Innovations In Memory v. Cisco Systems: Three Memory Patents, 273-Day Run to Dismissal
Innovations In Memory LLC filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas alleging Cisco’s UCS C-Series rack servers and X-Series modular compute systems infringed three memory-architecture patents. The case closed with prejudice after 273 days, with each party bearing its own costs — a resolution that forecloses any re-filing on these claims.
Memory IP assertion against Cisco’s server portfolio ends with prejudice
Innovations In Memory LLC filed Case No. 2:24-cv-00360 in the Eastern District of Texas on 14 May 2024, asserting three memory-related patents — US7672226B2, US8285961B2, and US8160070B2 — against Cisco Systems, Inc. The accused products span Cisco’s UCS C-Series rack servers (including the UCS C245 M8, C240 M7, C220 M6, C225 M6, C240 M6, C245 M6 SFF, C220 M5 LFF, and C125 M5 Rack Server Node) and the UCS X-Series Modular Systems with X210c M6/M7 and X410C compute nodes — a broad swath of Cisco’s enterprise server line-up.
The case resolved on 11 February 2025 via a joint motion to dismiss filed by both parties. Despite the motion’s initial silence on prejudice, attached settlement documents clarified that dismissal was with prejudice and that it extended to all claims and counterclaims ‘that were or could have been brought’ — inclusive language that closes off any future action on these patents against Cisco on the same theory. Each party agreed to absorb its own legal costs, suggesting the resolution was negotiated rather than litigated to a verdict.
At 273 days, the case resolved considerably faster than the typical E.D. Texas district court patent trial timeline, consistent with parties reaching a private resolution before the costs of full claim construction and discovery became prohibitive. The public record does not disclose any financial consideration exchanged, licence grant, or covenant-not-to-sue terms beyond the cost-split — factors that would materially alter the commercial read on this outcome. Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s docket for patent matters is among the busiest in the country, and early dispositions of this type are not uncommon where defendants mount vigorous pre-trial challenges.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 273 days
273 days — below the ~3-year median trial cycle in E.D. Texas patent cases
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint order means for both parties
With-prejudice dismissal bars re-filing on all covered claims
A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. The order’s language — ‘all claims and counterclaims that were or could have been brought’ — is notably broad, suggesting the parties intended maximum preclusive effect. Innovations In Memory cannot re-assert these three patents against Cisco in any subsequent action based on the same accused products or theories.
Res judicata effectEnforcement window against Cisco closes permanently on these patents
Innovations In Memory relinquishes any future infringement claim against Cisco on US7672226B2, US8285961B2, and US8160070B2. Whether any undisclosed licence fee, lump-sum, or covenant formed part of the settlement is not stated in the public record. The cost-split arrangement — each side bearing its own fees — is neutral on its face, neither confirming nor denying consideration exchanged privately.
No public consideration disclosedCisco secures permanent protection for its UCS server and modular lines
Cisco obtains certainty that it cannot face re-litigation on these specific memory patents for its UCS C-Series and X-Series product families. Cisco’s legal team at Duane Morris LLP and Gillam & Smith, LLP achieved closure within nine months of filing — before any claim construction ruling was issued. The with-prejudice nature means Cisco’s IP position on this family is now settled without any admission of infringement.
Infringement never adjudicatedEarly settlement signals a negotiated IP clearance for enterprise server IP
The rapid, prejudicial close — with no published royalty rate or injunction — is consistent with Cisco having negotiated a commercial licence or favourable covenant. For other server OEMs facing assertions from memory-patent NPEs, this timeline suggests early engagement and negotiated resolution may be the dominant strategy. The three patents remain assertable against third parties not party to this dismissal.
Patents still live vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Innovations In Memory LLC | Company | Memory technology licensing entity — holder of US7672226B2, US8285961B2, and US8160070B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Cisco Systems, Inc. | Company | Cisco Systems, Inc. — global enterprise networking and server infrastructure vendorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ashley Marie Ratycz | Attorney | Counsel for Innovations In Memory LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brett E. Cooper | Attorney | Counsel for Innovations In Memory LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Drew Bennett Hollander | Attorney | Counsel for Innovations In Memory LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Francis Petrsoric | Attorney | Counsel for Innovations In Memory LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Randy Yim | Attorney | Counsel for Innovations In Memory LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott Edward Kolassa | Attorney | Counsel for Innovations In Memory LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Seth Raymond Hasenour | Attorney | Counsel for Innovations In Memory LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | BC Law Group, PC | Law Firm | Representing Innovations In Memory LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP (Menlo Park) | Law Firm | Representing Innovations In Memory LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alice E. Snedeker | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Elissa Sanford | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Holly Elin Engelmann | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jayla Grant | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph Andrew Powers | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Louis Norwood Jameson | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Duane Morris LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Duane Morris LLP (Atlanta) | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Duane Morris LLP (PA) | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order grants the joint motion in full, explicitly noting that attached settlement documents — not the motion text itself — supplied the with-prejudice and scope-of-dismissal terms. This procedural posture is common in E.D. Texas joint dismissals: the operative settlement terms are kept confidential in exhibits while the order itself becomes public. The inclusion of ‘all claims and counterclaims that were or could have been brought’ extends preclusion beyond the pleaded counts, maximising Cisco’s protection. No merits ruling was issued, meaning validity and infringement of the three patents remain untested on the public record.
US7672226B2, US8285961B2 & US8160070B2 — memory architecture patents asserted
The three asserted patents — US7672226B2 (App. No. 10/658679), US8285961B2 (App. No. 12/616705), and US8160070B2 (App. No. 12/568612) — sit in the memory-architecture and server-platform space. The application numbers suggest a filing progression from mid-2000s through 2009–2010, consistent with an era when memory channel management, buffering, and subsystem configuration were active areas of innovation as DDR3 and server-class DIMM architectures matured. Innovations In Memory asserted these patents against products that incorporate modern memory subsystems across Cisco’s rack server portfolio.
For enterprise server vendors, patents in this technology lineage represent persistent assertion risk because the underlying memory-channel and data-path concepts can map broadly across successive DRAM generations. The accused Cisco UCS C-Series and X-Series products are widely deployed in data centre and cloud environments, making them commercially attractive targets. With three patents asserted simultaneously, the plaintiff’s strategy appears designed to create claim-scope diversity — if one patent faces invalidity challenges, the others remain. Third-party server OEMs using comparable memory architectures should note that these patents remain valid and enforceable against parties not covered by this dismissal.
Should your server product team run an FTO against US7672226B2 and related patents?
Any organisation shipping rack-mount servers, blade compute nodes, or modular server platforms that incorporate DRAM memory subsystems should treat this patent family as a live FTO concern. Innovations In Memory’s willingness to litigate against a defendant of Cisco’s scale — and to assert three patents simultaneously — is consistent with a well-resourced enforcement programme. OEMs, ODMs, and system integrators supplying similar UCS-class architectures are the logical next assertion targets if the plaintiff continues enforcement activity.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US7672226B2, US8285961B2, and US8160070B2 against your product’s memory subsystem architecture, identify prior art that could support invalidity arguments, and surface any related continuation or divisional applications that may extend the enforcement window. Running this analysis before receiving a demand letter significantly compresses response timelines and informs licensing strategy.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7672226B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar memory-patent cases in E.D. Texas against server OEMs
Browse related patent infringement actions in the Eastern District of Texas involving memory-architecture patents asserted against enterprise server and compute platform vendors.
What this case signals for the enterprise server and memory IP landscape
Three memory architecture patents asserted against a top-tier server OEM — resolved in under nine months with full prejudice. Here is what that pattern means.
E.D. Texas remains a high-volume venue for memory and server IP assertions
Judge Gilstrap’s docket continues to attract NPE-led patent assertions in the server and memory technology space. OEMs shipping rack-mount and modular compute products should treat E.D. Texas litigation risk as a baseline planning assumption, not an exceptional scenario. Early freedom-to-operate analysis on memory-subsystem patents can shorten response timelines significantly.
With-prejudice joint dismissals signal negotiated clearance — monitor the IP holder’s remaining targets
When an NPE dismisses with prejudice and absorbs its own costs, it typically signals either a confidential licence or a strategic decision to focus resources on other defendants. Competitors of Cisco that ship similar UCS-class server architectures should now assess whether US7672226B2, US8285961B2, or US8160070B2 could be directed at their products next.
Innovations v Cisco — key questions answered
Innovations In Memory LLC asserted three patents: US7672226B2 (App. No. 10/658679), US8285961B2 (App. No. 12/616705), and US8160070B2 (App. No. 12/568612). All three relate to memory architecture and server platform technology. The accused products were Cisco’s UCS C-Series rack servers and UCS X-Series modular compute systems.
The case was dismissed with prejudice. Although the joint motion to dismiss did not initially specify prejudice, attached settlement documents confirmed dismissal with prejudice and that it covered ‘all claims and counterclaims that were or could have been brought.’ This bars Innovations In Memory from re-filing against Cisco on the same patents and accused products.
The public court order states that each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. No damages award or fee-shifting order was entered. Whether any confidential licence payment or other financial consideration was exchanged as part of the underlying settlement is not disclosed in the public record.
The accused products included the UCS C245 M8, C240 M7, C220 M6, C225 M6, C240 M6, C245 M6 SFF, C220 M5 LFF, and C125 M5 Rack Server Nodes from Cisco’s C-Series line, as well as UCS X-Series Modular Systems using UCS X210c M6/M7 and X410C compute nodes — a broad cross-section of Cisco’s enterprise server portfolio.
The case lasted 273 days, filed on 14 May 2024 and closed on 11 February 2025. This is substantially shorter than the median patent trial timeline in the Eastern District of Texas, which typically runs two to three years through trial. The rapid closure is consistent with parties reaching a negotiated resolution before claim construction proceedings concluded.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.