InnoMemory v. Rubrik: Voluntary Dismissal After 157 Days
InnoMemory, LLC filed patent infringement claims against data management firm Rubrik in the Western District of Texas, asserting two memory-architecture patents. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice in under six months, with each party bearing its own costs and fees.
Memory patent claims against Rubrik end before first responsive pleading
On 26 June 2023, InnoMemory, LLC filed an infringement action against Rubrik in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright. The complaint asserted two patents — US7057960B1, covering 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 in memory refresh operations.
The recorded basis of termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that InnoMemory filed a notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing all claims with prejudice as to the asserted patents, before Rubrik had answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. Each party was directed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees.
The case closed 157 days after filing, with no responsive pleading on record. The specific circumstances driving the dismissal are not disclosed in the available record. The with-prejudice designation means InnoMemory cannot reassert the same patents against Rubrik in future proceedings.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 157 days
157 days — resolved before defendant answered or filed dispositive motion
US7057960B1 & US6240046B1 — DRAM architecture and memory power reduction
R&D and product teams building DRAM controllers, cloud storage appliances, or server memory subsystems that support multi-word single-cycle reads or optimised memory refresh cycles should treat these patents as live risk. Neither patent was invalidated or narrowed in the InnoMemory v. Rubrik proceeding — the case ended before any substantive ruling. That leaves the full claim scope intact.
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly designates the outcome as with prejudice as to the asserted patents, with each party bearing its own costs. This phrasing is more restrictive than the rule requires by default, and forecloses future action by InnoMemory against Rubrik on US7057960B1 and US6240046B1. No substantive finding on infringement, validity, or damages was made.
Voluntary dismissal: what the with-prejudice ruling means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff-initiated dismissal before answer
Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order before the defendant has answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. InnoMemory invoked this rule, but elected to take the dismissal with prejudice — a more final outcome than the rule strictly requires. The court entered no substantive ruling on the patent claims.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissalWith prejudice: InnoMemory cannot re-file against Rubrik on these patents
The dismissal is expressly stated to be with prejudice as to the asserted patents. This bars InnoMemory from reasserting US7057960B1 or US6240046B1 against Rubrik in any future action. A dismissal without prejudice would have preserved that option. The public record states only that the with-prejudice designation applies; the specific terms or considerations behind that choice are not disclosed.
Re-filing barred against RubrikRubrik exits without a merits ruling or cost exposure
Rubrik is released from the infringement claims without any court determination on validity, infringement, or damages. Critically, the order specifies each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees — meaning Rubrik recovers no litigation costs. No injunction or liability finding was entered. The patents remain in force and could be asserted against other parties.
No liability, no cost recoveryPatents survive — third-party exposure to US7057960B1 and US6240046B1 remains
Because the case ended via voluntary dismissal rather than a merits ruling, the validity and scope of the two memory-architecture patents were never adjudicated. Companies in the data storage, cloud infrastructure, and DRAM controller space whose products read multiple data words per clock cycle or employ low-power memory refresh architectures should note that these patents remain enforceable against parties other than Rubrik.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | InnoMemory, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Rubrik | Individual | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for InnoMemory, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing InnoMemory, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Winston Liaw | Attorney | Counsel for RubrikSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Farella Braun & Martel, LLP | Law Firm | Representing RubrikSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the DRAM architecture and memory IP space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from InnoMemory's assertions and the memory-architecture technology domain — relevant for storage, semiconductor, and cloud infrastructure teams.
InnoMemory's memory-architecture patent portfolio beyond this case
InnoMemory asserted two foundational memory-architecture patents here. Understanding the breadth of the portfolio — including any related continuations, divisionals, or co-pending applications — helps competitors and potential targets anticipate future assertion campaigns in DRAM read-bandwidth and power-reduction technologies.
Portfolio breadth signalFiling trends in single-cycle multi-word DRAM read architectures
US7057960B1 covers multi-word single-cycle RAM reads — a capability central to modern HBM and DDR memory controllers. Tracking recent patent filings in this sub-domain reveals which semiconductor and cloud-infrastructure players are actively staking IP positions around next-generation memory bandwidth optimisation.
DRAM bandwidth IP trendsRubrik's IP position in data management and storage security
Rubrik operates in cloud data management and ransomware recovery — a sector with growing patent activity. Mapping Rubrik's own filing activity and any patent acquisitions signals how defensively positioned it is against future memory or storage-architecture assertions, and where its R&D investment is concentrated.
Rubrik IP defence postureLow-power memory refresh: innovation gaps near US6240046B1
US6240046B1 targets power reduction in DRAM refresh — an area of intensifying interest for edge computing and mobile DRAM. Identifying white-space claims around temperature-aware refresh scheduling, partial-array refresh, or LPDDR5 power gating could represent new filing opportunities for semiconductor and cloud-hardware teams.
Low-power DRAM white spaceSimilar memory-architecture patent cases in W.D. Texas
Cases involving DRAM, memory controller, and storage-architecture patents in the Western District of Texas before Judge Albright — with comparable assertion and dismissal profiles.
What this case signals for the memory IP and cloud storage landscape
A swift, with-prejudice exit before answer raises questions about assertion strategy and patent-portfolio risk in the DRAM and data-management sector.
With-prejudice dismissal closes the door on Rubrik specifically
InnoMemory's decision to dismiss with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is a deliberate, final act. Rubrik faces no future exposure from these two patents. Other defendants in the data-management and cloud storage space, however, remain potential targets if InnoMemory pursues a broader assertion campaign.
No merits ruling leaves patent validity open for the market
US7057960B1 and US6240046B1 were never tested on validity or claim scope in this proceeding. Companies operating in memory-intensive cloud and storage architectures cannot rely on any judicial finding of invalidity. An FTO analysis against these patents remains relevant for the broader sector.
InnoMemory v Rubrik — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed. InnoMemory filed a notice under Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissing all claims with prejudice as to the asserted patents before Rubrik had answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. Each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees.
InnoMemory asserted two patents: US7057960B1, covering 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 in memory device refresh operations.
A dismissal with prejudice bars InnoMemory from reasserting US7057960B1 or US6240046B1 against Rubrik in any future action. The patents remain valid and enforceable against other parties, but Rubrik is permanently released from liability under these specific patents in connection with this dispute.
No. The case ended via voluntary dismissal before Rubrik filed any responsive pleading. No court determination was made on infringement, patent validity, or claim scope. The patents remain in force with their full claim scope intact.
InnoMemory was represented by William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP. Rubrik was represented by Winston Liaw of Farella Braun & Martel, LLP. The case was heard before Judge Alan D. Albright in the Western District of Texas.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.