IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Md.: Failure to identify accused system or device that allegedly infringed patents is fatal to claim, (Mar 3, 2026)

By Robert Margolis, J.D.

DigitalDoors alleged EagleBank infringed patents related to data security systems, by implementing “systems and methods for processing data in a distributed system” in accordance with industry standards for protecting privacy and continuity of client data.

Finding that plaintiff DigitalDoors, Inc., failed to identify the specific system or device used by defendant EagleBank that infringed its patents, the federal district court in Greenbelt, Maryland has granted a motion to dismiss DigitalDoors’ amended complaint asserting patent infringement claims. Citing DigitalDoors’ “vague factual allegations” and “information and belief” pleading, the court held that the amended complaint failed to give EagleBank the requisite notice of the accused product or system. In addition, the court found general allegations that systems complying with the industry-created Sheltered Harbor Data Vaulting Initiative (“Sheltered Harbor”) violate DigitalDoors’ patents, do not suffice to allege an infringement claim, because, inter alia, Sheltered Harbor is not an industry standard and EagleBank’s system is not Sheltered Harbor compliant (DigitalDoors, Inc. v. EagleBank, No. 8:24-cv-03792-LKG (D. Md. Feb. 27, 2026)).

Bank data security. DigitalDoors owns several patents, which it alleges “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.” The patents-at-issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 9,015,301 (“the ’301 Patent”); 9,734,169 (“the ’169 Patent”); 10,182,073 (“the ’073 Patent”); and 10,250,639 (“the ’639 Patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”).

DigitalDoors alleges the Government mandates that financial institutions “oversee cybersecurity safeguards and ensure the privacy and continuity of client data.” To that end, Sheltered Harbor was founded by 34 financial institutions. DigitalDoors alleges cybersecurity systems complying with Sheltered Harbor or a functional equivalent meet Government cybersecurity regulatory requirements. It further alleges that while the Sheltered Harbor specification is not a formal regulation enforced by any regulatory body, and therefore not mandated in the industry, it has become a “strongly-encouraged, industry-led standard.”

Infringement allegations. The amended complaint that EagleBank has infringed the Asserted Patents by making, owning, operating, using, or otherwise exercising “control over systems and methods for processing data in a distributed system which are collectively compliant with the Sheltered Harbor specification.” It further alleges that EagleBank’s “systems and methods” provide “substantially equivalent functionality … in a substantially similar way … to achieve the same results” as Sheltered Harbor compliant systems. DigitalDoors further alleges, on “information and belief,” that EagleBank’s “systems and methods” are “implemented … in the form of a plurality of interconnected storage systems, which are comprised of hardware (including servers) and software (including source code).” DigitalDoors does not identify or name a specified EagleBank product or system it alleges infringes the Asserted Patents. Further, it is undisputed EagleBank does not use a Sheltered Harbor-compliant system.

Failure to identify. The above-described allegations failed to support a patent infringement claim, the court held, because DigitalDoors did identify any infringing products or systems made, used, or sold, by EagleBank, and therefore failed to provide sufficient notice of the accused infringement. Under well-settled Federal Circuit precedent, a plaintiff must allege a specific product or service that is being accused of infringing asserted patent(s). DigitalDoors’ general allegations of unidentified system components functioning in a certain way to achieve an objective, does not identify the accused product or system. And “information and belief” allegations about unspecified systems or products infringing a plaintiff’s asserted patents are insufficient. Consequently, the court dismissed the patent infringement claims.

Sheltered Harbor compliance. As an additional reason to dismiss the claims, the court also held DigitalDoors’ general allegations that Sheltered Harbor-compliant systems infringe the Asserted Patents do not plausibly allege infringement. Under Federal Circuit law, a plaintiff cannot rely on compliance with an industry standard to show patent infringement, when the standard can be met by multiple implementations. A plaintiff must show that the asserted patent covers every possible implementation of the industry standard, or (1) compare the accused product to the claims in the patent or (2) prove the accused products implement the relevant optional sections of the standard. Here, DigitalDoors could not meet this threshold.

First, DigitalDoors acknowledges that Sheltered Harbor is not, in fact, an industry standard, since banks like EagleBank are not required to be Sheltered Harbor-compliant to meet Government security and data regulations. Moreover, it is undisputed that EagleBank does not use a Sheltered Harbor-compliant system.

Second, DigitalDoors does not allege facts sufficient to show that every possible implementation of the Sheltered Harbor industry standard (even assuming it is an industry standard), infringes the Asserted Patents. In a separate, similar lawsuit, EagleBank’s counsel effectively conceded that it is possible for a system to comply with Sheltered Harbor without infringing the Asserted Patents. Finally, the court found no allegations in the amended complaint comparing the claims to the accused products or proving the accused products implement relevant operational sections of the standard.

The Case is No. 8:24-cv-03792-LKG.

Judge: Griggsby, L.

Attorneys: Joseph J. Zito (DNL Zito) for Digital Doors, Inc. Alissa E. Green (Garrett & Dunner, LLP) for Eagle Bank.

Companies: Digital Doors, Inc.; Eagle Bank

Cases: Patent MarylandNews