ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

DIGITALDOORS, INC., 

Plaintiff

 v. 

COMERICA BANK, 

Defendant

Case No. 2:23-cv-_________ 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

DigitalDoors, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) hereby files this Original Complaint for Patent Infringement 

against Defendant Comerica Bank (“COM” or “Defendant”), and alleges, upon information and belief, as 

follows: 

THE PARTIES

1. DigitalDoors, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida 

with its principal place of business at 4201 Collins Avenue, Suite 2103, Miami Beach, Florida 

33140. 

2. DigitalDoors was established in 2001 to develop data security solutions for survivability and 

continuity of operations of the U.S. Government, including military and intelligence agencies. It 

evolved specifically towards the Pentagon’s “Global Grid” communications infrastructure, and at 

the time, received enthusiastic reactions from leaders of the nation’s national security apparatus. 

3. One aspect of DigitalDoors’ data continuity innovation concerns information infrastructure 

architectures wherein specific data is tagged and distributed for disaster recovery. Such innovation 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 1 of 115 PageID #: 1
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 2

was first described by way of various embodiments in Provisional Applications filed in the United 

States in 2006 and 2007.

4. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a Texas State financial Institution organized and 

existing under the laws of the State of Texas, with a principal place of business located at Comerica 

Bank. 1717 Main Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. Defendant may be served through its registered 

agent in the State of Texas at Corporate Creations Network, Inc., 5444 Westheimer, Suite 1000, 

Houston, Texas 77056. On information and belief, in its extensive role as a consumer and business 

financial institution (whether Commercial Bank, Thrift, or Credit Union), COM makes, uses, sells, 

offers to sell, and otherwise provides financial account and/or depository services (including but 

not limited to credit cards, debit cards, checking accounts, savings accounts, and personal and 

business loans) to consumers throughout the State of Texas, including in this judicial District, and 

introduces such services into the stream of commerce knowing and intending that they would be 

extensively used in the State of Texas and in this judicial District. Moreover, as an integral 

component of its services, COM is believed to maintain industry standard data backup and disaster 

recovery systems for the benefit of its customers, including but not limited to Sheltered Harbor 

Certified systems (see, e.g., https://shelteredharbor.org/) or the functional equivalent thereof. On 

information and belief, COM specifically targets customers in the State of Texas and in this judicial 

District.

5. On information and belief, Defendant is a domestically chartered insured “Large Commercial 

Bank,” as classified and reported by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System of the 

United States. See www.federalreserve.gov/releases/. As reported by the Board of Governors in 

its June 30, 2023 release (see www.federalreserve.gov/releases/lbr/current/) (hereafter as “Federal 

Reserve Report”), Defendant is one of the largest financial institutions in the United States, with 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 2 of 115 PageID #: 2
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 3

domestic assets of approximately $90 Billion, and operates 401 domestic branches. On

information and belief, such data was obtained by the Federal Reserve from the Consolidated 

Reports of Condition and Income filed quarterly by the Defendant (FFIEC 031, 041, and 051) and 

from other information in the Board’s National Information Center database.

6. On information and belief, Defendant endeavors to provide robust state of the art data security 

protection to customer financial information, including but not limited to implementing such 

policies and procedures regarding such protections as dictated by its Board of Directors. 

According to the Securities and Exchange Commission, it is the responsibility of the Board of 

Directors to oversee cybersecurity safeguards and ensure the privacy and continuity of client data. 

See, e.g., Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Compliance Guide entitled: 

Cybersecurity Risk Management, Strategy, Governance, and incident Disclosure, as modified 

September 5, 2023, available at: sec.gov/ corpfin/secg-cybersecurity (as visited October 20, 2023) 

(hereafter as “SEC Article”) (discussing SEC Rules relating to cybersecurity, noting that the Rules 

require, inter alia, the annual disclosure of cybersecurity risk management, strategy, and 

governance, and specifically instructing: “With respect to governance, Item 106 and Item 16K 

require registrants to describe the board of directors’ oversight of risks from cybersecurity threats 

(including identifying any board committee or subcommittee responsible for such oversight) and 

management’s role in assessing and managing material risks from cybersecurity threats”). Indeed, 

SEC Regulation S-K Item 106 (17 CFR § 229.106) expressly requires the following from all 

registrants in their filings: “Describe the board of directors' oversight of risks from cybersecurity 

threats. If applicable, identify any board committee or subcommittee responsible for the oversight 

of risks from cybersecurity threats and describe the processes by which the board or such 

committee is informed about such risks.” Moreover, Boards of Directors for financial institutions 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 3 of 115 PageID #: 3
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 4

are responsible for safeguarding the customer data managed by the institution, including 

specifically all account data. See, e.g., FDIC White Paper entitled: Statement Concerning the 

Responsibilities of Bank Directors and Officers, available at: fdic.gov/regulations/laws/ 

rules/responsibilities-bank-directors-officers.pdf (as visited October 20, 2023) (hereafter as “FDIC 

White Paper”) (Stating: “Directors and officers of banks have obligations to discharge duties owed 

to their institution and to the shareholders and creditors of their institutions, and to comply with 

federal and state statutes, rules and regulations. Similar to the responsibilities owed by directors 

and officers of all business corporations, these duties include the duties of loyalty and care”); see 

also BankDirector.com Article dated April 14, 2023, entitled: Why the Duty of Cybersecurity is 

the Next Evolution for Fiduciary Duties, available at: bankdirector.com/committees/governance/ 

(as visited October 20, 2023) (hereafter as “BankDirector Article”) (explaining: “when the duty of 

oversight meets with the immense cybersecurity responsibilities of financial institutions, a duty of 

cybersecurity is added to the fiduciary responsibilities of directors and officers,” and 

“Cybersecurity is paramount among the myriad of compliance issues that all corporate officers 

and directors must address”); see also Ernst & Young Article dated June 5, 2023, entitled: The 

CRO Cyber Risk Agenda: What Boards Should Be Asking, available at: ey.com/en_us/boardmatters/cyber-risk-questions-for-boards (as visited October 20, 20230 (hereafter as “Ernst & 

Young Article”) (explaining how and why cybersecurity is the top priority for banks and their 

Boards of Directors). On information and belief, the Board of Directors for the Defendant is fully 

apprised of Defendant’s cybersecurity defense measures, and has fulfilled its duties to its 

customers by implementing Sheltered Harbor compliant systems and methods.

7. Further on information and belief, Defendant (together with and through its Board of Directors), 

acts responsibly with respect to cybersecurity. As an integral part of such responsible oversight 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 4 of 115 PageID #: 4
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 5

of customer financial data, and pursuant to its fiduciary duties, Defendant (together with and 

through its Board of Directors) has implemented Sheltered Harbor compliant systems (or the 

operational equivalent) to both its production and backup facilities. See, e.g., FFIEC Information 

Technology Examination Handbook, available at: ithandbook.ffiec.gov/media/2nifgh2b/ffiec_ 

itbooklet_businesscontinuitymanagement_v3.pdf (as visited October 20, 2023) (hereafter as 

“FFIEC Handbook”), at 19 and 21.

8. Recognized reports indicate that cyberattacks on enterprises are extremely costly. By way of 

example, IBM Security estimated that the average cost of a “mega-breach” of more than 50 million 

records in 2020 was $392 Million, and rising annually. See IBM Security Report entitled: Cost of 

a Data Breach Report 2020, available at: ibm.com/security/digital-assets/cost-data-breach-report/ 

1Cost%20of%20a%20Data%20Breach%20Report%202020.pdf (as visited October 20, 2023) 

(hereafter as “IBM Report”), at 66-67 (further reporting a cost of $50 Million for a small “megabreach” of only 1 million records); see also Dell PowerProtect Cyber Recovery Solution Guide, 

available at: delltechnologies.com/asset/en-us/products/data-protection/technical-support/h17670 

-cyber-recovery-sg.pdf (as visited October 20, 2023) (hereafter as “Solution Guide”) at 5 (citing 

report authored by Accenture) (the average cost to an enterprise resulting from a cyberattack is 

$13 Million). Still further, the 2019 breach of Capital One reportedly resulted in a loss of over 

$270 Million, in addition to incalculable damage to its goodwill and reputation. See, e.g., 

TechTarget Article entitled: Paige Thompson Found Guilty in 2019 Capital One Data Breach, 

available at: techtarget.com/searchsecurity/news/252521775/ (as visited October 20, 2023) 

(hereafter as “Capital One Article”). As such, financial institutions necessarily devote substantial 

resources to cyber protections. See, e.g., New York Times Article entitled: Hacking Wall Street, 

available at: nytimes.com/2021/07/03/business/dealbook/hacking-wall-street.html (as visited 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 5 of 115 PageID #: 5
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 6

October 20, 2023) (hereafter as “New York Times Article”) (reporting that “[t]he federal 

government and financial institutions have formed information-sharing groups, performed tabletop 

exercises and invested heavily in cybersecurity. JPMorgan Chase alone spends about $600 million 

each year on cybersecurity efforts and has ‘more than 3,000 employees’ working on the issue in 

some way”).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. 

10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendant has continuous and systematic 

business contacts with the State of Texas. Defendant directly conducts business extensively 

throughout the State of Texas, by distributing, making, using, offering for sale, selling, and 

advertising (including the provision of interactive web pages; the provision and support of payment 

cards; the provision and support of checking accounts; the provision and support of secured and 

unsecured loans; and further including maintaining physical facilities) its services in the State of 

Texas and in this District. Defendant has purposefully and voluntarily made its business services, 

including the infringing systems and services, available to residents of this District and into the 

stream of commerce with the intention and expectation that they will be purchased and/or used by 

consumers in this District. On information and belief, COM is a provider of: (i) payment cards 

and card services; (ii) checking and savings account services; and (iii) secured and unsecured 

loans, throughout the United States. Moreover, as an integral component of its aforementioned 

services, COM is believed to maintain industry standard data backup and disaster recovery 

systems, including but not limited to Sheltered Harbor Certified systems, within the United States 

for the benefit of its customers, as well as for regulatory compliance and reputational benefit. 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 6 of 115 PageID #: 6
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 7

11. On information and belief, Defendant maintains physical brick-and-mortar business locations in 

the State of Texas and within this District, retains employees specifically in this District for the 

purpose of servicing customers in this District, and generates substantial revenues from its business 

activities in this District.

See https://locations.comerica.com/?q=plano.

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 7 of 115 PageID #: 7
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 8

See google.com/maps/. 

12. On information and belief, COM has a substantial presence in the State of Texas and within this 

District, as exemplified by the LinkedIn Profile Page for COM, which indicates there are at least 

55 employees of COM residing in Texas. 

See COM LinkedIn Profile Page, at linkedin.com/company/comerica-bank/people/? 

keywords=Texas

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 8 of 115 PageID #: 8
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 9

13. On information and belief, COM provides a plurality of financial services, including but not 

limited to providing and supporting payment cards (including but not limited to credit cards, debit 

cards, and/or prepaid cards) to businesses and individuals located in the State of Texas and within 

this District.

14. Further on information and belief, COM provides a plurality of financial services, including but 

not limited to providing and supporting personal and/or business checking and savings accounts, 

to businesses and individuals located in the State of Texas and within this District. 

15. Further on information and belief, COM provides a plurality of financial services, including but 

not limited to providing and supporting secured and/or unsecured loans (including but not limited 

to mortgage loans, vehicle loans, personal loans, and/or business loans) to businesses and/or 

individuals located in the State of Texas and within this District.

16. Further on information and belief, COM maintains control over certain data backup and disaster 

recovery systems (including, for example, Sheltered Harbor Certified systems) within the United 

States for the benefit of its customers, as well as for regulatory compliance and reputational benefit. 

17. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas as to Defendant pursuant to at least 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1391(c)(2) and 1400(b). As noted above, Defendant maintains a regular and established business 

presence in this District, and specifically targets customers located within this District. 

PATENTS-IN-SUIT 

18. Plaintiff is the sole and exclusive owner, by assignment, of the following United States Patents: (i) 

9,015,301 (“the ‘301 Patent”); (ii) 9,734,169 (“the ‘169 Patent”); (iii) 10,182,073 (“the ‘073 

Patent”); and (iv) 10,250,639 (“the ‘639 Patent”) (hereinafter collectively as “the DigitalDoors 

Patents”). 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 9 of 115 PageID #: 9
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 10

19. By operation of law, the DigitalDoors Patents were originally issued and exclusively vested to the 

named inventors, Ron M. Redlich and Martin A. Nemzow, as of their respective dates of issuance. 

See 35 U.S.C. § 261; Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc., 959 F.3d 1065, 1072 

(Fed. Cir. 2020); Suppes v. Katti, 710 Fed. Appx. 883, 887 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Taylor v. Taylor Made 

Plastics, Inc., 565 Fed. Appx. 888, 889 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Each of Messrs. Redlich and Nemzow, 

by way of written instruments, assigned all rights, title, and interest in the DigitalDoors Patents to 

DigitalDoors, Inc. See Assignment dated May 5, 2007, as filed with the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office on June 7, 2007 at Reel 019396 and Frames 0728-0732 (‘301 Patent); see also 

Assignment dated May 27, 2009, as filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on 

May 23, 2013 at Reel 030473 and Frames 0686-0690 (‘169 Patent); see also Assignment dated 

May 5, 2007, as filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on June 1, 2021 at Reel 

056402 and Frames 0740-0744 (‘073 Patent, and ‘639 Patent). As such, Plaintiff DigitalDoors has 

sole and exclusive standing to assert the DigitalDoors Patents and to bring these causes of action

for infringement and damages.

20. The DigitalDoors Patents are each valid, enforceable, and were each duly issued in full compliance 

with Title 35 of the United States Code.

21. The inventions described and claimed in the DigitalDoors Patents were invented jointly and 

exclusively by Ron M. Redlich and Martin A. Nemzow.

22. Joint inventor Ron M. Redlich is a combat veteran of the Israeli military who, in 1974, graduated 

both Combat Officers School and Air Force Technical Missile Officers School. Thereafter, Mr. 

Redlich commanded an Air Force Hawk Anti-Aircraft Missile Battery based in Sinai during the 

Yom Kippur War. In one instance, the Missile Battery operated by Mr. Redlich was completely 

incapacitated for three weeks by Russian Electronic Warfare Weaponry Systems as deployed by 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 10 of 115 PageID #: 10
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 11

the Egyptian military. The electronic attack allowed the Egyptian military to assume full control 

of the various radar capabilities of the Missile Battery, thus preventing the Battery from launching 

its protective missiles. As a result, Egyptian bombers were able to attack without resistance, thus 

inflicting significant damage and many casualties against the Israeli military. 

23. Following his military service, Mr. Redlich attended law school at Bar Ilan University in Israel, 

earning an LLB degree in 1979. Since the tragic events of the Yom Kippur War, Mr. Redlich

became determined to develop technological solutions for survivability capabilities against 

systemic failures. Eventually, the efforts of Mr. Redlich came to fruition in the form of the 

inventions as described and claimed in the DigitalDoors Patents. 

24. The DigitalDoors Patents includes numerous claims defining distinct inventions, and no single 

claim is representative (for purposes of infringement or validity) of the others. By way of example, 

Claim 25 of the ’301 Patent recites such steps as “associating at least one data process from a group 

of data processes,” “applying the associated data process to a further data input,” and multiple 

options for “activation” of such filters. In contrast, none of Claim 1 of the ’169 Patent, Claim 1 of 

the ’073 Patent, or Claim 16 of the ’639 Patent include such limitations, Further, Claim 1 of the 

’169 Patent recites the “parsing” and “storing” of “remainder data,” whereas Claim 25 of the ’301 

Patent does not, nor does Claim 1 of the ’073 Patent. Still further, Claim 1 of the ’073 Patent 

recites “altering” and “modifying” initially-configured filters, whereas none of Claim 25 of the 

’301 Patent, Claim 1 of the ’169 Patent, or Claim 16 of the ’639 Patent include such limitations. 

Yet still further, Claim 16 of the ’639 Patent recites “inferencing” of content data, whereas none 

of Claim 25 of the ’301 Patent, Claim 1 of the ’169 Patent, or Claim 1 of the ’073 Patent include 

such limitations. These important distinctions are merely representative, as even a cursory review 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 11 of 115 PageID #: 11
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 12

of the claims of the DigitalDoors Patents reveals numerous patentably distinct elements which 

preclude any single claims from being viewed as representative.

25. The priority date of the DigitalDoors Patents is at least as early as January 5, 2007. As of the 

priority date, and for at least the reasons set forth herein, the inventions as claimed in the

DigitalDoors Patents were novel, non-obvious, unconventional, and non-routine. 

26. The DigitalDoors Patents each relate generally to unconventional methods and systems for 

organizing and processing data in a distributed system and, more particularly, those which extract 

specific sensitive content for specialized storage and subsequent reconstruction. See, e.g., ‘301 

Patent at Abstract and at 3:17-4:35. 

27. As noted, the claims of the DigitalDoors Patents have priority to at least January 5, 2007 (the “Date 

of Invention”). At that time, the practice of extracting specific content from structured and 

unstructured data for dedicated disaster recovery to achieve the advantages of the inventions 

claimed in the DigitalDoors Patents was still many years away. For example, as of the Date of 

Invention, the conventional approach focused on information recorded in structured data formats 

with little to no capacity to manage unstructured content. See, e.g., ‘301 Patent at 1:31-38. Further, 

and as of the Date of Invention, it was necessary to classify sensitive data, but such was inefficient 

and inadequate because it did not employ semantic or taxonomic analyses. See id. at 1:39-55. 

Beyond these issues, the state of the art as of the Date of Invention was for enterprises to operate 

open ecosystems which permitted employees, partners, customers, vendors, and others to 

participate in the production of information and the consumption of information. See id. at 1:60-

2:3. Such open ecosystems were vulnerable because of the number of access points, thus 

necessitating robust information rights management functionality. See id. at 2:3-27. Still further, 

as of the Date of Invention, enterprises were largely unable to effectively address the changing 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 12 of 115 PageID #: 12
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 13

sensitivity value of information over the lifecycle of the information file. See id. at 2:28-61. In 

view of the foregoing, there was no convention approach to information management which 

automatically categorized information in unstructured information files and labeled such 

information in a way to enable the implementation of policies intended to ensure the proper 

handling, distribution, retainment, deletion, and management of the information. See id. The 

inventions as described and claimed in the DigitalDoors Patents unconventionally shifted the 

management approach from data files to the content itself, thus achieving substantial advantages 

in enterprise information infrastructure management. See, e.g., id. at 9:46-58. As such, there is 

no prior art precursor of any of the extraction engine, select content, categorical filter, contextual 

filter, conceptual filter, taxonomic filter, adaptive filter, classification engine, mapping system, 

select data storage architecture, or reconstruction protocol as described in the DigitalDoors Patents.

28. As further evidence of the fact that the inventions as described and claimed in the DigitalDoors 

patents were unconventional and non-obvious is the known timeline and years-long collective 

effort on the part of the financial services industry to develop the infringing technologies. More 

specifically, the financial services industry did not even begin to develop a secure architecture 

which extracts specific sensitive content for specialized storage and subsequent reconstruction 

until 2015 as a response to growing cyber threats. See, e.g., Joint White Paper authored by Dell 

and Sheltered Harbor entitled: A Sheltered Harbor in a Cyber Storm, available at 

https://shelteredharbor.org/index.php/about#press (Sheltered Harbor Press Room); also available 

at: www.delltechnologies.com/asset/en-au/products/data-protection/industry-market/shelteredharbor-white-paper.pdf (each as visited October 20, 2023) (hereafter as “Joint White Paper”). The 

fact that the financial services community took several years to develop its own standard is strong 

evidence that the inventions as claimed in the DigitalDoors Patents were non-obvious, and the fact 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 13 of 115 PageID #: 13
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 14

that the industry did not begin its own development until 2015 is strong evidence that the 

technological solutions as claimed were unconventional as of the Date of Invention. Indeed, Dell 

did not fully develop its compliant Sheltered Harbor system until five years after the initialization 

of the Sheltered Harbor working group. See, e.g., Dell Podcast EP032 (at 2:05-3:20 time mark), 

available at: www.spreaker.com/user/11960889/power2podcast-ep032 (as visited October 20, 

2023) (hereafter as “Dell Podcast”). The fact that Dell spent five years developing its own 

compliant system is strong evidence that the technical solutions as described and claimed in the 

DigitalDoors Patents were unconventional and non-obvious as of the Date of Invention. Likewise, 

the fact that over 900 subject matter experts have contributed to the Sheltered Harbor standards is 

strong evidence that the technical solutions as described and claimed in the DigitalDoors Patents 

were unconventional and non-obvious as of the Date of Invention. See, e.g., Cobalt Iron White

Paper, entitled: Building Cyber Resilience to Maintain Public Confidence in the Financial 

Industry: Sheltered Harbor and Cobalt Iron, available at: https://shelteredharbor.org/ 

index.php/about#press (Press Room); also available at: https://shelteredharbor.org/images/ 

ShelteredHarbor/Documents/CobaltIron-WhitePaper-SheltredHarbor-20220607_Final.pdf 

(hereafter as ”Cobalt Iron White Paper”). Still further, the fact that the Sheltered Harbor solution 

is viewed within the technological community as a groundbreaking “blueprint for how modern 

cyber-protections should be designed and delivered, especially in a very vulnerable industry like 

financial services” (see Dell Podcast (at 4:00-4:25 time mark) is strong evidence that the technical 

solutions as described and claimed in the DigitalDoors Patents were unconventional and nonobvious as of the Date of Invention. See also Cobalt Iron White Paper (“In fact, now that the 

financial industry has figured out how to respond to a catastrophic data event, Sheltered Harbor 

has formed key alliances to expedite your data vaulting progress”).

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 14 of 115 PageID #: 14
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 15

29. Further, the deficiencies in the state of the art as of the Date of Invention were highly problematic, 

inasmuch as enterprises could not effectively manage sensitive data at the informational level. See, 

e.g., ‘301 Patent at 9:46-58. The inventions as claimed in the DigitalDoors Patents overcame the 

deficiencies in the art by offering the unconventional approach of implementing categorical filters, 

including content-based filters, contextual filters, and taxonomic filters, thus allowing substantial 

data security benefits. As such, the technological solutions of the DigitalDoors Patents were not 

well-understood, routine, or conventional as of January 2007, and provided greatly improved 

system performance over the state of the art. 

30. Still further, in view of the deficiencies in the state of the art as of the Date of Invention, enterprises 

could not effectively extract specific content from structured and unstructured data. See, e.g., ‘301 

Patent at 1:31-38; 1:50-56; 2:54-61; and 19:53-55. The inventions as claimed in the DigitalDoors 

Patents overcame the deficiencies in the art by offering an unconventional taxonomic analysis, 

including tag placeholder substitution, thus allowing substantial data security benefits. As such, 

the technological solutions of the DigitalDoors Patents were not well-understood, routine, or 

conventional as of January 2007, and provided greatly improved system performance over the state 

of the art.

31. Further, the deficiencies in the state of the art as of the Date of Invention were such that enterprises 

could not effectively control the security of their open information ecosystems. See, e.g., ‘301 

Patent at 2:3-27. The inventions as claimed in the DigitalDoors Patents overcame the deficiencies 

in the art by offering an unconventional architecture which includes an inference engine as a 

counterbalance, thus allowing substantial data security benefits. See, e.g., id. at 26:49-27:2. As 

such, the technological solutions of the DigitalDoors Patents were not well-understood, routine, or 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 15 of 115 PageID #: 15
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 16

conventional as of January 2007, and provided greatly improved system performance over the state 

of the art.

32. As noted, the claims of the DigitalDoors Patents have priority to at least January 5, 2007. The 

deficiencies in the state of the art as of the Date of Invention were highly problematic, inasmuch 

as enterprises could not effectively address the changing sensitivity value of information over the 

lifecycle of the information file. See id. at 2:28-61 and 9:53-58. The inventions as claimed in the 

DigitalDoors Patents overcame the deficiencies in the art by offering an unconventional 

architecture which includes a life cycle engine, thus allowing substantial security management 

advantages over an extended period and in view of changing circumstances. See, e.g., id. at 26:49-

27:2. As such, the technological solutions of the DigitalDoors Patents were not well-understood, 

routine, or conventional as of January 2007, and provided greatly improved system performance 

over the state of the art.

33. Still further, the then-existing dispersal algorithms as of the Date of Invention did not allow for 

the mapped dispersal of information to secure and select storage. See, e.g., ‘301 Patent at 15:23-

39. The inventions as claimed in the DigitalDoors Patents overcame the deficiencies in the art by 

offering an unconventional architecture which includes the ability to disperse content of the whole 

data stream while maintaining access to the constituent parts of the content. See id. As such, the 

technological solutions of the DigitalDoors Patents were not well-understood, routine, or 

conventional as of January 2007, and provided greatly improved system performance over the state 

of the art.

34. Likewise, the dispersal algorithms as of the Date of Invention did not allow for the use of granular 

data which is stored in a known and accessible storage. See, e.g., ‘301 Patent at 15:43-58. The 

inventions as claimed in the DigitalDoors Patents overcame the deficiencies in the art by offering 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 16 of 115 PageID #: 16
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 17

an unconventional architecture which reduces security risks by storing smaller and more granular 

pieces of data, and by modifying the conventional method of allowing access to data only when 

data is retrieved from a few stores and then combined together. See id. As such, the technological 

solutions of the DigitalDoors Patents were not well-understood, routine, or conventional as of 

January 2007, and provided greatly improved system performance over the state of the art. 

35. Further, the conventional systems as of the Date of Invention did not provide a means for 

performing a first granular extract of data form the source, followed by the use of a dispersal 

algorithm to secure extracted granular pieces of data, one at a time. See, e.g., ‘301 Patent at 15:63-

16:24. The inventions as claimed in the DigitalDoors Patents overcame the deficiencies in the art 

by offering an unconventional architecture which “brings flexibility to the system as a whole since 

granular pieces can be reconstituted, one at a time, and released from [the information dispersal 

algorithm] for knowledge management operations without compromising the security of the whole 

document.” See id. As such, the technological solutions of the DigitalDoors Patents were not 

well-understood, routine, or conventional as of January 2007, and provided greatly improved 

system performance and security over the state of the art.

36. Still further, the conventional systems as of the Date of Invention did not offer the security 

measures of the inventions as claimed. As described by the inventors: “By securing granular data 

pieces with the Information Dispersal Algorithm or IDA, the system’s granular data parts once 

reconstituted by the IDA are available in system storage and are stand-alone data structures – 

(encrypted or not). These stand-alone data structures and the granular data therein can be read on 

their own without the need to bring together other data shares. Because extracts can be in plain 

text or decrypted – and stand in their own data structure, the sys-admin can authorize an advanced 

search and knowledge management operations through the granular data structure.” See ‘301 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 17 of 115 PageID #: 17
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 18

Patent at 16:7-24. These security advances follow from the inventive architecture which, inter 

alia, incorporates filtered and distributed storage. These advantages are explained by the patentee, 

including as follows: “Distributed storage stores need less security than a centralized data 

repository for a number of reasons. First, the distributed storage stores hold only parts of the data 

and they are of lower interest to an attacker that will need to attack few dispersed stores to get the 

total content. Second, the stores are scattered and if hidden they call for less security. The need 

for less security means lower costs; more efficiency and less processing power. Thus, dispersal of 

data to distributed storage stores is inherently ‘built in’, ‘baked in’ security.” Id. at 16:39-47. As 

such, the technological solutions of the DigitalDoors Patents were not well-understood, routine, or 

conventional as of January 2007, and provided greatly improved system performance and security 

over the state of the art.

37. Still further, the conventional security protocols as of the Date of Invention were premised on 

designations permitting access to files beating specific classification labels. See, e.g., ‘301 Patent 

at 99:34-65. The inventions as claimed in the DigitalDoors Patents overcame the deficiencies in 

the art by offering an unconventional approach which “uses a granular or filter approach to make 

secure the sensitive data in a particular document. [Select Content] labels, matching the relevancy 

of the [Select Content] data may be employed rather than security level tags.” Id. As such, the 

technological solutions of the DigitalDoors Patents were not well-understood, routine, or 

conventional as of January 2007, and provided greatly improved system performance over the state 

of the art.

38. The inventions as described and claimed in the DigitalDoors Patents specifically advance the art 

in unconventional ways, including but not limited to the following: “(a) To automatically control 

selection of data objects within a data stream and release them in a controlled method only to 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 18 of 115 PageID #: 18
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 19

authorized parties; (b) To automatically separate data objects within a data stream into two or more 

digital data streams according to the importance and categorization of contents, through extraction 

and removal of the prioritized content and its replacement by appropriate placeholders; (c) To 

automatically control selected contents in E-mail, and enable its release in a controlled method 

only to authorized parties; (d) To enable users to leverage the growth in computer and 

telecommunications connectivity and electronic commerce by reducing security risks; (e) To 

enable users to release documents, digital files, and data streams into closed and opened digital 

networks with the confidence that important, identifying, and critical contents in that documents, 

digital files, and data streams is secure and will be seen only by authorized parties; (f) To enable 

real time simultaneous customization and personalization of selected contents within a data stream 

to different parties, allowing instant display of the selected content or part of it based on, and 

tailored made to the status of the user or receiving party; (g) To secure the important and critical 

contents of a document or digital file by transporting said contents into a separated data stream 

and removing said data stream to a removed storage memory, while eradicating any copies, 

temporary caches, or traces of the removed extracts on the original computer or machine; (h) To 

enable instant return transfer to the display or to another display all or part of extracted content 

instantly with verification of authorized user; (i) To create a projection of the original document, 

digital file, data objects within a data stream, or variations of it through combined projection of 

the splinted data streams, while maintaining separation between the data streams; (j) To create an 

alternative method for security, instead of encryption, which is secure, cost effective, less timeconsuming, and flexible; (k) To enable automatic timed removal of specific content items, 

automatically or manually selected from a document, digital file, or data objects within a data 

stream; [and] (l) To enable an automatic timed reconstruction (reconstitution) of the said 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 19 of 115 PageID #: 19
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 20

document, digital file, or data objects within a data stream.” See, e.g., ‘301 Patent at 102:39-

103:13. As such, the technological solutions of the DigitalDoors Patents were not wellunderstood, routine, or conventional as of January 2007, and provided greatly improved system 

performance over the state of the art.

39. The inventions as described and claimed in the DigitalDoors Patents specifically advance the art 

in unconventional ways, including but not limited to assigning different weights to individual 

granular content items. See, e.g., ‘301 Patent at 17:57-18:25. Such enhanced capacity to 

manipulate granular data unconventionally improved upon the performance and security of data 

management systems as of the Date of Invention. 

40. Further, the inventions as described and claimed in the DigitalDoors Patents specifically advance 

the art in unconventional ways, including but not limited to improving upon the creation of “tear 

tagged lines” in the form of contextual ranges within a given data source. See, e.g., ‘301 Patent at 

19:8-49. The inventions unconventionally select ranges of contiguous content and apply an 

inference engine to assign different weights to different granular content items. Id. Such enhanced 

capacity to manipulate granular data unconventionally improved upon the performance and 

security of data management systems as of the Date of Invention. 

41. Still further, the inventions as described and claimed in the DigitalDoors Patents specifically 

advance the art in unconventional ways, including but not limited to providing a system and 

method for controlled release of data and granular data streams after verification and validation 

before the release of each layer. See, e.g., ‘301 Patent at 20:42-59. The inventions 

unconventionally reduce security risks by storing smaller and more granular pieces; attackers thus 

require access to multiple stores to piece together all the content. Further, individual layers of data 

of the original document data stream may be released at once or at different times. Id. Such 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 20 of 115 PageID #: 20
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 21

enhanced capacity to manipulate granular data unconventionally improved upon the performance 

and security of data management systems as of the Date of Invention.

42. In addition, the inventions as described and claimed in the DigitalDoors Patents specifically 

advance the art in unconventional ways, including but not limited to providing a system and 

method for flexible content access based on “rolling” granular data exposure with decryption for 

better workflow. See, e.g., ‘301 Patent at 21:45-67. The inventions unconventionally introduce 

“a solution based on creation of (1) granular pieces of data (2) a distributed storage framework as 

a way to deal with the need to encrypt yet not overwhelm the processing and other computing 

workflow. The system creates granular data pieces out of the original document/data stream. This 

is done through a process of content analysis, selection, extraction and dispersal to distributed 

storage.” Id. Such enhanced capacity to manipulate granular data unconventionally improved 

upon the performance and security of data management systems as of the Date of Invention.

43. Still further, the conventional security protocols as of the Date of Invention were deficient in their 

inability to protect privacy and security. See, e.g., ‘301 Patent at 26:49-27:2. The inventions as 

claimed in the DigitalDoors Patents overcame the deficiencies in the art by offering an 

unconventional approach “by controlling the access to sensitive content. The sensitive information 

is defined by the inference engine. Documents and data streams are filtered by the inference 

engine, granular data is selected, (and may be extracted to distributed stores). Granular pieces of 

data are released by a controlled mechanism to avoid security and privacy breaches.” Id. As such, 

the technological solutions of the DigitalDoors Patents were not well-understood, routine, or 

conventional as of January 2007, and provided greatly improved system performance, and 

specifically improved security measures, over the state of the art.

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 21 of 115 PageID #: 21
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 22

44. Further, the deficiencies in the state of the art as of the Date of Invention were such that search 

results were imprecise and not comprehensive. See, e.g., ‘301 Patent at 28:33-47. The inventions 

as claimed in the DigitalDoors Patents overcame the deficiencies in the art by offering an 

unconventional architecture which “establishes an interaction between distributed storage stores 

with data mining operations.” Id. As such, and because “searching in different stores (each one 

with its own subject matter) results in more robust search results,” the technological solutions of 

the DigitalDoors Patents were not well-understood, routine, or conventional as of January 2007, 

and provided greatly improved system performance over the state of the art. Id.

45. Still further, the conventional systems as of the Date of Invention failed to store different data 

extracts in one storage location. See, e.g., ‘301 Patent at 28:51-29:14. The inventions as claimed 

in the DigitalDoors Patents overcame the deficiencies in the art by offering an unconventional 

approach which “stores extracts of a data stream in different memories within one storage location. 

There is a major difference between splitting a document or a data stream and placing its parts in 

one storage location and [the inventions as described], which deals with placing extracts of a 

document or a data stream in one storage location. This invention deals in a situation that a whole 

data asset was already parsed – and split into a ‘remainder’ and ‘extracts.’ What is transferred to 

one storage location is not all the pieces of a whole document or data assets but partial part of the 

whole the ‘extracts.’” Id. As such, the technological solutions of the DigitalDoors Patents were 

not well-understood, routine, or conventional as of January 2007, and provided greatly improved 

system performance over the state of the art.

46. The inventions of the Asserted Patents unconventionally improve upon online data storage 

techniques existing as of the Date of invention. As explained by the patentee: “The invention also 

proposes a new architecture for storage on the internet. The invention enables a user to make as 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 22 of 115 PageID #: 22
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 23

many copies as he wants of a document or data stream with minimal amount of security risk. If a 

storage node is attacked a small granular piece will not pose a serious threat. A small granular 

piece does not convey all the substance of the original document/data stream. If the replicated 

piece is small enough the attacker will find it useless because it is out of context. For example, a 

granular piece of data which is a name only can’t create a serious threat because it is out of context. 

Other stores need to be attacked successfully to access their data to give context to the small 

granular data piece. The security risk of having many copies can be reduced by the user decreasing 

the size of the granular pieces and dispersing the different pieces to different distributed storage 

store.” See ‘301 Patent at 30:33-57. As such, the technological solutions of the DigitalDoors 

Patents were not well-understood, routine, or conventional as of January 2007, and provided 

greatly improved system performance over the state of the art.

47. Moreover, the inventions of the Asserted Patents unconventionally improved upon online data 

storage techniques existing as of the Date of invention by “deliver[ing] capabilities to transform 

order within the data content into disorder making it very hard for an enemy to attack.” See ‘301 

Patent at 34:55-35:25. This approach moves away from traditional perimeter security and, as such, 

the technological solutions of the DigitalDoors Patents were not well-understood, routine, or 

conventional as of January 2007, and provided greatly improved system performance over the state 

of the art. Id.

48. Still further, the inventions of the Asserted Patents unconventionally improved upon online data 

storage techniques existing as of the Date of invention by offering an architecture which 

“minimizes data.” More specifically, the inventions “provide a system and method for flexible 

content access based on rolling granular data exposure with decryption for added security. 

Granular pieces of the original document/data stream are dispersed to distributed storage nodes to 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 23 of 115 PageID #: 23
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 24

enable a controlled secured environment for release of data. The granular data layers can be 

exposed one at a time decrypted instead of exposure of a total document.” See ‘301 Patent at 

35:31-41. As such, the technological solutions of the DigitalDoors Patents were not wellunderstood, routine, or conventional as of January 2007, and provided greatly improved system 

performance and security over the state of the art. Id.

49. In addition, the inventions as described and claimed in the DigitalDoors Patents specifically 

advance the art in unconventional ways, including but not limited to “establishing a stronger 

multilevel security (or MLS) architecture and product, than is currently available.” See, e.g., ‘301 

Patent at 98:65-99:14. The inventions unconventionally “introduces multilevel security through 

sanitization of critical content of a source or plaintext document (or data object) with the unique 

ability to reconstruct all or part of the original document in conformance to the classification level 

of the user.” Id. Such enhanced capacity to manipulate granular data unconventionally improved 

upon the performance and security of data management systems as of the Date of Invention. 

50. Still further, the inventions as described and claimed in the DigitalDoors Patents specifically 

advance the art in unconventional ways, including but not limited to “resolving the major 

challenges facing government in enabling sharing of information between its different 

organizations in relationship to conducting military operations as well as fighting terrorism.” See, 

e.g., ‘301 Patent at 100:41-67. The inventions unconventionally provide an architecture in which 

granular data is controlled based upon authorization. Such enhanced capacity to manipulate 

granular data unconventionally improved upon the performance and security of data management 

systems as of the Date of Invention. 

51. Yet still further, the inventions as described and claimed in the DigitalDoors Patents specifically 

advance the art in unconventional ways, including but not limited to “avoiding any one point of 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 24 of 115 PageID #: 24
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 25

failure.” See, e.g., ‘301 Patent at 101:53-102:29. The inventions unconventionally provide an 

architecture which includes the “creation of substantial lines of defense in depth. The attacker will 

need to break through many obstacles before accessing all the dispersed data of the document.” 

Id. Such enhanced capacity to manipulate granular data unconventionally improved upon the 

performance and security of data management systems as of the Date of Invention.

52. Still further, as of the Date of Invention, the private sector did not generate or keep the massive

amounts of data it now does; not did it have the same concerns about data security or data recovery 

after a disaster. Likewise, there was very little meaningful private-sector activity directed at 

addressing these issues. Nevertheless, as of the Date of Invention, the United States government 

and military collectively generated substantial volumes of data, much of which carried varying 

levels of secrecy designation. At that time, the government had deficient means of maintaining 

the secrecy of such data, and external hackers were also a concern. In view of such deficiencies 

and concerns, and as noted above, Messrs. Redlich and Nemzow founded DigitalDoors to develop

data-security and survivability solutions for the United States government, and primarily for its 

military and intelligence agencies. Core features of what DigitalDoors developed included 

extracting specific content from files, documents, and data objects and then dispersing both the 

extracted and remainder data separately in pieces to different storage locations. See, e.g., ‘301 

Patent at 16:25-38. This new and inventive method of data extraction and distributed storage 

increased security because hackers would have to hack multiple locations without knowing where 

or what they were, or how to fit pieces together. See, e.g., ‘301 Patent at 16:25-38; 48:56-67. It 

also provided survivability, particularly when different copies of the same pieces were distributed 

in different locations, because a military strike would be unlikely to wipe out all the pieces of the 

data. See, e.g., ‘301 Patent at 16:25-38. 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 25 of 115 PageID #: 25
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 26

53. In view of at least the foregoing, which is merely representative of the disclosures of the 

DigitalDoors Patents, the claims of the DigitalDoors Patents are not drawn to laws of nature, 

natural phenomena, or abstract ideas. Although the systems and methods claimed in the 

DigitalDoors Patents are known and implemented now (and, as a result, are widely infringed), the 

specific combinations of elements and steps, as recited in the claims, were not conventional or 

routine as of the Date of Invention. 

54. Further, and in view of at least the foregoing, which is merely representative of the disclosures of 

the DigitalDoors Patents, the claims of the DigitalDoors Patents contain inventive concepts which 

transform the underlying non-abstract aspects of the claims into patent-eligible subject matter.

55. Consequently, the claims of the DigitalDoors Patents recite methods resulting in improved 

functionality of the systems on which they are performed and represent technological 

improvements to the operation of computers as tools of trade. 

56. The foregoing facts not only establish a basis to find that the claims of the DigitalDoors Patents 

were unconventional and non-abstract as of the Date of Invention, they also comprise secondary 

indicia of non-obviousness. 

57. The DigitalDoors Patents were examined by a multitude of United States Patent Examiners, 

including: Ranodhi Serrao (‘301 Patent); Farrukh Hussain (‘301 Patent); David Lazaro (‘169 

Patent); S.M.A. Rahman (‘073 Patent and ‘639 Patent). During the examination of the 

DigitalDoors Patents, the United States Patent Examiners searched for prior art in the following 

US Classifications: 706/59; 707/4; 707/206; 707/609; 707/777; 709/201; 709/203; 709/204; 

709/206; 709/217; 709/223; 709/225; 709/226; 707/302; 713/166; 715/748; 726/13; 726/22; 

726/23; 726/24; and 726/26. 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 26 of 115 PageID #: 26
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 27

58. After giving full and proper credit to the prior art and having conducted a thorough search for all 

relevant art and having fully considered the most relevant art known at the time, the United States 

Patent Examiners each allowed all of the claims of the DigitalDoors Patents to issue. In so doing, 

it is presumed that Examiners Serrao, Hussain, Lazaro, and Rahman used their knowledge of the 

art when examining the claims. K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. 

Cir. 2014). It is further presumed that Examiners Serrao, Hussain, Lazaro, and Rahman each had

experience in the field of the invention, and that the Examiners properly acted in accordance with 

a person of ordinary skill. In re Sang Su Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In view of 

the foregoing, the claims of the DigitalDoors Patents are novel and non-obvious, including over 

all non-cited art which is merely cumulative with the referenced and cited prior art. Likewise, the 

claims of the DigitalDoors Patents are novel and non-obvious, including over all non-cited 

contemporaneous state of the art systems and methods, all of which would have been known to a 

person of ordinary skill in the art, and which were therefore presumptively also known and 

considered by Examiners Serrao, Hussain, Lazaro, and Rahman.

59. The DigitalDoors Patents are pioneering patents, and have been cited as relevant prior art in 

hundreds of subsequent United States Patent Applications, including Applications assigned to such

technology leaders as Apple, Xerox, Yahoo!, Raytheon, IBM, Mitsubishi, Blackberry, Microsoft, 

Dropbox, Oracle, Fujitsu, NEC Corp., Ricoh, Verifone, Google, Sonos, Symantec, Juniper 

Networks, PriceWaterhouse Coopers, Sony, Amazon, Intuit, Uniloc, Qualcomm, Nokia, Hitachi, 

Honeywell, Hewlett-Packard, Northrop Grumman, Adobe, State Farm, Facebook, Disney, General 

Electric, Intel Corp., Siemens, KPMG, Cisco, Equifax, Kyocera, Motorola, Allstate, and Lenovo,

in addition to financial services leaders including Wells Fargo, Bank or America, JPMorgan Chase, 

Capital One, and PayPal.

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 27 of 115 PageID #: 27
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 28

60. The claims of the DigitalDoors Patents were all properly issued, and are valid and enforceable for 

the respective terms of their statutory life through expiration, and are enforceable for purposes of 

seeking damages for past infringement even post-expiration. See, e.g., Genetics Institute, LLC v. 

Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc., 655 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[A]n expired 

patent is not viewed as having ‘never existed.’ Much to the contrary, a patent does have value 

beyond its expiration date. For example, an expired patent may form the basis of an action for 

past damages subject to the six-year limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 286”) (internal citations omitted).

61. The nominal expiration date for the claims of the DigitalDoors Patents is no earlier than the year 

2028, and as late as the year 2030. 

INFRINGING TECHNOLOGIES

62. The financial services industry, as a collective, places great value on the security of customer data. 

In that regard, “Sheltered Harbor is an industry-driven initiative launched in 2015 to promote the 

stability of the U.S. financial markets by protecting critical account information and data sets of 

market participants in order to facilitate the recovery and use of such information following a 

destructive cyberattack or other extreme loss of operational capability. This is achieved through a

combination of: (i) Data Vaulting: Protection, portability, and recovery standards for critical data 

sets; (ii) Resiliency Planning: Business and technical processes, incident response 

communications, and key decision arrangements to be activated to ensure continuity of critical 

customer facing business services when traditional disaster recovery and business continuity plans

fail; and (iii) Certification: Quality assurance mechanism consisting of requisite controls, 

processes, independent audits, and management assertions.” See, e.g., Sheltered Harbor Operating 

Rules, January 2023, at § 1.0, available at: https://shelteredharbor.org/images/SH/Docs/ShelteredHarbor-Operating-Rules.pdf (as visited October 20, 2023) (hereafter as “Operating Rules”). It is 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 28 of 115 PageID #: 28
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 29

widely recognized that “the financial services industry bears a burden of responsibility to be extra 

diligent in careful planning for protecting customers, recovery against [business disruptions], and 

providing industry stability.” Operating Rules at § 1.0.

63. Sheltered Harbor was founded by 34 financial institutions and is owned by FS-ISAC Inc., which 

is a nonprofit organization with over 5000 members worldwide. See SBS Article entitled 

“Sheltered Harbor: A Safe Haven From the Perfect Storm,” available at: sbscyber.com/resources/

sheltered-harbor-a-safe-haven-from-the-perfect-storm (as visited October 20, 2023) (hereafter as 

“Safe Haven”); see also https://www.fsisac.com/ (About Us) (hereafter as “FS-ISAC Website”). 

The Board of Directors for FS-ISAC includes representatives from at least the following: (i) 

Citigroup; (ii) Bank of America; (iii) PNC Bank; (iv) U.S. Bank; (v) Morgan Stanley; (vi) Scotia 

Bank; (vii) Mass Mutual; (viii) Truist; (ix) Banco Santander; and (x) Deutsche Bank. See FSISAC Website. Sheltered Harbor “provides the only industry-developed standards and 

certifications for resilience, data recovery, and protection of isolated data.” See Cobalt Iron White 

Paper.

64. Sheltered Harbor “coordinates the development of the standards; promotes their adoption across 

the industry; supports implementation by market participants; and ensures adherence through 

certification and independent audits. Sheltered Harbor currently supports all financial institutions. 

With its participant base holding nearly three-quarters of U.S. deposit accounts and retail 

brokerage assets, Sheltered Harbor is a significant step in the financial sector’s ongoing business 

continuity and operational resilience efforts. Its specifications support the protection of isolated

critical data of any type, and its guides support best practices for cyber-resilience preparations.” 

Operating Rules at § 1.0.

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 29 of 115 PageID #: 29
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 30

65. Stated somewhat differently, it is the express mission of Sheltered Harbor to “protect public 

confidence in the U.S. financial system if a devastating event like a cyberattack causes an 

institution’s critical systems - including backups - to fail.” See Sheltered Harbor At-A-Glance, 

available at: https://shelteredharbor.org/index.php/about#who (Fact Sheet) (as visited October 20, 

2023) (hereafter as “At-A-Glance”). Again, there is near uniform participation in the Sheltered 

Harbor standard across the financial services industry, as reflected in the following graph (see AtA-Glance): 

66. The Sheltered Harbor initiative “looks to industry experts to define a set of standards that all 

Sheltered Harbor participants (‘Participants’) will conform to in order to ensure their firms have 

the ability to revert to uncompromised data and operationalize this data in a manner that promotes 

sector stability.” Operating Rules at § 1.1. 

67. “All Sheltered Harbor’s Specifications document the culmination of the work of multiple industry 

working groups tasked with defining a set of standards that all Sheltered Harbor Participants will 

conform to in order to protect their critical information and supporting data sets. Sheltered 

Harbor’s Data Protected Specifications describe Participant implementation of the standards for 

securely storing and recovering critical account data, as well as Participant adherence requirements 

in the Sheltered Harbor Specifications document. The Data Vaulting Process Specifications 

describe Participant implementation of the standards for securely storing and recovering selfdefined critical data. Both documents are only available to Sheltered Harbor Participants1. 

Sheltered Harbor maintains and updates the standards in the Specifications documents through 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 30 of 115 PageID #: 30
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 31

ongoing oversight and adaptation in response to developments in the industry.” Operating Rules 

at § 1.2.

68. The focus of the Sheltered Harbor initiative is to: “(i) Improve resiliency of the U.S. financial 

system by preventing loss of critical customer account information and supporting data sets; (ii) 

Establish and maintain commonly agreed data formats and procedures for securely storing and 

restoring critical financial account data of U.S. Firm Participants to enable restoration and use of 

such information; (iii) Promote and certify the use of common data formats and procedures for 

securely storing and restoring critical financial account information; (iv) When and if necessary, 

assist in facilitating the recovery of critical customer account data using the Sheltered Harbor 

procedures and playbooks; and (v) Promote and certify the process for securely storing and 

restoring self-defined critical data sets.” Operating Rules at § 4.1.

69. One key aspect of the Sheltered Harbor specification is “to create extremely secure (and 

segmented) backups of financial data across the financial sector.” See Safe Haven. This objective 

is accomplished by, inter alia, extracting critical financial information from accounts and 

converting such information into Sheltered Harbor’s industry-standard format. The information is 

then validated, and encryption is applied before the information is transmitted to Sheltered 

Harbor’s secure data vault for storage. Financial institutions who are certified by Sheltered Harbor 

have the option to store data directly to an in-house data vault which follows Sheltered Harbor’s 

standards, or to otherwise utilize the data vault as an outsourced service. The Sheltered Harbor 

model assumes there is no central repository for protected accounts. See Safe Haven.

70. Under the Sheltered Harbor model, extracted financial information is securely stored until needed 

by the financial institution. Once needed, the information is transmitted back to the institution as 

encrypted data to be decrypted. The data then loads back into its core platform and will allow for 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 31 of 115 PageID #: 31
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 32

basic account functions to ensure the institution is able to provide continued service to its 

customers. See Safe Haven. 

71. One exemplary system endorsed by Sheltered Harbor (and which satisfies all of the technical 

requirements established by Sheltered Harbor) is the Dell PowerProtect Cyber Recovery for 

Sheltered Harbor. See, e.g., Dell Technologies Solution Brief, available at: 

https://www.delltechnologies.com/asset/en-sg/products/data-protection/briefs-summaries/h18199 

-powerprotect-cyber-recovery-for-sheltered-harbor-solution-brief-endorsement.pdf (as visited 

October 20, 2023) (hereafter as “Dell Sheltered Harbor Solution Brief”). 

72. As recognized in the Dell Sheltered Harbor Solution Brief, “Sheltered Harbor enhances U.S. 

financial stability and institutions’ cyber resilience by isolating critical customer account records 

and other data immutably within a digital vault.” See Dell Sheltered Harbor Solution Brief. The 

Dell Sheltered Harbor system provides nightly backups of critical data in the Sheltered Harbor 

standard format, as created by the participating financial institution. The data vault is encrypted, 

unchangeable, and isolated from the financial institution’s infrastructure. See id. The architecture 

of the Dell Sheltered Harbor system specifically performs the Archive Generation and Secure 

Repository processes of the Sheltered Harbor standard, as illustrated below (see Dell Sheltered 

Harbor Solution Brief): 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 32 of 115 PageID #: 32
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 33

73. The Sheltered Harbor specifications require participants to protect critical data sets, including by 

creating dedicated, isolated environments which are physically separated from corporate networks 

and backup systems. Such data sets are converted for storage into Sheltered Harbor standardized 

format so that basic banking services can be quickly resumed for customers following an attack or 

failure. See Dell Sheltered Harbor Solution Brief.

74. The Dell PowerProtect Cyber Recovery for Sheltered Harbor satisfies all of the technical 

requirements of the Sheltered Harbor specification, and represents “the culmination of two years 

of working alongside the Sheltered Harbor team [by Dell] to develop this solution for Financial 

Services organizations.” See Dell White Paper entitled: PowerProtect Cyber Recovery Endorsed 

by Sheltered Harbor, available at https://www.dell.com/en-us/blog/dell-emc-powerprotect-cyberrecovery-endorsed-by-sheltered-harbor/ (as visited October 20, 2023) (hereafter as “Dell 

Endorsement”). According to the Chief Operating Officer for Sheltered Harbor, the Dell 

PowerProtect Cyber Recovery system is configured to preserve critical data and ensure rapid 

recovery “in accordance with Sheltered Harbor’s resiliency standards.” See Dell Endorsement. 

As similarly stated by Dell, the PowerProtect Cyber Recovery system “meets all of the stringent 

Sheltered Harbor criteria.” See id.

75. The Sheltered Harbor specifications are established directly by the financial services industry to 

ensure that consumers receive timely access to their accounts in the event that their bank becomes 

inoperable due to a major cyber event. As part of the Sheltered Harbor specification, all 

participating financial institutions make a daily copy of the consumer’s account data in a standard 

format, which enables the restoration of individual accounts by another institution or processor in 

the event of a major loss of operations. All participating financial institutions update their 

adherence reviews to ensure that the Sheltered Harbor standards are exercised consistently and in 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 33 of 115 PageID #: 33
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 34

accordance with Sheltered Harbor specifications. Sensitive account data is archived in a secure 

data vault that is protected from alteration or deletion. The data remains intact and accessible if 

needed, exactly as when it was archived. In this way, each financial institution provides its own 

data vault. See Independent Community Bankers of America article entitled: Operational Risk: 

Sheltered Harbor, available at: www.icba.org/solutions/operational-risk/cyber-and-data-security/

sheltered-harbor (as visited October 20, 2023) (hereafter as “Operational Risk”).

76. The Sheltered Harbor specification identifies a number of critical data vaulting requirements: (i) 

The vault must be immutable, which means it must be unchangeable and not subject to deletion; 

(ii) The vault must be air-gapped, which means it must be isolated from production and backup 

systems; (iii) The vault must be survivable and non-accessible, which means it cannot be reliant 

on infrastructure that can be compromised; (iv) The vault must be decentralized, which means it 

is not reliant on any single production environment; and (v) The vault must be controlled by the 

financial institution, which means the data itself is fully owned by the financial institution. See 

Joint White Paper.

77. The Sheltered Harbor specification provides for a common “restoration platform” which includes 

a standardized set of account data for post-attack restoration and reconstruction. See Joint White

Paper.

78. As noted, one exemplary system endorsed by Sheltered Harbor (and which satisfies all of the 

technical requirements established by Sheltered Harbor) is the Dell PowerProtect Cyber Recovery 

for Sheltered Harbor. The Dell PowerProtect system can be illustrated as follows (see Dell 

Solution Brief entitled: Dell PowerProtect Cyber Recovery, available at: 

www.delltechnologies.com/asset/en-us/products/data-protection/briefs-summaries/isolatedCase 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 34 of 115 PageID #: 34
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 35

recovery-solution-overview.pdf (as visited October 20, 2023) (hereafter as “Dell PowerProtect 

Solution Brief”):

79. As explained by Dell, “the PowerProtect Cyber Recovery vault offers multiple layers of protection 

to provide resilience against cyberattacks even from an insider threat. It moves critical data away 

from the attack surface, physically isolating it within a protected part of the data center and requires 

separate security credentials and multi-factor authentication for access. Additional safeguards 

include an automated operational air gap to provide network isolation and eliminate management 

interfaces which could be compromised. PowerProtect Cyber Recovery automates the 

synchronization of data between production systems including open systems and mainframes, and 

the vault creating immutable copies with locked retention policies. If a cyberattack occurs you 

can quickly identify a clean copy of data, recover your critical systems and get your business back 

up and running.” See Dell PowerProtect Solution Brief. Post-attack, Dell PowerProtect Cyber 

Recovery “provides management tools and the technology that performs the actual data recovery. 

It automates the creation of the restore points that are used for recovery or security analytics.” See 

id.

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 35 of 115 PageID #: 35
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 36

80. The PowerProtect Cyber Recovery vault “is disconnected from the production network through an 

automated air gap. The vault stores all critical data off-network to isolate it from attack. Cyber 

Recovery automates data synchronization between production systems and the vault by creating 

immutable copies with locked retention policies.” This system architecture is generally illustrated 

below. See Dell PowerProtect Cyber Recovery: Reference Architecture, available at: 

www.delltechnologies.com/asset/en-us/products/data-protection/industry-market/h18661-dellpowerprotect-cyber-recovery-reference-architecture-wp.pdf (as visited October 20, 2023) 

(hereafter as “Reference Architecture”): 

81. The architecture as illustrated is comprised of two distinct environments: (i) a Production 

Environment; and (ii) a Vault Environment. With respect to the Production Environment, “it is 

taken that the data to be protected as part of the Cyber Recovery solution is available in a format 

supported by the DD series and CyberSense. The data must be stored on a DD series MTree in 

the production environment.” Meanwhile, the Vault Environment “contains a DD series and the 

Cyber Recovery management host that runs the Cyber Recovery software. Data from the 

production environment enters the Cyber Recovery vault environment through DD series MTree 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 36 of 115 PageID #: 36
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 37

replication. This environment can also contain various recovery and analytics/indexing physical 

or virtual hosts that integrate with the solution.” See Reference Architecture. Further, “server 

infrastructure is installed in the vault environment and is not shared with or connected to the 

production environment. Keeping vault server equipment separate from the production 

environment ensures that any ongoing issues (cyberattacks, operational issues, and so on) do not 

propagate into the vault environment. Additional safeguards include an automated operational air 

gap that provides network isolation and eliminates management interfaces.” Id. Still further, and 

with respect to the aforementioned “air gap,” Dell describes it as follows: “The term ‘air gap’

implies physical isolation from an unsecure system or network. Logical air gap describes a 

physical connection but logical isolation from the network. The logical air gap provides another 

layer of defense by reducing the surface of attack. Cyber Recovery provides the air-gapped feature 

to keep the Cyber Recovery vault disconnected from the production network. The DD series in 

the Cyber Recovery vault is disconnected (air-gapped) from the production network most of the 

time and is only connected when Cyber Recovery triggers replication.” Id.

82. The Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems which manage and protect 

data containing sensitive content in distributed computing systems. See, e.g., Operating Rules (the 

Sheltered Harbor objective of protecting critical account information is achieved by data vaulting); 

see also id, at Exhibit 1 thereof, as reproduced below (illustrating distributed network architecture):

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 37 of 115 PageID #: 37
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 38

see also Reference Architecture (illustrating Sheltered Harbor compliant system and distributed 

architecture), as reproduced below: 

83. The Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems which manage and protect 

data containing sensitive content which is important to the operating enterprise; namely, customer 

financial account data. See, e.g., Operating Rules (“Sheltered Harbor is an industry-driven 

initiative launched in 2015 to promote the stability of the U.S. financial markets by protecting 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 38 of 115 PageID #: 38
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 39

critical account information and data sets of market participants in order to facilitate the recovery 

and use of such information following a destructive cyberattack or other extreme loss of 

operational capability”) (italicized emphasis added throughout, unless noted otherwise); see also 

Operating Rules at Exhibit 1 thereof (stating the Processing Environment “Extracts critical 

account data in industry-standard format”); see also Dell PowerProtect Cyber Recovery Solution 

Guide, available at: www.delltechnologies.com/asset/en-us/products/data-protection/technicalsupport/h17670-cyber-recovery-sg.pdf (as visited October 20, 2023) (hereafter “Solution Guide”)

at 25 (“In addition to determining the objectives for the Cyber Recovery solution, you must 

characterize the data to be protected. The Cyber Recovery solution can protect any data that can 

be stored on a PowerProtect DD MTree. If Cyber Recovery is to protect an entire backup 

application and its backup data, the backup software must be able to store both its backup catalog 

(metadata) and backup data on one or more PowerProtect DD MTrees”).

84. The Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the sensitive content 

to be protected is represented by predetermined words, characters, images, data elements, or 

objects. See, e.g., Operating Rules (“Sheltered Harbor is an industry-driven initiative launched in 

2015 to promote the stability of the U.S. financial markets by protecting critical account 

information and data sets of market participants in order to facilitate the recovery and use of such 

information following a destructive cyberattack or other extreme loss of operational capability”); 

see also Solution Guide at 25 (“In addition to determining the objectives for the Cyber Recovery 

solution, you must characterize the data to be protected. The Cyber Recovery solution can protect 

any data that can be stored on a PowerProtect DD MTree. If Cyber Recovery is to protect an 

entire backup application and its backup data, the backup software must be able to store both its 

backup catalog (metadata) and backup data on one or more PowerProtect DD MTrees”) (and 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 39 of 115 PageID #: 39
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 40

further identifying “Data, such as application binaries, boot images, and backup catalog, that 

must be protected”). 

85. The Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the sensitive content 

to be protected is stored in a plurality of select content data stores. The Sheltered Harbor standard 

requires a “data vault,” which is an “ultra secure environment where data can be safely stored.” 

See Joint White Paper. By way of example, and as implemented in compliant systems, the 

authorized solution from Dell includes a plurality of such data stores, as illustrated below (see Dell 

PowerProtect Solution Brief) (illustrating multiple data stores, including Backup, Copy, Lock, and 

Analyze): 

see also PowerProtect Data Manager Administration and User Guide, available at: 

www.delltechnologies.com/asset/en-us/products/data-protection/technicalsupport/docu95705.pdf (as visited October 20, 2023) (hereafter as “PowerProtect User Guide”) at 

52 (stating “When you create a protection policy, the PowerProtect Data Manager software creates 

a storage unit on the specified Data Domain backup host that is managed by PowerProtect Data 

Manager. All subsequent backups will go to this new storage unit”).

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 40 of 115 PageID #: 40
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 41

86. The Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the data stores for 

the sensitive content are operative with a plurality of designated categorical filters. As noted, the 

Sheltered Harbor standard requires a “data vault,” which is an “ultra secure environment where 

data can be safely stored.” See Joint White Paper. Such data vault is intended to house content 

derived from designated categorical filters, as established by the enterprise. As explained, the 

fundamental first step in the Sheltered Harbor process is to: “Identify the most critical business 

services that must be protected and resilient in the face of an ‘extreme but plausible event,’ and 

ultimately map these to the IT data and/or applications necessary to support them.” See Joint 

White Paper. Further, Sheltered Harbor requires the compliant enterprise to: “Protect the data 

and/or applications supporting the processes in a highly secure data vault, defining the 

requirements necessary for such a vault.” See Joint White Paper. Given the focus of Sheltered 

Harbor, the primary designated categorical filters relate to “two capabilities and essential services: 

providing customers continued access to their account balance information and cash. [...] By 

narrowing the focus to this specific data set, Sheltered Harbor could avoid the complexity of having 

to also protect myriad applications and underlying technologies, enabling the creation of a 

common restoration platform ... for those two critical business services.” See Joint White Paper. 

As a result, “[t]he Sheltered Harbor standards combine secure data vaulting of critical customer 

account information and a resiliency plan to provide customers timely access to their data and 

funds in a worst-case scenario.” See Joint White Paper. As a collective, Sheltered Harbor has thus 

“done the work of defining the critical business processes as well as the technical capabilities that 

are required for a quick restoration that is of mutual benefit to all participating institutions.” See 

Joint White Paper. This is accomplished by the extraction of critical account data, which is 

identified based upon predefined filters. See Operating Rules at Exhibit 1 thereof (Processing 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 41 of 115 PageID #: 41
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 42

Environment: “Extracts critical account data in industry-standard format”); see also Safe Haven

(explaining: “ When a financial institution joins Sheltered Harbor, critical financial information is 

extracted from accounts and converted into Sheltered Harbor’s industry-standard format”). As 

implemented, the enterprise establishes a “protection policy” (i.e., a set of filters) governing the 

data to be protected. See PowerProtect User Guide at 52. 

87. The Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the plurality of 

designated categorical filters are activated in order to obtain (extract) select content for protective 

vaulting. As noted, the Sheltered Harbor standard is premised on the extraction of critical financial 

account information, which is then converted into Sheltered Harbor’s industry-standard format. 

See, e.g., Operating Rules at Exhibit 1 thereof. As implemented, this includes the selection of 

protection policies by the enterprise, and the selection of conditions for each such policy. See 

PowerProtect Data Manager 19.13, Virtual Machine User Guide, available at: dl.dell.com/

content/manual45487542-powerprotect-data-manager-19-13-virtual-machine-user-guide.pdf?

language=en-us (as visited October 20, 2023) (hereafter as “Virtual Machine User Guide”), at 57. 

Protection rules are one exemplary embodiment of such categorical filters, which can be 

implemented in a variety of functionally equivalent ways to achieve the same result; namely, the 

filtering of data for inclusion in designated storage. By way of example, in the certified Dell 

PowerProtect system, “a rule with the filters VM Folder Name, Contains, and Finance can match 

assets belonging to your finance department to the selected protection policy.” See Virtual 

Machine User Guide at 58. The use of such protection rules and attributes for filtering content is 

a type of categorical filter implementation. See Virtual Machine User Guide at 58-59 (detailing 

use of Protection Rule Attributes, Conditions, Criteria, and Filters (e.g., “contains,” “does not 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 42 of 115 PageID #: 42
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 43

contain,” “does not equal,” “ends with,” “equals,” “matches RegEx,” and “does not match 

RegEx”)).

88. As noted, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the plurality 

of designated categorical filters are activated in order to obtain (extract) select content for 

protective vaulting. Again, the Sheltered Harbor standard is premised on the extraction of critical 

financial account information, which is then converted into Sheltered Harbor’s industry-standard 

format. See, e.g., Operating Rules at Exhibit 1 thereof. As implemented, the extracted information 

is either contextually or taxonomically associated. As explained by the inventors: “A simple 

classification system (hierarchical taxonomic system) can be established by reviewing the label 

descriptions on the structured data and then expanding class definitions with the use of the 

Knowledge Expander (KE) search engine. [...] The hierarchical taxonomic system can be used 

to build contextual filters and taxonomic filters which can further protect Sec-con data and expand 

the value and quantity of SC data.” See ’301 Patent at 10:22-32. In practice, Sheltered Harbor 

systems allow for the grouping of tags using metadata or any of a number of functionally 

equivalent means of achieving the same result; namely, the filtering of data for inclusion in 

designated storage. By way of example, in the certified Dell PowerProtect system, virtual machine 

tags are created in the “vSphere Client.” Such virtual tags enable the enterprise to attach metadata 

to virtual inventory assets, making them easier to sort and search. See Virtual Machine User Guide 

at 56. Tags are grouped within categories, which can further include specific object types. See 

Virtual Machine User Guide at 56-58 (describing tag creation and protection rules). The use of 

tag grouping, including by the use of metadata, is an implementation of contextually or 

taxonomically associated data.

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 43 of 115 PageID #: 43
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 44

89. As noted, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the plurality 

of designated categorical filters are activated in order to obtain (extract) select content for 

protective vaulting. Such vaulting places aggregated select content into corresponding data stores. 

The Sheltered Harbor standard requires compliant enterprises to “back up critical customer 

account data each night in the Sheltered Harbor standard format, either managing their own vault 

or using their service provider. The data vault [e.g., corresponding data store] is encrypted, 

unchangeable, and completely separated from the institution’s infrastructure, including all 

backups.” See At-A-Glance. Compliant enterprises further “designate a restoration platform so 

that if the Sheltered Harbor Resiliency Plan is activated, the platform can recover data from the 

vault to restore customer funds access as quickly as possible.” See At-A-Glance. Such 

“Restoration Platform” understands “a standardized set of data for brokerage or deposit accounts.” 

See Joint White Paper. As implemented, compliant systems establish corresponding storage units 

(or storage trees) in the vault. See, e.g., PowerProtect User Guide at 52; see also Solution Guide 

at 25 (describing data trees). The aggregated select content can include data, such as binaries, boot 

images, and backup catalogs. See, e.g., Solution Guide at 25.

90. As noted, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the plurality 

of designated categorical filters are activated in order to obtain (extract) select content for 

protective vaulting. Such filtering associates data processes, which include at least one of the 

following: (i) a copy process (which is linked to a copy data store); (ii) a data extract process

(which is linked to an extract store); (iii) a data archive process (which is linked to an archive data 

store); (iv) a data distribution process (linked to a distribution security level for the select content);

and/or (v) a data destruction process. Again, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires compliant 

enterprises to “back up critical customer account data each night in the Sheltered Harbor standard 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 44 of 115 PageID #: 44
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 45

format, either managing their own vault or using their service provider. The data vault [e.g., 

corresponding data store] is encrypted, unchangeable, and completely separated from the 

institution’s infrastructure, including all backups.” See At-A-Glance. The Sheltered Harbor 

standard further requires enterprises to “designate a restoration platform so that if the Sheltered 

Harbor Resiliency Plan is activated, the platform can recover data from the vault to restore 

customer funds access as quickly as possible.” See At-A-Glance. In so doing, compliant 

enterprises associate certain data processes with certain select content in order to copy the data to 

the vault or other data store, extract the data to the vault or other data store, archive the data in 

accordance with Sheltered Harbor technical requirements, or apply distribution controls on the 

data in accordance with clearance policies. As implemented, enterprises establish policies which 

are applied by the compliant Sheltered Harbor system to manage data backup and vaulting. See 

Virtual Machine User Guide at 38 (explaining backup policy types and levels, including 

“synthetic-full” and “full” backup). Once a protection policy is established by the enterprise, all 

further data inputs processed under the filter are processed in the same way. See, e.g., 

PowerProtect User Guide at 52 (“When you create a protection policy, the PowerProtect Data 

Manager software creates a storage unit on the specified Data Domain backup host that is managed 

by PowerProtect Data Manager. All subsequent backups will go to this new storage unit. This 

implementation overrides the backup host and storage unit information that is provided in the script 

with the backup host and storage unit information that is provided by PowerProtect Data 

Manager”). The processing takes place automatically upon a designated time interval (e.g., nightly 

in accordance with Sheltered Harbor standard), upon a designated condition or event (e.g., upon 

the detection of new data), or otherwise manually. See, e.g., At-A-Glance (“back up critical 

customer account data each night in the Sheltered Harbor standard format”); see also Cobalt Iron 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 45 of 115 PageID #: 45
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 46

White Paper (“Daily attestation messages provide assurance that all backups have been completed 

and successfully protected”); see also PowerProtect User Guide at 145 (“PowerProtect Data 

Manager automatically runs dynamic filters when new assets are detected or when existing assets 

are modified. You can also run dynamic filters on demand”).

91. Among other things, the endorsed Dell PowerProtect Cyber Recovery solution complies with, and 

embodies, the Sheltered Harbor specifications. See Reference Architecture (claiming: “Sheltered 

Harbor endorsement for achieving compliance with financial institution data vaulting standards 

and certification, planning for operational resilience and recovery, and protecting financial critical 

data”).

92. As an example of another system in development for certification as compliant with the Sheltered 

Harbor specifications is the Cobalt Iron and Compass for Sheltered Harbor system. Once 

developed, the system will be a SaaS platform deployable in either cloud, hybrid, or on-premises 

options. The Cobalt solution is advertised as being: (i) Secure (encrypted); (ii) Immutable 

(unchangeable, and not subject to deletion); (iii) Completely isolated from production and backup 

systems (air-gapped); (iv) Survivable and accessible after a complete system outage; and (v) Under 

constant role-based access permissions and controls. See Cobalt Iron White Paper.

93. Sheltered Harbor compliance can be achieved by an enterprise in one of two ways: (i) use of 

Sheltered Harbor endorsed technology solution provider (e.g., Cobalt Iron, Dell, FTS, or Veritas)

(see, e.g., shelteredharbor.org/index.php/about#howwe); or (ii) independent implementation of the 

standard (see, e.g., At-A-Glance (“Institutions back up critical customer account data each night 

in the Sheltered Harbor standard format, either managing their own vault or using their service 

provider”); see also Cobalt Iron White Paper (“You are responsible for implementing your own 

data vault technology and creating your own resiliency plan. However, it’s not easy or efficient 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 46 of 115 PageID #: 46
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 47

to develop these solutions from scratch. As you prepare for certification, you don’t have to go at 

it alone. In fact, now that the financial industry has figured out how to respond to a catastrophic 

data event, Sheltered Harbor has formed key alliances to expedite your data vaulting progress”)). 

In either case, the enterprise itself makes and uses the compliant system, owns all data, and controls 

the data vault. See, e.g., Joint White Paper (Sheltered Harbor standard requires: “Data fully 

Owned, and vault Controlled by the financial institution”); see also Cobalt Iron White Paper (“The 

data vault always remains under your control”).

94. Sheltered Harbor certification is the industry standard. As explained by Cobalt Iron: “Acquiring 

Sheltered Harbor Certification, as recognized by the regulators, is a critical next step financial 

services organizations (banks, brokerages, etc.) can take toward augmenting their business 

continuity plans and resilience. Sheltered Harbor Certification signifies that you have 

implemented the robust set of industry prescribed safeguards and that the prescribed controls have 

been independently audited for compliance. This ensures public confidence in your institution and 

the financial system in the worst of scenarios, and that you have a lifeline for survival in an extreme 

cyber, data corruption or data deletion event.” See Cobalt Iron White Paper. Further, Sheltered 

Harbor certification, or its functional equivalent, is required by industry regulations. See, e.g., 

Cobalt Iron White Paper (“Industry regulation requires that financial institutions prepare for a data 

destruction event. Participation in Sheltered Harbor demonstrates a proactive approach in planning 

both a mitigation strategy and a response to a destructive cyberevent. Because Sheltered Harbor 

started as a public-private partnership that was initiated by regulators, regulators have always been 

involved in vetting and supporting the solution”); see also American Bankers Association

commentary entitled: Sheltered Harbor, available at: www.aba.com/banking-topics/technology/

cybersecurity/sheltered-harbor (as visited October 20, 2023) (hereafter as “ABA Article”) 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 47 of 115 PageID #: 47
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 48

(“Participating institutions already hold the majority of U.S. deposit accounts and brokerage client 

assets. To protect the entire industry, 100% participation is optimal,” and “We can best protect 

our customers, ourselves, and the entire U.S. financial system when every financial 

institution joins”).

THE ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES 

95. Upon information and belief, COM makes, owns, operates, uses, or otherwise exercises control 

over systems and methods for processing data in a distributed system which are collectively 

compliant with the Sheltered Harbor specification. In the alternative, COM makes, owns, operates, 

uses, or otherwise exercises control over systems and methods for processing data in a distributed 

system which provide substantially equivalent functionality (i.e., providing data backup of critical 

customer account data to protect against system loss), in a substantially similar way (i.e., by using 

a plurality of content data stores with categorical filters as described and claimed in the 

DigitalDoors Patents), to achieve substantially the same results. On information and belief, such 

methods and systems are implemented by COM in the form of a plurality of interconnected storage 

systems, which are comprised of hardware (including servers) and software (including source 

code). On information and belief, such hardware and software are made, used, installed, 

maintained, sold, offered for sale, and tested in the United States on the authority and under the 

direction or control of COM. On information and belief, such data archive systems are directly 

maintained by, and are accessible to, designated employees and/or representatives of COM. 

Collectively, the foregoing components operate as a single controlled apparatus to provide secure 

data vaulting for the benefit of COM, as specified by Sheltered Harbor or its operational 

equivalent. Collectively, all of the foregoing comprises the “Accused Instrumentalities.”

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 48 of 115 PageID #: 48
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 49

COUNT I

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,015,301 

96. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs by reference. 

97. Upon information and belief, Defendant owns and/or controls the operation and/or utilization of 

the Accused Instrumentalities and generates substantial financial revenues therefrom, including 

but not limited to revenues attributable to business reputation and goodwill, and revenues derived 

from consumer confidence in the Defendant’s ability to protect against cyber threats and maintain 

operations regardless of external attack or internal system failure. 

98. Upon information and belief, Defendant has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe 

at least Claim 25 of the ‘301 Patent by making, using, importing, selling, and/or offering for sale 

the Accused Instrumentalities. The Accused Instrumentalities themselves are specially configured 

by Defendant to directly perform, and do in fact directly perform, all infringing steps. 

99. Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise an apparatus which directly 

performs the claimed method of organizing and processing data in a distributed computing system 

having select content important to an enterprise operating said distributed computing system and 

represented by one or more predetermined words, characters, images, data elements or data 

objects. More specifically, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise a network of servers, 

hardware, and software for processing data and vaulting such data in compliance with Sheltered 

Harbor specifications or its operational equivalent, as described herein above. The Defendant is 

the “enterprise operating the distributed computing system,” and Defendant itself makes and uses 

the system, owns all data, and controls the data vault. See, e.g., Joint White Paper (Sheltered 

Harbor standard requires: “Data fully Owned, and vault Controlled by the financial institution”); 

see also Cobalt Iron White Paper (“The data vault always remains under your control”). On 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 49 of 115 PageID #: 49
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 50

information and belief, such apparatus is installed and used in the United States, and such apparatus 

performs the infringing steps entirely within the United States.

100. As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems which manage 

and protect data containing sensitive content in distributed computing systems. See, e.g., 

Operating Rules (the Sheltered Harbor objective of protecting critical account information is 

achieved by data vaulting); see also id, at Exhibit 1 thereof, as reproduced below (illustrating 

distributed network architecture): 

see also Reference Architecture (illustrating Sheltered Harbor compliant system and distributed 

architecture), as reproduced below:

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 50 of 115 PageID #: 50
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 51

101. Further, and as noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems 

which manage and protect data containing sensitive content which is important to the operating 

enterprise; namely, customer financial account data. See, e.g., Operating Rules (“Sheltered Harbor 

is an industry-driven initiative launched in 2015 to promote the stability of the U.S. financial 

markets by protecting critical account information and data sets of market participants in order to 

facilitate the recovery and use of such information following a destructive cyberattack or other 

extreme loss of operational capability”); see also Operating Rules at Exhibit 1 thereof (stating the 

Processing Environment “Extracts critical account data in industry-standard format”); see also 

Solution Guide at 25 (“In addition to determining the objectives for the Cyber Recovery solution, 

you must characterize the data to be protected. The Cyber Recovery solution can protect any data 

that can be stored on a PowerProtect DD MTree. If Cyber Recovery is to protect an entire backup 

application and its backup data, the backup software must be able to store both its backup catalog 

(metadata) and backup data on one or more PowerProtect DD MTrees”).

102. Still further, and as noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, 

systems in which the sensitive content to be protected is represented by predetermined words, 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 51 of 115 PageID #: 51
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 52

characters, images, data elements, or objects. See, e.g., Operating Rules (“Sheltered Harbor is an 

industry-driven initiative launched in 2015 to promote the stability of the U.S. financial markets 

by protecting critical account information and data sets of market participants in order to facilitate 

the recovery and use of such information following a destructive cyberattack or other extreme loss 

of operational capability”); see also Solution Guide at 25 (“In addition to determining the 

objectives for the Cyber Recovery solution, you must characterize the data to be protected. The 

Cyber Recovery solution can protect any data that can be stored on a PowerProtect DD MTree. If 

Cyber Recovery is to protect an entire backup application and its backup data, the backup software 

must be able to store both its backup catalog (metadata) and backup data on one or more 

PowerProtect DD MTrees”) (and further identifying “Data, such as application binaries, boot 

images, and backup catalog, that must be protected”). 

103. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the claimed method of organizing and processing 

data in a distributed computing system having select content important to an enterprise operating 

said distributed computing system and represented by one or more predetermined words, 

characters, images, data elements or data objects.

104. The Accused Instrumentalities further comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of 

providing, in said distributed computing system, a plurality of select content data stores operative 

with a plurality of designated categorical filters which stores are operatively coupled over a 

communications network. More specifically, and on information and belief, and as discussed 

herein above and below, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise a data vault with designated 

stores for designated select content, as derived from categorical filters.

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 52 of 115 PageID #: 52
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 53

105. As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the 

sensitive content to be protected is stored in a plurality of select content data stores. The Sheltered 

Harbor standard requires a “data vault,” which is an “ultra secure environment where data can be 

safely stored.” See Joint White Paper. By way of example, and as implemented in compliant 

systems, the authorized solution from Dell includes a plurality of such data stores, as illustrated 

below (see Dell PowerProtect Solution Brief) (illustrating multiple data stores, including Backup, 

Copy, Lock, and Analyze): 

see also PowerProtect User Guide at 52 (stating “When you create a protection policy, the 

PowerProtect Data Manager software creates a storage unit on the specified Data Domain backup 

host that is managed by PowerProtect Data Manager. All subsequent backups will go to this new 

storage unit”).

106. Further, and as noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems 

in which the data stores for the sensitive content are operative with a plurality of designated 

categorical filters. As noted, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires a “data vault,” which is an 

“ultra secure environment where data can be safely stored.” See Joint White Paper. Such data 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 53 of 115 PageID #: 53
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 54

vault is intended to house content derived from designated categorical filters, as established by the 

enterprise. As explained, the fundamental first step in the Sheltered Harbor process is to: “Identify 

the most critical business services that must be protected and resilient in the face of an ‘extreme 

but plausible event,’ and ultimately map these to the IT data and/or applications necessary to 

support them.” See Joint White Paper. Further, Sheltered Harbor requires the compliant enterprise 

to: “Protect the data and/or applications supporting the processes in a highly secure data vault, 

defining the requirements necessary for such a vault.” See Joint White Paper. Given the focus of 

Sheltered Harbor, the primary designated categorical filters relate to “two capabilities and essential 

services: providing customers continued access to their account balance information and cash. 

[...] By narrowing the focus to this specific data set, Sheltered Harbor could avoid the complexity 

of having to also protect myriad applications and underlying technologies, enabling the creation 

of a common restoration platform ... for those two critical business services.” See Joint White 

Paper. As a result, “[t]he Sheltered Harbor standards combine secure data vaulting of critical 

customer account information and a resiliency plan to provide customers timely access to their 

data and funds in a worst-case scenario.” See Joint White Paper. As a collective, Sheltered Harbor 

has thus “done the work of defining the critical business processes as well as the technical 

capabilities that are required for a quick restoration that is of mutual benefit to all participating 

institutions.” See Joint White Paper. This is accomplished by the extraction of critical account 

data, which is identified based upon predefined filters. See Operating Rules at Exhibit 1 thereof 

(Processing Environment: “Extracts critical account data in industry-standard format”); see also 

Safe Haven (explaining: “ When a financial institution joins Sheltered Harbor, critical financial 

information is extracted from accounts and converted into Sheltered Harbor’s industry-standard 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 54 of 115 PageID #: 54
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 55

format”). As implemented, the enterprise establishes a “protection policy” (i.e., a set of filters) 

governing the data to be protected. See PowerProtect User Guide at 52. 

107. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of providing, in said distributed computing 

system, a plurality of select content data stores operative with a plurality of designated categorical 

filters which stores are operatively coupled over a communications network. 

108. The Accused Instrumentalities further comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of 

activating at least one of said designated categorical filters and processing a data input therethrough 

to obtain said select content and associated select content, which associated select content is at 

least one of contextually associated select content and taxonomically associated select content, as 

aggregated select content. More specifically, and on information and belief, and as discussed 

herein above and below, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise a system in which protection 

policies are implemented using aggregated tags. 

109. As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the 

plurality of designated categorical filters are activated in order to obtain (extract) select content for 

protective vaulting. As noted, the Sheltered Harbor standard is premised on the extraction of 

critical financial account information, which is then converted into Sheltered Harbor’s industrystandard format. See, e.g., Operating Rules at Exhibit 1 thereof. As implemented, this includes 

the selection of protection policies by the enterprise, and the selection of conditions for each such 

policy. See Virtual Machine User Guide at 57. Protection rules are one exemplary embodiment 

of such categorical filters, which can be implemented in a variety of functionally equivalent ways 

to achieve the same result; namely, the filtering of data for inclusion in designated storage. By 

way of example, in the certified Dell PowerProtect system, “a rule with the filters VM Folder 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 55 of 115 PageID #: 55
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 56

Name, Contains, and Finance can match assets belonging to your finance department to the 

selected protection policy.” See Virtual Machine User Guide at 58. The use of such protection 

rules and attributes for filtering content is a type of categorical filter implementation. See Virtual 

Machine User Guide at 58-59 (detailing use of Protection Rule Attributes, Conditions, Criteria, 

and Filters (e.g., “contains,” “does not contain,” “does not equal,” “ends with,” “equals,” “matches 

RegEx,” and “does not match RegEx”)).

110. Further, and as noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems 

in which critical financial account information is extracted and converted into Sheltered Harbor’s 

industry-standard format. See, e.g., Operating Rules at Exhibit 1 thereof. As implemented, the 

extracted information is either contextually or taxonomically associated. As explained by the 

inventors: “A simple classification system (hierarchical taxonomic system) can be established by 

reviewing the label descriptions on the structured data and then expanding class definitions with 

the use of the Knowledge Expander (KE) search engine. [...] The hierarchical taxonomic system 

can be used to build contextual filters and taxonomic filters which can further protect Sec-Con 

data and expand the value and quantity of SC data.” See ’301 Patent at 10:22-32. In practice, 

Sheltered Harbor systems allow for the grouping of tags using metadata or any of a number of 

functionally equivalent means of achieving the same result; namely, the filtering of data for 

inclusion in designated storage. By way of example, in the certified Dell PowerProtect system, 

virtual machine tags are created in the “vSphere Client.” Such virtual tags enable the enterprise to 

attach metadata to virtual inventory assets, making them easier to sort and search. See Virtual 

Machine User Guide at 56. Tags are grouped within categories, which can further include specific 

object types. See Virtual Machine User Guide at 56-58 (describing tag creation and protection 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 56 of 115 PageID #: 56
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 57

rules). The use of tag grouping, including by the use of metadata, is an implementation of 

contextually or taxonomically associated data.

111. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of activating at least one of said designated 

categorical filters and processing a data input therethrough to obtain said select content and 

associated select content, which associated select content is at least one of contextually associated 

select content and taxonomically associated select content, as aggregated select content. 

112. The Accused Instrumentalities further comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of 

storing said aggregated select content for said at least one categorical filter in said corresponding 

select content data store. More specifically, and on information and belief, and as discussed herein 

above and below, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise a system in which the data storage vault 

stores select content for a designated set of account data, which includes binaries and backups. 

113. As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the 

plurality of designated categorical filters are activated in order to obtain (extract) select content for 

protective vaulting. Such vaulting places aggregated select content into corresponding data stores. 

The Sheltered Harbor standard requires compliant enterprises to “back up critical customer 

account data each night in the Sheltered Harbor standard format, either managing their own vault 

or using their service provider. The data vault [e.g., corresponding data store] is encrypted, 

unchangeable, and completely separated from the institution’s infrastructure, including all 

backups.” See At-A-Glance. Compliant enterprises further “designate a restoration platform so 

that if the Sheltered Harbor Resiliency Plan is activated, the platform can recover data from the 

vault to restore customer funds access as quickly as possible.” See At-A-Glance. Such 

“Restoration Platform” understands “a standardized set of data for brokerage or deposit accounts.” 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 57 of 115 PageID #: 57
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 58

See Joint White Paper. As implemented, compliant systems establish corresponding storage units 

(or storage trees) in the vault. See, e.g., PowerProtect User Guide at 52; see also Solution Guide 

at 25 (describing data trees). The aggregated select content can include data, such as binaries, boot 

images, and backup catalogs. See, e.g., Solution Guide at 25. 

114. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of storing said aggregated select content 

for said at least one categorical filter in said corresponding select content data store. 

115. The Accused Instrumentalities further comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of, 

and for the activated categorical filter, associating at least one data process from the group of data 

processes including a copy process, a data extract process, a data archive process, a data 

distribution process and a data destruction process. More specifically, and on information and 

belief, and as discussed herein above and below, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise a system 

in which the data storage vault associates specific actions to specific data types such that the data 

is copied, archived, extracted, or distributed in accordance with the policies of the enterprise. 

116. As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the 

plurality of designated categorical filters are activated in order to obtain (extract) select content for 

protective vaulting. Such filtering associates data processes, which include at least one of the 

following: (i) a copy process (which is linked to a copy data store); (ii) a data extract process 

(which is linked to an extract store); (iii) a data archive process (which is linked to an archive data 

store); (iv) a data distribution process (linked to a distribution security level for the select content); 

and/or (v) a data destruction process. Again, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires compliant 

enterprises to “back up critical customer account data each night in the Sheltered Harbor standard 

format, either managing their own vault or using their service provider. The data vault [e.g., 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 58 of 115 PageID #: 58
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 59

corresponding data store] is encrypted, unchangeable, and completely separated from the 

institution’s infrastructure, including all backups.” See At-A-Glance. The Sheltered Harbor 

standard further requires enterprises to “designate a restoration platform so that if the Sheltered 

Harbor Resiliency Plan is activated, the platform can recover data from the vault to restore 

customer funds access as quickly as possible.” See At-A-Glance. In so doing, compliant 

enterprises associate certain data processes with certain select content in order to copy the data to 

the vault or other data store, extract the data to the vault or other data store, archive the data in 

accordance with Sheltered Harbor technical requirements, or apply distribution controls on the 

data in accordance with clearance policies. As implemented, enterprises establish policies which 

are applied by the compliant Sheltered Harbor system to manage data backup and vaulting. See 

Virtual Machine User Guide at 38 (explaining backup policy types and levels, including 

“synthetic-full” and “full” backup). Once a protection policy is established by the enterprise, all 

further data inputs processed under the filter are processed in the same way. See, e.g., 

PowerProtect User Guide at 52 (“When you create a protection policy, the PowerProtect Data 

Manager software creates a storage unit on the specified Data Domain backup host that is managed 

by PowerProtect Data Manager. All subsequent backups will go to this new storage unit. This 

implementation overrides the backup host and storage unit information that is provided in the script 

with the backup host and storage unit information that is provided by PowerProtect Data 

Manager”). The processing takes place automatically upon a designated time interval (e.g., nightly 

in accordance with Sheltered Harbor standard), upon a designated condition or event (e.g., upon 

the detection of new data), or otherwise manually. See, e.g., At-A-Glance (“back up critical 

customer account data each night in the Sheltered Harbor standard format”); see also Cobalt Iron 

White Paper (“Daily attestation messages provide assurance that all backups have been completed 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 59 of 115 PageID #: 59
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 60

and successfully protected”); see also PowerProtect User Guide at 145 (“PowerProtect Data 

Manager automatically runs dynamic filters when new assets are detected or when existing assets 

are modified. You can also run dynamic filters on demand”).

117. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of, and for the activated categorical filter, 

associating at least one data process from the group of data processes including a copy process, a 

data extract process, a data archive process, a data distribution process and a data destruction 

process. 

118. The Accused Instrumentalities further comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of

applying the associated data process to a further data input based upon a result of said further data 

being processed by said activated categorical filter utilizing said aggregated select content data. 

More specifically, and on information and belief, and as discussed herein above and below, the 

Accused Instrumentalities comprise a system in which the data storage vault associates specific 

actions to specific data types such that the data is copied, archived, extracted, or distributed in 

accordance with the policies of the enterprise. 

119. As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the 

plurality of designated categorical filters are activated in order to obtain (extract) select content for 

protective vaulting. Such filtering associates data processes, which include at least one of the 

following: (i) a copy process (which is linked to a copy data store); (ii) a data extract process 

(which is linked to an extract store); (iii) a data archive process (which is linked to an archive data 

store); (iv) a data distribution process (linked to a distribution security level for the select content); 

and/or (v) a data destruction process. Again, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires compliant 

enterprises to “back up critical customer account data each night in the Sheltered Harbor standard 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 60 of 115 PageID #: 60
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 61

format, either managing their own vault or using their service provider. The data vault [e.g., 

corresponding data store] is encrypted, unchangeable, and completely separated from the 

institution’s infrastructure, including all backups.” See At-A-Glance. The Sheltered Harbor 

standard further requires enterprises to “designate a restoration platform so that if the Sheltered 

Harbor Resiliency Plan is activated, the platform can recover data from the vault to restore 

customer funds access as quickly as possible.” See At-A-Glance. In so doing, compliant 

enterprises associate certain data processes with certain select content in order to copy the data to 

the vault or other data store, extract the data to the vault or other data store, archive the data in 

accordance with Sheltered Harbor technical requirements, or apply distribution controls on the 

data in accordance with clearance policies. As implemented, enterprises establish policies which 

are applied by the compliant Sheltered Harbor system to manage data backup and vaulting. See 

Virtual Machine User Guide at 38 (explaining backup policy types and levels, including 

“synthetic-full” and “full” backup). Once a protection policy is established by the enterprise, all 

further data inputs processed under the filter are processed in the same way. See, e.g., 

PowerProtect User Guide at 52 (“When you create a protection policy, the PowerProtect Data 

Manager software creates a storage unit on the specified Data Domain backup host that is managed 

by PowerProtect Data Manager. All subsequent backups will go to this new storage unit. This 

implementation overrides the backup host and storage unit information that is provided in the script 

with the backup host and storage unit information that is provided by PowerProtect Data 

Manager”). The processing takes place automatically upon a designated time interval (e.g., nightly 

in accordance with Sheltered Harbor standard), upon a designated condition or event (e.g., upon 

the detection of new data), or otherwise manually. See, e.g., At-A-Glance (“back up critical 

customer account data each night in the Sheltered Harbor standard format”); see also Cobalt Iron 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 61 of 115 PageID #: 61
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 62

White Paper (“Daily attestation messages provide assurance that all backups have been completed 

and successfully protected”); see also PowerProtect User Guide at 145 (“PowerProtect Data 

Manager automatically runs dynamic filters when new assets are detected or when existing assets 

are modified. You can also run dynamic filters on demand”).

120. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of applying the associated data process to 

a further data input based upon a result of said further data being processed by said activated 

categorical filter utilizing said aggregated select content data. 

121. The Accused Instrumentalities further comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of

activating a designated categorical filter, which encompasses an automatic activation or a manual 

activation and said automatic activation is time-based, distributed computer system conditionbased, or event-based. More specifically, and on information and belief, and as discussed herein 

above and below, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise a system in which the data storage vault 

associates specific actions to specific data types such that the data is copied, archived, extracted, 

or distributed in accordance with the policies of the enterprise. 

122. As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the 

plurality of designated categorical filters are activated in order to obtain (extract) select content for 

protective vaulting. Such filtering associates data processes, which include at least one of the 

following: (i) a copy process (which is linked to a copy data store); (ii) a data extract process 

(which is linked to an extract store); (iii) a data archive process (which is linked to an archive data 

store); (iv) a data distribution process (linked to a distribution security level for the select content); 

and/or (v) a data destruction process. Again, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires compliant 

enterprises to “back up critical customer account data each night in the Sheltered Harbor standard 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 62 of 115 PageID #: 62
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 63

format, either managing their own vault or using their service provider. The data vault [e.g., 

corresponding data store] is encrypted, unchangeable, and completely separated from the 

institution’s infrastructure, including all backups.” See At-A-Glance. The Sheltered Harbor 

standard further requires enterprises to “designate a restoration platform so that if the Sheltered 

Harbor Resiliency Plan is activated, the platform can recover data from the vault to restore 

customer funds access as quickly as possible.” See At-A-Glance. In so doing, compliant 

enterprises associate certain data processes with certain select content in order to copy the data to 

the vault or other data store, extract the data to the vault or other data store, archive the data in 

accordance with Sheltered Harbor technical requirements, or apply distribution controls on the 

data in accordance with clearance policies. As implemented, enterprises establish policies which 

are applied by the compliant Sheltered Harbor system to manage data backup and vaulting. See 

Virtual Machine User Guide at 38 (explaining backup policy types and levels, including 

“synthetic-full” and “full” backup). Once a protection policy is established by the enterprise, all 

further data inputs processed under the filter are processed in the same way. See, e.g., 

PowerProtect User Guide at 52 (“When you create a protection policy, the PowerProtect Data 

Manager software creates a storage unit on the specified Data Domain backup host that is managed 

by PowerProtect Data Manager. All subsequent backups will go to this new storage unit. This 

implementation overrides the backup host and storage unit information that is provided in the script 

with the backup host and storage unit information that is provided by PowerProtect Data 

Manager”). The processing takes place automatically upon a designated time interval (e.g., nightly 

in accordance with Sheltered Harbor standard), upon a designated condition or event (e.g., upon 

the detection of new data), or otherwise manually. See, e.g., At-A-Glance (“back up critical 

customer account data each night in the Sheltered Harbor standard format”); see also Cobalt Iron 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 63 of 115 PageID #: 63
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 64

White Paper (“Daily attestation messages provide assurance that all backups have been completed 

and successfully protected”); see also PowerProtect User Guide at 145 (“PowerProtect Data 

Manager automatically runs dynamic filters when new assets are detected or when existing assets 

are modified. You can also run dynamic filters on demand”).

123. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of activating a designated categorical filter, 

which encompasses an automatic activation or a manual activation and said automatic activation 

is time-based, distributed computer system condition-based, or event-based. 

124. The foregoing infringement on the part of Defendant has caused past and ongoing injury to 

Plaintiff. The amount of damages adequate to compensate for the infringement shall be determined 

at trial but is in no event less than a reasonable royalty from the date of first infringement to the 

expiration of the ‘301 Patent.

125. To the extent Defendant continues, and has continued, its infringing activities noted above in an 

infringing manner post-notice of the ‘301 Patent, such infringement is necessarily willful and 

deliberate.

126. Each of Defendant’s aforesaid activities have been without authority and/or license from Plaintiff.

COUNT II 

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,734,169 

127. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs by reference. 

128. Upon information and belief, Defendant owns and/or controls the operation and/or utilization of 

the Accused Instrumentalities and generates substantial financial revenues therefrom, including 

but not limited to revenues attributable to business reputation and goodwill, and revenues derived 

from consumer confidence in the Defendant’s ability to protect against cyber threats and maintain 

operations regardless of external attack or internal system failure. 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 64 of 115 PageID #: 64
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 65

129. Upon information and belief, Defendant has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe 

at least Claim 1 of the ‘169 Patent by making, using, importing, selling, and/or offering for sale 

the Accused Instrumentalities. The Accused Instrumentalities themselves are specially configured 

by Defendant to directly perform, and do in fact directly perform, all infringing steps. 

130. Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise an apparatus which directly 

performs the claimed method of organizing and processing data in a distributed cloud-based 

computing system having select content represented by one or more predetermined words, 

characters, images, data elements or data objects. More specifically, the Accused Instrumentalities 

comprise a cloud-based network of servers, hardware, and software for processing data and 

vaulting such data in compliance with Sheltered Harbor specifications or its operational equivalent, 

as described herein above. The Defendant is the “enterprise operating the distributed computing 

system,” and Defendant itself makes and uses the system, owns all data, and controls the data 

vault. See, e.g., Joint White Paper (Sheltered Harbor standard requires: “Data fully Owned, and 

vault Controlled by the financial institution”); see also Cobalt Iron White Paper (“The data vault 

always remains under your control”). On information and belief, such apparatus is installed and 

used in the United States, and such apparatus performs the infringing steps entirely within the 

United States.

131. As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems which manage 

and protect data containing sensitive content in distributed computing systems. See, e.g., 

Operating Rules (the Sheltered Harbor objective of protecting critical account information is 

achieved by data vaulting); see also id, at Exhibit 1 thereof, as reproduced below (illustrating 

distributed network architecture): 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 65 of 115 PageID #: 65
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 66

see also Reference Architecture (illustrating Sheltered Harbor compliant system and distributed 

architecture), as reproduced below:

132. Still further, and on information and belief, such systems as implemented by Defendant are cloudbased. By way of example, the Accused Instrumentalities are optionally implemented on Amazon 

Web Services Cloud, Google Cloud, IBM Enterprise Cloud, Rackspace Cloud, Microsoft Cloud 

(Azure), DigitalOcean, Dell Cloud (Apex). or an alternative functional equivalent thereof. As 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 66 of 115 PageID #: 66
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 67

implemented in compliant systems, the authorized solution from Dell is designed and intended for 

deployment on any of Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud. See, e.g., 

Solution Guide at 31; see also Cobalt Iron White Paper (describing cloud solution, and noting that 

its Compass Solution “enables enterprises to transform and optimize legacy backup solutions into 

a simple cloud-based architecture with built-in cybersecurity”).

133. Further, and as noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems 

which manage and protect data containing sensitive content which is important to the operating 

enterprise; namely, customer financial account data. See, e.g., Operating Rules (“Sheltered Harbor 

is an industry-driven initiative launched in 2015 to promote the stability of the U.S. financial 

markets by protecting critical account information and data sets of market participants in order to 

facilitate the recovery and use of such information following a destructive cyberattack or other 

extreme loss of operational capability”); see also Operating Rules at Exhibit 1 thereof (stating the 

Processing Environment “Extracts critical account data in industry-standard format”); see also 

Solution Guide at 25 (“In addition to determining the objectives for the Cyber Recovery solution, 

you must characterize the data to be protected. The Cyber Recovery solution can protect any data 

that can be stored on a PowerProtect DD MTree. If Cyber Recovery is to protect an entire backup 

application and its backup data, the backup software must be able to store both its backup catalog 

(metadata) and backup data on one or more PowerProtect DD MTrees”).

134. Still further, and as noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, 

systems in which the sensitive content to be protected is represented by predetermined words, 

characters, images, data elements, or objects. See, e.g., Operating Rules (“Sheltered Harbor is an 

industry-driven initiative launched in 2015 to promote the stability of the U.S. financial markets 

by protecting critical account information and data sets of market participants in order to facilitate 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 67 of 115 PageID #: 67
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 68

the recovery and use of such information following a destructive cyberattack or other extreme loss 

of operational capability”); see also Solution Guide at 25 (“In addition to determining the 

objectives for the Cyber Recovery solution, you must characterize the data to be protected. The 

Cyber Recovery solution can protect any data that can be stored on a PowerProtect DD MTree. If 

Cyber Recovery is to protect an entire backup application and its backup data, the backup software 

must be able to store both its backup catalog (metadata) and backup data on one or more 

PowerProtect DD MTrees”) (and further identifying “Data, such as application binaries, boot 

images, and backup catalog, that must be protected”). 

135. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the claimed method of organizing and processing 

data in a distributed cloud-based computing system having select content represented by one or 

more predetermined words, characters, images, data elements or data objects.

136. The Accused Instrumentalities further comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of

providing in said distributed cloud-based computing system: (i) a plurality of select content data 

stores for respective ones of a plurality of security designated data; and (ii) a plurality of granular 

data stores; and (iii) a cloud-based server, each select content data store having respective access 

controls thereat. More specifically, and on information and belief, and as discussed herein above 

and below, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise a data vault with designated stores for 

designated select content, as derived from categorical filters.

137. As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the 

sensitive content to be protected is stored in a plurality of select content data stores. The Sheltered 

Harbor standard requires a “data vault,” which is an “ultra secure environment where data can be 

safely stored.” See Joint White Paper. By way of example, and as implemented in compliant 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 68 of 115 PageID #: 68
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 69

systems, the authorized solution from Dell includes a plurality of such data stores, as illustrated 

below (see Dell PowerProtect Solution Brief) (illustrating multiple data stores, including Backup, 

Copy, Lock, and Analyze): 

see also PowerProtect User Guide at 52 (stating “When you create a protection policy, the 

PowerProtect Data Manager software creates a storage unit on the specified Data Domain backup 

host that is managed by PowerProtect Data Manager. All subsequent backups will go to this new 

storage unit”).

138. Further, and as noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems 

in which the data stores for the sensitive content are operative with a plurality of designated 

categorical filters. As noted, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires a “data vault,” which is an 

“ultra secure environment where data can be safely stored.” See Joint White Paper. Such data 

vault is intended to house content derived from designated categorical filters, as established by the 

enterprise. As explained, the fundamental first step in the Sheltered Harbor process is to: “Identify 

the most critical business services that must be protected and resilient in the face of an ‘extreme 

but plausible event,’ and ultimately map these to the IT data and/or applications necessary to 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 69 of 115 PageID #: 69
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 70

support them.” See Joint White Paper. Further, Sheltered Harbor requires the compliant enterprise 

to: “Protect the data and/or applications supporting the processes in a highly secure data vault, 

defining the requirements necessary for such a vault.” See Joint White Paper. Given the focus of 

Sheltered Harbor, the primary designated categorical filters relate to “two capabilities and essential 

services: providing customers continued access to their account balance information and cash. 

[...] By narrowing the focus to this specific data set, Sheltered Harbor could avoid the complexity 

of having to also protect myriad applications and underlying technologies, enabling the creation 

of a common restoration platform ... for those two critical business services.” See Joint White 

Paper. As a result, “[t]he Sheltered Harbor standards combine secure data vaulting of critical 

customer account information and a resiliency plan to provide customers timely access to their 

data and funds in a worst-case scenario.” See Joint White Paper. As a collective, Sheltered Harbor 

has thus “done the work of defining the critical business processes as well as the technical 

capabilities that are required for a quick restoration that is of mutual benefit to all participating 

institutions.” See Joint White Paper. This is accomplished by the extraction of critical account 

data, which is identified based upon predefined filters. See Operating Rules at Exhibit 1 thereof 

(Processing Environment: “Extracts critical account data in industry-standard format”); see also 

Safe Haven (explaining: “ When a financial institution joins Sheltered Harbor, critical financial 

information is extracted from accounts and converted into Sheltered Harbor’s industry-standard 

format”). As implemented, the enterprise establishes a “protection policy” (i.e., a set of filters) 

governing the data to be protected. See PowerProtect User Guide at 52. Of course, each data store 

includes access controls, as implemented via security credentials and/or multi-factor 

authentication, or a functional equivalent. See, e.g., Solution Guide at 21-22 (describing data 

access protocols).

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 70 of 115 PageID #: 70
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 71

139. Still further, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which a 

plurality of granular data stores are implemented. The Sheltered Harbor standard requires a “data 

vault,” which is an “ultra secure environment where data can be safely stored.” See Joint White 

Paper. Additionally, the data vault is required by Sheltered Harbor as being “air-gapped,” or 

“isolated from production and backup systems.” See Joint White Paper. As implemented in 

compliant systems, the authorized solution from Dell is designed and intended for deployment in 

an ”air-gapped” architecture which is isolated from the production backup system (which itself 

serves as a plurality of granular data stores). See, e.g., Enterprise Strategy Group White Paper 

entitled: Protecting Critical Data from Cyber Threats Such as Ransomware with a Comprehensive 

Digital Vault Solution, available at: delltechnologies.com/asset/en-us/products/data-protection/ 

industry-market/esg-cyber-recovery-tech-validation-report.pdf (as visited October 20, 2023) 

(hereafter as “Dell Digital Vault Solution”), at 7 (describing process of pulling data from backup

storage on the production side); see also Dell PowerProtect Solution Brief (illustrating multiple 

granular data stores as “Backup Workloads”), as reproduced below: 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 71 of 115 PageID #: 71
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 72

140. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of providing in said distributed cloudbased computing system: (i) a plurality of select content data stores for respective ones of a 

plurality of security designated data; and (ii) a plurality of granular data stores; and (iii) a cloudbased server, each select content data store having respective access controls thereat. 

141. The Accused Instrumentalities further comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of 

providing a communications network operatively coupling said plurality of select content data 

stores and cloud-based server. More specifically, and on information and belief, and as discussed 

herein above and below, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise a distributed, cloud-based system 

which is configured to manage and protect data containing sensitive content. See, e.g., Operating 

Rules (the Sheltered Harbor objective of protecting critical account information is achieved by 

data vaulting); see also id, at Exhibit 1 thereof, as reproduced below (illustrating distributed 

network architecture):

see also Reference Architecture (illustrating Sheltered Harbor compliant system and distributed 

architecture), as reproduced below:

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 72 of 115 PageID #: 72
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 73

142. Still further, and on information and belief, such systems as implemented by Defendant are cloudbased (as discussed in detail above), and necessarily comprise an operatively coupled 

communications network. See, e.g., Dell Digital Vault Solution at 7 (describing network with 

dedicated interfaces); see also At-A-Glance (data vault is required to be “completely separated” 

from the infrastructure of the compliant enterprise; also describing the “restoration platform”); see 

also Joint White Paper (Sheltered Harbor requires data vault to be both “survivable” and 

“accessible”). 

143. The Accused Instrumentalities comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of (with 

respect to data processed by said cloud-based system) extracting and storing said security

designated data in respective select content data stores. More specifically, and on information and 

belief, and as discussed herein above and below, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise a system 

in which protection policies are implemented using aggregated tags. 

144. As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the 

plurality of designated categorical filters are activated in order to obtain (extract) select content for 

protective vaulting. As noted, the Sheltered Harbor standard is premised on the extraction of 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 73 of 115 PageID #: 73
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 74

critical financial account information, which is then converted into Sheltered Harbor’s industrystandard format. See, e.g., Operating Rules at Exhibit 1 thereof. As implemented, this includes 

the selection of protection policies by the enterprise, and the selection of conditions for each such 

policy. See Virtual Machine User Guide at 57. Protection rules are one exemplary embodiment 

of such categorical filters, which can be implemented in a variety of functionally equivalent ways 

to achieve the same result; namely, the filtering of data for inclusion in designated storage. By 

way of example, in the certified Dell PowerProtect system, “a rule with the filters VM Folder 

Name, Contains, and Finance can match assets belonging to your finance department to the 

selected protection policy.” See Virtual Machine User Guide at 58. The use of such protection 

rules and attributes for filtering content is a type of categorical filter implementation. See Virtual 

Machine User Guide at 58-59 (detailing use of Protection Rule Attributes, Conditions, Criteria, 

and Filters (e.g., “contains,” “does not contain,” “does not equal,” “ends with,” “equals,” “matches 

RegEx,” and “does not match RegEx”)).

145. Further, and as noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems 

in which critical financial account information is extracted and converted into Sheltered Harbor’s 

industry-standard format. See, e.g., Operating Rules at Exhibit 1 thereof. As implemented, the 

extracted information is either contextually or taxonomically associated. As explained by the 

inventors: “A simple classification system (hierarchical taxonomic system) can be established by 

reviewing the label descriptions on the structured data and then expanding class definitions with 

the use of the Knowledge Expander (KE) search engine. [...] The hierarchical taxonomic system 

can be used to build contextual filters and taxonomic filters which can further protect Sec-Con 

data and expand the value and quantity of SC data.” See ’301 Patent at 10:22-32. In practice, 

Sheltered Harbor systems allow for the grouping of tags using metadata or any of a number of 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 74 of 115 PageID #: 74
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 75

functionally equivalent means of achieving the same result; namely, the filtering of data for 

inclusion in designated storage. By way of example, in the certified Dell PowerProtect system, 

virtual machine tags are created in the “vSphere Client.” Such virtual tags enable the enterprise to 

attach metadata to virtual inventory assets, making them easier to sort and search. See Virtual 

Machine User Guide at 56. Tags are grouped within categories, which can further include specific 

object types. See Virtual Machine User Guide at 56-58 (describing tag creation and protection 

rules). The use of tag grouping, including by the use of metadata, is an implementation of 

contextually or taxonomically associated data.

146. Further, and as noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems 

in which the plurality of designated categorical filters are activated in order to obtain (extract) 

select content for protective vaulting. Such vaulting places aggregated select content into 

respective corresponding data stores. The Sheltered Harbor standard requires compliant 

enterprises to “back up critical customer account data each night in the Sheltered Harbor standard 

format, either managing their own vault or using their service provider. The data vault [e.g., 

corresponding data store] is encrypted, unchangeable, and completely separated from the 

institution’s infrastructure, including all backups.” See At-A-Glance. Compliant enterprises 

further “designate a restoration platform so that if the Sheltered Harbor Resiliency Plan is 

activated, the platform can recover data from the vault to restore customer funds access as quickly 

as possible.” See At-A-Glance. Such “Restoration Platform” understands “a standardized set of 

data for brokerage or deposit accounts.” See Joint White Paper. As implemented, compliant 

systems establish corresponding storage units (or storage trees) in the vault. See, e.g., 

PowerProtect User Guide at 52; see also Solution Guide at 25 (describing data trees). The 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 75 of 115 PageID #: 75
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 76

aggregated select content can include data, such as binaries, boot images, and backup catalogs. 

See, e.g., Solution Guide at 25. 

147. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of (with respect to data processed by said 

cloud-based system) extracting and storing said security designated data in respective select 

content data stores. 

148. The Accused Instrumentalities further comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of

activating at least one of said select content data stores in said cloud-based computing system 

thereby permitting access to said select content data stores and respective security designated data 

based upon an application of one or more of said access controls thereat. More specifically, and 

on information and belief, and as discussed herein above and below, the Accused Instrumentalities 

comprise a system in which the data storage vault is safeguarded by a number of security measures, 

including strict credential-controlled access.

149. As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which select 

content is protected “in a highly secure data vault.” See, e.g., Joint White Paper (further describing 

the data vault as “an ultra-secure environment where data can be safely stored, which remains 

inaccessible but secure even while being updated”). Such security measures are implemented via 

data vault access controls, which include multi-factor authentication. See, e.g., Solution Guide at 

21-22 (describing “least-access-privilege concept” and two-factor authentication); see also Dell 

PowerProtect Cyber Recovery 19.12 Product Guide, available at: dl.dell.com/content/manual 

52605381-dell-powerprotect-cyber-recovery-19-12-product-guide.pdf?language=en-us&ps=true 

(as visited October 20, 2023) (hereafter as “Dell Product Guide”), at 24 (describing process of 

defining storage objects for each system running in the vault environment). 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 76 of 115 PageID #: 76
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 77

150. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of activating at least one of said select 

content data stores in said cloud-based computing system thereby permitting access to said select 

content data stores and respective security designated data based upon an application of one or 

more of said access controls thereat. 

151. The Accused Instrumentalities further comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of 

parsing remainder data not extracted from data processed by said cloud-based system and storing 

the parsed data in respective granular data stores. More specifically, and on information and belief, 

and as discussed herein above and below, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise a system in 

which non-extracted data is stored on the production side (i.e., outside the data vault) in a plurality 

of data stores. 

152. As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the 

plurality of designated categorical filters are activated in order to obtain (extract) select content for 

protective vaulting. Further, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires compliant enterprises to “back 

up critical customer account data each night in the Sheltered Harbor standard format, either 

managing their own vault or using their service provider.” See At-A-Glance. As implemented, 

remainder data is stored in a plurality of granular data stores, including production and backup

systems. See Dell Digital Vault Solution at 7 (describing process of pulling data from backup 

storage on the production side); see also Dell PowerProtect Solution Brief (illustrating multiple 

granular data stores for non-extracted parsed data), as reproduced below: 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 77 of 115 PageID #: 77
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 78

see also Solution Guide at 26 (“In the production environment, backups of applications and their 

data, including image-level backups, are typically performed daily. Backups are made to one or 

more PowerProtect DD MTrees on the production PowerProtect DD system”).

153. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of parsing remainder data not extracted 

from data processed by said cloud-based system and storing the parsed data in respective granular 

data stores. 

154. The Accused Instrumentalities further comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of 

(with respect to the aforementioned parsing and storing of remainder data) including both (i) 

randomly parsing and storing said remainder data, and (ii) parsing and storing said remainder data 

according to a predetermined algorithm based upon said security designated data and said select 

content data stores. More specifically, and on information and belief, and as discussed herein 

above and below, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise a system in which data encryption 

methodologies are implemented across the production environment and the data vault. 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 78 of 115 PageID #: 78
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 79

155. As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the 

plurality of designated categorical filters are activated in order to obtain (extract) select content for 

protective vaulting. Further, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires compliant enterprises to “back 

up critical customer account data each night in the Sheltered Harbor standard format, either 

managing their own vault or using their service provider.” See At-A-Glance. As implemented, 

traffic to and from the data vault is encrypted (randomly parsed), as is data in the production 

environment. 

156. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of parsing remainder data not extracted 

from data processed by said cloud-based system and storing the parsed data in respective granular 

data stores.

157. The Accused Instrumentalities further comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of 

withdrawing some or all of said security designated data and said parsed data from said respective 

data stores only in the presence of said respective access controls applied thereto. More 

specifically, and on information and belief, and as discussed herein above and below, the Accused 

Instrumentalities comprise a system in which strict access control measures are implemented to 

safeguard the data vault and allow for secure restoration.

158. As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the 

plurality of designated categorical filters are activated in order to obtain (extract) select content for 

protective vaulting. Further, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires compliant enterprises to “back 

up critical customer account data each night in the Sheltered Harbor standard format, either 

managing their own vault or using their service provider.” See At-A-Glance. Indeed, the very 

purpose of the Sheltered Harbor standard is to allow for the emergency restoration of critical select 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 79 of 115 PageID #: 79
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 80

content in the aftermath of a “Sheltered Harbor Event” (e.g., cyberattack). See At-A-Glance; see 

also Joint White Paper (Sheltered Harbor requires a “highly secure data vault” and planned 

recovery protocols; data vault must be “air-gapped” and strictly inaccessible to unauthorized bad 

actors; defining the “restoration platform”). As implemented, compliant systems create immutable 

copies of select content for secure storage in the data vault. Such data is able to be withdrawn 

from the data vault to the restoration platform only upon the satisfaction of strict security measures 

and access controls, including credentialed access and multi-factor authentication. See, e.g., Joint 

White Paper (further describing the data vault as “an ultra-secure environment where data can be 

safely stored, which remains inaccessible but secure even while being updated”); see also Solution 

Guide at 21-22 (describing “least-access-privilege concept” and two-factor authentication); see 

also id. at 28-29 (describing cleansing and re-imaging data from the data vault to the production 

environment and restoration platform); see also Dell Product Guide at 24 (describing process of 

defining storage objects for each system running in the vault environment).

159. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of withdrawing some or all of said security

designated data and said parsed data from said respective data stores only in the presence of said 

respective access controls applied thereto.

160. The foregoing infringement on the part of Defendant has caused past and ongoing injury to 

Plaintiff. The amount of damages adequate to compensate for the infringement shall be determined 

at trial but is in no event less than a reasonable royalty from the date of first infringement to the 

expiration of the ‘169 Patent.

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 80 of 115 PageID #: 80
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 81

161. To the extent Defendant continues, and has continued, its infringing activities noted above in an 

infringing manner post-notice of the ‘169 Patent, such infringement is necessarily willful and 

deliberate.

162. Each of Defendant’s aforesaid activities have been without authority and/or license from Plaintiff.

COUNT III 

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,182.073 

163. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs by reference. 

164. Upon information and belief, Defendant owns and/or controls the operation and/or utilization of 

the Accused Instrumentalities and generates substantial financial revenues therefrom, including 

but not limited to revenues attributable to business reputation and goodwill, and revenues derived 

from consumer confidence in the Defendant’s ability to protect against cyber threats and maintain 

operations regardless of external attack or internal system failure. 

165. Upon information and belief, Defendant has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe 

at least Claim 1 of the ‘073 Patent by making, using, importing, selling, and/or offering for sale 

the Accused Instrumentalities. The Accused Instrumentalities themselves are specially configured 

by Defendant to directly perform, and do in fact directly perform, all infringing steps. 

166. Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise an apparatus which directly 

performs the claimed method of creating an information infrastructure for processing data 

throughput in a distributed computing system with respective ones of a plurality of filters. More 

specifically, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise a network of servers, hardware, and software

for processing data and vaulting such data in compliance with Sheltered Harbor specifications or 

its operational equivalent, as described herein above. The Defendant is the “enterprise operating 

the distributed computing system,” and Defendant itself makes and uses the system, owns all data, 

and controls the data vault. See, e.g., Joint White Paper (Sheltered Harbor standard requires: “Data 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 81 of 115 PageID #: 81
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 82

fully Owned, and vault Controlled by the financial institution”); see also Cobalt Iron White Paper 

(“The data vault always remains under your control”). On information and belief, such apparatus 

is installed and used in the United States, and such apparatus performs the infringing steps entirely 

within the United States.

167. As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems which manage 

and protect data containing sensitive content in distributed computing systems. See, e.g., 

Operating Rules (the Sheltered Harbor objective of protecting critical account information is 

achieved by data vaulting); see also id, at Exhibit 1 thereof, as reproduced below (illustrating 

distributed network architecture): 

see also Reference Architecture (illustrating Sheltered Harbor compliant system and distributed 

architecture), as reproduced below:

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 82 of 115 PageID #: 82
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 83

168. Further, and as noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems 

which manage and protect data containing sensitive content which is important to the operating 

enterprise; namely, customer financial account data. See, e.g., Operating Rules (“Sheltered Harbor 

is an industry-driven initiative launched in 2015 to promote the stability of the U.S. financial 

markets by protecting critical account information and data sets of market participants in order to 

facilitate the recovery and use of such information following a destructive cyberattack or other 

extreme loss of operational capability”); see also Operating Rules at Exhibit 1 thereof (stating the 

Processing Environment “Extracts critical account data in industry-standard format”); see also 

Solution Guide at 25 (“In addition to determining the objectives for the Cyber Recovery solution, 

you must characterize the data to be protected. The Cyber Recovery solution can protect any data 

that can be stored on a PowerProtect DD MTree. If Cyber Recovery is to protect an entire backup 

application and its backup data, the backup software must be able to store both its backup catalog 

(metadata) and backup data on one or more PowerProtect DD MTrees”).

169. As implemented in compliant systems, the Sheltered Harbor standard is satisfied by an information 

infrastructure for processing data throughput in the form of critical account information from the 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 83 of 115 PageID #: 83
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 84

enterprise to the data vault. See, e.g., Dell Sheltered Harbor Solution Brief (“To comply with the 

Sheltered Harbor Specification, the Cyber Recovery vault architecture has been extended to 

perform the Archive Generation and Secure Repository processes. Extracted Sheltered Harbor 

data is saved in production, then securely replicated via a logical, air-gapped, dedicated connection 

to the vaulted environment where the remaining steps, such as retention locking, are performed”); 

see also id., illustrating the compliant information infrastructure as excerpted below:

170. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the claimed method of creating an information 

infrastructure for processing data throughput in a distributed computing system with respective 

ones of a plurality of filters.

171. The Accused Instrumentalities further comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of 

identifying sensitive content and select content in said data throughput with respective initially 

configured filters of said plurality of filters, said sensitive content represented by one or more 

sensitive words, characters, images, data elements or data objects therein grouped into a plurality 

of sensitivity levels, said select content represented by one or more predetermined words, 

characters, images, data elements or data objects. More specifically, and on information and belief, 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 84 of 115 PageID #: 84
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 85

and as discussed herein above and below, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise a data vault with 

designated stores for designated select content, as derived from categorical filters.

172. As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the 

sensitive content to be protected is represented by predetermined words, characters, images, data 

elements, or objects. See, e.g., Operating Rules (“Sheltered Harbor is an industry-driven initiative 

launched in 2015 to promote the stability of the U.S. financial markets by protecting critical 

account information and data sets of market participants in order to facilitate the recovery and use 

of such information following a destructive cyberattack or other extreme loss of operational 

capability”); see also Solution Guide at 25 (“In addition to determining the objectives for the Cyber 

Recovery solution, you must characterize the data to be protected. The Cyber Recovery solution 

can protect any data that can be stored on a PowerProtect DD MTree. If Cyber Recovery is to 

protect an entire backup application and its backup data, the backup software must be able to store 

both its backup catalog (metadata) and backup data on one or more PowerProtect DD MTrees”) 

(and further identifying “Data, such as application binaries, boot images, and backup catalog, 

that must be protected”). 

173. Still further, the Sheltered Harbor standard is satisfied by systems in which a plurality of initially 

configured filters are used to identify the select content for filtering, extraction, and secure vault 

storage. Such systems use dynamic filters as configured by the operating enterprise in order to 

define the select content and the treatment thereof. As noted, the Sheltered Harbor standard 

requires a “data vault,” which is an “ultra secure environment where data can be safely stored.” 

See Joint White Paper. Such data vault is intended to house content derived from designated 

categorical filters, as established by the enterprise. As explained, the fundamental first step in the 

Sheltered Harbor process is to: “Identify the most critical business services that must be protected 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 85 of 115 PageID #: 85
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 86

and resilient in the face of an ‘extreme but plausible event,’ and ultimately map these to the IT 

data and/or applications necessary to support them.” See Joint White Paper. Further, Sheltered 

Harbor requires the compliant enterprise to: “Protect the data and/or applications supporting the 

processes in a highly secure data vault, defining the requirements necessary for such a vault.” See 

Joint White Paper. Given the focus of Sheltered Harbor, the primary designated categorical filters 

relate to “two capabilities and essential services: providing customers continued access to their 

account balance information and cash. [...] By narrowing the focus to this specific data set, 

Sheltered Harbor could avoid the complexity of having to also protect myriad applications and 

underlying technologies, enabling the creation of a common restoration platform ... for those two 

critical business services.” See Joint White Paper. As a result, “[t]he Sheltered Harbor standards 

combine secure data vaulting of critical customer account information and a resiliency plan to 

provide customers timely access to their data and funds in a worst-case scenario.” See Joint White 

Paper. As a collective, Sheltered Harbor has thus “done the work of defining the critical business 

processes as well as the technical capabilities that are required for a quick restoration that is of 

mutual benefit to all participating institutions.” See Joint White Paper. This is accomplished by 

the extraction of critical account data, which is identified based upon predefined filters. See 

Operating Rules at Exhibit 1 thereof (Processing Environment: “Extracts critical account data in 

industry-standard format”); see also Safe Haven (explaining: “ When a financial institution joins 

Sheltered Harbor, critical financial information is extracted from accounts and converted into 

Sheltered Harbor’s industry-standard format”). As implemented, the enterprise establishes a 

“protection policy” (i.e., a set of filters) governing the data to be protected. See PowerProtect User 

Guide at 52.

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 86 of 115 PageID #: 86
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 87

174. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the claimed step of identifying sensitive content 

and select content in said data throughput with respective initially configured filters of said 

plurality of filters, said sensitive content represented by one or more sensitive words, characters, 

images, data elements or data objects therein grouped into a plurality of sensitivity levels, said 

select content represented by one or more predetermined words, characters, images, data elements 

or data objects.

175. The Accused Instrumentalities further comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of 

providing in said distributed computing system a plurality of secure sensitive content data stores 

and a plurality of select content data stores for said respective initial filters. More specifically, and 

on information and belief, and as discussed herein above and below, the Accused Instrumentalities 

comprise a data vault with designated stores for designated select content, as derived from 

categorical filters.

176. As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the 

sensitive content to be protected is stored in a plurality of select content data stores. The Sheltered 

Harbor standard requires a “data vault,” which is an “ultra secure environment where data can be 

safely stored.” See Joint White Paper. By way of example, and as implemented in compliant 

systems, the authorized solution from Dell includes a plurality of such data stores, as illustrated 

below (see Dell PowerProtect Solution Brief) (illustrating multiple data stores, including Backup, 

Copy, Lock, and Analyze): 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 87 of 115 PageID #: 87
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 88

see also PowerProtect User Guide at 52 (stating “When you create a protection policy, the 

PowerProtect Data Manager software creates a storage unit on the specified Data Domain backup 

host that is managed by PowerProtect Data Manager. All subsequent backups will go to this new 

storage unit”); see also Dell Sheltered Harbor Solution Brief (illustrating the compliant 

information infrastructure, which includes a plurality of secure sensitive content data stores, as 

excerpted below:)

177. Further, and as noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems 

in which the data stores for the sensitive content are operative with a plurality of designated 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 88 of 115 PageID #: 88
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 89

categorical filters. As noted, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires a “data vault,” which is an 

“ultra secure environment where data can be safely stored.” See Joint White Paper. Such data 

vault is intended to house content derived from designated categorical filters, as established by the 

enterprise. As explained, the fundamental first step in the Sheltered Harbor process is to: “Identify 

the most critical business services that must be protected and resilient in the face of an ‘extreme 

but plausible event,’ and ultimately map these to the IT data and/or applications necessary to 

support them.” See Joint White Paper. Further, Sheltered Harbor requires the compliant enterprise 

to: “Protect the data and/or applications supporting the processes in a highly secure data vault, 

defining the requirements necessary for such a vault.” See Joint White Paper. Given the focus of 

Sheltered Harbor, the primary designated categorical filters relate to “two capabilities and essential 

services: providing customers continued access to their account balance information and cash. 

[...] By narrowing the focus to this specific data set, Sheltered Harbor could avoid the complexity 

of having to also protect myriad applications and underlying technologies, enabling the creation 

of a common restoration platform ... for those two critical business services.” See Joint White 

Paper. As a result, “[t]he Sheltered Harbor standards combine secure data vaulting of critical 

customer account information and a resiliency plan to provide customers timely access to their 

data and funds in a worst-case scenario.” See Joint White Paper. As a collective, Sheltered Harbor 

has thus “done the work of defining the critical business processes as well as the technical 

capabilities that are required for a quick restoration that is of mutual benefit to all participating 

institutions.” See Joint White Paper. This is accomplished by the extraction of critical account 

data, which is identified based upon predefined filters. See Operating Rules at Exhibit 1 thereof 

(Processing Environment: “Extracts critical account data in industry-standard format”); see also 

Safe Haven (explaining: “ When a financial institution joins Sheltered Harbor, critical financial 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 89 of 115 PageID #: 89
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 90

information is extracted from accounts and converted into Sheltered Harbor’s industry-standard 

format”). As implemented, the enterprise establishes a “protection policy” (i.e., a set of filters) 

governing the data to be protected. See PowerProtect User Guide at 52. 

178. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of providing in said distributed computing 

system a plurality of secure sensitive content data stores and a plurality of select content data stores 

for said respective initial filters. 

179. The Accused Instrumentalities further comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of 

operatively coupling said respective initially configured filters, over a communications network 

with said distributed computing system, said plurality of sensitive content data stores and said 

select content data stores. More specifically, and on information and belief, and as discussed 

herein above and below, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise a distributed computing system 

which is configured to manage and protect data containing sensitive content. See, e.g., Operating 

Rules (the Sheltered Harbor objective of protecting critical account information is achieved by 

data vaulting); see also id, at Exhibit 1 thereof, as reproduced below (illustrating distributed 

network architecture):

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 90 of 115 PageID #: 90
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 91

see also Reference Architecture (illustrating Sheltered Harbor compliant system and distributed 

architecture), as reproduced below:

Such systems as implemented by Defendant necessarily comprise an operatively coupled 

communications network which couples the production and vaulting environments. See, e.g., Dell 

Digital Vault Solution at 7 (describing network with dedicated interfaces); see also At-A-Glance 

(data vault is required to be “completely separated” from the infrastructure of the compliant 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 91 of 115 PageID #: 91
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 92

enterprise; also describing the “restoration platform”); see also Joint White Paper (Sheltered 

Harbor requires data vault to be both “survivable” and “accessible”); see also Dell Sheltered 

Harbor Solution Brief (illustrating the compliant information infrastructure, which includes a 

communication network operatively coupling the production and data vault environments (via a 

“logical, air-gapped, dedicated connection”), as excerpted below:) 

180. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of operatively coupling said respective 

initially configured filters, over a communications network with said distributed computing 

system, said plurality of sensitive content data stores and said select content data stores. 

181. The Accused Instrumentalities further comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of 

altering said respective initially configured filters by: expanding one or both of said sensitive 

content and said select content in a designated filter, contracting or reducing one or both of said 

sensitive content and said select content in said designated filter, and imposing or removing a 

hierarchical or an orthogonal classification in said designated filter. More specifically, and on 

information and belief, and as discussed herein above and below, the Accused Instrumentalities 

comprise a system in which protection policies are implemented using aggregated tags, and such 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 92 of 115 PageID #: 92
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 93

tags (and their respective policies) are enabled for modification (expansion and contraction) by the 

operating enterprise. 

182. As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the 

plurality of designated categorical filters are activated in order to obtain (extract) select content for 

protective vaulting. As noted, the Sheltered Harbor standard is premised on the extraction of 

critical financial account information, which is then converted into Sheltered Harbor’s industrystandard format. See, e.g., Operating Rules at Exhibit 1 thereof. As implemented, this includes 

the process of defining policies relating to the identification and extraction of select content, and 

the ongoing evaluation and modification of such policies, by the compliant operating enterprise. 

By way of example, in the certified Dell PowerProtect system, “the Cyber Recovery User Interface 

[UI] is the primary tool for performing and monitoring Cyber Recovery operations. It is a web 

application that enables you to define, run, and monitor policies and policy outcomes.” See Dell 

Product Guide at 20. Further, the compliant system allows the operating enterprise to: “Create 

policies to perform replications, make point-in-time (PIT) copies, set retention locks, and perform 

other Cyber Recovery operations within the Cyber Recovery vault. You can also modify existing 

policies.”). See Dell Product Guide at 30. Policy modification provides for the expansion and 

reduction of existing parameters. See, e.g., Dell Instructional Video entitled: Reporting with 

PowerProtect Cyber Recovery, available at: youtube.com/watch?v=KTW5htQxyn0&t=85s (as 

visited October 20, 2023) (hereafter as “Dell Instructional Video”), at 1:24-1:50, as excerpted 

below: 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 93 of 115 PageID #: 93
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 94

183. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of altering said respective initially 

configured filters by: expanding one or both of said sensitive content and said select content in a 

designated filter, contracting or reducing one or both of said sensitive content and said select 

content in said designated filter, and imposing or removing a hierarchical or an orthogonal 

classification in said designated filter. 

184. The Accused Instrumentalities further comprise an apparatus which directly performs the steps of 

generating modified configured filters based upon said alterations with said designated filter; and 

organizing further data throughput in said distributed computing system with said modified 

configured filters. More specifically, and on information and belief, and as discussed herein above 

and below, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise in which protection policies are implemented 

using aggregated tags, and such tags (and their respective policies) are enabled for modification 

(expansion and contraction) by the operating enterprise. Such modification is dynamic and the 

resulting parameters are thereafter implemented by the system.

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 94 of 115 PageID #: 94
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 95

185. As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the 

plurality of designated categorical filters are activated in order to obtain (extract) select content for 

protective vaulting. As noted, the Sheltered Harbor standard is premised on the extraction of 

critical financial account information, which is then converted into Sheltered Harbor’s industrystandard format. See, e.g., Operating Rules at Exhibit 1 thereof. Again as noted above, as 

implemented, this includes the process of defining policies relating to the identification and 

extraction of select content, and the ongoing evaluation and modification of such policies, by the 

compliant operating enterprise. By way of example, in the certified Dell PowerProtect system, 

“the Cyber Recovery User Interface [UI] is the primary tool for performing and monitoring Cyber 

Recovery operations. It is a web application that enables you to define, run, and monitor policies 

and policy outcomes.” See Dell Product Guide at 20. Further, the compliant system allows the 

operating enterprise to: “Create policies to perform replications, make point-in-time (PIT) copies, 

set retention locks, and perform other Cyber Recovery operations within the Cyber Recovery vault. 

You can also modify existing policies.”). See Dell Product Guide at 30. Policy modification 

provides for the expansion and reduction of existing parameters, which dynamically generates 

modified configured filters and organizes further data throughput in accordance with the new 

configuration. See, e.g., Dell Instructional Video at 1:24-1:50, as excerpted below:

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 95 of 115 PageID #: 95
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 96

186. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the steps of generating modified configured filters 

based upon said alterations with said designated filter; and organizing further data throughput in 

said distributed computing system with said modified configured filters. 

187. The foregoing infringement on the part of Defendant has caused past and ongoing injury to 

Plaintiff. The amount of damages adequate to compensate for the infringement shall be determined 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 96 of 115 PageID #: 96
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 97

at trial but is in no event less than a reasonable royalty from the date of first infringement to the 

expiration of the ‘073 Patent.

188. To the extent Defendant continues, and has continued, its infringing activities noted above in an 

infringing manner post-notice of the ‘073 Patent, such infringement is necessarily willful and 

deliberate.

189. Each of Defendant’s aforesaid activities have been without authority and/or license from Plaintiff.

COUNT IV 

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,250,639 

190. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs by reference. 

191. Upon information and belief, Defendant owns and/or controls the operation and/or utilization of 

the Accused Instrumentalities and generates substantial financial revenues therefrom, including 

but not limited to revenues attributable to business reputation and goodwill, and revenues derived 

from consumer confidence in the Defendant’s ability to protect against cyber threats and maintain 

operations regardless of external attack or internal system failure. 

192. Upon information and belief, Defendant has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe 

at least Claim 16 of the ‘639 Patent by making, using, importing, selling, and/or offering for sale 

the Accused Instrumentalities. The Accused Instrumentalities themselves are specially configured 

by Defendant to directly perform, and do in fact directly perform, all infringing steps. 

193. Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise an apparatus which directly 

performs the claimed method of sanitizing data processed in a distributed computing system 

having sensitive content and select content, said sensitive content represented by one or more 

sensitive words, characters, images, data elements or data objects therein, said sensitive content 

having a plurality of sensitivity levels, each sensitivity level having an associated security 

clearance, said select content represented by one or more predetermined words, characters, images, 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 97 of 115 PageID #: 97
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 98

data elements or data objects, said distributed computing system having a plurality of extract data 

stores for respective ones of said plurality of sensitivity levels and having a plurality of select 

content data stores, said plurality of extract data stores and said select content data stores 

operatively coupled over a communications network. More specifically, the Accused 

Instrumentalities comprise a network of servers, hardware, and software for processing data and 

vaulting such data in compliance with Sheltered Harbor specifications or its operational equivalent, 

as described herein above. The Defendant is the “enterprise operating the distributed computing 

system,” and Defendant itself makes and uses the system, owns all data, and controls the data 

vault. See, e.g., Joint White Paper (Sheltered Harbor standard requires: “Data fully Owned, and 

vault Controlled by the financial institution”); see also Cobalt Iron White Paper (“The data vault 

always remains under your control”). On information and belief, such apparatus is installed and 

used in the United States, and such apparatus performs the infringing steps entirely within the 

United States.

194. As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems which manage 

and protect data containing sensitive content in distributed computing systems. See, e.g., 

Operating Rules (the Sheltered Harbor objective of protecting critical account information is 

achieved by data vaulting); see also id, at Exhibit 1 thereof, as reproduced below (illustrating 

distributed network architecture): 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 98 of 115 PageID #: 98
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 99

see also Reference Architecture (illustrating Sheltered Harbor compliant system and distributed 

architecture), as reproduced below:

195. Further, and as noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems 

which manage and protect data containing sensitive content which is important to the operating 

enterprise; namely, customer financial account data. See, e.g., Operating Rules (“Sheltered Harbor 

is an industry-driven initiative launched in 2015 to promote the stability of the U.S. financial 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 99 of 115 PageID #: 99
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 100

markets by protecting critical account information and data sets of market participants in order to 

facilitate the recovery and use of such information following a destructive cyberattack or other 

extreme loss of operational capability”).

196. Still further, and as noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, 

systems in which the sensitive content to be protected is represented by one or more sensitive 

words, characters, images, data elements or data objects therein. See, e.g., Operating Rules 

(“Sheltered Harbor is an industry-driven initiative launched in 2015 to promote the stability of the 

U.S. financial markets by protecting critical account information and data sets of market

participants in order to facilitate the recovery and use of such information following a destructive

cyberattack or other extreme loss of operational capability”); see also Solution Guide at 25 (“In 

addition to determining the objectives for the Cyber Recovery solution, you must characterize the 

data to be protected. The Cyber Recovery solution can protect any data that can be stored on a 

PowerProtect DD MTree. If Cyber Recovery is to protect an entire backup application and its 

backup data, the backup software must be able to store both its backup catalog (metadata) and 

backup data on one or more PowerProtect DD MTrees”) (and further identifying “Data, such as 

application binaries, boot images, and backup catalog, that must be protected”).

197. Still further, the sensitive content to be protected is associated with multiple security levels and 

clearance requirements, as established by the Sheltered Harbor compliant enterprise. As noted 

above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which select content 

is protected “in a highly secure data vault.” See, e.g., Joint White Paper (further describing the 

data vault as “an ultra-secure environment where data can be safely stored, which remains 

inaccessible but secure even while being updated”). As implemented, sensitive content is 

protected via priority filters. See, e.g., PowerProtect User Guide at 146 (“When multiple dynamic 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 100 of 115 PageID #: 100
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 101

filters exist, you can define the priority of the dynamic filter. Priority determines which dynamic 

filter PowerProtect Data Manager applies for an asset if an asset matches multiple dynamic filters, 

and if the matching dynamic filters have conflicting actions. For example, if an asset protection 

policy assignment matches several dynamic filters and each dynamic filter specifies a different 

protection policy assignment, the protection policy is determined by the dynamic filter with the 

highest priority. An integer is used to represent the priority of the dynamic filter. The smaller 

value has the higher priority”). Again, and as noted above, Sheltered Harbor emphasizes secure 

vaulting and reconstruction, and vaulted data is accessible only via strict credential control. See, 

e.g., Dell PowerProtect Solution Brief (explaining: “An isolated data center environment that is 

disconnected from corporate and backup networks and restricted from users other than those with 

proper clearance”).

198. Still further, and as noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, 

systems which manage and protect data containing sensitive content which is important to the 

operating enterprise; namely, customer financial account data. See, e.g., Operating Rules. Critical 

account data is extracted and converted into Sheltered Harbor’s standard format, and select content 

is represented by one or more predetermined words, characters, images, data elements or data 

objects. See Operating Rules at Exhibit 1 thereof (stating the Processing Environment “Extracts 

critical account data in industry-standard format”); see also Solution Guide at 25 (“In addition to 

determining the objectives for the Cyber Recovery solution, you must characterize the data to be 

protected. The Cyber Recovery solution can protect any data that can be stored on a PowerProtect 

DD MTree. If Cyber Recovery is to protect an entire backup application and its backup data, the 

backup software must be able to store both its backup catalog (metadata) and backup data on one 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 101 of 115 PageID #: 101
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 102

or more PowerProtect DD MTrees”); see also Solution Guide at 25 (The aggregated select content 

can include data, such as binaries, boot images, and backup catalogs).

199. Still further, and as noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, 

systems in which the sensitive select content to be protected is stored in a plurality of select content 

data stores. The Sheltered Harbor standard requires a “data vault,” which is an “ultra secure 

environment where data can be safely stored.” See Joint White Paper. By way of example, and 

as implemented in compliant systems, the authorized solution from Dell includes a plurality of 

such data stores, as illustrated below (see Dell PowerProtect Solution Brief) (illustrating multiple 

data stores, including Backup, Copy, Lock, and Analyze): 

see also PowerProtect User Guide at 52 (stating “When you create a protection policy, the 

PowerProtect Data Manager software creates a storage unit on the specified Data Domain backup 

host that is managed by PowerProtect Data Manager. All subsequent backups will go to this new 

storage unit”) see also Dell Sheltered Harbor Solution Brief (illustrating the compliant information 

infrastructure, which includes a communication network operatively coupling the production and 

data vault environments (via a “logical, air-gapped, dedicated connection”), as excerpted below:) 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 102 of 115 PageID #: 102
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 103

200. Yet still further, and as noted above, Sheltered Harbor requires the compliant enterprise to: 

“Protect the data and/or applications supporting the processes in a highly secure data vault, 

defining the requirements necessary for such a vault.” See Joint White Paper. Given the focus of 

Sheltered Harbor, the primary designated categorical filters relate to “two capabilities and essential 

services: providing customers continued access to their account balance information and cash. 

[...] By narrowing the focus to this specific data set, Sheltered Harbor could avoid the complexity 

of having to also protect myriad applications and underlying technologies, enabling the creation 

of a common restoration platform ... for those two critical business services.” See Joint White 

Paper. As a result, “[t]he Sheltered Harbor standards combine secure data vaulting of critical 

customer account information and a resiliency plan to provide customers timely access to their 

data and funds in a worst-case scenario.” See Joint White Paper. As a collective, Sheltered Harbor 

has thus “done the work of defining the critical business processes as well as the technical 

capabilities that are required for a quick restoration that is of mutual benefit to all participating 

institutions.” See Joint White Paper. This is accomplished by the extraction of critical account 

data, which is identified based upon predefined filters. See Operating Rules at Exhibit 1 thereof 

(Processing Environment: “Extracts critical account data in industry-standard format”); see also 

Safe Haven (explaining: “ When a financial institution joins Sheltered Harbor, critical financial 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 103 of 115 PageID #: 103
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 104

information is extracted from accounts and converted into Sheltered Harbor’s industry-standard 

format”). As implemented, the enterprise establishes a “protection policy” (i.e., a set of filters) 

governing the data to be protected. See PowerProtect User Guide at 52. Of course, each data store 

includes access controls, as implemented via sensitivity levels using security credentials and/or 

multi-factor authentication, or a functional equivalent. See, e.g., Solution Guide at 21-22 

(describing data access protocols). 

201. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the claimed method of sanitizing data processed in 

a distributed computing system having sensitive content and select content, said sensitive content 

represented by one or more sensitive words, characters, images, data elements or data objects 

therein, said sensitive content having a plurality of sensitivity levels, each sensitivity level having 

an associated security clearance, said select content represented by one or more predetermined 

words, characters, images, data elements or data objects, said distributed computing system having 

a plurality of extract data stores for respective ones of said plurality of sensitivity levels and having 

a plurality of select content data stores, said plurality of extract data stores and said select content 

data stores operatively coupled over a communications network. 

202. The Accused Instrumentalities comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of 

extracting said sensitive content from a data input to obtain extracted sensitive data for a 

corresponding sensitivity level and remainder data. More specifically, and on information and 

belief, and as discussed herein above and below, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise a system 

in which protection policies are implemented using aggregated tags. 

203. As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the 

plurality of designated categorical filters are activated in order to obtain (extract) select content for 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 104 of 115 PageID #: 104
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 105

protective vaulting. As noted, the Sheltered Harbor standard is premised on the extraction of 

critical financial account information, which is then converted into Sheltered Harbor’s industrystandard format. See, e.g., Operating Rules at Exhibit 1 thereof; see also Dell Sheltered Harbor 

Solution Brief (illustrating the compliant information infrastructure, which includes data 

extraction in the production environment and secure storage in the data vault, as excerpted below:)

204. Yet still further, and as implemented, this process includes the selection of protection policies by 

the enterprise, and the selection of conditions for each such policy. See Virtual Machine User 

Guide at 57. Protection rules are one exemplary embodiment of such categorical filters, which can 

be implemented in a variety of functionally equivalent ways to achieve the same result; namely, 

the filtering of data for inclusion in designated storage. By way of example, in the certified Dell 

PowerProtect system, “a rule with the filters VM Folder Name, Contains, and Finance can match 

assets belonging to your finance department to the selected protection policy.” See Virtual 

Machine User Guide at 58. The use of such protection rules and attributes for filtering content is 

a type of categorical filter implementation. See Virtual Machine User Guide at 58-59 (detailing 

use of Protection Rule Attributes, Conditions, Criteria, and Filters (e.g., “contains,” “does not 

contain,” “does not equal,” “ends with,” “equals,” “matches RegEx,” and “does not match 

RegEx”)).

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 105 of 115 PageID #: 105
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 106

205. Further, and as noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems 

in which critical financial account information is extracted and converted into Sheltered Harbor’s 

industry-standard format. See, e.g., Operating Rules at Exhibit 1 thereof. As implemented, the 

extracted information is either contextually or taxonomically associated. As explained by the 

inventors: “A simple classification system (hierarchical taxonomic system) can be established by 

reviewing the label descriptions on the structured data and then expanding class definitions with 

the use of the Knowledge Expander (KE) search engine. [...] The hierarchical taxonomic system 

can be used to build contextual filters and taxonomic filters which can further protect Sec-Con 

data and expand the value and quantity of SC data.” See ’301 Patent at 10:22-32. In practice, 

Sheltered Harbor systems allow for the grouping of tags using metadata or any of a number of 

functionally equivalent means of achieving the same result; namely, the filtering of data for 

inclusion in designated storage. By way of example, in the certified Dell PowerProtect system, 

virtual machine tags are created in the “vSphere Client.” Such virtual tags enable the enterprise to 

attach metadata to virtual inventory assets, making them easier to sort and search. See Virtual 

Machine User Guide at 56. Tags are grouped within categories, which can further include specific 

object types. See Virtual Machine User Guide at 56-58 (describing tag creation and protection 

rules). The use of tag grouping, including by the use of metadata, is an implementation of 

contextually or taxonomically associated data.

206. Further, and as noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems 

in which the plurality of designated categorical filters are activated in order to obtain (extract) 

select content for protective vaulting. Such vaulting places aggregated select content into 

respective corresponding data stores. The Sheltered Harbor standard requires compliant 

enterprises to “back up critical customer account data each night in the Sheltered Harbor standard 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 106 of 115 PageID #: 106
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 107

format, either managing their own vault or using their service provider. The data vault [e.g., 

corresponding data store] is encrypted, unchangeable, and completely separated from the 

institution’s infrastructure, including all backups.” See At-A-Glance. Compliant enterprises 

further “designate a restoration platform so that if the Sheltered Harbor Resiliency Plan is 

activated, the platform can recover data from the vault to restore customer funds access as quickly 

as possible.” See At-A-Glance. Such “Restoration Platform” understands “a standardized set of 

data for brokerage or deposit accounts.” See Joint White Paper. As implemented, compliant 

systems establish corresponding storage units (or storage trees) in the vault. See, e.g., 

PowerProtect User Guide at 52; see also Solution Guide at 25 (describing data trees). The 

aggregated select content can include data, such as binaries, boot images, and backup catalogs. 

See, e.g., Solution Guide at 25. 

207. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of extracting said sensitive content from a 

data input to obtain extracted sensitive data for a corresponding sensitivity level and remainder 

data. 

208. The Accused Instrumentalities further comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of 

storing said extracted sensitive data for said corresponding sensitivity level in a respective secure 

extract store in said distributed computer system. More specifically, and on information and belief, 

and as discussed herein above and below, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise a system in 

which the data storage vault stores select content for a designated set of account data, which 

includes binaries and backups. 

209. As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the 

plurality of designated categorical filters are activated in order to obtain (extract) select content for 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 107 of 115 PageID #: 107
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 108

protective vaulting. Such vaulting places aggregated select content into corresponding data stores. 

The Sheltered Harbor standard requires compliant enterprises to “back up critical customer 

account data each night in the Sheltered Harbor standard format, either managing their own vault 

or using their service provider. The data vault [e.g., corresponding data store] is encrypted, 

unchangeable, and completely separated from the institution’s infrastructure, including all 

backups.” See At-A-Glance. Compliant enterprises further “designate a restoration platform so 

that if the Sheltered Harbor Resiliency Plan is activated, the platform can recover data from the 

vault to restore customer funds access as quickly as possible.” See At-A-Glance. Such 

“Restoration Platform” understands “a standardized set of data for brokerage or deposit accounts.” 

See Joint White Paper. As implemented, compliant systems establish corresponding storage units 

(or storage trees) in the vault. See, e.g., PowerProtect User Guide at 52; see also Solution Guide 

at 25 (describing data trees). The aggregated select content can include data, such as binaries, boot 

images, and backup catalogs. See, e.g., Solution Guide at 25. 

210. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of storing said extracted sensitive data for 

said corresponding sensitivity level in a respective secure extract store in said distributed computer 

system. 

211. The Accused Instrumentalities further comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of 

extracting said select content from either said data input or said remainder data and storing 

extracted select content in said select content data stores. More specifically, and on information 

and belief, and as discussed herein above and below, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise a 

system in which extracted select data is stored in the secure data vault, while non-extracted data is 

stored on the production side (i.e., outside the data vault) in a plurality of data stores. 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 108 of 115 PageID #: 108
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 109

As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the 

plurality of designated categorical filters are activated in order to obtain (extract) select content for 

protective vaulting. See, e.g., Dell Sheltered Harbor Solution Brief (illustrating the compliant 

information infrastructure, which includes data extraction in the production environment and 

secure storage in the data vault, as excerpted below:)

212. Further, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires compliant enterprises to “back up critical customer 

account data each night in the Sheltered Harbor standard format, either managing their own vault 

or using their service provider.” See At-A-Glance. As implemented, remainder data is stored in a 

plurality of granular data stores, including production and backup systems. See Dell Digital Vault 

Solution at 7 (describing process of pulling data from backup storage on the production side); see 

also Dell PowerProtect Solution Brief (illustrating multiple granular data stores for non-extracted 

parsed data), as reproduced below: 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 109 of 115 PageID #: 109
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 110

see also Solution Guide at 26 (“In the production environment, backups of applications and their 

data, including image-level backups, are typically performed daily. Backups are made to one or 

more PowerProtect DD MTrees on the production PowerProtect DD system”).

213. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of extracting said select content from either 

said data input or said remainder data and storing extracted select content in said select content 

data stores. 

214. The Accused Instrumentalities further comprise an apparatus which directly results in the creation 

of sanitized sensitive content data and select content data from the non-extracted data from said 

select content extraction and remainder data from said sensitive content extraction. More 

specifically, and on information and belief, and as discussed herein above and below, the Accused 

Instrumentalities comprise a system in which sensitive account data is extracted for secure storage 

in a data vault, thereby creating sanitized storage versions of the data. 

215. As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the 

plurality of designated categorical filters are activated in order to obtain (extract) select content for 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 110 of 115 PageID #: 110
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 111

protective vaulting. Further, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires compliant enterprises to “back 

up critical customer account data each night in the Sheltered Harbor standard format, either 

managing their own vault or using their service provider.” See At-A-Glance. This process results 

in the creation of sanitized sensitive content data and select content data from the non-extracted 

data from said select content extraction and remainder data from said sensitive content extraction. 

Indeed, the express purpose of the Sheltered Harbor standard is to “protect public confidence in 

the U.S. financial system if a devastating event like a cyberattack causes an institution’s critical 

systems – including backups – to fail.” See At-A-Glance (further stating that Sheltered Harbor 

was created “to promote the stability of U.S. financial markets by protecting critical account 

information of market participants in order to facilitate recovery of such information”).

216. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of parsing remainder data not extracted 

from data processed by said cloud-based system and storing the parsed data in respective granular 

data stores.

217. The Accused Instrumentalities further comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of 

inferencing said sanitized sensitive content data and select content data with (a) a content filter, 

(b) a contextual filter, and (c) a taxonomic filter; and obtaining an inferenced sensitive content data 

and an inferenced select content data therefrom. More specifically, and on information and belief, 

and as discussed herein above and below, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise a system in 

which filters are utilized for the inferencing of content. 

218. As noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems in which the 

plurality of designated categorical filters are activated in order to obtain (extract) select content for 

protective vaulting. As noted, the Sheltered Harbor standard is premised on the extraction of 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 111 of 115 PageID #: 111
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 112

critical financial account information, which is then converted into Sheltered Harbor’s industrystandard format. See, e.g., Operating Rules at Exhibit 1 thereof. As implemented, this includes 

the selection of protection policies by the enterprise, and the selection of conditions for each such 

policy. See Virtual Machine User Guide at 57. Protection rules are one exemplary embodiment 

of such categorical filters, which can be implemented in a variety of functionally equivalent ways 

to achieve the same result; namely, the filtering of data for inclusion in designated storage. By 

way of example, in the certified Dell PowerProtect system, “a rule with the filters VM Folder 

Name, Contains, and Finance can match assets belonging to your finance department to the 

selected protection policy.” See Virtual Machine User Guide at 58. The use of such protection 

rules and attributes for filtering content is a type of categorical filter implementation. See Virtual 

Machine User Guide at 58-59 (detailing use of Protection Rule Attributes, Conditions, Criteria, 

and Filters (e.g., “contains,” “does not contain,” “does not equal,” “ends with,” “equals,” “matches 

RegEx,” and “does not match RegEx”)).

219. Further, and as noted above, the Sheltered Harbor standard requires, and is satisfied by, systems 

in which critical financial account information is extracted and converted into Sheltered Harbor’s 

industry-standard format. See, e.g., Operating Rules at Exhibit 1 thereof. As implemented, the 

extracted information is either contextually or taxonomically associated. As explained by the 

inventors: “A simple classification system (hierarchical taxonomic system) can be established by 

reviewing the label descriptions on the structured data and then expanding class definitions with 

the use of the Knowledge Expander (KE) search engine. [...] The hierarchical taxonomic system 

can be used to build contextual filters and taxonomic filters which can further protect Sec-Con 

data and expand the value and quantity of SC data.” See ’301 Patent at 10:22-32. In practice, 

Sheltered Harbor systems allow for the grouping of tags using metadata or any of a number of 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 112 of 115 PageID #: 112
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 113

functionally equivalent means of achieving the same result; namely, the filtering of data for 

inclusion in designated storage. By way of example, in the certified Dell PowerProtect system, 

virtual machine tags are created in the “vSphere Client.” Such virtual tags enable the enterprise to 

attach metadata to virtual inventory assets, making them easier to sort and search. See Virtual 

Machine User Guide at 56. Tags are grouped within categories, which can further include specific 

object types. See Virtual Machine User Guide at 56-58 (describing tag creation and protection 

rules). The use of tag grouping, including by the use of metadata, is an implementation of 

contextually or taxonomically associated data.

220. Still further, and as noted above, Sheltered Harbor compliant systems analyze (inference) content 

with such contextual and taxonomic filters in order to obtain the inferenced sensitive and select 

content. As implemented, for example, in the compliant Dell PowerProtect system, content scans 

are performed. See, e.g., Dell Technical White Paper entitled: Zero-Trust, A Key Framework in 

Dell Technologies’ Overall Data Protection Strategy, available at: www.delltechnologies.com

/asset/en-us/products/security/industry-market/zero-trust-whitepaper.pdf (as visited October 20, 

2023) (hereafter as “Zero-Trust”), at 7-9 (explaining data analytics and full replication in the data 

vault).

221. In view of the foregoing, and on information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities thus 

comprise an apparatus which directly performs the step of inferencing said sanitized sensitive 

content data and select content data with (a) a content filter, (b) a contextual filter, and (c) a 

taxonomic filter; and obtaining an inferenced sensitive content data and an inferenced select 

content data therefrom.

222. The foregoing infringement on the part of Defendant has caused past and ongoing injury to 

Plaintiff. The amount of damages adequate to compensate for the infringement shall be determined 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 113 of 115 PageID #: 113
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 114

at trial but is in no event less than a reasonable royalty from the date of first infringement to the 

expiration of the ‘639 Patent.

223. To the extent Defendant continues, and has continued, its infringing activities noted above in an 

infringing manner post-notice of the ‘639 Patent, such infringement is necessarily willful and 

deliberate.

224. Each of Defendant’s aforesaid activities have been without authority and/or license from Plaintiff.

COUNT V 

Knowledge and Willfulness

225. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs by reference. 

226. Defendant has been on actual notice of the DigitalDoors Patents since at least as early as the date 

it received service of this Original Complaint.

227. On information and belief, Defendant has a policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of 

others. Further on information and belief, Defendant instructs its employees to not review the 

patents of others for clearance or to assess infringement thereof. As such, Defendant has been 

willfully blind to the patent rights of Plaintiff.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, DigitalDoors, Inc. respectfully requests the Court enter judgment against 

Defendant as follows: 

1. Declaring that Defendant has infringed the Asserted Patent(s); 

2. Awarding DigitalDoors, Inc. its damages suffered because of Defendant’s infringement of 

the Asserted Patent(s); 

3. Awarding DigitalDoors, Inc. its costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and interest; 

4. Granting a permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, enjoining Defendants from 

further acts of infringement with respect to the Asserted Patent(s); 

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 114 of 115 PageID #: 114
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 115

5. Awarding DigitalDoors, Inc. ongoing post-trial royalties for infringement of the nonexpired Asserted Patent(s); and

6. Granting DigitalDoors, Inc. such further relief as the Court finds appropriate. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff DigitalDoors, Inc. respectfully demands trial by jury, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 38. 

Dated: November 21, 2023 Respectfully Submitted

/s/ M. Scott Fuller 

M. Scott Fuller

 Texas Bar No. 24036607 

 Georgia Bar No. 100968 

 sfuller@ghiplaw.com 

Randall Garteiser 

 Texas Bar No. 24038912 

 California Bar No. 239829 

 rgarteiser@ghiplaw.com 

Christopher A. Honea 

 Texas Bar No. 24059967 

 California Bar No. 232473 

 chonea@ghiplaw.com 

GARTEISER HONEA, PLLC

119 W. Ferguson Street 

Tyler, Texas 75702 

Telephone: (903) 705-7420 

Facsimile: (888) 908-4400 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

DIGITALDOORS, INC.

Case 2:23-cv-00541-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/21/23 Page 115 of 115 PageID #: 115