FrameTech, LLC v. BMC Software, Inc.
Infringement action filed 13 Jul 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 11 Oct 2023, with US7194737B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case transferred.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7194737B2
- Application no.
- US10/263972
- Case no.
- 6:23-cv-00494
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 13 Jul 2023 – 11 Oct 2023
- Duration
- 90 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Transferred
- Products & marks
- System and method for expediting and automating mainframe computer setup
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
System and method for expediting and automating mainframe computer setup
The present invention preferably automates mainframe computer operating system upgrades by automatically installing a base operating system on the mainframe system, performing information-gathering of an existing mainframe computer system, using the information to recreate the environment settings of the existing system, and providing a series of directives typically required of a skilled mainframe computer systems programmer for an IPL. By preparing a mainframe computer system to automatically perform an IPL, and, thereafter, automating a series of configuration process to install optional products, the present invention decreases the amount of time and operator skill-level requirements for prior art mainframe computer operating system upgrades.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 20 Mar 2007
- Est. expiry
- 10 Mar 2024
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- AMODIO, THOMAS · WOJTUKIEWICZ, MICHAEL · MALITZ, ROBERT
- Classification
- G06F9/44G06F9/445H04L29/08
- Prosecution counsel
- OSTROLENK FABER LLP
- Examiner
- VO, TED T.
Parties of record
FrameTech, LLC
- Core tech
- G06F9/44G06F9/445H04L29/08
- Counsel
- Isaac Rabicoff
- Firm
- Rabicoff Law LLC
BMC Software, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- E. Danielle T. Williams · William M. Logan
- Firm
- Winston Strawn LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Isaac Rabicoff | FrameTech, LLC | Plaintiff |
| E. Danielle T. Williams | BMC Software, Inc. | Defendant |
| William M. Logan | BMC Software, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is Defendant BMC Software, Inc.’s Unopposed Motion to Transfer Venue, in which Defendant seeks transfer of this case to the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas. (Doc. 10). Defendant contends that transfer is warranted because it does not have a regular and established place of business in this District, and thus venue is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Defendant does not contest that the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas is the appropriate forum for this dispute. And Plaintiff FrameTech LLC does not oppose Defendant’s motion. Thus, the Court finds that it is in the interests of justice to allow transfer to a more appropriate venue.1”
Case 6:23-cv-00494 · W.D. Tex. · closed 11 October 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 6:23-cv-00494?
6:23-cv-00494 is a patent infringement action brought by FrameTech, LLC against BMC Software, Inc., filed on 13 Jul 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 11 October 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 6:23-cv-00494?
US7194737B2 (“System and method for expediting and automating mainframe computer setup”), assigned to FRAMETECH LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists System and method for expediting and automating mainframe computer setup.
How was case 6:23-cv-00494 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case transferred. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is Defendant BMC Software, Inc.’s Unopposed Motion to Transfer Venue, in which Defendant seeks transfer of this case to the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas. (Doc. 10). Defendant contends that transfer is warranted because it does not have a regular and established place of business in this District, and thus venue is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Defendant does not contest that the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas is the appropriate forum for this dispute. And Plaintiff FrameTech LLC does not oppose Defendant’s motion. Thus, the Cour
What does transfer mean?
A transfer moves the case to another district rather than deciding it. The action continues there under a new case number.
How long did case 6:23-cv-00494 take?
90 calendar days, from filing on 13 Jul 2023 to closure on 11 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:23-cv-00494?
Isaac Rabicoff is recorded as counsel for plaintiff FrameTech. E. Danielle T. Williams and William M. Logan appear for defendant BMC Software.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:23-cv-00494 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.