DCT

2:25-cv-00594

Damaka Inc v. Cigna Group

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00594, E.D. Tex., 09/12/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants are registered to do business in Texas, have transacted business in the district, have committed acts of patent infringement in the district, and maintain a regular and established place of business at 1640 Dallas Parkway, Plano, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s MDLIVE telehealth application infringes five patents related to a software architecture that integrates communication features within a primary application without requiring a disruptive context switch to a separate program.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for embedding real-time communication functionality within a primary software application, which is significant for improving user experience and conserving device resources in the mobile application and telehealth markets.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or specific prosecution history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-07-16 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2015-05-05 U.S. Patent No. 9,027,032 Issues
2016-02-23 U.S. Patent No. 9,270,744 Issues
2017-02-21 U.S. Patent No. 9,578,092 Issues
2019-01-01 Alleged Infringement by MDLIVE Application Begins
2023-02-07 U.S. Patent No. 11,576,046 Issues
2024-03-12 U.S. Patent No. 11,930,362 Issues
2025-09-12 Complaint Filed

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 background identifies that on mobile devices, accessing functionality by switching between separate applications (e.g., leaving a main application to compose an email) can negatively impact device performance and battery life, and is disruptive to the user (’032 Patent, col. 1:55-58, col. 3:51-67).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a software architecture where a main application (a “superblock application”) includes a compiled-in software module (a “function block”). This function block provides additional capabilities, such as audio/video communication, directly within the superblock application's user interface, thereby eliminating the need to switch context to another application (’032 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:35-54). Figure 2B of the patent illustrates the concept of displaying this additional functionality simultaneously with the superblock application screen (’032 Patent, Fig. 2B).
  • Technical Importance: This integrated approach was designed to improve user experience and conserve resources like battery life and processing power on mobile devices by avoiding the performance-intensive task of swapping different applications in and out of memory (’032 Patent, col. 3:15-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 15 (Compl. ¶24).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 15, a method claim, are:
    • Receiving, by a function block on a mobile device, a request for an A/V call from a superblock application on the same device.
    • 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 the A/V call between the superblock and the external resource via a network interface, where this establishing is not supported by the superblock itself.
    • Providing video output from the function block to a video window displayed simultaneously within the superblock's display window.
    • Providing audio for the A/V call via the mobile device.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶23).

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 part of the same patent family, the ’092 Patent addresses the same problem of disruptive context switching, noting that this process "pulls the user away from the superblock application" (’092 Patent, col. 3:65-col. 4:2).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is claimed as a computer program product and a method embodying the same superblock/function block architecture. A self-contained function block, when executed by a processor, provides communication services directly to a containing superblock application, performing the necessary steps "without switching context from the superblock application to another application" (’092 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:49-54).
  • Technical Importance: The technical importance is consistent with the parent '032 Patent, focusing on improving the efficiency and user experience of mobile applications by integrating functionality that would otherwise require a separate program.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 12 (Compl. ¶37, ¶45).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1, a computer program product claim, are:
    • A non-transitory medium with instructions for a function block with A/V call functionality, which when executed:
    • Receives a request for an A/V service from a superblock application.
    • Determines the superblock is authorized to access the A/V service.
    • Determines the service requires an external resource.
    • Establishes the A/V service via a network interface, where the superblock itself does not support this establishing step.
    • Provides video output to a window displayed simultaneously with the superblock's window.
    • Provides audio for the A/V service.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 12, a method claim, are:
    • Receiving, from a superblock application, a request for a communication session.
    • Notifying the superblock application that the session is being requested.
    • Establishing a connection with an external device via a network interface to support the session.
    • Providing the communication session to the superblock, with all steps performed without switching context to another application.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶36).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the problem of inefficient context switching in mobile applications. The claimed solution is a method where a "function block" embedded within a main "superblock application" receives a service request, determines that an external device is required, establishes a connection to provide the service, and delivers it to the superblock, all without the user needing to switch to a different application (’744 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶58).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 20 (Compl. ¶58).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the MDLIVE application's internal function block provides A/V calling capabilities by connecting to remote servers, all within the main MDLIVE application interface (Compl. ¶59-62).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent also targets the problem of application context switching. It claims a computer program product where a "function block" is accessible only to its containing "superblock application." The function block establishes a connection with an external device to provide a requested service without switching context away from the superblock application (’046 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶70).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 11 (Compl. ¶70, ¶73).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the MDLIVE application embodies a software architecture where a function block for video calling is accessible only by the main MDLIVE application and connects to remote servers without switching to a separate program (Compl. ¶71-72, ¶75-76).

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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for enabling an end-to-end communication session between two users. The method relies on two instances of a "superblock application," each containing a compiled-in "function block." These blocks communicate with each other and remote resources via application programming interface (API) calls to initiate, notify, and render the real-time communication session on the users' devices (’362 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶84).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 75 (Compl. ¶84, ¶93).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses MDLIVE's end-to-end communication system, where two users (e.g., patient and physician) allegedly use an internal function block via API calls to connect to each other and to remote servers for a real-time telehealth session (Compl. ¶86, ¶88, ¶95-96).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • All versions and variants of the MDLIVE application, including for desktop, Android, iOS, and iPad, since 2019 (Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes MDLIVE as a telehealth application that allows users to have "video call[s] with a doctor" (Compl. ¶25). This core functionality allegedly requires a "Highspeed internet connection" to connect with external resources such as remote servers (Compl. ¶27; Compl. p. 9). A screenshot from the MDLIVE application's App Store page is provided to show an active video call interface, which includes a picture-in-picture view of the user (Compl. p. 14). The complaint alleges that this video call is presented within the display window of the main MDLIVE application (Compl. ¶28, ¶43). The complaint further alleges that Cigna, a "major insurance company, with a focus on technology," incorporates these techniques into its web and mobile applications (Compl. ¶17, ¶20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

9,027,032 Patent 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... MDLIVE provides a function that can be called from the main application (the superblock) to enable A/V calling with a doctor. ¶25 col. 4:30-34
determining, by the function block, that the superblock application is authorized to access A/V call functionality... The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. col. 10:27-34
determining, by the function block, that the A/V call requires access to a resource that is external to the mobile device; The function block within MDLIVE allegedly utilizes calls to remote servers to provide A/V functionality. A screenshot from an MDLIVE FAQ page listing system requirements includes a "Highspeed internet connection" (Compl. p. 9). ¶26 col. 6:20-24
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 MDLIVE function block allegedly allows a user to establish an A/V call over a network, such as 5G or an internet connection. ¶27 col. 6:33-40
providing, by the function block, video output for the A/V call to a video window within a display window of the superblock application...wherein the video window is displayed simultaneously... MDLIVE allegedly presents a video display window for the A/V call that is within the window of the main application. A marketing screenshot depicts a video call with a physician displayed on a smartphone screen (Compl. p. 10). ¶28 col. 4:46-54
providing, by the function block, audio for the A/V call via the mobile device. The MDLIVE function block is alleged to provide audio for the A/V call. ¶29 col. 6:3-5

9,578,092 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A non-transitory computer readable medium...the computer program product holds computer program instructions that comprise a function block, the function block having audio/video (A/V) call functionality... The MDLIVE application is a computer program that resides on a mobile phone and allegedly contains a function block for A/V call functionality. ¶38 col. 4:55-61
receive from a superblock application a request for an audio/video (A/V) service; The superblock application (MDLIVE) may initiate a request for an A/V call to perform telehealth services. ¶39 col. 5:2-4
determine that the superblock application is authorized to access the A/V service functionality; To utilize MDLIVE's A/V resources, a user must have an account, which allegedly involves an authorization process such as using an auth token. A screenshot of an MDLIVE FAQ details the steps to create an account (Compl. p. 15). ¶40 col. 10:28-34
determine that the A/V service requires access to a resource that is external to the data processing system; MDLIVE is alleged to require access to a remote server to function. ¶41 col. 6:21-25
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; MDLIVE allegedly allows a user to establish an A/V call with a remote server over a network like 5G or the internet. ¶42 col. 6:34-41
provide video output for the A/V service to a video window within a display window...the video window displayable simultaneously with the display window of the superblock application... The MDLIVE application allegedly displays the video call within the main application window. A screenshot of the MDLIVE application shows an active video call with a physician, including a picture-in-picture view of the user (Compl. p. 14). ¶43 col. 4:47-54
provide audio for the A/V service. MDLIVE is alleged to provide audio for its video calls. ¶44 col. 6:3-6
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether the accused MDLIVE application, which appears to be a single, integrated telehealth product, meets the architectural definitions of a "superblock application" that is augmented by a distinct "function block." A central question will be what level of software modularity and separateness is required by the claims. The defense may argue that MDLIVE is a monolithic application whose communication features are integral, not additive functionalities as contemplated by the patent.
    • Technical Questions: A key technical question is whether the complaint provides sufficient evidence that the A/V functionality is "not supported by the superblock application" itself, as required by claims in the ’032 and ’092 patents. The complaint makes this allegation conclusorily, which may suggest a point of dispute over whether the communication code is an integral part of the main application or a conceptually separate module providing functionality the main application "lacks."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "superblock application"

    • Context and Importance: This term, along with "function block," defines the core software architecture of the invention. Its construction will be critical in determining whether a modern, integrated application like MDLIVE falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a pre-existing application that is later augmented, or if it can read on an application developed from the start to include the claimed functionality.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a superblock simply as "an application...on the mobile device," which could support a broad reading on any main application program (’032 Patent, col. 2:62-64).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The problem-solution narrative of the patent focuses on providing "additional functionality...that is not provided by the instructions" of the superblock, suggesting the superblock is an entity that initially lacks the functionality later provided by the function block (’032 Patent, col. 3:35-38).

  • The Term: "function block"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the module that provides the added functionality. The nature of its relationship to the "superblock application"—whether it is merely a linked library or a more independent, third-party component—is central to the infringement analysis.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the function block may be "compiled or otherwise included" in the superblock and can be viewed as a "set of instructions providing intelligence" (’032 Patent, col. 4:55-61; col. 6:40-42). This language could support a broad definition covering integrated software libraries.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also describes the function block as a potentially independent module, such as a "software developer's kit (SDK)," and notes that its independent nature means the superblock developer "needs little information about the operation of the function block" beyond how to access its services (’032 Patent, col. 4:57-59; col. 5:4-8). This may support a narrower construction requiring a higher degree of separability.

  • The Term: "without switching context"

    • Context and Importance: This phrase captures the primary technical benefit of the invention. The dispute will likely center on whether this limitation refers to the user's visual experience (i.e., not leaving the application's graphical interface) or a more specific technical operation at the operating system level.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent repeatedly contrasts the invention with launching a separate application, such as an email client, which "removes the user from the superblock application" (’092 Patent, col. 3:58-63). This suggests the term refers to the user-facing experience of remaining within a single application environment.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes the technical problem of context switching as the device having to "swap instructions into and out of physical memory," which "impacts performance and battery life" (’092 Patent, col. 3:16-18). This could support an argument that infringement requires a specific technical showing about memory management, not just the user's perception of staying within one app.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is alleged based on Cigna providing the MDLIVE application along with marketing, user manuals, and online documentation that allegedly instruct and encourage users to infringe (Compl. ¶31, ¶52, ¶64, ¶78, ¶97). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that components of the Accused Products are material to the inventions, are not staple articles of commerce, lack substantial non-infringing uses, and are known by Cigna to be adapted for infringement (Compl. ¶32, ¶53, ¶65, ¶79, ¶98).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Cigna’s purported knowledge of the patents-in-suit since their issuance, attributed to its status as a technology-focused company that should monitor communication technology advances (Compl. ¶20). The complaint also pleads willful blindness, alleging that Cigna "deliberately avoided learning of infringement" and maintains a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶20).

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

  • A central issue will be one of architectural scope: does the claimed “superblock”/“function block” paradigm, rooted in the concept of adding functionality to existing software, read on a modern, integrated mobile application like MDLIVE, or is it limited to a narrower architecture where a distinct, pre-existing application is augmented by a separable software module?
  • A key claim construction question will be one of functional relationship: what technical showing is required to prove that a service is “not otherwise supported by the superblock application,” and can the plaintiff demonstrate that MDLIVE’s communication features meet this negative limitation, or are they an integral and native part of the application itself?
  • An evidentiary question will be whether Damaka can produce technical evidence beyond the high-level descriptions in the complaint—such as source code analysis or expert testimony—to demonstrate that the internal software architecture of the MDLIVE application actually practices the claimed methods, including the use of API calls between components that meet the definitions of a distinct "superblock" and "function block."