InnoMemory LLC v. EverFocus Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: InnoMemory, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: EverFocus Co., Ltd. (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00674, E.D. Tex., 08/14/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the defendant being a foreign corporation and having allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s memory devices infringe a patent related to reducing power consumption during memory refresh operations.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns power-saving techniques for dynamic random-access memory (DRAM), which are critical for extending battery life in mobile and portable electronic devices.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is identified as a continuation of a prior application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,618,314, which may be relevant to claim construction and the scope of the invention.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,057,960 - “Method and architecture for reducing the power consumption for memory devices in refresh operations,”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,057,960, “Method and architecture for reducing the power consumption for memory devices in refresh operations,” issued June 6, 2006.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of high power consumption in conventional dynamic semiconductor memory devices, particularly when in a standby or reduced power mode ('960 Patent, col. 1:49-56). In such modes, refreshing all memory cells consumes significant current, which is detrimental for battery-powered portable devices, even if data only needs to be retained in a portion of the memory ('960 Patent, col. 1:36-48).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and architecture for reducing power by selectively controlling "background operations," such as refresh, in different sections of the memory array independently ('960 Patent, Abstract). It uses control signals to activate the necessary support circuits (periphery array circuits) only for the memory sections being refreshed, while leaving the circuits for other sections inactive, thereby reducing overall standby current ('960 Patent, col. 2:36-44, 5:9-24).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to reduce standby power requirements for memory devices, a critical factor for the growing market of battery-powered portable terminals like mobile telephones ('960 Patent, col. 1:30-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "exemplary method claims" without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is the broadest method claim.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A method for reducing power consumption during background operations in a memory array with a plurality of sections.
  • Controlling the background operations in each section in response to one or more control signals.
  • The control signals are generated in response to a "programmable address signal".
  • The background operations can be enabled simultaneously in two or more sections independently of any other section.
  • Presenting the control signals and decoded address signals to one or more "periphery array circuits" of the sections.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name specific accused products in its main body. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in charts within an "Exhibit 2" attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '960 Patent" (Compl. ¶13). However, it provides no specific details regarding the technical functionality, operation, or market context of these products.
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain infringement allegations in the form of a claim chart within the body of the document. Instead, it alleges that "Exhibit 2 includes charts comparing the Exemplary '960 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" and incorporates these charts by reference (Compl. ¶13-14). As Exhibit 2 was not provided, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the complaint is not possible. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement allegations.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent and the general nature of the allegations, the infringement analysis will likely raise several key questions.
  • Evidentiary Question: A threshold issue will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to demonstrate that the accused products perform the specific steps of the asserted claims. The lack of factual detail in the complaint places the burden of proof squarely on evidence that will emerge during discovery.
  • Scope Question: A dispute may arise over whether the accused products' power-saving features are controlled by a "programmable address signal" as required by claim 1. The definition of this term will be critical to determining if the accused functionality reads on the claim.
  • Technical Question: What is the mechanism by which the accused products reduce power? The case may turn on whether they selectively enable and disable the specific "periphery array circuits" for independent memory sections, or if they employ an alternative, non-infringing power management technique.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "programmable address signal" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term appears central to the claimed invention's control mechanism. Infringement will depend on whether the signal used in the accused devices to select memory portions for partial refresh meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could either limit the claim to a specific implementation or broaden it to cover various selection methods.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined, which could support an argument for its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any signal that can be set or programmed to designate a memory address or region.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes controlling the portion of the array to be refreshed using "a block address" stored in a "refresh address register" ('960 Patent, col. 8:1-4). This link to a specific hardware component could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to register-based programming.

• The Term: "background operations" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the activities to which the power-saving method applies. The dispute could center on whether the accused devices perform the specific type of "background operation" covered by the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 uses the general term "background operations". The specification explicitly states the invention may be configured to control "other background memory access operations and/or housekeeping operations," including "a parity checking operation" ('960 Patent, col. 8:21-24), supporting a meaning beyond just memory refresh.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title, abstract, and Field of the Invention are all directed specifically to "refresh operations" ('960 Patent, Title; Abstract; col. 1:12-14). Dependent claim 2 explicitly narrows the "background operations" of claim 1 to a "refresh operation" ('960 Patent, col. 11:55-56), which, under the doctrine of claim differentiation, suggests the independent claim is broader. However, a defendant may still argue the patent's overall focus should cabin the term's scope.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is a remedy often associated with a finding of willful infringement (Compl. p. 4, ¶E.i). However, the complaint pleads no specific facts to support this request, such as allegations of pre-suit knowledge of the '960 Patent or other forms of egregious conduct.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This case appears to be in its earliest stages, with the complaint providing a high-level notice of infringement without specific factual detail. The key questions for the court will likely be:

1. An Evidentiary Question: Given that the complaint's core infringement allegations are contained within an un-filed exhibit, the initial phase of the case will be driven entirely by what discovery reveals. The central question is whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused products technically operate in a manner that satisfies each element of the asserted claims.

2. A Question of Claim Scope: The dispute will likely turn on the construction of key claim terms, particularly "programmable address signal". The court's interpretation of this term—whether it is broad enough to cover modern memory control techniques or is limited to the specific register-based embodiments described in the patent—may be dispositive of infringement.