InnoMemory v. Prosperity Bancshares: Memory Patent Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
InnoMemory LLC filed suit against Prosperity Bancshares, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas asserting two memory-architecture patents covering multi-word read operations and low-power DRAM refresh. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41 after 193 days — leaving the door open for future assertions.
Memory patent assertion ends early — but without prejudice flag warrants caution
InnoMemory LLC filed this infringement action against Prosperity Bancshares, Inc. on 1 March 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, asserting two patents: US7057960B1, directed to an integrated circuit RAM capable of reading one or more data words in a single clock cycle, and US6240046B1, covering a method and architecture for reducing power consumption during memory refresh operations. The case was docketed as member case No. 2:24-cv-00150 within a lead action (No. 2:24-cv-146), suggesting InnoMemory was pursuing a broader, multi-defendant campaign.
On 10 September 2024 — 193 days after filing — InnoMemory filed a Notice of Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), voluntarily dismissing all claims against Prosperity Bancshares without prejudice. The Court accepted and acknowledged the notice, dismissed the member case, and denied all pending relief as moot, while keeping the lead case open. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, InnoMemory is not barred from reasserting the same patents against Prosperity Bancshares in a future action.
The 193-day lifecycle — ending before any substantive ruling on the merits — is consistent with pre-Markman resolution patterns common to licensing-focused patent assertion campaigns in E.D. Texas. The public record does not disclose whether a licensing agreement, financial settlement, or purely tactical decision drove the dismissal. The survival of the lead case indicates the patents remain in active assertion against at least one other defendant, which raises ongoing relevance for any company in the memory or semiconductor supply chain.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 193 days
193 days — resolved before claim construction, faster than E.D. Tex. median
Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice: what the ruling means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right to dismiss before answer or summary judgment
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, InnoMemory filed its Notice of Dismissal and the Court accepted it, closing the member case. Critically, no merits determination was made — the patents were neither validated nor invalidated by this proceeding.
No merits adjudicationDismissal without prejudice: the distinction that matters most
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ means InnoMemory retains the right to refile the same claims against Prosperity Bancshares at any time, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any ‘two-dismissal’ rule constraints. This is meaningfully different from a dismissal ‘with prejudice,’ which would bar refiling permanently. The public record here explicitly confirms the without-prejudice designation, so no permanent bar was created.
Refiling remains possibleProsperity Bancshares escapes liability — for now
Prosperity Bancshares obtains a clean exit from this particular action with no judgment, injunction, or damages award entered against it. However, the without-prejudice nature of the dismissal means it cannot treat this as a final resolution. If InnoMemory refiles — or if a related proceeding in the lead case produces adverse patent rulings — Prosperity Bancshares may face renewed exposure. Monitoring the lead case (No. 2:24-cv-146) is advisable.
No estoppel createdLead case still open: patent assertion campaign continues
The court’s order explicitly keeps lead case No. 2:24-cv-146 open, indicating InnoMemory is pursuing the same memory patents against at least one additional defendant. Companies in the memory semiconductor supply chain — including banks and fintechs deploying custom or licensed memory architectures — should treat the survival of this campaign as a signal to review their exposure to US7057960B1 and US6240046B1.
Multi-defendant campaign activeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | InnoMemory, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7057960B1 and US6240046B1 (memory architecture patents)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Prosperity Bancshares, Inc. | Company | Texas-based regional bank and financial services companySearch 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 | D. Scott Hemingway | Attorney | Counsel for Prosperity Bancshares, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kelly Elizabeth Ransom | Attorney | Counsel for Prosperity Bancshares, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Charles Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Prosperity Bancshares, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Hemingway & Hansen LLP | Law Firm | Representing Prosperity Bancshares, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP (La) | Law Firm | Representing Prosperity Bancshares, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Scheef & Stone LLP (Marshall) | Law Firm | Representing Prosperity Bancshares, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s order accepting InnoMemory’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice is a purely procedural act with no substantive ruling on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The explicit ‘without prejudice’ designation is the operative phrase: it preserves InnoMemory’s right to refile. The denial of all pending relief ‘as moot’ confirms no interlocutory rulings were entered, leaving the patents unscrutinised by this court. The lead case staying open is the most commercially significant element of the order.
US7057960B1 & US6240046B1 — Memory Architecture and DRAM Refresh Patents
US7057960B1 (App. No. 10/629,667) covers an integrated circuit random access memory designed to read either one or more than one data word in a single clock cycle — a capability relevant to bandwidth-intensive processing architectures. US6240046B1 (App. No. 09/502,983) is directed to a method and architecture for reducing power consumption during memory refresh operations, a foundational concern in DRAM design and battery-sensitive deployments. Both patents originate from application-level filings that predate widespread multi-core and mobile memory standardisation.
The assertion of these patents against a banking institution suggests InnoMemory’s enforcement theory may extend to downstream users of memory technology embedded in servers, storage arrays, or financial infrastructure rather than semiconductor manufacturers themselves. This broadens the potential defendant universe considerably. Any organisation deploying enterprise memory subsystems — particularly those with custom refresh or burst-read configurations — should evaluate whether their hardware specifications fall within the claim scope of either patent, especially while the lead case remains active.
Should you run an FTO against US7057960B1 and US6240046B1?
If your organisation designs, licenses, or procures memory subsystems with burst-read or multi-word access capabilities, or with power-optimised refresh architectures, both patents in this case are directly relevant to your freedom-to-operate position. The fact that these patents have been asserted against a financial services company — rather than a chip manufacturer — signals that InnoMemory’s infringement theory is not limited to semiconductor fabs. IT procurement teams and R&D architects at banks, fintechs, cloud providers, and enterprise storage vendors should all consider their exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US7057960B1 and US6240046B1 against your product architecture, identify prior art that could support invalidity arguments, and surface related continuation or family patents that may carry similar claims. With the lead case still open and without-prejudice dismissals preserving InnoMemory’s right to refile, real-time patent monitoring across this portfolio is a practical risk-management step — not a precaution.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7057960B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar memory architecture patent cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving memory circuit and DRAM refresh patents asserted in the Eastern District of Texas against technology users and financial services defendants.
What this case signals for the memory patent IP enforcement landscape
A rapid without-prejudice exit from a multi-defendant E.D. Texas campaign rarely means the patents are weak — it often signals licensing leverage at work.
Without-prejudice exits in E.D. Texas often precede licensing discussions
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses one defendant in a multi-defendant case without prejudice and the lead case stays open, it is consistent with a staged licensing strategy. Practitioners advising technology users should not treat this dismissal as confirmation that the asserted patents are invalid or unenforceable.
Memory architecture patents can reach non-traditional defendants like banks
The assertion of memory-circuit patents against a regional bank reflects the broad sweep of semiconductor IP claims into industries that deploy proprietary or licensed memory technology. Financial institutions using custom storage or caching infrastructure should audit their technology stack against patents such as US7057960B1 and US6240046B1.
InnoMemory v Prosperity — key questions answered
InnoMemory LLC voluntarily dismissed its patent infringement claims against Prosperity Bancshares without prejudice on 10 September 2024, after 193 days of litigation. The Court accepted the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice, closed the member case, and denied all pending relief as moot. No merits ruling was made on the asserted patents US7057960B1 or US6240046B1.
Dismissal without prejudice means InnoMemory retains the right to refile the same claims against Prosperity Bancshares in a future action. No permanent bar was created, no damages were awarded, and no estoppel runs against either party. Prosperity Bancshares should continue monitoring InnoMemory’s lead case, No. 2:24-cv-146, which remains open.
InnoMemory asserted US7057960B1 (covering an integrated circuit RAM capable of reading one or more data words in a single clock cycle) and US6240046B1 (directed to a method and architecture for reducing power consumption during memory device refresh operations). Both are memory-architecture patents with application filing dates predating widespread mobile and multi-core memory standardisation.
The assertion of semiconductor memory patents against a financial institution suggests InnoMemory’s infringement theory targets downstream deployers of memory technology — such as banks running servers or storage infrastructure — rather than chip manufacturers. The Eastern District of Texas is a preferred venue for patent assertion entities due to its plaintiff-friendly procedural history and established patent docket.
Yes. The court’s order explicitly maintained lead case No. 2:24-cv-146 as open while closing only the Prosperity Bancshares member case. This confirms InnoMemory is continuing its enforcement campaign against at least one other defendant under the same docket, and the without-prejudice dismissal preserves the right to refile against Prosperity Bancshares if circumstances change.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.