DigitalDoors v. 1st Bank Yuma: Sheltered Harbor Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
DigitalDoors Incorporated filed a four-patent infringement action against Arizona community bank 1st Bank Yuma over Sheltered Harbor compliant cybersecurity systems. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) just 33 days after filing, with each side bearing its own costs.
Four-Patent Fintech Cybersecurity Suit Ends Swiftly With Prejudice
On October 24, 2025, DigitalDoors Incorporated filed a patent infringement action against 1st Bank Yuma in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona before Judge John J. Tuchi. The complaint asserted four patents — US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 — each relating to Sheltered Harbor compliant systems, a cybersecurity framework designed to protect financial institutions’ data vaults against cyberattacks and system failures.
Just 33 days after filing, on November 26, 2025, DigitalDoors filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The dismissal was self-executing — no court order was required — and included an express agreement that each side would bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring DigitalDoors from reasserting these four patents against 1st Bank Yuma.
The 33-day resolution is notably short even for a voluntarily dismissed case, suggesting that the parties likely reached a private resolution — or that the plaintiff concluded early that proceeding was untenable — before the defendant had even filed an appearance or responsive pleading. The public record is silent on whether any licensing agreement, payment, or other commercial arrangement accompanied the dismissal. The ‘each side bears its own costs’ language is conventional in quick exits and does not necessarily confirm or deny an underlying settlement.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 33 days
Resolved in 33 days — well below the median district court patent lifecycle of 2–3 years
Dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41: what the terms mean for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — plaintiff’s unilateral right to exit early
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, DigitalDoors exercised that right and elected dismissal with prejudice — a stricter outcome than the default, which would be without prejudice. The with-prejudice designation converts the voluntary exit into a final judgment on the merits.
Self-executing dismissalWith prejudice confirmed — refiling against 1st Bank Yuma is permanently barred
The filing expressly states ‘with prejudice,’ removing any ambiguity. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal — which preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile — this dismissal extinguishes DigitalDoors’ ability to bring these four patent claims against 1st Bank Yuma again. This is an unusually strong concession for a plaintiff to make voluntarily, and typically suggests either a negotiated resolution or a strategic reassessment of claim viability.
No right to refile1st Bank Yuma walks away without admitting infringement
No defendant counsel appeared on the record and no responsive pleading was filed before dismissal. The bank faces no injunction, damages award, or consent decree. Because the dismissal was entered on the plaintiff’s motion rather than a substantive ruling, 1st Bank Yuma’s use of Sheltered Harbor compliant systems has not been adjudicated as either infringing or non-infringing. The bank’s Sheltered Harbor compliance posture remains legally intact.
No liability findingFour patents remain live against other financial institutions
The with-prejudice dismissal binds only the parties to this action. DigitalDoors’ four Sheltered Harbor patents — US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 — remain in force and can be asserted against other banks or fintechs deploying Sheltered Harbor compliant infrastructure. Financial institutions in the Sheltered Harbor program should treat this case as an enforcement signal and review their exposure against these patent claims.
Enforcement risk persists sector-wideFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DigitalDoors Incorporated | Individual | Cybersecurity patent assertion entity — holder of four Sheltered Harbor data-vault patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | 1st Bank Yuma | Company | 1st Bank Yuma — Arizona community bank and alleged user of Sheltered Harbor compliant systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Lawrence Bycer | Attorney | Counsel for DigitalDoors IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Benjamin Marion | Attorney | Counsel for DigitalDoors IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bycer & Marion PLC – Phoenix, AZ | Law Firm | Representing DigitalDoors IncorporatedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge John J Tuchi | Judge | Arizona District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly designates the dismissal as ‘with prejudice’ — language that goes beyond the procedural minimum. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) by default permits dismissal without prejudice when filed before an answer, but DigitalDoors voluntarily accepted the more restrictive with-prejudice outcome. This forecloses any future action by DigitalDoors against 1st Bank Yuma on these four patents, while leaving the patent claims entirely unconstrued and the defendant’s non-infringement and invalidity defenses unadjudicated.
US10250639B2 and three further patents — Sheltered Harbor cybersecurity data-vault systems
The four asserted patents — US10250639B2 (App. 14/597345), US10182073B2 (App. 14/597314), US9734169B2 (App. 13/900728), and US9015301B2 (App. 11/746440) — span multiple application filing generations, suggesting a prosecution strategy that built on a core disclosure over time. The patents collectively cover Sheltered Harbor compliant systems: a financial-sector cybersecurity standard requiring institutions to maintain immutable, encrypted data vaults capable of rapid restoration after a catastrophic cyber event.
Sheltered Harbor was developed as a financial industry self-regulatory framework and has been widely adopted by U.S. banks. If DigitalDoors holds patents reading on the core technical implementation of Sheltered Harbor compliance, the potential infringement exposure across the banking sector is substantial. The multi-generational patent family structure also suggests broader continuation coverage may exist beyond the four patents asserted in this case, warranting a comprehensive family-level review by any Sheltered Harbor participant.
Should you run an FTO against US10250639B2 and the DigitalDoors Sheltered Harbor portfolio?
Any financial institution — bank, credit union, fintech, or core banking vendor — that has implemented or is implementing Sheltered Harbor compliant data vault infrastructure should treat this case as a direct enforcement signal. The product category at issue is standard across the U.S. banking sector, meaning the potential universe of targets is large. With the patents unconstrued and no invalidity ruling on record, the risk profile is difficult to bound without a detailed claim chart review.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 against your specific implementation architecture, identify prior art that could support an IPR petition, and flag any continuation applications that may extend the enforcement lifecycle. Eureka’s patent family tree tool also helps identify whether DigitalDoors holds additional unpublished or pending continuations in this space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10250639B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Sheltered Harbor and financial cybersecurity patent infringement cases
Cases involving data-vault and cybersecurity patent assertions against financial institutions in U.S. district courts, with comparable FRCP 41 dismissal patterns.
What this case signals for the financial cybersecurity IP landscape
A four-patent suit against a community bank, resolved in 33 days with prejudice, carries meaningful read-throughs for the broader Sheltered Harbor ecosystem.
Sheltered Harbor adopters face active patent enforcement risk
DigitalDoors has now demonstrated willingness to assert its Sheltered Harbor patent portfolio against financial institutions of all sizes, including community banks. Any bank or fintech that has implemented Sheltered Harbor compliant data vaults should conduct a freedom-to-operate review against these four patents before the next enforcement action is filed.
Speed of dismissal suggests early-stage leverage plays are in use
A 33-day lifecycle — before defendant counsel even appeared — is consistent with a demand-letter-to-settlement strategy where litigation is used primarily as leverage. IP teams at Sheltered Harbor member institutions should be prepared with pre-litigation responses and have counsel on standby to assess incoming infringement notices quickly.
Incorporated v 1st — key questions answered
It means DigitalDoors is permanently barred from suing 1st Bank Yuma again on these four patents. A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under FRCP 41, so no new complaint asserting the same claims against the same defendant can be filed. 1st Bank Yuma faces no damages, injunction, or liability finding from this action.
DigitalDoors asserted four patents: US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2. All four relate to Sheltered Harbor compliant systems — a cybersecurity framework used by financial institutions to maintain immutable encrypted data vaults for disaster recovery. The application numbers span two distinct filing generations, suggesting a continuation-based prosecution strategy.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal binds only DigitalDoors and 1st Bank Yuma. The four patents remain in force and can be asserted against any other financial institution, fintech, or vendor that uses Sheltered Harbor compliant infrastructure. The dismissal creates no invalidity finding or claim construction ruling that would benefit third parties in future litigation.
The public record does not disclose the reason. The 33-day timeline and pre-answer filing are consistent with an early negotiated resolution, a licensing agreement, or a strategic reassessment of claim viability. The ‘each side bears its own costs’ language is standard in quick voluntary exits and does not confirm or deny a settlement payment. The with-prejudice designation may have been a concession exchanged for some form of private consideration.
Sheltered Harbor is a financial industry cybersecurity standard requiring member institutions to maintain an immutable, encrypted data vault that can restore customer records within 24 hours after a destructive cyberattack. It is widely adopted across U.S. banks. If patents like those held by DigitalDoors read on the technical implementation of Sheltered Harbor compliant data vaults, participating institutions may face infringement exposure simply by complying with the industry standard — a scenario that warrants careful FTO analysis.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.