The parties and the patents
The case is Innovations In Memory LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, No. 2:26-cv-00918 (E.D. Tex.). The complaint says IIM's portfolio was developed by Violin Memory Inc. and includes patent assets of GridIron Systems and Xiotech Corporation, which Violin acquired. The asserted patents are U.S. Patents 8,452,929, 9,304,714, 8,285,961, 7,672,226, and 8,214,608.
What the patents cover
Each count names one charted independent claim and says the full list of asserted claims will come in infringement contentions. Claim 35 of the '929 patent covers a storage system whose processor keeps a dynamic table in volatile memory describing data in non-volatile memory, a checkpointed copy of that table, and a transaction log, and repairs the table by discovering data written after the last log update. It is accused through Alletra Storage 5000 and 6000 systems built on the CASL architecture.
Claim 12 of the '714 patent covers a memory system with multiple controllers that each keep a pool of free memory areas, form a logical unit from that pool, and coordinate with the other controllers so that each assigns the same free memory area to the logical unit. It is accused through the Alletra Storage MP B10000 with Express Layout. Claim 1 of the '961 patent covers logic that compares storage access performance for different volumes against their service level agreements and allocates more tiering media to volumes that fall short. It is accused through XP8 systems with Smart Tiers.
Claim 18 of the '226 patent covers a port adapter for a redundant Fibre Channel path, with a port in a storage node coupled to a Fibre Channel network, a topology database of network paths to a host, and a processor that detects a connection change and uses the database to verify that the port has at least two paths to the host. It is accused through Alletra 9000 systems with Persistent Port. Claim 1 of the '608 patent covers a storage control system with logic that monitors storage operations, counters that track when operations access the storage device, and a local tiering medium that stores data according to those times. It is accused through Gen11 ProLiant and Apollo servers with Smart Array SR controllers.
The notice history, according to the complaint
The complaint says IIM wrote to HPE on August 11, 2022, identifying the '929, '226, and '608 patents; on August 2, 2024, adding the '714 and '961 patents and naming Alletra and ProLiant products; and on January 17, 2025, identifying all five patents. It says HPE replied on January 28, 2025, acknowledging the second and third letters, saying it could not locate the first and did not receive the second until earlier in January 2025, and giving no substantive response. The complaint also alleges earlier knowledge of three patents through patent prosecution by Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP, which it says on information and belief is an HPE subsidiary: the '929 patent was cited as prior art against that company's applications as of at least April 7, 2017, the '226 patent's application was cited in a rejection as of at least January 25, 2017, and the published '608 application appeared on that company's information disclosure statement as of at least August 11, 2011. Each count alleges direct infringement, induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b), contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(c) and/or (f), and willfulness. The indirect infringement and willfulness allegations date HPE's knowledge to August 11, 2022 for the '929, '226, and '608 patents and to August 2, 2024 for the '714 and '961 patents, with the filing of the complaint as a fallback.
Relief requested
IIM asks for past, present, and future damages with costs, expenses, and interest; a willfulness finding and treble damages; compulsory ongoing licensing fees; an accounting and supplemental damages, including for later products not colorably different from those accused; and attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. 285. It does not ask for an injunction. The complaint demands a jury trial.
What it means
The willfulness theory rests on a multi-year letter record, so watch for disputes over pre-suit knowledge, including HPE's statement that it could not locate the 2022 letter. IIM has asserted patents from this portfolio before. In Innovations In Memory LLC v. Dell Technologies Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00602 (W.D. Tex.), IIM asserted the '961, '714, '929, and '226 patents and two others; the court issued a claim construction order on June 10, 2025, and dismissed the case on April 30, 2026 after the parties stipulated to dismissal. IIM's 2024 suits against Cisco and IBM in the Eastern District of Texas were dismissed after the parties reported settlements. The relief sought is monetary and royalty-based, which fits the complaint's description of IIM's licensing of the portfolio to other storage makers.
What to watch next
Watch for HPE's answer or motion to dismiss the willfulness and indirect infringement allegations, any inter partes review petitions, and the asserted-claims list in IIM's infringement contentions.