Digital Doors v. Ameris Bank: Cybersecurity Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Digital Doors, Inc. filed suit against Ameris Bank in the Northern District of Georgia asserting four patents covering Sheltered Harbor compliant cybersecurity systems and methods. The parties reached a stipulated dismissal after 308 days — with plaintiff’s claims ending with prejudice and defendant’s counterclaims dismissed as moot.
Sheltered Harbor Patent Assertions Against a Regional Bank End Quietly
On December 5, 2024, Digital Doors, Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint against Ameris Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Case No. 1:24-cv-05576), presided over by Judge Victoria M. Calvert. Digital Doors asserted four issued US patents — US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 — directed at Sheltered Harbor compliant systems and methods, a cybersecurity standard adopted widely across the financial services sector to protect customer account data from ransomware and destructive attacks.
The case concluded on October 9, 2025, via a Stipulated Motion for Dismissal granted by the Court. All claims asserted by Digital Doors against Ameris Bank were dismissed with prejudice — meaning Digital Doors cannot refile the same claims against Ameris Bank based on those patents. Ameris Bank’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice as moot, preserving Ameris’s ability to revive those counterclaims in a future proceeding should circumstances warrant. Each party was ordered to bear its own legal costs, suggesting a resolution short of any monetary judgment.
The 308-day duration and stipulated nature of the dismissal are consistent with a negotiated resolution — whether a confidential settlement, a license agreement, or a decision by Digital Doors not to proceed on the merits. The public record does not disclose whether any consideration changed hands. The with-prejudice dismissal of plaintiff’s claims is notably final, while the without-prejudice dismissal of counterclaims as moot suggests Ameris Bank achieved its primary objective of ending the litigation without a merits finding on any invalidity or non-infringement defenses it may have raised.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 308 days
308 days — resolved before trial, faster than the median N.D. Ga. patent case
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice: what the order means for both parties
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice closes the door permanently
A dismissal with prejudice under the Federal Rules operates as a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. Digital Doors cannot refile these four patent claims against Ameris Bank in any federal court. The stipulated nature means both parties agreed to the terms — the court did not impose this outcome — which is the hallmark of a negotiated resolution rather than a litigated defeat.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2)Digital Doors surrenders future claims against Ameris Bank
By accepting a with-prejudice dismissal, Digital Doors permanently relinquishes its ability to assert these four patents against Ameris Bank. Whether this reflects a licensing agreement, a payment, or simply a strategic withdrawal is not disclosed in the public record. The each-party-bears-own-costs order is neutral on its face, but it forecloses any fee recovery Digital Doors might otherwise have pursued as a prevailing party.
Claims extinguished against AmerisAmeris Bank exits cleanly; counterclaims preserved in theory
Ameris Bank’s counterclaims — likely invalidity or non-infringement declaratory judgment claims — were dismissed without prejudice as moot. This means they were not adjudicated on the merits, and Ameris Bank retains the theoretical ability to revive them if Digital Doors were to assert the same patents against it again (which the with-prejudice dismissal now prevents). Fish & Richardson PC’s involvement as defense counsel suggests Ameris Bank mounted a substantive defense.
Counterclaims preserved, moot in practiceSheltered Harbor patent risk remains live for other financial institutions
Digital Doors holds a portfolio of at least four patents directed at Sheltered Harbor compliant architectures — a standard broadly adopted across US financial services. The dismissal against Ameris Bank does not extinguish Digital Doors’ ability to assert these patents against other banks or financial technology firms. Other institutions implementing Sheltered Harbor standards should evaluate their exposure to this patent family, particularly given Digital Doors’ apparent willingness to litigate.
Portfolio risk persists sector-wideFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Digital Doors, Inc. | Company | Cybersecurity patent assertion entity — holder of US10250639B2 and three related data-vault patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Ameris Bank | Company | Ameris Bank — Georgia-headquartered regional bank and Sheltered Harbor compliant financial institutionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher A. Honea | Attorney | Counsel for Digital Doors, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Scott Fuller | Attorney | Counsel for Digital Doors, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Randall Garteiser | Attorney | Counsel for Digital Doors, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Digital Doors, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lawrence Rodell Jarvis | Attorney | Counsel for Ameris BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J. McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Ameris BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC | Law Firm | Representing Ameris BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (TX) | Law Firm | Representing Ameris BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Victoria M. Calvert | Judge | Georgia Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s order grants a joint stipulation, confirming neither party litigated to a merits ruling. The asymmetric dismissal structure — plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims dismissed without prejudice as moot — is legally significant: it forecloses Digital Doors from re-asserting these patents against Ameris Bank while leaving Ameris Bank’s invalidity or declaratory-judgment positions technically unresolved. The cost-neutrality provision removes any inference of a court-determined winner.
US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, US9015301B2 — Sheltered Harbor Data Vault Cybersecurity Patents
The four asserted patents — US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 — span application dates from 2007 (US11/746440, which issued as US9015301B2) through 2015 (US14/597345 and US14/597314), reflecting a multi-generational filing strategy in the cybersecurity and data-vault space. The patents appear directed at systems and methods for creating and maintaining protected copies of financial account data in compliance with the Sheltered Harbor standard — a protocol developed to ensure financial institutions can restore customer data rapidly after a catastrophic cyberattack.
The Sheltered Harbor standard has seen broad adoption across US banks and credit unions since its introduction, meaning these patents — if their claims are construed broadly — could theoretically read on practices implemented by hundreds of financial institutions. The portfolio’s age and layered continuation structure are consistent with a patent assertion strategy designed to capture evolving implementations of a maturing cybersecurity standard. IP teams at financial institutions and fintech vendors operating Sheltered Harbor compliant infrastructure should treat this portfolio as live enforcement risk.
Should you run an FTO against US10250639B2 and the Digital Doors portfolio?
Any financial institution, core banking vendor, or fintech operator that has implemented Sheltered Harbor compliant data vault infrastructure should consider a freedom-to-operate analysis against Digital Doors’ four-patent portfolio. The with-prejudice dismissal against Ameris Bank resolves only that specific defendant’s exposure — it creates no estoppel, no invalidity finding, and no binding precedent for other parties. The patents remain in force and potentially enforceable against other adopters of equivalent architectures.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the claim language of US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 against your specific product architecture and deployment configuration. Eureka identifies prior art, claim scope boundaries, and related continuation applications that may extend portfolio risk beyond the four patents already asserted — giving IP counsel and R&D teams the evidence base to assess clearance or design-around options before litigation reaches your institution.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10250639B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Cybersecurity Patent Infringement Cases in Financial Services
Cases involving data-vault and network security patent assertions against financial institutions in US district courts, particularly in the N.D. Ga. and N.D. Tex. jurisdictions.
What this case signals for the financial cybersecurity IP landscape
A four-patent assertion against a Sheltered Harbor-compliant bank raises portfolio risk questions for the entire US financial sector.
Sheltered Harbor compliance may create unexpected patent exposure
Financial institutions that adopted the Sheltered Harbor standard to meet regulatory expectations may inadvertently practice the claims of patents like those held by Digital Doors. Compliance-driven technology adoption without FTO analysis is a recurring risk pattern in regulated industries — this case is consistent with that dynamic.
Each-party-bears-own-costs order signals an agreed exit, not a litigation win
Courts typically award fees to a prevailing party when a case is decided on the merits. A mutual cost-bearing order in a stipulated dismissal strongly suggests the parties negotiated their way out. IP professionals should treat this as a potential licensing signal, not a precedent on validity or infringement.
Digital v Ameris — key questions answered
Digital Doors, Inc. filed a patent infringement suit against Ameris Bank in the Northern District of Georgia on December 5, 2024. The case was resolved by stipulated dismissal on October 9, 2025 — 308 days later. Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed with prejudice and defendant’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice as moot. Each party bore its own costs.
Digital Doors asserted four US patents: US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2. All four are directed at Sheltered Harbor compliant systems and methods — cybersecurity architectures designed to protect financial institutions’ customer account data against ransomware and destructive cyberattacks.
A with-prejudice dismissal is a final, claim-preclusive termination. Digital Doors cannot refile the same patent infringement claims against Ameris Bank in any US federal court. However, the dismissal does not affect Digital Doors’ ability to assert the same patents against other defendants, and no invalidity or non-infringement ruling was made.
When a plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice, any counterclaims the defendant brought — typically seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement or invalidity — lose their live controversy and become moot. A without-prejudice moot dismissal means those counterclaims were not decided on the merits and could theoretically be refiled if a new controversy arises, though the with-prejudice dismissal of plaintiff’s claims makes that practically unlikely between these parties.
No. A stipulated dismissal by agreement creates no precedent on patent validity, claim construction, or infringement. Other financial institutions implementing Sheltered Harbor compliant systems cannot rely on this outcome as a defense. The four asserted patents remain in force and enforceable against other parties. Institutions should conduct independent FTO analysis against the Digital Doors portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.