Complex Memory, LLC v. STMicroelectronics, Inc.

3:18-cv-03018 N.D. Tex. Closed

Infringement action filed 12 Nov 2018 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, asserting 4 patents, including a patent titled “Energy-conserving communication apparatus selectively switching between a main processor with main operating instructions and keep-alive processor with keep-alive operating instruction” (US6658576B1), a patent titled “Embedded enhanced DRAM, and associated method” (US5963481A) and a patent titled “Dram with integral sram comprising a plurality of sets of address latches each associated with one of a plurality of sram” (US5890195A). The case closed 29 Mar 2019. Product listed in the record: STiH platform, including the STiH416 model, STM STM32F100xx Series MCUs (STM32H7, STM32F7, STM32F4) (Products incorporating DMA controllers), Telemaco3P family (STA1078, STA1079, STA1195, STA1385), STiH Systems-on-Chip (STiH301, STiH305, STiH418) and similar other STMicroelectronic products.

View the 4 asserted patents in Patsnap Eureka Claims, drawings and current legal status

Case summary

Plaintiff
Complex Memory, LLC
Defendant
STMicroelectronics, Inc.
Patents asserted
US6658576B1“Energy-conserving communication apparatus selectively switching between a main processor with main operating instructions and keep-alive processor with keep-alive operating instruction”US5963481A“Embedded enhanced DRAM, and associated method”US5890195A“Dram with integral sram comprising a plurality of sets of address latches each associated with one of a plurality of sram”US5896550A
Products listed
STiH platform, including the STiH416 model, STM STM32F100xx Series MCUs (STM32H7, STM32F7, STM32F4) (Products incorporating DMA controllers), Telemaco3P family (STA1078, STA1079, STA1195, STA1385), STiH Systems-on-Chip (STiH301, STiH305, STiH418) and similar other STMicroelectronic products
Court
N.D. Tex.
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Filed
12 Nov 2018
Closed
29 Mar 2019 (137 days)
Recorded category
Stayed
Judge
Ed Kinkeade
Case no.
3:18-cv-03018
Counsel of record · 2 attorneys, 2 firms
  • Hao Ni, plaintiff counsel
  • Darin M. Klemchuk, defendant counsel
  • Plaintiff firm: Ni Wang & Massand, PLLC
  • Defendant firm: Klemchuk LLP
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Party, attorney and judge names are shown with standard capitalization; products and categories appear as recorded in the docket. Patent titles from Patsnap patent data.
Closing order

How the case ended

The case record does not include the text of the closing order.

The patents in this case. Read the full claims of all 4 asserted patents. Open in Patsnap Eureka
Before you launch

Check your product against patent claims

FTO Search in Patsnap Eureka finds patent claims relevant to your product’s technical features, so you can review them before launch.

Run an FTO Search
Monthly newsletter

Need a monthly report on closed US patent cases?

Every case that closed last month, with the court, the outcome and the patents involved.

By submitting my email, I consent to receiving marketing communications from Patsnap by email and telephone. I understand that I can withdraw my consent at any time. Please refer to the Privacy Policy for more information on how we handle your personal data.

Docket fields sourced from PACER via Patsnap Litigation Data. Patent bibliographic data from Patsnap.

Next step

Go further with this record

Read how the method works, run it on your own product, then size the next step.

  • 01 / How-toUsing patent search for competitive intelligenceRead a rival's filings to see where its products are going.GuideRead
  • 02 / AI agentFTO ReportCheck whether your own product could read on these claims.Patsnap EurekaRun it
  • 03 / Free toolAI prior art searchDescribe an idea, get the closest patents.AI resultTry tool

More next stepsHow to run a freedom-to-operate analysis

General information only. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 3:18-cv-03018 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. It does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed. The filing of a claim is not a court finding, and a docket marked “closed” does not by itself establish infringement, validity, settlement or a decision on the merits.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Third-party names and marks. Party, attorney, judge and company names appear for identification only. Company names may be trademarks of their owners; their appearance does not, by itself, imply affiliation with or endorsement by Patsnap.

Corrections and privacy requests. To report an inaccurate record or attribution, use the “Report an incorrect record” link on this page. For requests concerning your personal information, including, where applicable, the rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict or object to processing, use the “Privacy request” link. We assess requests under applicable law. See our Privacy Policy for details of this processing.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.