Torus Ventures LLC v. Protectall USA LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Torus Ventures LLC (Delaware / New York)
  • Defendant: ProtectAll USA, LLC (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00132, E.D. Tex., 02/04/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to a recursive security protocol for digital copyright control.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns multi-layered encryption methods designed to protect digital data, such as software or media, from unauthorized use or disassembly.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is the initial pleading in this action. No prior litigation, administrative proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patent-in-suit are mentioned.

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 describes a problem created by the advent of digital storage, where perfect, costless copies of copyrighted works can be made, undermining traditional copyright protection. It also notes that prior art security systems made "artificial distinctions" between different types of digital data (e.g., media streams vs. executable code) and were not "recursive," meaning the security protocol itself could not be secured or updated using its own methods. (’844 Patent, col. 1:24-46, col. 2:30-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "Recursive Security Protocol" where a digital bitstream is first encrypted using a first algorithm, and then the resulting encrypted bitstream along with its associated decryption algorithm is encrypted again using a second algorithm. (’844 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:61-68). This layered approach allows the security protocol itself to be treated as just another piece of digital data, enabling it to be updated or protected by the same methods it uses to protect content, without requiring hardware changes. (’844 Patent, col. 4:31-43).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a flexible framework for digital rights management where the security system itself could be updated to fix vulnerabilities, a critical feature in a constantly evolving security landscape. (’844 Patent, col. 4:31-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," referencing "Exemplary '844 Patent Claims" in an external exhibit not attached to the public filing. (Compl. ¶11).
• Independent claim 1, a method claim, contains the following essential elements:
  • 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 specify which dependent claims may be asserted.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not specifically name any accused products. It refers generally to "Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count below (among the 'Exemplary Defendant Products')" and "numerous other devices." (Compl. ¶11). The referenced charts were filed as Exhibit 2 and are not included with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context. It alleges only that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '844 Patent." (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference infringement allegations from an external claim chart exhibit (Exhibit 2), which was not provided with the pleading. (Compl. ¶16-17). The complaint itself contains no specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to accused product features. The narrative theory asserts 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).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the accused products perform the specific recursive step recited in the claims. What evidence does Plaintiff possess that Defendant's system encrypts not just a data stream, but also the decryption algorithm associated with that first encryption layer, as required by claim 1? The distinction between a simple two-layer encryption and the claimed recursive method will be a critical technical issue.
• Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the meaning of "associating a... decryption algorithm with the encrypted bit stream." Does this require the algorithm and the bitstream to be bundled into a single data object before the second encryption step, as some figures might suggest (’844 Patent, Fig. 3), or can the "association" be a more remote logical link, such as a pointer?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "recursive security protocol"

• Context and Importance: This term, appearing in the patent's title and background, captures the core inventive concept. Whether Defendant's products practice a "recursive" protocol will be a primary issue. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition distinguishes the invention from generic multi-layer security systems.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the term should be understood broadly to mean any security protocol that applies layers of encryption to digital content.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly defines the term, stating "such a protocol would be equally capable of securing itself. 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 requires a self-referential capability, not just multiple layers.

Term: "associating"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in two separate limitations of claim 1 and defines the required relationship between the data and the algorithms. The method of "associating" is fundamental to how the recursive structure is built.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue "associating" simply means creating a logical link, allowing the algorithm to be stored separately from the data it decrypts.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract describes "associating a first decryption algorithm with the encrypted bit stream" and then immediately recites "encrypting both... with a second encryption algorithm." (’844 Patent, Abstract). This phrasing, along with figures showing keys and identifiers bundled in data structures (’844 Patent, Fig. 2), could support a narrower construction requiring the algorithm and data to be combined into a single object for the second encryption step.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting 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." (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit conduct. The complaint alleges that the filing of the lawsuit itself provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" and that any continued infringement thereafter is willful. (Compl. ¶13-14). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

1. An Evidentiary Question of Operation: Given the absence of specific infringement allegations in the complaint, a primary issue will be factual: what evidence can Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that the accused products perform the specific, two-part encryption recited in the claims—specifically, that they encrypt not just a bitstream, but also the first-layer decryption algorithm?
2. A Definitional Question of Recursion: The case will likely turn on a core claim construction issue: does the term "recursive security protocol" merely require multiple layers of encryption, or must it meet the patent’s more specific definition of a "self-referencing" protocol that is "capable of securing itself"? The answer will define the boundary between the patented invention and the prior art.