Truesight Communications v. Transcend Information: Patent Infringement Settled After 628 Days
Truesight Communications LLC asserted US8977783B2 — a flash memory and storage interface patent — against Transcend Information’s microSDHC and memory module product lines in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties jointly moved to dismiss with prejudice after reaching a settlement, closing the case 628 days after filing before Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
Flash Storage Patent Dispute Ends in Settlement, Dismissed With Prejudice
On 15 March 2024, Truesight Communications LLC filed a patent infringement action against Transcend Information Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00186), before Judge Rodney Gilstrap — one of the country’s most experienced patent trial judges. The complaint centred on US8977783B2, a patent covering flash memory storage interface technology, asserted against Transcend’s microSDHC Class 10 cards and broader range of memory modules and storage devices.
The case closed on 3 December 2025 when the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss, representing to the Court that they had settled all claims for relief. Judge Gilstrap granted the motion, ordering dismissal of all of Truesight’s claims against Transcend with prejudice. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — a cost-neutral resolution that is characteristic of negotiated settlements at this stage.
At 628 days, the matter ran longer than many E.D. Texas patent cases that settle before claim construction, suggesting the parties likely engaged in substantive claim-level negotiation or early discovery before reaching terms. The settlement terms themselves remain confidential; the public record does not disclose whether any licence, royalty, or design-around agreement was reached. The with-prejudice dismissal forecloses Truesight from refiling the same claims against Transcend on this patent.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 628 days
628 days — above the median for E.D. Texas patent cases resolved pre-trial
Settled and dismissed with prejudice: what the order means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars any re-filing on the same claims
A dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 is a final adjudication on the merits for procedural purposes. Truesight cannot refile infringement claims against Transcend based on US8977783B2 for the same accused products in any federal court. This is a materially stronger outcome for Transcend than a dismissal without prejudice, which would have left the door open to renewed litigation.
Permanent bar on re-filingTruesight exits with confidential terms — patent remains enforceable elsewhere
A with-prejudice settlement does not invalidate the underlying patent. US8977783B2 survives and Truesight retains the right to assert it against other parties in the flash storage market. The confidential nature of the settlement means Truesight may have secured a licence fee or royalty from Transcend — common in PAE-driven settlements — though the public record does not confirm this.
Patent survives; terms undisclosedTranscend obtains finality — cost-neutral, but settlement terms unknown
Transcend Information, represented by Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, achieved a with-prejudice dismissal, meaning Truesight cannot reassert these specific claims for the same products. The each-party-bears-own-costs order confirms no fee-shifting occurred. Whether Transcend paid any licence consideration to reach settlement is not disclosed. The resolution is consistent with a defendant weighing litigation costs against commercial risk.
No fee-shifting; finality securedUS8977783B2 remains a live risk for other flash storage market participants
The settlement without invalidity determination leaves the patent’s claims untested on the merits. Other microSDHC, flash memory module, and storage device manufacturers face the same assertion risk Truesight brought against Transcend. The E.D. Texas venue and Fabricant LLP’s involvement suggest a broader licensing campaign is plausible. Competitors should monitor Truesight’s filing history for follow-on actions.
Patent validity untestedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Truesight Communications, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8977783B2 covering flash memory storage interface technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Transcend Information, Inc. | Company | Transcend Information Inc. — manufacturer of microSDHC cards, memory modules, and storage devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alfred Ross Fabricant | Attorney | Counsel for Truesight Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Enrique William Iturralde | Attorney | Counsel for Truesight Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jennifer Leigh Truelove | Attorney | Counsel for Truesight Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Andrew Rubino | Attorney | Counsel for Truesight Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Mondelli , III | Attorney | Counsel for Truesight Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter Lambrianakos | Attorney | Counsel for Truesight Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Vincent J. Rubino , III | Attorney | Counsel for Truesight Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP | Law Firm | Representing Truesight Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP (NY) | Law Firm | Representing Truesight Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | McKool Smith PC (Marshall) | Law Firm | Representing Truesight Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rubino Ip | Law Firm | Representing Truesight Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rubino Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Truesight Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brock Steven Weber | Attorney | Counsel for Transcend Information, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher Kao | Attorney | Counsel for Transcend Information, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ranjini Acharya | Attorney | Counsel for Transcend Information, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Pillsbury Winthop Shaw Pittman, LLP (San Francisco) | Law Firm | Representing Transcend Information, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (Palo Alto) | Law Firm | Representing Transcend Information, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s order adopts the parties’ joint motion verbatim, granting dismissal with prejudice of all of Truesight’s claims for relief against Transcend. The with-prejudice language is legally significant: it operates as a final judgment on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes, preventing any refiling of the same claims against the same defendant. The each-party-bears-own-costs ruling is standard in negotiated patent settlements and confirms no exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The order makes no merits findings on infringement, invalidity, or claim construction — leaving US8977783B2’s scope entirely undetermined for the broader market.
US8977783B2 — Flash Memory Storage Interface Technology
US8977783B2, filed under application number US12/906938, covers flash memory storage interface technology — the architecture governing how removable storage devices such as microSDHC cards communicate with host systems for data transfer. The patent’s claims are directed at the interface and control mechanisms that underpin performance-class storage products, making it relevant to a broad range of consumer and industrial flash memory applications including Class 10 and higher-speed SD-format devices.
Strategically, US8977783B2 sits at the intersection of consumer electronics and embedded storage — a high-volume, low-margin market where even a modest per-unit royalty can translate to significant aggregate exposure for volume manufacturers. Transcend’s microSDHC and module product lines are precisely the type of high-unit-volume products that PAE claimants target. The patent’s survival without an invalidity ruling makes it a continued threat to any company in the SD card, flash module, or compatible storage interface space, particularly those with U.S. sales.
Should your product team run an FTO against US8977783B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or importing microSDHC cards, flash memory modules, SD-format storage devices, or compatible storage interface controllers into the United States should consider an FTO assessment against US8977783B2. The patent was asserted against Transcend’s mainstream product line and was never invalidated. If your products use similar storage interface architectures — particularly for Class 10 or higher-performance SD formats — the claim language warrants direct review against your product specifications.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US8977783B2’s independent claims against your product architecture, identify prior art that may not have been considered during prosecution, and flag related continuation or family patents that could extend the assertion risk. Eureka also monitors Truesight Communications’ filing activity across all U.S. districts, alerting your team if new actions are filed against comparable products — giving your IP and product teams the earliest possible warning of enforcement risk.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8977783B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Flash Storage Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Browse patent infringement actions involving flash memory, SD card, and removable storage interface patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the flash storage IP landscape
A settled PAE action in E.D. Texas on flash storage IP leaves US8977783B2 alive and the market on notice.
Flash storage manufacturers face unresolved assertion risk from US8977783B2
The dismissal with prejudice resolves only Truesight’s claims against Transcend. The patent was never adjudicated on its merits, leaving its claim scope fully intact. Any company making or selling microSDHC, flash modules, or compatible storage interfaces should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk and consider an FTO assessment.
E.D. Texas + Fabricant LLP combination signals a structured licensing campaign
Fabricant LLP is a high-volume patent assertion firm with a strong track record in E.D. Texas. Their involvement here, combined with Truesight’s PAE profile, is consistent with a multi-defendant licensing strategy. The Transcend settlement may be one node in a broader campaign targeting the flash memory storage sector.
Truesight v Transcend — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 3 December 2025 following a joint motion by both parties, who represented they had settled all claims. Judge Rodney Gilstrap granted the motion. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No merits ruling was made on infringement or validity.
Truesight asserted US8977783B2 (application number US12/906938), a patent covering flash memory storage interface technology. The patent was asserted against Transcend’s microSDHC Class 10 products and broader range of memory modules and storage devices sold in the United States.
No. A dismissal with prejudice resolves the specific claims between Truesight and Transcend and bars Truesight from refiling the same claims against Transcend. It does not affect the patent’s validity or enforceability against any other party. US8977783B2 remains in force and could be asserted against other flash storage manufacturers.
The court order specified that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. This is a standard term in negotiated patent settlements and indicates no fee-shifting occurred under 35 U.S.C. § 285 — which would require a finding that the case was exceptional. It does not preclude a private financial settlement between the parties.
Truesight was represented by Fabricant LLP and associated counsel including McKool Smith PC (Marshall office) and Rubino Law LLC, with attorneys including Alfred Ross Fabricant and Vincent J. Rubino III. Transcend was represented by Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, with attorneys including Christopher Kao, Brock Weber, and Ranjini Acharya.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.