Digital Doors, Inc. v. East West Bank — Dismissed With Prejudice After 367 Days
Digital Doors, Inc. brought a four-patent infringement action against East West Bank in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting patents covering secure digital information infrastructure and granular data classification. The parties filed a stipulated dismissal with prejudice after 367 days, with each side bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Four-Patent Cybersecurity Suit Against East West Bank Ends in Stipulated Dismissal
Digital Doors, Inc. filed suit against East West Bank on November 21, 2023, in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:23-cv-00547), alleging infringement of four US patents directed at secure digital information infrastructure and content classification systems: US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2. The asserted patents relate to methods and tools for managing, securing, classifying, and storing digital information — technologies directly relevant to financial institutions processing and storing sensitive customer data.
After 367 days of litigation, the parties filed a Stipulated Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss with Prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), which the court accepted and acknowledged on November 22, 2024. All claims that were or could have been asserted in this member case were dismissed with prejudice, meaning Digital Doors is permanently barred from re-filing the same infringement claims against East West Bank on these patents in any court. Notably, the Lead Case No. 2:23-cv-00541 was ordered to remain open, indicating this was part of a broader multi-defendant litigation campaign.
The 367-day timeline and prejudice-bearing dismissal with no fee award suggests a negotiated resolution — potentially a licensing agreement or broader settlement — though the public record is silent on financial terms. The instruction to maintain the lead case open is consistent with Digital Doors pursuing parallel actions against other defendants. The absence of any fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 suggests neither party pressed for an exceptional case finding, which is typical in confidential resolutions.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 367 days
367 days — slightly above the E.D. Texas median for pre-trial voluntary dismissals
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated termination means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal with prejudice permanently closes this dispute
A stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) is a binding, court-acknowledged termination. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice, this order permanently extinguishes all claims that were or could have been asserted in this member case. Digital Doors cannot re-file the same patent infringement claims against East West Bank — on these four patents — in any jurisdiction. The court’s role is to accept and acknowledge, not adjudicate; there is no merits ruling on validity or infringement.
Permanent bar on re-filingDigital Doors accepts permanent dismissal — suggesting a negotiated resolution
Agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal is a significant concession for a patent plaintiff: it forfeits all future enforcement rights against East West Bank on these four patents. In practice, plaintiffs typically accept this only when they have secured licensing revenue, a settlement payment, or a commercial agreement that makes continued litigation unnecessary. The public record does not disclose financial terms, but the structure of the dismissal is consistent with a confidential licensing or settlement arrangement.
Likely settled or licensedEast West Bank secures permanent peace — no fee award obtained
East West Bank achieved a dismissal with prejudice, which provides durable protection: Digital Doors cannot reassert these four patents against East West Bank in future litigation. However, the bank did not obtain a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or cost-shifting, which would typically require an ‘exceptional case’ finding. Each party bearing its own costs is standard in negotiated resolutions and does not signal a finding on the merits in either party’s favour.
Protected from re-assertionLead case remains open — broader enforcement campaign likely ongoing
The court’s instruction to keep Lead Case No. 2:23-cv-00541 open while closing this member case is a strong signal that Digital Doors filed coordinated actions against multiple defendants. Financial institutions and technology vendors operating in the secure data infrastructure and digital content classification space should monitor the lead case and any parallel member cases. The four patents-in-suit remain enforceable against third parties not party to this dismissal.
Monitor lead case 2:23-cv-00541Full party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Digital Doors, Inc. | Company | Cybersecurity patent assertion entity — holder of US10250639B2 and three related secure data infrastructure patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | East West Bank | Company | East West Bank — federally chartered commercial bank targeted for alleged use of secure digital data infrastructureSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Scott Fuller | 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 | Charles S. Baker | Attorney | Counsel for East West BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Emma Anne Bennett | Attorney | Counsel for East West BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan Edward Dornberger | Attorney | Counsel for East West BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Locke Lord LLP | Law Firm | Representing East West BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Locke Lord, LLP (Houston) | Law Firm | Representing East West BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts a stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), expressly confirming that all claims that ‘were or could be asserted’ in this member case are permanently extinguished. The phrasing ‘accepts and acknowledges’ reflects the limited judicial role in stipulated dismissals — there is no merits determination on infringement or validity. The simultaneous instruction to maintain the lead case open confirms this is one component of a broader, ongoing multi-defendant enforcement action.
US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2 & US9015301B2 — Secure Digital Data Infrastructure
The four asserted patents — US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 — share application lineage across filing dates ranging from approximately 2007 (US9015301B2, App. No. 11/746440) through 2014 (US10250639B2 and US10182073B2, App. Nos. 14/597345 and 14/597314). This staggered family structure suggests a continuation strategy designed to maintain claim coverage as the secure data management and classification technology evolved. The patents collectively address methods and systems for securely storing, classifying, extracting, and managing digital information — capabilities central to modern enterprise data governance and financial data security compliance.
For financial institutions, the claimed technologies map directly onto data loss prevention (DLP) systems, secure document management platforms, and cloud-based content classification tools — all of which banks deploy at scale. The breadth of the portfolio, combined with its multi-generational continuation structure, creates meaningful assertion risk for any organisation operating secure digital infrastructure for sensitive data. The fact that Digital Doors pursued at least one lead case with multiple member defendants in E.D. Texas suggests an active, systematic licensing programme rather than a single targeted dispute.
Should your product team run an FTO against these four Digital Doors patents?
Any financial institution, fintech platform, or enterprise software vendor deploying secure data classification, granular data stores, or information infrastructure management tools should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk. With the lead case still open and a with-prejudice settlement against East West Bank suggesting licensing revenue was obtained, Digital Doors has demonstrated both the willingness and the resources to pursue financial sector defendants in E.D. Texas. R&D and product teams building or procuring DLP, content analysis, or secure storage solutions should prioritise FTO analysis before deployment or procurement decisions.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and R&D teams to map their specific product architecture against the claim language of US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 simultaneously. Eureka can identify claim elements, locate prior art bearing on validity, and flag continuation applications in the same family that may not yet have been asserted — giving your team early warning before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10250639B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Cybersecurity Patent Cases in E.D. Texas Against Financial Institutions
Browse related patent assertion actions in the Eastern District of Texas involving secure data infrastructure, digital information classification, and financial sector defendants.
What this case signals for the cybersecurity and fintech IP landscape
A four-patent assertion against a major bank, resolved quietly in under a year, is consistent with a disciplined licensing programme targeting financial sector data infrastructure.
Multi-defendant campaigns in E.D. Texas remain a potent pressure tool
The member/lead case structure confirms Digital Doors filed coordinated suits in E.D. Texas. This jurisdiction’s speed and plaintiff-friendly history make it a preferred venue for patent assertion entities targeting financial technology. Banks and fintech platforms handling sensitive data classification should audit exposure to these four patents before receiving a demand letter.
With-prejudice dismissal without fee-shifting signals a paid resolution
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice and no fee motion is filed, the most commercially rational explanation is a confidential settlement or licence. For in-house IP teams at financial institutions, this reinforces the standard risk calculus: early licensing conversations may be cheaper than 12 months of litigation in E.D. Texas with a plaintiff represented by experienced assertion counsel.
Digital v East — key questions answered
A dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) permanently bars Digital Doors from re-asserting the four patents-in-suit (US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, US9015301B2) against East West Bank in any court. There is no merits ruling on infringement or validity. Third parties not named in this case remain fully exposed to assertion of these patents.
The court’s order to maintain Lead Case No. 2:23-cv-00541 while closing this member case confirms Digital Doors coordinated suits against multiple defendants simultaneously. This multi-defendant structure is a common strategy in E.D. Texas patent litigation. Other named defendants in the lead case remain subject to active proceedings, and the Digital Doors enforcement programme is ongoing.
The order specifies each party bears its own costs, fees, and expenses — standard language in negotiated resolutions. Obtaining fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 requires a court finding of an ‘exceptional case,’ which typically requires adjudication on the merits. A stipulated dismissal forecloses that path. The absence of a fee motion is consistent with a confidential settlement in which both parties prioritised finality over fee litigation.
The four asserted patents cover secure digital information infrastructure, granular data stores, content analysis and classification, information extraction, and secure storage management. Application dates range from approximately 2007 to 2014, suggesting a continuation family designed to maintain coverage across evolving data security and governance architectures. These capabilities are directly relevant to enterprise DLP, cloud storage, and financial data compliance systems.
The public record for this case does not disclose whether Digital Doors, Inc. is a practising entity or a non-practising entity. However, the multi-defendant member/lead case structure in E.D. Texas, the use of Garteiser Honea PLLC (a firm with an established patent assertion practice), and the pattern of targeting financial institutions with cybersecurity patents is consistent with — but does not confirm — a patent licensing or assertion programme.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.