Torus Ventures LLC v. Our Infinite Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Torus Ventures LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Our Infinite Co (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00118, E.D. Tex., 02/02/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the district and committing alleged 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 encrypting digital content (e.g., software, media streams) in a layered or "recursive" manner to provide enhanced security and flexible rights management.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The patent-in-suit claims priority to a 2002 provisional application.

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's background describes the challenge of protecting copyrighted digital works in an era where perfect, cost-free duplication is possible, upsetting traditional copyright enforcement models ('844 Patent, col. 1:24-36). It further notes that prior art security systems often made "artificial distinctions between the various types of bit streams to be protected," limiting their flexibility ('844 Patent, col. 2:32-37).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "Recursive Security Protocol" where not only is the digital content encrypted, but the security protocol itself can be treated as a bitstream and encrypted by a subsequent layer of security ('844 Patent, col. 2:48-54). The core method involves encrypting a bitstream with a first algorithm, associating that encrypted stream with a first decryption algorithm, and then encrypting that entire combination with a second algorithm ('844 Patent, col. 2:61-65). This self-referencing capability allows the security system to be securely updated over time without changing the underlying hardware, as illustrated in the encryption and distribution process shown in Figure 3 ('844 Patent, col. 4:18-31; Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for creating updatable and layered digital rights management (DRM) systems that were not rigidly tied to specific hardware or data types, offering greater flexibility for business models like time-limited rentals and secure transfers of ownership ('844 Patent, col. 4:45-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more unspecified "Exemplary '844 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core method.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • 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 refers generally to "one or more claims of the '844 Patent" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify the accused instrumentalities by name. It refers to them generally as "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are detailed in an exhibit not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality or market context. It alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports these products and provides "product literature and website materials" that induce infringement (Compl. ¶11, ¶14). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts or detailed infringement allegations in its body, instead incorporating by reference an "Exhibit 2" which was not publicly filed (Compl. ¶16-17). The narrative infringement theory is 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). Without access to the referenced exhibit, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent and the general nature of the dispute, the infringement analysis may raise several questions.

• Technical Questions: What evidence does Plaintiff possess that the accused products perform a two-step, "recursive" encryption process as required by the claims? Specifically, what is the "first decryption algorithm" that is itself alleged to be encrypted along with the primary content stream?
• Scope Questions: How will the term "bitstream" be applied? Does the complaint allege that Defendant's system applies the recursive protocol to application code, media streams, or both, and does the evidence support this application falling within the scope of the claims?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"recursive security protocol"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the patent's title and is central to the invention's purported novelty. The patent defines "recursion" as a "self-referencing behavior" where the protocol is "equally capable of securing itself" ('844 Patent, col. 2:50-52). The outcome of the case may depend on whether the accused system's functionality meets this specific definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because a defendant could argue its system uses conventional software updates, which are distinct from the claimed method of encrypting the security protocol itself as a data layer.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Summary of the Invention describes systems and methods that "allow one to encode any bit stream," suggesting the protocol is broadly applicable to different data types, including a "software application" ('844 Patent, col. 2:56-59).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description states this self-referencing is what allows a security protocol to be termed a "Recursive Security Protocol" ('844 Patent, col. 2:52-54). This could support an argument that only protocols exhibiting this specific "self-securing" feature meet the claim limitation, excluding systems with other security update mechanisms.

"associating a... decryption algorithm with the encrypted bit stream"

• Context and Importance: This is a core functional step in independent claim 1. The definition of "associating" is critical to determining infringement, as it dictates how closely linked the decryption instructions must be to the encrypted content.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to define "associating" in a limiting way, simply stating that after encryption, the result "is associated with a decryption algorithm" ('844 Patent, col. 2:62-63). This could support a view that any technical means of linking the two, such as providing a pointer or including them in a common data package, meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 3 depicts a process where an "ENCRYPTED CODE BLOCK" is generated alongside "CORRESPONDING DECRYPTION APPLICATION(S)" which are then submitted together for public distribution ('844 Patent, Fig. 3). A party could argue this figure illustrates a specific, narrow form of association, such as bundling, required by the claims.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of infringement "at least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶15). It does not allege pre-suit knowledge of the '844 Patent or of the alleged infringement.

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: As the complaint's specific infringement contentions are contained in an unfiled exhibit, a threshold question is what specific features of the accused products are alleged to perform the multi-step, "recursive" encryption required by the patent, and what evidence will be produced to support these allegations.
• The case will also likely turn on a question of definitional scope: Can the term "recursive security protocol," which the patent defines as a protocol capable of "securing itself," be construed to cover the architecture of the accused products? The resolution will depend on whether the defendant's system for managing security is found to be functionally equivalent to the claimed method of encrypting a decryption algorithm as a distinct data layer.