Torus Ventures LLC v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Torus Ventures LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Whataburger Restaurants LLC (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00205, E.D. Tex., 02/16/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas and having committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unspecified products and services of the Defendant infringe a patent related to recursive security protocols for digital copyright control.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns digital rights management (DRM), specifically methods for protecting digital content through multiple, self-referential layers of encryption.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-06-20	'844 Patent Priority Date
2003-06-19	'844 Patent Application Filing Date
2007-04-10	'844 Patent Issue Date
2025-02-16	Complaint Filing Date

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 challenge of protecting copyrighted digital works in an era where perfect, cost-free duplication is possible. It notes that prior security systems often made "artificial distinctions" between different types of data (e.g., media content versus the software code to play it) and lacked a mechanism to securely update themselves against new threats ('844 Patent, col. 1:25-41, col. 2:32-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "Recursive Security Protocol" where the protocol is "equally capable of securing itself" ('844 Patent, col. 2:51-54). This is achieved by encrypting a bitstream with a first algorithm and then encrypting both that encrypted bitstream and its associated decryption algorithm with a second, distinct encryption algorithm. This layered approach allows the security framework itself, not just the content, to be protected and updated over time by "subsuming" older security layers within newer ones ('844 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:18-31).
  • Technical Importance: This design provides a flexible framework for digital rights management that can be updated to address security vulnerabilities and can support a variety of complex business models, such as time-limited rentals, license transfers, and pay-per-view access ('844 Patent, col. 4:45-48).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, referring only to "the Exemplary '844 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented method.
  • Independent Claim 1: A method for a recursive security protocol comprising the steps of:
    • 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 infringement of "one or more claims" is alleged (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services. It refers generically to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in "charts incorporated into this Count" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no description of the accused instrumentality's functionality, features, or market position. All infringement allegations are made by reference to an external "Exhibit 2" which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶16-17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant's products practice the claimed technology but provides no specific factual allegations in the body of the complaint to support this conclusion (Compl. ¶16). Instead, it incorporates by reference "the claim charts of Exhibit 2," which were not provided with the public filing (Compl. ¶17). As such, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The narrative infringement theory is limited to the conclusory statement 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

• Pleading Sufficiency: The primary threshold issue is whether the complaint, which lacks any factual detail about the accused products or their operation, meets the pleading standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and the precedents of Iqbal and Twombly. The complete reliance on a non-proffered exhibit for all substantive infringement facts raises a significant question of procedural sufficiency.
• Technical Questions: Once an accused product is identified, a key technical question will be whether its security architecture performs the specific "recursive" function required by the claims. For example, does the accused system actually encrypt a first-layer decryption algorithm as part of a second-layer encryption process, or does it merely use multiple, independent layers of encryption on the content alone?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "recursive security protocol"

• Context and Importance: This term, appearing in the patent's title and independent claims, is the central concept of the invention. Its construction will determine whether an accused system's multi-layered security architecture falls within the scope of the claims.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the property of "recursion" as a protocol being "equally capable of securing itself," which could be argued to cover a range of self-referential security schemes ('844 Patent, col. 2:51-54).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 recites a specific structure for this recursion: "encrypting both the encrypted bit stream and the first decryption algorithm with a second encryption algorithm." This language may support a narrower construction that requires the decryption code itself to be an object of the subsequent encryption layer, not merely any system that can update itself ('844 Patent, Claim 1).

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

• Context and Importance: This phrase appears twice in claim 1 and is fundamental to the claimed recursive structure. The required nature of this "association" will be critical to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will define how tightly coupled the data and its decryption key/method must be.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to mandate a specific method of association, which could suggest that any logical link, pointer, or reference that connects a given decryption algorithm to a given encrypted bitstream would satisfy the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures in the patent depict specific "decryption key data structure[s]" (Fig. 2) and "key list data structure[s]" (Fig. 6) that bundle keys with other information. A defendant could argue that "associating" requires a more structured implementation akin to the specific embodiments shown, rather than a mere logical link ('844 Patent, Fig. 2; Fig. 6).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" which instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that allegedly infringes the '844 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint establishes a basis for willful infringement based on post-suit conduct. It alleges that service of the complaint constitutes "actual knowledge" and that Defendant's continued infringing activities thereafter are willful (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

1. Procedural Sufficiency: The case's first major hurdle will be procedural. Can the plaintiff's infringement claims survive a motion to dismiss when the complaint itself contains no factual allegations identifying the accused product or explaining how it infringes, instead relying entirely on an external exhibit that was not filed?
2. Infringement and Technical Equivalence: Assuming the case proceeds, a central question will be one of technical operation: does the accused system, once identified, perform the specific, two-part encryption step required by the claims (encrypting both the data and its decryption algorithm), or does it use a different security architecture that may fall outside the claim scope?
3. Claim Scope and Recursion: The outcome will likely depend heavily on claim construction. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "recursive security protocol" be construed broadly to cover any updatable, multi-layer DRM system, or is it limited to the patent’s specific architecture where the security mechanism is explicitly "subsumed" in a subsequent layer of encryption?