Calibrate Networks LLC v. BlackBerry Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Calibrate Networks LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Blackberry Limited (Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00435, E.D. Tex., 04/24/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has an established place of business in the District and has committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unspecified products and services from Defendant infringe a patent related to methods for managing network communications, specifically concerning the dynamic changing of network addresses.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns foundational network architecture, aiming to improve efficiency and flexibility over traditional layered protocol stacks by simplifying data processing and enabling address changes without disrupting active connections.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or specific 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, Issued Feb. 28, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Traditional network architectures process data by passing it sequentially through multiple protocol layers (e.g., TCP/IP). This process is described as inefficient, involving data copying and task switching at each layer, and making it difficult to change a device's network address without losing or destroying active connections (’633 Patent, col. 1:21-63).
• The Patented Solution: The patent proposes a "recursive" network architecture that "flattens" protocol processing. Instead of passing a data packet (PDU) between distinct layers, a single processor treats the PDU's headers as a "serial tape" and applies different policy sets for each logical layer, avoiding data copies and handoffs (’633 Patent, col. 3:1-9). To solve the address change problem, the invention proposes assigning a new address to a network entity while an old address remains temporarily active, allowing a seamless transition to the new address without dropping connections (’633 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:15-30).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to increase the speed and efficiency of network routers and switches while providing critical support for mobility and network renumbering, which are often complex and disruptive tasks in conventional networks (’633 Patent, col. 1:55-63).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified "Exemplary '633 Patent Claims" (’633 Compl. ¶11). Independent claims 1 and 8 are representative of the patented method and system.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • 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, where both the old and new addresses are only known within a specific network "layer".
  • 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, but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports infringing products and that its own employees internally test and use these products (Compl. ¶11-12). The complaint does not provide any description of the accused products' specific functionality or market position.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that it incorporates by reference "charts comparing the Exemplary '633 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" contained in an Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16-17). However, Exhibit 2 was not filed with the public complaint. Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

The narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant’s products practice the technology claimed by the ’633 Patent (Compl. ¶16). Based on the patent's focus, the implicit theory is that certain Blackberry products or services, in managing network communications for end-users, implement a method for changing network addresses that corresponds to the steps of the asserted claims. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: A primary issue will be identifying the specific accused products and adducing evidence of their internal operation. What evidence demonstrates that the accused products perform the claimed method of assigning a "new address" to an "IPC process" while an "old address" is still associated with it, and subsequently using that "new address" as a source?
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations raise the question of whether the accused products' address management functions perform the specific steps recited in the claims. For instance, do they assign and utilize new addresses in a way that maps onto the patent's specific model, where addresses are "only known in a layer" and used for "DTP flows"? (Compl. ¶16; '633 Patent, cl. 1).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "Inter-Process Communication (IPC) process" (from Claim 1).

• Context and Importance: This term defines the entity whose address is being changed. The scope of "IPC process" will be critical to determining whether the software components in Blackberry’s products fall within the claim. Practitioners may focus on whether this term is limited to the specific "Recursive Inter Network Architecture" (RINA) described in the patent or if it can be read more broadly.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is a general term of art in computer science, suggesting any software process that communicates with another. The claims do not appear to explicitly limit the term to a specific architectural context.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links "IPC Processes" to a specific environment, stating they "are Application Processes that are members of a DIF [Distributed IPC Facility]" (’633 Patent, col. 5:52-55). This could support an argument that the term is not generic but refers to a process within the patent's disclosed RINA framework.

• The Term: "layer" (from Claim 1).

• Context and Importance: The claim requires that both the "old address" and the "new address" are "only known in the layer." The definition of "layer" is central to infringement, as it constrains where the claimed addressing scheme operates. The dispute may turn on whether Blackberry's network architecture has a construct analogous to the patent's "layer."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent background discusses "layers of protocol" in the context of traditional networking, suggesting the term could be understood in its conventional sense (’633 Patent, col. 1:18-21).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's proposed solution involves a "recursive architecture" that "flattens" processing and reconceptualizes layers (’633 Patent, col. 3:6-9). An argument could be made that "layer" must be interpreted in light of this specific, non-traditional architecture, particularly as the invention aims to overcome the limitations of conventional layers.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant induces infringement by distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end-users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’633 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The allegation of willfulness appears to be based on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" and that any continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

1. An Evidentiary Question of Operation: Given the lack of specificity in the complaint, a threshold issue will be whether discovery reveals that any of Blackberry's products actually perform the claimed method. Specifically, do they implement a dynamic address-change mechanism where a "new address" is assigned to a process and then used as a source address while an "old address" is phased out, as required by claim 1?
2. A Definitional Question of Scope: The case may turn on claim construction, particularly whether the term "Inter-Process Communication (IPC) process" is interpreted as a generic software component or as a specific entity operating within the patent's disclosed "Recursive Inter Network Architecture."
3. A Question of Technical Correspondence: A core dispute will likely be whether the architecture of the accused Blackberry systems, whatever it may be, corresponds to the patent's claimed environment. For infringement to be found, Plaintiff must demonstrate that the accused systems have a "layer" in which addresses are "only known," a distinction that may not map cleanly onto Blackberry's technology.