Torus Ventures LLC v. Gringo's Mexican Kitchen No 1 Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Torus Ventures LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Gringo's Mexican Kitchen No. 1 Inc. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00992, E.D. Tex., 12/02/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and has committed the alleged acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unspecified products and services offered by Defendant infringe a patent related to a recursive security protocol for digital copyright control.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for securing digital content (e.g., software, media streams) from unauthorized use or copying through layered encryption techniques.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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"

(’844 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of protecting digital content in an era where perfect, cost-free duplication is possible, undermining traditional copyright models based on physical media. (’844 Patent, col. 1:25-41). It also notes that prior art security systems made "artificial distinctions" between different types of digital data (e.g., executable code versus media streams) and were not capable of securing themselves. (’844 Patent, col. 2:29-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "Recursive Security Protocol" where all digital data is treated simply as a "bitstream." (’844 Patent, col. 2:45-54). The core method involves encrypting a bitstream with a first algorithm, then associating a decryption algorithm with that encrypted data. This entire package—the encrypted data and its associated decryption algorithm—is then encrypted again with a second algorithm, creating a nested, self-contained secure object. (’844 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:61-65). This layered approach is described as "recursive" because the protocol used to protect content can also be used to protect the protocol itself. (’844 Patent, col. 4:18-31).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a flexible framework for digital rights management (DRM) that was agnostic to the type of content being protected and could be updated over time by encapsulating an older security system within a newer one. (’844 Patent, col. 4:32-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead referring to the "Exemplary '844 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶11). Claim 1 is the first independent method claim.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • 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; and
  • associating a second decryption algorithm with the second bit stream.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes general allegations of infringement of "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products, methods, or services. It refers generally to "the Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" and "Exemplary Defendant Products." (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of any accused instrumentality. It alleges that Defendant, a restaurant business (Compl. ¶3), has made, used, sold, or imported infringing devices. (Compl. ¶11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '844 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '844 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶16). However, it incorporates the specific infringement allegations by reference to claim charts in "Exhibit 2," which was not provided with the complaint. (Compl. ¶16-17). The narrative allegations do not map any specific product functionality to the claim elements.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Factual Question: A threshold issue will be identifying the accused instrumentality. The complaint provides no information on what product or service offered by a Mexican restaurant is alleged to practice the claimed digital rights management technology.
• Technical Question: Assuming an instrumentality is identified, a central question will be whether it performs the core, two-step encryption process of Claim 1. Specifically, evidence will be needed to show that an already-encrypted bitstream is packaged with its decryption algorithm and then re-encrypted as a single unit.
• Scope Questions: The analysis will likely focus on whether the defendant’s system, whatever it may be, constitutes a "recursive security protocol" as that term is used in the patent. This raises the question of whether "recursive" requires the protocol to be capable of protecting and updating itself, a feature described as a key aspect of the invention. (’844 Patent, col. 4:18-31).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "recursive security protocol"

• Context and Importance: This term, appearing in the preamble of Claim 1, frames the entire invention. Its construction will determine the fundamental nature of the systems to which the patent applies. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent repeatedly emphasizes "recursion" and "self-referencing behavior" as a key inventive concept.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Summary of the Invention describes systems and methods that "utilize a variety of encryption techniques to better protect digital content," which could suggest a general applicability to multi-step encryption systems. (’844 Patent, col. 2:55-57).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly defines the term: "This self-referencing behavior is known as the property of ‘recursion’ and such a security protocol may be termed a ‘Recursive Security Protocol’." (’844 Patent, col. 2:50-54). This suggests the term may be limited to protocols that can be applied to themselves (e.g., to facilitate updates).

The Term: "associating a first decryption algorithm with the encrypted bit stream"

• Context and Importance: This step is a critical element of the claimed method. The meaning of "associating" is central to infringement, as it defines how the components of the secure package must be linked.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, not specifying a particular method of association. The abstract uses the same general term, suggesting any form of logical linkage could suffice. (’844 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures show specific embodiments where association is achieved via defined data structures that bundle keys, identifiers, and other metadata. (’844 Patent, Fig. 2; Fig. 6). A defendant may argue that "associating" should be construed to require a tangible data structure that links the algorithm and the bitstream, rather than a more abstract connection.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '844 Patent." (Compl. ¶14). The allegation of knowledge is based on the service of the complaint. (Compl. ¶15).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not use the word "willful" but alleges that service of the complaint "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant has continued its infringing conduct despite this knowledge. (Compl. ¶13-14). These allegations could form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement.

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

1. A threshold factual question will be one of identification: What specific product, service, or internal system used by a restaurant chain is alleged to infringe a patent on recursive encryption for digital copyright control? The complaint’s failure to identify an accused instrumentality is a primary ambiguity.
2. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "recursive security protocol" be construed to cover any multi-layer encryption, or is it limited to protocols that demonstrate the “self-referencing” ability to protect and update themselves, as described in the ’844 patent’s specification?
3. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Assuming an accused product is identified, what evidence will Plaintiff offer to demonstrate that it performs the specific two-level encryption process recited in the claims, particularly the step of encrypting a decryption algorithm alongside an already-encrypted bitstream?