InnoMemory v. Comerica: DDR Memory Patent Case Dismissed With Prejudice
InnoMemory, LLC asserted two DDR memory patents — US6,240,046 and US7,057,960 — against Comerica Incorporated and Comerica Bank in the Western District of Texas. After 504 days, the parties jointly stipulated dismissal with prejudice, each bearing its own costs, permanently closing InnoMemory’s claims against Comerica on these patents.
Joint dismissal of DDR memory patent claims against a major US bank
Filed on 18 August 2022 in the Western District of Texas, InnoMemory, LLC — a patent assertion entity — brought an infringement action against Comerica Incorporated and its banking subsidiary Comerica Bank. The claims centred on two patents: US6,240,046 and US7,057,960, both directed at DDR memory technology spanning DDR2, DDR3, DDR4, LPDDR3, LPDDR4, LPDDR4X, and LPDDR5 standards. The accused products included computing devices from HP, Lenovo, Acer, IBM, Asus, Dell, NCR, and Diebold — systems routinely deployed across Comerica’s banking infrastructure.
The case closed on 4 January 2024 via a joint stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Critically, the dismissal was entered with prejudice as to all of InnoMemory’s claims, expressly including with respect to both patents-in-suit. Each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, suggesting the resolution was negotiated rather than the product of a contested ruling on the merits.
A 504-day duration is consistent with resolution occurring after initial pleadings and likely some claim construction or pre-trial activity, but well before any jury trial. The with-prejudice designation, combined with mutual cost-bearing, is a common structure in confidential settlements where the plaintiff concedes no further enforcement right against this specific defendant. What drove InnoMemory to permanently relinquish its claims — whether licence, payment, invalidity pressure, or commercial calculus — is not disclosed in the public record.
Filing to dismissal in 504 days
504 days from filing to dismissal — consistent with early negotiated resolution before trial
With-prejudice dismissal: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): joint stipulation, no court order required
Under Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), parties may dismiss an action by filing a signed stipulation — no judicial approval is needed. Both sides here agreed jointly, meaning neither party was compelled. This mechanism is efficient and commonly used when parties reach a resolution after the defendant has answered or filed a motion to dismiss, which Comerica’s three-attorney defence team suggests had likely occurred.
Consensual exit mechanismWith prejudice: InnoMemory’s claims against Comerica are permanently barred
A with-prejudice dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. InnoMemory cannot refile the same patent claims — US6,240,046 and US7,057,960 — against Comerica or Comerica Bank in any court. This is a meaningful concession by the plaintiff and goes further than a without-prejudice exit, which would preserve the option to refile. For Comerica, this provides durable legal certainty against InnoMemory on these specific patents.
Permanent bar on refilingMutual cost-bearing: no fee-shifting signals a negotiated outcome
The stipulation specifies each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. US patent litigation costs can run into millions of dollars; a mutual cost-bearing clause — rather than a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 — typically signals a negotiated resolution rather than a finding of exceptionality. It also suggests neither side sought to leverage a fee motion, consistent with a confidential settlement or licence arrangement underlying the dismissal.
No § 285 fee awardBanking sector defendant: why DDR memory patents reach financial institutions
Comerica’s alleged infringement stems from its use of computing devices — from vendors including HP, Lenovo, Dell, NCR, and Diebold — that incorporate DDR memory. This end-user assertion theory targets enterprise adopters rather than memory manufacturers. Banks and financial institutions are frequent targets in this model because they deploy large fleets of branded hardware and typically lack the litigation appetite of semiconductor OEMs. Comerica’s engagement of three counsel from Winstead PC signals it contested the claims seriously.
End-user assertion strategyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | InnoMemory, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of DDR memory patents US6,240,046 and US7,057,960Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Comerica Incorporated | Company | Comerica Incorporated and Comerica Bank — major US commercial banking group headquartered in Dallas, TXSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for InnoMemory, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jamie H. McDole | Attorney | Counsel for Comerica IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael D. Karson | Attorney | Counsel for Comerica IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Phillip B. Philbin | Attorney | Counsel for Comerica IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | Texas Western District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The joint stipulation is unambiguous: dismissal with prejudice as to all claims, expressly covering both US6,240,046 and US7,057,960. The explicit enumeration of both patents in the with-prejudice clause is notable — it forecloses any argument that one patent might survive the dismissal. The mutual cost-bearing provision prevents either party from claiming a pyrrhic victory. For Comerica, this is a clean exit with res judicata protection; for InnoMemory, it permanently extinguishes enforcement rights against this defendant while leaving both patents technically alive for use against others.
US6,240,046 & US7,057,960 — DDR memory technology patents
US6,240,046 originates from application 09/502,983 (filed circa 2000), while US7,057,960 stems from application 10/629,667 (filed circa 2003). Both patents sit within the double data rate (DDR) memory technology domain — a foundational area of computing that governs how DRAM modules transfer data synchronised to a clock signal. The asserted claims were applied to DDR generations from DDR2 through the LPDDR5 standard, encompassing the dominant memory architectures in mobile and enterprise computing hardware from the early 2000s to the present.
The strategic significance of these patents lies in their breadth across DDR generations and their applicability to end-user devices rather than memory chips alone. By asserting against a bank’s computing fleet — devices from HP, Lenovo, Acer, IBM, Asus, Dell, NCR, and Diebold — InnoMemory applied an end-user enforcement model that bypasses the largest and best-resourced defenders in the semiconductor chain. Any company running enterprise IT infrastructure incorporating LPDDR or DDR memory should treat these patents as live reference points for freedom-to-operate analysis.
Should your R&D or IT team run an FTO against US6,240,046 and US7,057,960?
If your organisation deploys computing hardware incorporating DDR2, DDR3, DDR4, LPDDR3, LPDDR4, LPDDR4X, or LPDDR5 memory — including devices from HP, Lenovo, Dell, Acer, IBM, Asus, NCR, or Diebold — both patents remain technically in force and have demonstrated enforcement history. Financial institutions, large enterprises, and government IT procurers are the profile most consistent with InnoMemory’s targeting strategy. Procurement teams and in-house counsel should verify that hardware supply agreements include adequate IP indemnification covering underlying memory IP.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US6,240,046 and US7,057,960 against your specific hardware configurations and flag overlapping claims across the DDR memory patent landscape. Eureka’s claim monitoring tools alert you if continuation or divisional applications derived from these patent families publish or assert, giving your team early warning before litigation exposure materialises. Start with a targeted claim-chart analysis to assess your organisation’s actual exposure profile.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7057960B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar DDR memory patent assertion cases in US district courts
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the DDR memory patent enforcement landscape
InnoMemory’s action against Comerica is part of a broader pattern of DDR memory patent assertions targeting enterprise end-users — with implications for any organisation running large hardware fleets.
End-user DDR memory assertions are a live enforcement risk for enterprise IT
InnoMemory’s theory — that banking hardware incorporating DDR2 through LPDDR5 infringes — does not require being a memory manufacturer. Any enterprise deploying large fleets of HP, Lenovo, Dell, or NCR devices may face similar claims. In-house teams should assess whether their hardware supply agreements include patent indemnification for underlying memory technology.
With-prejudice exits by PAEs often signal licence or payment, not capitulation
When a patent assertion entity agrees to a with-prejudice dismissal while bearing its own costs, the most commercially rational explanation is that value changed hands — typically a lump-sum licence. IP and legal teams monitoring PAE enforcement should treat with-prejudice exits as potential signals of settlement value, informing their own negotiation posture if faced with similar claims.
InnoMemory v Comerica — key questions answered
InnoMemory, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Comerica Incorporated and Comerica Bank in the Western District of Texas on 18 August 2022, asserting US patents 6,240,046 and 7,057,960 relating to DDR memory technology. The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on 4 January 2024, with each party bearing its own costs. The dismissal permanently bars InnoMemory from refiling the same claims against Comerica.
InnoMemory asserted US6,240,046 (application 09/502,983) and US7,057,960 (application 10/629,667). Both patents relate to DDR memory technology covering DDR2, DDR3, DDR4, LPDDR3, LPDDR4, LPDDR4X, and LPDDR5 memory standards. The accused products were computing devices from HP, Lenovo, Acer, IBM, Asus, Dell, NCR, and Diebold deployed within Comerica’s operations.
Dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. InnoMemory cannot refile the same patent claims — US6,240,046 and US7,057,960 — against Comerica Incorporated or Comerica Bank in any US federal court. The stipulation expressly named both patents-in-suit, leaving no ambiguity about scope. The patents themselves remain active and InnoMemory may assert them against other defendants.
The joint stipulation specified mutual cost-bearing — each party covers its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. This structure is typical of negotiated settlements and avoids the higher evidentiary bar required for a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which requires a finding that the case is ‘exceptional.’ The mutual cost-bearing clause suggests both sides agreed to exit without further litigation over fees, consistent with a confidential resolution.
InnoMemory, LLC is a patent assertion entity represented by Ramey LLP, a firm known for high-volume patent litigation filings, particularly in the Western District of Texas. The firm’s filing patterns suggest InnoMemory may have asserted these DDR memory patents against other defendants. Public records should be searched for related cases involving US6,240,046 and US7,057,960 to understand the full scope of the enforcement campaign and implied settlement values.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.