DCT
1:25-cv-05631
Insurancezebra Inc v. Torus Ventures LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: InsuranceZebra Inc. d/b/a The Zebra (Delaware/Texas)
- Defendant: Torus Ventures LLC (Delaware/New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-05631, S.D.N.Y., 07/08/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of New York because Defendant, a corporate entity, maintains its principal place of business in the district and is therefore deemed to reside there for venue purposes.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its website does not infringe Defendant's patent related to recursive data encryption, and further that the patent is invalid.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for protecting digital content, such as software or media, by applying multiple, nested layers of encryption.
- Key Procedural History: This action was initiated by InsuranceZebra following receipt of a demand letter from Torus Ventures on April 14, 2025. The complaint notes that Torus has filed over 170 lawsuits asserting the same patent, characterizing Torus as a patent assertion entity. The complaint also raises invalidity based on specific prior art.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-09-16 | "Kataoka" Prior Art Filing Date |
| 2002-06-20 | ’844 Patent Priority Date |
| 2003-06-19 | ’844 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2007-04-10 | ’844 Patent Issue Date |
| 2021-03-18 | ’844 Patent Assigned to Torus Ventures |
| 2025-04-14 | Torus Ventures Sends Demand Letter to The Zebra |
| 2025-07-08 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,203,844 - "Method and System for a Recursive Security Protocol for Digital Copyright Control," issued April 10, 2007
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the challenge of protecting digital copyrighted works, where perfect copies can be made and distributed at a negligible cost ('844 Patent, col. 1:24-45). It further notes that existing security protocols often make "artificial distinctions between the various types of bit streams to be protected," and that even a secure encryption algorithm can be defeated by a weak security protocol ('844 Patent, col. 2:27-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "Recursive Security Protocol" that treats all digital data uniformly. The method involves encrypting a bitstream, associating a decryption algorithm with it, and then encrypting that entire combination with a second encryption algorithm ('844 Patent, Abstract). This self-referencing or "recursive" nature is intended to allow the security protocol itself to be secured and updated, for example by wrapping an older, compromised security system in a new, more secure layer ('844 Patent, col. 2:40-54, col. 4:31-42).
- Technical Importance: This recursive approach is presented as a way to update security systems (e.g., to fix vulnerabilities) without requiring changes to the underlying hardware, providing flexibility and a path for ongoing protection ('844 Patent, col. 4:31-38).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts non-infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶32).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A method for a recursive security protocol for protecting digital content, comprising:
- encrypting a bitstream with a first encryption algorithm;
- associating a first decryption algorithm with the encrypted bit stream;
- encrypting both the encrypted bit stream and the first decryption algorithm with a second encryption algorithm to yield a second bit stream;
- associating a second decryption algorithm with the second bit stream.
- The complaint notes that Torus's allegations cover all claims of the patent, and The Zebra seeks a judgment of non-infringement as to all claims (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 38).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The Zebra’s website (the "Accused Instrumentality") (Compl. ¶4).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint states that Torus’s infringement theory is premised on the Accused Instrumentality’s use of the standard Transportation Layer Security (TLS) protocol, specifically TLS 1.3, to secure communications between the website's servers and end-user clients (Compl. ¶34). The relevant functionality is therefore the standard cryptographic handshake and bulk data encryption process defined by the TLS protocol. The complaint does not provide detail on the website's market context, focusing instead on the technical non-infringement arguments.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not include Torus's infringement chart (referenced as Exhibit 1), so this summary is based on The Zebra’s characterization and rebuttal of Torus’s non-infringement theory.
'844 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for a recursive security protocol... | The Zebra disputes that the TLS protocol is "recursive" as required by the patent, arguing that bitstreams are not encrypted recursively. | ¶35 | col. 29:15-16 |
| encrypting a bitstream with a first encryption algorithm; | The Zebra acknowledges that TLS involves the exchange of encrypted information. Torus allegedly maps TLS 1.3's "signature algorithms" to this claim element. | ¶¶34-35 | col. 29:17-18 |
| associating a first decryption algorithm with the encrypted bit stream; | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | col. 29:19-20 | |
| encrypting both the encrypted bit stream and the first decryption algorithm with a second encryption algorithm to yield a second bit stream; | The Zebra asserts that this step is not performed by the TLS protocol. Specifically, it argues that a "first decryption algorithm is not encrypted with a second encryption algorithm." | ¶35 | col. 29:21-25 |
| associating a second decryption algorithm with the second bit stream. | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. | col. 29:26-28 |
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary dispute concerns whether the standard operation of the TLS 1.3 protocol performs the specific steps of the claim. The complaint raises the question of whether TLS performs the claimed step of "encrypting... the first decryption algorithm with a second encryption algorithm," asserting that it does not (Compl. ¶35). A further question is whether the overall TLS process is "recursive" in the manner described by the patent (Compl. ¶35).
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on claim construction. A key question is whether the term "encryption algorithm" can be read to cover the "signature algorithms" used in TLS, which the complaint alleges is Torus's theory and which The Zebra disputes (Compl. ¶35).
- Divided Infringement: The complaint suggests a potential divided infringement issue, arguing that even if the claimed steps were performed, they occur via exchanges between The Zebra's server and the user's client machine, meaning The Zebra does not perform all the steps of the claimed method (Compl. ¶36).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "recursive security protocol"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble of claim 1 and is central to the patent's identity. The Zebra explicitly argues that the accused TLS protocol is not "recursive" (Compl. ¶35). The definition of this term will be critical to determining if a standard, non-nested security protocol like TLS can fall within the claim's scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's abstract describes a two-layer encryption process without using the word "recursive," which could support an argument that any multi-layer encryption scheme meets the definition ('844 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly defines the protocol's "self-referencing behavior" as the property of "recursion," where the protocol is "equally capable of securing itself" ('844 Patent, col. 2:51-54). This suggests a specific capability, such as updating a security protocol by encrypting the old protocol within a new one, that may not be present in TLS.
The Term: "encrypting... the first decryption algorithm"
- Context and Importance: The Zebra’s primary non-infringement argument is that this specific step does not occur in the accused TLS protocol (Compl. ¶35). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely be dispositive of literal infringement. The dispute will center on what constitutes a "decryption algorithm" and what it means to "encrypt" it.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that transmitting a key or a certificate that implies a specific, standardized decryption algorithm is tantamount to transmitting the algorithm itself, thus meeting the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language of the claim requires encrypting the "algorithm," not just a key or an identifier. The specification's discussion of protecting "executable object code" and encapsulating the "decryption instructions" supports a more literal reading that the algorithm's code itself is what is being encrypted ('844 Patent, col. 1:38-39; col. 11:1-4).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The Zebra seeks a declaratory judgment that it has not indirectly infringed the '844 Patent (Compl. Count III). The complaint states that Torus's demand letter accused The Zebra of inducement and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶42). The Zebra’s primary defense is that there can be no indirect infringement because no party, including its customers, directly infringes the patent (Compl. ¶43).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not mention a specific allegation of willfulness from Torus. However, it does confirm receipt of a demand letter on April 14, 2025, which provides Torus with a basis to allege pre-suit knowledge of the patent should Torus file a counterclaim for infringement (Compl. ¶3).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical and factual comparison: Does the accused Transportation Layer Security (TLS) protocol, a standard for secure web communication, actually perform the specific, nested encryption process required by claim 1? The case may depend on evidence showing whether encrypting a "decryption algorithm" itself—as opposed to exchanging keys or certificates—occurs in TLS.
- A second central issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "recursive security protocol," as defined and used in the '844 patent, be construed to cover the handshaking and session key generation of a standard, non-nested protocol like TLS? The outcome of this claim construction dispute could be dispositive.
- Finally, the case presents a significant validity challenge: The Zebra has asserted that the '844 Patent is invalid as being directed to the abstract idea of recursive encryption under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and as anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art that allegedly discloses recursive encryption. The court will have to determine if the claims are patent-eligible and novel over the prior art.