Reframe Tech LLC v. Bernard Group Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:

  • Plaintiff: Reframe Technologies LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: The Bernard Group, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC

• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01573, D. Del., 12/30/2025

• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant has an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of patent infringement there.

• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products and services infringe a patent related to systems for trading network resources, such as internet access.

• Technical Context: The patent addresses systems that allow operators of network access points (e.g., Wi-Fi hotspots) to earn credits by providing access to third-party users, which can then be used to pay for network access at other locations.

• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,552,870 - “Trading network resources”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a market fragmentation problem where numerous individual Wi-Fi hotspots exist, but users cannot easily roam between them because each requires a separate payment or subscription with a different Billing Service Provider ('870 Patent, col. 2:1-17). This limited coverage discourages user sign-ups and makes it difficult for hotspot operators to generate revenue ('870 Patent, col. 2:7-12).

• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized "Network Resource Trading System" that allows hotspot operators ("Access Gateway Operators") to grant access to roaming users ('870 Patent, Fig. 1). In return, the operator earns credits in an "Earned Balance" account ('870 Patent, col. 8:27-31). These earned credits can then be used by the operator (or an associated user) to pay for network access when they are roaming and using another operator's hotspot within the same system, creating a barter-like exchange for network access without direct financial payment for each session ('870 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-27).

• Technical Importance: The system aimed to create a unified, scalable network of otherwise independent hotspots, enabling operators to monetize underutilized network capacity and providing users with broader roaming capabilities than were available through discrete service providers at the time ('870 Patent, col. 4:1-7).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead referring to "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is analyzed here as a representative claim.

• Independent Claim 1 (Method):

  • Storing data in "first type accounts" for a network resource user, with each account having a balance.
  • Storing data in "second type accounts" for a network resource access gateway operator.
  • Receiving a request from a requestor to authorize network resource provision, with the request identifying a specific first type account and a specific second type account.
  • Sending a reply to the requestor that authorizes or denies provision of network resources.
  • The authorization or denial is "at least partially dependent on" the balance of the identified first type account.
  • Adjusting the balance of the first type account and the second type account based on the network resources used.

• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers generally to infringement of the patent's claims (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products or services (Compl. ¶11). It refers only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). This exhibit was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct and induced infringement but incorporates the substance of its allegations by reference to claim charts in an exhibit that was not provided with the public filing (Compl. ¶16, ¶17). As such, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The complaint's narrative theory alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, or imports products that "practice the technology claimed by the '870 Patent" and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). It further alleges that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that induce end users to infringe (Compl. ¶14). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Defendant's business, which public records indicate is in visual merchandising and large-format printing, involves operating as a "network resource access gateway operator" or providing "first type accounts" to "network resource users" as those roles are defined in the patent ('870 Patent, col. 21:35-56). The applicability of a patent focused on bartering Wi-Fi access to Defendant's specific business activities will likely be a primary focus.

• Technical Questions: Without identification of the accused products, it is unclear what technical system is being accused. A key question for the court will be whether the accused system performs the claimed "adjusting" of balances between two distinct account types (user and gateway operator) in a manner that constitutes the trading system required by the claims, or if it uses a more conventional, one-sided payment or access control model.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "network resource"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the subject matter of the "trading" system. The complaint's lack of specificity regarding the accused product makes the scope of this term critical. Whether Defendant's business activities involve providing a "network resource" as contemplated by the patent will be a threshold issue.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad definition: "any service or facility that can be made available and accepted for use or delivery by digital transmission over a network... May include Internet or other network access, data storage and data processing, among others" ('870 Patent, col. 1:5-10). This language may support an argument that the term is not limited to internet access.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background and detailed examples focus almost exclusively on "Internet-connected, wireless access points/routers" and commercial "hotspots" for users who are "roaming" ('870 Patent, col. 1:50-61; col. 2:1-4). This repeated emphasis on Wi-Fi roaming may support a narrower construction limited to that context.

• The Term: "authorizing or denying provision of said network resources at least partially dependent on one of said at least one balance of said identified first type account"

• Context and Importance: This functional language is the core of the authorization process in claim 1. The dispute may turn on whether the accused system's access control decisions are "dependent on" a "balance" in the manner claimed. Practitioners may focus on this term because many modern systems authorize access based on subscription status, user identity, or location, not necessarily a depletable financial or credit "balance."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires only that the decision be "at least partially dependent" on the balance, which could be argued to cover systems where balance is one of several authorization factors.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and flowcharts describe a detailed process of calculating a required credit reservation ("Reserve-Credit"), checking an account balance against it, and denying access for "Insufficient-Credit" ('870 Patent, Fig. 3d-3l; col. 13:31-40). This detailed implementation may be used to argue that the term requires a specific type of quantitative credit-checking, not merely a binary subscription status check.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement based on Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). The facts alleged to support knowledge and intent are tied to the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶15).

• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement or use the word "willful." However, it alleges that Defendant has "actual knowledge" of its infringement from the service of the complaint and "continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import... products that infringe" (Compl. ¶13, ¶14). This allegation could form the basis for a claim of post-suit willfulness.

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

• A core issue will be one of applicability: does the '870 Patent, which describes a system for trading network access among roaming users and hotspot operators, read on the actual products, services, and business model of the Defendant, The Bernard Group, Inc.? The initial pleadings do not provide sufficient information to assess this threshold question.

• A second key question will be one of claim scope: can the term "network resource", defined in the context of early-2000s Wi-Fi roaming, be construed to cover the technology in the accused (but unidentified) products? The resolution of this and other key terms will likely determine the outcome of the infringement analysis.

• An evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: once the accused instrumentality is identified, the central dispute will be whether it implements the claimed two-sided accounting system, where one party's "Earned Balance" from providing a resource can be used as a credit by an associated party to consume a resource elsewhere, or if it operates on a different financial or technical model.