InnoMemory v. Crockett National Bank: DDR Memory Patent Case Ends in Dismissal
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | InnoMemory, LLC v. Crockett National Bank |
| Case Number | 5:22-cv-00903 (W.D. Tex.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas |
| Duration | Aug 2022 – Oct 2023 14 months |
| Outcome | Dismissal with Prejudice (Stipulated) |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | DDR memory (DDR2, DDR3, DDR4, LPDDR3, LPDDR4, LPDDR4X, LPDDR5) in servers, desktops, laptops, tablets, and ATMs |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A patent assertion entity (PAE) focused on memory technology intellectual property, asserting patents against businesses that incorporate DDR memory into standard computing operations.
🛡️ Defendant
A community financial institution based in Texas, involved in patent litigation for its everyday use of computing equipment incorporating DDR memory modules.
The Patents at Issue
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.
Litigation Timeline & Procedural History
| Complaint Filed | August 17, 2022 |
| Joint Stipulation of Dismissal Filed | October 18, 2023 |
| Court Order Closing Case | 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.
Outcome & Legal Significance
Outcome
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.
Legal Significance
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).
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks for enterprises using ubiquitous memory technology. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View active patents in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in memory patents
- Understand assertion trends against end-users
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Use of commodity DDR memory in enterprise hardware
2 Patents Asserted
Plus others in PAE portfolio
Limited Design-Around
For standard DDR components
✅ Key Takeaways
Stipulated dismissals under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) are self-executing and provide a procedurally clean exit mechanism.
Search related case law →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.
Analyze litigation records →Frequently Asked 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.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- 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
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41
- Supreme Court of the United States — Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.