Calibrate Networks LLC v. SolarWinds Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Calibrate Networks LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: SolarWinds Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00191, W.D. Tex., 04/23/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain of Defendant's unidentified products infringe a patent related to methods for managing network traffic congestion by modeling data flows as probability waves.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the field of network engineering, specifically Quality of Service (QoS) and congestion control, a critical aspect of ensuring reliable data transmission over the internet and private networks.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may tie its expiration date to that of an earlier patent in its family, potentially shortening its enforceable term.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,447,544 - Multiplexing and congestion control

(Compl. ¶8-9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that prior art approaches to network congestion control were inadequate because they were often based on flawed assumptions, such as modeling network traffic with simple Poisson distributions, which fails to capture its inherently "bursty" nature. This led to solutions that were either ineffective or too narrowly tailored to specific applications, making them difficult to scale or adapt. (’544 Patent, col. 1:30-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a new mathematical model and method for managing network traffic. Instead of treating traffic as a simple stream, the system models a given data flow as a "probability wave," where the wave's properties (e.g., height, length) represent the probability of traffic over time. (’544 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:6-9). As illustrated in Figure 18, this involves a two-step process: first, modeling the traffic flow as a probability wave (1802), and second, controlling an operational condition of the network (e.g., multiplexing) in accordance with that wave to manage congestion (1804). (’544 Patent, col. 2:62-65).
• Technical Importance: This wave-based approach is presented as a more comprehensive framework, independent of specific applications, designed to more effectively exploit the actual properties of network traffic to improve efficiency and Quality of Service (QoS). (’544 Patent, col. 1:52-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify any specific asserted claims in its body. It states that Defendant infringes "one or more claims" and refers to "Exemplary '544 Patent Claims" that are purportedly identified in an external Exhibit 2, which is not included with the complaint document. (Compl. ¶11, ¶13). Consequently, an analysis of specific claim elements is not possible based on the provided documents.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products, methods, or services. It refers generally to "Defendant products" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are allegedly identified in the charts of the un-provided Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶11, ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no technical description of the accused instrumentalities' functionality or any allegations regarding their market context or commercial importance. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '544 Patent." (Compl. ¶13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts or detailed infringement allegations, instead incorporating them by reference from an external Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶13-14). The narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant’s unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly infringe the unidentified "Exemplary '544 Patent Claims" either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. (Compl. ¶11). The complaint further alleges that Defendant directly infringes by having its employees "internally test and use these Exemplary Products." (Compl. ¶12).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Due to the lack of specificity in the complaint, any analysis of potential disputes is speculative. However, based on the patent's technology, the core of the infringement case would raise several questions:

• Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that the accused products perform a process that can be characterized as "modeling traffic on a given flow as a probability wave"? (’544 Patent, Fig. 18). Does the accused system "control an operational condition" based on such a model, and if so, how does that control mechanism map to the patent’s teachings?
• Scope Questions: How the accused products manage network traffic will be compared to the specific limitations of the asserted claims. A central dispute may concern whether the accused functionality, whatever it may be, falls within the scope of the patent's more conceptual "probability wave" framework.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not identify the specific claims asserted against the Defendant. (Compl. ¶11, ¶13). This omission precludes an analysis of key claim terms that may be central to the dispute.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes a single count for "Direct Infringement" and does not allege facts or make claims for relief based on indirect infringement (i.e., induced or contributory infringement). (Compl. ¶11).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement. However, the prayer for relief requests a judgment that the case be declared "exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285" and an award of attorneys' fees. (Compl. p. 4, ¶E.i). Such a request is often, though not exclusively, predicated on allegations of willful infringement, but the complaint provides no factual basis (such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent) to support such a finding.

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

1. A threshold issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint, which identifies neither the asserted claims nor the accused products in its body and relies entirely on incorporation by reference, provide sufficient notice to the Defendant under the Twombly/Iqbal federal pleading standard?
2. Assuming the case proceeds, a central question will be one of technical correspondence: does the Defendant's method for managing network traffic in its accused products meet the claim limitations requiring the "modeling" of traffic as a "probability wave" and subsequent "control" based on that wave, or is there a fundamental mismatch in their respective technical operations?
3. A likely validity challenge will raise a question of patent eligibility: are the asserted claims, which appear directed to a mathematical model for characterizing and managing information, patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, or will they be found to be directed to an abstract idea without a sufficiently inventive concept?