Calibrate Networks LLC v. Red Hat Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Calibrate Networks LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Red Hat, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01575, D. Del., 12/30/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and maintains an established place of business in the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to methods for managing network communications, specifically concerning the process of changing network addresses.
• Technical Context: The patent-in-suit describes a networking architecture intended to improve efficiency by altering how data packets are processed across different protocol layers.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, administrative proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,584,633 - "Method and system for managing network communications"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,584,633, issued February 28, 2017 (the “’633 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies inefficiencies in traditional layered network architectures, where processing incoming data packets requires passing them through multiple stages, often entailing data copies and task switching that create overhead and complexity (’633 Patent, col. 1:21-29). It also notes the difficulty in changing network addresses without losing data or destroying connections in conventional architectures (’633 Patent, col. 2:55-62).
• The Patented Solution: The patent proposes a "recursive" architecture where a protocol data unit (PDU) is treated "as a serial tape to be processed in order" by a single processor (’633 Patent, col. 3:3-9; Abstract). This "flattening" of the processing aims to avoid passing the PDU from layer to layer. A key aspect of this architecture is a method for changing the address of a network process without losing data, by assigning a new address to an entity while temporarily maintaining the old one, allowing for a seamless transition (’633 Patent, col. 5:39-44).
• Technical Importance: The described methods aim to improve network efficiency, mobility, and routing flexibility by simplifying protocol processing and enabling dynamic address changes without disrupting active connections (’633 Patent, col. 2:58-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but references claim charts in an unattached exhibit for specifics (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16). For analysis, independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's address-changing technology.
• Independent Claim 1 elements include:
  • determining an address change is desired for an Inter-Process Communication (IPC) process that has an old address and a globally known application name;
  • assigning a new address to the IPC process;
  • wherein the IPC process utilizes the new address as a source address in any Data Transfer Process (DTP) flows originating from it.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name in the body of the complaint. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in claim charts provided as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11). This exhibit was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the ’633 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ’633 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). It incorporates by reference claim charts from Exhibit 2, which is not attached to the public filing (Compl. ¶17). As such, the complaint itself provides no specific factual allegations mapping features of any Red Hat product to the limitations of the asserted claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "Inter-Process Communication (IPC) process"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the entity undergoing the address change. Its definition is central to determining whether the accused products, which may use various forms of inter-process or network communication, fall within the claim's scope. Practitioners may focus on whether this term is limited to the specific "Recursive Inter Network Architecture (RINA)" described in the patent or can be read more broadly.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself does not explicitly limit the "IPC process" to a specific network architecture, suggesting a potentially broader application to any process that communicates with another.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification defines "IPC Processes" as "Application Processes that are members of a DIF" (a Distributed IPC Facility) and discusses them in the context of the RINA framework ('633 Patent, col. 5:53-55). This may support an argument that the term should be construed as being limited to the specific architectural context disclosed.

The Term: "utilizes the new address as a source address in any Data Transfer Process (DTP) flows"

• Context and Importance: This limitation describes the action taken by the IPC process after receiving a new address. The dispute may turn on what actions constitute "utilizing" the new address in a "DTP flow." The definition will be critical for determining whether the accused products perform the claimed method.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim suggests that any use of the new address as the origin point for data flows could meet this limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a specific "Data Transfer Protocol (DTP)" that provides functions like fragmentation, reassembly, and ordering ('633 Patent, col. 4:19-22). A defendant may argue that "DTP flows" is a term of art limited to flows governed by a protocol with these specific characteristics, as opposed to any generic data transfer.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that since the service of the complaint, Defendant has "actively, knowingly, and intentionally continued to induce infringement" by selling products to customers and distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement. However, it alleges that service of the complaint constitutes "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" (Compl. ¶13), which could form the basis for alleging post-filing willfulness if infringement continues.

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

• A primary procedural question will be one of pleading sufficiency: Does a complaint that relies entirely on an unattached exhibit to identify accused products and provide infringement contentions meet the plausibility standard established by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and the Twombly/Iqbal line of cases?
• A central technical question will be one of architectural scope: Can the claims, which arise from a specification detailing a specific "Recursive Inter Network Architecture," be construed to cover network communication and address management functions in Defendant’s products if they are based on a different, more conventional network architecture?
• A core infringement question will be one of evidentiary proof: Assuming the case proceeds, what evidence will Plaintiff present to demonstrate that the accused products perform the specific steps of the patented address-changing method, particularly the step where an "IPC process" begins to "utilize" a newly assigned address as its source address in ongoing data flows?