FrameTech LLC v. Fujitsu Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: FrameTech LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Fujitsu Ltd. (Japan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00058, E.D. Tex., 01/21/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendant is a foreign corporation and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's mainframe computer products and/or services infringe a patent related to the automated installation and configuration of mainframe operating systems.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the complex, time-consuming, and skill-intensive process of upgrading operating systems on large-scale mainframe computers.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that its service upon the defendant constitutes actual knowledge of infringement, forming the basis for a post-suit willfulness claim. No prior litigation or other proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,194,737 (System and Method for Expediting and Automating Mainframe Computer Setup), issued March 20, 2007.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the installation and configuration of mainframe computer operating systems as an "arduous task" that is "considerably complex and time-consuming," typically requiring several days of work by a "skilled mainframe computer systems programmer." The patent notes that the aging population of such programmers makes completing these upgrades on schedule and on budget "increasingly problematic." (’737 Patent, col. 1:30-44, col. 2:1-17).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system and method to automate mainframe setup. It uses a client computer to perform a "discovery" on the target mainframe to gather its hardware and software profile information. (’737 Patent, col. 2:27-33). Based on this information, the client system generates and transfers a "base operating system" to the mainframe, and then automatically customizes it to replicate the prior environment and prepare the system for a new Initial Program Load (IPL), or system boot. (’737 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:36-50). The overall architecture is depicted in Figure 2, showing a client computer connected to a mainframe via a network. (’737 Patent, Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: The described invention sought to "dramatically shorten" the time and reduce the required operator skill-level for mainframe OS upgrades, thereby lowering costs and increasing efficiency. (’737 Patent, col. 3:27-29, col. 4:5-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’737 Patent without specifying them; independent claim 1 is the lead method claim. (Compl. ¶11).
• Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following key elements:
  • Automatically receiving source profile information representing an existing hardware and software configuration on a mainframe computer system.
  • Using a client computer, which communicates with the mainframe over a network, to generate a base operating system.
  • Transferring the base operating system from the client computer to the mainframe computer.
  • Using the client computer to automatically customize the base operating system on the mainframe to incorporate elements from the source profile information.
  • Wherein after customization, the mainframe is automatically adapted for an initial program load.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, which may include dependent claims or the independent system claim 11. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are allegedly detailed in an "Exhibit 2" attached to the complaint; this exhibit was not available for this analysis. (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '737 Patent." (Compl. ¶16). The functionality is thus alleged to be the automated upgrading of mainframe operating systems. (Compl. ¶16). The complaint further alleges that Defendant’s employees internally test and use these products. (Compl. ¶12). No specific allegations regarding the products' market position or commercial importance are provided.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to claim charts in an unprovided "Exhibit 2," precluding a tabular analysis. (Compl. ¶16-17). The narrative infringement theory alleges that Fujitsu makes, uses, sells, or imports products and services that practice the patented method for automating mainframe OS upgrades. (Compl. ¶11). This theory suggests that Fujitsu's offerings perform the steps of automatically discovering a mainframe's configuration, generating and transferring a new base operating system to it, and automatically customizing that system to prepare it for an Initial Program Load, thereby satisfying the elements of claims such as independent claim 1 of the ’737 Patent. (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the meaning of "automatically." The degree of automation required by the claims will be critical. The court may need to determine if the accused processes, which may involve some level of technician oversight or input, meet the threshold for being "automatic" as the term is used in the patent.
• Technical Questions: A foundational question will be whether any accused Fujitsu product or service actually performs the specific sequence of operations recited in the claim. For example, what evidence demonstrates that a Fujitsu process uses a client computer to generate a base operating system which is then transferred to the mainframe, as opposed to using a different methodology such as deploying a pre-packaged image directly or performing an in-place update on the mainframe itself?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "automatically receiving source profile information"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the first step of independent claim 1 and defines the initiation of the patented process. Practitioners may focus on this term because the level of automation distinguishes the invention from prior art manual processes, and its construction will be key to determining whether Defendant’s tools, which may be semi-automated, fall within the claim’s scope.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a "discovery" process that gathers a wide array of information, including security databases, system parameters, and hardware tables. (’737 Patent, col. 6:1-31; Fig. 3). This could support an interpretation where "automatically receiving" means the system executes a comprehensive script to gather data after a single user command, without requiring step-by-step intervention for each data point.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly contrasts the invention with the highly manual prior art. (’737 Patent, col. 1:35-44). A defendant could argue that "automatically" implies a process with virtually no human interaction. The process flowcharts show steps where a user must "Supply Userid, Password, and IP address of target," suggesting some manual input is contemplated, which might be used to argue against an entirely hands-off interpretation. (’737 Patent, Fig. 4A, step S204).

• The Term: "base operating system"

• Context and Importance: This term defines what is generated on the client and transferred to the mainframe. Its definition is critical because infringement may depend on whether the entity transferred by the accused product qualifies as a "base operating system."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 describes it as "comprising a configuration of operating system software components." (’737 Patent, col. 17:57-59). This suggests it could be a collection of necessary files, libraries, and configuration scripts, rather than a single, monolithic, bootable image.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Abstract refers to "installing a base operating system on the mainframe system," and the detailed description refers to it as comprising "many components required of an upgraded mainframe computer operating system." (’737 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:5-7). This could support a more constrained definition requiring a core, functional OS that is capable of being installed as a distinct unit.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Fujitsu distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '737 Patent." (Compl. ¶14). Evidence for this allegation is purportedly contained in the unprovided Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The claim for willful infringement is based on alleged post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint and its attachments "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" and that Fujitsu's continued infringing activities despite this knowledge are willful. (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

• A primary issue for the court will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Given the complaint’s lack of specificity and reliance on an unprovided exhibit, can the plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to link its infringement allegations to identifiable Fujitsu products or services that perform the claimed method?
• The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: How should the term "automatically" be construed? The outcome will likely depend on whether the court defines it as a near-total absence of human interaction or as a more flexible, scripted process that reduces, but does not wholly eliminate, the need for technician input.
• Finally, a key question will be one of operational correspondence: Does the accused Fujitsu process, once identified, align with the specific client-server architecture and sequential workflow mandated by the claim (discover, generate on client, transfer, customize on mainframe), or does it employ a fundamentally different technical paradigm for OS upgrades that falls outside the patent's scope?