Torus Ventures LLC v. Kosse Partners I LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Torus Ventures LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Kosse Partners I, LLC (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00500, E.D. Tex., 05/06/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant having an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas and committing alleged acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products infringe a patent related to a recursive security protocol for digital copyright control.
• Technical Context: The technology falls within the field of Digital Rights Management (DRM), addressing methods for protecting digital content from unauthorized copying and use through layered encryption.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history concerning the patent-in-suit. The patent claims priority to a 2002 provisional application.

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 patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 7,203,844, issued April 10, 2007 (the “’844 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the challenge of protecting copyrighted works in the digital age, where perfect, low-cost duplication undermines traditional copyright enforcement (’844 Patent, col. 1:24-44). It notes that prior art security systems often made artificial distinctions between different types of digital data, such as media streams versus executable code, limiting their flexibility (’844 Patent, col. 2:30-35).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "recursive" security protocol that treats all digital data uniformly. A primary bitstream (e.g., a media file) is encrypted using a first algorithm and is then associated with its corresponding decryption algorithm. This entire package—the encrypted data plus the decryption algorithm—is then treated as a new bitstream and is itself encrypted using a second algorithm (’844 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:63-col. 3:1). This creates a layered, self-contained security structure that can even be used to protect updates to the security protocol itself (’844 Patent, col. 4:19-22).
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for the creation of flexible and updatable security "wrappers" that are independent of the underlying content, capable of protecting not just media but also the executable code and keys used for the protection scheme itself (’844 Patent, col. 4:22-31).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims of the ’844 Patent, including independent claims 1 (a method), 19 (a system), and 37 (a computer storage device) (Compl. ¶11).
• The essential elements of representative independent claim 1 are:
  • 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 specify any dependent claims but reserves the right to assert them.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific products, referring to them generally as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" and "numerous other devices" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide specific details about the functionality or operation of the accused products. It alleges globally that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '844 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). No allegations are made regarding the products' market position or commercial importance.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts contained in an unprovided Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16, ¶17). The narrative allegations state that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '844 Patent Claims," either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). The body of the complaint does not provide specific details mapping product features to claim limitations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question for the court will be the scope of "encrypting both the encrypted bit stream and the first decryption algorithm." The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused products create a single, bundled data structure that is then re-encrypted, as the claim language suggests, or whether they simply apply multiple, distinct layers of encryption in a non-recursive manner.
• Technical Questions: The meaning of "associating a first decryption algorithm with the encrypted bit stream" will likely be a point of dispute. The court may need to determine what level of technical linkage is required to satisfy this limitation and what evidence demonstrates that the accused products create such an "association" as part of their encryption process, rather than merely making a decryption key available elsewhere on a system.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

Context and Importance: This term is critical to the "recursive" nature of the claimed invention, which distinguishes it from simple multi-layer encryption. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether the accused products' method of handling decryption logic and keys constitutes "associating" in the manner required by the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the structural prerequisite for the subsequent recursive encryption step.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification emphasizes the protocol's flexibility and independence from specific implementation, stating it "makes no distinction between types of digital data" (’844 Patent, col. 4:22-23). This could support a functional interpretation where any method of linking a decryption routine to its corresponding data meets the "associating" requirement.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The language of Claim 1, which requires "encrypting both the encrypted bit stream and the first decryption algorithm" (’844 Patent, col. 29:19-21), suggests that the "association" results in a single, combined data object that is then encrypted as a whole. This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific, structural bundling of the data and the decryption algorithm.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that since being served with the complaint, Defendant has knowingly induced its customers to infringe by distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end-users to operate the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14, ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on Defendant's alleged continued infringement after gaining "actual knowledge" of the ’844 Patent and its infringement from the service of the complaint and its attached exhibits (Compl. ¶13, ¶14).

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

• A core issue will be one of technical implementation: do the accused products perform the specific recursive step of encrypting a data-and-decryption-algorithm bundle as claimed, or do they utilize a different, non-recursive multi-layer security architecture? The case may turn on the factual evidence presented to distinguish between these two technical approaches.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of proof: given the complaint’s lack of specific infringement allegations in its body, the case will depend on what evidence Plaintiff proffers from its unprovided exhibits to demonstrate that the accused products perform each step of the claimed method, particularly the "associating" and subsequent re-encryption of the "associated" bundle.