Digital Doors, Inc. v. Prosperity Bank — Stipulated Dismissal With Prejudice After 219 Days
Digital Doors, Inc. asserted four cybersecurity patents against Prosperity Bank in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement related to the PowerProtect platform. The case resolved in under eight months via a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, with each party bearing its own legal costs — suggesting a confidential settlement or commercial resolution outside the public record.
Four cybersecurity patents, one Texas bank, and a swift joint exit
Filed on 21 November 2023 in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:23-cv-00551), Digital Doors, Inc. brought an infringement action against Prosperity Bank asserting four US patents — US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 — all directed to cybersecurity access control and data-protection technology. The accused product was identified as the PowerProtect User Guide, suggesting Prosperity Bank’s deployment of data-protection or identity-management software lay at the heart of the dispute.
The case closed on 27 June 2024 via a Stipulated Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice granted by the Court. The dismissal is WITH prejudice, meaning Digital Doors permanently relinquished its right to reassert these specific claims against Prosperity Bank. Critically, the parties agreed each would bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — meaning no monetary cost award was entered against either side in the public record.
At 219 days, the resolution sits well below typical E.D. Tex. patent trial timelines, suggesting the parties reached a commercial agreement relatively early in proceedings, likely before substantive claim construction proceedings concluded. The agreed cost-bearing structure and the absence of any public judgment are consistent with a confidential licensing or settlement arrangement, though the specific terms remain undisclosed. Notably, this case was designated a Member Case, with the Lead Case (2:23-cv-0541) remaining open — indicating Digital Doors pursued parallel proceedings against multiple defendants.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 219 days
219 days — faster than the median E.D. Tex. patent case, consistent with early resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars any refiling of these claims
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Digital Doors permanently surrendered its right to re-litigate these four patent claims against Prosperity Bank. The stipulated, joint nature of the motion signals mutual agreement rather than a forced court ruling — both parties chose this endpoint. The Court granted the motion as filed, without modification.
Final — no refiling permittedDigital Doors gives up future claims against this defendant
For Digital Doors, the with-prejudice dismissal forecloses future enforcement of these four patents against Prosperity Bank. However, the patents themselves survive and remain enforceable against other parties. The own-costs structure means Digital Doors received no public fee award, but any confidential consideration exchanged in connection with the resolution — such as a licensing payment — would not appear in the court record.
Patents survive for other defendantsProsperity Bank achieves finality with no public monetary liability
Prosperity Bank secured a with-prejudice dismissal, obtaining permanent protection from these specific claims by Digital Doors under these four patents. No damages, injunction, or fee award appears in the public record. The each-party-bears-own-costs structure avoided any adverse cost ruling. Whether Prosperity Bank paid confidential consideration to achieve this resolution is not disclosed.
No public damages or injunctionParallel Lead Case signals broader multi-defendant campaign
The court order explicitly keeps Lead Case 2:23-cv-0541 open, indicating Digital Doors filed coordinated infringement actions across multiple defendants simultaneously — a common patent assertion strategy in E.D. Tex. Financial institutions and technology vendors deploying data-protection or identity-management platforms should assess whether they face exposure under the same four patents in parallel or future proceedings.
Multi-defendant campaign ongoingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Digital Doors, Inc. | Company | Cybersecurity patent assertion entity — holder of US10250639B2 and three related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Prosperity Bank | Company | Prosperity Bank — Texas-based regional commercial bank accused of infringing cybersecurity patentsSearch 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 | Cabrach John Connor | Attorney | Counsel for Prosperity BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kelly Elizabeth Ransom | Attorney | Counsel for Prosperity BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Connor Lee & Shumaker PLLC (Austin) | Law Firm | Representing Prosperity BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP (La) | Law Firm | Representing Prosperity BankSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s order mirrors the parties’ stipulation precisely, entering dismissal with prejudice as to all claims and counterclaims between Digital Doors and Prosperity Bank, while preserving the Lead Case. The cost-neutrality clause — ‘each party is to bear its own costs’ — is significant: it suggests neither party secured a clear litigation advantage sufficient to support a fee-shifting motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The denial of all other pending relief as moot confirms no substantive merits rulings were entered, leaving the patents’ validity and scope unadjudicated as between these parties.
US10250639B2 — Cybersecurity access control and data-protection patent portfolio
The four asserted patents — US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 — form a family of related US grants directed to cybersecurity access control, identity management, and data protection. Application dates span from 2007 (US11/746440, underlying US9015301B2) through to 2015 (US14/597345 and US14/597314), reflecting a portfolio built across nearly a decade of prosecution and capturing both foundational and continuation-era claim sets in the digital security domain.
For financial services technology vendors and their banking clients, this portfolio is strategically significant: it targets software-implemented data-protection and access-control functionality that is broadly deployed in enterprise and banking environments. The PowerProtect product category implicated here is representative of a class of solutions used widely across the sector. With the Lead Case still active, any competitor or customer deploying similar platforms should treat these patents as live enforcement risk, particularly given Digital Doors’ demonstrated willingness to pursue coordinated multi-defendant litigation in E.D. Tex.
Should you run an FTO against US10250639B2 and the Digital Doors portfolio?
Any financial institution, fintech, or enterprise software vendor deploying data-protection, identity management, or access-control platforms should assess freedom to operate against the four Digital Doors patents. The Lead Case remains open, and the rapid resolution in this Member Case provides no public claim-scope ruling that could be relied upon as a guide. Product teams deploying PowerProtect-category or comparable solutions are directly in scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of all four Digital Doors patents against your product architecture, surface prior art relevant to validity challenges, and flag continuation risk from the underlying application families. Given the multi-decade prosecution history across these four grants, a structured FTO review is advisable before expanding deployment of any access-control or data-protection platform into new use cases or customer segments.
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 financial services litigation
Cases matching Digital Doors’ PAE enforcement pattern in E.D. Tex., targeting cybersecurity and data-protection patents against financial institutions.
What this case signals for the cybersecurity and banking IP landscape
A rapid, stipulated exit in E.D. Tex. with four cybersecurity patents still active suggests this is one node in a broader enforcement strategy.
E.D. Tex. remains the forum of choice for cybersecurity PAE campaigns
Digital Doors filed this case as a Member Case alongside a Lead Case in the same court, consistent with coordinated multi-defendant assertion. Eastern District of Texas continues to attract patent assertion entities targeting financial services firms, given its plaintiff-favourable procedural history and experienced patent docket.
Financial institutions should audit third-party data-protection software licences
The accused product category — PowerProtect-type data-protection platforms — is widely deployed across banking and financial services. Institutions licensing similar software should verify indemnification provisions in their vendor agreements and assess whether their deployments fall within the claims of the four Digital Doors patents, which remain in force.
Digital v Prosperity — key questions answered
A dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Digital Doors from refiling the same patent infringement claims against Prosperity Bank under the four asserted patents. It functions as a final adjudication on the merits, even though no substantive court ruling on infringement or validity was made. The patents themselves remain enforceable against third parties.
Digital Doors asserted four US patents: US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2. These patents cover cybersecurity access control, identity management, and data-protection technology. Application dates range from 2007 to 2015, indicating a portfolio built across multiple prosecution generations.
No public settlement agreement or damages figure was filed. The parties filed a joint stipulated motion for dismissal with prejudice, with each side bearing its own costs. This structure is consistent with a confidential resolution, but the specific terms — including any licensing payment — are not in the public record.
Only the Member Case 2:23-cv-00551 against Prosperity Bank is closed. The court order explicitly states that Lead Case 2:23-cv-0541 remains open, indicating Digital Doors is pursuing infringement claims against at least one other defendant in a parallel proceeding in E.D. Tex.
No. A dismissal with prejudice by stipulation carries no claim-construction or validity ruling. The four Digital Doors patents — US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 — remain presumptively valid and enforceable. Third parties cannot rely on this case outcome as any precedent regarding patent scope or validity.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.