FrameTech LLC v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: FrameTech LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Asustek Computer Inc. (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00605, E.D. Tex., 06/06/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas 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 infringes a patent related to a method for expediting and automating mainframe computer operating system upgrades.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the field of mainframe computer administration, specifically the complex and time-intensive process of installing or upgrading a mainframe's core operating system.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff is the assignee of the patent-in-suit. No other procedural history, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent, is mentioned.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,194,737, issued March 20, 2007.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the installation and maintenance of mainframe computer operating systems as an "arduous task" that is highly complex, time-consuming, and dependent on a shrinking pool of aging, skilled systems programmers (’737 Patent, col. 1:30-44). The manual process for an upgrade, known as an initial program load ("IPL"), could take multiple technicians several days to complete (’737 Patent, col. 1:40-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem by providing an automated method driven by a client computer, such as a desktop PC (’737 Patent, Fig. 4A). The process involves first performing a "discovery" to gather the hardware and software configuration profile of the target mainframe, then using that information to generate and transfer a new base operating system to the mainframe, and finally customizing it to prepare the mainframe for an automated IPL (’737 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:28-49). This is designed to reduce both the time and the level of specialized skill required for the upgrade (’737 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: The described method sought to address a growing skills gap and efficiency problem in enterprise computing by replacing a manual, expert-driven process with a more automated, software-driven one (’737 Patent, col. 1:56-65, col. 2:5-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’737 Patent are asserted, instead incorporating by reference an un-provided "Exhibit 2" containing claim charts (Compl. ¶16). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented method.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • A method for upgrading an operating system on a mainframe computer system, comprising:
  • automatically receiving source profile information representing an existing configuration of hardware and software on the mainframe;
  • using a client computer system to generate a base operating system;
  • transferring the base operating system from the client to the mainframe; and
  • using the client computer system to automatically customize the base operating system to incorporate the source profile information, such that the mainframe is adapted for an initial program load.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products or services. It refers generically to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in the un-provided Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality. It makes the conclusory allegation that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '737 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). No allegations are made regarding the products' market position or commercial importance.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2; however, this exhibit was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶16-17). The narrative infringement theory is that Defendant directly infringes the ’737 Patent by making, using, selling, and importing the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11). The complaint alleges these products satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Given the lack of specific factual allegations, any infringement analysis will depend on evidence developed during discovery. Key questions may include:

• Scope Questions: Do the accused instrumentalities operate within a client-mainframe architecture as required by the claim? The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused system uses a distinct "client computer system" to generate and transfer an OS to a "mainframe computer system," or if it employs a different architecture.
• Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products perform the specific sequence of steps outlined in claim 1—(1) automatically receiving a profile, (2) generating a base OS, (3) transferring it, and (4) automatically customizing it? A potential point of dispute is whether the accused functionality constitutes the specific, multi-stage process claimed or a more general software deployment or configuration management tool that operates differently.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "automatically"

• Context and Importance: This term appears twice in independent claim 1, qualifying the "receiving" and "customizing" steps. Its construction is critical because the patent's core novelty is presented as the automation of a previously manual and skill-intensive process (’737 Patent, Abstract). The degree of automation required by the claim will be a central issue.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The flowcharts in the specification depict user interaction at several points, such as launching the process, supplying credentials, and entering configuration data (e.g., ’737 Patent, Fig. 4A, S200-S204; Fig. 5A, S368-S370). This may support an interpretation where "automatically" refers to the system's execution of core technical sub-routines, while still permitting significant user initiation and input.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract emphasizes automation repeatedly, stating the invention "automates mainframe computer operating system upgrades by automatically installing a base operating system" and "automating a series of configuration process" (’737 Patent, Abstract). This could support a narrower construction requiring the entire claimed step to proceed with minimal or no human intervention once initiated.

• The Term: "client computer system"

• Context and Importance: Claim 1 recites a method where a "client computer system" performs key actions (generating, customizing) on behalf of a "mainframe computer system." The existence and role of this distinct client entity is a structural requirement of the claim. Infringement will depend on whether the accused system’s architecture maps onto this client-server model.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the client system as any "personal computer device capable of accessing a global computer network" (’737 Patent, col. 3:25-27). This suggests the term could be broadly construed to cover any remote machine or control node that orchestrates an upgrade on a target server.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiments consistently depict a "Desktop PC" as the client and a "Mainframe" as the target in a two-box diagram, with the client running software that interacts with the separate mainframe (’737 Patent, Figs. 2, 4A). This may support a narrower construction requiring two physically or logically distinct systems, as opposed to an integrated system where the "client" and "server" roles are less clearly delineated.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to operate the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). The claim is predicated on knowledge acquired "at least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that its service constitutes "actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant’s continued infringing activities despite this knowledge warrant enhanced damages (Compl. ¶13-14; Prayer for Relief ¶D). This forms a basis for post-suit willful infringement. The complaint also seeks a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶E(i)).

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary proof: As the complaint lacks specific factual allegations tying any particular product to the patent claims, the case will hinge on whether Plaintiff can, through discovery, produce evidence that an accused Asustek product or service performs the specific, multi-step method of Claim 1. The central factual dispute will be whether the accused functionality maps onto the claimed process.
• A key legal question will concern definitional scope: The case may turn on the construction of the claim term "automatically". The court's interpretation will define the boundary between the patented, automated method and potentially non-infringing software configuration tools that may require more extensive user scripting or manual intervention.