Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Torus Ventures v. N.E. Property Management | Patent Lawsuit 2:26-cv-00115

Torus Ventures, LLC v. N.E. Property Management, LLC

2:26-cv-00115 E.D. Tex. Closed US7457968B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 13 Feb 2026 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 26 May 2026, with US7457968B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US7457968B2
Application no.
US11/710352
Case no.
2:26-cv-00115
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
E.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
Rodney Gilstrap
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
13 Feb 2026 – 26 May 2026
Duration
102 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
Method and system for a recursive security protocol for digital copyright control
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2:26-cv-00115, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US7457968B2 Inactive App. US11/710352

Method and system for a recursive security protocol for digital copyright control

Systems and methods are described which utilize a recursive security protocol for the protection of digital data. These may include encrypting a bit stream with a first encryption algorithm and associating a first decryption algorithm with the encrypted bit stream. The resulting bit stream may then be encrypted with a second encryption algorithm to yield a second bit stream. This second bit stream is then associated with a second decryption algorithm. This second bit stream can then be decrypted by an intended recipient using associated keys.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
25 Nov 2008
Earliest priority
20 Jun 2002
Est. expiry
20 Jun 2023
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06F21/00
Prosecution counsel
Sprinkle IP Law Group
Examiner
ZAND, KAMBIZ
US7457968B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US7457968B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“Before the Court is the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (the “Notice”) filed by Plaintiff Torus Ventures LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 12). In the Notice, Plaintiff “dismisses this action with prejudice” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Id. at 1). Defendant N.E. Property Management, LLC has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. (Id.). Having considered the Notice, the Court ACKNOWLEDGES AND ACCEPTS that all of Plaintiff’s claims in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

Case 2:26-cv-00115 · E.D. Tex. · closed 26 May 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 2:26-cv-00115?

2:26-cv-00115 is a patent infringement action brought by Torus Ventures, LLC against N.E. Property Management, LLC, filed on 13 Feb 2026 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 26 May 2026.

Which patent was asserted in 2:26-cv-00115?

US7457968B2 (“Method and system for a recursive security protocol for digital copyright control”), assigned to TORUS VENTURES LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Method and system for a recursive security protocol for digital copyright control.

How was case 2:26-cv-00115 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (the “Notice”) filed by Plaintiff Torus Ventures LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 12). In the Notice, Plaintiff “dismisses this action with prejudice” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Id. at 1). Defendant N.E. Property Management, LLC has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. (Id.). Having considered the Notice, the Court ACKNOWLEDGES AND ACCEPTS that all of Plaintiff’s claims in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

What does dismissal with prejudice mean?

A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.

How long did case 2:26-cv-00115 take?

102 calendar days, from filing on 13 Feb 2026 to closure on 26 May 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:26-cv-00115?

Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. Isaac Phillip Rabicoff is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Torus Ventures.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:26-cv-00115 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:26-cv-00115 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.