DCT

2:23-cv-00452

FrameTech LLC v. Ca Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00452, E.D. Tex., 09/29/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the Defendant having an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified software products infringe a patent related to automating the setup and upgrade process for mainframe computer operating systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns software tools that reduce the manual effort, time, and specialized expertise required to install, configure, and upgrade complex mainframe computer systems.
  • 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
2002-10-02 '107 Patent Priority Date
2011-10-18 '107 Patent Issue Date
2023-09-29 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,042,107 - System and method for expediting and automating mainframe computer setup

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,042,107, issued October 18, 2011.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the installation and maintenance of mainframe computer operating systems as an "arduous task" that is "considerably complex and time-consuming" (’107 Patent, col. 1:43-44, col. 1:51-52). It notes that this process requires highly skilled systems programmers, a group whose expertise is in high demand and whose average age is rising, making it difficult to efficiently install new technologies (’107 Patent, col. 2:8-22).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention automates the mainframe upgrade process by first performing a "discovery" on the existing mainframe to gather its hardware and software configuration profile (’107 Patent, col. 2:41-49). This collected information is then used to automatically configure a new base operating system and install optional products, thereby preparing the system for an Initial Program Load (IPL), or boot-up, with greatly reduced manual intervention (’107 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:5-15).
  • Technical Importance: The described solution sought to address a recognized bottleneck in enterprise computing by lowering the time, cost, and specialized skill level required to manage foundational mainframe infrastructure (’107 Patent, col. 12:7-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶11).
  • Claim 1 recites a multi-step method for remotely installing an operating system upgrade on a mainframe, with the key elements including:
    • Performing a "system discovery" to automatically determine the existing components and configuration of the mainframe.
    • Generating and storing information representing this configuration in a database.
    • Transferring operating system components to the mainframe.
    • Establishing a communication session between a personal computer and the mainframe to control the installation.
    • "Automatically" combining and customizing the new components with the existing ones using the stored information to enable a first "initial program load" (IPL).
    • Performing the first IPL.
    • Receiving a selection of an optional product and installing it.
    • Performing a second IPL to implement the optional product.
  • The complaint states infringement is asserted literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

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

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’107 Patent but provides no specific details about their functionality, operation, or market position (Compl. ¶16).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes at least claim 1 of the ’107 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and selling the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11). The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts, designated as Exhibit 2, which purportedly "satisfy all elements of claim 1" (Compl. ¶16). As this exhibit was not provided, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the complaint alone.

The narrative allegations state that Defendant’s infringement includes its own internal testing and use of the products (Compl. ¶12) and that the products are used by customers in a manner that infringes claim 1 (Compl. ¶15).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A primary question will be whether the accused products perform the specific sequence of steps in claim 1. This includes whether they conduct an automated "system discovery," use the resulting data to "automatically" customize an installation, and perform the distinct first and second IPLs as recited. The complaint provides no evidence to support these specific technical operations.
    • Scope Questions: The case may turn on how key method steps are defined. A central question is whether the functionality of the accused products constitutes "performing system discovery" and "automatically...customizing" as those phrases are understood in the context of the patent, or if the products' operations are fundamentally different from the patented method.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "performing system discovery ... substantially automatically"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears to be the foundational step of the claimed invention, where the system gathers the necessary intelligence to automate the subsequent steps. The scope of "discovery" and the degree of automation required by "substantially automatically" will be critical to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant could argue its products either do not perform a "discovery" step that matches the patent's description or that their process requires significant manual input, falling short of being "substantially automatic."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that discovery is performed "in order to receive profile information of the configuration of the mainframe computer system" (’107 Patent, col. 2:41-44), which could be argued to cover any process that gathers configuration data, regardless of the specific technique.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 9, which depends from claim 1, enumerates a very specific list of information to be gathered during discovery, including "RACF database, IPL, PARMLIB parameters, UCB/EDT tables," and other mainframe-specific items (’107 Patent, col. 14:29-39). A defendant may argue this list narrows the scope of what "system discovery" entails for the invention as a whole. The specification also details a multi-step discovery process in Figure 3, which could be used to argue for a more structured, limited definition.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in a way that infringes the ’107 Patent (Compl. ¶14). The claim is based on knowledge acquired "at least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶15).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. It alleges that service of the complaint "constitutes actual knowledge" and that Defendant's continued infringement is despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶¶13-14). This allegation could form the basis for a post-filing willfulness claim.

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

  1. An Evidentiary Question of Operation: The central issue will be one of evidence: can the plaintiff demonstrate that the accused, but currently unidentified, "Exemplary Defendant Products" actually perform the specific, multi-step method of automated discovery, customization, and dual IPLs required by claim 1? The complaint's lack of specificity makes this the primary hurdle.
  2. A Definitional Question of Automation: The case will likely involve a dispute over the meaning of "automatically." A key question for the court will be defining the boundary between a truly automated process as envisioned by the patent (one that reduces the need for a skilled programmer) and a standard software installation wizard that still requires significant user configuration and intervention.
  3. A Question of Infringing Use: Given that claim 1 is a method claim, the plaintiff will need to prove that an entity—either the Defendant itself or its customers, as induced by Defendant—has performed all steps of the claimed method. A key question will be whether the evidence shows a complete performance of the entire claimed sequence in the United States.