InnoMemory v. Fidelity Bank of Texas: RAM Patent Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
InnoMemory, LLC asserted two integrated circuit RAM patents — US7057960B1 and US6240046B1 — against Fidelity Bank of Texas in the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice after 232 days, before the defendant filed any answer or summary judgment motion.
RAM patent suit exits early via Rule 41 voluntary dismissal
InnoMemory, LLC filed suit against Fidelity Bank of Texas on March 4, 2024, in the Western District of Texas before Judge Robert Pitman. The complaint asserted two integrated circuit memory patents: US7057960B1, covering a RAM architecture capable of reading one or more data words in a single clock cycle, and US6240046B1, covering a method and architecture for reducing power consumption in memory devices during refresh operations. The filing targeted a regional bank rather than a semiconductor manufacturer, a pattern consistent with non-practising entity assertion strategies.
On October 21, 2024 — 232 days after filing — InnoMemory filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing all claims. Because Fidelity Bank of Texas had not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment, the notice was self-effectuating and required no court order. The docket closed the following day, October 22, 2024. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement was reached; the dismissal instrument itself is silent on any financial terms.
The timing of dismissal — before any responsive pleading — is notable. It may suggest that the parties reached an informal resolution, or that InnoMemory elected to withdraw for strategic reasons such as claim scope reassessment or a decision to pursue different defendants. The ‘without prejudice’ qualification means InnoMemory retains the theoretical right to refile, though re-filing against the same defendant on the same patents would raise time-bar and estoppel considerations depending on the circumstances. What drove the withdrawal remains undisclosed on the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 232 days
232 days — resolved well before the typical district court trial schedule
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right, no court order needed
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Fidelity Bank had not served either, InnoMemory’s notice was self-effectuating. The Fifth Circuit confirmed in In re Amerijet Int’l that no judicial action is required — the filing alone terminates the case.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissalThe public record is silent on prejudice status — a critical distinction
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ permits the plaintiff to refile; a dismissal ‘with prejudice’ is a final adjudication on the merits that bars re-litigation. The Basis of Termination recorded here is ‘Voluntary dismissal’ without specifying either qualifier. The Verdict text states the dismissal was without prejudice, but practitioners should independently verify the filed notice (Dkt. 18) to confirm the exact terms before advising on refiling risk.
Prejudice status — verify Dkt. 18InnoMemory exits without a merits ruling — patents remain in play
No court has ruled on the validity or infringement scope of US7057960B1 or US6240046B1. InnoMemory’s patents are not invalidated or limited by this proceeding. If the dismissal was without prejudice, InnoMemory retains the option to assert these patents again — against Fidelity Bank or other defendants — subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any separate agreements that may exist outside the public record.
No merits adjudicationFidelity Bank escapes without prejudice — but exposure persists
Fidelity Bank of Texas obtained no invalidity ruling and no covenant not to sue from this proceeding. If the dismissal was without prejudice, the bank’s patent exposure from these two RAM patents is not formally extinguished. End-user defendants in this position typically seek a covenant not to sue or monitor the plaintiff’s subsequent assertion activity closely to assess ongoing risk to their technology operations.
No covenant not to sue on recordFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | InnoMemory, LLC | Company | Non-practising entity — holder of US7057960B1 and US6240046B1, RAM architecture patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Fidelity Bank of Texas | Company | Regional bank headquartered in Texas, named as an end-user defendant in a RAM patent suitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for 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 Fidelity Bank of TexasSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Victoria Harrison | Attorney | Counsel for Fidelity Bank of TexasSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William S. Rhea | Attorney | Counsel for Fidelity Bank of TexasSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DuBois, Bryant & Campbell, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Fidelity Bank of TexasSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Hemingway & Hansen LLP | Law Firm | Representing Fidelity Bank of TexasSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Robert Pitman | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict text confirms dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and cites Fifth Circuit authority establishing that such a notice is self-effectuating. The language ‘dismissed all claims in this case without prejudice’ is significant: it preserves InnoMemory’s right to refile. No merits ruling was reached, no claim construction was conducted, and the validity of either patent was never adjudicated. For Fidelity Bank, this outcome provides procedural closure but no legal certainty against future assertion of the same patents.
US7057960B1 & US6240046B1 — Integrated Circuit RAM Architecture Patents
US7057960B1 protects an integrated circuit random access memory architecture capable of reading either one or more than one data word in a single clock cycle — a design feature relevant to performance-critical memory subsystems. US6240046B1 covers a method and architecture for reducing power consumption in memory devices during refresh operations, addressing energy efficiency in DRAM-type components. Both patents originate from application filings predating widespread deployment of DDR memory standards, giving them broad potential reach over contemporary memory implementations.
The strategic significance of these patents lies in their foundational character: memory read performance and refresh power reduction are design objectives present across virtually all modern computing systems — from enterprise servers to embedded banking infrastructure. NPEs holding patents at this layer of the memory stack can assert against end-users across diverse industry sectors. For technology vendors supplying financial institutions or other end-user markets, the enforceability of these patents after an inconclusive dismissal should be factored into product and indemnification strategies.
Should your product team run an FTO against US7057960B1 and US6240046B1?
Any organisation deploying systems that incorporate integrated circuit RAM — including financial services firms, enterprise IT operators, cloud infrastructure providers, and embedded systems manufacturers — should assess their exposure to US7057960B1 and US6240046B1. The absence of any invalidity ruling in this case means both patents remain fully enforceable. End-user defendants are particularly vulnerable where vendor indemnification agreements are silent or limited on foundational memory patents.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US7057960B1 and US6240046B1 against your specific memory architecture, flag relevant prior art that could support an invalidity argument, and surface any related continuation or family patents that may extend InnoMemory’s assertion reach. Running a targeted FTO now — before any demand letter arrives — provides the most defensible position and the broadest options for design-around or licensing negotiation.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7057960B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar RAM and memory patent infringement cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving foundational RAM and memory architecture patents asserted against end-user defendants in the Western District of Texas and related U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the RAM patent assertion landscape
Early voluntary dismissals before any responsive pleading are a recurring pattern in NPE RAM patent campaigns — and the signal is rarely simple.
Pre-answer dismissals often mask settlement — not defeat
When an NPE voluntarily dismisses before the defendant answers, the most commercially common explanation is a licensing resolution reached outside the docket. InnoMemory’s rapid exit — 232 days in, no responsive pleading filed — is consistent with a negotiated outcome, though the public record does not confirm this. IP teams monitoring similar campaigns should treat early dismissals as potential settlement signals.
End-user defendants face recurring RAM patent risk from NPE campaigns
Fidelity Bank of Texas is a regional bank, not a chip maker — its exposure arose from using memory technology in its IT infrastructure. This end-user targeting pattern is common in RAM patent assertion. Financial institutions and other downstream technology users should assess their exposure to foundational memory patents and consider whether their vendors provide indemnification cover.
InnoMemory v Fidelity — key questions answered
InnoMemory, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Fidelity Bank of Texas on March 4, 2024, in the Western District of Texas, asserting US7057960B1 and US6240046B1. On October 21, 2024, InnoMemory voluntarily dismissed all claims under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The dismissal was recorded as without prejudice. The case closed October 22, 2024, after 232 days, without any merits ruling.
InnoMemory asserted two patents: US7057960B1, covering an integrated circuit random access memory capable of reading one or more data words in a single clock cycle, and US6240046B1, covering a method and architecture for reducing power consumption in memory devices during refresh operations. Neither patent was adjudicated or invalidated in this proceeding.
A dismissal without prejudice means no final judgment on the merits was entered. InnoMemory retains the right to refile claims based on the same patents, subject to statutes of limitations and any separate agreements. Fidelity Bank obtained no invalidity ruling and no formal covenant not to sue, meaning its legal exposure from US7057960B1 and US6240046B1 is not formally extinguished by this dismissal.
The public record does not disclose InnoMemory’s reasons for dismissal. Possible explanations include a negotiated licensing resolution, a strategic reassessment of the asserted claims, or a decision to pursue alternative defendants. Pre-answer voluntary dismissals in NPE cases are commonly associated with settlements, though no financial terms are disclosed in the docket.
US7057960B1 covers RAM architectures capable of reading multiple data words per clock cycle — a design feature present in many modern memory implementations. Because this case closed without any invalidity or non-infringement ruling, the patent retains full enforceability. Organisations using such memory architectures, particularly as end-user defendants, should consider an FTO analysis and review vendor indemnification provisions before a demand letter is received.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.