PTAB

IPR2026-00210

Cisco Systems Inc v. Damaka Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Functionality in Software Applications
  • Brief Description: The ’362 patent discloses methods for improving functionality in software applications by organizing features into modular "function blocks" that are compiled into a main "superblock application." The system is described in the context of enabling real-time, end-to-end communication sessions like video calls on mobile devices.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-14, 16-20, 22-28, and 75 are obvious over Abuan, Platt, and Morrison.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Abuan (Application # 2011/0249077), Platt (Patent 8,396,490), and Morrison (Application # 2014/0184723).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Abuan taught the core inventive concept: a modular mobile video conferencing system. Abuan’s "video conferencing and processing module" was mapped to the claimed "superblock application," and its internal service modules (e.g., "video conference module 1302") were mapped to the "function block." Abuan also taught that these components communicate via Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). Platt was cited to supply the well-known method of distributing such applications to user devices from a server, such as an app store. Morrison was introduced to teach specific user interface (UI) management features for video calls during multitasking, such as resizing and moving the video window, which Petitioner mapped to limitations in dependent claims 10-13.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Abuan and Platt as a predictable and routine step to distribute Abuan's video conferencing application using a known commercial method (an app store). A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Morrison's UI management teachings into Abuan's system to improve the user experience, allowing users to multitask during a video call, which was a known problem with a known solution.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying conventional software distribution methods (Platt) and known UI rendering techniques (Morrison) to an existing type of modular software application (Abuan) to achieve predictable results.

Ground 2: Claim 15 is obvious over Abuan, Platt, Morrison, and Eisenberg.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Abuan (Application # 2011/0249077), Platt (Patent 8,396,490), Morrison (Application # 2014/0184723), and Eisenberg (Application # 2010/0066807).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Abuan, Platt, and Morrison from Ground 1 and added Eisenberg to address claim 15, which required the superblock application to update a "presence indicator" showing another user's online or offline status. Eisenberg was cited for its explicit teaching of using presence features in instant messaging (IM) clients to allow users to see the status of other clients on the network before initiating communication.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that since Abuan’s application could function as an IM client, a POSITA would be motivated to add the presence indicator taught by Eisenberg. This would provide the known and desirable benefit of allowing a user to check another's availability before attempting to start a video call, representing a predictable improvement to the user experience.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as straightforward, involving the integration of a standard feature (presence) from one communication application (Eisenberg) into a similar communication application (Abuan).

Ground 3: Claim 21 is obvious over Abuan, Platt, Morrison, and Beilis.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Abuan (Application # 2011/0249077), Platt (Patent 8,396,490), Morrison (Application # 2014/0184723), and Beilis (Application # 2013/0290982).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground also built on the primary combination from Ground 1, adding Beilis to address claim 21, which required the application to be "adapted to operate with Android as an operating system." While Abuan discussed frameworks for Apple's iOS, Beilis was cited for its disclosure of telecommunications video applications running on the Android platform. Beilis taught how such applications launch and render video calls on Android devices.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine was driven by commercial reality. A POSITA would have found it obvious and desirable to adapt Abuan's video conferencing application to run on the Android operating system, as taught by Beilis. This would be a routine engineering choice to make the application available to the large and well-established Android user base, thereby increasing its market reach.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that a POSITA would expect success, as Beilis demonstrated that video communication applications were already available and operable on the Android platform. Adapting Abuan's application was therefore an achievable implementation detail using known software development techniques.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that instituting the IPR would be an efficient use of resources. It noted that the challenged claims are asserted in co-pending litigation and that cancelling the claims through this proceeding would resolve the dispute and obviate the need for a district court trial on the same patent, saving time and costs for all parties.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-28 and 75 of the ’362 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.