Damaka, Inc. v. The Cigna Group et al.

This patent infringement lawsuit, Damaka, Inc. v. The Cigna Group et al., involves Damaka, Inc. asserting U.S. Patent 9,270,744 against healthcare giant The Cigna Group and its subsidiary, Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc.. Damaka, Inc. is described as a technology leader and innovator in mobile unified communication and collaboration (UCC) solutions, holding over 100 patents in areas like peer-to-peer and voice and data networking. While Damaka offers products like Collaboration SDKs, Triton, Moca, Nirvana, and VCare, its extensive patent portfolio and pattern of filing lawsuits against large operating companies like Cigna and Cisco suggest it may operate as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or a company heavily focused on licensing its intellectual property. The defendants, The Cigna Group and Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc., are part of a global managed healthcare and insurance company providing a wide array of medical, dental, behavioral, and related services.

The technology allegedly infringed by Cigna is its MDLIVE application, including all versions and variants for desktop, Android, iOS, and iPad, dating back to 2019. MDLIVE provides telehealth services, allowing users to consult with doctors and mental health professionals via phone or video for urgent care, routine care, and specialist consultations. The sole patent explicitly identified in the case metadata is U.S. Patent 9,270,744, titled "Systems and methods for supporting multiple communication modalities in a network environment". This patent generally pertains to technologies facilitating diverse communication methods within a networked setting.

The case was filed on May 29, 2025, in the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, case number 2:25-cv-00594, and has been assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The Eastern District of Texas is a significant venue for patent litigation, historically known as a "rocket docket" favored by plaintiffs for its expedited schedules and plaintiff-friendly reputation. The case is notable for several reasons: it represents an assertion by a potentially prolific patent owner (Damaka) against a major player in the rapidly expanding digital health and telemedicine industry, indicating the increasing intersection of patent litigation with healthcare technology. Furthermore, Damaka has filed a parallel lawsuit against Cisco Systems (2:25-cv-00593) asserting related patents, and at least one of Damaka's patents (U.S. Patent 9,027,032, asserted in the companion Cisco case and also implicated in the Cigna case) is already subject to an Inter Partes Review (IPR2026-00206) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, signaling ongoing challenges to the validity of Damaka's intellectual property.

The patent infringement litigation, Damaka, Inc. v. The Cigna Group et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00594, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on May 29, 2025. The case is currently active and pending.

Here's a summary of the key legal developments to date:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint Filed: Damaka, Inc. initiated the lawsuit on May 29, 2025, alleging patent infringement against The Cigna Group and Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc. The patent explicitly at issue as per the prompt is U.S. Patent No. 9,270,744. Publicly available information also indicates that four other patents, US11576046B2, US9027032B2, US9578092B2, and US11930362B2, are involved in the broader dispute.
  • Case Assignment: On June 1, 2025, the case was assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. A U.S. Magistrate Judge is available to conduct proceedings, including trial, and enter final judgment.
  • Answer/Counterclaims: Details regarding The Cigna Group's answer or any counterclaims filed are not readily available in the provided public search results.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • As of the current date, specific docket entries detailing substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending Inter Partes Review (IPR) are not available through the conducted web searches.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • There is no public record available from the searches indicating that the case has reached the claim construction (Markman) stage or that any Markman order has been issued.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • Specific strategic discovery milestones are not publicly available from the conducted searches.

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

  • Given the case's filing date of May 29, 2025, and its current open status, the litigation has not yet proceeded to trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • The case remains open, and there is no public record of a settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • While one of Damaka's other patents, U.S. Patent No. 9,027,032 (also listed as involved in the broader litigation, though not the primary focus of this request), is the subject of an IPR petition (IPR2026-00206) filed by Cisco Systems, Inc., which lists this district court case as a related matter, no parallel PTAB IPR or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings specifically challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,270,744 have been found through the conducted searches. PTAB proceedings allow challengers to contest patent validity based on anticipation and obviousness, among other grounds, providing an alternative to district court litigation.

Damaka, Inc. is represented by a team of experienced patent litigators from two firms: Russ August & Kabat and Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC.

Here are the details for the identified counsel:

Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)

• Marc A. Fenster - Lead Counsel.

  • Firm & Office: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience: Co-chair of Litigation and chair of the Patent Litigation department at Russ August & Kabat, which he founded in 2003. Mr. Fenster is a first-chair trial lawyer specializing in high-technology patent litigation. He has been lead counsel in numerous patent cases, securing significant jury verdicts, including a $7.3 million verdict against Apple and a $19 million judgment against Hyundai. He was also involved in securing a $175 million jury verdict against Verizon and a $279 million jury verdict against Samsung for Headwater Research. He is consistently ranked among the top patent and intellectual property lawyers.

• James N. Pickens - Counsel.

  • Firm & Office: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience: Partner in RAK's patent litigation group. Mr. Pickens has performed direct examinations for expert witnesses on patent infringement in five jury trials, all resulting in infringement verdicts for RAK's clients. His notable cases include assisting in jury verdicts against Google LLC and ecobee Inc. for EcoFactor, Inc.

• Jason M. Wietholter - Counsel.

  • Firm & Office: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience: Partner at Russ August & Kabat, focusing on high-technology patent and intellectual property litigation. He has participated in multiple jury trials, including contributing to a $175 million jury verdict against Verizon and a $279 million jury verdict against Samsung for Headwater Research.

Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX)

• Michael E. Jones - Local Counsel.

  • Firm & Office: Potter Minton, Tyler, TX (Note: While search results primarily associate Michael E. Jones with Potter Minton and Jones Intellectual Property in New York, Ward, Smith & Hill is a Longview, TX firm. A Michael E. Jones is listed with Potter Minton in Tyler, TX, and is known for patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, which suggests a local counsel role for Damaka in this district).
  • Experience: Mr. Jones tries lawsuits in state and federal courts, with an emphasis on intellectual property litigation. He has successfully tried cases to verdict for both plaintiffs and defendants, including obtaining a plaintiff's jury verdict in a patent case for Halliburton, which was noted as a Top Ten Verdict by Verdict Search Texas. He has also obtained numerous defense verdicts in patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Johnny Ward - Of Counsel.

  • Firm & Office: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, TX.
  • Experience: Name partner at Ward, Smith & Hill, widely known for major trial victories against large companies in intellectual property and commercial litigation.

• Wesley Hill - Counsel.

  • Firm & Office: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, TX.
  • Experience: Recognized for his courtroom success in patent cases and has litigated matters involving business disputes and breaches of contract.

• Charles Everingham IV - Of Counsel.

  • Firm & Office: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, TX.
  • Experience: Former Eastern District of Texas magistrate judge, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in patent infringement cases across various industries.

• Andrea Fair - Counsel.

  • Firm & Office: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, TX.
  • Experience: Recognized for excellence in intellectual property litigation, having secured multimillion-dollar verdicts in patent infringement cases, including an $847 million result against Verizon and a $121.95 million jury verdict against Amazon.

• T. John Ward - Of Counsel.

  • Firm & Office: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, TX.
  • Experience: Former U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, who presided over hundreds of patent cases and more than 150 jury trials. His practice now focuses on patent and complex commercial cases, mediation, and arbitration.

It is important to note that effective October 1, 2024, Johnny Ward, Wesley Hill, and Bruce Smith were scheduled to end their trial practices, with the remaining firm members continuing under the name Miller Fair Henry. Judge T. John Ward and Charles Everingham IV were to remain Of Counsel with the firm. Given that the current date is May 29, 2026, it is possible the attorneys still involved from this firm operate under the new firm name.

The defendants, The Cigna Group and Cigna Healthcare of Texas, Inc., are represented by attorneys from Fish & Richardson P.C., primarily from their Dallas office.

Here is the identified counsel for the defendants:

• Ricardo Joel Bonilla

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX
  • Note: Mr. Bonilla is a principal at Fish & Richardson and has extensive experience in patent litigation across various technologies.

• Jared Alexander Smith

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX
  • Note: Mr. Smith is a principal at Fish & Richardson, focusing on patent litigation, post-grant proceedings, and intellectual property counseling.

• Shelby Elizabeth Farrand

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX
  • Note: Ms. Farrand is an associate at Fish & Richardson, concentrating her practice on patent litigation in federal district courts and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

• Neil J. McNabnay

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX
  • Note: Mr. McNabnay is a principal at Fish & Richardson, with significant experience in patent litigation, including jury trials and appeals to the Federal Circuit.

• Rodeen Talebi

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX
  • Note: Ms. Talebi is an associate at Fish & Richardson, whose practice includes patent litigation in various U.S. district courts and before the PTAB.