InnoMemory v. Lone Star Bank: DDR Memory Patent Case Dismissed With Prejudice
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | InnoMemory, LLC v. Lone Star National Bank |
| Case Number | 5:22-cv-00909 (W.D. Tex.) |
| Court | Western District of Texas |
| Duration | Aug 2022 – Aug 2024 723 days (~24 months) |
| Outcome | Defendant Favorable — Dismissed with Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | DDR Memory Products (within banking infrastructure) |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A patent assertion entity (PAE) holding intellectual property in the memory technology space. Its assertion strategy centered on patents covering DDR (Double Data Rate) memory.
🛡️ Defendant
A regional financial institution based in Texas. Banks routinely deploy DDR memory-dependent computing systems, making them potential targets for patent assertion campaigns targeting end-users.
The Patents at Issue
This case involved two patents covering DDR (Double Data Rate) memory technology. Both patents relate to DDR memory — the dominant form of dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) used in computing devices globally, standardized through JEDEC specifications.
- • US7057960B1 — A patent in the DDR memory architecture space (Application No. US10/629667).
- • US6240046B1 — An earlier memory technology patent (Application No. US09/502983).
Deploying DDR memory systems?
Check if your technology procurement might expose you to similar patent risks before deployment.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The court granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice on August 10, 2024. Under the order, all claims by InnoMemory against Lone Star National Bank were dismissed with prejudice, as were all counterclaims. Critically, each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No damages award, injunctive relief, or fee-shifting was ordered. This bilateral prejudicial dismissal with mutual fee-bearing is the hallmark of a privately negotiated resolution.
Key Legal Issues
Because the matter resolved through joint dismissal rather than judicial determination, no formal findings on infringement, patent validity, or claim construction were issued by the court. This means no invalidity ruling was entered against US7057960B1 or US6240046B1, and no infringement finding was made. The “dismissed with prejudice” designation, while precluding re-litigation of these specific claims between these parties, carries no broader precedential weight on the underlying patent merits.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in DDR memory technology procurement. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation for DDR memory.
- View active patent portfolios in memory technology
- See which companies are most active in DDR memory patents
- Understand assertion trends against end-user defendants
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product, including purchased components.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
DDR Memory Deployment in enterprise systems
2 Patents at Issue
Covering DDR memory architecture
Dismissed with Prejudice
Indicates a negotiated resolution
✅ Key Takeaways
Joint dismissals with prejudice and mutual fee-bearing suggest negotiated resolution; the absence of public settlement terms limits litigation intelligence value.
Search related case law →End-user assertion strategies against financial institutions face well-resourced defense counsel, affecting plaintiff ROI calculations.
Explore precedents →No claim construction record was generated — limiting precedential value for related DDR memory patent disputes.
Analyze memory patent claims →Western District of Texas remains a relevant venue for patent plaintiffs despite ongoing docket reforms.
Review WDTX case trends →Monitor DDR memory patent portfolio ownership transfers as an early assertion indicator.
Track patent assignments →Verify supplier indemnification coverage in technology procurement contracts, especially for standardized components.
Learn about indemnification →Bilateral prejudicial dismissals protect both parties from re-litigation but reveal nothing about underlying patent strength, requiring deeper analysis.
Explore patent validity tools →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved US7057960B1 and US6240046B1, both relating to DDR memory technology. Application numbers US10/629667 and US09/502983, respectively.
The court granted a Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs — indicating a mutually negotiated resolution rather than a judicial merits determination.
It illustrates that end-user defendants with competent counsel can successfully resist or resolve assertion campaigns on favorable terms, potentially without paying licensing fees or damages.
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
- USPTO Patent Full-Text Database (Google Patents)
- PACER Case Locator
- Western District of Texas Court Information
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
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.