SAP Se v. Trayport Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: SAP Se (Germany); Business Objects Software Ltd. t/a SAP Solutions (Ireland); Sybase, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Trayport Limited (England and Wales)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ropes & Gray LLP
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01076, N.D. Ill., 02/27/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation, making venue proper in any judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3), and because Defendant has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s energy trading platform and related software products infringe three patents related to real-time data stream processing, virtual database creation from heterogeneous sources, and management of diverse data connections.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern high-performance data integration and processing, which are critical for platforms in sectors like financial services and energy trading that must analyze vast amounts of real-time data from disparate sources.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history involving the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-02-03	U.S. Patent No. 8,396,886 Priority Date
2005-07-01	U.S. Patent No. 8,577,927 Priority Date
2012-12-20	U.S. Patent No. 9,009,354 Priority Date
2013-03-12	U.S. Patent No. 8,396,886 Issued
2013-11-05	U.S. Patent No. 8,577,927 Issued
2015-04-14	U.S. Patent No. 9,009,354 Issued
2022-01-01	Approx. date of partnership to launch accused TVCM service
2025-02-27	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,396,886 - "Continuous processing language for real-time data streams,"

(Issued March 12, 2013)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional relational databases as ill-suited for high-volume, low-latency applications that process continuous data streams. It states that storing incoming data on disk before querying creates a bottleneck, and custom-coded "black box" solutions are difficult to build, modify, and scale. (’886 Patent, col. 1:52-col. 2:51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a specialized computer language, similar in structure to SQL, designed to express queries that operate continuously and directly on real-time data streams as they flow, without first storing them in a database. It is based on a "publish/subscribe" model where queries subscribe to input streams and publish results to output streams, and it includes clauses to define "windows" of data (e.g., the last 10 seconds) for analysis. (’886 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:31-52).
• Technical Importance: This approach was designed to enable scalable, real-time complex event processing (CEP) for applications in finance, network security, and business process monitoring where traditional database triggers were inadequate. (’886 Patent, col. 1:29-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶26).
• The essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A method for subscribing to one or more continuous input data streams published in a publisher-specific format and protocol.
  • Executing a query operation directly on the streams without any pre-processing or storing the data streams in any data structure prior to execution.
  • Executing the query on a continuous basis.
  • Publishing the result in real time to one or more output data streams in a subscriber-specific format and protocol.
  • A requirement that the publisher-specific communication protocol varies from the subscriber-specific communication protocol.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,577,927 - "Producing a virtual database from data sources exhibiting heterogeneous schemas,"

(Issued November 5, 2013)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent notes that creating a unified view of data from multiple, incompatible (heterogeneous) sources is a significant and delicate task for programmers. It requires an in-depth study of each source's structure (schema) and involves complex, custom coding that is difficult to test and maintain. (’927 Patent, col. 1:24-col. 2:44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for building a "virtual database" by first defining an "individual publication schema" for each distinct data source. This schema maps the source's data into a "non-permanent structured instance." An "integration schema" is then established to define rules for combining these individual instances, analyzing and resolving conflicts, and forming a final, unified "target non-permanent structured instance of data." (’927 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:12-24).
• Technical Importance: This method decentralizes the data integration task, allowing experts familiar with individual data sources to "publish" their data according to a target schema, simplifying the final integration step and enhancing flexibility. (’927 Patent, col. 4:30-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 19 (Compl. ¶40).
• The essential elements of claim 19 include:
  • Defining an individual publication schema for each heterogeneous source, which specifies mapping rules to a non-permanent structured instance of data.
  • Generating a non-permanent structured instance of data as defined by the publication schema.
  • Establishing an integration schema that defines rules for combining data from each non-permanent instance.
  • Using the integration schema to analyze conflicts and define a source view based on a target schema, including "hidden attributes" not used in the target.
  • Forming a target non-permanent structured instance of data that includes data from the multiple heterogeneous sources.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,009,354 - "Services and management layer for diverse data connections,"

(Issued April 14, 2015)

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses the complexity arising when an application must use diverse types of data connections (e.g., HTTP, SAP RFC), each with its own programming model. The invention provides a common management layer within a computing platform that offers common services (e.g., error handling, monitoring, addressing) and a common entry point, making the data connections independent of the application's internal logic. (’354 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:15-20).

Asserted Claims

Independent claim 11 is asserted (Compl. ¶54).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s platform provides a layer for managing diverse types of data connections for use by its software applications, such as Joule. (Compl. ¶¶18-19, 53-55).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies a suite of products as the "Accused Instrumentalities," including Joule, Autotrader, Data Analytics, Automated Trading, Customer Portal, and others (Compl. ¶19). The Joule platform is highlighted 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 is alleged to provide an "enhanced trading experience" by aggregating multiple asset classes, markets, and geographies into a single, optimally configured desktop screen (Compl. ¶20). This platform also allegedly integrates with third-party services, such as UpdataAnalytics, to provide charting and analytics (Compl. ¶21).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references appendices for detailed infringement allegations, but these appendices were not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶¶27, 41, 55). The following analysis is based on the narrative infringement theories presented in the main body of the complaint.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

U.S. Patent No. 8,396,886 (Direct Infringement)

The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities perform the claimed method by subscribing to continuous streams of input data from various market data publishers, executing queries on this flowing data in real time without first storing it in a persistent database, and publishing the results to subscribers (i.e., users of the platform). The infringement theory suggests that the platform necessarily receives data in publisher-specific formats (e.g., from different exchanges) and delivers results in subscriber-specific formats (e.g., to the Joule user interface), thereby meeting the claim requirement that the communication protocols vary. (Compl. ¶¶20, 26).

U.S. Patent No. 8,577,927 (Direct Infringement)

The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities infringe by creating a virtual database from heterogeneous data sources. The theory posits that the platform defines rules (analogous to "publication schemas") to map data from diverse sources like OTC and cleared markets, generates intermediate data structures, and then combines them using further rules (an "integration schema") to present a unified view to the user. This functionality is allegedly reflected in marketing language describing the aggregation of "all their venues... into one stack." (Compl. ¶¶20, 40).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary question for the ’886 Patent is whether the accused platform's processing architecture meets the negative limitation of operating "without storing the continuous input data streams in any data structure." The dispute may center on whether any transient in-memory buffering or caching within the platform constitutes "storing" as proscribed by the claim.
• Technical Questions: For the ’927 Patent, a key question is whether the accused platform's data aggregation method functionally aligns with the patent's specific two-step architecture of creating intermediate "non-permanent structured instance[s]" via "publication schemas" and then combining them via an "integration schema." The complaint provides a high-level theory, and the case may turn on whether discovery reveals an actual architectural match.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’886 Patent (Claim 1)

• The Term: "executing a query operation directly on the one or more continuous input data streams... without storing the continuous input data streams in any data structure"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention's distinction from conventional database systems. Its construction will determine whether systems that use modern in-memory data handling techniques, such as caching or buffering for performance, fall within the scope of the claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification repeatedly contrasts the invention with traditional databases that "stores everything on disk" and relies on table-based "triggers." (’886 Patent, col. 2:11-22). This context may support an interpretation where "without storing" means avoiding persistent, disk-based database tables, rather than prohibiting any form of transient memory usage.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is explicit and contains two negative limitations ("without any pre-processing" and "without storing... in any data structure"). A defendant may argue this language requires a strict interpretation where any system that places incoming data into a buffer, queue, or other in-memory "data structure" for processing falls outside the claim's scope.

For the ’927 Patent (Claim 19)

• The Term: "non-permanent structured instance of data"
• Context and Importance: This term appears multiple times in the claim and describes both the intermediate data objects created from individual sources and the final "target" data object (the virtual database). Whether the data views and aggregations in the accused platform meet this definition is critical to the infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s summary describes the invention as a technique for producing a "virtual database" from heterogeneous sources, implying an on-demand, non-persistent nature. (’927 Patent, col. 3:12-16). This could support reading the term broadly onto the aggregated "market views" alleged to be provided by the accused platform (Compl. ¶20).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires that the "non-permanent structured instance of data" be generated "as defined by an individual publication schema." A defendant may argue that this ties the definition of the "instance" to the specific process of using a formal "publication schema," and that if its system uses a different method for data ingestion and normalization, the resulting data structures do not meet this claim limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

For all three asserted patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that Defendant provides instruction materials, demonstrations, user guides, and training services that instruct and encourage customers to use the Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶33-34, 47-48, 61-62). The complaint also pleads contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), alleging the accused functionality is especially made or adapted for infringement and is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶36, 50, 64).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged for all three patents based on Defendant’s continued infringement after being made aware of the patents, with knowledge dating from "at least as early as the filing of this Complaint." This constitutes an allegation of post-suit willfulness. (Compl. ¶¶30, 44, 58).

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

1. A core issue will be one of technical operation: Does the accused platform's internal architecture meet the '886 patent’s specific prohibition against "storing" data streams in "any data structure" before querying, or will evidence show that its use of modern in-memory data handling techniques places it outside the claim scope?
2. A second central question will be one of architectural correspondence: Does the method used by the accused platform to aggregate data from diverse market sources map onto the specific, multi-step process recited in the '927 patent—defining distinct "publication schemas" to create intermediate "non-permanent" instances, which are then combined via an "integration schema"—or does it employ a fundamentally different data integration model?
3. A key evidentiary question will be one of substantiation: Given that the complaint relies on high-level, public-facing product descriptions, the case will likely depend on whether technical evidence obtained during discovery can substantiate the allegation that the internal workings of the accused platform align with the specific method steps required by the asserted claims.