InnoMemory v. Datalogic: Memory Refresh Patent Case Dismissed With Prejudice
InnoMemory, LLC filed suit against Datalogic, S.p.A. in the Eastern District of Texas asserting US7057960B1, a patent covering power-reduction architectures for memory device refresh operations. After 481 days of litigation, both parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each side bearing its own costs.
A memory IP assertion ends in a bilateral, no-cost exit
InnoMemory, LLC, a patent assertion entity holding US7057960B1, filed suit against Italian barcode and data-capture hardware manufacturer Datalogic, S.p.A. on 14 August 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas. The asserted patent covers a method and architecture for reducing power consumption in memory devices during refresh operations — a technically significant claim in any product that integrates DRAM or similar volatile memory requiring periodic refresh cycles.
The case closed on 8 December 2025 via a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court accepted and acknowledged the stipulation, dismissing all claims and causes of action between the parties with prejudice. Critically, the dismissal order specifies that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — suggesting the resolution involved no publicly disclosed monetary transfer or fee-shifting award.
The 481-day duration — spanning from filing through to the December 2025 closure — suggests the parties engaged in meaningful pre-trial activity before reaching resolution. A with-prejudice dismissal on joint stipulation is most consistent with a private settlement, though the public record is silent on any financial terms. The mutual cost-bearing provision is a standard feature of negotiated exits and does not itself signal which party held the stronger litigation position.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 481 days
481 days — longer than the median E.D. Texas patent case settlement window of ~12 months
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires consent of all parties who have appeared, making it a bilateral exit. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the critical modifier: it permanently extinguishes InnoMemory’s right to re-litigate the same claims against Datalogic. The court does not evaluate the merits — it simply accepts the stipulation — so no judicial finding on infringement or validity was made.
No merits ruling enteredInnoMemory forfeits the right to re-assert against Datalogic
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, InnoMemory permanently waives any future infringement claim against Datalogic under US7057960B1. This is a stronger concession than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve the option to refile. Whether InnoMemory received compensation in exchange is not disclosed in the public record, but the with-prejudice term suggests a negotiated close rather than a unilateral abandonment.
Claim permanently extinguishedDatalogic secures permanent closure — but patent survives
Datalogic achieved a permanent bar against InnoMemory re-asserting these specific claims. However, US7057960B1 remains in force and is not invalidated by this dismissal. Datalogic has not obtained a declaratory judgment of non-infringement or invalidity, meaning the patent could theoretically be enforced against other defendants or Datalogic products not addressed in this action.
Patent validity uncontestedMemory refresh IP remains a live risk for the data-capture sector
The dismissal resolves the dispute between these specific parties but creates no precedent on the scope or validity of US7057960B1. Other manufacturers of barcode readers, mobile computers, or any device embedding volatile memory with refresh cycles remain potentially exposed. The mutual cost-bearing provision is standard and does not signal patent weakness — competitors should not treat this outcome as clearance.
No sector-wide clearanceFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | InnoMemory, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7057960B1 covering memory refresh power-reduction architectureSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Datalogic, SPA | Individual | Datalogic, S.p.A. — Italian manufacturer of barcode readers, mobile computers, and data-capture hardwareSearch 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 | Edward Charles Schewe | Attorney | Counsel for Datalogic, SPASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Cotman IP Law Group PLC | Law Firm | Representing Datalogic, SPASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order does not adjudicate infringement or validity — it accepts the parties’ joint representation that the case ‘has been resolved’ and formally extinguishes all claims with prejudice. The with-prejudice designation is the operative legal consequence: it functions as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes, barring InnoMemory from reasserting the same patent claims against Datalogic in any future action. The mutual cost-bearing provision confirms no fee-shifting motion was litigated or awarded.
US7057960B1 — Memory device power reduction in refresh operations
US7057960B1 was filed under application number US10/629667 and issued as a utility patent covering a method and architectural approach to reducing power consumption in memory devices specifically during refresh operations. Memory refresh is a fundamental requirement of volatile DRAM-type storage — cells must be periodically recharged to retain data — and power management during these cycles is commercially significant in battery-powered and thermally constrained embedded devices such as mobile computers and barcode scanners.
The strategic value of this patent lies in its application breadth: virtually any product embedding volatile memory with refresh cycles could fall within its claim scope. For Datalogic and peer manufacturers of handheld industrial terminals, mobile computers, and scan engines, the patent represents a meaningful design-around or licensing risk. Patent assertion entities holding memory management IP have historically pursued hardware OEMs aggressively, and this case is consistent with that pattern in the data-capture and industrial IoT verticals.
Should your product team run an FTO against US7057960B1?
Any R&D or product team developing or sourcing hardware that integrates DRAM, LPDDR, or similar volatile memory — particularly in power-sensitive applications such as handheld scanners, mobile terminals, warehouse automation devices, or embedded industrial systems — should evaluate whether their memory refresh implementation falls within the claims of US7057960B1. The patent survived this litigation without a validity challenge on the merits, and InnoMemory retains enforcement rights against other parties.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US7057960B1 against your product’s memory architecture, surface prior art that may support an invalidity argument, and identify design-around options before a demand letter arrives. Eureka also monitors the litigation history of patents held by assertion entities, alerting IP teams when a PAE begins filing new actions in the same technical domain.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7057960B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar memory IP infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving memory device patent assertions in the Eastern District of Texas, including comparable PAE-driven infringement actions targeting embedded and data-capture hardware.
What InnoMemory v. Datalogic signals for memory IP enforcement
A with-prejudice exit after 481 days in E.D. Texas offers discrete signals about assertion strategy and sector risk in embedded memory IP.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for memory patent assertions
InnoMemory’s choice of the Eastern District of Texas is consistent with established plaintiff-filing patterns in this jurisdiction. Hardware companies with memory-integrated products — including barcode scanners, mobile terminals, and industrial readers — should maintain active docket monitoring for similar assertions filed in E.D. Texas.
With-prejudice dismissal ≠ patent invalidity — FTO analysis still required
US7057960B1 exits this litigation fully intact. Companies in the data-capture, industrial IoT, and embedded systems sectors should not treat a defendant’s escape from one lawsuit as sector-wide clearance. An independent freedom-to-operate review against this patent remains advisable for any product incorporating DRAM refresh management architectures.
InnoMemory v Datalogic — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on 8 December 2025. The Eastern District of Texas accepted the stipulation and closed all claims. Each party bears its own costs. No merits ruling on infringement or patent validity was entered.
InnoMemory asserted US7057960B1, filed under application number US10/629667. The patent covers a method and architecture for reducing power consumption in memory devices during refresh operations — a technology relevant to any product embedding volatile memory requiring periodic refresh cycles, including handheld barcode readers and mobile computers.
No. A voluntary dismissal with prejudice extinguishes InnoMemory’s claims against Datalogic specifically but does not affect the validity of US7057960B1. The patent remains in force. No court ruling on validity or infringement was made. Other companies in the data-capture or embedded memory sector remain potentially exposed to enforcement.
Dismissed with prejudice means the plaintiff cannot refile the same claims against the same defendant. ‘Each party bears its own costs’ means no fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 was awarded — neither side recovers attorneys’ fees from the other. This cost provision is standard in negotiated settlements but does not confirm whether a licensing payment was made privately.
A with-prejudice dismissal typically reflects a negotiated resolution — often a licensing agreement or settlement payment — where the defendant secures a permanent bar against re-assertion in exchange for consideration. Without-prejudice dismissals preserve the plaintiff’s ability to refile. When both parties jointly stipulate to with-prejudice dismissal, it strongly suggests the underlying dispute has been commercially resolved, though terms remain confidential.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.