Throughout the trial, Cisco contested the validity of the patent, including a September 2022 motion for an ex parte reexamination. However, the examiner ultimately dismissed Cisco’s invalidity claims. On the day of the verdict, Cisco filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that Paltalk had selectively asserted method claims over system claims and that selling software capable of practicing a patented method does not constitute direct infringement.
Additionally, Cisco contended that Paltalk failed to provide evidence demonstrating that Webex determines which clients cannot mix multiple audio streams as specified in Claim 1 of the patent. The company also criticized Paltalk’s damages analysis, asserting that using the entire market value of Webex and Webex Audio was unjustified.
Cisco $65.7M Verdict : Jury’s Decision and Implications
The jury’s unanimous decision affirmed that Paltalk successfully proved Cisco directly infringed claims one through five of the patent. Moreover, Cisco did not establish that the claims were invalid due to obviousness or an inadequate written description, as per the verdict form.
