Torus Ventures LLC v. Wingstop Restaurants Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Torus Ventures LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Wingstop Restaurants Inc. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00207, E.D. Tex., 02/16/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having an established place of business in the district and having committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unspecified products and services offered by Defendant infringe a patent related to a recursive security protocol for digital copyright control.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns multi-layer encryption methods for protecting digital content, a foundational element of digital rights management (DRM) systems used for software, media, and other data.
• Key Procedural History: No prior litigation, IPR proceedings, or licensing history is mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

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 addresses the problem that conventional digital copyright protection is easily bypassed and that prior security protocols make artificial distinctions between different types of digital data (e.g., media streams vs. executable code) ('844 Patent, col. 1:25-50, col. 2:28-37). The patent sought a protocol that could treat all digital data uniformly and even protect the security protocol itself ('844 Patent, col. 2:45-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "recursive" security protocol where a digital bitstream is encrypted with a first algorithm, and that result is then associated with a first decryption algorithm. This entire combination is then encrypted again using a second algorithm to create a second, more secure bitstream ('844 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:57-65). This layered approach allows the security protocol to be updated and to protect itself, as the decryption instructions are themselves encrypted content ('844 Patent, col. 4:20-31).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a flexible framework for digital rights management that could support various business models, such as time-limited rentals and machine-dependent licenses, without altering the underlying digital content itself ('844 Patent, col. 4:45-49).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint does not identify the specific claims being asserted, instead referencing charts in an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Claim 1 is the first independent method claim.
  • 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;
    • associating a second decryption algorithm with the second bit stream.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts within an unattached exhibit (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 that "the Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '844 Patent" and that these products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '844 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). However, the complaint relies entirely on "the claim charts of Exhibit 2" to provide the basis for this allegation (Compl. ¶17). As Exhibit 2 was not provided with the complaint, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Given the lack of specific allegations, any infringement analysis will depend on discovery. The central questions will be:
  • Scope Questions: What specific Wingstop products or services are accused? Do Defendant's systems for online ordering, payment processing, or digital gift cards constitute a "recursive security protocol" as claimed?
  • Technical Questions: Do the accused systems perform the specific two-step encryption process required by the claims, where a first encrypted package (containing data) is itself encrypted along with its associated decryption key/algorithm? What evidence exists of a "first decryption algorithm" being encrypted along with the "encrypted bit stream" to yield a "second bit stream"?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"recursive security protocol"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the title and the patent’s self-description of its contribution. The patent defines this as a protocol that is "equally capable of securing itself" through a "self-referencing behavior" known as "recursion" ('844 Patent, col. 2:49-54). The construction of this term will be critical to determine if the accused system performs the specific self-protecting, layered encryption that distinguishes the invention, or if it is a more conventional, non-recursive security system.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Summary of the Invention describes the core method without using the word "recursive," focusing instead on the two-step encryption process ('844 Patent, col. 2:62-65). This might suggest the term describes the result of the claimed steps rather than requiring a specific architectural intent.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly defines the term in the background section, linking it to the ability to secure the protocol itself and update it by "subsum[ing]" the older security system within a new one ('844 Patent, col. 2:49-54, col. 4:31-43). This suggests "recursive" implies a specific capability for self-updating and self-protection, not just any multi-layer encryption.

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

• Context and Importance: This step occurs twice in Claim 1 and is central to the claimed method. Practitioners may focus on this term because the nature of this "association" is key. Whether it requires the decryption algorithm and the bitstream to be contained in a single data packet, or if a logical link is sufficient, will heavily influence the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the goal is to "encapsulate" a creation in digital form, and the summary describes the process in abstract terms, which could support a view that any logical linking or referencing constitutes "associating" ('844 Patent, col. 1:43-45).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites "encrypting both the encrypted bit stream and the first decryption algorithm," which implies they are bundled together as a single object before the second encryption step ('844 Patent, col. 29:18-20). Figure 3 depicts distinct blocks for the "ENCRYPTED CODE BLOCK" and the "CORRESPONDING DECRYPTION APPLICATION(S)," but shows them being combined for distribution, supporting a tighter, bundled association.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Defendant distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end-users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). It also alleges inducement by selling the products to customers for infringing uses (Compl. ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges that its service, along with the attached claim charts, provided "actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶13, ¶14). No facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.

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

1. Factual Specificity: A threshold issue is the complaint's failure to identify any accused product or provide any factual basis for infringement beyond incorporating an unattached exhibit. The case will depend entirely on whether discovery reveals a Wingstop system that performs the functions described in the patent.

2. Definitional Scope: The case will likely turn on claim construction, particularly whether the accused system's architecture can be defined as a "recursive security protocol." The court will need to determine if this requires the specific self-updating capability described in the '844 patent's specification or if any layered encryption meets the definition.

3. Technical Operation: A key evidentiary question will be whether any accused system performs the precise two-level encryption recited in the claims. The analysis will focus on whether a first set of encrypted data is bundled with its decryption method and then, as a unit, subjected to a second layer of encryption, as distinguished from more common security methods involving sequential but separate encryption steps.