Calibrate Networks LLC v. Cgi Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Calibrate Networks LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: CGI Inc. (Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01072, E.D. Tex., 10/28/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendant is a foreign corporation and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products and services infringe a patent related to methods for managing network communications, specifically concerning dynamic address changes within a network layer.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses inefficiencies in traditional layered network protocol processing by proposing a recursive architecture that simplifies data handling and allows for flexible address management without disrupting active connections.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) 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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes traditional network architectures as "very inefficient" due to the need to pass data packets through multiple protocol layers, which requires data copies and task switching (’633 Patent, col. 1:21-24). It also identifies the difficulty of changing network addresses—critical for mobility and network renumbering—as a "complex, expensive and disruptive affair" in conventional systems (’633 Patent, col. 1:60-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "recursive architecture" where the same protocol mechanisms can be used across different network layers, simplifying processing (’633 Patent, col. 4:22-26). A core aspect of this solution is a method for changing the address of a communicating process without losing data or connections. This is achieved by assigning a "new address" to a process while its "old address" is still active, using the new address as the source in subsequent communications, and propagating routing updates, thereby allowing for a seamless transition (’633 Patent, col. 6:14-40; Claim 1). This "flattening" of protocol processing avoids passing data units between layers and is analogized to treating a data packet as a "serial tape" processed by a single, adaptable "Universal Turing Machine" (’633 Patent, col. 3:3-8).
• Technical Importance: The described approach aims to enhance network efficiency and flexibility, particularly in supporting device mobility and large-scale network reconfigurations, which are significant challenges in modern network management (’633 Patent, col. 1:55-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’633 Patent without specifying them in the body, instead referring to an external exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented method.
• Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
  • Determining an address change is desired for an "Inter-Process Communication (IPC) process" that has an "old address" known only in a specific "layer" and a globally known "application name."
  • Assigning a "new address" to the IPC process, with the new address also being known only in that layer.
  • The IPC process then "utilizes the new address as a source address" in any new "Data Transfer Process (DTP) flows" it originates.
• The complaint's reference to "one or more claims" suggests the right to assert additional independent or dependent claims may be asserted later in the proceedings (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products or services (Compl. ¶11). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are allegedly identified in claim charts provided in an "Exhibit 2," which was not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context. All substantive allegations regarding the products' operation are incorporated by reference from the unprovided Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates its infringement allegations by reference to claim charts in an external "Exhibit 2," which is not provided in the filed document (Compl. ¶¶16-17). The narrative infringement theory alleges that the Defendant's "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology of the ’633 Patent and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '633 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). The allegations cover direct infringement through Defendant's own making, using, and testing of the products, as well as sales to customers (Compl. ¶¶11-12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patent's claims and the general nature of the allegations, several key points of contention may arise.

• Scope Questions: The dispute may center on whether the architecture of the accused products falls within the scope of the patent's claims. For example, a question for the court could be: does a process within a standard TCP/IP stack qualify as an "Inter-Process Communication (IPC) process" with an address "only known in a layer," as those terms are used in the patent?
• Technical Questions: A central technical question will be whether the accused products actually perform the dynamic, multi-step address-swapping method recited in Claim 1. What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products, upon determining an address change is needed, assign a new layer-specific address and immediately begin using it as a source address for new data flows? The complaint itself provides no such evidence.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

Context and Importance

This term defines the entity to which the patented method applies. Its construction will determine whether the claims read on a narrow class of specialized systems or a broad range of modern networking applications.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines IPC Processes as "Application Processes that are members of a DIF" (Distributed IPC Facility), suggesting the term could encompass a wide variety of software applications that communicate over a network (’633 Patent, col. 6:53-55).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly discusses the invention in the context of a "Recursive Inter Network Architecture (RINA)" (’633 Patent, col. 6:41-43). A party could argue that an "IPC process" must operate within the specific constraints of a RINA-style architecture, limiting the claim's applicability to more conventional network systems.

The Term: "wherein the [old/new] address is only known in a layer"

Context and Importance

This limitation distinguishes the claimed invention from systems using globally unique identifiers. The definition of "layer" and the meaning of an address being "only known" within it are critical to the infringement analysis.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The background describes "layers of protocol of different scope" in general terms, which might support a flexible definition applicable to various networking models, including logical layers in modern software-defined networks (’633 Patent, col. 1:19-21).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description emphasizes a "recursive architecture" where "the protocols are the same" for each layer, a departure from traditional, heterogeneous protocol stacks (’633 Patent, col. 4:22-26). This could support an argument that "layer" is a term of art limited to the specific recursive structure disclosed in the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). The specific content of these materials is purportedly detailed in the unprovided Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

The complaint asserts that service of the complaint and its attached claim charts constitutes "actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges that Defendant "continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" the accused products despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶14). These allegations form a basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement, which could lead to a request for enhanced damages.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "Inter-Process Communication (IPC) process," which is described in the context of a specialized "Recursive Inter Network Architecture," be construed broadly enough to cover the functionalities within the Defendant's accused products, which may operate on more conventional network architectures?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional correspondence: once discovery commences, can the Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused products implement the specific, sequential method of dynamically replacing a layer-specific "old address" with a "new address" for originating data flows, as strictly required by the elements of the asserted claims?