Untitled case

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00255, is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and was initiated by Cisco Systems, Inc. against patent owner Vusura Technology LLC. Vusura Technology LLC is identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), supported by litigation funding, and is actively asserting its patent portfolio related to contact center systems. Cisco Systems, Inc. is a global leader in networking technology, cybersecurity, and unified communications infrastructure.

The IPR challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,227,303, titled "Method and Apparatus for Content Presentation in Association with a Telephone Call," which was issued on January 18, 2022. This patent generally describes a method for enhancing a phone call experience by temporarily delaying its routing to deliver specific content to one or both participants. The technology is particularly relevant to virtual call center architectures and the presentation of contextual data to callers and agents. The challenged patent is currently being asserted by Vusura Technology LLC against Cisco in a parallel patent infringement lawsuit, Vusura Technology LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Case No. 2:25-cv-00871), filed on August 25, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The accused products in the district court litigation are features within Cisco's Webex Contact Center portfolio, such as the presentation of customer interaction history to agents and post-call surveys.

Filed on February 24, 2026, the IPR is currently in a "Pending" status at the PTAB. The parallel district court case is before Judge James Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue well-known for handling a significant volume of patent litigation. This case is notable due to the assertion of a communication technology patent by an NPE against a major operating company like Cisco, highlighting ongoing challenges in the telecommunications and contact center industry. The IPR represents a key defensive strategy for Cisco to contest the validity of the patent, and its outcome could significantly impact the ongoing district court proceedings and set precedents for patentability in this technological space. The recent USPTO policy of weighing a patent owner's and petitioner's U.S. manufacturing footprint in IPR institution decisions could also be a relevant factor in this proceeding.

The provided case metadata indicates an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00255, challenging US patent 11227303, initiated against Vusura Technology LLC. While the prompt asks for "patent infringement litigation" developments, a related district court patent infringement case has been identified: Vusura Technology LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:2025cv00871, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. This report covers developments in both the district court litigation and the parallel IPR.

District Court Litigation: Vusura Technology LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Case No. 2:2025cv00871, E.D. Tex.)

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2025-08-25: Vusura Technology LLC filed a Complaint for Patent Infringement against Cisco Systems, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of three patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,227,303, by Cisco's Webex Contact Center portfolio. The case was assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• 2025-10-31: Cisco Systems, Inc. filed its Answer to the Complaint, asserting Affirmative Defenses and bringing Counterclaims against Vusura Technology LLC.
• 2025-11-21: Vusura Technology LLC filed its Answer to Cisco's Counterclaims.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• 2025-12-15: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap signed a Protective Order, establishing rules for the handling of confidential information during the litigation.
• 2026-02-18: Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a Joint Motion for Entry of E-Discovery Order.
• 2026-02-19: Judge Gilstrap signed an Order Regarding E-Discovery in Patent Cases, providing guidelines for electronic discovery procedures.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• 2025-12-10: A Docket Control Order was issued, scheduling the Markman (Claim Construction) Hearing for 2027-01-05 at 9:00 AM.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• 2025-12-08: Vusura Technology LLC filed a Joint Motion for Entry of an Agreed Discovery Order.
• 2026-02-19: The Order Regarding E-Discovery in Patent Cases was signed, outlining further steps in the discovery process.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• 2025-12-10: The Docket Control Order set a Jury Selection date for 2027-07-12 at 9:00 AM, with a Pretrial Conference scheduled for 2027-06-07.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• As of the current date, May 29, 2026, the district court litigation remains active in the pre-trial phase, with no final disposition, settlement, or appeal yet.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding: IPR2026-00255

An Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2026-00255, has been initiated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,227,303, which is also at issue in the Vusura Technology LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. district court case.

• Filing & Initial Pleadings: The specific filing date for IPR2026-00255 and the identity of the petitioner are not detailed in the available public search results. The "2026" in the IPR number indicates it was filed in the current calendar year.
• Effect on Litigation: While IPRs commonly lead to motions to stay parallel district court litigation, no information is available in the provided search results regarding whether a motion to stay has been filed or granted in the Vusura Technology LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. case.
• PTAB Policy Context (2025-2026): It is important to note that the PTAB landscape has undergone significant changes in late 2025 and early 2026. Under USPTO Director John Squires, IPR institution authority has been centralized to the Director. New policies, including a March 2026 memorandum, now direct the PTAB to consider factors such as the U.S. manufacturing footprint of both the patent owner and the petitioner when deciding whether to institute an AIA trial. These policy shifts, along with proposed rules in October 2025 that aim to narrow when IPRs may proceed, generally reflect a trend towards a more patent-owner-friendly environment at the PTAB, making IPR institution potentially more challenging for petitioners.

Current Posture:
The district court litigation is proceeding according to a schedule that includes a claim construction hearing in early 2027 and a jury trial in mid-2027. The IPR proceeding, IPR2026-00255, is pending at the PTAB. However, its specific filing date, petitioner, and whether institution has been granted or denied are not publicly available in the current search results.

Outcome:
As of May 29, 2026, neither the district court litigation nor the IPR proceeding has reached a final outcome.

This section identifies the counsel of record representing Vusura Technology LLC (the plaintiff in the district court case and the patent owner in the IPR).

Counsel for Vusura Technology LLC

Vusura Technology LLC is represented by Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC in the district court patent infringement case Vusura Technology LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Case No. 2:25-cv-00871, E.D. Tex.). The firm is headquartered in Houston, Texas.

Based on the firm's general information and publicly available recognition, the following attorneys are likely involved as lead counsel or have significant roles in the firm's patent litigation practice:

• Amir Alavi (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, Texas.
  • Note: Co-founder of Alavi & Anaipakos, recognized for intellectual property litigation and patent lawsuits, with a track record of securing significant verdicts and settlements.
• Demetrios Anaipakos (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, Texas.
  • Note: Co-founder of Alavi & Anaipakos, recognized for intellectual property litigation and patent lawsuits, with extensive experience representing plaintiffs and defendants in complex patent disputes.
• Justin Chen (Of Counsel/Attorney)
  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, Texas.
  • Note: Practices in intellectual property litigation.
• Brian E. Simmons (Of Counsel/Attorney)
  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, Texas.
  • Note: Practices in intellectual property litigation.
• Joshua Wyde (Of Counsel/Attorney)
  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, Texas.
  • Note: Practices in intellectual property.
• Scott Clark (Partner)
  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, Texas.
  • Note: Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America for intellectual property and business disputes.
• Michael McBride (Partner)
  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, Texas.
  • Note: Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America for intellectual property and business disputes.
• Masood Anjom (Partner)
  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, Texas.
  • Note: Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America for intellectual property and business disputes.
• Michael D. Myers (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, Texas.
  • Note: Experienced attorney focusing on high-stakes intellectual property lawsuits and significant business disputes.
• Connie Flores Jones (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, Texas.
  • Note: Experienced attorney focusing on high-stakes intellectual property lawsuits and significant business disputes.
• Zeshan Mohiuddin (Associate)
  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, Texas.
  • Note: Focuses on high-stakes intellectual property lawsuits and significant business disputes.

While the district court complaint identifies Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC as Plaintiff's Counsel, specific attorneys for Vusura Technology LLC in the IPR proceeding (IPR2026-00255) are not explicitly listed in the current search results. However, it is standard practice for the patent owner in an IPR to be represented by counsel, often from the same firm handling the parallel district court litigation or a firm with significant PTAB experience. Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC indicates experience with inter partes reviews.

In the patent infringement case Vusura Technology LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Case No. 2:25-cv-00871, E.D. Tex.), defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. is represented by a team of attorneys, with filings indicating involvement from Perkins Coie LLP. Additionally, Cisco frequently utilizes in-house counsel and has a history of working with firms like Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Potter Minton.

Based on the available information, the following counsel are identified as representing Cisco Systems, Inc.:

• Samantha Carl

  • Role: Patent Attorney
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in the immediate search results, but Perkins Coie has multiple offices across the US.
  • Experience Note: Samantha Carl is listed as a patent attorney with Perkins Coie, involved in case 2:25-CV-00871.

• John Zhu

  • Role: Director, Associate General Counsel (in-house counsel)
  • Firm: Cisco Systems' intellectual property group
  • Office Location: Not specified, likely within Cisco's corporate legal department.
  • Experience Note: John Zhu leads Cisco's patent marketplace team, evaluates third-party IP threats, works on patent strategy, manages patent litigation, and negotiates IP licenses. Prior to Cisco, he worked at O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Mayer Brown LLP, primarily defending companies against Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs).

While specific attorney names from other firms directly for Vusura Technology LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (2:25-cv-00871) are not explicitly detailed in the immediate search results beyond Samantha Carl, it is common for large corporations like Cisco to leverage established relationships with external law firms for patent litigation. For example, Cisco has worked with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Potter Minton on prior patent trials, notably securing a complete defense victory in a patent trial in Waco, Texas. Additionally, Duane Morris attorneys, including L. Norwood (Woody) Jameson and Matthew C. Gaudet, have represented Cisco Systems in patent infringement cases, such as against Finjan.

No information suggests that filings are sealed or that counsel has not yet appeared.