Storage Vectors LLC v. Kingston Technology: Voluntary Dismissal After 113 Days
Storage Vectors LLC asserted US10095426B2 — covering error-tolerant or streaming storage device technology — against Kingston Technology (Shanghai) in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice just 113 days after filing, before the defendant answered or moved for summary judgment.
Pre-answer dismissal in Eastern Texas flash storage IP action
On 6 March 2025, Storage Vectors LLC filed a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas against Kingston Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., asserting US10095426B2, which covers error-tolerant or streaming storage device technology. Kingston Technology (Shanghai) is a subsidiary of Kingston Technology, one of the world’s largest independent manufacturers of memory products including flash storage and SSDs. The Eastern District of Texas is a historically plaintiff-favoured venue for patent suits.
The case closed on 27 June 2025 when Storage Vectors LLC filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court accepted and acknowledged the notice, dismissing all claims and causes of action without prejudice and denying all pending relief as moot. Because Kingston had not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment, the plaintiff was entitled to dismiss as of right — no court approval was required.
A dismissal within 113 days, before any responsive pleading, typically signals a strategic recalibration by the plaintiff — possible motivations include ongoing licensing negotiations, venue or claim strategy reassessment, or challenges in serving the Chinese-incorporated defendant. The public record does not disclose the reason for dismissal, and because the case was dismissed without prejudice, Storage Vectors LLC retains the right to refile against Kingston Technology (Shanghai) or related entities.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 113 days
113 days — resolved before defendant answered the complaint
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right, no court approval needed
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss a case without prejudice as of right at any time before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Kingston Technology (Shanghai) had not yet done either, Storage Vectors LLC could — and did — exit unilaterally. The court’s role was purely administrative: accepting, acknowledging, and directing the clerk to close the file.
Procedural exit — no merits rulingThis dismissal is explicitly without prejudice — refiling is possible
A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish the underlying claim. Storage Vectors LLC may refile the same infringement claims against Kingston Technology (Shanghai) or related entities at a later date, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. The public record confirms the ‘without prejudice’ designation explicitly in the Notice and the court order. This distinguishes the outcome from a dismissal with prejudice, which would bar refiling on the same claims.
Refiling right preservedKingston exits without admitting infringement or securing dismissal with prejudice
Kingston Technology (Shanghai) faces no adverse judgment and incurred no known cost award. However, the dismissal without prejudice provides limited commercial certainty: the patent remains asserted-capable and the plaintiff retains the right to refile. Kingston has not obtained any ruling on the merits, validity, or enforceability of US10095426B2, meaning the underlying IP exposure has not been resolved by this outcome.
No merits ruling — exposure unresolvedPatent threat remains live for Kingston and other flash storage makers
US10095426B2 remains in force and has not been adjudicated, invalidated, or licensed on the public record. Other manufacturers of error-tolerant or streaming storage devices — including SSD and flash memory producers — should note that the assertion landscape around this patent is unsettled. The pre-answer exit is consistent with a pattern of patent assertion entities testing enforcement leverage before committing to full litigation costs.
Patent threat unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Storage Vectors LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US10095426B2 covering error-tolerant storage devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Kingston Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd | Company | Kingston Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. — flash memory and storage device manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Storage Vectors LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Storage Vectors LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is purely administrative in character — it accepts and acknowledges the plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), directs closure of the case, and denies all pending relief as moot. No merits determination was made. The explicit ‘without prejudice’ language is the operative phrase for both parties: it confirms that Storage Vectors LLC’s infringement claims survive the dismissal and may be reasserted, while Kingston Technology (Shanghai) obtains no res judicata protection from this outcome.
US10095426B2 — Error-tolerant or streaming storage device technology
US10095426B2 (application number US14/743797) covers error-tolerant or streaming storage device technology — a category encompassing data integrity and reliability architectures in flash and solid-state storage media. Patents in this domain typically protect methods and apparatus for handling read/write errors, data streaming pipelines, or fault-tolerant memory controller logic. The application number suggests a filing in the mid-2010s, a period of intense innovation in NAND flash controller design.
For the flash storage sector, error-tolerance and streaming capabilities are foundational to commercial SSD, USB flash, and memory card products. A broadly scoped patent in this domain creates meaningful risk for any manufacturer whose products include error correction or streaming data management features. The fact that Storage Vectors LLC targeted Kingston Technology — a major global flash memory brand — suggests the patent holder views the claims as potentially applicable to mainstream consumer and enterprise storage products.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US10095426B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing error-tolerant or streaming storage devices — including SSDs, USB flash drives, memory cards, and embedded flash modules — should assess their exposure to US10095426B2. The patent has not been challenged via IPR or adjudicated on the merits, meaning its claims remain uncontested and in full force. A dismissal without prejudice in this case provides zero clearance for third parties.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map product features against the claims of US10095426B2, identify prior art that could support an IPR petition, and benchmark against the claim scope asserted by Storage Vectors LLC. With the plaintiff retaining refiling rights, proactive FTO analysis is a lower-cost hedge against future enforcement action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10095426B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar flash storage patent infringement cases in Eastern District of Texas
Cases involving flash storage and error-tolerant memory device patents in the Eastern District of Texas, where patent assertion activity remains concentrated.
What this case signals for the flash storage IP enforcement landscape
A pre-answer withdrawal in Eastern Texas rarely signals the end of an assertion campaign — it more often signals a reset.
Pre-answer dismissals in EDTX often precede refiled or reasserted actions
When a plaintiff in the Eastern District of Texas exits before the defendant answers, it frequently signals ongoing licensing discussions or a tactical pause rather than a clean withdrawal. Storage Vectors LLC retains full rights to refile against Kingston or target additional flash storage defendants. Companies in this technology category should monitor for related filings.
US10095426B2 has not been tested on validity or scope — risk remains open
No court has ruled on the validity, claim scope, or enforceability of US10095426B2. Without an IPR or district court merits ruling, any company commercialising error-tolerant or streaming storage technology carries residual infringement exposure. An FTO analysis against this patent is warranted for manufacturers and distributors in the flash memory space.
Storage v Kingston — key questions answered
The voluntary dismissal without prejudice means Storage Vectors LLC ended the case before Kingston Technology (Shanghai) answered the complaint, but retains the right to refile the same infringement claims in the future. No merits ruling was issued. Kingston received no res judicata protection and the patent, US10095426B2, remains in force and uncontested.
Yes. Because the dismissal was explicitly without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Storage Vectors LLC may refile infringement claims based on US10095426B2 against Kingston Technology (Shanghai) or related entities, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. The dismissal does not extinguish the underlying patent rights or the asserted claims.
US10095426B2 (application US14/743797) covers error-tolerant or streaming storage device technology. This patent domain encompasses architectures for managing data integrity, error correction, and streaming data pipelines in flash and solid-state storage products. It was asserted against Kingston Technology (Shanghai), a major manufacturer of flash memory and storage devices.
The Eastern District of Texas is a historically plaintiff-favoured venue for patent infringement suits. Plaintiffs may assert venue over foreign-incorporated entities that import or distribute accused products into the United States. The court accepted jurisdiction here, though the case closed before any venue challenge was litigated.
No. The dismissal without prejudice provides no clearance for third parties. US10095426B2 has not been adjudicated, invalidated, or limited by any court ruling. Other manufacturers or distributors of error-tolerant or streaming storage devices remain potentially exposed to infringement assertions by Storage Vectors LLC under this patent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.