Jack Henry files suit to block Florida company patent actions

Monett-based financial technology company Jack Henry & Associates Inc. (Nasdaq: JKHY) on Feb. 16 filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri in Joplin seeking to block Miami Beach, Florida, technology firm DigitalDoors Inc. from enforcing four of DigitalDoors’ software patents.

All four asserted patents cited in Jack Henry’s lawsuit list their inventor as Ron M. Redlich in online records kept by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Redlich is listed as registered agent for DigitalDoors in Florida secretary of state business records.

In court papers, plaintiff Jack Henry stated that it is not infringing the defendant’s information technology patents and asked the court for a declaratory judgment finding the patents invalid and not infringed, under federal intellectual property law.

Jack Henry’s legal argument portrayed DigitalDoors as a highly litigious firm. A review by Springfield Business Journal of online federal court databases shows that since fall 2023, DigitalDoors has filed over 60 patent cases across the U.S., with myriad banks named as defendants. More than a dozen of those cases were consolidated, court records show.

In its 24-page, eight-count mid-February lawsuit complaint, Jack Henry argued that many of those banking industry defendants have operations or customers in the Western District of Missouri. The company, which has a large operation in Springfield in addition to its Monett headquarters, also referenced recent accusations DigitalDoors made in at least two of those numerous patent cases brought by the Florida firm.

For example, federal court records show that on Feb. 1, in a patent lawsuit the Florida company brought in April 2025 against Uniondale, New York-based Flushing Bank, DigitalDoors accused Jack Henry and industry peers Dell and FIS of having “developed and sold specific product lines … expressly designed to implement these [patent] infringing functionalities, generating billions of dollars in revenue attributable to the features claimed in the DigitalDoors patents.”

DigitalDoors in that Feb. 1 filing cited Jack Henry’s SecurePort software solution for Sheltered Harbor compliance as allegedly violating patents it holds. Sheltered Harbor, according to its website, is a not-for-profit banking industry initiative for voluntary cybersecurity standards.

SecurePort, according to a Jack Henry company news release, is a product launched in 2021 to assist banks to “prepare for a worst-case scenario that could cause an institution's crucial systems and backups to fail.”

In its complaint, Jack Henry argues that DigitalDoors is a “non-practicing patent entity,” a type of company that does not make and sell services or products that would realize their patented technologies, according to Stanford Law School, but instead generates revenue by licensing, selling or enforcing patent rights. Jack Henry’s lawsuit further states that “the primary purpose of DigitalDoors’ business is to enforce patent portfolios.”

Jack Henry also states in its lawsuit that in the Flushing Bank case, “DigitalDoors admitted in signed court filings that compliance with ‘Sheltered Harbor’ standards does not, in and of itself, necessarily lead to infringement of the asserted patents.”

Jack Henry’s lawsuit also states that its company representatives believe that “DigitalDoors granted licenses to numerous former defendants that permit those defendants and their customers to practice the asserted patents.”

Jack Henry’s lawsuit additionally makes arguments about the four patents asserted by DigitalDoors, stating the Florida company’s patent claims are too “indefinite” to withstand scrutiny under U.S. law governing patents and intellectual property.

The Monett company asks Magistrate Judge W. Brian Gaddy for a declaratory judgment against DigitalDoors finding that no Jack Henry product infringes any of the four DigitalDoors patents cited in the suit, and that all claims related to those four patents be deemed invalid.

Jack Henry also asked for attorneys’ fees linked to its case and any additional relief from DigitalDoors deemed just and proper. The Monett company’s lawsuit complaint does not mention any specific dollar amounts it seeks from the Florida company.

According to the online court docket, on Feb. 18 the case was noted for inclusion in the federal court system’s mediation and assessment program. According to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, the MAP is the district court’s alternative dispute resolution program for civil lawsuits.

SBJ is seeking comment from DigitalDoors and its legal counsel but had not heard back from email and phone messages by publication time for this report.

Jack Henry’s attorney Jay Heidrick told SBJ on Feb. 26 that the company has no comment on pending litigation.