US 11930362

Here is a concise summary of US patent 11930362:

Title: System and method for providing additional functionality to existing software in an integrated manner
Assignee: Damaka Inc
Inventors: Sivakumar Chaturvedi, Satish Gundabathula, Rashmi Hiremath
Filing Date: January 19, 2023
Issue Date: March 12, 2024
Abstract: An improved system and method are disclosed for improving functionality in software applications. In one example, the method includes a computing entity having a network interface, a processor, and a memory configured to store a plurality of instructions. The instructions include instructions for a superblock application having instructions for a function block included therein. The function block is configured to provide functions that are accessible to the superblock application via an application programming interface (API). The functions are provided within the superblock application itself and are accessible within the superblock application without switching context to another application on the computing entity.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a method for adding functionality to software on a computing device. It involves storing a "superblock application" and a "function block" within the device's memory. The function block provides additional features (like communication or data management) to the superblock application. The key aspect is that these new features are accessed by the superblock application through an Application Programming Interface (API) and are provided within the superblock application's display without requiring the user to switch to a different application.
• Independent Claim 12: This claim outlines a computing device designed to integrate additional software functionality. The device includes a processor, memory storing a "superblock application" and a "function block," and a network interface. Similar to Claim 1, the function block adds capabilities to the superblock application, which are accessed via an API and are presented within the superblock application itself, eliminating the need for context switching to another application.
• Independent Claim 22: This claim describes a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, perform a method. The method involves providing a "superblock application" and a "function block" in memory. The function block supplies additional functions to the superblock application via an API. These functions are integrated into the superblock application, allowing users to utilize them without navigating away from the superblock application to a separate application.

No specific information regarding US patent 11930362 was found in the CAFC 2026 dockets.The first step of searching the USPTO database for patent 11930362 was implicitly done by accessing the provided patent text, which is explicitly stated as "authoritative" and includes all the necessary bibliographic data (title, assignee, inventors, filing date, issue date, abstract) and the full claim text. Therefore, I already have the information for the summary and the independent claims.

The next part of the original plan was to search CAFC 2026 dockets. The search results for "US patent 11930362 CAFC 2026 dockets" did not specifically mention this patent number in relation to CAFC dockets for 2026. The search results provided general information about CAFC cases in April and May 2026, as well as Supreme Court IP docket information, but no direct hit for US11930362. Therefore, I will state that no information on CAFC 2026 dockets was found for this specific patent.

Now, I need to extract the specific information requested from the provided patent text and then summarize the independent claims.

Patent Text Analysis for Summary:

• Title: System and method for providing additional functionality to existing software in an integrated manner
• Assignee: Damaka Inc
• Inventors: Sivakumar Chaturvedi, Satish Gundabathula, Rashmi Hiremath
• Filing Date: 2023-01-19 (from "Filing date")
• Issue Date: 2024-03-12 (from "Publication date" and "Application granted")
• Abstract: "An improved system and method are disclosed for improving functionality in software applications. In one example, the method includes a computing entity having a network interface, a processor, and a memory configured to store a plurality of instructions. The instructions include instructions for a superblock application having instructions for a function block included therein. The function block is configured to provide functions that are accessible to the superblock application via an application programming interface (API). The functions are provided within the superblock application itself and are accessible within the superblock application without switching context to another application on the computing entity."

Claim Analysis: I will need to carefully read each independent claim from the provided full patent text to create a plain-language overview. I need to make sure I identify only independent claims.### US Patent 11930362: System and Method for Providing Additional Functionality to Existing Software in an Integrated Manner

Title: System and method for providing additional functionality to existing software in an integrated manner
Assignee: Damaka Inc
Inventors: Sivakumar Chaturvedi, Satish Gundabathula, Rashmi Hiremath
Filing Date: January 19, 2023
Issue Date: March 12, 2024
Abstract: An improved system and method are disclosed for improving functionality in software applications. In one example, the method includes a computing entity having a network interface, a processor, and a memory configured to store a plurality of instructions. The instructions include instructions for a superblock application having instructions for a function block included therein. The function block is configured to provide functions that are accessible to the superblock application via an application programming interface (API). The functions are provided within the superblock application itself and are accessible within the superblock application without switching context to another application on the computing entity.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a method executed by a computing entity. The method involves storing a "superblock application" and a "function block" in the device's memory. The function block contains instructions to provide additional functionalities to the superblock application. These functions are accessed by the superblock application through an Application Programming Interface (API) and are presented directly within the superblock application, eliminating the need for the user to switch to a different application on the computing entity.
• Independent Claim 12: This claim pertains to a computing device itself. The device includes a processor, a network interface, and a memory. The memory stores a "superblock application" and a "function block." The function block is configured to extend the capabilities of the superblock application, with these additional features being made available to the superblock application via an API. Crucially, these functionalities are designed to be accessible and displayable within the superblock application without requiring context switching to other applications.
• Independent Claim 22: This claim details a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores instructions. When these instructions are executed by a processor, they cause the computing entity to perform a method. This method includes providing a "superblock application" and a "function block" within the device's memory. The function block is designed to offer additional functions to the superblock application, which are accessed through an API. These functions are integrated and provided directly within the superblock application, ensuring that the user does not need to switch context to another application to use them.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
No information specifically referencing US patent 11930362 was found in the available CAFC 2026 dockets.

US Patent 11930362 is currently involved in the following litigation:

• Case 1:

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00594
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided information (the date 2025-03-14 is associated with a priority claim, not the case filing date).
  • Outcome/Status: Filed

• Case 2:

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
  • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00593
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided information (the date 2025-03-14 is associated with a priority claim, not the case filing date).
  • Outcome/Status: Filed

• Case 3:

  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
  • Case Number: IPR2026-00210
  • Filing Date: Not specified in the provided information.
  • Outcome/Status: Pending

Additionally, the patent family has "First worldwide family litigation filed". The provided information does not explicitly name the plaintiff(s) or defendant(s) for these cases.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 11930362. This proceeding resulted in an institution denied status due to discretionary reasons. This means the patent claims have not been adjudicated on their merits in an AIA trial, leaving them untested in this forum.

IPR2026-00210 — Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Damaka Inc

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-01-13
• Status: Discretionary Denial - The petition was denied institution by the PTAB on 2026-05-06.
• Judge panel: The specific judge panel for this denial is not detailed in publicly available search results. The Director of the USPTO now makes the decision on whether to institute IPRs, often issuing summary notices.
• Petition grounds: Specific details regarding the claims challenged, prior art asserted, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103) are not readily available in the provided search results or snippets for this specific IPR. IPRs generally only allow challenges based on prior art consisting of patents or printed publications under § 102 or § 103.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-05-06. The decision outcome was "Institution Denied." The specific reasoning for the discretionary denial for IPR2026-00210 is not detailed in the provided search results. However, recent trends show that the PTAB has adopted a more restrictive, policy-driven approach to IPR institution, including considerations like parallel district court litigation (Fintiv factors), real party in interest identification, and a new domestic-industry factor.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied. Federal Circuit review of institution decisions, particularly discretionary ones, is often barred.
• Defensive value: The patent owner successfully prevented the IPR from proceeding on discretionary grounds, meaning the claims of US11930362 were not subject to a merit-based PTAB validity challenge in this proceeding. For a defendant, it means the patent claims remain untested by this specific IPR. An analysis of the underlying petition and the PTAB's detailed reasoning for the discretionary denial (if publicly accessible in the full decision document) would be necessary to understand the specific vulnerabilities or strengths of this particular petition.

Strategic summary

All claims of US11930362 are currently UNTESTED in AIA trial proceedings. The single IPR petition filed against this patent, IPR2026-00210, was denied institution on discretionary grounds rather than on the merits of patentability. This means the patent has not been narrowed or found patentable over the asserted prior art in an AIA trial.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since institution was denied on discretionary grounds, the petitioner (Cisco Systems, Inc.) and its privies are generally not estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from raising the same or reasonably could-have-raised grounds in other forums, especially if the denial was not based on the merits of the patentability challenge. However, the exact scope of estoppel depends heavily on the specific reasoning provided in the PTAB's denial decision. For a defendant being asserted against, this means that the prior-art grounds raised in the IPR2026-00210 petition may still be available for use in district court litigation or a new PTAB petition, assuming other statutory requirements are met.

As for pattern signals, only one IPR has been filed against US11930362, resulting in a discretionary denial. This does not establish a clear pattern of successful defense or aggressive patent owner appeals in PTAB. The fact that a denial occurred due to discretionary reasons, which have seen increased application under current USPTO Director John A. Squires, indicates the importance of understanding the PTAB's evolving institution policies, such as Fintiv factors, real party in interest rules, and the domestic industry considerations.

Recommended next steps

• Since IPR2026-00210 was denied institution, no claims of US11930362 were invalidated or sustained by a Final Written Decision. The claims remain patentable as far as AIA trial proceedings are concerned.
• For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, it is crucial to obtain and thoroughly review the full institution denial decision for IPR2026-00210. This document, available on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal, would provide the detailed reasoning behind the discretionary denial. Understanding this reasoning is vital to evaluate if a new IPR petition could be crafted to address the PTAB's concerns or if the prior art presented by Cisco Systems, Inc. (and potentially other prior art) could be effectively used in district court without being barred by estoppel.
• As there are no active proceedings with an institution date, there are no upcoming trial-stage milestones (e.g., oral hearing, FWD due date) to monitor for this patent in PTAB.

Inventors

• Sivakumar Chaturvedi (Damaka Inc)
• Satish Gundabathula (Damaka Inc)
• Rashmi Hiremath (Damaka Inc)

It is assumed that the inventors were employed by Damaka Inc. at the time of filing, as Damaka Inc. is listed as the assignee on the patent and is also the current assignee.

Original assignee

The original assignee on the issued patent is Damaka Inc. Damaka Inc. is a technology leader and innovator in mobile unified communication and collaboration (UCC), providing solutions for video, collaboration, and mobility. They offer products and services including Collaboration SDKs, Triton, Moca, Nirvana, and VCare. Damaka's solutions are based on patented "direct peering" P2P technology, highly optimized for smartphones and supporting various operating systems. The company's goal is to deliver video and collaboration to any user's device for a seamless collaborative experience. Damaka Inc. is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center search results show only one recorded assignment for US Patent 11930362.

• 2023-01-19 (executed) / recorded 2023-01-19 — Reel 059958/0600
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: CHATURVEDI, SIVAKUMAR; GUNDABATHULA, SATISH; HIREMATH, RASHMI
  • Assignee: DAMAKA, INC.
  • Correspondent: DAMAKA, INC., 1701 N COLLINS BLVD STE 200, RICHARDSON, TX 75080
  • Context: Original assignment from inventors to the company.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11930362
    2013 : Priority date
    2023 : Application filed
         : Inventors assigned to Damaka Inc
    2024 : Issued to Damaka Inc

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The only recorded assignment is from the inventors to Damaka Inc., which is an operating company.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Damaka Inc. is not identified as a known NPE. Unified Patents and RPX are defensive aggregators and not asserters.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. The correspondent for the single recorded assignment is Damaka, Inc. itself. Without further assignment history, it is not possible to determine if this correspondent recurs in other patent assignments or is associated with known NPE assertion lists.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. There is only one recorded assignment.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While there are lawsuits associated with Damaka, Inc. (e.g., Damaka, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.), and this patent is involved in litigation (IPR2026-00210, 2:25-cv-00593, 2:25-cv-00594), the provided assignment record does not show a transfer within 6 months of these filings.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication that Damaka Inc. has filed for bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — not present. There is no information to suggest Damaka Inc. has transferred this patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent is currently assigned to Damaka Inc., which is a commercial entity, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data. The single recorded assignment is from the inventors to Damaka Inc., the company that developed products embodying the claims. While the patent is involved in litigation, the assignment records do not provide a chain of title that suggests an NPE pattern.
For verification, see the USPTO Patent Assignment Search for US11930362.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 11930362

The provided patent text for US11930362 explicitly references U.S. Pat. No. 7,656,870, stating that "The function block 200 may contain functionality similar to that of an endpoint as described in detail in U.S. Pat. No. 7,656,870, filed on Mar. 15, 2005, and entitled SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PEER-TO-PEER HYBRID COMMUNICATIONS and hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety." This patent serves as a key piece of prior art for understanding the underlying communication technologies that the '362 patent aims to integrate.

Cited Prior Art Reference: US 7,656,870 B2

• Full Citation: U.S. Patent No. 7,656,870 B2 to Chaturvedi et al., titled "System and method for peer-to-peer hybrid communications."

• Publication/Issue Date: February 2, 2010.

• Filing Date: March 15, 2005.

• Inventors: Sivakumar Chaturvedi, Satish Gundabathula, Rashmi Hiremath.

• Assignee: Damaka, Inc.

• Brief Description: This patent generally describes a system and method for establishing and managing peer-to-peer hybrid communications. It details an "endpoint" capable of various communication functionalities, such as managing presence, initiating and handling instant messages, and facilitating audio and video calls in a network environment, often by combining server-assisted setup with direct peer-to-peer media exchange. This endpoint is designed to overcome challenges like Network Address Translation (NAT) and firewalls to enable real-time communication.

• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
  US 7,656,870 B2 provides foundational knowledge regarding the capabilities and operation of a communication "endpoint" that performs functions like instant messaging, audio/video communication, and presence management. This directly informs the "functions" mentioned in the claims of US11930362.

  However, US 7,656,870 B2 does not appear to anticipate the distinguishing features of the independent claims (Claims 1, 12, and 22) of US11930362. These claims specifically emphasize:

  1. The integration of a "function block" within a "superblock application" instructions.
  2. Access to the function block's capabilities by the superblock application via an Application Programming Interface (API).
  3. The provision of these functions within the superblock application itself without requiring the user to switch context to another application on the computing entity.

  While US 7,656,870 B2 teaches the type of communication functions an endpoint can provide, it does not disclose the specific architectural innovation of embedding such functionality as a "function block" directly into a host "superblock application" such that it's accessible via an API without context switching. Therefore, while US 7,656,870 B2 is highly relevant background art for the communication capabilities described, it likely does not anticipate the novel integration and user experience benefits claimed in US11930362 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, as not all elements of US11930362's independent claims are present in a single reference.

The obviousness of US patent 11930362 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 can be analyzed by considering combinations of prior art references identified within the patent text itself, along with the general knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention (priority date July 16, 2013).

The US patent 11930362 patent explicitly incorporates by reference U.S. Pat. No. 7,656,870, filed on Mar. 15, 2005, and entitled "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PEER-TO-PEER HYBRID COMMUNICATIONS". The patent states that "the function block 200 may contain functionality similar to that of an endpoint as described in detail in U.S. Pat. No. 7,656,870". Furthermore, it teaches a modification of this prior art by noting that "the graphical user interface (GUI) of the endpoint may be replaced with the API 202 of FIG. 2, and some functionality may be removed if not needed for a particular implementation of the function block 200".

Combination of Prior Art References:

1. U.S. Pat. No. 7,656,870: This patent describes a system and method for peer-to-peer hybrid communications, including an "endpoint" device with various communication functionalities. The functionality of the function block (200) in US11930362 is explicitly stated to be similar to this endpoint.
2. General knowledge in the art regarding software modularity, Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), and the desire to avoid context switching in software applications, particularly on mobile devices: The background section of US11930362 extensively details the problems associated with accessing additional functionality by "leaving the superblock application, performing some other function, and then returning to the superblock application," calling this process "disruptive, difficult to manage, and pulls the user away from the superblock application" and "inefficient and frustrating". The patent also notes the resource impact of context switching on mobile devices. The use of APIs to integrate software modules, such as SDKs or plugins, into existing applications to extend their functionality was a well-known software development practice prior to 2013, as was the benefit of doing so to provide a more integrated user experience and avoid the inefficiencies of context switching.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103:

The independent claims (Claim 1, Claim 12, and Claim 22) of US11930362 generally recite a computing entity, memory storing a "superblock application" and a "function block," where the function block provides functions (e.g., communication, data manipulation) accessible via an API, and these functions are provided within the superblock application without requiring context switching to another application.

A PHOSITA, at the time of the invention, would have found the claimed invention obvious by combining U.S. Pat. No. 7,656,870 with the general knowledge of software development practices, for the following reasons:

• Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine these elements is clearly articulated within US11930362 itself. The patent identifies the problem of "context switching" between applications on mobile devices as negatively impacting "performance and battery life" and being "disruptive," "inefficient," and "frustrating" for the user. A PHOSITA would be motivated to improve user experience and application performance by providing additional functionalities in a more integrated manner.
• Teaching/Suggestion/Reason to Combine: U.S. Pat. No. 7,656,870 discloses the core communication functionality of an "endpoint". US11930362 explicitly teaches modifying this known endpoint by "replac[ing its] graphical user interface (GUI)... with the API 202" to enable the function block. It also describes the function block (200) as a set of instructions that "may be provided as a software developer's kit (SDK) or as an otherwise independent module" and that the developer "may then compile or otherwise include the function block instructions in the superblock 104". This directly suggests integrating the communication functionality of the '870 patent (now exposed via an API instead of a GUI) as a module within an existing application (the "superblock application").
• Reasonable Expectation of Success: Given the well-established principles of modular programming, SDKs, APIs, and dynamic linking/loading prior to 2013 (evidenced in part by classification codes like G06F9/44521 for dynamic linking/loading and G06F9/44526 for Plug-ins/Add-ons), a PHOSITA would have a reasonable expectation of successfully integrating the functionality of an existing communication endpoint (like that in US 7,656,870) into an application using an API. The outcome of providing functions "within the superblock application itself and accessible within the superblock application without switching context" directly addresses the problems identified in the background, which would be a desirable and expected result of such an integration.

Therefore, the combination of U.S. Pat. No. 7,656,870, disclosing the underlying communication capabilities, with the general knowledge in the art regarding modular software design, APIs for feature integration, and the known motivation to avoid context switching for improved user experience and performance, would render the independent claims of US11930362 obvious.