Torus Ventures v. Al Boenker Insurance Agency: Dismissed With Prejudice in 140 Days
Torus Ventures LLC asserted US7203844B1 — a recursive security protocol for digital copyright control — against Texas insurance agency Al Boenker in the Eastern District of Texas. The case ended by stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), closing all claims just 140 days after filing.
A swift stipulated exit: patent assertion ends before any merits ruling
On July 10, 2024, Torus Ventures LLC filed suit against Al Boenker Insurance Agency, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division) before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting infringement of US7203844B1. That patent, filed under application number US10/465274, covers a method and system for a recursive security protocol for digital copyright control — technology that, on its face, sits at some distance from the core business of a regional insurance agency.
The case closed on November 27, 2024, when Judge Gilstrap acknowledged and accepted a Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice filed by plaintiff Torus Ventures (Dkt. No. 27), entered pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The dismissal is with prejudice, meaning Torus Ventures is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims against Al Boenker on this patent. The parties agreed to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees, and all unresolved relief requests were denied as moot.
At just 140 days from filing to closure, the timeline is consistent with a case resolved before substantive motion practice or claim construction. The public record does not disclose whether any monetary consideration changed hands or what specifically drove Torus to stipulate dismissal. Notably, Judge Gilstrap directed the clerk to maintain the Lead Case open, indicating this is a member case within a broader consolidated series — suggesting Torus Ventures was pursuing a multi-defendant campaign with this patent.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 140 days
140 days — well below the median E.D. Texas patent case duration, suggesting early resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement of all parties who have appeared and filed an answer or motion for summary judgment. Critically, the ‘with prejudice’ designation transforms what would otherwise be a procedural exit into a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes — Torus Ventures cannot refile these specific infringement claims against Al Boenker on US7203844B1.
Permanent bar on refilingTorus Ventures gives up all claims — permanently
By stipulating to dismissal with prejudice, Torus Ventures forfeits any right to pursue Al Boenker again on US7203844B1. This is a meaningful concession: unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, which preserves the option to refile, a with-prejudice exit forecloses that path entirely as to this defendant. The public record does not reveal whether a confidential settlement payment accompanied the stipulation — both outcomes (paid settlement and abandoned claim) are consistent with this procedural posture.
Claims permanently relinquishedAl Boenker exits with full claim preclusion but bears own costs
Al Boenker Insurance Agency secures a permanent end to this specific litigation — no liability finding, no injunction, and no damages award on the record. However, the parties-bear-own-costs order means Al Boenker cannot recover its legal fees despite being a defendant in what may be a broad assertion campaign. The absence of a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (exceptional case) suggests the defendant did not pursue or succeed on that motion before dismissal.
No fee recovery for defendantMember case closure leaves the broader campaign unresolved
Judge Gilstrap explicitly directed the clerk to keep the Lead Case open, confirming this is one of several consolidated actions. Other defendants in the series remain exposed to the same US7203844B1 claims. Companies operating digital access-control, content-licensing, or document-security systems should assess whether their products fall within the patent’s claim scope — especially given Torus’s apparent willingness to assert the patent against parties whose primary business is not technology.
Broader campaign ongoingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Torus Ventures, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7203844B1, recursive digital copyright control methodSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Al Boenker Insurance Agency, Inc. | Company | Regional Texas insurance agency; defendant in consolidated patent assertion campaignSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Torus Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Torus Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ekaterina Zelenskaya Long | Attorney | Counsel for Al Boenker Insurance Agency, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kelly James Kubasta | Attorney | Counsel for Al Boenker Insurance Agency, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ferguson Braswell Fraser Kubasta PC | Law Firm | Representing Al Boenker Insurance Agency, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is purely procedural — it acknowledges and accepts the parties’ stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) without evaluating the merits of the infringement claims. The ‘with prejudice’ designation carries the most legal weight: it operates as a final judgment for claim-preclusion purposes, permanently barring Torus Ventures from reasserting these claims against Al Boenker. The own-costs directive forecloses fee recovery for either party. No validity or infringement findings were made.
US7203844B1 — Recursive Security Protocol for Digital Copyright Control
US7203844B1, filed under application number US10/465274, covers a method and system implementing a recursive security protocol for digital copyright control. The patent’s technical domain sits within digital rights management (DRM) and content-access control — technologies designed to enforce ownership and usage restrictions on digital assets. The recursive protocol architecture suggests a layered or nested security approach, potentially applicable to content licensing, document control, or software access management systems.
The strategic significance of this patent lies in the breadth of industries that handle digital content or access-controlled systems — far beyond traditional media or software companies. Torus Ventures’ willingness to assert it against an insurance agency suggests the claims may be drafted broadly enough to capture generic document or data security workflows. For any company operating digital content delivery, licensing platforms, or access-control infrastructure, US7203844B1 represents a monitored enforcement risk with an active multi-defendant campaign in E.D. Texas.
Should you run an FTO against US7203844B1?
If your product or platform involves digital rights management, content-access control, document security, or recursive authentication protocols, US7203844B1 warrants direct FTO analysis. Torus Ventures has demonstrated willingness to assert this patent across industry verticals — including against businesses not primarily in the technology sector — which suggests claim language that may read broadly on common digital workflow architectures. In-house IP teams and R&D leads should not assume an industry mismatch provides protection.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows you to map the claims of US7203844B1 against your product architecture, identify prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and monitor the lead consolidated case for claim construction developments. With the broader campaign still active in E.D. Texas, real-time docket monitoring and automated claim-scope alerts can provide early warning before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7203844B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar digital copyright control patent cases in E.D. Texas
Browse comparable patent assertion cases involving digital rights management and content-control technology litigated in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap.
What this case signals for the digital copyright control IP landscape
A rapid with-prejudice exit in a multi-defendant E.D. Texas campaign raises questions about assertion strategy and defendant leverage.
Multi-defendant campaigns magnify per-defendant settlement pressure
The Lead Case structure suggests Torus Ventures filed against multiple defendants simultaneously — a common PAE tactic in E.D. Texas. For each member defendant, the cost of litigation often exceeds the cost of early settlement, creating pressure to resolve quickly regardless of the merits. Al Boenker’s 140-day exit is consistent with this dynamic.
With-prejudice dismissal signals finality, but the patent lives on
US7203844B1 remains in force for other defendants and potential future targets not yet named. A with-prejudice dismissal as to one defendant does not affect the patent’s validity or enforceability against third parties. R&D and product teams working with digital rights management or content-control technology should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk.
Torus v Al — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on November 27, 2024. Judge Gilstrap accepted the stipulation filed by plaintiff Torus Ventures LLC, permanently barring refiling of the same claims against Al Boenker. Each party bears its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Torus Ventures asserted US7203844B1, filed under application number US10/465274. The patent covers a method and system for a recursive security protocol for digital copyright control — a digital rights management technology. The assertion against an insurance agency suggests the claims may be drafted broadly enough to reach generic digital content or document-security workflows.
Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Torus Ventures from asserting the same infringement claims against Al Boenker Insurance Agency on US7203844B1. However, the patent itself remains valid and enforceable — Torus Ventures retains the right to assert it against other parties. The Lead Case in the consolidated series remains open, indicating ongoing enforcement activity.
Yes. Judge Gilstrap’s order explicitly directed the clerk to maintain the Lead Case open while closing this member case, confirming that Case No. 2:24-cv-00508 is part of a consolidated series of related actions. This is consistent with a multi-defendant patent assertion campaign — a common litigation strategy in E.D. Texas where a single patent is asserted against numerous defendants in parallel proceedings.
The court’s order directed each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees, with no exceptional-case fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The public record does not reveal whether Al Boenker sought such an award. In cases resolved quickly by stipulated dismissal, defendants frequently accept the own-costs outcome in exchange for a fast, certain exit — particularly where the cost of litigating a fee motion would approach the fees sought.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.