DCT
1:25-cv-01895
DigitalDoors Inc v. Flushing Bank
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: DigitalDoors, Inc. (Florida)
- Defendant: Flushing Bank (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Lucosky Brookman, LLP; Hoffberg & Associates
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-1895, E.D.N.Y., 04/07/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York because Defendant maintains a regular and established business presence, including physical branch locations, and targets customers within the District.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s data backup and disaster recovery systems, particularly those compliant with the financial industry’s "Sheltered Harbor" standard, infringe four patents related to methods for securely processing, filtering, and storing granular data in distributed computing systems.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses secure data management and survivability, a critical area for financial institutions seeking to protect sensitive customer data and ensure operational continuity in the face of catastrophic cyberattacks.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges the patented technology was developed for U.S. government and military survivability applications well before the financial industry began developing the accused "Sheltered Harbor" standards in 2015. It also alleges Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents due to their citation during the prosecution of Defendant's own patent applications, forming a basis for willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-01-05 | Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit |
| 2015-01-01 | Sheltered Harbor financial services initiative launched |
| 2015-04-21 | U.S. Patent No. 9,015,301 Issued |
| 2017-08-15 | U.S. Patent No. 9,734,169 Issued |
| 2019-01-15 | U.S. Patent No. 10,182,073 Issued |
| 2019-04-02 | U.S. Patent No. 10,250,639 Issued |
| 2025-04-07 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,015,301 - "Information Infrastructure Management Tools with Extractor, Secure Storage, Content Analysis and Classification and Method Therefor," Issued April 21, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes prior art data management systems as inadequate for handling unstructured data, vulnerable in open ecosystems due to numerous access points, and unable to effectively manage the changing sensitivity of information over its lifecycle (Compl. ¶30-33; ’301 Patent, col. 1:31-2:61).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for organizing data based on its content rather than its file structure. It uses "categorical filters" to identify and extract important "select content" from a data stream. This select content is then stored in designated secure locations and associated with specific "data processes" such as copying, archiving, or destruction, allowing for granular control over the data's lifecycle and security (’301 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:20-4:15).
- Technical Importance: This approach represented a shift from file-level to content-level security, enabling more sophisticated and automated management of sensitive data within complex, distributed enterprise systems (Compl. ¶27).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 25 (Compl. ¶99).
- The essential elements of Claim 25 include:
- Providing a plurality of select content data stores operative with a plurality of designated categorical filters.
- Activating at least one filter and processing a data input to obtain select content.
- Storing the aggregated select content in a corresponding data store.
- Associating at least one data process (e.g., copy, extract, archive, distribution, destruction) with the activated filter.
- Applying the associated data process to a further data input based on the results of that data being processed by the filter.
U.S. Patent No. 9,734,169 - "Digital Information Infrastructure and Method for Securing Designated Data and with Granular Data Stores," Issued August 15, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses the security risks of storing sensitive information in distributed or cloud-based systems, where data is vulnerable to attack and must be recoverable after a system failure ('169 Patent, col. 1:52-2:2).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims a method for a distributed cloud-based system that separates "security designated data" from "remainder data." The sensitive data is extracted and stored in secure, access-controlled "select content data stores," while the non-sensitive remainder is stored separately in "granular data stores." A cloud-based server manages access, allowing authorized users to withdraw and reconstruct the full data set as needed (’169 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:28-4:2).
- Technical Importance: This architecture provides enhanced security through data segmentation and isolation, creating a protected "vault" for critical information that is separated from its original context and the main production network—a foundational concept for modern cyber-resilience strategies (Compl. ¶70-71).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶130).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- Providing select content data stores, granular data stores, and a cloud-based server.
- Extracting and storing security designated data in the select content data stores.
- Activating the select content data stores to permit access based on access controls.
- Parsing remainder data and storing it in the granular data stores.
- Withdrawing the security designated data and parsed data from their respective stores only when the access controls are applied.
U.S. Patent No. 10,182,073 - "Information Infrastructure Management Tools with Variable and Configurable Filters and Segmental Data Stores," Issued January 15, 2019
- Technology Synopsis: This patent details an information infrastructure that uses a plurality of filters to process data. A key aspect of the invention is the ability to identify sensitive content using "initially configured filters" and then dynamically "altering said respective initially configured filters" by expanding, contracting, or reclassifying them to manage ongoing data throughput ('073 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
- Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶166).
- Accused Features: The complaint targets the accused systems' use of configurable "protection policies" that define what data to extract and protect, and the ability for the bank to modify these policies to change how data is processed and vaulted over time (Compl. ¶182-183, ¶185).
U.S. Patent No. 10,250,639 - "Information Infrastructure Management Data Processing Tools for Data Flow with Distribution Controls," Issued April 2, 2019
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for "sanitizing" data by extracting sensitive content based on its sensitivity level, storing it in secure "extract data stores," and creating "sanitized" data from the remaining non-extracted information. The method further involves "inferencing" the sanitized data using content, contextual, and taxonomic filters to obtain more refined data for analysis or use ('639 Patent, Abstract; Claim 16).
- Asserted Claims: At least Claim 16 (Compl. ¶193).
- Accused Features: The accused systems' process of extracting critical financial data (sensitive content) for storage in a secure vault, which by its nature creates a sanitized version of the data left in the production environment, and the use of filters to perform this extraction (Compl. ¶217, ¶219).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Flushing Bank's systems and methods for data backup and disaster recovery that are compliant with the Sheltered Harbor specification or are functionally equivalent (Compl. ¶96). The complaint identifies the Dell PowerProtect Cyber Recovery for Sheltered Harbor solution as an exemplary and endorsed system that embodies the infringing technology (Compl. ¶72).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused systems are alleged to extract critical customer account data from the bank's production environment and replicate it to a secure, isolated "data vault" (Compl. ¶70, ¶73). This vault is described as being immutable, encrypted, and "air-gapped" from the main network to protect it from cyberattacks (Compl. ¶77). An architectural diagram provided in the complaint illustrates this separation between a "Production Environment" and a "Data Vault Environment," connected by a secure, air-gapped replication link (Compl. ¶80, p. 31). This process is allegedly governed by "protection policies" that define the critical data to be vaulted (Compl. ¶87-89). The overarching purpose is to ensure the bank can recover critical data and restore customer-facing services following a catastrophic system failure (Compl. ¶74).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
9,015,301 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 25) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a method of organizing and processing data... in a distributed computing system... said method comprising: providing, in said distributed computing system, a plurality of select content data stores operative with a plurality of designated categorical filters... | The accused systems provide a "data vault" with designated storage units (the select content data stores) that operate in conjunction with "protection policies" which function as the claimed categorical filters. | ¶105, ¶107 | col. 3:20-30 |
| activating at least one of said designated categorical filters and processing a data input therethrough to obtain said select content and associated select content... | The accused systems apply the protection policies (filters) to extract critical financial account data (select content) from the bank's overall data environment. | ¶109, ¶110 | col. 14:15-23 |
| storing said aggregated select content for said at least one categorical filter in said corresponding select content data store; | The extracted critical account data is stored in the secure, isolated data vault. A diagram in the complaint shows extracted data moving to a locked "Sheltered Harbor Vault." | ¶113-114; p. 31 | col. 14:24-31 |
| and for the activated categorical filter, associating at least one data process from the group of data processes including a copy process, a data extract process, a data archive process, a data distribution process and a data destruction process... | The protection policies established by the bank associate the filtered critical data with data processes such as backup, archiving, and eventual recovery (distribution). | ¶116-117 | col. 4:1-9 |
| applying the associated data process to a further data input based upon a result of said further data being processed by said activated categorical filter... | The accused systems are alleged to perform these backup and vaulting processes automatically and repeatedly (e.g., nightly), applying the same policies to new data. | ¶119, ¶121 | col. 14:42-47 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a bank's "protection policy" for disaster recovery, which may broadly designate all "critical customer account data" for backup, qualifies as a "categorical filter" processing a "data input" to obtain "select content." The defense may argue that the patented invention contemplates a more granular, content-aware filtering process, not a bulk backup of predefined data categories.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the system applies the process to "further data input" (Compl. ¶119). A factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that subsequent data is processed "based upon a result" of prior data being processed, as the claim requires, versus simply being subject to the same static policy.
9,734,169 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing in said distributed cloud-based computing system: (i) a plurality of select content data stores... (ii) a plurality of granular data stores; and (iii) a cloud-based server... | The accused architecture allegedly comprises the secure data vault (select content stores), the production and backup systems (granular data stores), and is optionally implemented in a cloud or hybrid-cloud environment. | ¶137, ¶140, ¶143 | col. 3:32-40 |
| extracting and storing said security designated data in respective select content data stores; | The system extracts critical account data and stores it in the isolated, secure data vault. | ¶144 | col. 3:45-51 |
| activating at least one of said select content data stores... thereby permitting access... based upon an application of one or more of said access controls... | Access to the data vault for restoration is allegedly governed by strict access controls, including multi-factor authentication. | ¶149-150 | col. 3:52-59 |
| parsing remainder data not extracted from data processed... and storing the parsed data in respective granular data stores; | Data not designated as critical is not extracted and remains in the production and backup systems (the granular data stores). A diagram in the complaint illustrates "Backup Workloads" as distinct from the "Cyber Recovery Vault." | ¶152-153; p. 33 | col. 3:60-63 |
| withdrawing some or all of said security designated data and said parsed data from said respective data stores only in the presence of said respective access controls... | To restore service after an event, data is withdrawn from the vault and/or production systems under strict security protocols. | ¶158, ¶160 | col. 3:64-4:2 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The interpretation of "parsing remainder data" will be critical. The defense may argue that the claim requires an active analysis and processing step for the non-extracted data, whereas the accused system simply leaves it in place without an additional "parsing" step.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused systems are "cloud-based" (Compl. ¶133). The actual architecture implemented by Flushing Bank—whether fully on-premises, hybrid, or fully cloud-hosted—will be a key factual determination for this element. The complaint's referenced architecture diagram illustrates a "Production Environment" separate from a "CR Vault," which may support the "parsing" allegation by showing two distinct data locations. (Compl. ¶81, p. 34).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "categorical filter" ('301 Patent, Claim 25)
- Context and Importance: This term is the core mechanism of the invention. The infringement case depends on mapping the accused "protection policies" of the Sheltered Harbor systems onto this term. A narrow construction could foreclose infringement, while a broad one may support it.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists numerous high-level policy types as bases for filters, such as "customer privacy policy, enterprise human resource privacy policy... and document or data retention policy," suggesting the term is not limited to fine-grained textual analysis (’301 Patent, col. 4:16-24).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The summary of the invention explicitly includes "content-based filters, contextual filters and taxonomic classification filters," suggesting these more technical filter types are central to the definition (’301 Patent, col. 3:37-39). The defense may argue the term should be limited to filters that actively analyze the content of the data, not just its location or metadata.
The Term: "parsing remainder data" ('169 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: Infringement of this claim element hinges on whether leaving data behind in a production system constitutes "parsing." Plaintiff's theory requires this interpretation; Defendant will likely argue it requires an affirmative processing step that does not occur.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a system that "extracts" sensitive data, which inherently separates it from the non-sensitive data. The term "parsing" in this context could be interpreted more generally as "separating into constituent parts," which the overall process achieves.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The common technical meaning of "parsing" involves analyzing data according to a formal grammar. The patent specification does not appear to provide a special definition that departs from this. An argument could be made that the claim requires an active analysis of the remainder data itself, not just the act of separating it from the extracted data.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead separate counts for induced or contributory infringement, focusing instead on allegations of direct infringement.
- Willful Infringement: Count V of the complaint alleges willful infringement (Compl. ¶227-229). The allegations are based on both post-suit notice from the service of the complaint and, more significantly, alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Defendant was on actual notice of the patents since at least September 2014, because the patents were raised during the prosecution of Defendant's own separate patent applications (Compl. ¶228). The complaint further alleges that Defendant maintains a policy of not reviewing third-party patents, constituting willful blindness (Compl. ¶229).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical and definitional scope: Can the patent claims, which describe granular, content-aware "filters" and the active "parsing" of data, be construed to read on the accused disaster recovery systems, which are alleged to perform broader, policy-based backups of entire categories of "critical" data? The dispute may focus on whether the accused systems are technologically equivalent to the patented methods or represent a different, more conventional approach to data backup.
- A second key question will be evidentiary: What specific architecture and software does Flushing Bank actually use, and how does it operate? The complaint relies heavily on the public "Sheltered Harbor" standard and exemplary Dell products; the case will depend on whether discovery confirms that Defendant's specific implementation performs each step of the asserted claims.
- Finally, a critical issue for damages will be willfulness: Can Plaintiff substantiate its allegation that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents from its own patent prosecution history? The outcome of this factual inquiry could substantially impact the potential exposure in the case.