FrameTech LLC v. Hitachi Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: FrameTech LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Hitachi, Ltd. (Japan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00059, E.D. Tex., 01/21/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because the defendant is a foreign corporation and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain unidentified products and services of the Defendant infringe a patent related to methods and systems for automating the setup and upgrade of mainframe computer operating systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the automation of mainframe computer system configuration, a historically complex and time-intensive process requiring highly specialized programmers.
• 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	’737 Patent Priority Date
2007-03-20	’737 Patent Issue Date
2025-01-21	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,194,737 - SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EXPEDITING AND AUTOMATING MAINFRAME COMPUTER SETUP

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," typically requiring several days of work by a "skilled mainframe computer systems programmer" (’737 Patent, col. 1:30-44). The patent notes that the pool of such programmers is aging and shrinking, making it difficult to efficiently manage mainframe systems and integrate new technologies (’737 Patent, col. 2:1-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem by providing a method and system to automate the upgrade process. The system first performs a "discovery" process to gather profile information about an existing mainframe's hardware and software configuration, then uses a client computer (e.g., a PC) to generate and customize a new "base operating system" that mimics the existing environment, and finally transfers this system to the mainframe to prepare it for an automated Initial Program Load (IPL), or "boot-up" (’737 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:21-50).
• Technical Importance: This automated approach is presented as a way to decrease the time, cost, and specialized skill level required for mainframe operating system upgrades (’737 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:5-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "Exemplary '737 Patent Claims" identified in an external Exhibit 2, but does not specify claim numbers in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶11). The patent’s independent claims, which are the most likely to be asserted, are Claims 1 (method) and 11 (system).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method) includes the following essential elements:
  • Automatically receiving source profile information representing an existing configuration of hardware and software on a mainframe computer system.
  • Using a client computer system to generate a base operating system comprising a configuration of operating system software components.
  • Transferring the base operating system from the client computer system to the mainframe computer system.
  • Using the client computer system to automatically customize the base operating system to incorporate elements from the source profile information.
• Independent Claim 11 (System) includes the following essential elements:
  • A base operating system comprising a predefined configuration of operating system software components.
  • A base operating system transfer module that transmits the base operating system from a client computer to the mainframe.
  • A source profile information receiving module that receives the existing configuration of the mainframe.
  • A customizing module that modifies the base operating system to incorporate elements from the source profile information.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Exemplary Defendant Products" detailed in an external Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). This exhibit was not provided with the complaint, and therefore specific product names, methods, or services cannot be identified from the filed document.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context. It makes only a conclusory allegation that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '737 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that detailed infringement allegations comparing the asserted claims to the accused products are contained in claim charts in Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16-17). As this exhibit was not provided, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

The complaint’s narrative infringement theory alleges that the Defendant has directly infringed by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11). It further alleges direct infringement occurs when Defendant’s employees "internally test and use these Exemplary Products" (Compl. ¶12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the general allegations and the patent's claims, the infringement analysis may raise the following questions:

• Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the accused products, once identified, perform the claimed steps in the specified order and location. For instance, does the accused method use a "client computer system" to "generate a base operating system" before "transferring" it to the mainframe, as required by Claim 1? The distinction between performing configuration on a client versus directly on the mainframe may be a critical point of dispute.
• Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused products meet the "automatically" limitation of Claim 1. Evidence will be needed to determine the degree of human intervention required to operate the accused products, and whether that level of operation can be characterized as "automatic" within the meaning of the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "automatically"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble and body of method Claim 1 (e.g., "automatically receiving," "automatically customize") and is implicit in the function of the "modules" of system Claim 11. Its construction is critical because the patent distinguishes its invention from prior art manual processes based on this automation. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the accused products, which may require some user input or configuration, meet this limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Parties arguing for a broader scope may point to language stating the invention "simplifies the requirement for user intervention, and dramatically shortens the time typically required," which could suggest that "automatically" does not require a complete lack of human interaction but rather a significant reduction compared to the prior art (’737 Patent, col. 3:28-31).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Parties arguing for a narrower scope may cite the detailed flowcharts and procedural steps described in the specification, arguing that "automatically" refers to the specific, sequential, and comprehensive process disclosed, such as "automatically installing a base operating system, performing information-gathering... using the information to recreate the environment settings, and providing a series of directives" (’737 Patent, Abstract; Figs. 3-5).

The Term: "base operating system"

• Context and Importance: This term, used in both independent claims, defines the core package of software that is generated, transferred, and customized. The definition of what components constitute this "base operating system" will be fundamental to determining whether the accused products create and manipulate such a system.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims define it as "comprising a configuration of operating system software components" (’737 Patent, col. 17:59-60), language that could be argued to cover a wide range of software collections, not necessarily a complete, monolithic OS image.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states the base operating system "requires many installation steps... to combine and customize the components" in order for a "successful IPL to be performed" (’737 Patent, col. 5:7-12). This could support an interpretation that the "base operating system" must be a specific collection of components sufficient to form a bootable system after the claimed customization steps are complete.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting 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 '737 Patent" (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on post-suit knowledge. It asserts that the filing of the complaint and its attached (but un-provided) claim charts gave Defendant "actual knowledge of infringement," and that any subsequent infringing activities are therefore willful (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

• A primary issue will be evidentiary: As the complaint fully defers its infringement theory to an external exhibit, the initial phase of the case will focus on discovering the identity and technical operation of the "Exemplary Defendant Products." The viability of the plaintiff's case depends entirely on whether the facts uncovered in discovery can substantiate the bare allegations of the complaint.
• A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: The case will likely turn on the construction of the term "automatically." The court will need to determine whether this term requires a hands-off process or merely a significant reduction in manual effort compared to prior art methods, and whether the accused products fall within that construed scope.