DCT

2:25-cv-00593

Damaka Inc v. Cisco Systems Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00593, E.D. Tex., 09/08/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant is registered to do business in Texas, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including a 162,000 square foot data center in Allen, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Webex video conferencing applications and software development kits (SDKs) infringe six patents related to a software architecture for providing additional functionality to an application without requiring a user to switch contexts to a different application.
  • Technical Context: The patents address methods for integrating services like audio/video calls directly within a primary software application on mobile devices, a key challenge in unified communications where seamless user experience is critical.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is a First Amended Complaint. It alleges that Defendant had knowledge of the infringement at least as of the filing of the original complaint on May 30, 2025.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-07-16 Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit ('032, '092, '744, '046, '362, '116)
2015-05-05 U.S. Patent No. 9,027,032 Issued
2016-02-23 U.S. Patent No. 9,270,744 Issued
2017-02-21 U.S. Patent No. 9,578,092 Issued
2019-01-01 Accused Products (Webex Apps & SDKs) Launch Date Alleged (approx.)
2023-02-07 U.S. Patent No. 11,576,046 Issued
2024-03-12 U.S. Patent No. 11,930,362 Issued
2025-04-15 U.S. Patent No. 12,279,116 Issued
2025-05-30 Original Complaint Filing Date Mentioned
2025-09-08 First Amended Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,027,032 - “System And Method For Providing Additional Functionality To Existing Software In An Integrated Manner”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the inefficiency and disruption caused by "context switching" on mobile devices, where a user must leave a primary application to access functionality in a separate application (e.g., leaving an app to open an email client), which negatively impacts performance and battery life (’046 Patent, col. 3:23-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a software architecture comprising a primary "superblock" application that includes a "function block" within its own instruction set (’046 Patent, col. 4:41-47). This embedded function block provides additional services (like audio/video calls) that are accessible to the superblock application through an Application Programming Interface (API), allowing the new functionality to be rendered within the primary application's display without switching to a different program (’046 Patent, Abstract; ’046 Patent, Fig. 2B).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture aimed to create more seamless and integrated user experiences on resource-constrained mobile devices by avoiding the performance overhead associated with launching and managing separate applications for discrete tasks (’046 Patent, col. 3:4-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 15 of the ’032 Patent (Compl. ¶23).
  • Claim 15 (Method) Essential Elements:
    • Receiving, by a function block stored in a mobile device's memory, a request for an A/V call from a superblock application also stored in memory.
    • Determining, by the function block, that the superblock application is authorized to access the A/V call functionality.
    • Determining, by the function block, that the A/V call requires access to an external resource.
    • Establishing, by the function block, the A/V call between the superblock and the resource via a network interface, where such establishing is not supported by the superblock application.
    • Providing, by the function block, video output to a video window within the superblock's display window, with both windows displayed simultaneously.
    • Providing, by the function block, audio for the A/V call.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 9,578,092 - “System And Method For Providing Additional Functionality To Existing Software In An Integrated Manner”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the related ’032 Patent, this patent addresses the technical problem of disruptive context switching between applications on mobile devices (’046 Patent, col. 3:23-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’092 patent claims the same technical solution but frames it as a "computer program product" (a non-transitory computer-readable medium) containing instructions for the function block, rather than a method (’092 Patent, Abstract). The function block, when executed, receives requests from a superblock application and provides services like A/V calls by establishing connections to external resources without being otherwise supported by the superblock application itself (’092 Patent, col. 20:1-20).
  • Technical Importance: Claiming the invention as a computer program product provides a different enforcement angle, targeting the software itself (e.g., an SDK distributed on a medium) rather than just the act of using it.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 of the ’092 Patent (Compl. ¶36).
  • Claim 1 (Computer Program Product) Essential Elements:
    • A non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions for a function block with A/V call functionality.
    • The function block is operative, when executed, to:
      • (i) receive a request for an A/V service from a superblock application.
      • (ii) determine the superblock application is authorized.
      • (iii) determine the A/V service requires access to an external resource.
      • (iv) establish the A/V service via a network interface, where such establishing is not otherwise supported by the superblock application.
      • (v) provide video output to a video window within the superblock's display window, displayable simultaneously.
      • (vi) provide audio for the A/V service.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 9,270,744 - “System And Method For Providing Additional Functionality To Existing Software In An Integrated Manner”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,270,744, issued February 23, 2016.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent covers a similar superblock/function block architecture for adding functionality to a mobile application. It specifically claims a method where the steps of receiving a request, determining external access is needed, establishing a connection, and providing the service are all performed "without switching context from the superblock application to another application on the mobile device" (’744 Patent, col. 20:8-13).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 20 (Compl. ¶51).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Cisco's Webex SDKs are embedded within the Webex application, allowing them to provide A/V functionality without requiring the user to switch to a different application (Compl. ¶55). The complaint points to the use of remote "Webex cloud" servers as the external device (Compl. ¶54, p. 20).

U.S. Patent No. 11,576,046 - “System And Method For Providing Additional Functionality To Existing Software In An Integrated Manner”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,576,046, issued February 7, 2023.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method implemented within the function block itself. The key limitations are that the service provided by the function block is "not otherwise supported by the superblock application" and the function block is "accessible only to the superblock application on the electronic device" (’046 Patent, col. 20:45-51).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶63).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Webex SDK (the function block) is accessible only to the Webex App (the superblock) and provides A/V call services by accessing external Webex Cloud servers, a service allegedly not otherwise supported by the core application (Compl. ¶65).

U.S. Patent No. 11,930,362 - “System And Method For Providing Additional Functionality To Existing Software In An Integrated Manner”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,930,362, issued March 12, 2024.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for enabling a real-time communication session between two users. It involves creating for storage on a server a superblock application for each user, with each application having a function block "compiled therein" and communicating with its respective function block via API calls (’362 Patent, col. 19:28-36). The method proceeds through steps of one user initiating a call, the request being sent to a remote resource, and the second user's application rendering the session.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶74).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that a Webex-to-Webex call infringes, where each user has the Webex App (superblock) with its corresponding SDK (function block) installed, and the call is established via Cisco's back-end servers (remote resource) (Compl. ¶76, ¶78). The complaint includes a screenshot of the Webex user interface for initiating a call (Compl. p. 28).

U.S. Patent No. 12,279,116 - “System And Method For Providing Additional Functionality To Existing Software In An Integrated Manner”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,279,116, issued April 15, 2025.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method focused on providing a function block for use in adding functionality to a "third-party superblock application." The method involves providing a function block configured to be compiled into the third-party application, interact via API calls, and use servers to provide a real-time communication session (’116 Patent, col. 19:6-21).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶89).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Cisco's Webex SDK is designed to enable third parties to add A/V functionality to their own applications, which serve as the "third-party superblock application" (Compl. ¶91). The SDK is allegedly compiled into these applications and uses the Webex cloud to provide the service (Compl. ¶91-92).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "all versions and variants of the Cisco Web and Mobile A/V Applications, and Cisco's A/V SDKs, since 2019," with a specific focus on the "Cisco Mobile and Web Application ('Webex,' 'Webex App(s)')" and the associated "Webex SDKs" (Compl. ¶15).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Webex App, in conjunction with the Webex SDK, provides audio/video (A/V) communication services (Compl. ¶19). The infringement theory is predicated on an architectural characterization: the Webex App is alleged to function as a "superblock application," while the Webex SDK is alleged to be a "function block" that provides A/V functionality which the complaint claims is lacking in the core superblock application (Compl. ¶19, ¶52). The SDK allegedly enables the Webex App to make and receive calls by interacting with remote Cisco servers ("the Webex cloud") for functions like user authorization and call establishment (Compl. ¶25, ¶54). The complaint includes a screenshot of the Webex iOS SDK "Getting Started Guide," which lists "Make and receive audio/video calls" as a key feature (Compl. p. 8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,027,032 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving, by a function block stored in the memory of a mobile device, a request for an audio/video (A/V) call from a superblock application stored in the memory of the mobile device The Webex SDK (the alleged function block) receives a call request from the Webex App (the alleged superblock application) that utilizes the SDK. ¶24 col. 6:2-7
determining, by the function block, that the superblock application is authorized to access A/V call functionality provided by the function block The Webex SDK requires a user to be validated remotely as an authorized user to access A/V resources, allegedly performing an authorization check. ¶25 col. 6:8-11
determining, by the function block, that the A/V call requires access to a resource that is external to the mobile device To use Webex SDK A/V resources, a user must be validated by a remote, external server, as shown in an Authorization Code Flow diagram. ¶25 col. 6:12-14
establishing, by the function block, the A/V call between the superblock application and the resource via a network interface, wherein such establishing is not supported by the superblock application The Webex SDK establishes the A/V call over a network (e.g., 5G or internet) between the Webex App and an external resource. ¶26 col. 6:15-19
providing, by the function block, video output for the A/V call to a video window within a display window of the superblock application on the mobile device, wherein the video window is displayed simultaneously with the display window of the superblock application on a screen of the mobile device The Webex SDK creates a video view that is displayed within the main window of the Webex application during a call. ¶27 col. 6:20-27
providing, by the function block, audio for the A/V call via the mobile device The Webex SDK provides the functionality to establish the audio portion of an A/V call through the mobile device. ¶28 col. 6:28-29

U.S. Patent No. 9,578,092 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a computer program product in a non-transitory computer readable medium...computer program instructions comprising a function block, the function block having audio/video (A/V) call functionality The Webex iOS SDK is alleged to be a computer program product containing instructions for a function block that provides A/V call functionality. ¶37 col. 20:21-30
The function block is operative, when executed by the processor, to: (i) receive from a superblock application a request for an audio/video (A/V) service The Webex SDK is operative to receive a call request from the Webex App (the alleged superblock). ¶38 col. 20:31-33
(ii) determine that the superblock application is authorized to access the A/V service functionality The Webex SDK requires remote validation of the user and application as an authorized user to access A/V call resources. ¶39 col. 20:34-36
(iii) determine that the A/V service requires access to a resource that is external to the data processing system The Webex SDK requires authorization via an external Cisco server to function. A diagram shows a client communicating with an authorization server. ¶40 col. 20:37-39
(iv) establish the A/V service between the superblock application and the resource via the network interface, wherein establishing is not otherwise supported by the superblock application The Webex SDK allows the Webex App to establish an A/V call over a network with an external resource. ¶41 col. 20:40-44
(v) provide video output for the A/V service to a video window within a display window associated with the superblock application, the video window being displayable simultaneously... The Webex SDK creates a video window that is displayed simultaneously with the main display window of the Webex App. ¶42 col. 20:45-50
(vi) provide audio for the A/V service The Webex SDK provides audio for the A/V calls within the Webex App. ¶43 col. 20:51-52

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The central dispute may turn on whether the commercial software relationship between an "application" and an "SDK" maps to the patents' claimed "superblock application" and "function block" architecture. A question for the court will be whether a software development kit that is compiled with an application qualifies as a "function block stored in the memory" of a device as distinct from the "superblock application." The complaint's depiction of an authorization flow diagram involving a client, an authorization server, and an access token server illustrates the alleged interaction with an external resource (Compl. p. 9).
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question may be whether the Webex App itself "supports" the establishing of A/V calls, which would challenge the negative limitation "wherein such establishing is not supported by the superblock application." The complaint alleges the Webex App requires the SDK for this functionality (Compl. ¶19), but Defendant may argue the App and SDK are an inseparable, integrated product whose primary purpose is A/V calls.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "function block"

    • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention's architecture. Its construction will determine whether a software component like Cisco's Webex SDK falls within the scope of the claims. The complaint consistently equates the "function block" with the "Webex SDK" (Compl. ¶19, ¶24).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function block as "a set of instructions that are included in the superblock" and may be provided as a "software developer's kit (SDK)" (’046 Patent, col. 4:62-66). This language may support an interpretation that includes SDKs compiled into an application.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Language describing the function block as being "attached via a glue point" (’046 Patent, col. 4:38-39) or as an "independent module" (’046 Patent, col. 4:67-68) could suggest a more discrete, modular component than a deeply integrated SDK, potentially supporting a narrower construction.

  • The Term: "superblock application"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the primary application to which functionality is added. Whether the Webex App qualifies as a "superblock application" is fundamental to the infringement allegation. Practitioners may focus on this term because if a "superblock" is defined as an application that lacks a certain capability, it strengthens the plaintiff's argument regarding the negative claim limitation discussed below.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification broadly describes the superblock as "an application...on the mobile device" for which "additional functionality may be desired" (’046 Patent, col. 3:4-5, col. 3:42-44). This could encompass any primary application, including the Webex App.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The problem statement in the patent focuses on the disruption of leaving a primary application to perform a different task (e.g., email) (’046 Patent, col. 4:1-5). This context could be argued to limit the "superblock" to applications whose core purpose is something other than the functionality provided by the function block.

  • The Term: "wherein such establishing is not supported by the superblock application"

    • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is a critical potential point of non-infringement. Its meaning will be pivotal. If "supported by" is construed broadly, Cisco could argue that the Webex App, as a video conferencing tool, inherently "supports" establishing calls, regardless of whether an SDK is used to implement the function.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (i.e., easier for Plaintiff to meet): The specification contrasts the integrated function block with the alternative of using "another application to provide the desired functionality" (’046 Patent, col. 3:58-59). This may support a reading where "not supported by" means the functionality is not natively coded into the primary application's core instruction set, thus requiring the separate "function block."
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (i.e., harder for Plaintiff to meet): The term "supported by" could be construed to mean the application's overall purpose. A court might question whether an application named "Webex" and marketed for video conferencing does not, by its very nature, "support" the establishing of video calls.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is alleged based on Cisco's "affirmative acts of manufacturing, selling, distributing...by providing instructions, documentation...technical support, marketing, product manuals, advertisements, and online documentation" that allegedly encourage infringing use by customers (Compl. ¶30, ¶45). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused components (e.g., the Webex SDK) are material to the invention, "are not staple articles or commodities of commerce, have no substantial non-infringing uses," and are known by Cisco to be "specially made or adapted for use in the infringement" (Compl. ¶31, ¶46).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge or willful blindness, asserting that Cisco, as a major technology company, "should have been aware" of the patents, has a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others," and had "business dealings in the past" with Damaka (Compl. ¶17). Post-suit knowledge is alleged based on the filing of the original complaint on May 30, 2025, after which Cisco allegedly continued its infringing activities (Compl. ¶18).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent claims’ "superblock application" and "function block" architecture, which describes an embedded module adding functionality to a primary application, be construed to read on the modern software development model of a commercial "Application" that is distributed with and utilizes a proprietary "SDK"? The outcome of this claim construction dispute may be dispositive.
  • A second key question will be one of technical and factual infringement, centered on the negative limitation "wherein establishing is not supported by the superblock application." The case may turn on evidence of whether the Webex App has a standalone ability to establish A/V calls without the accused Webex SDK, or if the two are so integrated that the "superblock" cannot be conceptually separated from the "function block" for the purpose of infringement analysis.