Torus Ventures LLC v. PropertyInfo Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Torus Ventures LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: PropertyInfo Corp (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00131, E.D. Tex., 02/04/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the district, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and Plaintiff has suffered harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products and services infringe a patent related to a recursive security protocol for digital copyright control.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for encrypting digital data (e.g., media streams, software) in a layered or "recursive" manner to control access and protect copyrighted content.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff is the assignee of the patent-in-suit. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent. The willfulness allegation is based on knowledge arising from the service of the complaint itself.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-06-20	Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. No. 60/390,180)
2003-06-19	Application for ’844 Patent Filed
2007-04-10	U.S. Patent No. 7,203,844 Issued
2025-02-04	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

• Patent Identification: 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 identifies the ease with which digital information can be perfectly duplicated and distributed, upsetting traditional copyright protection models based on physical media (ʼ844 Patent, col. 1:25-36). Prior art security systems are described as making "artificial distinctions between the various types of bit streams to be protected," limiting their effectiveness (ʼ844 Patent, col. 2:28-31).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "Recursive Security Protocol" where the protocol itself can be secured using its own methods (ʼ844 Patent, col. 2:45-50). The core concept involves encrypting a data bitstream, associating a decryption algorithm with it, and then encrypting that entire combination with a second encryption algorithm to create a new, layered bitstream (ʼ844 Patent, col. 2:59-65). This allows the security protocol to be updated and protected in the same manner as the content it is designed to secure, as illustrated in the encryption and distribution process of Figure 3 (ʼ844 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This approach was designed to provide a flexible security framework capable of protecting any type of digital data without distinction, and supporting various business models such as time-limited rentals, usage-limited access, and permanent ownership transfer (ʼ844 Patent, col. 4:45-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referencing "exemplary claims" in an external exhibit not attached to the complaint (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 refers generally to "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name (Compl. ¶11). It refers generally to "Defendant products" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’844 Patent (Compl. ¶16). It provides no specific details regarding the technical functionality or market context of any accused product.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to claim charts in "Exhibit 2," which was not publicly filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶16-17). The complaint’s narrative asserts that Defendant’s products "practice the technology claimed by the '844 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '844 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). However, the complaint itself provides no specific factual allegations mapping any feature of an accused product to any specific limitation of the asserted claims.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The following analysis is based on representative independent claim 1. The court’s focus may differ depending on the specific claims ultimately asserted by the Plaintiff.

The Term: "encrypting both the encrypted bit stream and the first decryption algorithm"

Context and Importance

This clause contains the central "recursive" step of the invention. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the accused products perform this specific two-part encryption. Practitioners may focus on whether the accused process truly encrypts a decryption algorithm itself, as opposed to merely encrypting keys or other data associated with decryption.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent repeatedly emphasizes that the protocol makes "no distinction between types of digital data," including "the executable code required to play those streams" (ʼ844 Patent, col. 4:22-25). This could support a view that any process which encrypts both content and the software logic for accessing it falls within the claim scope.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specific language requires encrypting the "first decryption algorithm." Embodiments describe this in the context of executable code (ʼ844 Patent, col. 4:23-27). A defendant may argue this requires encrypting the actual compiled code of a decryption routine, and would not be met by systems that merely encrypt decryption keys or parameters while leaving the core decryption software unencrypted. Figure 3, for example, shows an "ENCRYPTED CODE BLOCK" being distributed, which could be argued to be the specific implementation required (ʼ844 Patent, Fig. 3).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Defendant distributing "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

The complaint bases its willfulness allegation on Defendant’s alleged continuation of infringing activities after receiving "actual knowledge of infringement" via the service of the complaint and its attached (but un-filed) claim charts (Compl. ¶13, ¶15).

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

Given the limited factual detail in the complaint, the initial phase of the case will likely focus on discovery to establish the basic facts of the dispute. The central questions that emerge are:

1. An Evidentiary Question: What specific products or services will Plaintiff accuse of infringement, and what evidence can it produce to demonstrate that those products perform the specific, layered encryption process recited in the claims, particularly the "recursive" step of encrypting a decryption algorithm?
2. A Definitional Question: The core of the case will likely be one of scope: how will the court construe the term "recursive security protocol" and its implementing step of "encrypting... the first decryption algorithm"? The outcome will depend on whether this is interpreted narrowly to mean encrypting the literal code of a decryption program, or more broadly to cover systems that encrypt access-control logic alongside the primary data.