On January 16, 2026, District Judge Sanket J. Bulsara (E.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant Flushing Bank’s motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), finding that Plaintiff DigitalDoors, Inc. (“DigitalDoors”) failed to identify an infringing product or service. DigitalDoors, Inc. v. Flushing Bank, No. 25-CV-1895 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2026).
DigitalDoors owns a series of patents covering methods for data processing, storage, and security. Id. at *1. The complaint alleges that Flushing Bank used software compliant with the Sheltered Harbor cybersecurity standard and that—by design—Sheltered Harbor Certified software necessarily infringes its patents. Id. at *2. However, DigitalDoors later conceded that the Sheltered Harbor Certified software that Flushing Bank used did not in fact infringe. Id. at *3. Flushing Bank moved to dismiss DigitalDoors’s complaint on grounds that its allegations failed to state a claim for patent infringement. Id. The Court granted Flushing Bank’s motion and held that DigitalDoors’s complaint: (1) failed to identify an accused product; and (2) could not plausibly allege infringement in view of its admission of non-infringement. Id. at *3–5.
First, the Court found that DigitalDoors failed to identify an actual accused product or service that infringes its patents. Id. at *3. The only product identified by the complaint was conceded to not be infringing. As such, the Court held that the complaint lacked any allegations of an actual accused product or service that infringes. Id. While DigitalDoors argued that Flushing Bank used other unidentified “systems and methods for processing data” that infringe its patents, the Court held that “[s]uch broad, indefinite allegations do not identify an actual accused product or service” and “cannot put Flushing Bank ‘on notice of what activity . . . is being accused of infringement.’” Id. at *4. (citation omitted).
Second, the Court found that even if DigitalDoors had identified an accused product, its complaint still lacked sufficient facts to plausibly allege infringement under the Twombly standard because its infringement theory—that using Sheltered Harbor Certified software necessarily infringes—was fatally undermined when it conceded that Flushing Bank’s use of that software does not infringe. Id. at *5. Accordingly, the Court held that DigitalDoors’s complaint failed to “nudge[] [its] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
Because DigitalDoors did not seek leave to amend its complaint, the Court granted Flushing Bank’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. Id.
The case is DigitalDoors, Inc. v. Flushing Bank, No. 25-CV-1895 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2026).
