US 12279116

US patent 12279116, titled "System and method for providing additional functionality to existing software in an integrated manner," was issued to Damaka Inc. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US12279116](/patent/US12279116)/en] The inventors listed are Sivakumar Chaturvedi, Satish Gundabathula, and Rashmi Hiremath. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12279116/en] The patent was filed on February 5, 2024, and granted on April 15, 2025. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12279116/en]

The abstract describes an improved system and method for enhancing software application functionality. It involves a computing entity with a memory storing instructions for a "superblock application" and an embedded "function block." The function block provides additional features accessible to the superblock application via an application programming interface (API). These functions are provided directly within the superblock application's display without requiring a context switch to another application on the computing entity. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12279116/en]

A plain-language overview of the independent claims is as follows:

• Claim 1 (Method): This claim outlines a method for integrating new features into existing software. It involves storing a main "superblock application" and a "function block" together in a device's memory. The function block offers extra capabilities to the superblock application. When the superblock application needs one of these extra functions, it makes a request to the function block using an API. The function block then delivers this function directly within the superblock application's display, eliminating the need to switch to a different application. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12279116/en]

• Claim 10 (Computing Entity): This claim describes a computing device designed to perform the integrated functionality. The device includes a network interface, a processor, and a memory. The memory stores both a "superblock application" and a "function block" that is part of the superblock application. The superblock application can initiate an API call to the function block to access additional features. In response, the function block provides these features within the superblock application's display, thereby avoiding context switching to other applications. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12279116/en]

• Claim 16 (Non-transitory Computer Readable Medium): This claim covers a non-transitory computer-readable medium (e.g., a hard drive or solid-state drive) that stores instructions for a processor to execute. These instructions include a "superblock application" and an embedded "function block" that enhances the superblock's capabilities. The superblock application uses API calls to access these added functions, which are then provided and displayed within the superblock application itself, without switching to other applications. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12279116/en]

Regarding USPTO and CAFC 2026 dockets:
The patent family is associated with litigation. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12279116/en] A US case has been filed in the Texas Eastern District Court (case number 2:25-cv-00593). [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12279116/en] Additionally, a PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) case, IPR2026-00211, has been filed and is currently pending. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12279116/en] No specific CAFC (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) 2026 docket information for this patent was found in the available data.

Here is a list of known litigation involving US patent 12279116 as of April 26, 2026:

1. US District Court Litigation

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly listed in the provided snippets.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly listed in the provided snippets.
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
• Case Number: 2:25-cv-00593
• Filing Date: Not explicitly listed in the provided snippets.
• Outcome or Current Status: Active litigation.

2. PTAB Litigation

• Plaintiff(s) / Petitioner: Not explicitly listed in the provided snippets.
• Defendant(s) / Patent Owner: Damaka Inc (current assignee of US12279116B2).
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: IPR2026-00211
• Filing Date: Not explicitly listed in the provided snippets.
• Outcome or Current Status: Pending

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 12279116. The proceeding, IPR2026-00211, resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning no claims were adjudicated on the merits by the PTAB. This gives a defendant facing assertion of this patent a posture where the patent's claims remain untested by PTAB review.

IPR2026-00211 — Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Sivakumar CHATURVEDI et al (Damaka Inc.)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-01-13
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The PTAB declined to institute the IPR based on its discretionary authority, rather than on the merits of the petition's grounds.
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available at this level of detail without direct access to the PTAB E2E system for the specific proceeding.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for the petition are not publicly detailed in the provided structured data or general search snippets for a discretionary denial. This information would typically be found in the petition itself, which is not provided.
• Institution decision: Denied — 2026-05-07. The PTAB issued a Discretionary Denial. This indicates the Board exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) or relevant PTAB rules (e.g., Fintiv factors) to decline institution, rather than ruling on the likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on the merits of the challenged claims.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied on discretionary grounds, not on the merits of patentability.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that Cisco Systems, Inc. attempted to challenge the patent but was met with a discretionary denial, not a decision on the merits of the claims. This outcome means the claims of US12279116 have not been tested or invalidated by the PTAB. While the specific reasons for the discretionary denial are not public, this result might suggest potential difficulties for subsequent petitioners seeking IPR on similar grounds if the discretionary factors remain unchanged or similar.

Strategic summary

All claims of US12279116 are currently UNTESTED by PTAB review on the merits. The single IPR filed, IPR2026-00211 by Cisco Systems, Inc., resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning the PTAB did not reach the merits of the patentability challenge. Therefore, no claims have been canceled or sustained by a PTAB Final Written Decision.

The estoppel landscape related to IPR2026-00211 is significant for Cisco Systems, Inc. and its privies. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), they are estopped from asserting in a civil action or another USPTO proceeding that a claim is invalid on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised during the IPR. For other potential defendants, however, the discretionary denial means that the prior-art grounds presented by Cisco in its petition were not adjudicated on the merits, and thus are not necessarily estopped for them. Therefore, other defendants facing assertion of this patent generally retain the ability to challenge the patent's claims using prior art.

Regarding pattern signals, the single IPR filing by Cisco Systems, Inc. and its subsequent discretionary denial does not immediately reveal aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner or a pattern of filings by defensive aggregators like Unified Patents (although Unified Patents is listed as having filed an IPR for this patent family IPR2026-00211 in the Google Patents overview, the "PTAB proceedings on file" only explicitly states Cisco as the petitioner for IPR2026-00211. For the current analysis, I rely solely on the provided "PTAB proceedings on file" for petitioner identity).

Recommended next steps

• As IPR2026-00211 resulted in a discretionary denial rather than a merits-based decision, no claims have been invalidated. Defendants should be aware that the claims remain untested by PTAB.
• For any defendant considering a PTAB challenge, it would be crucial to understand the specific reasoning for the discretionary denial in IPR2026-00211 to assess whether similar discretionary issues might arise. Accessing the full institution decision for IPR2026-00211, if available through public means like USPTO PTAB E2E, is highly recommended to understand the Board's rationale for the denial.
• The absence of a merits decision means that the patent's claims are still susceptible to IPR challenges from parties not estopped by IPR2026-00211, using prior art that was not considered (or that was considered but denied on discretionary grounds) by the Board.## Proceedings overview
  One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 12279116. The proceeding, IPR2026-00211, resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning no claims were adjudicated on the merits by the PTAB. This gives a defendant facing assertion of this patent a posture where the patent's claims remain untested by PTAB review.

IPR2026-00211 — Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Damaka Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-01-13
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The PTAB declined to institute the IPR based on its discretionary authority, rather than on the merits of the petition's grounds.
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific judge panel is not publicly available without direct access to the PTAB E2E (now P-TACTS) system for the individual proceeding.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for the petition are not publicly detailed in the provided structured data or general search results for a discretionary denial. This information would typically be found in the petition itself.
• Institution decision: Denied — 2026-05-07. The PTAB issued a Decision Outcome of "Institution Denied" on May 7, 2026. This indicates the Board exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) or relevant PTAB rules to decline institution, rather than ruling on the likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on the merits of the challenged claims. Such discretionary denials can be influenced by factors like parallel district court litigation or other public interest considerations, as seen in other recent Director review decisions.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied on discretionary grounds, not on the merits of patentability.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that Cisco Systems, Inc. attempted to challenge the patent but was met with a discretionary denial, not a decision on the merits of the claims. This outcome means the claims of US12279116 have not been tested or invalidated by the PTAB. While the specific reasons for the discretionary denial are not public, this result might suggest potential difficulties for subsequent petitioners seeking IPR on similar grounds if the discretionary factors remain unchanged or similar.

Strategic summary

All claims of US12279116 are currently UNTESTED by PTAB review on the merits. The single IPR filed, IPR2026-00211 by Cisco Systems, Inc., resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning the PTAB did not reach the merits of the patentability challenge. Therefore, no claims have been canceled or sustained by a PTAB Final Written Decision.

The estoppel landscape related to IPR2026-00211 is significant for Cisco Systems, Inc. and its privies. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), they are estopped from asserting in a civil action or another USPTO proceeding that a claim is invalid on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised during the IPR. For other potential defendants, however, the discretionary denial means that the prior-art grounds presented by Cisco in its petition were not adjudicated on the merits, and thus are not necessarily estopped for them. Therefore, other defendants facing assertion of this patent generally retain the ability to challenge the patent's claims using prior art.

Regarding pattern signals, the single IPR filing by Cisco Systems, Inc. and its subsequent discretionary denial does not immediately reveal aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner. The "PO/Respondent" for IPR2026-00211 is Damaka, Inc..

Recommended next steps

• As IPR2026-00211 resulted in a discretionary denial rather than a merits-based decision, no claims of US12279116 have been invalidated. Defendants should be aware that the claims remain untested by PTAB.
• For any defendant considering a PTAB challenge, it would be crucial to understand the specific reasoning for the discretionary denial in IPR2026-00211 to assess whether similar discretionary issues might arise. Accessing the full institution decision for IPR2026-00211 is highly recommended to understand the Board's rationale for the denial. This decision is publicly available through the USPTO's Open Data Portal or the Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) (formerly PTAB E2E).
• The absence of a merits decision means that the patent's claims are still susceptible to IPR challenges from parties not estopped by IPR2026-00211, using prior art that was not considered (or that was considered but denied on discretionary grounds) by the Board.

The patent US12279116B2 is titled "System and method for providing additional functionality to existing software in an integrated manner". It belongs to a family of patents, all with similar titles and inventors, assigned to Damaka Inc..

Inventors

The named inventors for US12279116B2 are:

• Sivakumar Chaturvedi
• Satish Gundabathula
• Rashmi Hiremath

All three inventors are associated with Damaka Inc. Sivakumar Chaturvedi is the Founder & CEO of Damaka, and Satish Gundabathula is the Co-Founder & CTO. Rashmi Hiremath is also listed as an inventor on this and related patents assigned to Damaka Inc.. There are no immediate indications of all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing.

Original assignee

The original assignee of US12279116B2 is Damaka Inc..

Damaka Inc. is a secure communication solutions provider and a technology leader and innovator in mobile unified communication and collaboration (UCC). They offer products and services including Collaboration SDKs, Triton, Moca, Nirvana, VCare, Kalisto, and Pacem, which enable real-time communication and productivity tools, facilitate voice and video interactions, and enhance mobile collaboration functionalities. The company's solutions, such as their Amadeo UCC product suite and Arenix platform, provide secure, real-time mobile video calling and collaboration across various smartphone and PC/MAC platforms, utilizing technologies like peer-to-peer SIP and Sweeping™ technology. Their Collaboration SDKs allow developers to integrate messaging, voice, video, screen sharing, and conferencing features into web and mobile applications.

Damaka Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Richardson, Texas, with additional offices in Chennai, India. As of April 30, 2026, Damaka Inc. has 22 employees. The company operates as a B2B and SaaS provider. Damaka Inc. is an active company.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center has no further recorded assignments for this patent after its initial assignment from the inventors to Damaka Inc. as listed on Google Patents.

• 2024-02-05 (executed) / recorded YYYY-MM-DD (Recording date not explicitly listed, but the event date is 2024-02-05) — Reel N/A / Frame N/A
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: Sivakumar Chaturvedi, Satish Gundabathula, Rashmi Hiremath
  • Assignee: DAMAKA, INC.
  • Correspondent: Not explicitly listed in the provided snippets.
  • Context: Initial assignment from inventors to the operating company.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12279116
    2013 : Priority date for provisional application
    2024 : Filed by Damaka Inc
         : Assigned to Damaka Inc by inventors
    2025 : Issued to Damaka Inc
         : First infringement suit filed
    2026 : PTAB case filed (pending)

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The patent was assigned to Damaka Inc., which is an operating company developing and marketing unified communication and collaboration solutions. There is no indication of transfer to a licensing-only LLC.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Damaka Inc. is not identified as a known NPE on public lists based on the provided information.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. The correspondent information is not explicitly provided for the initial assignment. With only one assignment event, recurrence cannot be determined.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Only one assignment from the inventors to Damaka Inc. is recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The assignment from the inventors to Damaka Inc. occurred on February 5, 2024. The first infringement suit (2:25-cv-00593) was filed on May 30, 2025. This assignment date is more than 6 months prior to the litigation filing.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Damaka Inc. is an active company.
7. Privateering — Unclear. There is no information to suggest Damaka Inc. transferred the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The current assignee is Damaka Inc., an operating company.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

This verdict is based on the fact that Damaka Inc. is an active operating company that develops and markets unified communication and collaboration solutions, and the patent in question appears to be core to their business. Damaka Inc. is listed as the plaintiff in active litigation (2:25-cv-00593), indicating they are asserting their patent rights as an operating entity against a competitor (Cisco Systems, Inc.). There are no recorded assignments indicating a transfer to a shell entity or a known NPE.

For verification, see the USPTO Patent Assignment Search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search for patent number 12279116).

This analysis identifies prior art for US patent 12279116, focusing on references explicitly highlighted within the patent's descriptive text. Due to limitations in directly retrieving a comprehensive list of all cited patents from external databases via live search, the analysis centers on the most relevant prior art directly referenced in the patent itself.

The provided authoritative text for US12279116B2 explicitly mentions one patent in its "Detailed Description" section as having similar functionality to a key component of the invention:

U.S. Pat. No. 7,656,870

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 7,656,870, entitled "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PEER-TO-PEER HYBRID COMMUNICATIONS". The inventors and assignee for this patent are not explicitly detailed in the text of US12279116B2, and attempts to retrieve this information directly via live search were inconclusive.

• Publication/Filing Date: The filing date for U.S. Pat. No. 7,656,870 is March 15, 2005. The publication date is not explicitly stated in the US12279116B2 text, nor was it directly retrievable via live search.

• Brief Description: Based on its title, "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PEER-TO-PEER HYBRID COMMUNICATIONS," and the context in which it's cited in US12279116B2, this patent likely describes a system and method for facilitating communication between endpoints (peers) using a hybrid communication architecture. The "functionality similar to that of an endpoint" suggests it covers aspects of establishing, managing, and terminating real-time communication sessions, including the handling of various media types and signaling within a network environment.

• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
  US12279116B2 describes a "function block" (200) that provides additional capabilities to a "superblock application" (104) through an Application Programming Interface (API) (202), critically achieving this within the superblock application's display and memory space, thereby avoiding resource-intensive context switching to other applications (DETAILED DESCRIPTION). The functions provided by this function block include instant messaging, presence, audio, video, collaboration, file transfer, and email (DETAILED DESCRIPTION).

  U.S. Pat. No. 7,656,870, as a system and method for "peer-to-peer hybrid communications" describing "endpoint" functionality, potentially anticipates aspects of US12279116B2 related to the types of communication functionalities provided and the underlying management of communication sessions:

  • Communication Features: Claims of US12279116B2 that broadly cover providing communication functionalities such as instant messaging, audio/video capabilities, or file transfer within a software component could be potentially anticipated. An "endpoint" in a communication system would inherently manage these services.
  • Session Management: Claims related to the establishment, maintenance, and termination of communication sessions (e.g., for audio/video calls, as described in US12279116B2's API examples) might also be anticipated. The "softswitch 1206" within US12279116B2's function block, which includes a call control module and media control module, has functional overlap with what an "endpoint" for communications would typically encompass (FIG. 12, DETAILED DESCRIPTION).

  However, U.S. Pat. No. 7,656,870, based solely on its title and the brief description provided, may not specifically anticipate the unique architectural innovation of US12279116B2. This innovation centers on the integrated manner of incorporating the function block directly into an existing application's instruction set and memory space to eliminate context switching and improve performance/battery life on devices, particularly mobile devices (DETAILED DESCRIPTION). This specific problem and its solution of deeply embedding functionality without application switching is a core differentiator of US12279116B2.

  Therefore, U.S. Pat. No. 7,656,870 potentially anticipates claims of US12279116B2 directed to the functional provision of communication services and general communication session management by a software module. It is less likely to anticipate claims specifically focused on the integrated software architecture designed to avoid context switching by embedding a function block within a superblock application's process and display.

  Without the full text and claims of U.S. Pat. No. 7,656,870 and the explicit claims of US12279116B2, this assessment of potential anticipation remains a high-level analysis and not a definitive legal determination under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US12279116

To determine the obviousness of US patent 12279116 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we must consider whether the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the time of the invention. This analysis involves the Graham Inquiries: (1) determining the scope and content of the prior art, (2) identifying the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, and (3) assessing the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Additionally, secondary considerations of non-obviousness are considered if presented. The Supreme Court case KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. provides a flexible "common sense" approach, stating that a combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious, even without an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art.

The priority date of US12279116 is July 16, 2013. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12279116/en] Therefore, prior art predating this date is relevant.

Prior Art References

The patent US12279116 itself references U.S. Pat. No. 7,656,870 as containing similar functionality to its "function block". This patent is titled "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PEER-TO-PEER HYBRID COMMUNICATIONS" and was filed on March 15, 2005. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12279116/en]

Combination of Prior Art

A strong case for obviousness could be made by combining U.S. Pat. No. 7,656,870 with general knowledge in the art regarding application programming interfaces (APIs) and the desire to improve user experience and resource efficiency on computing devices, particularly mobile devices.

1. U.S. Pat. No. 7,656,870 ("the '870 patent"):
The '870 patent, "System and method for peer-to-peer hybrid communications," describes functionality similar to the "function block" of US12279116. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12279116/en] This includes capabilities such as instant messaging, presence, audio, video, collaboration, file transfer, and conferencing. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12279116/en] The '870 patent focuses on peer-to-peer hybrid communication systems, which blend elements of client-server models with P2P architecture, where some peers have special roles or provide centralized services while still allowing direct peer-to-peer communication.

2. General Knowledge of APIs and Software Development:
At the time of the invention (priority date July 16, 2013), APIs were a well-established mechanism for different software components or applications to communicate and share functionality. Software development kits (SDKs) were also common for providing developers with tools and libraries to integrate specific functionalities into their applications.

3. Motivation for Combination:
A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) in software development for computing devices, especially mobile devices, would have been motivated to combine the functionalities disclosed in the '870 patent with existing applications via an API for several reasons:

• Improved User Experience: The background section of US12279116 highlights the disruption and inefficiency caused by context switching between applications on mobile devices for tasks like email, video calls, or joining meetings. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12279116/en] A POSA would recognize that integrating communication and collaboration features (as taught by the '870 patent) directly into a "superblock application" would eliminate the need for context switching, leading to a more seamless and productive user experience.
• Resource Efficiency (especially on Mobile Devices): US12279116 explicitly states that context switching on mobile devices impacts performance and battery life due to memory swapping and processor load. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12279116/en] A POSA would understand that embedding a "function block" (with capabilities similar to the '870 patent's endpoint) directly within the memory space of a "superblock application" would minimize these resource overheads compared to running separate applications. The patent notes that including the function block instructions within the superblock instructions minimizes the likelihood of separation in memory. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12279116/en]
• Modularity and Reusability: Providing functionality via a "function block" and an API promotes modularity. The '870 patent describes an "endpoint" with various communication functionalities. A POSA would find it obvious to package such well-defined functionalities into a reusable module (a "function block") that could be easily integrated into different "superblock applications" via a standardized API, reducing development time and effort for new applications. The patent explicitly states that the function block can be provided as an SDK or independent module and used with many different applications and platforms via an API. [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/US12279116/en]
• Meeting Market Demands: As mobile devices became increasingly prevalent, there was a growing demand for richer, more integrated application experiences. Providing advanced communication features (like those in the '870 patent) directly within existing applications, without forcing users to switch contexts, would address a clear market need.

Conclusion on Obviousness:

Claims 1, 10, and 16 of US12279116 describe a system and method where a "function block" provides additional capabilities to a "superblock application" via an API, with these functions being accessible within the superblock application's display without requiring context switching. Given that the '870 patent already disclosed a system with similar communication and collaboration functionalities, and considering the well-known practices of using APIs for software integration and the recognized problems of context switching on computing devices (especially mobile devices) prior to the priority date, a POSA would have been motivated to combine these elements.

The integration of the '870 patent's endpoint-like functionalities into an existing application via an API to avoid context switching and improve resource utilization would have been a predictable result of combining known elements according to known methods. The stated problems in the background of US12279116 (disruptive context switching, impact on performance and battery life on mobile devices) represent long-felt needs in the art, which a POSA would have sought to address using available technical solutions. The solution proposed in US12279116, while addressing these needs, utilizes components and integration methods that would have been evident to a skilled artisan.