InnoMemory v. National Instruments: Memory Patent Suit Dismissed in 78 Days
InnoMemory, LLC filed a patent infringement action against National Instruments, Corp. in the Western District of Texas, asserting US7057960B1 — a patent covering power-reduction methods in memory device refresh operations. The case closed after just 78 days when InnoMemory voluntarily dismissed its claims without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before the defendant filed any answer.
Pre-answer dismissal leaves memory patent dispute unresolved
On February 2, 2025, InnoMemory, LLC filed a patent infringement action against National Instruments, Corp. (Case No. 7:25-cv-00044) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The suit centred on US7057960B1, a patent covering methods and architectures for reducing power consumption in memory devices during refresh operations — a technically significant area in embedded and test-and-measurement hardware of the kind National Instruments manufactures.
On April 16, 2025, InnoMemory filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because National Instruments had not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, the dismissal was self-effectuating — no court order was required. The court’s subsequent order, entered April 21, 2025, confirmed the case’s termination and directed each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorney fees.
The 78-day lifespan and pre-answer exit are consistent with a negotiated resolution, licensing conversation, or a plaintiff reassessing litigation strategy before incurring substantial cost. The without-prejudice designation means InnoMemory retains the right to refile claims against National Instruments or any other party. The public record does not disclose any settlement terms, licensing agreement, or technical stipulations, leaving the ultimate commercial outcome between the parties unknown.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 78 days
78 days — resolved before defendant filed an answer, suggesting early-stage exit
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): self-effectuating dismissal before any answer
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action as of right — without a court order — by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. National Instruments had not taken either step, so InnoMemory’s notice alone terminated the case. The court’s subsequent order was confirmatory, not operative.
No court merits rulingWithout prejudice confirmed — but refiling risk is real
The notice expressly states dismissal without prejudice, meaning InnoMemory is not barred from reasserting the same patent claims against National Instruments or other defendants in future proceedings. The public record does not disclose whether any licensing agreement, covenant not to sue, or settlement was reached in parallel. Practitioners should not assume the dispute is fully resolved simply because the docket is closed.
Refiling remains possibleNational Instruments exits without admission or merits ruling
National Instruments obtained a clean exit before incurring the cost of answering the complaint. No infringement finding, validity ruling, or damages determination was made. The own-costs order means neither party bears the other’s legal fees. However, the without-prejudice dismissal provides no formal shield against re-assertion of US7057960B1 absent a separate covenant or licence.
No liability foundUS7057960B1 remains enforceable — sector exposure persists
Because no invalidity or non-infringement ruling was obtained, US7057960B1 survives with full legal force. Other companies in the memory, embedded systems, and test-and-measurement hardware space whose products perform refresh-cycle power-reduction operations should treat this dismissal as a deferral, not a resolution. The patent’s continued enforceability suggests ongoing third-party risk for any product touching the claimed architecture.
Patent still activeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | InnoMemory, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7057960B1, memory refresh power-reduction methodsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | National Instruments, Corp. | Company | National Instruments, Corp. — test, measurement, and embedded systems hardware makerSearch 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 | Daniel W. Richards | Attorney | Counsel for National Instruments, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ropes & Gray, LLP | Law Firm | Representing National Instruments, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms InnoMemory’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice was procedurally valid and self-effectuating — the case closed by operation of law, not judicial decision. No claim construction, infringement analysis, or validity ruling was issued. The own-costs award is the default under Rule 41 and carries no punitive or exceptional-case significance. The without-prejudice designation is the most commercially consequential element: it leaves InnoMemory’s enforcement rights fully intact against National Instruments and the broader market.
US7057960B1 — Memory Device Power Reduction in Refresh Operations
US7057960B1, filed under application number US10/629667, protects a method and architecture specifically directed at reducing power consumption in memory devices during refresh operations. Memory refresh — the periodic recharging of DRAM cells to prevent data loss — is an unavoidable power draw in any volatile memory system. Patents targeting this mechanism sit at the intersection of memory controller design, system-on-chip architecture, and power management IP, all of which are commercially active technology domains.
For the test-and-measurement and embedded systems sector — National Instruments’ primary market — power-efficient memory management is architecturally material, particularly in portable and real-time data acquisition hardware. The fact that InnoMemory asserted this patent against a sophisticated hardware OEM suggests confidence in claim breadth. With no invalidity ruling on record, the patent remains a credible enforcement asset against any competitor whose products implement refresh-cycle power optimisation in the claimed manner.
Should your team run an FTO analysis against US7057960B1?
Any organisation designing or shipping products that incorporate DRAM, LPDDR, or embedded memory controllers with power-optimised refresh architectures should treat US7057960B1 as a live risk. This includes memory module manufacturers, SoC designers, FPGA platform vendors, embedded systems OEMs, and test-and-measurement hardware companies. The patent has not been invalidated, and the voluntary dismissal provides no third-party safe harbour.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent lets your IP and engineering teams run a structured freedom-to-operate analysis against US7057960B1 in minutes — mapping independent claims against your product’s memory refresh architecture, surfacing potentially blocking claims, and identifying prior art that could support an IPR petition or reexamination request. Start with the patent number and let Eureka build the claim landscape before your next product release.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7057960B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar memory patent infringement cases in W.D. Texas
Cases involving memory architecture and power-management patents asserted in the Western District of Texas against embedded systems and semiconductor defendants.
What this case signals for the memory IP enforcement landscape
A pre-answer exit in West Texas typically signals leverage dynamics, not strength of validity defences.
Pre-answer dismissals in W.D. Texas often precede licensing activity
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses without prejudice before any substantive defence is filed, it typically signals either a negotiated outcome off-docket or a tactical reassessment. In patent assertion campaigns, this pattern can indicate the plaintiff secured a licence or is pivoting to a different defendant pool. Companies in the memory and embedded systems sector should monitor InnoMemory’s docket for subsequent filings.
US7057960B1 has not been invalidated — FTO analysis remains essential
No IPR, ex parte reexamination, or court invalidity ruling has resolved the patent’s scope. Product teams developing memory architectures with power-optimised refresh cycles should conduct a formal freedom-to-operate analysis against US7057960B1 before launch or product refresh. The patent’s application number US10/629667 provides the prosecution history path for claim scope assessment.
InnoMemory v National — key questions answered
InnoMemory, LLC filed a patent infringement suit against National Instruments, Corp. in the Western District of Texas on February 2, 2025, asserting US7057960B1. On April 16, 2025, InnoMemory voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before National Instruments filed an answer. The court confirmed the dismissal on April 21, 2025, with each party bearing its own costs.
US7057960B1 covers a method and architecture for reducing power consumption in memory devices during refresh operations — the periodic recharging of volatile memory cells. National Instruments manufactures test-and-measurement and embedded systems hardware that incorporates volatile memory subsystems, making it a plausible target for a patent covering memory refresh power optimisation.
A without-prejudice dismissal means InnoMemory is not barred from refiling the same infringement claims against National Instruments or asserting US7057960B1 against other defendants in future proceedings. No merits ruling was issued, so the patent’s validity and scope remain legally intact. The public record does not confirm any settlement or licensing arrangement.
No. The case was dismissed before National Instruments filed an answer or any substantive motion. No claim construction hearing, invalidity argument, or court ruling on the merits occurred. US7057960B1 therefore retains its full legal presumption of validity. Companies in the memory and embedded systems sectors cannot rely on this case as prior authority against the patent.
The order directing each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorney fees is the standard outcome under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal. It carries no exceptional-case designation under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and does not indicate any finding of bad faith or frivolous litigation. It simply means neither party can recover legal fees from the other as a result of this proceeding.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.