InnoMemory v. Xiaomi: Memory Power Patent Dispute Ends With Prejudice in E.D. Texas
InnoMemory LLC asserted US7057960B1 — a patent covering methods to reduce power consumption in memory device refresh operations — against Xiaomi Corp. in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice after 482 days of litigation, with each side bearing its own costs.
Memory power patent assertion against Xiaomi ends on agreed terms
InnoMemory, LLC filed suit against Xiaomi Corp. on 13 August 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00667), asserting infringement of US7057960B1. That patent, filed under application number US10/629667, protects a method and architecture for reducing power consumption in memory devices during refresh operations — a technology relevant to mobile and consumer electronics products that rely on DRAM or similar volatile memory.
On 8 December 2025, the court accepted a joint stipulation of dismissal filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). All claims and causes of action between the parties were dismissed with prejudice, meaning InnoMemory cannot re-file the same infringement claims against Xiaomi in any U.S. federal court. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — a cost-neutral outcome that suggests a private resolution or straightforward agreement to end the dispute.
At 482 days, the case ran longer than many pre-trial patent resolutions, though it never reached a merits ruling. The with-prejudice nature of the dismissal is commercially significant: it forecloses any future assertion of US7057960B1 by InnoMemory against Xiaomi on the claims litigated. What drove the resolution — whether a licence, a design-around, or a business decision to settle — is not disclosed on the public docket.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 482 days
482 days — above the median for E.D. Texas patent cases resolved pre-trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A joint stipulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows both parties to end a case without a court merits ruling. When the dismissal is ‘with prejudice,’ it carries the same legal weight as a final judgment on the merits — InnoMemory is permanently barred from asserting the same US7057960B1 claims against Xiaomi in any U.S. federal court. The court’s role is limited to accepting and acknowledging the stipulation.
Claim-extinguishing dismissalInnoMemory loses right to re-assert against Xiaomi
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, InnoMemory surrenders any future enforcement avenue for US7057960B1 against Xiaomi Corp. If a private licence or settlement was reached, the financial terms are sealed. The patent itself remains in force and could still be asserted against other parties — but the claim preclusion created here is absolute with respect to Xiaomi.
Permanent bar on Xiaomi re-assertionXiaomi obtains permanent shield on these claims
The with-prejudice dismissal functions as a complete defence for Xiaomi against any re-filed US7057960B1 infringement claim. Combined with the mutual cost-bearing order, Xiaomi avoids any court-imposed fee exposure. Whether Xiaomi paid any consideration — a licence fee or lump sum — is not disclosed. From a litigation risk perspective, this resolves the E.D. Texas exposure entirely.
Claim preclusion confirmedMemory refresh IP remains live threat for other device makers
US7057960B1 covers a power-reduction architecture for memory refresh operations — directly relevant to smartphones, tablets, and IoT devices using DRAM. InnoMemory’s assertion strategy suggests ongoing monetisation interest in this portfolio. Other consumer electronics manufacturers with similar memory controller implementations should treat this case as a signal that the patent is actively enforced, even if Xiaomi’s exposure is now resolved.
Active enforcement risk for sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | InnoMemory, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7057960B1, a memory power-reduction method patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Xiaomi, Corp. | Company | Xiaomi Corp. — global consumer electronics and smartphone manufacturerSearch 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 | Rene Trevino. | Attorney | Counsel for Xiaomi, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Greenberg Traurig LLP | Law Firm | Representing Xiaomi, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s acceptance of the joint stipulation is a procedural act, not a merits adjudication. The phrase ‘all claims and causes of action asserted between Plaintiff and Defendant are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE’ creates full claim preclusion under res judicata principles. Notably, the verdict references ‘Datalogic, S.p.A.’ as defendant — suggesting this order may be a member case within a consolidated lead docket — while the named defendant in case 2:24-cv-00667 is Xiaomi Corp. The mutual cost-bearing provision indicates no party extracted a fee-shifting concession under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
US7057960B1 — Memory device refresh power reduction method and architecture
US7057960B1, filed under application number US10/629667, protects a method and architecture for reducing power consumption in memory devices during refresh cycles. Refresh operations — required to maintain data integrity in volatile DRAM-type memory — are a known power sink in mobile and battery-dependent devices. The patent addresses this by defining a specific architectural approach to minimise energy drawn during these cycles, a technically meaningful claim scope in an era of power-constrained consumer electronics.
The strategic value of US7057960B1 lies in its relevance to any device incorporating volatile memory with refresh requirements — a category spanning smartphones, tablets, wearables, laptops, and IoT modules. As LPDDR memory standards have evolved to prioritise power efficiency, patents covering refresh power architectures have become commercially contentious. InnoMemory’s willingness to assert this patent against a major OEM like Xiaomi in a plaintiff-favoured U.S. venue signals that it views the claims as commercially viable against current-generation memory implementations.
Should your team run an FTO against US7057960B1?
Any company developing or shipping products that incorporate DRAM or LPDDR memory with hardware or firmware-managed refresh power reduction should assess exposure to US7057960B1. This includes smartphone OEMs, tablet manufacturers, memory controller IP vendors, and IoT device makers. The fact that InnoMemory actively asserted this patent against a global OEM and secured a with-prejudice resolution — suggesting commercial value in the claims — makes a proactive FTO analysis advisable rather than optional.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent claims of US7057960B1 against your product architecture, identify prior art that may support a validity challenge, and flag design-around opportunities in the memory refresh control space. The citation network around this patent can also surface related InnoMemory or third-party assertions in the same technical domain, enabling a more complete picture of enforcement risk before product launch or market expansion.
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 DRAM and memory power management patent assertions filed in the Eastern District of Texas by NPE plaintiffs against consumer electronics OEMs.
What this case signals for the memory IP enforcement landscape
A with-prejudice exit in E.D. Texas after 482 days suggests commercial resolution — and flags ongoing risk for memory-dependent device makers.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for memory patent assertions
InnoMemory’s choice of the Eastern District of Texas is consistent with established plaintiff-friendly venue strategy for NPE-style assertions. Companies with memory-intensive products sold in the U.S. market — particularly those without established Texas litigation infrastructure — face structural disadvantage when named in this district.
With-prejudice dismissal signals a private resolution, not a walkaway
A cost-neutral, with-prejudice stipulation rarely reflects a plaintiff conceding defeat. More typically it suggests a confidential licence or business agreement was reached. Other device manufacturers in the mobile and consumer electronics space should not infer that InnoMemory has abandoned enforcement of US7057960B1 — only that Xiaomi’s exposure is resolved.
InnoMemory v Xiaomi — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 8 December 2025 by joint stipulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). All claims and causes of action were extinguished, and each party bears its own costs. No merits ruling was issued.
InnoMemory asserted US7057960B1, a patent covering a method and architecture for reducing power consumption in memory devices during refresh operations, filed under application number US10/629667.
A with-prejudice dismissal operates as a final judgment on the merits for claim preclusion purposes. InnoMemory cannot re-file the same infringement claims based on US7057960B1 against Xiaomi in any U.S. federal court. The patent remains enforceable against other parties.
No. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 was made, and no exceptional case finding is reflected in the public record.
The court order references ‘Datalogic, S.p.A.’ as the defendant, which suggests the dismissal order may have been issued within a consolidated lead/member case docket structure. InnoMemory appears to have filed multiple related actions with 2:24-cv-00667 designated as one member case. The named defendant in the case header is Xiaomi Corp.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.