1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

 

 

 

FrameTech LLC,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CA, Inc.,

 Defendant. 

 

 Case No. 2:23-cv-452 

 Patent Case 

 Jury Trial Demanded 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

1. Plaintiff FrameTech LLC (“Plaintiff”), through its attorneys, complains of CA, 

Inc. (“Defendant”), and alleges the following: 

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff FrameTech LLC is a corporation organized and existing under the laws 

of Delaware that maintains its principal place of business at 261 West 35th St, Suite 1003, New 

York, NY 10001. 

3. Defendant CA, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of 

Delaware that maintains an established place of business at 5465 Legacy Drive, Plano, Texas 

75024. 

JURISDICTION

4. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the 

United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. 

Case 2:23-cv-00452-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/29/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1
2 

5. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 

1338(a). 

6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it has engaged in 

systematic and continuous business activities in this District. As described below, Defendant has 

committed acts of patent infringement giving rise to this action within this District. 

VENUE

7. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because Defendant has 

an established place of business in this District. In addition, Defendant has committed acts of 

patent infringement in this District, and Plaintiff has suffered harm in this district. 

PATENT-IN-SUIT

8. Plaintiff is the assignee of all right, title and interest in United States Patent No. 

8,042,107 (the “Patent-in-Suit”); including all rights to enforce and prosecute actions for 

infringement and to collect damages for all relevant times against infringers of the Patent-in-Suit. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff possesses the exclusive right and standing to prosecute the present action 

for infringement of the Patent-in-Suit by Defendant. 

THE ’107 PATENT

9. The ’107 Patent is entitled “System and method for expediting and automating 

mainframe computer setup,” and issued 2011-10-18. The application leading to the ’107 Patent 

was filed on 2005-07-18. A true and correct copy of the ’107 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 

1 and incorporated herein by reference. 

COUNT 1: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’107 PATENT

10. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs herein by reference. 

11. Direct Infringement. Defendant has been and continues to directly infringe claim 

1 of the ’107 Patent in at least this District by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or 

Case 2:23-cv-00452-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/29/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 2
3 

importing, without limitation, at least the Defendant products identified in the charts 

incorporated into this Count below (among the “Exemplary Defendant Products”) that infringe 

claim 1 of the ’107 Patent also identified in the charts incorporated into this Count below literally 

or by the doctrine of equivalents. On information and belief, numerous other devices that 

infringe claim 1 ’107 Patent have been made, used, sold, imported, and offered for sale by 

Defendant and/or its customers. 

12. Defendant also has and continues to directly infringe, literally or under the 

doctrine of equivalents, claim 1, by having its employees internally test and use these Exemplary 

Products. 

13. Actual Knowledge of Infringement. The service of this Complaint, in 

conjunction with the attached claim charts and references cited, constitutes actual knowledge of 

infringement as alleged here. 

14. Despite such actual knowledge, Defendant continues to make, use, test, sell, offer 

for sale, market, and/or import into the United States, products that infringe the ’107 Patent. On 

information and belief, Defendant has also continued to sell the Exemplary Defendant Products 

and distribute product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its 

products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the ’107 Patent. See Exhibit 2 

(extensively referencing these materials to demonstrate how they direct end users to commit 

patent infringement). 

15. Induced Infringement. At least since being served by this Complaint and 

corresponding claim charts, Defendant has actively, knowingly, and intentionally continued to 

induce infringement of the ’107 Patent, literally or by the doctrine of equivalents, by selling 

Case 2:23-cv-00452-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/29/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 3
4 

Exemplary Defendant Products to their customers for use in end-user products in a manner that 

infringes claim 1 of the ’107 Patent. 

16. Exhibit 2 includes charts comparing claim 1 to the Exemplary Defendant 

Products. As set forth in these charts, the Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology 

claimed by the ’107 Patent. Accordingly, the Exemplary Defendant Products incorporated in 

these charts satisfy all elements of claim 1. 

17. Plaintiff therefore incorporates by reference in its allegations herein the claim 

charts of Exhibit 2. 

18. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for Defendant's 

infringement. 

JURY DEMAND

19. Under Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff respectfully 

requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief: 

A. A judgment that the ’107 Patent is valid and enforceable 

B. A judgment that Defendant has infringed directly and indirectly claim 1 of the 

’107 Patent; 

C. An accounting of all damages not presented at trial; 

D. A judgment that awards Plaintiff all appropriate damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 

for Defendant's continuing or future infringement, up until the date such judgment 

is entered with respect to the ’107 Patent, including pre- or post-judgment interest, 

costs, and disbursements as justified under 35 U.S.C. § 284; 

Case 2:23-cv-00452-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/29/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 4
5 

E. And, if necessary, to adequately compensate Plaintiff for Defendant's 

infringement, an accounting: 

i. that this case be declared exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 

and that Plaintiff be awarded its reasonable attorneys fees against Defendant 

that it incurs in prosecuting this action; 

ii. that Plaintiff be awarded costs, and expenses that it incurs in prosecuting 

this action; and 

iii. that Plaintiff be awarded such further relief at law or in equity as the Court 

deems just and proper. 

 

Dated: September 29, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 /s/ Isaac Rabicoff 

 Isaac Rabicoff 

 Rabicoff Law LLC 

 600 Mamaroneck Ave STE 400 

 Harrison, NY 10528 

 7736694590 

 isaac@rabilaw.com 

 

 

 Counsel for Plaintiff

 FrameTech LLC

Case 2:23-cv-00452-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 09/29/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 5