DCT
2:25-cv-00770
Mingoe Consulting LLC v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Mingoe Consulting LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (Taiwan)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00770, E.D. Tex., 08/06/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas under the alien-venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3), because the defendant is not a resident of the United States and may be sued in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s personal computers, laptops, and other devices infringe a patent related to dynamically adjusting the operation frequency of Dynamic Random-Access Memory (DRAM).
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for balancing performance and power consumption in computer systems by monitoring DRAM usage and adjusting its clock speed in real-time.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges the patent-in-suit has been cited by industry participants including Samsung and IBM, but notes no prior litigation, licensing, or post-grant review proceedings.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-06-28 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,407,411 |
| 2013-03-26 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,407,411 |
| 2025-08-06 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,407,411 - "OPERATION FREQUENCY ADJUSTING SYSTEM AND METHOD," issued March 26, 2013 (’411 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in conventional system-on-chips (SoCs) where the DRAM operation frequency is pre-configured and static. This creates an inefficiency, as the bandwidth requirements for different tasks—such as displaying high-definition video versus playing MP3 audio—vary significantly, leading to either wasted power or suboptimal performance. (’411 Patent, col. 1:20-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to dynamically adjust the DRAM's operation frequency based on the current needs of the application environment. It does this by using a "statistic module" to count "effective operations" of the DRAM to determine a "bandwidth utilization rate." Based on this rate, a "parameter configuration module" generates a new "target operation frequency," and a "frequency switch controller" changes the DRAM's speed accordingly. (’411 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-11; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows a system to achieve a better balance between processing efficiency and power consumption, which is a critical design consideration for both high-performance and mobile computing devices. (’411 Patent, col. 2:7-11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1. (Compl. ¶18).
- Independent Claim 1 recites the following essential elements:
- An operation frequency adjusting system comprising:
- a statistic module counting effective operations of a Dynamic Random-Access Memory (DRAM);
- a parameter configuration module generating a target operation frequency according to a count of the effective operations of the DRAM; and
- a frequency switch controller switching from a present operation frequency of the DRAM to the target operation frequency.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies a broad range of "Accused Products," including ASUS-branded personal computers, laptops, and other devices such as the Vivobook, Zenbook, ROG, and TUF Gaming lines, as well as Mini PCs and All-in-One PCs. (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the Accused Products "include an operation frequency adjusting system and method covered by the Patents-in-Suit." (Compl. ¶12). Figure 1 in the complaint is a product screenshot showing the specifications for the ASUS ExpertBook B1, one of the Accused Products. (Compl. ¶13, Fig. 1). The complaint does not provide specific technical details on how the accused frequency adjusting systems operate, beyond the general allegation that they perform the patented method.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges infringement of the ’411 Patent but does not provide an element-by-element mapping of the claims to the accused products. The allegations are summarized below based on the general assertion that the Accused Products practice the invention.
’411 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An operation frequency adjusting system comprising: | The complaint alleges that the Accused Products contain an "operation frequency adjusting system and method." | ¶12 | col. 2:11-12 |
| a statistic module counting effective operations of a Dynamic Random-Access Memory (DRAM); | The complaint alleges that the Accused Products as a whole perform the functions of the claimed system, which would necessarily include counting effective DRAM operations. | ¶12, ¶18 | col. 2:12-14 |
| a parameter configuration module generating a target operation frequency according to a count of the effective operations of the DRAM; | The complaint alleges that the Accused Products as a whole perform the functions of the claimed system, which would necessarily include generating a target frequency based on the count. | ¶12, ¶18 | col. 2:14-17 |
| and a frequency switch controller switching from a present operation frequency of the DRAM to the target operation frequency. | The complaint alleges that the Accused Products as a whole perform the functions of the claimed system, which would necessarily include switching to the new target frequency. | ¶12, ¶18 | col. 2:17-19 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint makes conclusory allegations without providing specific evidence mapping the accused products' architecture to the claimed elements. A central question for the court will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused ASUS products actually implement the distinct "statistic module", "parameter configuration module", and "frequency switch controller" as recited in Claim 1, or if they achieve power and performance management through a different, non-infringing technical architecture.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products' power management systems specifically count "effective operations" (defined in the patent as non-idle DRAM commands) as the basis for frequency adjustment, as required by the claim?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "statistic module"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because the claim requires a system with three distinct modules. Defendant may argue that its accused systems do not have a discrete "statistic module" but rather perform counting functions within a larger, integrated power management unit, potentially avoiding infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims broadly define the module by its function: "counting effective operations." (’411 Patent, cl. 1). Plaintiff may argue that any component or set of software instructions that performs this function satisfies the limitation, regardless of its specific implementation or name.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures depict the "Statistic Module" (11) as a distinct block separate from the "Frequency Adjustment Controller" (13). (’411 Patent, Fig. 1). Further, the specification details specific sub-components of the module, such as a "time interval register" and a "status counter", which could support an argument that the term requires this more specific structure. (’411 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 4:29-32).
The Term: "effective operations"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the input for the entire patented process. Its scope determines what the "statistic module" must count and, therefore, is foundational to the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined, which may support an argument for a plain and ordinary meaning covering any DRAM activity that consumes bandwidth.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that the system counts "non-idle operations" and provides a specific, exemplary list: "pre-charge (PRE), acting (ACT), reading (READ), writing (WRIT), etc." (’411 Patent, col. 4:8-10). A defendant could argue that the term is limited to this specific class of DRAM command cycles.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant provides product manuals that instruct users on infringing uses. (Compl. ¶28). However, the "non-limiting example" provided to support this allegation references "how to perform the posting and un-posting files and messages while using the TikTok web based system or TikTok app." (Compl. ¶28). The complaint does not explain the relevance of this example to the DRAM frequency adjustment technology of the ’411 Patent.
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’411 Patent upon service of the complaint and, alternatively, on a theory of willful blindness based on an alleged "policy or practice against investigating third party patent rights." (Compl. ¶22-23).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A primary issue will be an evidentiary one: Can the Plaintiff, through discovery, produce technical evidence demonstrating that the accused ASUS products embody the specific three-part modular architecture ("statistic module", "parameter configuration module", and "frequency switch controller") recited in Claim 1, or will the evidence show a fundamentally different technical approach to power management?
The case may also turn on a question of claim scope: How will the court construe the term "statistic module"? A determination of whether the term requires a structurally distinct component, as suggested by the patent’s figures, or can be read more broadly to cover an integrated software function, will be critical to the infringement analysis.
A secondary question relates to the sufficiency of the pleadings for indirect infringement: Given that the factual example supplied to support inducement appears unrelated to the patented technology (Compl. ¶28), a key question is whether the complaint provides sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief for inducement.