparent commercial context for this dispute. The absence of a validity or infringement ruling means other financial institutions using similar RAM architectures or low-power memory refresh designs cannot rely on this case as precedent for a freedom-to-operate position against these two patents. The risk of re-assertion, by InnoMemory or a successor, remains open.
Sector risk: financial services memory IPFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | InnoMemory, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7057960B1 and US6240046B1 (memory circuit IP)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Capital One Financial, Corp. | Company | Capital One Financial, Corp. — major U.S. financial services and banking technology companySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin Charles Deming | Attorney | Counsel for InnoMemory, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for InnoMemory, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dnl Zito | Law Firm | Representing InnoMemory, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing InnoMemory, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | D. Scott Hemingway | Attorney | Counsel for Capital One Financial, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric Hugh Findlay | Attorney | Counsel for Capital One Financial, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Charles Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Capital One Financial, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Findlay Craft PC | Law Firm | Representing Capital One Financial, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Hemingway & Hansen LLP | Law Firm | Representing Capital One Financial, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Scheef & Stone LLP (Marshall) | Law Firm | Representing Capital One Financial, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is narrowly procedural: it accepts Capital One N.A.’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice and confirms the counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice, while denying all other pending relief as moot. Notably, the order addresses only Capital One N.A.’s counterclaims — it does not explicitly dispose of InnoMemory’s affirmative infringement claims, leaving the complete resolution of the underlying dispute ambiguous on the face of the public record. The without-prejudice characterisation is expressly stated, distinguishing this from a final adjudication on validity or infringement.
US7057960B1 & US6240046B1 — Integrated Circuit Memory Architecture Patents
US7057960B1 (application no. US10/629667) covers an integrated circuit random access memory architecture capable of reading either one or more than one data word within a single clock cycle — a capability with direct relevance to high-throughput memory designs used in modern computing infrastructure. US6240046B1 (application no. US09/502983) covers a method and architecture specifically designed to reduce power consumption during memory refresh operations, a technically significant claim given the energy demands of DRAM refresh cycles in large-scale deployments. Both patents originate from application filings predating widespread DDR memory standardisation.
For financial institutions and their technology suppliers, these patents represent a latent assertion risk in two areas: high-performance transaction-processing memory systems (relevant to the ‘960 patent) and energy-optimised data centre DRAM deployments (relevant to the ‘046 patent). Patent assertion entities holding semiconductor memory IP have historically targeted companies with large-scale IT infrastructure rather than chip manufacturers directly, making banks, cloud providers, and enterprise software vendors strategically exposed. The unresolved status of these patents after this litigation makes proactive FTO analysis commercially prudent.
Should your team run an FTO against US7057960B1 and US6240046B1?
Any organisation deploying integrated circuit memory in financial services infrastructure — including transaction processing systems, core banking platforms, and data centre DRAM arrays — should assess exposure to these two patents. The ‘960 patent’s single-cycle multi-word read claims and the ‘046 patent’s refresh-power-reduction architecture are technically broad enough to implicate a wide range of commercial memory implementations. The case’s voluntary dismissal without prejudice means no court has limited or invalidated these claims.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US7057960B1 and US6240046B1 against your product specifications, identify prior art that could support an IPR petition, and surface any continuation or related applications that may extend the claim landscape. For in-house IP teams monitoring assertion-entity portfolios, Eureka’s assignment and litigation tracking tools provide early warning of re-filing activity in E.D. Texas and other plaintiff-friendly venues.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7057960B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar memory patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving integrated circuit memory patents asserted against financial services and technology companies in the Eastern District of Texas, including comparable RAM and DRAM architecture claims.
What this case signals for the financial services memory IP landscape
Two unresolved memory circuit patents, a major bank defendant, and a 532-day case with no merits ruling — the IP risk here is deferred, not extinguished.
Without-prejudice dismissals preserve plaintiff optionality — monitor re-filing
InnoMemory’s patents were not invalidated or found non-infringed. Any financial institution or technology vendor using multi-word-read RAM or low-power DRAM refresh architecture should treat this dismissal as a pause, not a conclusion. PatSnap Eureka can monitor InnoMemory’s filing activity across all districts.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for memory patent assertions against tech-adjacent companies
The Eastern District of Texas continues to attract patent assertion actions targeting financial services companies whose core infrastructure relies on semiconductor memory technology. Capital One’s defence team — Findlay Craft, Hemingway & Hansen, and Scheef & Stone — reflects a multi-firm strategy typical of high-stakes E.D. Texas patent defence.
InnoMemory v Capital — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice following Capital One N.A.’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of dismissal of its counterclaims, accepted by the E.D. Texas court on 18 August 2025. InnoMemory had asserted two memory circuit patents — US7057960B1 and US6240046B1 — against Capital One. No merits ruling on patent validity or infringement was issued.
InnoMemory asserted US7057960B1, covering an integrated circuit RAM capable of reading one or more data words in a single clock cycle, and US6240046B1, covering a method and architecture for reducing power consumption during memory device refresh operations. Both patents relate to fundamental integrated circuit memory architecture.
Dismissed without prejudice means neither US7057960B1 nor US6240046B1 was found invalid or non-infringed by the court. InnoMemory retains the ability to assert these patents again in future proceedings against Capital One or other defendants. There is no res judicata or collateral estoppel effect barring re-assertion based solely on this dismissal.
The Eastern District of Texas — particularly the Marshall and Tyler divisions — is a historically plaintiff-favoured venue for patent infringement cases due to its procedural rules, local patent rules, and historically plaintiff-friendly juries. Patent assertion entities frequently choose E.D. Texas for asserting semiconductor and electronics patents against large corporate defendants.
US7057960B1 covers an integrated circuit RAM architecture enabling single-cycle multi-word reads. Financial institutions and technology vendors running high-throughput transaction processing systems or data centre infrastructure using modern RAM implementations may carry infringement exposure. The case’s dismissal without prejudice means no court has limited or invalidated this claim scope, making FTO analysis advisable.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.