InnoMemory v. Truist Financial: DRAM Memory Patent Case Dismissed Without Prejudice
InnoMemory, LLC asserted two integrated circuit memory patents — US7057960B1 and US6240046B1 — against Truist Financial Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas. The case, which also drew a counterclaim from Capital One, N.A., closed without prejudice after 535 days, leaving the underlying infringement claims unresolved on the merits.
DRAM memory patent suit against major bank ends without merits ruling
InnoMemory, LLC filed this patent infringement action on March 1, 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas against Truist Financial Corporation, asserting US7057960B1 — covering integrated circuit RAM capable of reading single or multiple data words per clock cycle — and US6240046B1 — covering a method and architecture for reducing power consumption in memory device refresh operations. The products at issue relate to core DRAM memory technologies embedded in banking and financial services infrastructure.
The case closed on August 18, 2025, when Capital One, N.A., a putative counterclaimant in this member case, filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of its counterclaims without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court accepted and acknowledged the notice, dismissed all pending counterclaims without prejudice, and denied all remaining requests for relief as moot. No merits determination was reached on InnoMemory’s underlying infringement claims against Truist.
The 535-day duration and the procedural posture — a member case with a third-party counterclaimant — suggest this dispute was embedded in broader multi-defendant litigation. The without-prejudice dismissal of Capital One’s counterclaims leaves all parties free to re-file, meaning the validity and enforceability of both asserted patents remain legally unresolved. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement was reached between InnoMemory and Truist directly.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 535 days
535 days — above median for E.D. Tex. patent cases resolved pre-trial
Dismissed without prejudice: what the court’s order means for both parties
Rule 41 voluntary dismissal without prejudice — no merits decision
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a party may voluntarily dismiss claims before the opposing party serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. The court accepted Capital One’s notice and dismissed all counterclaims without prejudice. Critically, this is a procedural exit — no court has ruled on patent validity, claim scope, or infringement. The patents remain in force and fully assertable.
No adjudication on the meritsWithout prejudice means these claims can be re-filed
A dismissal without prejudice does not bar re-filing. Capital One’s counterclaims — and by extension any invalidity or non-infringement arguments it raised — can be reasserted in a future proceeding. This contrasts sharply with a with-prejudice dismissal, which would permanently extinguish those claims. The public record is silent on whether any settlement or covenant-not-to-sue was exchanged alongside this procedural step.
Re-filing remains possibleInnoMemory’s patents survive — enforceability intact
Because the dismissal is without prejudice and no invalidity ruling was issued, US7057960B1 and US6240046B1 remain valid and enforceable on their face. InnoMemory retains the right to assert both patents against Truist, Capital One, or other targets in future actions. Whether any private resolution was reached with Truist specifically is not disclosed in the public record.
Patents remain enforceableUnresolved DRAM IP risk persists for financial services firms
The absence of a merits ruling means the DRAM memory patent claims at issue have never been tested in court. Financial institutions and technology vendors deploying RAM architectures covered by these patents face continued exposure. The member-case structure suggests InnoMemory may be pursuing a multi-defendant campaign, which typically signals ongoing assertion activity across the sector.
Ongoing exposure for the sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | InnoMemory, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7057960B1 and US6240046B1 (DRAM memory IP)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Truist Financial Corporation | Company | Major U.S. financial services holding company; defendant in DRAM memory infringement actionSearch 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 Truist Financial CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric Hugh Findlay | Attorney | Counsel for Truist Financial CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Charles Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Truist Financial CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Findlay Craft PC | Law Firm | Representing Truist Financial CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Hemingway & Hansen LLP | Law Firm | Representing Truist Financial CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Scheef & Stone LLP (Marshall) | Law Firm | Representing Truist Financial CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order addresses Capital One’s counterclaims in a member case, not InnoMemory’s primary infringement claims against Truist Financial. The explicit ‘WITHOUT PREJUDICE’ language and the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) citation confirm this is a unilateral procedural exit requiring no court approval. Denying remaining relief requests ‘as moot’ indicates no substantive motions were resolved. The phrasing leaves the core patents legally unchallenged and InnoMemory’s infringement claims against Truist in an ambiguous terminal posture not fully explained by this order alone.
US7057960B1 & US6240046B1 — DRAM memory access and low-power refresh patents
US7057960B1, filed under application number US10/629667, claims an integrated circuit random access memory architecture capable of reading either a single data word or multiple data words in a single clock cycle — a foundational capability for high-throughput memory systems. US6240046B1, filed under application number US09/502983 in February 2000, protects a method and architecture specifically targeting power consumption reduction during DRAM refresh cycles. Both patents sit in the core DRAM and low-power memory design space.
These patents carry strategic weight because DRAM and low-power memory architectures are foundational to virtually all computing infrastructure, including the server and storage systems underpinning financial services platforms. The early priority dates — particularly for US6240046B1 — mean the claims were drafted before many modern low-power standards emerged, potentially creating broad claim coverage. Any institution or vendor deploying burst-mode DRAM or LPDDR-class memory in financial infrastructure should treat these patents as live vectors of assertion risk until formally invalidated.
Should you run an FTO against US7057960B1 and US6240046B1?
If your organisation deploys DRAM-based memory systems — whether in on-premise servers, cloud infrastructure, or embedded banking applications — both patents asserted in this case warrant FTO scrutiny. US7057960B1’s multi-word read claims could potentially read on burst-mode DRAM interfaces; US6240046B1’s refresh-power claims are relevant to any LPDDR or self-refresh DRAM implementation. Financial institutions, core banking platform vendors, and cloud infrastructure providers are all plausible targets given InnoMemory’s apparent multi-defendant strategy.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map claim language from both patents against your specific product architecture — identifying overlap, design-around opportunities, and prior art that could support an IPR petition. Given that neither patent has been adjudicated invalid, proactive FTO and IPR readiness assessments are the most commercially prudent responses to this unresolved litigation.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7057960B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar DRAM memory patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas
Browse patent infringement cases asserting DRAM, low-power memory, and integrated circuit RAM patents in the Eastern District of Texas with comparable procedural postures.
What this case signals for the financial services and memory IP landscape
A dismissed-without-prejudice outcome in E.D. Tex. rarely signals the end of an assertion campaign — it typically signals a reset.
E.D. Texas member-case structure suggests a broader assertion campaign
The involvement of Capital One, N.A. as a putative counterclaimant in a ‘member case’ is consistent with InnoMemory having filed parallel or consolidated suits across multiple financial institutions. IP teams at banks and fintech companies should map all related case numbers to assess exposure across the full defendant population.
Without-prejudice exit preserves InnoMemory’s right to re-assert both patents
Neither US7057960B1 nor US6240046B1 has been invalidated or adjudicated non-infringed. Companies using DRAM architectures featuring burst-read or low-power refresh capabilities should conduct FTO analysis against both patents before dismissing this case as resolved. The litigation risk clock has not been reset to zero.
InnoMemory v Truist — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice on August 18, 2025, after Capital One, N.A. voluntarily withdrew its counterclaims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). InnoMemory’s underlying infringement claims against Truist Financial were not adjudicated on the merits. Both asserted patents, US7057960B1 and US6240046B1, remain valid and enforceable.
InnoMemory asserted two patents: US7057960B1, covering an integrated circuit random access memory capable of reading one or more data words per clock cycle, and US6240046B1, covering a method and architecture for reducing power consumption during memory device refresh operations. Both relate to foundational DRAM memory technology.
A dismissal without prejudice means no court has ruled on the validity or infringement of the asserted patents. Both US7057960B1 and US6240046B1 remain legally enforceable, and InnoMemory retains the right to re-assert them against Truist, Capital One, or other defendants in future proceedings. The dismissal is a procedural exit, not a substantive win for any party.
Capital One, N.A. appeared as a putative counterclaimant in this member case, suggesting the broader litigation was structured as a multi-defendant or consolidated proceeding. Capital One’s role and the ‘member case’ designation are consistent with InnoMemory having filed related suits across multiple financial institutions asserting the same DRAM memory patents.
Potentially. US6240046B1, filed in February 2000, claims methods and architectures for reducing power consumption during DRAM refresh cycles — a technical area that predates many modern LPDDR standards. Because the patent has not been invalidated in litigation or IPR, it remains a live risk for organisations deploying self-refresh or low-power DRAM in financial services or other infrastructure. An FTO assessment is advisable.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.