Calibrate Networks LLC v. KPMG Intl Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Calibrate Networks LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: KPMG International Limited (United Kingdom)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-1073, E.D. Tex., 10/28/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products and services infringe a patent related to managing network communications by changing network addresses for software processes without losing data or connections.
• Technical Context: The patent addresses methods for improving the flexibility and efficiency of computer networks, particularly in supporting mobility and renumbering network devices, which is a critical function for modern, dynamic network management.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or inter partes review proceedings involving 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 the difficulty in traditional network architectures of changing the address for a device or software process "without losing some packets or in some architectures, such as the Internet, destroying connections" (’633 Patent, col. 1:55-59). This inability to easily change addresses is described as a critical roadblock for supporting mobility and efficient network routing (’633 Patent, col. 1:59-61).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a network management system can assign a "new address" to an "Inter-Process Communication (IPC) process" that already has an "old address" (’633 Patent, col. 12:41-52). The IPC process then begins using this new address as the source address for its outgoing data traffic, allowing other communicating processes to learn of the change dynamically when they receive data from the new address (’633 Patent, col. 6:20-30; col. 12:53-57). This process allows an address to be changed without interrupting ongoing communications or connections.
• Technical Importance: This approach decouples a process's long-term identity (its "application name") from its temporary location on the network (its "address"), a foundational concept for creating more robust and mobile network services (’633 Patent, col. 6:46-63).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims of the ’633 Patent without specifying them, referring to them as the "Exemplary ’633 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • determining... an address change is desired for an Inter-Process Communication (IPC) process, wherein the IPC process has been assigned an old address... and wherein the IPC process has an application name that is known globally;
  • 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 the IPC process.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused products or services by name (Compl. ¶11). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in claim charts referenced as "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶14, ¶16). This exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed complaint.
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges only that Defendant has made, used, sold, and imported infringing products and has had its employees internally test and use them (Compl. ¶11-12).

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 asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). However, it does so by incorporating by reference the claim charts of an unprovided "Exhibit 2," without providing a narrative description of the infringing functionality in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶17). As such, the specific factual basis for the infringement allegations is not detailed in the provided document.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Lacking specific infringement allegations, an analysis of the patent suggests that future disputes may center on several key technical and legal questions:
  • Scope Questions: Do the accused systems, which may be part of a professional services firm's IT infrastructure, contain an "Inter-Process Communication (IPC) process" as that term is understood in the context of the patent? The patent appears to contemplate a specific type of network architecture, and a key question will be whether the accused systems operate within that paradigm (’633 Patent, col. 6:46-54).
  • Technical Questions: Does the accused technology perform a dynamic address change where a process is explicitly assigned a "new address" while an "old address" is still active, and then uses that new address as a source for outgoing traffic to propagate the change? A central factual question will be whether the accused systems perform this specific sequence of operations or achieve a similar result through a different technical mechanism.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental entity whose address is being changed. The scope of "IPC process" will be critical, as Defendant may argue its systems do not use entities that meet this definition. Practitioners may focus on whether this term is limited to the specific "Recursive Inter Network Architecture (RINA)" context described in the patent or can be read more broadly to cover any software process communicating over a network.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself does not limit the "IPC process" to any particular network architecture, suggesting it could apply to any communicating software process.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly discusses IPC processes as "members of a DIF" (a Distributed IPC Facility), a concept central to the RINA architecture (’633 Patent, col. 6:51-54). This language could be used to argue that an "IPC process" is a term of art with a specific, narrower meaning within the context of the patent.

• The Term: "application name that is known globally"

• Context and Importance: This limitation distinguishes the persistent identity of a process from its transient network address. The dispute will likely involve whether the accused systems maintain such a distinction and whether the "application name" is "known globally" in the manner contemplated by the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "globally" is not explicitly defined, which could support an interpretation that it means known anywhere outside of the specific network layer where the address resides.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification contrasts the "globally" known "A-Appl-name" with the "a-old" and "a-new" addresses that "are only known within the layer" (’633 Patent, col. 6:17-19). This suggests a specific, layered architectural context is required to give the term its full meaning.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells the accused products and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in a manner that infringes the ’633 Patent (Compl. ¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the word "willful," but it alleges that service of the complaint and its attached (but unprovided) claim charts constitutes "actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges that despite this knowledge, Defendant continues its infringing activities, which may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement (Compl. ¶14).

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

1. A core issue will be one of applicability: Can the specific, architecture-heavy concepts of the ’633 patent—such as an "IPC process" with a "globally known application name" separate from its layer-specific addresses—be mapped onto the concrete technology used in Defendant’s accused products, which remain unidentified in the complaint?
2. A primary threshold question will be evidentiary: Given that the complaint's infringement theory relies entirely on an unprovided exhibit, the initial phases of litigation will likely focus on whether the Plaintiff can produce sufficient factual evidence to substantiate its conclusory allegations that Defendant's systems perform the specific address-changing method required by the patent claims.