DCT
7:25-cv-00196
Calibrate Networks LLC v. Box Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Calibrate Networks LLC (NM)
- Defendant: Box, Inc. (DE)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
- Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00196, W.D. Tex., 04/24/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Western District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unnamed cloud networking products and services infringe a patent related to methods for managing network communications, specifically concerning address changes for active processes.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses inefficiencies in traditional layered network architectures, proposing methods to simplify protocol processing and enable dynamic address changes without disrupting ongoing data transfers, a critical function for mobility and load balancing in large-scale networks.
- 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
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-03-15 | '633 Patent Priority Date |
| 2014-03-14 | '633 Patent Application Filing Date |
| 2017-02-28 | '633 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-04-24 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,584,633 - "Method and system for managing network communications"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,584,633, "Method and system for managing network communications," issued February 28, 2017 (’633 Patent). (Compl. ¶¶8-9).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes traditional network architectures as inefficient due to the need to pass data packets (Protocol Data Units or PDUs) through multiple processing layers, which entails data copying and task switching (ʼ633 Patent, col. 1:21-28). It also notes that changing the network address of a device or process is often difficult and can destroy active connections, which is a barrier to mobility and efficient routing (ʼ633 Patent, col. 1:56-62).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to manage address changes for an active network process without losing the connection. This is accomplished by assigning a new address to an "Inter-Process Communication (IPC) process" while its old address is still active, and then having the process begin using the new address as its source address for outgoing data flows (ʼ633 Patent, col. 6:13-23). This allows for a seamless transition, as other communicating entities will see the new source address and update their own records accordingly, allowing the old address to be retired without disrupting the connection (ʼ633 Patent, col. 6:31-41).
- Technical Importance: This approach aims to provide a mechanism for renumbering network entities on-the-fly, which is critical for supporting mobile devices, migrating virtual machines, and managing network resources efficiently without the disruptive effect of tearing down and re-establishing connections (ʼ633 Patent, col. 5:40-46).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead referencing "Exemplary '633 Patent Claims" in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶11). The patent's first independent method claim, Claim 1, is representative of the core invention.
- Independent Claim 1 (Method) Elements:
- 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.
- The complaint states that Plaintiff infringes "one or more claims" of the patent, reserving the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶11).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint does not name any specific accused products, referring only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and "numerous other devices" (Compl. ¶11). Defendant Box, Inc. operates a large-scale cloud content management and file sharing platform.
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint does not provide any description of the technical functionality of the accused products. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '633 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint incorporates by reference infringement allegations from "the attached claim charts" in an unprovided "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶¶13, 16-17). As such, the following chart summarizes the infringement theory for representative Claim 1 based on the complaint's general allegations.
'633 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| determining... an address change is desired for an Inter-Process Communication (IPC) process, wherein the IPC process has been assigned an old address... and... has an application name that is known globally | The complaint alleges that Defendant's systems determine that an address change is needed for a network process, such as when migrating a user session or a backend service between servers. | ¶11, ¶16 | col. 11:36-42 |
| assigning, by the system, a new address to the IPC process, wherein the new address is only known in the layer | Defendant's systems are alleged to assign a new IP address to the network process that is being migrated. | ¶11, ¶16 | col. 11:43-46 |
| wherein the IPC process utilizes the new address as a source address in any Data Transfer Process (DTP) flows originating from the IPC process | The network process is alleged to immediately begin using the new IP address as the source address for its outgoing data packets, allowing connections to be maintained without interruption. | ¶11, ¶16 | col. 12:1-4 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Architectural Questions: A central question is whether Defendant's cloud architecture, which is not described in the complaint, can be mapped to the specific "Recursive Inter Network Architecture" (RINA) framework for which the patent's methods were designed (ʼ633 Patent, col. 5:42-43). The complaint does not provide evidence that Defendant's systems contain an "IPC process" or "DTP flows" as those terms are used in the patent.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that Defendant’s systems perform the specific claimed method of assigning a new address while an old one is active for the same process, and then using that new address as a source address? The court may need to consider whether alternative, non-infringing methods for session migration or load balancing are used, about which the complaint is silent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"Inter-Process Communication (IPC) process"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the entity to which the claimed method applies. Its construction is critical because if Defendant's system does not contain an "IPC process," there can be no infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its meaning could either be generic or highly specific to the patent's disclosed architecture.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the term should be given its ordinary meaning in computer science, referring to any software process that communicates with another.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification defines "IPC Processes" as "Application Processes that are members of a DIF [Distributed IPC Facility]" within the context of a "Recursive Inter Network Architecture (RINA)" (ʼ633 Patent, col. 5:51-55). This suggests the term is not generic but is instead a term of art specific to the patent's framework.
"Data Transfer Process (DTP) flows"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the communication channel that is preserved during the address change. Infringement requires that the "IPC process" use its new address as a source in "DTP flows." The definition will determine what kind of data communication falls within the claim's scope.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue this covers any continuous stream of data packets, such as a TCP session.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a specific "Data Transfer Protocol (DTP)" responsible for "fragmentation/reassembly, ordering, delimiting" and a "Data Transfer Control Protocol (DTCP)" for retransmission and flow control (ʼ633 Patent, col. 4:19-23). A defendant may argue that "DTP flows" are limited to flows managed by this specific, multi-function protocol, and not generic data streams.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '633 Patent" (Compl. ¶14).
Willful Infringement
The complaint bases its willfulness allegation on post-suit conduct. It asserts that the filing of the complaint provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" and any continued infringing activity thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶¶13-14). No facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: can the specific terminology and structure of the "Recursive Inter Network Architecture" disclosed in the '633 patent (e.g., "IPC process," "DTP flows") be construed to read on the components and operation of Defendant's modern, large-scale cloud infrastructure? The complaint's failure to provide any technical details about the accused systems leaves this as a primary open question.
- The case will also turn on claim construction: will the court interpret key terms like "Inter-Process Communication (IPC) process" with a narrow definition tied to the patent's specific embodiments, or a broader, more generic meaning? The outcome of this definitional dispute will likely determine the scope of the patent and its applicability to the accused technology.
- Finally, a key evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: assuming a favorable claim construction, the plaintiff will face the challenge of demonstrating that the accused systems actually perform the precise sequence of steps claimed, particularly the seamless address transition mechanism, as opposed to using other well-known industry techniques for session persistence and server load balancing.