Calibrate Networks LLC v. Shopify Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Calibrate Networks LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Shopify, Inc. (Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00192, W.D. Tex., 04/24/2025
• 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 Defendant’s unnamed products and services infringe a patent related to methods for managing network communications, specifically concerning the dynamic changing of network addresses.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses fundamental network architecture challenges, aiming to improve efficiency and enable mobility by allowing a network address to be changed without disrupting an active data communications session.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention 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"

• Issued: Feb. 28, 2017.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty in traditional network architectures of changing the address for a communicating device or application without "destroying connections" (’633 Patent, col. 1:56-59). This complexity is described as a critical inhibitor to supporting mobility and efficient network routing (’633 Patent, col. 1:59-63).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for changing the address of a communicating entity, termed an "Inter-Process Communication (IPC) process," in a way that preserves the connection. An IPC process with a "globally" known application name is assigned a new network address while its old address is still valid. The process then immediately begins using the new address as its source address in outgoing data packets, allowing other network participants to dynamically learn the new address and update their routing information without session interruption (’633 Patent, col. 5:40-6:39; Abstract).
• Technical Importance: The described method provides a mechanism for non-disruptive network renumbering, which is a foundational requirement for enabling user mobility and flexible network management (’633 Patent, col. 1:59-63).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '633 Patent Claims" identified in an external exhibit (Compl. ¶11). This analysis focuses on independent claim 1 as a representative claim.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • 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 the new address is known only within a specific network "layer"
  • the IPC process then "utilizes the new address as a source address" in its outgoing "Data Transfer Process (DTP) flows"
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but generally alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name a specific accused product, method, or service. It refers generally to "the Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" and calls them the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context. It makes only conclusory allegations that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '633 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that infringement claim charts are provided in Exhibit 2, which is incorporated by reference but was not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶16, 17). Without access to these charts, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the complaint's text alone. The complaint's narrative theory alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the patented technology and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether the terminology of the patent, such as "Inter-Process Communication (IPC) process," "application name that is known globally," and "Data Transfer Process (DTP) flows," can be read to cover the specific software components and communication protocols used within Defendant's commercial platform.
• Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question is what proof the Plaintiff will offer to show that the accused systems perform the specific sequence required by Claim 1: assigning a "new address" while an "old address" is still operative and immediately using that new address as the "source address" for outgoing data flows. The complaint itself does not contain this technical 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 claimed method applies. The outcome of the infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the communicating software entities within Defendant's infrastructure are found to be "IPC processes" as contemplated by the patent.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests an "IPC Process" is an "Application Process[] that are members of a DIF [Distributed IPC Facility]" (’633 Patent, col. 5:51-52), which could be argued to encompass a wide range of communicating software applications within a given network layer.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The description of this process occurs in the context of a "Recursive Inter Network Architecture (RINA)" (’633 Patent, col. 5:42-44), which could support an argument that the term is limited to entities within that specific, non-standard architecture.

The Term: "application name that is known globally"

Context and Importance

• This element is critical for distinguishing the stable identity of a process from its transient network address. Infringement will hinge on whether Defendant's systems employ an analogous identifier that remains constant while network-level addresses change.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself suggests a functional definition: any name for the process that is "known globally" to distinguish it from the layer-specific address.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent incorporates by reference an ISO standard related to naming (’633 Patent, col. 5:46-49), which could be used to argue for a more formal, structured definition of an "application name."

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells products to customers and distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users" to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14-15). The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge for inducement at least since the date it was served with the complaint (Compl. ¶15).

Willful Infringement

• Willfulness is predicated on post-suit conduct. The complaint alleges that service of the complaint provided Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶13-14). Plaintiff seeks enhanced damages in its prayer for relief (Compl. ¶ Prayer D).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the abstract architectural terms of the ’633 patent, such as an "Inter-Process Communication (IPC) process" and a "globally known" application name, be construed to map onto the concrete software architecture and networking protocols of Defendant's commercial e-commerce platform?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: what technical evidence, which is absent from the complaint, will be presented to demonstrate that the accused systems actually perform the dynamic address-change process as claimed—specifically, the assignment and immediate use of a "new address" as a source while an "old address" remains valid?