Calibrate Networks LLC v. IBM Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Calibrate Networks LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: IBM Corporation (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: Calibrate Networks LLC v. IBM Corporation, 2:25-cv-00434, E.D. Tex., Filed 04/24/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain unidentified products of Defendant infringe a patent related to methods for managing network traffic and controlling congestion.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns a novel mathematical method for managing network traffic by modeling data flows as "probability waves" to predict and control congestion, aiming to improve upon traditional Quality of Service (QoS) techniques.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit claims a priority date from a provisional application filed in 2003. The patent’s front page also notes that it is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit the patent’s term to that of an earlier-expiring, related patent.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,447,544 - "Multiplexing and congestion control", issued October 15, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that prior art approaches to network congestion control are flawed because they rely on mathematical models (e.g., Poisson distributions) that do not accurately reflect the "bursty" nature of real-world internet traffic (’544 Patent, col. 1:31-38). This mismatch renders it difficult to effectively manage Quality of Service (QoS) and prevent congestion without being either inefficient or tied to specific, inflexible application types (’544 Patent, col. 1:45-56).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a new framework for managing network traffic by modeling a given data flow as a "probability wave" (’544 Patent, col. 5:15-18, Fig. 18). Instead of a continuous stream, traffic is characterized by a waveform where the amplitude at any point in time represents the probability of data transmission (’544 Patent, col. 18:3-6). By analyzing the properties of these waves—such as wavelength, jitter, and phase—the system can more intelligently combine (multiplex) different flows to optimize network capacity and control congestion, for instance by shaping combined flows to approximate a highly efficient "square wave" (’544 Patent, col. 9:12-20). This method aims to "exploit the inherent burstiness of network traffic" rather than attempting to suppress it (’544 Patent, col. 2:26-28).
• Technical Importance: This approach represents a shift from application-dependent rules to a more fundamental, mathematical characterization of traffic, suggesting a more scalable and adaptable method for engineering network performance. (’544 Patent, col. 4:45-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims, instead referring to "Exemplary ’544 Patent Claims" in an external exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶13). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented method.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • receiving a request for a quality of service (QoS) associated with an application executing on a network, the QoS expressed as requested QoS parameters;
  • obtaining operating parameters of the network;
  • modeling traffic for a group of flows in the network as probability waves based at least in part on the operating parameters to generate a model of the traffic including model flows;
  • determining QoS parameters for the network, wherein the QoS parameters for the network are expressed in terms of properties of the probability waves; and
  • controlling an operational condition of the network in accordance with the model, thereby controlling the QoS parameters for the network to satisfy the requested QoS parameters.
• The complaint broadly alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’544 Patent (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused IBM products, methods, or services by name (Compl. ¶11). It refers only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in "charts incorporated into this Count" via Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶¶11, 13). Exhibit 2 was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no description of the technical functionality, operation, or market context of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges only that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '544 Patent" (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement allegations are made entirely through incorporation of external claim charts (Exhibit 2), which were not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶13-14). The pleading itself contains no specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to accused product features. As such, a detailed analysis of the infringement theory is not possible based on the provided documents.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the definition of "probability wave." The question will likely be whether Defendant's networking products, which may use various statistical or heuristic-based congestion control algorithms, perform a step that can be fairly characterized as "modeling traffic ... as probability waves" as that term is used in the ’544 Patent.
• Technical Questions: A key technical question for the court will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused products perform the specific step of "determining QoS parameters for the network... in terms of properties of the probability waves" (e.g., wavelength, jitter). The Plaintiff would need to show not only that the accused products manage QoS, but that they do so by deriving and using parameters from the patent's specific wave-based model.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "probability wave"

• Context and Importance: This non-standard term is the conceptual core of the invention. Its construction will be critical, as infringement will depend on whether the algorithms in Defendant's products can be shown to create or use a "probability wave."
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that from an observer's point of view, "one can consider the traffic generated by an application to be a probability wave" and that "any periodic waveform can be represented by" a Fourier series, suggesting the term could potentially cover a wide range of probabilistic models of periodic network traffic (’544 Patent, col. 7:1-14).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also provides a more specific description, analogizing the wave to a "smeared cloud of bits in time that suddenly condense at a specific point when a packet arrives" (’544 Patent, col. 7:30-32). Figures and related text show the wave's shape being defined by specific variance characteristics of the traffic bursts, which could support a narrower construction limited to models incorporating these specific features (’544 Patent, col. 7:35-47, Fig. 9).

The Term: "controlling an operational condition... in accordance with the model"

• Context and Importance: This term links the abstract "probability wave" model to a concrete action in the network. The dispute will center on the required nexus between the model and the control action.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: This could be interpreted to mean any network control action (e.g., traffic shaping, rate limiting) that is generally informed by the probabilistic traffic characteristics captured by the model.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent discloses specific control actions, such as combining flows to "approximate a square wave" or selecting flows with the "same wavelength" to "avoid beat frequencies" (’544 Patent, col. 9:16-20; col. 11:8-15). This could support a narrower construction requiring the control action to be one of the specific types disclosed that directly relies on the wave's calculated properties.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead a count for indirect (induced or contributory) infringement. It alleges only direct infringement by Defendant and its employees (Compl. ¶¶11-12).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. However, in its prayer for relief, it requests a judgment that the case be declared "exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285," which pertains to an award of attorney fees (Compl. p. 4, Relief E.i). The complaint pleads no specific facts to support pre-suit or post-suit knowledge of the patent by Defendant.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent’s central, highly conceptual term "probability wave" be construed to read on the actual algorithms and data structures used in Defendant's commercial network management products? The case may turn on whether the accused functionality is merely analogous or can be shown to be structurally and functionally the same as the specific modeling technique described in the patent.
• The case will also present a key question of evidentiary sufficiency: given the complaint's reliance on an unfiled exhibit, a primary challenge for the Plaintiff will be to produce sufficient factual evidence—likely from source code or internal design documents—to demonstrate that the accused products actually perform the abstract steps of "modeling" traffic and "controlling" the network in accordance with the patent's unique wave-based methodology.