Digital Doors, Inc. v. UMB Bank: Four-Patent Data Security Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Digital Doors, Inc. asserted four patents covering digital information security infrastructure and granular data storage controls against UMB Bank, NA in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties jointly filed for dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 after 225 days, with each side bearing its own costs — a resolution pattern consistent with confidential settlement.
Four Data-Security Patents, One Joint Exit: Inside Digital Doors v. UMB Bank
On May 2, 2024, Digital Doors, Inc. filed suit against UMB Bank, NA in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00320), asserting infringement of four patents — US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 — covering digital information security infrastructure, granular data stores, content analysis and classification, and variable configurable data filters. The accused products span data security and information management systems deployed in financial services contexts.
The case closed on December 13, 2024, after 225 days, when the parties filed a Joint Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court accepted the notice, dismissing all claims with prejudice and directing each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. Dismissal with prejudice means Digital Doors is permanently barred from re-asserting the same claims against UMB Bank on the same patents. No findings on validity or infringement were made.
The 225-day resolution — well short of E.D. Texas’s typical litigation runway — and the mutual cost-bearing provision are consistent with a confidential settlement or licensing arrangement, though the public record does not confirm any financial terms. The involvement of Garteiser Honea PLLC as plaintiff’s counsel, a firm with a substantial E.D. Texas patent assertion track record, and Stinson LLP on the defense side suggests both parties were prepared for extended litigation before electing joint dismissal.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 225 days
225 days — resolved faster than median E.D. Texas patent cases, which typically run 18–24 months to trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint exit means for both parties
Rule 41 dismissal with prejudice ends the case permanently
A joint voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from both parties and has the force of a final judgment on the merits. Digital Doors cannot re-file the same patent claims against UMB Bank in any U.S. court. The court accepted the notice without ruling on infringement or validity — no legal findings were made on the four asserted patents.
Permanent bar on re-filingPublic record is silent on financial terms — but the pattern suggests a deal
The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Voluntary dismissal’ and the order specifies no monetary award. However, dismissals with prejudice that are joint — where the plaintiff agrees to a permanent bar — typically involve consideration not captured in public filings. The distinction matters: a true walk-away versus a licensed exit has very different implications for Digital Doors’ ongoing assertion campaign against other defendants.
Likely private resolutionClaims extinguished against UMB Bank — portfolio remains live elsewhere
Digital Doors loses all asserted claims against UMB Bank permanently. However, the four patents remain in force and can be asserted against other defendants in separate proceedings. The with-prejudice dismissal is scoped to the bilateral relationship between these two parties — it has no direct estoppel effect on third-party defendants facing the same patent portfolio.
Portfolio still active vs. othersUMB Bank exits without a validity ruling — freedom to operate is untested
UMB Bank secured a permanent end to this specific litigation without a court finding on invalidity or non-infringement. While commercially efficient, the bank does not hold an invalidity judgment that would benefit the broader financial services sector. Other institutions facing the same Digital Doors portfolio cannot rely on this dismissal as legal precedent. Each party bearing its own costs signals neither side extracted a cost-shifting judgment.
No precedential validity rulingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Digital Doors, Inc. | Company | Digital information security patent holder — asserting US10250639B2 and related infrastructure patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | UMB Bank, NA | Company | UMB Bank, NA — U.S. regional bank and financial services providerSearch 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 | Colin Webster Turner | Attorney | Counsel for UMB Bank, NASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Stinson LLP (Missouri) | Law Firm | Representing UMB Bank, NASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts and acknowledges the joint notice without adjudicating any substantive issues. The phrase ‘DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE’ carries full res judicata effect between these two parties — Digital Doors is permanently precluded from re-litigating the same claims against UMB Bank. Critically, the order denies all pending relief as moot, confirming no injunction, damages finding, or validity ruling was issued. The record yields no guidance on claim construction or patent scope.
US10250639B2 — Digital Security Infrastructure and Granular Data Store Controls
The four asserted patents — US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 — form a family covering digital information infrastructure designed for securing, classifying, and segmenting data flows. Application numbers trace to filings between 2007 (US11/746440) and 2015 (US14/597345), indicating a patent family built over nearly a decade. The technology spans secure storage with content analysis, variable configurable filters, extractor-based data classification, and distribution controls — core architectural concepts in enterprise and financial data management.
For financial institutions, these patents target infrastructure that is deeply embedded in compliance, data governance, and cybersecurity platforms. The breadth of the family — covering both the architecture (data stores, filters) and the methods (extraction, classification, distribution control) — creates overlapping claim exposure for any institution deploying modern data security or information management systems. The patents’ longevity and layered application strategy suggest deliberate construction for broad assertion potential across the financial services sector.
Should your team run an FTO against US10250639B2 and the Digital Doors portfolio?
Any financial institution, fintech platform, or enterprise data management vendor operating systems that segment, classify, or control access to digital information should treat this patent family as an FTO priority. The claims span architectural and method-level coverage, meaning both software vendors and their bank customers may face independent exposure. The fact that UMB Bank chose a negotiated exit rather than an invalidity fight suggests the claims were not trivially designed around.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s data architecture against the claim scope of US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 simultaneously, identifying overlap and prosecution history estoppel that may narrow enforcement risk. Eureka also surfaces continuation applications and related pending claims that could extend the family’s reach — critical intelligence before any licensing conversation or product launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10250639B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Data Security Infrastructure Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving digital information security and data segmentation patents asserted against financial institutions in the Eastern District of Texas federal court.
What this case signals for the financial data security IP landscape
Four infrastructure patents, a major regional bank, and a fast joint exit — the pattern has implications beyond this single dispute.
E.D. Texas remains the venue of choice for digital infrastructure patent assertions
Digital Doors filed in the Eastern District of Texas, consistent with the court’s continued attractiveness for patent plaintiffs asserting infrastructure and software patents against financial services firms. The 225-day resolution did not test the venue — but companies in the sector should anticipate similar filings and prepare for E.D. Texas procedure.
Financial institutions face recurring exposure from granular data-security patent portfolios
The four asserted patents cover foundational concepts in data segmentation, secure storage, content classification, and access controls — capabilities embedded in virtually every modern banking platform. Institutions that have not mapped their data infrastructure against this patent family should treat this case as a trigger for FTO analysis.
Digital v UMB — key questions answered
Digital Doors, Inc. filed a patent infringement suit against UMB Bank, NA in the Eastern District of Texas on May 2, 2024, asserting four data security infrastructure patents. The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint notice on December 13, 2024, after 225 days, with each party bearing its own costs. No court ruling on infringement or patent validity was issued.
Digital Doors asserted four patents: US10250639B2 (digital security infrastructure with granular data stores), US10182073B2 (data processing tools with distribution controls), US9734169B2 (information infrastructure with content analysis and classification), and US9015301B2 (infrastructure tools with variable filters and segmental data stores). The patents originate from application filings between 2007 and 2015.
No. A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 is bilateral — it permanently bars Digital Doors from re-asserting these specific claims against UMB Bank only. The four patents remain enforceable against other parties. Other financial institutions or technology vendors have no estoppel protection from this dismissal and remain exposed to the same portfolio.
The order directing each party to bear its own costs means neither side secured a fee-shifting award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or Rule 54. This is consistent with a negotiated resolution — whether a confidential license or a true walk-away. It also signals that no exceptional case finding was made, which would have been required for attorney fee awards in patent litigation.
E.D. Texas, particularly its Marshall and Tyler divisions, is a historically plaintiff-friendly venue for patent assertions due to its established patent docket, experienced judges, and procedural rules that have traditionally favored patent holders. Garteiser Honea PLLC, Digital Doors’ counsel, has an extensive track record filing patent cases in this district, suggesting deliberate venue selection.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.