Torus Ventures LLC v. Granite Properties Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Torus Ventures LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Granite Properties, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00489, E.D. Tex., 05/06/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain unidentified products of the Defendant infringe a patent related to a recursive security protocol for digital copyright control.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for securing digital content, such as software or media streams, through layered encryption, a field commonly known as Digital Rights Management (DRM).
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit claims priority from a provisional application filed in 2002. 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, issued April 10, 2007

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the challenge of protecting copyrighted digital works, which, unlike physical objects, can be duplicated perfectly at a vanishingly small cost (’844 Patent, col. 1:24-46). It further notes that existing security protocols often make arbitrary distinctions between data types (e.g., media vs. executable code) and are not "recursive," meaning they are not inherently capable of using their own security mechanisms to protect themselves from attack or to facilitate updates (’844 Patent, col. 2:31-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "recursive security protocol" that treats all digital data as a simple bitstream, making no distinction between content and code (’844 Patent, col. 4:22-30). The core method involves a multi-layered encryption process: first, a bitstream is encrypted and combined with its corresponding decryption algorithm; second, this entire package is encrypted again using a second algorithm, creating a new, more secure bitstream (’844 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:62-67). This architecture allows the security protocol itself to be updated and protected using the very methods it employs to protect other content (’844 Patent, col. 4:18-22).
• Technical Importance: This self-referencing or "recursive" approach enables a flexible and evolvable security system that can be updated to address new threats without requiring changes to the underlying hardware on which it runs (’844 Patent, col. 4:31-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "Exemplary '844 Patent Claims" identified in an exhibit that was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶11). The analysis below focuses on independent claim 1, a representative method claim.
• Independent Claim 1: A method for a recursive security protocol comprising the following essential steps:
  • 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 identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in charts within "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶11, 16). This exhibit was not included with the public filing of the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide any description of the accused products' technical functionality, features, or market position. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '844 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint states that "Exhibit 2 includes charts comparing the Exemplary '844 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶16). As this exhibit was not provided, a detailed claim chart analysis is not possible. The complaint offers no narrative infringement theory beyond incorporating the missing charts by reference, alleging 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).

Identified Points of Contention

• Factual Questions: The complaint's lack of specific factual allegations regarding the operation of the accused products prevents the identification of specific technical disputes. A threshold question for the court will be whether the complaint provides sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief.
• Scope Questions: Should the case proceed, a likely point of contention will involve the scope of the claim elements relative to the accused technology. For example, a dispute may arise over whether the accused products perform the specific two-step encryption process recited in claim 1, where the initial encrypted data is packaged with its decryption algorithm before being re-encrypted.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "recursive security protocol"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase appears in the patent’s title and is used to frame the core inventive concept. The construction of this term will be critical for determining whether an accused system that uses layered security falls within the scope of the claims, as the defendant may argue its system is merely multi-layered, not "recursive" as the patent defines it.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the protocol "can even be used in a recursive fashion in order to control access to updates to the protocol itself," which could support a construction covering a wide range of self-protecting or self-updating security systems (’844 Patent, col. 4:18-22).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background section defines the "self-referencing behavior" of recursion as a protocol being "equally capable of securing itself" (’844 Patent, col. 2:51-54). This, combined with the specific steps recited in claim 1 (encrypting a bitstream and its decryption algorithm), could support a narrower construction limited to that particular implementation.
• The Term: "associating a... decryption algorithm with the encrypted bit stream"
  • Context and Importance: This limitation appears twice in claim 1 and is central to the claimed method. How closely the algorithm must be linked to the bitstream—whether through a specific data structure, a pointer, or a purely logical link—will be a key question for infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the process generally, stating that "the bit stream is encrypted and this result is associated with a decryption algorithm," language that does not mandate a specific technical implementation for the association (’844 Patent, col. 2:62-64).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 2 discloses a specific "APPLICATION-SPECIFIC DECRYPTION KEY DATA STRUCTURE," and a defendant could argue that "associating" should be construed to require a data structure with similar fields and functions, as shown in that preferred embodiment (’844 Patent, Fig. 2).

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 allegation of intent is based on knowledge acquired, at the latest, upon service of the complaint (Compl. ¶15).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that service of the complaint and its attached (but unprovided) claim charts gave Defendant "actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges that despite this knowledge, Defendant "continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" the infringing products, which may form the basis for a claim of post-filing willful infringement (Compl. ¶14). No facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.

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

• A primary threshold issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: Does the complaint, which relies entirely on conclusory statements and an unfiled exhibit, provide sufficient factual detail to state a plausible claim for infringement under the prevailing Iqbal/Twombly standard, or is it subject to dismissal for failing to identify the accused products and how they allegedly infringe?
• A central substantive question will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the term "recursive security protocol"? The case may turn on whether the patent's specific description of encrypting a bitstream packaged with its own decryption algorithm is a required limitation, or if the term can be read more broadly to cover other forms of layered security systems.
• An ultimate evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: Assuming the case proceeds, what evidence can Plaintiff offer to demonstrate that the accused products actually perform the specific, two-stage encryption and association process required by the plain language of independent claim 1?