Untitled case

Damaka, Inc., a technology company focused on mobile unified communication and collaboration (UCC) with a portfolio of over 100 patents, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against The Cigna Group, a major health services company. Damaka Inc. appears to operate as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE) in this context, given its business model of asserting patents against other companies. The alleged infringement targets Cigna's MDLIVE application, including its desktop, Android, iOS, and iPad versions, for offering virtual care services that incorporate audio and video communication capabilities.

The core of the dispute revolves around U.S. Patent No. 11,576,046, titled "System and method for providing additional functionality to existing software in an integrated manner." This patent generally describes an improved system and method for enhancing software application functionality, which involves a computing entity with a network interface, a processor, and memory storing instructions to achieve this. The litigation was initiated on May 30, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue widely recognized for its high volume of patent infringement cases and its fast-paced "rocket docket" reputation. This court is often favored by patent plaintiffs, including NPEs, due to its efficient case management, active juries, and history of significant jury awards, making it a critical forum for patent disputes. The specific judge assigned to this case is not explicitly identified in the readily available public search results.

This case is notable as part of a broader patent assertion campaign by Damaka Inc., which has also filed a parallel infringement lawsuit against Cisco Systems, Inc. (2:25-cv-00593) in the same court. The assertion against Cisco involves similar patents relating to communication and A/V capabilities, and has led to an associated inter partes review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2026-00211) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for a related patent, highlighting the multi-front nature of Damaka's enforcement strategy. The consistent filing of patent cases by NPEs in the Eastern District of Texas, as evidenced by its top ranking for NPE litigation in 2025 and Q1 2026, underscores the ongoing impact of these assertion patterns in the industry.

The patent infringement litigation for case 2:25-cv-00594 in the Texas Eastern District Court, concerning patent 11576046, is titled Damaka, Inc. v. The Cigna Group et al.. The case was filed on either May 29, 2025, or May 30, 2025. As of May 29, 2026, the case is active and appears to be in its early stages.

Here are the key legal developments and current posture:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Damaka, Inc. filed the patent infringement complaint against The Cigna Group et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on May 29, 2025, or May 30, 2025. The case involves patent infringement claims related to at least patent 11576046, among potentially five patents.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• No specific pre-trial motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR have been publicly identified in the provided search results as of May 29, 2026. This suggests the case is likely progressing through initial scheduling and discovery phases.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• There is no information available in the search results to indicate that the case has reached the claim construction (Markman) stage or that any outcomes from such a stage have been rendered.

Discovery Milestones:

• While detailed discovery milestones are not available without direct PACER access, the case would typically be in discovery given its filing date in mid-2025 and the current date of May 2026.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• The case has not reached the trial stage, and therefore, no verdict or post-trial motions have occurred.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case remains active and has not reached a final disposition such as settlement, dismissal, or judgment. There are no indications of an appeal.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• A search of the USPTO PTAB database for patent 11576046 did not reveal any active or concluded Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings as of May 29, 2026. Therefore, no PTAB proceedings have affected this litigation to date.

Here is the counsel of record representing Damaka, Inc. in Damaka, Inc. v. The Cigna Group et al. (2:25-cv-00594). While direct docket information for this specific case listing plaintiff's counsel was not readily available in public search results, information from the parallel case Damaka, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (2:25-cv-00593), which involves the same plaintiff and similar patents in the same court, provides strong indications of Damaka's legal representation. It is highly probable that the same legal team is handling both cases as part of a coordinated patent assertion strategy.

Counsel for Damaka, Inc. (Plaintiff):

• Alfred Ross Fabricant

  • Role: Lead counsel.
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, New York, NY office.
  • Experience Note: Alfred Fabricant is a founding partner of Fabricant LLP, specializing in patent litigation with extensive experience representing patent owners in complex technology disputes.

• Peter Lambrianakos

  • Role: Lead counsel.
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP.
  • Experience Note: Peter Lambrianakos is a partner at Fabricant LLP, focusing on patent litigation across various technologies in federal district courts.

• Jacob Daniel Ostling

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, NY office.
  • Experience Note: Jacob Ostling is an attorney at Fabricant LLP, engaged in patent litigation.

• Vincent J. Rubino, III

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, New York, NY office.
  • Experience Note: Vincent Rubino is an attorney at Fabricant LLP, practicing in patent litigation.

• Rudolph Fink, IV

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: The Davis Firm, P.C.
  • Experience Note: Rudolph Fink IV is an attorney associated with The Davis Firm, P.C., which is known for its patent litigation practice.

• Justin Kurt Truelove

  • Role: Local counsel.

  • Firm: Truelove Law Firm, Tyler, Texas.

  • Experience Note: Justin Truelove is a prominent patent litigator in the Eastern District of Texas, frequently serving as local counsel in patent cases.

  • Note on potential contradiction: The previous section on "Defendant representatives" identified Justin Kurt Truelove as "Likely local counsel" for The Cigna Group. However, the docket information for the parallel case Damaka, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (2:25-cv-00593) explicitly lists Justin Kurt Truelove as representing the plaintiff, Damaka, Inc.. It is highly unlikely for an attorney to represent both the plaintiff and the defendant in the same or closely related cases. Based on the direct listing in the parallel case, it is more probable that he represents Damaka, Inc. The prior attribution to Cigna may have been an error or based on general local counsel search results rather than a direct docket entry for this specific defendant.

Here is the counsel of record representing The Cigna Group in Damaka, Inc. v. The Cigna Group et al. (2:25-cv-00594):

Counsel for The Cigna Group (Defendant):

• Ricardo Joel Bonilla

  • Role: Likely lead or primary counsel.
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas office.
  • Experience Note: Bonilla is a principal at Fish & Richardson, focusing on patent litigation across various technologies, with experience in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Jared Alexander Smith

  • Role: Likely lead or primary counsel.
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Experience Note: Smith is a principal at Fish & Richardson, specializing in patent litigation in federal district courts and before the PTAB, particularly in software and technology-related cases.

• Neil J. McNabnay

  • Role: Likely lead or primary counsel.
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas office.
  • Experience Note: McNabnay is a principal at Fish & Richardson, whose practice includes patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas, and he is experienced in various technology sectors.

• Shelby Elizabeth Farrand

  • Role: Likely counsel.
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Experience Note: Farrand is an associate at Fish & Richardson, focusing on patent litigation in district courts.

• Rodeen Talebi

  • Role: Likely counsel.
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas office.
  • Experience Note: Talebi is an associate at Fish & Richardson, whose practice includes patent litigation.

• Justin Kurt Truelove

  • Role: Likely local counsel due to the location of his firm and the Eastern District of Texas venue.
  • Firm: Truelove Law Firm, Tyler, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Truelove is a patent litigator with experience in the Eastern District of Texas and has served as local counsel in numerous patent cases in the district.