Torus Ventures LLC v. Altair Global Services LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Torus Ventures LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Altair Global Services, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00473, E.D. Tex., 05/05/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products and services infringe a patent related to a recursive security protocol for digital copyright control.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for protecting digital content (such as software or media) from unauthorized copying and use through layered encryption.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings 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
2025-05-05	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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of protecting digital content in an era where perfect, cost-free duplication is possible, rendering traditional physical-object-based copyright models ineffective (’844 Patent, col. 1:25-41). It further notes that prior art security protocols often made arbitrary distinctions between data types (e.g., media streams vs. executable code), limiting their flexibility and ability to secure the protection mechanism itself (’844 Patent, col. 2:27-40).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "Recursive Security Protocol" where all digital data is treated as a simple bitstream (’844 Patent, col. 2:33-40). A bitstream of content is encrypted using a first algorithm; that encrypted stream is then associated with its corresponding decryption algorithm. This entire package—the encrypted content plus the first decryption algorithm—is then treated as a new bitstream and encrypted again using a second algorithm (’844 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:61-68). This layered approach allows the protocol to protect not only the digital content but also the software code used for decryption, and even future updates to the security protocol itself (’844 Patent, col. 4:18-31).
• Technical Importance: This recursive method is described as enabling a flexible and updatable security system that is not dependent on specific hardware and can support various business models such as time-limited access or permanent transfer of ownership (’844 Patent, col. 4:31-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented method.
• Claim 1 (Method) 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 explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to "one or more claims" of the ’844 Patent (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any accused product, method, or service by name (Compl. ¶¶11, 16). It refers only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in an attached but unprovided claim chart exhibit (Compl. ¶11, Exhibit 2).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges only that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '844 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an "Exhibit 2," which was not included with the filed document (Compl. ¶17). The complaint's narrative allegations are conclusory, stating 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). Without the referenced exhibit or more detailed factual allegations, a direct comparison of claim elements to specific product features is not possible based on the complaint alone.

• Identified Points of Contention: The lack of specific factual allegations in the complaint itself raises immediate questions about the basis for the infringement claims.
  • Pleading Sufficiency Question: Does the complaint's reliance on an external, unprovided exhibit to supply the factual basis for infringement meet the plausibility pleading standards established by Federal Circuit precedent?
  • Technical Question: What specific functionality within Defendant's products is alleged to perform the core recursive process of encrypting an already-encrypted bitstream along with its associated decryption algorithm, as required by claims such as Claim 1?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "recursive security protocol"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in the patent’s title and is central to the invention's description, forming the conceptual core of independent claims 1 and 19. The construction of "recursive" will likely be determinative of the scope of the patent, defining whether it is limited to a specific nested encryption structure or covers a broader category of self-protecting security systems.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the "self-referencing behavior" of recursion as the property that allows a protocol to be "equally capable of securing itself" (’844 Patent, col. 2:50-52). This language may support a functional definition where any security protocol that can apply its own protective mechanisms to its own components or updates could be considered "recursive."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 explicitly defines the protocol's steps as a two-level encryption process: first encrypting a bitstream, then "encrypting both the encrypted bit stream and the first decryption algorithm" with a second algorithm (’844 Patent, col. 29:16-25). This explicit structure, mirrored in the abstract, could support a narrower construction limiting the term to this specific method of layered encryption.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells its products to customers and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶14-15). The complaint references "Exhibit 2" for details demonstrating this inducement (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" since being served with the complaint and its attached claim charts (Compl. ¶13). This forms the basis for an allegation of post-suit willful infringement.

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

1. Pleading Plausibility: A threshold issue will be whether the complaint, which lacks specific factual allegations and relies on an unprovided external exhibit, provides sufficient notice of the infringement theory to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
2. Definitional Scope: The central claim construction dispute will likely focus on the term "recursive." The key question for the court will be whether "recursive security protocol" is limited to the specific two-step nested encryption method detailed in Claim 1, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover other types of security systems that are capable of protecting their own components.
3. Evidentiary Foundation: Assuming the case proceeds, a primary factual question will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to demonstrate that Defendant's products actually perform the nested encryption process required by the patent. The current complaint offers no insight into the technical basis for this allegation.