InnoMemory v. Shenzhen Longsys: Dismissed With Prejudice in 132 Days
InnoMemory, LLC asserted US7057960B1 — a patent covering power-reduction architecture for memory device refresh operations — against Chinese flash memory maker Shenzhen Longsys Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice just 132 days after filing, permanently extinguishing all asserted claims.
A swift voluntary exit — and a permanent one — in E.D. Texas
On 13 August 2024, InnoMemory, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Shenzhen Longsys Electronics Co., Ltd. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00659). The sole patent asserted was US7057960B1, directed to a method and architecture for reducing power consumption in memory devices during refresh operations — a foundational efficiency concern in DRAM and embedded memory design. Shenzhen Longsys, a major Chinese flash and memory storage manufacturer, was named as the accused infringer.
The case closed on 23 December 2024, just 132 days after filing, when InnoMemory filed a Notice of Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Critically, InnoMemory elected to dismiss WITH PREJUDICE, meaning the court’s acceptance of the notice permanently bars any future reassertion of the same claims against Longsys. The court accepted the notice, denied all remaining relief requests as moot, and directed the clerk to close the case.
The speed and finality of this resolution are commercially significant. A with-prejudice voluntary dismissal at this early stage — before any defendant answer or motion for summary judgment was recorded — typically suggests either a licensing resolution was reached, a claim validity concern emerged, or a strategic decision was made to discontinue pursuit. The public record is silent on whether any consideration was exchanged, leaving the precise commercial driver unknown. Counsel of record on the plaintiff side was Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, a firm associated with NPE-style patent assertion activity.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 132 days
132 days — resolved faster than the median E.D. Texas patent case
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Rule 41 with prejudice: a one-way door for InnoMemory
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. When InnoMemory designated this dismissal WITH PREJUDICE, it converted a procedural exit into a final adjudication on the merits as to Longsys. The court accepted and acknowledged the notice, closing the case permanently.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — permanent barInnoMemory permanently forfeits its claims against Longsys
By dismissing with prejudice, InnoMemory irrevocably relinquished the right to re-assert US7057960B1 against Shenzhen Longsys in any future action. This is a materially different outcome from a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve the option to refile. Whether InnoMemory received compensation, a licence, or simply chose to withdraw is not disclosed in the public record — but the legal consequence is unambiguous: the claims are gone as to this defendant.
Cannot refile against LongsysLongsys obtains permanent protection from these specific claims
Shenzhen Longsys secured a with-prejudice dismissal without needing to file an answer or engage in substantive litigation. This grants the company a durable shield against re-assertion of US7057960B1 by InnoMemory. Notably, Longsys does not obtain a declaratory judgment of invalidity or non-infringement — the patent itself remains in force and could still be asserted against other memory device manufacturers.
Protected against InnoMemory re-assertionUS7057960B1 survives — risk remains for other memory sector players
A with-prejudice dismissal resolves only the bilateral dispute between InnoMemory and Longsys. US7057960B1 — covering memory refresh power-reduction methods — remains an enforceable asset that could be asserted against other DRAM, NAND, or embedded memory manufacturers. Companies in the memory device supply chain that have not received a licence or covenant not to sue from InnoMemory should treat this patent as an ongoing FTO risk.
Patent still active — broader market riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | InnoMemory, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7057960B1, memory refresh power-reduction architectureSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Shenzhen Longsys Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Shenzhen Longsys Electronics Co., Ltd. — Chinese flash and memory storage manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip 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 Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts InnoMemory’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice and confirms dismissal with prejudice — the strongest form of plaintiff-initiated exit. The phrase ‘DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE’ has full res judicata effect as to InnoMemory’s claims against Longsys under US7057960B1. Remaining relief requests were denied as moot, meaning no costs, fees, or declaratory relief were awarded. The order does not address patent validity or infringement, leaving those questions legally unresolved.
US7057960B1 — Memory Device Refresh Power-Reduction Architecture
US7057960B1 (application number US10/629,667) is a United States patent directed to a method and system architecture for reducing power consumption in memory devices specifically during refresh operations. Refresh cycles — necessary in DRAM and similar volatile memory technologies to prevent data loss — are a well-known source of parasitic power draw. A patent addressing this problem sits at the intersection of semiconductor design efficiency and mobile/embedded computing, where power budgets are tightly constrained.
Patents covering memory refresh power management have strategic relevance across the entire semiconductor supply chain: DRAM manufacturers, SoC designers integrating embedded memory, and device OEMs all have a stake in refresh-cycle efficiency. US7057960B1’s assertion against a major Chinese memory manufacturer suggests InnoMemory views it as broadly applicable to commercial memory architectures currently in production. For competitors and downstream users, the patent’s claim scope around refresh control logic and power-gating methods warrants careful FTO review.
Should your memory product be assessed against US7057960B1?
Any engineering team developing or shipping products that incorporate DRAM, LPDDR, embedded SRAM, or custom memory controllers should consider whether their refresh-cycle power management implementation could read on the claims of US7057960B1. The fact that this patent was asserted against a major commercial memory manufacturer — and resolved before any validity or infringement analysis was made public — means the claim scope has not been tested in court. That ambiguity creates real FTO risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent claims of US7057960B1 against your product’s memory architecture, flag prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and identify whether any continuation or related applications from the same family remain pending. For memory-intensive product teams, running a targeted FTO now — before receiving a demand letter — is significantly less costly than responding to one.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7057960B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar memory patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Explore comparable memory device patent infringement actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas involving NPE plaintiffs and semiconductor defendants.
What this case signals for the memory device IP enforcement landscape
A fast, with-prejudice exit in E.D. Texas from a known assertion firm warrants close attention from memory sector IP teams.
With-prejudice dismissals at pre-answer stage often signal undisclosed resolution
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice before the defendant even answers, the most commercially plausible explanation is a negotiated outcome — licence, lump-sum payment, or covenant. The absence of any public settlement record does not mean nothing was exchanged. IP teams monitoring assertion campaigns should track these exits as potential licensing data points.
US7057960B1 remains live — memory manufacturers face ongoing exposure
The dismissal resolves InnoMemory’s claims only as to Longsys. The underlying patent covering memory refresh power-reduction architecture is still in force. Any company designing or selling DRAM, LPDDR, or embedded memory solutions should assess whether their refresh-cycle power management methods fall within the scope of this patent’s claims before assuming the risk has passed.
InnoMemory v Shenzhen — key questions answered
A with-prejudice dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permanently bars InnoMemory from re-asserting US7057960B1 against Shenzhen Longsys. It carries res judicata effect as between those two parties. However, the patent remains enforceable against all other parties, and InnoMemory is not precluded from asserting it against different defendants.
No. The court made no ruling on validity or infringement. The case was dismissed on InnoMemory’s own motion before any substantive merits analysis. US7057960B1 remains a legally valid, enforceable patent with its claims fully intact against all parties other than Longsys.
The public record does not disclose the reason. Common explanations for a pre-answer with-prejudice voluntary dismissal include: a negotiated licence or lump-sum settlement, discovery of a claim mapping problem, emergence of invalidating prior art, or a strategic decision to redirect enforcement resources. All of these remain speculative without additional disclosure.
US7057960B1 is a U.S. patent (application no. US10/629,667) covering a method and architecture for reducing power consumption in memory devices during refresh operations. It addresses the power drain associated with periodic DRAM refresh cycles — a relevant concern in mobile, embedded, and server memory design. The patent was asserted in an infringement action in E.D. Texas in 2024.
No. The dismissal with prejudice operates only as between InnoMemory and Longsys. Other DRAM manufacturers, embedded memory designers, SoC developers, and memory controller vendors remain fully exposed to potential assertion of US7057960B1 by InnoMemory. A freedom-to-operate analysis is advisable for any company with products that implement refresh-cycle power management techniques.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.