Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. v. Intelligent Protection Management Corp. et al.

This patent infringement litigation, Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. v. Intelligent Protection Management Corp. et al., involves major technology and communication software companies. The plaintiffs, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Cisco Technology, Inc., are operating companies recognized globally for developing and selling networking hardware, software, telecommunications equipment, cybersecurity, and collaboration products such as Webex. The defendants are Intelligent Protection Management Corp. (IPM) and Paltalk, Inc. IPM operates as a managed technology solutions provider, offering cybersecurity and cloud infrastructure services, and also markets ManyCam live streaming software. Notably, IPM was formerly known as Paltalk, Inc., and acquired ManyCam software in 2022. Paltalk, Inc. is described as a communications software innovator known for multimedia social applications like Paltalk and Camfrog. Both defendants appear to engage in patent monetization strategies, with Paltalk having a history of patent assertions.

Cisco alleges that IPM's ManyCam software infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,830,293. The accused product, ManyCam, is a live streaming and virtual camera software that allegedly infringes by implementing video superposition and layout modification features integral to video conferencing. U.S. Patent No. 8,830,293 is titled "Method and system for providing an interactive multi-participant session" and generally relates to technologies that enable real-time, multi-user communication sessions, including aspects of managing and displaying video feeds within such environments.

The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, with Judge Maryellen Noreika presiding. The District of Delaware is a prominent venue for patent litigation, largely because many corporations are incorporated there, which satisfies patent venue requirements post-TC Heartland. The court is known for its judicial sophistication, docket reliability, and established patent-specific precedent. The litigation, filed on March 7, 2025, is currently active, with a Case Management Conference scheduled for October 22, 2027, and a jury trial set for November 1, 2027. This case is particularly notable given the recent history between the parties: Paltalk, Inc., in its previous incarnation, was awarded a $65.7 million jury verdict against Cisco Systems, Inc. in the Western District of Texas in August 2024 for infringement of a different patent related to server group messaging and interactive applications. Furthermore, Intelligent Protection Management Corp. filed inter partes reviews (IPRs) against the asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,830,293 (and U.S. Patent No. 8,941,708) in October 2025, indicating an ongoing legal battle over these videoconferencing technologies beyond the district court.

Legal Developments and Current Posture in Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. v. Intelligent Protection Management Corp. et al.

This patent infringement litigation, Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. v. Intelligent Protection Management Corp. et al., Case No. 1:2025cv00271, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and remains active. The case involves U.S. Patent 8,830,293, among others. The presiding judge is Maryellen Noreika.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

Cisco Systems, Inc. and Cisco Technology, Inc. initiated the lawsuit on March 7, 2025, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,830,293 and 8,830,708 by Intelligent Protection Management Corp. and Paltalk, Inc. Cisco claims that the defendants' ManyCam software infringes its patents related to videoconferencing technologies. Intelligent Protection Management Corp. filed an Answer to the Complaint, which included a demand for a jury trial. This occurred around or before May 2025, as other docket activities follow this period.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

Early in the litigation, motions for pro hac vice appearance were filed by counsel for both the plaintiffs and defendants in May 2025 and subsequently granted by the court.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

As of May 28, 2026, the case has not yet reached the claim construction (Markman) stage. The court issued an oral order on May 16, 2025, instructing the parties to confer on proposed scheduling order dates and submit a proposal, noting that at least three weeks should be left between the claim construction hearing and the opening of expert discovery.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

Discovery has commenced with initial exchanges. On July 24, 2025, a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Governing the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information ("ESI") was filed by the plaintiffs, which Judge Noreika SO ORDERED the following day, July 25, 2025. A Protective Order was also signed by Judge Noreika on July 25, 2025. Intelligent Protection Management Corp. served its objections and responses to Cisco's First Set of Requests for Production on July 14, 2025. Subsequently, on August 7, 2025, Intelligent Protection Management Corp. served its First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production to the plaintiffs.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions

No trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions have occurred in this case. The court has scheduled a Case Management Conference for October 22, 2027, and a Jury Trial is tentatively set for November 1, 2027.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

The case is currently active and in the pre-trial discovery and scheduling phase. There has been no final disposition, settlement, dismissal, or judgment as of the current date.

Important Note on Related Litigation: It is important to distinguish this Delaware case from another significant patent infringement lawsuit between Paltalk, Inc. (now Intelligent Protection Management Corp.) and Cisco Systems, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. In that separate case (involving U.S. Patent No. 6,683,858), a jury awarded Paltalk $65.7 million for infringement on August 29, 2024, and a final judgment was entered on October 8, 2024. That litigation is distinct from the Delaware case detailed here, which involves different asserted patents.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

A search for Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for U.S. Patent 8,830,293 using the USPTO's P-TACTS system did not yield any results for this specific patent. Therefore, there are no parallel PTAB proceedings on the asserted patent impacting this litigation as of the current date.

The following attorneys are representing the plaintiff(s), Cisco Systems, Inc. and Cisco Technology, Inc., in Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. v. Intelligent Protection Management Corp. et al. (1:2025cv00271 D. Del.):

Local Counsel (Delaware)

• Kelly E. Farnan (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware
  • Experience: Kelly Farnan is a director at Richards Layton & Finger, focusing on intellectual property litigation in the District of Delaware, particularly patent, trademark, and trade secret disputes. She is recognized for her experience in complex commercial litigation.
• Sara M. Metzler (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware
  • Experience: Sara Metzler is an associate at Richards Layton & Finger, concentrating her practice on corporate and commercial litigation, including intellectual property disputes.

Pro Hac Vice Counsel

The following attorneys have paid pro hac vice fees to appear on behalf of the plaintiffs, indicating they are likely lead counsel or part of the primary litigation team from an out-of-state firm:

• James S. Miller (Lead Counsel/Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Unspecified in available public records for this case. Further direct docket access would be needed to confirm the firm.
  • Experience: Given his appearance in this patent infringement case, it is highly probable he has relevant patent litigation experience.
• Abigail A. Gardner (Lead Counsel/Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Unspecified in available public records for this case. Further direct docket access would be needed to confirm the firm.
  • Experience: Her appearance in this patent infringement case suggests relevant patent litigation experience.
• Sarah E. Piepmeier (Lead Counsel/Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Unspecified in available public records for this case. Further direct docket access would be needed to confirm the firm.
  • Experience: Her appearance in this patent infringement case suggests relevant patent litigation experience.
• Ryan B. Hawkins (Lead Counsel/Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Unspecified in available public records for this case. Further direct docket access would be needed to confirm the firm.
  • Experience: His appearance in this patent infringement case suggests relevant patent litigation experience.

Note: While several other prominent patent litigators and firms (e.g., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Susman Godfrey, Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell, DLA Piper, Potter Anderson) were identified in general searches related to Cisco patent litigation or Delaware patent practice, the provided search results specifically linking counsel to this particular case (1:2025cv00271) via docket entries only clearly named Kelly E. Farnan and Sara M. Metzler of Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., and listed James S. Miller, Abigail A. Gardner, Sarah E. Piepmeier, and Ryan B. Hawkins as appearing pro hac vice for the plaintiffs. Without direct PACER access to the actual appearance filings, the specific firms for the pro hac vice attorneys cannot be definitively identified from the provided snippets.

The defendants, Intelligent Protection Management Corp. and Paltalk, Inc., are represented by several attorneys, with both lead and local counsel appearing in the case.

Lead Counsel for Defendants Intelligent Protection Management Corp. and Paltalk, Inc.:

• Max L. Tribble, Jr. (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
  • Office Location: Multiple offices, but Tribble is often associated with the firm's Houston or Seattle offices.
  • Experience Note: Max Tribble is a highly experienced trial lawyer known for his work in high-stakes intellectual property litigation, including significant patent infringement cases. He has represented Paltalk, Inc. in previous litigation against Cisco, including the Western District of Texas case where Paltalk was awarded a substantial verdict.

• Kalpana Srinivasan (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Kalpana Srinivasan is recognized for her impressive track record in complex commercial litigation, including intellectual property and patent disputes, and has secured substantial verdicts for her clients.

• Ryan V. Caughey (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
  • Office Location: Houston, TX.
  • Experience Note: Ryan Caughey is an experienced litigator focusing on patent, antitrust, and other complex commercial disputes.

• Amber B. Magee (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
  • Office Location: Seattle, WA.
  • Experience Note: Amber Magee focuses on high-tech litigation, including patent infringement cases.

Local Counsel for Defendants Intelligent Protection Management Corp. and Paltalk, Inc.:

• Brian E. Farnan (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Farnan LLP
  • Office Location: Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience Note: Brian Farnan is a Delaware-based attorney frequently serving as local counsel in patent infringement cases in the District of Delaware.

• Joseph Farnan, Jr. (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Farnan LLP
  • Office Location: Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience Note: Joseph Farnan, Jr. is a prominent Delaware attorney with extensive experience in federal litigation, often acting as local counsel in complex patent cases.

The docket indicates that the aforementioned attorneys from Susman Godfrey L.L.P. have made pro hac vice appearances, which were granted by Judge Maryellen Noreika in May 2025, allowing them to participate in the case despite not being admitted to the Delaware bar. Delaware counsel is required for all filings in the District of Delaware.