DigitalDoors Inc v. Simmons Bank

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: DigitalDoors, Inc. (Florida)
  • Defendant: Simmons Bank (Arkansas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00319, E.D. Tex., 05/02/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains physical locations, employs personnel, conducts extensive business, and targets customers within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s data backup and disaster recovery systems, which are compliant with or functionally equivalent to the "Sheltered Harbor" financial industry standard, infringe four patents related to secure, granular data processing and storage in distributed systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for identifying, extracting, and securely storing sensitive data from larger data streams to ensure operational continuity and disaster recovery, a critical function for financial institutions handling vast amounts of customer data.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the asserted patents are pioneering and have been cited as relevant prior art in hundreds of subsequent patent applications by major technology and financial companies. It does not mention any prior litigation or post-grant validity challenges involving the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-01-05	Priority Date for '301, '169, '073, and '639 Patents
2015-04-21	U.S. Patent No. 9,015,301 Issues
2015-01-01	"Sheltered Harbor" initiative launched (start of accused activity)
2017-08-15	U.S. Patent No. 9,734,169 Issues
2019-01-15	U.S. Patent No. 10,182,073 Issues
2019-04-02	U.S. Patent No. 10,250,639 Issues
2024-05-02	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, Analysis and Classification and Method Therefor (Issued Apr. 21, 2015)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technological environment where enterprises operating open ecosystems struggled to manage and secure sensitive data within unstructured information files (Compl. ¶28; ’301 Patent, col. 1:31-38, col. 1:60-2:3). Conventional systems lacked the ability to automatically categorize and manage data at the content level, could not effectively handle the changing sensitivity of information over its lifecycle, and used dispersal algorithms that were inadequate for secure, granular storage and recovery (Compl. ¶33, 34; ’301 Patent, col. 2:28-61).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system for organizing and processing data in a distributed computing system by moving the management focus from the data file to the content itself (Compl. ¶29). It uses a plurality of "designated categorical filters" to process data inputs, obtain "select content" and "associated select content," and store this aggregated content in corresponding data stores (’301 Patent, Abstract). This allows for specific data processes, such as copying or archiving, to be associated with the filtered content, enabling more granular and secure data management (’301 Patent, col. 3:6-4:27).
• Technical Importance: This content-centric approach to data security represented a shift from file-level management, offering improved performance and security for enterprises needing to protect sensitive information in distributed networks (Compl. ¶30, 31).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 25 (Compl. ¶99).
• Claim 25 (Method):
  • A method of organizing and processing data in a distributed computing system having select content important to an enterprise.
  • Providing a plurality of select content data stores operative with a plurality of designated categorical filters.
  • Activating at least one of said designated categorical filters and processing a data input therethrough to obtain select content and associated select content.
  • Storing said aggregated select content for said at least one categorical filter in said corresponding select content data store.
  • Associating at least one data process (e.g., copy, extract, archive, distribution, destruction) with the activated categorical filter.
  • Applying the associated data process to a further data input based on the result of the further data being processed by the activated filter.
  • Wherein activating the filter includes automatic or manual activation, with automatic activation being time-based, condition-based, or event-based.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 9,734,169: Digital Information Infrastructure and Method for Securing Designated Data and With Granular Data Stores (Issued Aug. 15, 2017)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for secure data management in a "distributed cloud-based computing system" (’169 Patent, Abstract). The problem is securing specific, important content ("select content") by separating it and controlling access, while also managing the remaining, less sensitive data.
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system comprising different types of data stores: "select content data stores" for security-designated data, "granular data stores" for other data, and a "cloud-based server" (’169 Patent, Abstract). The method involves extracting the security-designated data, storing it in the select content stores under specific access controls, and storing the "remainder data" in the granular data stores. The system allows for the withdrawal and reconstitution of the data only when the proper access controls are applied (’169 Patent, col. 3:28-4:6).
• Technical Importance: This architecture provides a structured way to manage sensitive and non-sensitive data in distinct storage environments within a cloud framework, enhancing security through separation and controlled access protocols (Compl. ¶131).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶130).
• Claim 1 (Method):
  • A method of organizing and processing data in a distributed cloud-based computing system having select content.
  • Providing a plurality of select content data stores, a plurality of granular data stores, and a cloud-based server, with each select content data store having access controls.
  • Providing a communications network coupling the data stores and the server.
  • Extracting and storing security designated data in respective select content data stores.
  • Activating at least one select content data store to permit access based on applying one or more access controls.
  • Parsing remainder data not extracted and storing it in respective granular data stores.
  • Withdrawing some or all of the security designated data and parsed data from the stores only in the presence of the respective access controls.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,182,073: Information Infrastructure Management Tools with Configurable Filters and Segmental Data Stores (Issued Jan. 15, 2019)

• Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on creating a data processing infrastructure that uses a plurality of filters to identify sensitive and select content within a data stream (’073 Patent, col. 3:1-12). A key aspect is the ability to alter or modify these initially configured filters by expanding, contracting, or reclassifying the content they are designed to identify, allowing for dynamic adaptation of the data management rules (’073 Patent, col. 132:11-20).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶166).
• Accused Features: The accused features are the systems used by Simmons Bank that allegedly implement protection policies (filters) and provide a user interface for modifying those policies, thereby altering how customer account data is identified, extracted, and vaulted (Compl. ¶182, 183).

U.S. Patent No. 10,250,639: Information Infrastructure Management Data Processing Tools for Data Flow with Distribution Controls (Issued Apr. 2, 2019)

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for "sanitizing" data by processing it through a system with multiple sensitivity levels and security clearances (’639 Patent, Abstract). The method involves extracting sensitive content, storing it in secure "extract data stores," and then using various filters (content, contextual, taxonomic) to perform "inferencing" on the sanitized data to derive further meaning or classification (’639 Patent, col. 4:1-15, col. 132:14-17).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 16 is asserted (Compl. ¶193).
• Accused Features: The accused features are the data vaulting systems that extract critical financial data based on its sensitivity (e.g., customer account information), store it securely, and allegedly use data analytics and filtering to classify and protect the vaulted information (Compl. ¶218, 221).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as the systems and methods Simmons Bank uses for processing and backing up data, which are alleged to be compliant with the "Sheltered Harbor" specification or a functional equivalent (Compl. ¶96). The complaint frequently uses the Dell PowerProtect Cyber Recovery for Sheltered Harbor system as an exemplary, non-limiting embodiment of the accused technology (Compl. ¶72).
• Functionality and Market Context: The accused systems are designed to protect critical customer financial data from destructive cyberattacks (Compl. ¶63). The core functionality involves extracting critical account data, converting it to a standard format, and storing it in a secure, isolated, and immutable "data vault" that is physically or logically "air-gapped" from the production network (Compl. ¶70, 74, 77). This process is designed to create secure backups that can be used for restoration and to ensure continuity of customer-facing services if primary systems fail (Compl. ¶66, 78). The complaint presents a diagram from Dell illustrating this architecture, which includes a "Production Environment" and a separate "Data Vault Environment" connected by a secure, air-gapped replication link (Compl. p. 32).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'301 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 25)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
...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 multiple data stores (e.g., for backup, copy, analysis) that operate with "protection policies," which act as categorical filters to identify critical data to be protected.	¶105, 107	col. 13:25-37
...activating at least one of said designated categorical filters and processing a data input therethrough to obtain said select content and associated select content... as aggregated select content.	The systems activate protection policies (filters) to extract critical financial account information (select content). This is done using rules and tags to group and aggregate the relevant data for vaulting.	¶109, 110	col. 13:38-44
...storing said aggregated select content for said at least one categorical filter in said corresponding select content data store.	The extracted and aggregated critical account data is stored in corresponding storage units or "data trees" within the secure data vault.	¶113, 114	col. 13:45-48
...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...	The established protection policies associate specific data processes, such as data backup (a copy/archive process), with the filtered data, dictating that it be copied to the vault.	¶116, 117	col. 13:51-57
...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...	Once a protection policy is established, all subsequent data inputs matching the filter criteria (e.g., new customer data) are processed in the same way (e.g., backed up to the same storage unit).	¶119, 120	col. 13:58-63
...activating a designated categorical filter, which encompasses an automatic activation... said automatic activation is time-based... or event-based.	The backup and vaulting processes are performed automatically on a nightly basis (time-based) or when new assets are detected (event-based).	¶122, 123	col. 13:67-14:5

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the "protection policies," "rules," and "tags" used in the modern Sheltered Harbor-compliant systems (Compl. ¶88, 89) fall within the scope of the term "designated categorical filters" as described in the ’301 Patent. The defense may argue that the accused filters operate differently or are not "categorical" in the manner claimed.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that once a policy is established, "all further data inputs processed under the filter are processed in the same way" (Compl. ¶91, 119). A factual question may arise as to whether the accused systems apply the data process based on a "result" of the filtering step itself, as required by the claim, or based on a pre-set schedule independent of any specific filtering "result."

'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 includes a secure "data vault" (select content data stores) and separate production/backup systems (granular data stores). These components are optionally deployed on and managed by cloud-based platforms like AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud.	¶137, 133	col. 132:15-20
...extracting and storing said security designated data in respective select content data stores.	The accused systems extract critical customer account data and store it in the secure, air-gapped data vault. A diagram shows this data flow from the "Production Environment" to the "Data Vault Environment" (Compl. p. 32).	¶144, 145	col. 132:27-29
...parsing remainder data not extracted from data processed by said cloud-based system and storing the parsed data in respective granular data stores.	Data not extracted for the vault (remainder data) is stored in the production and backup systems, which are separate from the vault and constitute the "granular data stores." A diagram highlights these "Backup Workloads" in the production "Data Center" (Compl. p. 71).	¶152, 153	col. 132:34-37
...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 applied thereto.	The data vault is protected by strict security measures, including multi-factor authentication and a "least-access-privilege concept." Data can only be withdrawn for restoration after these access controls are satisfied.	¶158, 159	col. 132:38-42

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The claim requires a "cloud-based computing system." The defense may argue that Simmons Bank's specific implementation is an on-premises or hybrid system that does not meet the patent's definition of "cloud-based," which would have been understood differently at the time of the 2007 priority date.
  • Technical Questions: A factual question may be whether the accused systems perform "parsing" of the remainder data as required by the claim, or if they simply leave the non-extracted data in its original state and location without any affirmative parsing step. The complaint uses the term "non-extracted parsed data" (Compl. ¶153), but the evidence cited mainly describes pulling data from backup storage, not a separate parsing action on the remainder.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '301 Patent:

• The Term: "designated categorical filters"
• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention. Its construction will determine whether the "protection policies," rules, and tags of the accused Sheltered Harbor systems meet this limitation. The dispute will likely center on what makes a filter "categorical."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that filters can include "content-based filters, contextual filters and taxonomic classification filters" and can be used to enforce a wide range of enterprise policies, suggesting the term is not limited to a single type of filter (’301 Patent, col. 12:5-12).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific examples of filter modules, such as a "Contextual filter module 21" and a "taxonomic filter module 22," and links them to a "classification generator 24" (’301 Patent, FIG. 1a, col. 11:18-24). This may suggest that a "categorical filter" requires these specific structural or functional components.

For the '169 Patent:

• The Term: "cloud-based computing system"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble but is integral to defining the claimed environment. As the priority date is 2007, its meaning may be narrower than the modern, ubiquitous understanding of "the cloud." The infringement allegation hinges on whether the accused Simmons Bank system, which may be on-premises, hybrid, or hosted, qualifies as "cloud-based."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to provide a specific definition, which may suggest the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as understood at the time. The complaint argues that exemplary systems are designed for deployment on AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud, which are indisputably cloud platforms (Compl. ¶133).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract and claims consistently use the term, but the detailed description often refers to more traditional client-server architectures with servers (e.g., server 152) connected over the internet (e.g., '169 Patent, FIG. 6). A defendant may argue this context limits the term to a specific type of internet-based server architecture, potentially excluding certain on-premises or private virtualized environments.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain separate counts for indirect infringement. The allegations focus on Defendant's direct infringement through its own making and using of the accused systems (Compl. ¶99, 130).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's knowledge of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶226-228). The basis for knowledge is alleged to be, at the latest, the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶227). In the alternative, the complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge dating back to at least September 30, 2014, based on the citation of the DigitalDoors patents during the prosecution of Defendant's own patent applications (Compl. ¶227). The complaint further alleges willful blindness, asserting that Defendant has a policy of not reviewing the patents of others (Compl. ¶228).

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

1. Definitional Scope and Technical Evolution: A primary issue will be whether the claim terms drafted for a 2007-era technological context (e.g., "categorical filters," "cloud-based computing system") can be construed to read on the architecture and terminology of modern data security standards like Sheltered Harbor, which were developed nearly a decade later. The case may turn on whether concepts like "protection policies" are technically and legally equivalent to the claimed "filters."

2. Evidentiary Correlation: The complaint builds its infringement theory on public-facing documents describing the Sheltered Harbor standard and exemplary Dell products. A key evidentiary question will be whether discovery confirms that Simmons Bank’s actual, internal data vaulting architecture performs each step of the asserted method claims in a manner that directly maps onto these public descriptions and, by extension, the patent claims.

3. Pre-Suit Knowledge for Willfulness: The allegation that Defendant was on notice of the patents-in-suit because they were cited during the prosecution of its own patent applications is a significant factual predicate for willfulness. The litigation will likely involve a deep inquiry into what Defendant knew about these references and when, and whether its alleged "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" constitutes willful blindness.