Torus Ventures LLC v. Landry's Payroll Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Torus Ventures LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Landry's Payroll, Inc. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-01041, E.D. Tex., 12/12/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has an established place of business in the District and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to a recursive security protocol for digital copyright control.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for protecting digital content (such as software or media) from unauthorized use or copying through multi-layered encryption.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) 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”

• Issued: April 10, 2007

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the ease with which digital works can be perfectly and inexpensively duplicated, which undermines traditional copyright protection. It notes that prior art security systems often make “artificial distinctions between the various types of bit streams to be protected” (’844 Patent, col. 2:31-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a “Recursive Security Protocol” where a digital bitstream is not just encrypted once, but the combination of the encrypted bitstream and its associated decryption algorithm is itself encrypted again using a second algorithm (’844 Patent, col. 2:57-68). This layering or "recursion" allows the security protocol itself to be updated and secured, as a newer protocol can "subsume" an older one by treating it as just another layer of data to be encrypted (’844 Patent, col. 4:31-42).
• Technical Importance: This approach is presented as a flexible method to update security systems over time (e.g., to fix security holes) without requiring changes to hardware, as new encryption layers can be added on top of existing ones (’844 Patent, col. 4:31-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to "one or more claims" and an external exhibit not attached to the filing (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented method.
• 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;
  • associating a second decryption algorithm with the second bit stream.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name any specific accused products, methods, or services. It refers only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" detailed in an external exhibit that was not filed with the complaint (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.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates its specific theories by reference to an external document, Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the public filing (Compl. ¶16-17). The complaint contains no specific factual allegations mapping any feature of an accused product to the elements of any patent claim. The core narrative allegation is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '844 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Question: A threshold question will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to demonstrate that any of Defendant's products perform the specific, multi-level encryption process recited in the claims. The complaint provides no factual basis for this allegation.
  • Technical Question: Assuming an accused product is identified, a key dispute may concern whether its security process meets the "recursive" limitation. For example, does the accused product merely use multiple, independent encryption steps, or does it perform the specific claimed function of encrypting an encrypted data package plus its own decryption key as a single unit?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "associating a first decryption algorithm with the encrypted bit stream" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is central to defining the structure of the first data package before it is subjected to the second "recursive" encryption step. The nature of this "association" will be critical to distinguishing the claimed method from conventional encryption, where decryption keys are managed separately rather than being packaged and re-encrypted with the data. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the claims require a specific data structure or if a more abstract link suffices.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, using the general term "associating" without specifying a mechanism. The patent summary similarly states the result "is associated with a decryption algorithm" without further limitation (’844 Patent, col. 2:63-64). This could support an argument that any logical link between the data and the key meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures may suggest a more concrete association. For example, Figure 5 depicts a process where an "application-specific key" (M) is encrypted and archived as a distinct object, which is later retrieved and used by a target device (’844 Patent, Fig. 5). This could support a narrower construction requiring the decryption algorithm or key to be contained within a data structure that is then re-encrypted.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users... to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '844 Patent" (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of the ’844 Patent only from the date of service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶13, ¶15). The allegations of knowing inducement and continued infringement are expressly limited to the post-suit period.

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

1. A primary issue will be evidentiary sufficiency: Given the absence of specific factual allegations in the complaint, a central question is what evidence Plaintiff will offer to demonstrate that any of Defendant’s products practice the specific, multi-layered "recursive" encryption method taught and claimed by the ’844 Patent.
2. A second core issue will be one of claim scope and technical operation: The case may turn on the construction of "associating a... decryption algorithm with the encrypted bit stream." The key question for the court will be whether this requires the creation of a specific data container that is then re-encrypted, and whether the accused technology, once identified, actually performs this function or utilizes a fundamentally different security architecture.