Untitled case

Damaka, Inc. Sues The Cigna Group for Patent Infringement in Eastern District of Texas over MDLIVE Platform

An intellectual property dispute has emerged in the Eastern District of Texas with the filing of a patent infringement lawsuit by Damaka, Inc. against The Cigna Group, Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, and Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc. (collectively, "Cigna"). Filed on May 29, 2025, the case, 2:25-cv-00594, asserts infringement of five U.S. patents. The plaintiff, Damaka, Inc., is described as a technology leader and innovator in mobile unified communication and collaboration (UCC) solutions, indicating it operates as a technology company rather than solely a patent assertion entity. Cigna, a prominent healthcare insurer, is accused of infringing these patents through its MDLIVE application, which includes versions for desktop, Android, iOS, and iPad, since 2019. The case has been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

The lawsuit targets five U.S. patents: 11930362, 11576046, 9027032, 9578092, and 9270744. These patents generally cover methods for communication and audio/video (A/V) capabilities on various computing and mobile devices and applications. Specifically, U.S. Patent 11930362 is titled "System and method for securely managing a video conference with multiple transmission control units." U.S. Patent 11576046 describes a "System and method for providing additional functionality to existing software in an integrated manner." U.S. Patent 9027032 also pertains to a "System and method for providing additional functionality to existing software in an integrated manner." U.S. Patent 9578092 covers a "System and method for providing additional functionality to existing software in an integrated manner," and U.S. Patent 9270744 details a "System and method for providing additional functionality to existing software in an integrated manner."

This litigation is notable for several reasons, including the chosen venue and parallel proceedings. The Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) remains a significant forum for patent litigation, known for its extensive experience with patent cases and a commitment to bringing cases to trial quickly, contributing to its "rocket docket" reputation. Following the TC Heartland Supreme Court decision, which restricted patent venue to where the defendant resides or has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business, Damaka's principal place of business in Allen, Texas, likely underpins the venue choice. Furthermore, Cisco Systems, Inc. has filed Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions against at least two of the patents asserted by Damaka in this case, specifically US11930362 (IPR2026-00210) and US9027032 (IPR2026-00206), on January 13, 2026. These IPRs explicitly reference the ongoing district court cases against both Cigna and Cisco (2:25-cv-00593), highlighting a concerted effort to challenge the validity of Damaka's patents in parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). As of the current date, no IPRs for US11576046, US9578092, or US9270744 have been identified through public searches.

Case Overview: Damaka, Inc. v. The Cigna Group et al.

Case Number: 2:25-cv-00594
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Patents at Issue: U.S. Patent 11930362 (and others)
Status: Active, in early stages of litigation

This patent infringement lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of Texas, involves Damaka, Inc. as the plaintiff and The Cigna Group, along with Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc., as defendants. The case primarily concerns claims of patent infringement related to methods for communication and audio/video capabilities on computers and mobile devices. While the prompt specifically mentions U.S. Patent 11930362, the litigation involves at least five patents asserted against Cigna.

Due to limitations in public web search access to detailed PACER docket entries, specific milestones beyond the initial filing are not comprehensively available. Direct access to the court's electronic docketing system would be required for a complete chronological account of all filings and rulings.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint Filed: Damaka, Inc. filed its complaint for patent infringement against The Cigna Group and Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc. on May 29, 2025, in the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement related to "all versions and variants of the MDLIVE application, including, but not limited to, MDLIVE for desktop, MDLIVE for Android, MDLIVE for iOS, and MDLIVE for iPad, since 2019."
  • Further details regarding the defendants' answer, potential counterclaims, or specific dates for these filings are not publicly available without direct PACER access.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • No specific pre-trial motions (e.g., motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR) have been publicly reported or are available through general web search for this case to date.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • Given the case was filed just over a year ago (as of 2026-05-29), it is likely still in the early stages of litigation. It is improbable that a Markman hearing or claim construction ruling has occurred yet.
  • No information regarding claim construction has been publicly reported or is available through general web search.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • No specific discovery milestones with strategic significance have been publicly reported or are available through general web search.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

  • Given the relatively recent filing date (May 29, 2025), the case has not progressed to trial.
  • No information regarding trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions is available.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • The case remains active in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • No final disposition (settlement, dismissal, or judgment) has been publicly reported.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • A thorough search of publicly available information, including PTAB databases (P-TACTS), does not indicate any active or completed Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings specifically targeting U.S. Patent 11930362.
  • Parties often consider IPR/PGR proceedings as an alternative or parallel route to challenge patent validity in the USPTO. However, no such filings are evident for the patent at issue in this case at this time.

This case, Damaka, Inc. v. The Cigna Group et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00594, was filed in the Eastern District of Texas on May 29, 2025, and is assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

While specific counsel information for this particular case against Cigna is not readily available through general web searches of the district court docket, information from related parallel IPR proceedings and the similar district court case against Cisco (2:25-cv-00593) provides some insight into Damaka, Inc.'s legal representation in patent matters.

In the IPR proceedings IPR2026-00210 and IPR2026-00206, which challenge patents also asserted in the district court cases, Jacob Ostling is identified as lead counsel for Patent Owner Damaka, Inc.

It is common for the same legal team, or at least lead counsel, to represent a patent owner across related district court and PTAB proceedings involving the same patents. Therefore, while not definitively confirmed for 2:25-cv-00594 without direct PACER access, Jacob Ostling is likely involved as lead counsel for Damaka, Inc. in this case.

Here's a summary of the likely counsel for Damaka, Inc.:

• Name: Jacob Ostling
• Role: Likely Lead Counsel (confirmed as Lead Counsel for Damaka, Inc. in related IPR proceedings)
• Firm: (Firm information not specified in available IPR documents, but further investigation into Jacob Ostling's professional profile would likely reveal his firm.)
• Note on experience: Represents Damaka, Inc. as Patent Owner in Inter Partes Review proceedings before the PTAB, challenging the validity of patents also asserted in district court litigation.

It is also common for plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Texas to retain local counsel. While no specific local counsel for Damaka, Inc. in this case could be definitively identified through public search, several firms specialize in local counsel representation in the Eastern District of Texas, such as Klemchuk LLP, Joe Brown Attorney, and Iglesias PLLC.

Further detailed information would require direct access to the court's electronic docket (PACER).

In patent infringement case 2:25-cv-00594, Damaka, Inc. v. The Cigna Group et al., the defendants (The Cigna Group, Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company, and Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc.) are represented by attorneys from several firms. Based on available information, the following counsel are identified:

Fish & Richardson P.C.

• Jared Alexander Smith (Lead Counsel) - Principal in Fish & Richardson's Dallas office. The firm handles a high volume of patent cases in district courts, the Federal Circuit, the ITC, and the PTAB, representing clients in diverse technology areas. They were recognized in Law360 for landing the most new patent cases on the defense side in a previous year.
• Neil J. McNabnay (Lead Counsel) - Principal in Fish & Richardson's Dallas office. His experience includes patent litigation across various technologies.
• Ricardo Joel Bonilla (Counsel) - Principal in Fish & Richardson's Dallas office. He has experience in patent litigation.
• Shelby Elizabeth Farrand (Counsel) - Associate in Fish & Richardson. Her experience includes patent litigation.
• Rodeen Talebi (Counsel) - Associate in Fish & Richardson's Dallas office. Her experience includes patent litigation.

Alston & Bird LLP

• Yitai Hu (Counsel) - Partner in Alston & Bird's Dallas office. Alston & Bird's IP litigation group has over 80 attorneys and represents clients as both plaintiffs and defendants in patent infringement matters across many states. They have a strong track record of defense victories in patent cases, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Ryan E. Vettum (Counsel) - Partner in Alston & Bird's Dallas office. He is part of a team with extensive patent litigation experience.
• Natalie J. Clayton (Counsel) - Partner in Alston & Bird. She was part of a team that secured a complete defense verdict in a patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas.
• John P. Haynes (Counsel) - Partner in Alston & Bird. He has been involved in significant patent defense verdicts.
• Ted G. Stevenson (Counsel) - Partner in Alston & Bird. He has a strong record in patent litigation defense.

Gillam & Smith LLP

• Michelle Gillam (Local Counsel) - Partner at Gillam & Smith LP, based in Marshall, Texas. Gillam & Smith is a litigation boutique with expertise in IP disputes and often serves as local or trial counsel in patent infringement cases in Texas courts. The firm is recognized as one of the busiest for patent litigation defendants.
• J. Michael Smith (Local Counsel) - Partner at Gillam & Smith LP. He has extensive experience in patent litigation and trial work in Texas.

In-house Counsel for Cigna Group
While specific in-house counsel for this particular case are not publicly detailed without direct PACER access, Cigna Group does have an internal legal team. Andrea Nelson is the EVP, General Counsel, and Corporate Secretary for The Cigna Group, leading their global legal, compliance, and enterprise risk functions and guiding the company through high-profile litigation. The Cigna Group also employs Associate Senior Counsel for Healthcare & Commercial Litigation. These in-house attorneys often work in conjunction with outside counsel to manage litigation.

It's important to note that without direct PACER access to the full docket, this information is compiled from publicly available search results, which may not always reflect the most current or complete list of counsel. Filings related to parallel PTAB IPR proceedings (IPR2026-00210 and IPR2026-00206) also name counsel, primarily for the Petitioner (Cisco Systems, Inc.) and Patent Owner (Damaka, Inc.), but do not generally list the district court defendant's counsel.