InnoMemory v. Pinnacle Bank: Memory Refresh Patent Suit Ends in 29 Days
InnoMemory, LLC filed suit against Pinnacle Bank in the Western District of Texas asserting US7057960B1, a patent covering power-reduction methods for memory device refresh operations. Before the defendant filed any answer, InnoMemory voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice — closing the action in just 29 days.
A 29-day patent filing that left every door open
On February 2, 2025, InnoMemory, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Pinnacle Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 7:25-cv-00045). The sole patent at issue was US7057960B1, which covers a method and architecture for reducing power consumption in memory devices during refresh operations — a technically specific claim in the semiconductor memory domain.
Just 26 days after filing, on February 28, 2025, InnoMemory filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Pinnacle Bank had not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment, the notice was self-effectuating under Fifth Circuit precedent — no court order was required to terminate the action. The court confirmed the dismissal on March 3, 2025, directing each party to bear its own costs.
A resolution in under 30 days — before a defendant response was even due — suggests the parties may have reached a private accommodation, or that InnoMemory elected to withdraw after assessing early litigation risk. The public record does not disclose any settlement terms, licence agreement, or other disposition. The without-prejudice character of the dismissal means InnoMemory retains the legal right to re-file the same claims against Pinnacle Bank in the future, which distinguishes this outcome materially from a dismissal with prejudice.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 29 days
29 days — well below the median district court patent case lifespan of 2–3 years
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): self-effectuating dismissal before first response
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order simply by filing a notice — provided the opposing party has not yet served an answer or summary judgment motion. Because Pinnacle Bank had done neither, InnoMemory’s notice immediately terminated the case as a matter of law. The Fifth Circuit describes such notices as ‘self-effectuating,’ requiring no judicial action.
No court order requiredWithout prejudice — but the public record is silent on why
A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish the underlying claims; the plaintiff may re-file the same suit against the same defendant in the future. A dismissal with prejudice would bar re-filing permanently. The court’s order confirms this dismissal was without prejudice, but the public docket does not reveal whether a settlement, licence, or other private arrangement accompanied the withdrawal. That distinction matters: the threat of re-filing remains live.
Re-filing remains possibleInnoMemory exits cleanly — patent and future claims intact
By dismissing under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before any substantive litigation, InnoMemory avoids an adverse ruling on the merits, preserves US7057960B1 from any invalidity challenge in this proceeding, and retains the ability to re-assert the patent. The own-costs direction means InnoMemory absorbed its own legal spend — typically modest at this early stage — without any fee-shifting exposure.
Patent remains enforceablePinnacle Bank walks away — but without prejudice protection
Pinnacle Bank avoided the cost and disruption of full patent litigation and faces no adverse judgment. However, the without-prejudice dismissal offers no permanent shield: InnoMemory could re-file the same infringement claims. Pinnacle Bank’s legal team would be prudent to assess the applicability of US7057960B1 to any memory-related technology in its infrastructure and consider whether a proactive freedom-to-operate analysis or licence discussion is warranted.
No permanent bar to re-filingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | InnoMemory, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7057960B1, a memory device power-reduction patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Pinnacle Bank | Company | Pinnacle Bank — financial institution named as defendant in memory technology 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 ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms that InnoMemory’s notice of voluntary dismissal was self-effectuating under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — a procedural mechanism that requires no judicial endorsement once the preconditions are met. The order’s own-costs direction is standard in such dismissals and carries no fee-shifting implications for either party. Critically, the without-prejudice designation means the merits of the infringement claims — and the validity of US7057960B1 — were never adjudicated. Neither party can point to this outcome as a substantive win or loss on the patent itself.
US7057960B1 — Power-Reduction Architecture for Memory Device Refresh
US7057960B1 protects a method and architecture directed at reducing power consumption in memory devices during refresh cycles — a technically specific innovation in DRAM and related volatile memory design. The patent was filed under application number US10/629667 and issued as a utility patent. Refresh operations are a fundamental and power-intensive aspect of dynamic memory management; inventions that reduce the energy cost of these cycles have direct commercial relevance to embedded systems, data centre infrastructure, and mobile computing platforms.
From a competitive intelligence perspective, US7057960B1 sits in a technically defensible niche: power efficiency in memory refresh is a persistent engineering challenge, and patented architectural approaches can read broadly across semiconductor and systems implementations. The assertion against a financial institution — rather than a semiconductor manufacturer — suggests the patent holder may be targeting end-users of memory technology, a strategy that widens the potential defendant pool considerably and raises cross-sector FTO considerations.
Should your team run an FTO against US7057960B1?
Any organisation deploying systems that incorporate DRAM or other volatile memory with refresh cycles — including financial institutions, cloud infrastructure operators, embedded systems developers, and consumer electronics OEMs — should assess whether US7057960B1 poses a freedom-to-operate risk. This case demonstrates that assertion is not limited to direct competitors of semiconductor manufacturers; end-users of memory technology are within scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US7057960B1 against your product architecture, identify prior art that may limit the patent’s enforceable scope, and surface related patents in InnoMemory’s portfolio or co-assigned families. Running this analysis before receiving a demand letter — rather than after — substantially reduces both legal cost and commercial disruption.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7057960B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar memory technology patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore comparable memory device and semiconductor IP infringement actions filed in the Western District of Texas and related U.S. venues.
What this case signals for the memory technology patent enforcement landscape
A sub-30-day lifecycle in the Western District of Texas is rarely accidental — it typically signals tactical calculation by the plaintiff.
Early voluntary dismissals in W.D. Tex. often precede private resolution
Patent plaintiffs rarely invest in filing fees and counsel costs only to walk away with nothing. A voluntary dismissal before the defendant responds — particularly in a single-patent, single-defendant case — is consistent with a rapid out-of-court resolution. Companies receiving similar early-stage assertions should treat the dismissal as a data point, not a clearance.
US7057960B1 remains fully enforceable against other targets
No validity challenge was mounted in this proceeding. The patent was never subjected to claim construction or IPR petition here. That means any competitor or vendor using memory refresh power-reduction architectures within the scope of US7057960B1 faces the same assertion risk that Pinnacle Bank faced — and should assess exposure before receiving a demand letter.
InnoMemory v Pinnacle — key questions answered
InnoMemory, LLC filed a patent infringement suit against Pinnacle Bank in the Western District of Texas on February 2, 2025, asserting US7057960B1. On February 28, 2025 — before Pinnacle Bank filed any answer — InnoMemory voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court confirmed the dismissal on March 3, 2025. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
A dismissal without prejudice means the underlying infringement claims were not decided on the merits and are not permanently extinguished. InnoMemory retains the legal right to re-file the same claims against Pinnacle Bank in the future. This is distinct from a dismissal with prejudice, which would bar re-filing. The public record does not disclose whether any settlement or licence agreement accompanied the dismissal.
US7057960B1 covers a method and architecture for reducing power consumption in memory devices during refresh operations — a core function of dynamic memory (DRAM) systems. The assertion against Pinnacle Bank, a financial institution rather than a chip manufacturer, is consistent with a strategy of targeting end-users of memory technology. Banks operate significant computing infrastructure that relies on such memory architectures.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. In patent cases, this is commonly used for early-stage exits. The Fifth Circuit characterises such notices as self-effectuating — the case closes automatically upon filing, with no judicial action required.
No. Because the case was dismissed before any substantive litigation — including claim construction, invalidity contentions, or IPR proceedings — US7057960B1 emerges from this proceeding with no validity findings against it. The patent remains fully enforceable, and InnoMemory could assert it again against Pinnacle Bank or other defendants operating memory technology within the patent’s claimed scope.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.