Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Calibrate Networks v. McDonald’s | Patent Lawsuit 2:26-cv-00134

Calibrate Networks LLC v. McDonald’s Corporation

2:26-cv-00134 E.D. Tex. Closed US9584633B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 17 Feb 2026 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 12 May 2026, with US9584633B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US9584633B2
Application no.
US14/211928
Case no.
2:26-cv-00134
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
E.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
17 Feb 2026 – 12 May 2026
Duration
84 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
Method and system for managing network communications
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2:26-cv-00134, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US9584633B2 Active App. US14/211928

Method and system for managing network communications

A system that incorporates teachings of the present disclosure may include, for example avoiding data copy and task switching by processing protocol headers of network PDUs as a serial tape to be processed in order such as by a single method. Other processing includes reducing stages and simplifying protocol processing and multiplexing during network communications. Address changing in an active network can be implemented by assigning multiple addresses to an entity so that a new address can replace the old address. Peer-to-peer application searching can be performed among networks that can be accessible or non-accessible networks. Utilizing anycast sets that include selected and alternative addresses to enable immediate or near immediate alternative route selection on failure or congestion. Other embodiments are disclosed.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
28 Feb 2017
Earliest priority
15 Mar 2013
Est. expiry
14 Mar 2035
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04L29/06H04L45/74
Prosecution counsel
Guntin & Gust, PLC
Examiner
SHEIKH, AYAZ
US9584633B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US9584633B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice. Docket No. 15. After review, the notice (Docket No. 15) is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”

Case 2:26-cv-00134 · E.D. Tex. · closed 12 May 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 2:26-cv-00134?

2:26-cv-00134 is a patent infringement action brought by Calibrate Networks LLC against McDonald’s Corporation, filed on 17 Feb 2026 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 12 May 2026.

Which patent was asserted in 2:26-cv-00134?

US9584633B2 (“Method and system for managing network communications”), assigned to CALIBRATE NETWORKS LLC, currently active. The record also lists Method and system for managing network communications.

How was case 2:26-cv-00134 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice. Docket No. 15. After review, the notice (Docket No. 15) is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”

What does dismissal with prejudice mean?

A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.

How long did case 2:26-cv-00134 take?

84 calendar days, from filing on 17 Feb 2026 to closure on 12 May 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:26-cv-00134?

Chief Judge Robert W. Schroeder III presided. Isaac Phillip Rabicoff is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Calibrate Networks. Laura Ann Wytsma, Thomas Alden James and Timothy J. Carroll appear for defendant McDonald’s.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:26-cv-00134 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:26-cv-00134 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.