InnoMemory v. Team Group Inc.: Memory Patent Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
InnoMemory, LLC filed suit against Team Group Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas asserting US7057960B1, a patent covering power-reduction architecture for memory device refresh operations. The case closed just 87 days after filing when InnoMemory voluntarily dismissed its claims without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
E.D. Texas memory patent suit ends in swift voluntary withdrawal
InnoMemory, LLC initiated this infringement action on August 26, 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US7057960B1 against Team Group Inc., a Taiwan-based memory and storage product manufacturer. The patent-in-suit covers a method and architecture designed to reduce power consumption in memory devices during refresh operations — a technology area directly relevant to DRAM and similar volatile memory products.
On November 21, 2025, InnoMemory filed a Notice of Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), representing that the case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. The court accepted and acknowledged the notice, dismissed all pending claims and causes of action without prejudice, denied all remaining relief requests as moot, and directed each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
At just 87 days, the case resolved significantly faster than the median E.D. Texas patent case. The absence of any cost-shifting award and the without-prejudice designation suggest the parties may have reached a private arrangement or that InnoMemory elected to withdraw strategically before substantive litigation costs accumulated. The public record does not disclose whether a licensing agreement, settlement, or other commercial resolution preceded the dismissal.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 87 days
87 days — resolved well before typical E.D. Texas district court timelines
Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice: what the ruling means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to dismiss
Under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. This is a procedural right, not a merits ruling. The court does not evaluate the strength of either party’s position — it simply accepts and acknowledges the notice, as occurred here.
No merits adjudicatedWithout prejudice: the legal distinction matters significantly
A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish InnoMemory’s patent claims. The company retains the right to re-file suit asserting US7057960B1 against Team Group Inc. or other defendants, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. A dismissal with prejudice, by contrast, would bar re-filing on the same claims. The public record here is explicit: the dismissal is without prejudice, leaving InnoMemory’s enforcement options intact.
Claims survive; re-filing possibleTeam Group escapes judgment — but faces residual exposure
Team Group Inc. avoids any infringement finding, injunction, or damages award. The court’s cost order — each party bears its own fees — means Team Group receives no fee recovery despite the case ending. Critically, the without-prejudice dismissal means Team Group cannot treat this as a final resolution. If no licence was granted, InnoMemory could reassert US7057960B1 in a future action.
No judgment; exposure remainsMemory sector: power-efficiency patents remain active enforcement tools
The swift withdrawal without prejudice is consistent with a licensing negotiation concluding outside court, a pattern common in E.D. Texas NPE actions. Memory device manufacturers developing or selling products involving DRAM refresh cycles should treat US7057960B1 as an active enforcement risk. The patent has not been invalidated, disclaimed, or adjudicated — its commercial threat remains unchanged by this dismissal.
Patent enforcement risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | InnoMemory, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US7057960B1 covering memory refresh power-reduction architectureSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Team Group Inc. | Company | Team Group Inc. — Taiwan-based manufacturer of DRAM, flash storage, and memory module productsSearch 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 ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Timothy Tiewei Wang. | Attorney | Counsel for Team Group Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ni Wang & Associates PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Team Group Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is narrowly procedural: it accepts InnoMemory’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice, dismisses all claims without prejudice, and denies all pending relief as moot. No claim construction, no infringement finding, and no validity ruling was issued. The without-prejudice designation is the operative phrase — it preserves InnoMemory’s full right to re-file, distinguishing this outcome from a settlement with prejudice or a judgment on the merits. The mutual cost-bearing order suggests neither party extracted concessions through the litigation process itself.
US7057960B1 — memory device refresh power-reduction method and architecture
US7057960B1 (application number US10/629,667) covers a method and architecture for reducing power consumption in memory devices during refresh operations. Refresh cycles are a fundamental and power-intensive aspect of DRAM operation — the patent addresses how these cycles can be managed more efficiently. The patent’s focus on refresh power reduction places it squarely within the engineering challenges faced by DRAM designers targeting mobile, embedded, and high-density memory applications.
From a strategic standpoint, power-efficiency innovations in DRAM refresh are commercially significant across a wide range of product categories including consumer electronics, server memory, and mobile SoC platforms. A patent covering architectural approaches to this problem can implicate multiple product lines simultaneously. The fact that this patent was asserted against Team Group — a broad-line memory manufacturer — suggests the patent holder views its claims as having wide applicability across standard DRAM and module product families. The patent has not been invalidated through this case, heightening its relevance for FTO assessments.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US7057960B1?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or selling DRAM modules, memory controllers, or embedded memory solutions that involve refresh cycle power management should treat US7057960B1 as a live FTO concern. The dismissal without prejudice in this case does not resolve the patent’s enforceability or claim scope. Product teams working on low-power DRAM, LPDDR variants, or refresh-optimised memory architectures are particularly exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US7057960B1 against your product specifications, identify prior art that may bear on validity, and surface related InnoMemory portfolio patents that could present complementary enforcement risk. Running a structured FTO now — before any demand letter or new filing — is significantly less costly than responding to litigation in E.D. Texas.
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
Cases involving DRAM and memory architecture patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas, including other NPE enforcement actions targeting memory device manufacturers.
What this case signals for the memory device IP landscape
An 87-day E.D. Texas dismissal without prejudice raises questions every memory IP team should be asking.
Without-prejudice exit leaves US7057960B1 fully enforceable
The dismissal resolves nothing on the merits. US7057960B1 remains valid, in force, and available for reassertion. Memory module and DRAM product companies should not interpret this outcome as clearing their freedom-to-operate. An FTO analysis against this patent remains relevant for any product implicated by power-reduction refresh architectures.
E.D. Texas NPE timing pattern: fast exit often signals off-record deal
Cases dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) within 90 days of filing — before an answer is served — typically reflect one of two dynamics: a licensing arrangement concluded privately, or a plaintiff reassessing litigation economics. Either scenario leaves the underlying patent fully armed for future enforcement against other targets in the memory sector.
InnoMemory v Team — key questions answered
A dismissal without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means InnoMemory retains the right to re-file its infringement claims asserting US7057960B1 against Team Group Inc. or other defendants. No merits determination was made, and the patent’s validity and enforceability are unaffected by the dismissal. InnoMemory’s enforcement options remain fully intact.
US7057960B1 covers a method and architecture for reducing power consumption in memory devices during refresh operations. Refresh cycles are intrinsic to DRAM function and represent a significant power draw. Patents in this space can implicate standard DRAM, LPDDR, and embedded memory products, making the patent relevant to a broad range of memory device manufacturers and system integrators.
The case closed in 87 days because InnoMemory filed a voluntary notice of dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before Team Group served an answer or motion for summary judgment. This procedural mechanism allows a plaintiff to exit without court approval. The speed of withdrawal is consistent with either a private licensing resolution or a strategic decision to conserve litigation resources, though the public record does not confirm which.
No. The order directing each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees is the default outcome in a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal and does not reflect any judicial assessment of the merits. It does not constitute a finding of exceptional case status under 35 U.S.C. § 285, nor does it suggest either party prevailed on substance.
Not necessarily. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, InnoMemory is not barred from reasserting US7057960B1 against Team Group in a future action, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. Unless Team Group obtained a licence or other release as part of a private arrangement — which is not reflected in the public record — residual patent exposure remains.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.