DigitalDoors v. Bank OZK: Four-Patent Security Infrastructure Dispute Ends in Dismissal With Prejudice
DigitalDoors, Inc. filed suit against Bank OZK in the Eastern District of Texas asserting four patents covering secure digital information infrastructure and granular data store management. The case closed after 314 days via a joint stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1), with each party bearing its own costs — a resolution structure that forecloses any refiling of the same claims.
A four-patent security infrastructure assertion against a regional bank ends quietly
On November 21, 2023, DigitalDoors, Inc. filed suit against Bank OZK in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, asserting infringement of four patents: US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2. The patents collectively cover digital information infrastructure for security-designated data, granular data store management, extractor and content-classification tools, and variable configurable data filters — a portfolio oriented toward secure enterprise data handling and distribution controls.
The case closed on September 30, 2024 — 314 days after filing — when both parties jointly filed a Corrected Stipulated Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1). The Eastern District court granted the motion, ordering all claims and causes of action dismissed with prejudice and directing each side to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. The with-prejudice designation means DigitalDoors is permanently barred from reasserting these specific claims against Bank OZK in future proceedings.
A 314-day lifespan is consistent with cases that resolve before claim construction or trial — suggesting the parties reached a negotiated resolution, though the public record is silent on whether any license, payment, or other consideration was exchanged. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is typical of confidential settlements in NPE-pattern cases where both sides prefer a clean exit. What drove the specific timing — and whether Bank OZK’s financial-sector operations were specifically implicated by the asserted patents — remains undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 314 days
314 days from filing to close — broadly consistent with pre-trial settlement timelines in E.D. Tex. NPE cases
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal with prejudice — a permanent bar on refiling
A joint stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) requires agreement from all parties and takes effect without a court order — though here the court formally granted the motion. The with-prejudice designation is critical: it operates as a final adjudication on the merits, preventing DigitalDoors from reasserting the same four patents against Bank OZK in any future federal proceeding. This distinguishes it from a without-prejudice dismissal, which would leave the door open to refiling.
Permanent claim barDigitalDoors exits with prejudice and no public recovery
DigitalDoors receives no publicly recorded monetary judgment or injunction. The with-prejudice dismissal forecloses future litigation against Bank OZK on these four patents. However, the absence of a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 — which would require a finding of exceptional case — suggests the court made no adverse merits finding against the plaintiff. Whether a confidential license or settlement payment was agreed outside the court record cannot be determined from public filings.
No public recovery recordedBank OZK secures permanent closure on these four patent claims
Bank OZK achieves a clean exit: all four asserted patents are dismissed with prejudice, eliminating any risk of DigitalDoors reviving these specific claims in future litigation. Each party bears its own costs, meaning Bank OZK avoids a fee-shifting award but also does not recover its legal spend. The bank retains exposure to the same DigitalDoors portfolio from other plaintiffs or in other jurisdictions, and the patents themselves remain in force against third parties.
Claims permanently closedFour security infrastructure patents remain live against the broader financial sector
The dismissal resolves only DigitalDoors’ claims against Bank OZK — it does not invalidate or limit the scope of US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, or US9015301B2. Other financial institutions and enterprises deploying granular data store, content classification, or secure distribution infrastructure should note that this portfolio remains enforceable. The lack of any invalidity or non-infringement ruling means the patents’ claims have not been narrowed by adjudication.
Portfolio remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DIGITALDOORS, INC. | Company | Digital information security patent assertion entity — holder of US10250639B2 and three related infrastructure patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Bank Ozk | Company | Bank OZK — U.S. regional bank and financial services provider headquartered in ArkansasSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Scott Fuller | Attorney | Counsel for DIGITALDOORS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PLLC | Law Firm | Representing DIGITALDOORS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Siddhesh Vishnu Pandit | Attorney | Counsel for Bank OzkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Maier & Maier PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Bank OzkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order tracks the language of the joint stipulation closely, granting the Rule 41(a)(1) motion without substantive merits analysis. The with-prejudice designation — explicitly ordered rather than implied — confirms finality as to Bank OZK specifically. Notably, the court mooted all pending relief requests, indicating no claim construction, summary judgment, or other substantive motions had been decided. The mutual cost-bearing instruction is consistent with a privately negotiated resolution whose commercial terms, if any, are not reflected in the public docket.
US10250639B2 — Digital information security infrastructure and granular data stores
The four asserted patents — US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 — form a related portfolio filed across application numbers 14/597345, 14/597314, 13/900728, and 11/746440, indicating a family built over multiple filing generations. The patents address complementary layers of an information security infrastructure stack: secure storage with granular access controls, data flow processing with distribution constraints, content extraction and classification, and configurable segmental filtering. Taken together, they suggest a broad claim footprint across enterprise data governance and secure information handling architectures.
For financial institutions operating cloud-based data management, regulatory compliance systems, or multi-tier access-controlled storage, the claim language in this portfolio may intersect with widely deployed infrastructure. The patents’ apparent focus on segmentation, classification, and distribution controls maps closely to capabilities required under data residency and financial privacy regulations. With no invalidity finding in this case, competing institutions and technology vendors serving the banking sector face continued enforcement risk and should evaluate their own implementations against the granted claim scope.
Should you run an FTO against US10250639B2 and the DigitalDoors portfolio?
Any organisation deploying granular data store architectures, content classification pipelines, or configurable data distribution controls in financial services, cloud storage, or enterprise compliance infrastructure should treat this four-patent portfolio as an active risk. The dismissal with prejudice in this case provides no invalidity shield for third parties — the patents remain fully enforceable, and DigitalDoors retains the right to assert them against any other defendant. Banks, fintech platforms, and data infrastructure vendors are particularly exposed given the portfolio’s apparent alignment with regulated data handling.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 against your product architecture in a structured clearance workflow. Eureka surfaces prosecution history, claim amendments, and co-pending family members that affect scope — enabling your IP and R&D teams to identify design-around opportunities or invalidity arguments before a demand letter arrives, not after.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10250639B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar information security patent assertions in E.D. Texas against financial institutions
Cases involving digital information security infrastructure patents asserted in the Eastern District of Texas against banks and financial services defendants — relevant for portfolio and venue risk benchmarking.
What this case signals for the financial sector information security IP landscape
A quietly resolved four-patent assertion in E.D. Tex. carries real implications for banks and enterprise data security vendors watching this portfolio.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for multi-patent NPE assertions against financial institutions
The Eastern District of Texas continues to attract patent infringement filings targeting banks and financial services firms. DigitalDoors’ four-patent assertion against Bank OZK follows a pattern of information security portfolio assertions in this venue. Financial institutions should maintain active docket monitoring in E.D. Tex. for NPE filings touching data infrastructure technology.
With-prejudice dismissals without fee awards leave portfolios in play elsewhere
The absence of a § 285 exceptional-case finding means DigitalDoors faces no judicial sanction that would complicate future assertions against other defendants. All four patents — US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, US9015301B2 — remain valid and enforceable. Any financial institution or enterprise data vendor with similar infrastructure exposure should assess FTO risk proactively rather than waiting for a filing.
DIGITALDOORS v Bank — key questions answered
DigitalDoors, Inc. sued Bank OZK in the Eastern District of Texas on November 21, 2023, asserting four patents covering digital information security infrastructure. The case was dismissed with prejudice on September 30, 2024 — after 314 days — pursuant to a joint stipulated motion under Rule 41(a)(1). Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
DigitalDoors asserted four US patents: US10250639B2 (digital information infrastructure for security-designated data and granular data stores), US10182073B2 (data processing tools with distribution controls), US9734169B2 (extractor, secure storage, content analysis and classification tools), and US9015301B2 (variable configurable filters and segmental data stores). The patents span application numbers filed across multiple generations.
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits for purposes of the specific claims between these two parties. DigitalDoors cannot refile the same four-patent infringement claims against Bank OZK in any future proceeding. Bank OZK achieves permanent closure on this specific dispute. However, the patents themselves remain enforceable against other defendants, and DigitalDoors retains the right to assert them elsewhere.
The public court record does not disclose any settlement payment, license agreement, or other commercial consideration. The dismissal order reflects only that each party agreed to bear its own costs and that all claims be dismissed with prejudice. Whether a confidential financial arrangement accompanied the stipulation cannot be determined from the publicly available docket.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice resolves only DigitalDoors’ claims against Bank OZK. No invalidity finding, no non-infringement ruling, and no narrowing of claim scope resulted from this case. US10250639B2, US10182073B2, US9734169B2, and US9015301B2 remain granted and enforceable. Other financial institutions, cloud infrastructure providers, and enterprise data management vendors with similar technology deployments face continued assertion risk from this portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.