FrameTech LLC v. BMC Software Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: FrameTech LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: BMC Software, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00494, W.D. Tex., 07/13/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains 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 methods for expediting and automating mainframe computer setup and upgrades.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns software tools designed to simplify the complex and time-intensive process of installing, configuring, and upgrading operating systems on large-scale mainframe computers.
• 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	U.S. Patent No. 7,194,737 Priority Date (Application Filed)
2007-03-20	U.S. Patent No. 7,194,737 Issues
2023-07-13	Complaint Filed

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, "System and method for expediting and automating mainframe computer setup", issued March 20, 2007.

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. 1:31-44). It notes that the pool of such programmers is aging and shrinking, making it difficult to complete complex upgrades on schedule and on budget (’737 Patent, col. 2:1-17).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system and method to automate this process. A client computer, such as a desktop PC, first performs a "discovery" process to gather profile information about the target mainframe's existing hardware and software configuration (’737 Patent, col. 2:27-35; Fig. 3). Using this information, the system generates a "base operating system" on the client computer, transfers it to the mainframe, and then automatically customizes it to replicate the prior environment and install new components, thereby automating the initial program load (IPL) or upgrade (’737 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:36-51).
• Technical Importance: The invention aims to reduce the time, cost, and specialized human expertise required for mainframe operating system upgrades, a critical task for organizations reliant on legacy data systems (’737 Patent, col. 3:28-32, col. 12:15-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, identifying them as the "Exemplary '737 Patent Claims" in a referenced exhibit, but does not specify claim numbers in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶11). Claim 1 is the first independent claim of the patent.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • automatically receiving source profile information, said source profile information representing an existing configuration of at least one of hardware and software on said mainframe computer system;
  • using a client computer system to generate a base operating system, said base operating system comprising a configuration of operating system software components for said mainframe computer system...;
  • transferring said base operating system from said client computer system to said mainframe computer; and
  • using the client computer system to automatically customize said base operating system comprising said mainframe computer system to incorporate elements in said source profile information, wherein after said base operating system is customized, said mainframe computer system is automatically adapted for an initial program load.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers generally to "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not name them in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶11). The specific products are presumably identified in Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '737 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). It states that Defendant has been "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" these products, and also having its "employees internally test and use" them (Compl. ¶11, ¶12). No specific technical functionality or market context for the accused products is described in the complaint itself.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s substantive infringement allegations are incorporated entirely by reference to claim charts in Exhibit 2, which is not publicly available (Compl. ¶16, ¶17). The complaint itself contains no specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to accused product features. The narrative theory is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the "Exemplary '737 Patent Claims" either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The complaint's lack of specific allegations raises the fundamental question of how the accused products are alleged to perform each claimed step. For example, a dispute may arise over whether Defendant's products "generate a base operating system" on a "client computer system" and then "transfer" it to a "mainframe computer" in the manner described and claimed in the patent, or if they employ a different system architecture.
• Technical Questions: A central question for the court will be what factual evidence supports the allegation that Defendant's products "automatically customize" a base operating system to a point where the mainframe is "automatically adapted for an initial program load" as required by claim 1 (’737 Patent, col. 12:62-67). The degree of automation and the specific technical steps involved will be critical.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific claim construction disputes. However, based on the patent's technology, the following terms from independent claim 1 are likely to be central.

"client computer system"

Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the claimed architecture, which distinguishes between the "client computer system" (e.g., a desktop PC) where the base OS is generated and the "mainframe computer system" where it is installed (’737 Patent, col. 12:55-61). Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused system maintains this client-server architectural separation or uses a different model (e.g., a single integrated platform, a cloud-based service).

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to the client system as a "personal computer device" but also more broadly as any device "capable of emulating a terminal of mainframe computer system 2" (’737 Patent, col. 1:51-53, col. 3:26-27). This could support an interpretation covering various types of remote or local computing devices.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiments consistently depict a "Desktop PC" as the client system, distinct from the "Mainframe" (’737 Patent, Figs. 4A-4D). The detailed description focuses on a PC-based application that connects to the mainframe, suggesting a specific two-part hardware architecture that may limit the term's scope (’737 Patent, col. 4:45-50).

"base operating system"

Context and Importance: This term defines the core software package that is generated, transferred, and customized. Its definition is critical because infringement requires showing that the accused products generate and transfer a package meeting this definition, rather than merely transferring configuration files or update patches.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines the term broadly as "a configuration of operating system software components for said mainframe computer system" (’737 Patent, col. 12:56-59). This language could encompass a wide variety of software bundles.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes creating the base OS by providing "many components required of an upgraded mainframe computer operating system" and combining and customizing them for a successful IPL (’737 Patent, col. 5:4-15). The detailed process flow charts (Figs. 4C-4D) show the creation and transfer of entire system volumes (e.g., "RES volume," "DIST volume"), suggesting "base operating system" refers to a complete, bootable system image, not just a set of configuration components (’737 Patent, col. 10:1-14).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating 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). The specific content of this material is referenced as being in Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint and its attached claim charts provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" and that any continued infringement is therefore willful (Compl. ¶13, ¶14).

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

1. A Threshold Evidentiary Question: Given that the complaint incorporates all substantive infringement allegations by reference to an unprovided exhibit, a primary issue will be whether the plaintiff's subsequent disclosures can provide sufficient factual evidence to show that the accused products actually perform the specific steps of the claimed method.
2. An Architectural Question: The case will likely hinge on architectural congruence: Does the accused product operate using a "client computer system" that generates and transfers a "base operating system" to a "mainframe computer," as recited in the claims and described in the patent, or does it utilize a fundamentally different architecture for mainframe management that falls outside the claim scope?
3. A Question of Automation: A key dispute will likely concern the scope of "automatically customize" and "automatically adapted for an initial program load." The court will need to determine the degree and type of automation required by the claims and whether the accused products meet that threshold, or if they require a level of manual intervention that places them outside the claimed invention.