Torus Ventures LLC v. All American Flooring Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Torus Ventures LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: All American Flooring, Inc. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00471, E.D. Tex., 05/05/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to a recursive security protocol for digital copyright control.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves multi-layer encryption methods designed to protect digital content, such as software or media streams, from unauthorized use and duplication.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff is the assignee of the patent-in-suit. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent.

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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of protecting digital copyrighted works in an era where perfect, low-cost digital copies can be made and distributed easily, undermining traditional copyright protection mechanisms that relied on the difficulty of physical reproduction (’844 Patent, col. 1:24-46). Prior art security protocols often made "artificial distinctions between the various types of bit streams to be protected" (’844 Patent, col. 2:29-32).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "recursive" security protocol where not only is the digital content (a "bit stream") encrypted, but the decryption algorithm itself is bundled with the encrypted content and then the entire package is encrypted again using a second algorithm (’844 Patent, Abstract). This layered approach allows the security protocol to protect itself, meaning it can be updated to address security vulnerabilities without requiring changes to the underlying hardware (’844 Patent, col. 4:31-42). This process is illustrated in a flow diagram showing an unencrypted application code being subjected to multiple, layered encryption algorithms before public distribution (’844 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: The approach enables a flexible and updatable digital rights management (DRM) system that is not dependent on a specific hardware implementation and can protect various forms of digital data, from media streams to executable code (’844 Patent, col. 4:11-17, 50-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims but reserves the right to assert infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11). The broadest independent claim is Claim 1, which outlines a method with 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; and
  • associating a second decryption algorithm with the second bit stream.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name any specific accused products. It refers generally to "Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide any description of the accused products' features or functionality. It states that infringement allegations are detailed in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16-17), but this exhibit was not filed with the complaint. Consequently, the complaint provides no factual basis for analyzing the operation or market context of any accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes the ’844 Patent by making, using, selling, and importing infringing products, and also by having employees internally test and use them (Compl. ¶11-12). All specific infringement allegations are incorporated by reference from an unprovided "Exhibit 2," which purportedly contains claim charts (Compl. ¶17). Without this exhibit, the complaint lacks specific factual allegations detailing how any accused product meets the limitations of the asserted claims.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Factual Question: The primary point of contention will be establishing the technical operation of the accused, but currently unidentified, products. The central factual question is whether these products perform the two-layer, recursive encryption process required by the asserted claims.
• Scope Questions: Assuming an accused product is identified, a dispute may arise over whether its functionality meets the claim limitations. For instance, does the accused product "encrypt... both the encrypted bit stream and the first decryption algorithm," or does it merely apply sequential encryption to the data alone? Further, the scope of "associating a... decryption algorithm" will be a key question: what degree of technical linkage between an encrypted file and its decryption method satisfies this limitation?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "bitstream"

• Context and Importance: The scope of this term defines the types of digital data to which the claimed method applies. A broad construction would cover any form of digital data, while a narrower one might be limited to specific types like streaming media or executable code, potentially impacting the range of accused products.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states, "On a fundamental level, all binary digital data can be reduced to a stream of 1's and 0's (a bitstream), which can be stored and retrieved in a manner which is completely independent of the intended purpose or interpretation of that bitstream" (’844 Patent, col. 2:32-38). This suggests the term is intended to be technology-agnostic.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: While the general definition is broad, the patent's examples often refer to specific uses, such as protecting a "software application" or a "digital media stream" (’844 Patent, col. 4:49-54; col. 11:1-3). A defendant may argue these embodiments implicitly limit the term's scope to such contexts.

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

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed recursive structure. How a decryption algorithm is "associated" with an encrypted data package will be critical. The dispute will center on whether this requires the algorithm to be physically bundled within the same data container or if a logical link (e.g., a pointer or a separate key delivery mechanism) is sufficient.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to explicitly define "associating," potentially allowing for any method that links the decryption logic with the encrypted data for subsequent use. The summary of the invention states the result of the first encryption "is associated with a decryption algorithm," without specifying the mechanism (’844 Patent, col. 2:66-67).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Embodiments describe distributing "machine dependent decryption software" alongside an encrypted application, which could suggest a closer, more bundled form of association (’844 Patent, col. 11:51-54). A defendant might argue that systems where decryption keys are handled entirely separately from the content do not meet this limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating 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 the '844 Patent" (Compl. ¶14). The claim is also based on conduct occurring after Defendant was served with the complaint (Compl. ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it alleges that service of the complaint "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's infringement continued despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶13-14). These allegations could form the basis for a claim of post-suit willfulness.

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

1. A Threshold Evidentiary Question: The case first turns on a fundamental question of evidence: What specific products are accused of infringement, and what technical proof demonstrates that they perform the multi-layer, recursive encryption method recited in the asserted claims? The complaint's reliance on an unprovided exhibit leaves this core issue entirely unresolved.
2. A Question of Technical Implementation: Assuming an accused product is identified, the central technical dispute will be whether its security architecture matches the patent's specific two-step encryption process. Does the accused system encrypt both the data and its associated decryption algorithm together as a single unit, or does it follow a different security model that falls outside the claim scope?
3. A Definitional Question of Scope: The outcome may depend on claim construction, particularly the meaning of "associating" a decryption algorithm with encrypted data. A core legal issue will be whether this term requires a specific method of bundling data and code, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover a wider range of modern content protection and key management systems.