DCT

1:25-cv-01041

SAP Se v. Trayport Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: SAP Se (Germany) and Sybase, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Trayport Limited (United Kingdom)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ropes & Gray LLP
Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01041, N.D. Ill., 01/16/2025
Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a foreign corporation and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the Northern District of Illinois, including selling to Illinois-based customers.
Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s suite of financial trading platforms infringes four patents related to complex bidding processes, mobile data synchronization, real-time data stream processing, and operational data retrieval.
Technical Context: The technology at issue involves enterprise-level software for managing complex data interactions in wholesale energy and financial trading markets.
Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was made aware of the ’482 Patent via correspondence sent on November 7, 2024, an allegation relevant to potential claims of pre-suit willful infringement for that patent. For the remaining three patents, knowledge is alleged to have commenced with the filing of the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2002-05-01	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,818,365
2003-10-28	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,853,482
2004-12-17	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,383,253
2008-06-03	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,383,253
2008-08-25	Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,549,035
2010-10-19	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,818,365
2010-12-14	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,853,482
2013-10-01	Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,549,035
2022	Alleged launch of TVCM product incorporating Accused Instrumentality
2024-11-07	Defendant allegedly made aware of the ’482 Patent
2025-01-16	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,853,482 - "Complex prices in bidding"

Issued December 14, 2010 (’482 Patent)

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inflexibility of automated contracting systems, which often rely on rigid, "take-it-or-leave-it" adhesion contracts, and the high cost and inefficiency of manually negotiating contracts with complex pricing schemes (Compl. ¶14; ’482 Patent, col. 1:5-51).
The Patented Solution: The invention describes a computer-implemented bidding system where a buyer can issue a bid invitation, and potential bidders can respond by submitting bids that include "flexible and complex pricing schemes" of their own design, such as pricing based on quantity, delivery location, or date (’482 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:13-28). The system is designed to receive these varied pricing structures and select a winning bidder based on the complex pricing amounts submitted (’482 Patent, Abstract).
Technical Importance: This approach automates the creation of more flexible and sophisticated procurement agreements, moving beyond simple price-per-unit bids to accommodate complex, real-world supply chain variables (Compl. ¶14).

Key Claims at a Glance

Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶25).
Essential elements of Claim 1 (a method) include:
- Receiving transaction information and item data from a buyer.
- Generating and making available a bid invitation.
- Receiving bid responses containing a complex pricing structure and corresponding pricing amounts.
- Wherein the complex pricing structure is selected by the potential bidders from a group of multiple pricing structures made available to them.
- Wherein each bidder provides multiple different proposals with different terms and prices.
- Selecting a winning bidder based at least in part on the complex pricing amounts.
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,818,365 - "System, method, and computer program product for online and offline interactive applications on mobile devices"

Issued October 19, 2010 (’365 Patent)

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the challenge faced by mobile device users who need to interact with data from multiple, disparate information sources (e.g., databases, web servers) and often must do so while disconnected from a network, requiring multiple different applications with different interfaces (’365 Patent, col. 1:26-44).
The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a client-server system that synchronizes data for mobile devices. A server obtains data objects from various sources, each in its own "native format," converts them into a "common data format," and transmits them to the client (’365 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:7-13). The user can then view and manipulate the aggregated data through a single common interface on the mobile device, even when offline. When the device reconnects, changes are transmitted back to the server to update the original sources (’365 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:12-16).
Technical Importance: The invention enables a unified and interactive user experience for enterprise data on mobile devices, regardless of network connectivity or the heterogeneity of the underlying data sources (Compl. ¶15).

Key Claims at a Glance

Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶39).
Essential elements of Claim 1 (a method) include:
- Obtaining data objects from a plurality of sources in their specific native formats.
- Converting the data objects to a common data format that differs from the native formats.
- Transmitting the converted data objects to clients.
- The clients are configured to display the data using a common interface that operates without regard for the native formats and allows manipulation of the data.
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,383,253 - "Publish and subscribe capable continuous query processor for real-time data streams"

Issued June 3, 2008 (’253 Patent)

Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the technical problem of creating a general-purpose processor for multiple, continuous data streams (Compl. ¶16). The proposed solution is a continuous query processor that receives data from one or more "publishers," processes the data using an "assembly of connected primitive operators," and pushes the resulting query results as a new data stream to one or more "subscribers" continuously (’253 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 2 is asserted (Compl. ¶53).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities infringe by providing continuous, real-time query results from streaming market data to users (subscribers) (Compl. ¶¶54-55).

U.S. Patent No. 8,549,035 - "Operational information providers"

Issued October 1, 2013 (’035 Patent)

Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the challenge of unifying data access to "operational data"—data that is the product of complex business processes and calculations rather than being static information stored in a database (Compl. ¶17; ’035 Patent, col. 1:53-62). The solution is a system using an "operational information provider" sent from a front-end unit to a back-end unit to serve as a query interface, specifying how to retrieve real-time operational data from the back-end (’035 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶67).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities' client-server architecture for retrieving real-time operational trading data infringes this patent (Compl. ¶¶68-69).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names a suite of software products and services, including Joule, Autotrader, Data Analytics, Automated Trading, and others, collectively referred to as the "Accused Instrumentalities" (Compl. ¶19). The Joule platform is featured as a primary example (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Instrumentalities are described as a "network and data platform for wholesale energy markets" (Compl. ¶18). The Joule platform specifically is alleged to offer an "enhanced trading experience across multiple asset classes, OTC, cleared markets and geographies" by aggregating market venues into a single interface (Compl. ¶20). The platform also allegedly integrates with third-party services, such as UpdataAnalytics, to provide analytics via links within the Joule platform (Compl. ¶21). The complaint alleges these products are sold and licensed to U.S. customers, including in Illinois (Compl. ¶23).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities meet every limitation of the asserted claims but references Appendices A, B, C, and D, respectively, for the detailed reasoning (Compl. ¶¶27, 41, 55, 69). As these appendices were not filed with the complaint, a detailed claim chart cannot be constructed from the pleading. The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

’482 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶25). The narrative suggests that Trayport's trading platform functions as the claimed "computer-implemented method of managing bid pricing information." The theory appears to map traders using the platform to the claimed "potential bidders," their trades to "bid responses," and the various pricing terms available in financial trading to the "complex pricing structure" (Compl. ¶26). The platform’s function of matching buyers and sellers is alleged to constitute the claimed step of "selecting a winning bidder" (Compl. ¶26).

’365 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶39). The infringement theory appears to be that Trayport's system performs the claimed method for data exchange. This theory suggests that Trayport's servers obtain market data from a "plurality of sources" in their "native formats," convert this data to a "common data format" for use within the Joule platform, and transmit it to clients (traders' desktops) who use a "common interface" to interact with the aggregated data (Compl. ¶40).

Identified Points of Contention

Scope Questions (’482 Patent): A central question may be whether the term "bidding," as described in the patent’s procurement context, can be construed to read on the activities of a financial trading platform. Further, the claim requires that the "complex pricing structure is selected by the potential bidders from among a group of multiple pricing structures made available to the potential bidders." The analysis may focus on whether Trayport’s system presents such a pre-defined group of structures for selection or allows for more free-form price entry.
Technical Questions (’365 Patent): The dispute may turn on the definitions of "native formats" and "common data format." A key question will be what evidence shows that the various financial data feeds constitute distinct native formats and that the format used by the Joule platform is a "common data format" that "differs" from them as required by the claim. Another point of contention could be whether the platform allows for data "manipulation" that is then synchronized back to update the original, third-party data sources.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’482 Patent, Claim 1

The Term: "complex pricing structure"
Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention. Its construction will determine whether the pricing and term options available on Defendant's trading platform fall within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's theory requires mapping financial trading conventions onto the patent's more general description of bidding.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides several non-limiting examples, including "scales... based on quantity delivered or on value delivered," "location-specific pricing information," and "date-based pricing" (’482 Patent, col. 3:13-28). This may support a broad construction covering various conditional pricing models.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent does not provide a formal definition. An argument could be made that the term is limited to the types of multi-term structures disclosed in the specification’s embodiments and does not cover any and all pricing variations.

’365 Patent, Claim 1

The Term: "converting said data objects to a common data format"
Context and Importance: The inventive concept rests on the transformation of data from multiple disparate sources into a unified format. The meaning of "converting" and "common data format" is therefore critical to determining infringement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification identifies XML as a potential common data format, suggesting that any standardized format used to aggregate data for the client could meet the limitation (’365 Patent, col. 7:15-18). The claim requires only that the common format "differs from said native formats."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "converting" may imply a substantive transformation, not just repackaging or re-transmitting data. A party might argue that if the "native" financial data feeds are already in a structured format like FIX (Financial Information eXchange), the process performed by the accused system is not "conversion" in the manner contemplated by the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all four patents. The basis for inducement is Defendant’s alleged provision of "instruction materials, demonstrations, and training services showing customers how to use the Accused Instrumentalities" in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶34, 48, 62, 76). The complaint also asserts contributory infringement for all four patents (Compl. ¶¶36, 50, 64, 78).
Willful Infringement: For the ’482 Patent, willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge stemming from correspondence sent on November 7, 2024 (Compl. ¶¶29-30). For the ’365, ’253, and ’035 Patents, willfulness is alleged based on knowledge acquired no later than the filing of the complaint, making any subsequent infringement allegedly willful (Compl. ¶¶44, 58, 72).

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

Definitional Scope: A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms rooted in the patents’ contexts, such as the procurement-focused "bidding" and "complex pricing structure" of the ’482 Patent, be construed broadly enough to cover the distinct technical and transactional paradigms of a modern wholesale energy trading platform?
Evidentiary Sufficiency: Given the complaint’s conclusory infringement allegations and reliance on unfiled appendices, a key question will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: can Plaintiffs, through discovery, produce technical evidence that maps the specific operation of the Accused Instrumentalities to each element of the asserted claims, particularly for method steps involving data conversion and processing, such as those in the ’365 and ’253 Patents?
Technical Functionality: A central technical question will be one of functional mapping: does the accused platform merely aggregate and display data from various sources, or does it perform the specific, multi-step data transformations and processing sequences required by the claims, such as the two-way data conversion of the ’365 Patent or the specific "publish-subscribe" query processing model of the ’253 Patent?