Cisco Systems Inc v. Damaka Inc

The case IPR2026-00210, Cisco Systems Inc v. Damaka Inc, concerns a petition for inter partes review (IPR) filed by Cisco Systems Inc. against U.S. Patent No. 9,270,744 owned by Damaka Inc.. This IPR is part of a larger patent dispute, as Damaka Inc. has accused Cisco of infringing multiple patents in a co-pending district court case, Damaka, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Case No. 2:25-cv-00593-RWS-RSP) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, filed on May 30, 2025..

Cisco Systems Inc. is a multinational technology conglomerate based in San Jose, California, known for developing, manufacturing, and selling networking hardware, software, telecommunications equipment, and other high-technology services, including videoconferencing and collaboration products like Webex.. Damaka Inc. is a Richardson, Texas-based company founded in 2004 that specializes in mobile unified communication and collaboration (UCC) solutions, offering products such as Collaboration SDKs, Triton, Moca, Nirvana, and VCare.. Damaka asserts ownership of over 100 patents in this field.. The accused products in the underlying district court litigation are "all versions and variants of the Cisco Web and Mobile A/V Applications, and Cisco's A/V SDKs," specifically including the Webex Application and Webex SDKs across various platforms (iOS, Android, web browser, Windows, Mac, Linux).. The '9,270,744 patent, although not detailed in the provided IPR2026-00210 snippet, is related to "methods for communication, and audio and video ('A/V') capabilities on computers ('computer' is inclusive of mobile devices) and computer applications," as described for the broader patent family asserted by Damaka.. The IPR challenges claims of the '9,270,744 patent for unpatentability, likely based on obviousness over prior art..

The procedural posture is an inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). This venue is critical because IPRs provide an administrative mechanism for challenging the validity of issued patents on grounds of novelty or obviousness, often serving as a parallel or alternative to district court litigation. The PTAB proceeding, IPR2026-00210, was filed on January 13, 2026.. The associated district court case in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue known for its active patent docket, has District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III, and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne presiding.. The linkage between the IPR and the ongoing district court case is notable, as successful invalidation of the patent claims at the PTAB could resolve the infringement dispute in the district court.. Furthermore, Cisco has highlighted that Damaka is a software company with no U.S. manufacturing operations, contrasting with Cisco's own American manufacturing efforts, which may be a factor in arguments regarding discretionary denial of IPR institution.. The fact that the PTAB denied institution for IPR2026-00210 for a related patent (US Patent No. 11,930,362) on May 6, 2026, suggests that the outcome of this IPR is not guaranteed and demonstrates the strategic interplay between district court litigation and PTAB challenges.. However, the prompt refers to IPR2026-00210 for patent 9270744, while the search result links IPR2026-00210 to patent 11930362 and shows institution denied for that patent. This indicates that there might be a discrepancy or multiple IPRs filed under similar case numbers, or the original prompt's patent number for IPR2026-00210 might be incorrect. Given the direct citation from the IPR document in search result that states IPR2026-00210 is for patent 11,930,362, and search result also links IPR2026-00210 to patent 11930362 and notes institution denied for that patent, there is a conflict with the prompt which states the patent at issue is 9270744. I will proceed with the information from the search results for IPR2026-00210, noting the discrepancy.

Re-evaluating based on the discrepancy:
The prompt states "Case number: IPR2026-00210" and "Patents at issue: 9270744".
However, search result states "Case #: IPR2026-00210; Patent #: 11,930,362" and details the IPR petition for patent 11,930,362.
Search result also links IPR2026-00210 to patent 11930362 and states "Decision Outcome: Institution Denied" on "2026 May 06".
Other search results and confirm that patent 9,270,744 is one of six patents asserted by Damaka against Cisco in the district court case 2:25-cv-00593.
It is highly probable that the original prompt has an error and IPR2026-00210 is actually directed to U.S. Patent No. 11,930,362, not 9,270,744. Given the operating rules "Treat the case metadata in this prompt as authoritative; if web search contradicts it, prefer the metadata for party names, court, case number, and patents at issue.", I must treat 9270744 as the patent at issue for IPR2026-00210 even if the search results for that IPR case number point to a different patent. This is a significant contradiction.

To address this, I will clearly state the contradiction and base my answer on the prompt's provided patent number (9270744) for IPR2026-00210, while acknowledging the search results which indicate IPR2026-00210 is actually for 11,930,362 and institution was denied for that IPR. I will have to search for patent 9270744's technical sketch.

Let me re-do the patent sketch for 9270744. I need to search for "US Patent 9270744 abstract".
It is also worth noting that search result mentions IPR2026-00208 for patent 9,578,092 which also lists the district court case Damaka, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00593. This means there are likely multiple IPRs by Cisco against Damaka's patents asserted in the district court case.

Given the strict instruction to prefer metadata from the prompt, I will assume that the IPR2026-00210 mentioned in the prompt is for US Patent 9270744, even though search results for that IPR case number indicate it is for US Patent 11930362. I will need to search for the technical sketch of US Patent 9270744.The case IPR2026-00210, Cisco Systems Inc v. Damaka Inc, involves an inter partes review (IPR) petition filed by Cisco Systems Inc. against U.S. Patent No. 9,270,744 owned by Damaka Inc.. This IPR is part of a broader patent dispute, as Damaka Inc. has accused Cisco of infringing several patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,270,744, in a co-pending district court case, Damaka, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Case No. 2:25-cv-00593-RWS-RSP) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, filed on May 30, 2025..

Cisco Systems Inc. is a prominent American multinational technology conglomerate known for developing, manufacturing, and selling networking hardware, software, telecommunications equipment, and high-technology services, particularly in the areas of networking, cybersecurity, and collaboration tools like Webex.. Damaka Inc., based in Richardson, Texas, is a company founded in 2004 that focuses on mobile unified communication and collaboration (UCC) solutions, holding a portfolio of over 100 patents in this field.. Damaka offers products and services including Collaboration SDKs, Triton, Moca, Nirvana, and VCare.. The accused products in the underlying district court litigation are "all versions and variants of the Cisco Web and Mobile A/V Applications, and Cisco's A/V SDKs," specifically targeting the Webex Application and Webex SDKs across various operating systems and platforms.. U.S. Patent No. 9,270,744, titled "System and method for providing additional functionality to existing software in an integrated manner," generally describes methods and systems for enhancing functionality in software applications through modular "function blocks" that are integrated into a main "superblock application.".

The procedural posture for this case is an inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), with the petition filed on January 13, 2026. This IPR is a strategic move by Cisco to challenge the validity of Damaka's patent claims, potentially on grounds of novelty or obviousness, which could impact the ongoing infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas. The district court case is presided over by District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III, and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.. The case is notable for the interplay between district court litigation and PTAB challenges. Cisco, an operating company with significant U.S. manufacturing investments, is challenging patents held by Damaka, which it characterizes as a software company with no U.S. manufacturing operations.. While the prompt specifies Patent No. 9,270,744 for IPR2026-00210, publicly available information for IPR2026-00210 indicates that it was filed against U.S. Patent No. 11,930,362, and institution was denied on May 6, 2026, by the PTAB.. However, adhering to the provided case metadata, this overview focuses on the specified Patent No. 9,270,744 as the patent at issue for IPR2026-00210.

The patent infringement litigation between Damaka Inc. and Cisco Systems Inc. involves a district court case, Damaka, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Case No. 2:25-cv-00593-RWS-RSP), in the Eastern District of Texas, and parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Here are the key legal developments and outcomes in chronological order:

• 2025-05-30: District Court Complaint Filed
  Damaka Inc. initiated the patent infringement litigation by filing a complaint against Cisco Systems Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint, Case No. 2:25-cv-00593-RWS-RSP, asserts infringement of six patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,270,744. Damaka accuses Cisco's Webex Application and Webex SDKs, across various platforms, of infringing these patents.

• 2025-11-13: Damaka's Infringement Contentions
  Damaka served its Infringement Contentions in the district court case, detailing its allegations that Cisco's products infringe claims 20-27 of U.S. Patent No. 9,270,744, among other patents.

• 2025-12-05: Docket Control Order, Markman Hearing Set, Discovery Orders
  Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne issued a Docket Control Order in the district court case. This order initially set the Markman/Claim Construction Hearing for October 27, 2025. Additionally, the court granted motions for a discovery order and a protective order, formalizing the framework for information exchange in the litigation.

• 2026-01-12: Cisco Files IPR2026-00206
  Cisco Systems Inc. filed IPR2026-00206 against Damaka, Inc. A publicly available status for this IPR indicates "Discretionary Denial." This IPR also references the underlying district court litigation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00593.

• 2026-01-13: Cisco Files IPR2026-00210 (Patent Discrepancy Noted)
  Cisco Systems Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review, IPR2026-00210, against Damaka Inc. (Note on Discrepancy: While the provided case metadata in the prompt states that IPR2026-00210 is for U.S. Patent No. 9,270,744, publicly available PTAB records for this specific IPR case number (IPR2026-00210) consistently indicate that it was filed against U.S. Patent Application No. 18/099,175, which corresponds to U.S. Patent No. 11,930,362.)

• 2026-01-15: Cisco's Priority Date Challenge
  Cisco sent a letter to Damaka asserting that its Webex products predate the earliest priority date of the patents asserted by Damaka in the district court case.

• Undated (Reset): Markman Hearing Reset for 2026-10-27
  The Markman/Claim Construction Hearing in the district court case, originally set for October 27, 2025, was subsequently reset for October 27, 2026.

• 2026-05-06: Institution Denied for IPR2026-00210
  The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision denying institution for IPR2026-00210 (the IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,930,362, as per PTAB records for this IPR case number).

• 2026-05-29: Current Posture
  As of today, the district court case, Damaka, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Case No. 2:25-cv-00593-RWS-RSP), remains active and is proceeding through its pre-trial schedule. A pretrial conference is scheduled for March 22, 2027, and jury selection is set for April 19, 2027. No inter partes review specifically targeting U.S. Patent No. 9,270,744 by Cisco was found in the search results at this time. Cisco has also filed IPR2026-00211 against Damaka's U.S. Patent No. 12,279,116, which is also referenced in the district court litigation.

Cisco Systems Inc., the petitioner in IPR2026-00210, is represented by attorneys from Haynes and Boone, LLP. The firm's office in Dallas, Texas, is listed as the primary location for these attorneys.

The counsel of record identified for Cisco Systems Inc. include:

• Theodore M. Foster

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Relevant Experience: Theodore M. Foster is a registered patent attorney (Reg. No. 57,456) and is designated as Lead Counsel for Cisco in multiple IPRs against Damaka Inc.. His practice at Haynes and Boone focuses on intellectual property litigation, including patent litigation and post-grant proceedings before the PTAB.

• David L. McCombs

  • Role: Back-up Counsel
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Relevant Experience: David L. McCombs is a seasoned intellectual property litigator and registered patent attorney (Reg. No. 32,271) known for his work in patent disputes. He has extensive experience representing clients in federal courts and before the PTAB in various technology sectors.

• Calmann J. Clements

  • Role: Back-up Counsel
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Relevant Experience: Calmann J. Clements is a registered patent attorney (Reg. No. 66,910) at Haynes and Boone, involved in patent litigation and post-grant review proceedings.

• Brett Bostrom

  • Role: Back-up Counsel
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Relevant Experience: Brett Bostrom is a registered patent attorney (Reg. No. 73,009) at Haynes and Boone, with experience in patent litigation and IPR proceedings.

• Dagim Tilahun

  • Role: Back-up Counsel
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Relevant Experience: Dagim Tilahun is a registered patent attorney (Reg. No. 75,722) practicing patent litigation at Haynes and Boone, including matters before the PTAB.

• Matthew Beck

  • Role: Back-up Counsel
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Relevant Experience: Matthew Beck is a registered patent attorney (Reg. No. 79,791) at Haynes and Boone, involved in intellectual property disputes and PTAB proceedings.

In-house counsel at Cisco Systems Inc. also play a significant role in managing patent litigation, including PTAB matters. For instance, John Zhu is a Director and Associate General Counsel in Cisco's intellectual property group, involved in managing patent litigation and strategy [cite: 2 (from prior search)]. Sarita Venkat is another key in-house counsel, serving as VP & Deputy General Counsel of Global Litigation at Cisco, with extensive experience in patent and commercial litigations worldwide. [cite: 7 (from prior search)]

It is important to note a discrepancy: the case metadata provided stated the patent at issue as 9270744. However, all search results for IPR2026-00210 consistently identify U.S. Patent No. 11,930,362 as the patent challenged in this IPR. Furthermore, the PTAB has issued a "Decision Outcome: Institution Denied" for IPR2026-00210 as of May 6, 2026.

Damaka Inc., the Patent Owner in IPR2026-00210, is represented by attorneys from Fabricant LLP. While direct counsel information for IPR2026-00210 specifically wasn't immediately available in a single definitive search result, related IPRs filed by Cisco Systems, Inc. against Damaka, Inc. (e.g., IPR2026-00206 and IPR2026-00211) explicitly identify Damaka's counsel, and it is highly common for the same legal team to handle related IPRs for the same client.

The following attorneys represent Damaka Inc.:

• Jacob Ostling

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York
  • Experience Note: Ostling is registered with the USPTO (Reg. No. 77,624) and is noted as Lead Counsel for the Patent Owner (Damaka, Inc.) in related IPR proceedings against Cisco Systems, Inc.

• Alfred R. Fabricant

  • Role: Back-up Counsel (subject to motion to appear pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York
  • Experience Note: Alfred Fabricant is a named partner at Fabricant LLP and is frequently involved in patent litigation.

• Richard Cowell

  • Role: Back-up Counsel
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York
  • Experience Note: Cowell is registered with the USPTO (Reg. No. 79,143) and is listed as back-up counsel for Damaka, Inc. in related IPRs.

• Joseph M. Mercadante

  • Role: Back-up Counsel
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York
  • Experience Note: Mercadante is registered with the USPTO (Reg. No. 64,077) and is listed as back-up counsel for Damaka, Inc. in related IPRs.