Untitled case

This patent infringement lawsuit, Damaka, Inc. v. The Cigna Group et al., case number 2:25-cv-00594, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff, Damaka, Inc., is a secure communication solutions provider and an innovator in mobile unified communication and collaboration (UCC), offering products such as mobile video conferencing and real-time collaboration tools. Damaka asserts that it holds over 100 patents in the areas of Peer-to-Peer, UCC, voice, and data networking. The defendants, The Cigna Group and Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc., are part of a global healthcare and insurance company that provides medical, dental, and other health benefits, and also operates a health services platform including pharmacy benefit management. The accused products in this case are "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." MDLIVE is a telehealth platform, which Cigna utilizes for digital health solutions.

The lawsuit asserts infringement of five U.S. patents against Cigna: 9,027,032, 11,576,046, 9,578,092, 11,930,362, and 9,270,744. These patents generally cover methods for communication, and audio and video (A/V) capabilities on computers, including mobile devices and computer applications. Specifically, U.S. Patent No. 9,027,032, titled "System and method for peer-to-peer unified communication and collaboration," was filed in 2013 and issued in 2015. The specific technical sketches for the other patents are not detailed in the available snippets but are broadly related to unified communication and collaboration technologies.

The case is being heard by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically popular for patent plaintiffs due to several perceived marginal advantages, including the timing of discovery, transfer decisions, and claim construction. While the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision in 2017 led to a decline in patent filings in the Eastern District of Texas, it still remained the top patent district for overall and NPE (non-practicing entity) litigation in 2025 and Q1 2026. This case is notable not only for being filed by Damaka, which appears to be an NPE or PAE given its focus on licensing and asserting a large patent portfolio, but also due to parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the PTAB initiated by Cisco Systems Inc. challenging the validity of patent 9,027,032 and others. The outcome of these IPRs could significantly influence the district court litigation, and Damaka has already sought discretionary denial of institution in one IPR, arguing for settled expectations due to the patent's age.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Damaka, Inc. v. The Cigna Group et al.

Case Caption: 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
Status: Litigation (Open)
Patents at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 9,027,032 (along with US11576046B2, US9578092B2, US11930362B2, and US9270744B2)

This patent infringement lawsuit was filed by Damaka, Inc. against The Cigna Group and Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. The case involves multiple patents related to the dispute, including US Patent 9,027,032.

Chronological Summary of Legal Developments:

2025

• May 29, 2025 (or May 30, 2025): Complaint Filed. Damaka, Inc. initiated the patent infringement lawsuit against The Cigna Group and Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,027,032, among others.
• June 1, 2025: Case Assigned to Judge. The case was assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• August 15, 2025: Last docket activity recorded on this date in a compilation of E.D. Tex. cases, indicating the case was still active.

2026

• January 13, 2026: Parallel PTAB IPR Petition Filed. Cisco Systems Inc. filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Damaka Inc. (Patent Owner), challenging the validity of US Patent 9,027,032 (as well as US11576046B2, US11930362B2, US9270744B2, and US9578092B1) under PTAB case number IPR2026-00210. This IPR proceeding is likely related to a co-pending district court litigation, Damaka, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00593.
• March 20, 2026: Patent Owner Files Request for Discretionary Denial of Institution. In IPR2026-00211 (which involves patent 12,279,116 but references related cases), Damaka, Inc. filed a request for discretionary denial of institution, referencing the co-pending district court litigation against The Cigna Group (2:25-cv-00594) and Cisco Systems (2:25-cv-00593). Damaka argued that the challenged patent (9,027,032) was filed in 2013 and issued in 2015, establishing settled expectations.
• March 22, 2026: Motion to Dismiss in Related Case. In the related case Damaka, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (2:25-cv-00593), Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a partial motion to dismiss Damaka, Inc.'s first amended complaint.
• October 27, 2026: Markman/Claim Construction Hearing Set. A Markman (claim construction) hearing is scheduled for this date.

Outcome and Present Posture:

The case is currently in the pre-trial phase and is marked as "OPEN". A Markman hearing is set for late 2026, indicating active litigation. There has been no verdict, settlement, or final judgment recorded.

Parallel IPR proceedings are active at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of patent 9,027,032, initiated by Cisco Systems Inc.. Damaka, Inc. has filed for discretionary denial of institution in one of these IPRs, arguing against the need for the PTAB to proceed with a review due to the age of the patent and settled expectations. The outcome of these IPRs could significantly impact the district court litigation.

Counsel Identified for Plaintiff Damaka, Inc.

The plaintiff, Damaka, Inc., in the patent infringement case 2:25-cv-00594 in the Texas Eastern District Court, is represented by attorneys from Fish & Richardson P.C. and Fabricant LLP, as well as local counsel.

Here is a breakdown of the identified counsel:

Fish & Richardson P.C.

• Ricardo Joel Bonilla
  • Role: Lead Counsel (assumed, given firm's national patent litigation presence)
  • Firm & Office Location: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX
  • Experience Note: Mr. Bonilla is a principal at Fish & Richardson and focuses on patent litigation, with experience representing both patentees and accused infringers across various technologies.
• Jared Alexander Smith
  • Role: Lead Counsel (assumed)
  • Firm & Office Location: Fish & Richardson, Dallas, TX
  • Experience Note: Mr. Smith is a principal at Fish & Richardson, specializing in patent litigation in district courts and before the PTAB, particularly in the electrical and software arts.
• Shelby Elizabeth Farrand
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX
  • Experience Note: Ms. Farrand is an associate at Fish & Richardson with experience in patent litigation.
• Neil J. McNabnay
  • Role: Lead Counsel (assumed)
  • Firm & Office Location: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX
  • Experience Note: Mr. McNabnay is a principal at Fish & Richardson, focusing on patent litigation across various technologies, and has extensive experience in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Rodeen Talebi
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX
  • Experience Note: Ms. Talebi is an associate at Fish & Richardson, working on patent infringement matters.

Fabricant LLP

• Jacob Daniel Ostling
  • Role: Lead Counsel (assumed, given firm's national patent litigation presence)
  • Firm & Office Location: Fabricant LLP, Rye, NY
  • Experience Note: Mr. Ostling is a partner at Fabricant LLP, with a practice focused on intellectual property litigation.
• Alfred Ross Fabricant
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Fabricant LLP, New York, NY
  • Experience Note: Mr. Fabricant is a founding partner of Fabricant LLP and a highly experienced patent litigator, known for representing patent holders in complex disputes.
• Vincent J. Rubino, III
  • Role: Lead Counsel (assumed)
  • Firm & Office Location: Fabricant LLP, New York, NY
  • Experience Note: Mr. Rubino is a partner at Fabricant LLP, concentrating his practice on intellectual property litigation.
• Peter Lambrianakos
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Fabricant LLP, New York, NY
  • Experience Note: Mr. Lambrianakos is an attorney at Fabricant LLP, involved in patent infringement litigation.

Truelove Law Firm

• Justin Kurt Truelove
  • Role: Local Counsel (common practice in EDTX for national firms)
  • Firm & Office Location: Truelove Law Firm, Tyler, TX (East Texas)
  • Experience Note: Mr. Truelove is a well-known local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas, frequently appearing in patent cases in the district.

As of today, May 29, 2026, the specific counsel of record representing the defendant(s), The Cigna Group and Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc., in the patent infringement case Damaka, Inc. v. The Cigna Group et al. (Case No. 2:25-cv-00594, Eastern District of Texas) cannot be definitively identified from publicly available search results.

While the case has been confirmed as a patent infringement lawsuit concerning US patent 9027032 (among others), and the defendants are clearly identified, no specific law firms or individual attorneys have been listed in the provided search snippets as having entered an appearance for The Cigna Group or Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc. in this particular case.

Information regarding counsel for The Cigna Group in other legal matters, such as healthcare litigation or antitrust lawsuits, is available, and Andrea Nelson serves as EVP, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary for The Cigna Group. However, this general counsel information or details from other cases do not specify the legal representation for this particular patent infringement suit. Docket aggregators and USPTO filings related to the patent at issue list the case but do not provide the defendant's legal team details. It is possible that the filings listing defense counsel are behind a PACER paywall or the case is still in early stages where such details have not been widely reported.