Digital Doors, Inc. v. Texas Capital Bank — Voluntarily Dismissed With Prejudice
Digital Doors, Inc. asserted four cybersecurity patents against Texas Capital Bank, N.A. in the Western District of Texas, alleging infringement of patents covering sheltered harbor compliant systems and distributed architecture. The case closed after just 102 days when the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice before the defendant filed any answer.
Four cybersecurity patents, one bank defendant, no merits ruling
Digital Doors, Inc. filed suit on March 6, 2025 in the Western District of Texas against Texas Capital Bank, N.A., asserting infringement of four US patents — US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 — all relating to sheltered harbor compliant systems and distributed architecture technology. Represented by Garteiser Honea PLLC, a Texas firm with a track record in patent assertion litigation, Digital Doors targeted the bank’s alleged use of these cybersecurity infrastructure technologies.
On June 13, 2025, Digital Doors filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Texas Capital Bank had not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment, the notice was self-effectuating — no court order was required to terminate the case. The court confirmed the dismissal on June 16, 2025, denied all pending motions as moot, and directed each party to bear its own costs. A with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars Digital Doors from reasserting these specific claims against Texas Capital Bank.
The 102-day resolution — before any substantive defense was filed — is consistent with a pre-litigation settlement or licensing agreement reached shortly after filing, though the public record is silent on whether any consideration changed hands. The with-prejudice designation is notable: it suggests the parties reached finality rather than a mere tactical retreat. What drove the dismissal — whether licensing terms, early case assessment, or commercial negotiation — remains undisclosed.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 102 days
102 days — resolved before defendant answered, faster than median district court patent case
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): self-effectuating dismissal before any defense filed
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action unilaterally by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Texas Capital Bank had not yet answered, Digital Doors’ notice was self-executing — it terminated the case immediately without any court intervention. The court’s subsequent order simply confirmed the already-effective dismissal and resolved housekeeping matters.
No merits adjudicationWith prejudice: permanent bar on re-filing these claims against this defendant
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits, permanently extinguishing Digital Doors’ right to reassert the same patent claims against Texas Capital Bank. This is categorically different from a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve the option to refile. Here, Digital Doors voluntarily chose the more final designation — a decision that typically signals either a resolution satisfactory to the plaintiff or a strategic concession. The public record does not disclose which.
Re-filing permanently barredTexas Capital Bank exits with no adverse finding and bears its own costs
Texas Capital Bank, N.A. obtained a complete resolution without ever filing an answer, without any finding of infringement, and without any validity ruling on the four asserted patents. The court’s direction that each party bear its own costs means the bank incurs no fee-shifting liability. However, the absence of a merits ruling means the asserted patents remain valid and enforceable — and could be asserted against other financial sector defendants in future litigation.
No infringement findingPatents survive intact — financial sector peers remain exposed
Because the case ended without any invalidity or non-infringement ruling, all four Digital Doors patents — covering sheltered harbor compliant systems and distributed architecture — remain enforceable against the broader market. Financial institutions operating sheltered harbor-compliant data protection infrastructure should take note: the with-prejudice dismissal resolves only Texas Capital Bank’s exposure. Other banks using comparable systems face unresolved patent risk from this portfolio.
Portfolio remains activeFull 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 | Texas Capital Bank, N.A. | Company | Texas Capital Bank, N.A. — Texas-based commercial bank and alleged infringer of sheltered harbor patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher A. Honea | Attorney | Counsel for Digital Doors, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | M. Scott Fuller | Attorney | Counsel for Digital Doors, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Randall T. 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 | James E. Hudson , III | Attorney | Counsel for Texas Capital Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William P. Jensen | Attorney | Counsel for Texas Capital Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Crain, Caton & James PC | Law Firm | Representing Texas Capital Bank, N.A.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms that Digital Doors’ Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice was self-effectuating — a procedural mechanism that required no judicial decision on the merits. The with-prejudice designation, chosen voluntarily by the plaintiff, is the operative legal consequence: it forecloses any future assertion of these four patents against Texas Capital Bank. No claim construction, validity ruling, or infringement finding was reached. The patent claims therefore remain presumptively valid and enforceable against all other parties.
US10250639B2 — Sheltered Harbor compliant cybersecurity system patents
The four asserted patents — US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 — form a continuation family spanning application numbers US11/746440 through US14/597345. Collectively, they cover cybersecurity infrastructure concepts including sheltered harbor compliant systems and distributed architecture designs relevant to financial data protection. The earliest application in the family (US11/746440) suggests the foundational filing predates the widespread adoption of sheltered harbor standards by US financial institutions, potentially giving the portfolio priority over industry implementations.
The strategic significance of this portfolio lies in its alignment with financial sector regulatory compliance programs. Sheltered Harbor, sponsored by FS-ISAC, has been adopted by hundreds of US financial institutions as a resilience and data protection standard. If the Digital Doors patents read on standard-compliant implementations, the portfolio could support a broad assertion campaign across the banking sector. The lack of any invalidity ruling in this case leaves that question unresolved — and commercially consequential for any institution operating Sheltered Harbor infrastructure.
Should your bank run an FTO against US10250639B2 and the Digital Doors family?
Any financial institution operating a sheltered harbor compliant data vault, distributed recovery architecture, or similar cybersecurity infrastructure should treat this patent family as an active FTO risk. Digital Doors has demonstrated willingness to assert all four patents simultaneously in federal court, and the pre-answer resolution with Texas Capital Bank does not extinguish the portfolio’s enforceability against other defendants. The prudent step — particularly before upgrading or expanding sheltered harbor compliance programs — is a targeted FTO analysis.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your institution’s data protection architecture against the full Digital Doors continuation family, identify claim limitations that may differentiate your implementation, and surface prior art that could support an invalidity argument if you receive a demand letter. Eureka’s landscape analysis can also flag whether Digital Doors or related entities hold additional related patents not asserted in this case — a critical input for any licensing negotiation or litigation readiness assessment.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10250639B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar cybersecurity patent cases in the Western District of Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions asserting cybersecurity and data protection patents against financial institutions in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the financial cybersecurity IP landscape
A pre-answer dismissal with prejudice against a major Texas bank suggests the Digital Doors patent portfolio carries commercial leverage worth monitoring.
Pre-answer resolution typically signals a licensing outcome
Cases resolved before the defendant answers — especially with a with-prejudice designation — are strongly associated with licensing agreements or settlements. Digital Doors’ choice to dismiss with prejudice, rather than without, suggests finality was achieved. Financial institutions facing similar assertions from this portfolio should assess their sheltered harbor infrastructure against the four asserted patents before any demand letter arrives.
Four-patent portfolio across related applications signals systematic assertion
The four asserted patents share overlapping application lineages (US11/746440 through US14/597345), suggesting a continuation family strategy. Patent assertion entities holding continuation families can assert multiple related patents sequentially or simultaneously. Banks and fintech firms deploying sheltered harbor or distributed data architecture should map their exposure across the full Digital Doors portfolio, not just the four patents named here.
Digital v Texas — key questions answered
Digital Doors, Inc. filed suit against Texas Capital Bank, N.A. in the Western District of Texas on March 6, 2025, asserting four patents covering sheltered harbor compliant systems and distributed architecture. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice on June 13, 2025 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before the defendant filed any answer. The case closed June 16, 2025 after 102 days, with each party bearing its own costs.
A with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars Digital Doors from reasserting the same claims against Texas Capital Bank. However, the patents themselves — US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 — remain valid and enforceable. No invalidity or non-infringement finding was made. Digital Doors retains full rights to assert these patents against other financial institutions or technology companies.
Digital Doors asserted four patents: US10250639B2 (App. No. US14/597345), US10182073B2 (App. No. US14/597314), US9734169B2 (App. No. US13/900728), and US9015301B2 (App. No. US11/746440). These patents form a continuation family covering sheltered harbor compliant systems and distributed architecture for cybersecurity and financial data protection applications.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the early dismissal. Pre-answer voluntary dismissals with prejudice are consistent with a licensing agreement or settlement reached shortly after filing. The with-prejudice designation — voluntarily chosen by the plaintiff — suggests the parties reached a final resolution rather than a tactical pause. No financial terms or licensing details have been publicly disclosed.
Yes. The four asserted patents remain enforceable following the dismissal, which resolved only Texas Capital Bank’s exposure. Financial institutions operating sheltered harbor compliant data vaults or distributed architecture systems that may read on the patent claims remain at risk of assertion. The portfolio’s alignment with the FS-ISAC Sheltered Harbor standard — widely adopted across US banking — suggests broad potential applicability. An FTO analysis is advisable for any bank that has implemented Sheltered Harbor compliance programs.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.