DCT

2:25-cv-00556

Valtrus Innovations Ltd v. SAP America Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00556, E.D. Tex., 05/19/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant SAP America, Inc. maintaining a regular and established place of business in Plano, Texas, within the district, and on Defendant SAP, Se being a foreign corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s enterprise software platforms and services infringe four patents, originally developed by Hewlett Packard Enterprise, related to enterprise data integration, database archiving, system monitoring, and analytical data processing.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses fundamental challenges in large-scale enterprise computing, aiming to improve real-time data synchronization, system performance, and operational efficiency in complex IT infrastructures.
  • Key Procedural History: Plaintiff is identified as the successor-in-interest to a patent portfolio created by Hewlett Packard Enterprise. The complaint alleges pre-suit notice of infringement for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,379,538 and 9,229,984, with notice dates of September 7, 2022, and March 4, 2022, respectively, which may form a basis for the willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-04-19 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,856,420
2005-06-22 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,379,538
2010-12-21 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,856,420
2011-01-25 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,229,984
2011-09-28 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,515,916
2013-02-19 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,379,538
2013-08-20 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,515,916
2016-01-05 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,229,984
2022-03-04 Alleged Pre-Suit Notice of U.S. Patent No. 9,229,984
2022-09-07 Alleged Pre-Suit Notice of U.S. Patent No. 8,379,538
2025-05-19 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,856,420 - “Zero Latency Enterprise Enriched Publish/Subscribe,” issued December 21, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of integrating disparate software applications across an enterprise, where the inability of applications to efficiently share information in real time creates operational latencies and economic inefficiencies (’420 Patent, col. 1:50-68).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "zero latency enterprise" (ZLE) framework centered on an "operational data store" (ODS) that acts as a central information broker. Instead of applications querying each other directly, they "publish" event information to the ODS. The ODS aggregates this information and can "enrich" a message with additional, relevant data from its repository before that message is delivered to a "subscribing" application. This reduces the number of messages and keeps information synchronized. (’420 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-68).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture aimed to overcome information silos in enterprise application integration (EAI) by creating a central, intelligent hub that actively enriches data flows, rather than relying on point-to-point requests between applications (’420 Patent, col. 2:10-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts one or more claims, including without limitation independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • initiating a process responsive to an event;
    • publishing a message to a central repository containing information from that event;
    • aggregating information from a plurality of events in the central repository;
    • updating the aggregated information with information from the published messages;
    • creating enriched messages by enriching them with information from the event and/or corresponding information extracted from the central repository; and
    • subscribing the enriched messages. (’420 Patent, col. 19:26-42).

U.S. Patent No. 8,515,916 - “Data Archiving Methods and Data Archiving Apparatus,” issued August 20, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that generating relational data structures (e.g., dependency trees) to determine which data can be safely archived is a "burdensome processing task that consumes considerable time and resources" (’916 Patent, col. 2:40-44). Conventional systems regenerate these complex structures for each archiving iteration, which is inefficient.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to improve archiving performance by storing the relational data structure from a first archiving iteration. In a subsequent iteration, the system determines the "status" of the stored structure (i.e., validates its integrity). If the underlying data dependencies have not changed, the system reuses the stored structure, thereby avoiding the costly step of regenerating it from scratch. (’916 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-24).
  • Technical Importance: The method provides a significant performance optimization for a common and resource-intensive database maintenance task by intelligently reusing computationally expensive work from prior runs (’916 Patent, col. 2:65 - col. 3:5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts one or more claims, including without limitation independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶36).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • storing a relational data structure generated in connection with a first iteration of an archiving process;
    • determining a status of the relational data structure prior to using it in a second iteration; and
    • using the relational data structure in the second iteration if the status indicates it has been validated. (’916 Patent, col. 14:1-11).

U.S. Patent No. 8,379,538 - “Model-Driven Monitoring Architecture,” issued February 19, 2013

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses the inefficiency of manually reconfiguring IT system monitoring tools when the environment they monitor changes. It proposes a "machine-readable monitoring model" that describes the monitoring environment's configuration, allowing monitoring agents to read the model and autonomously adapt their operation to changes without user intervention. (’538 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-24).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts at least independent claim 7 (Compl. ¶44).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that SAP's software, such as its Solution Manager for Application Lifecycle Management, provides a machine-readable monitoring model that allows elements of a monitoring environment to read the model and adapt their operation to the defined configuration (Compl. ¶44, ¶46).

U.S. Patent No. 9,229,984 - “Parameter Expressions for Modeling User Defined Function Execution in Analytical Data Processing Systems,” issued January 5, 2016

Technology Synopsis

This patent aims to improve the efficiency and flexibility of user-defined functions (UDFs) in data processing systems. The invention uses "parameter expressions" within a query that calls a UDF, allowing a single general UDF to be invoked in different ways to produce different analytical outputs, which reduces the need for multiple, specialized UDFs and increases processing efficiency. (’984 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-31).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶52).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that SAP's analytical data processing systems employ a query compiler and processing engine that identify and execute calls to UDFs using parameter expressions to define input values, as claimed by the patent (Compl. ¶52, ¶54).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses a range of SAP’s enterprise software products, platforms, and services (Compl. ¶20). Specific functionalities and product lines identified include the "SAP Event-Driven Cloud Integration Architecture" (Compl. ¶30), "SAP's data and document archiving functionality" (Compl. ¶38), "SAP Solution Manager" (Compl. ¶46), and SAP’s analytical data processing systems that utilize "user-defined functions" (Compl. ¶54).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused functionalities represent core components of SAP's enterprise software offerings. The complaint alleges these features are marketed as providing significant benefits, such as ensuring "data consistency, greater agility and scalability," relieving the "burden on databases" through archiving, enabling "autonomous Application Lifecycle Management," and allowing for the performance of "complex tasks using external program code" via user-defined functions (Compl. ¶30, ¶38, ¶46, ¶54).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references exemplary claim chart exhibits for each asserted patent; however, these exhibits were not attached to the filed complaint document. The infringement analysis is therefore based on the narrative allegations.

The infringement theory for the ’420 Patent alleges that SAP's event-driven architecture practices the claimed method for enriched publish and subscribe (Compl. ¶28). The complaint alleges that in response to an event, SAP's system publishes messages to a central repository, aggregates information, and creates "enriched messages" by adding information extracted from that central repository before they are sent to subscribing applications (Compl. ¶28). The complaint points to SAP's marketing materials for its "Event-Driven Cloud Integration Architecture" as evidence of these capabilities (Compl. ¶30). A potential point of contention may be whether SAP's architecture performs the specific step of "creating enriched messages" by having a central component actively extract and inject data, as required by the claim, or if it utilizes a different data-sharing mechanism.

The infringement theory for the ’916 Patent alleges that SAP's data archiving functionality infringes the claimed method by storing, validating, and reusing relational data structures (Compl. ¶36). The complaint alleges that after a first archiving iteration, a relational data structure is stored; that in a second iteration, a "status" of that structure is determined; and that the structure is reused if its status is "validated" (Compl. ¶36). This theory is supported by references to SAP's advertised functionality that "relieves the burden on databases" (Compl. ¶38). A central question for this allegation will be factual: does the accused SAP archiving software contain the specific code to store, validate, and reuse dependency structures as claimed, or does it use an alternative, non-infringing optimization technique.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from ’420 Patent, Claim 1: "creating enriched messages by enriching the messages with... corresponding information extracted from the central repository"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the central novelty of the invention over a standard publish-subscribe model. The infringement case turns on whether the accused SAP system performs this specific action of actively augmenting a message with data pulled from a central store before forwarding it.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the central repository (ODS) as a hub that "consolidates information from across the enterprise and supports business transactional access to real time information" (’420 Patent, col. 3:26-31). This could support an argument that any architecture where a central hub makes consolidated data available for inclusion in outgoing messages meets the limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example where the "ZLE hub enriches the order message with the customer address, product size and availability information" before sending it, implying the hub itself performs the action (’420 Patent, col. 17:36-40). Figure 6 also depicts the hub (102) creating an enriched message (2) after receiving a basic one (1), which could support a narrower reading that requires the hub to be the active enriching agent.

Term from ’916 Patent, Claim 1: "determining... a status of the relational data structure"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the validation step that enables the reuse of a prior data structure. The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused SAP functionality performs an operation that constitutes determining a "status" (e.g., valid/invalid) of a stored dependency tree. Practitioners may focus on this term because it is the gatekeeping step for the claimed efficiency gain.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the step broadly as "determining a status of the first relational data structure" (’916 Patent, Abstract). This general language may support a construction covering any check, however implemented, that confirms the continued usability of the prior structure.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description discloses a "validator" module (222) that performs a specific comparison of parent-child dependencies between the stored tree and the current database state to determine if the tree is "invalid" or can be provided for reuse (’916 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 7:6-21). This could support a narrower construction requiring a distinct, explicit validation component or process.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is based on allegations that SAP encourages its customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner through documentation and marketing (e.g., Compl. ¶30, ¶38). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that SAP supplies software that is a material part of the claimed inventions, is not a staple article of commerce, and is provided with knowledge of the patents (e.g., Compl. ¶31, ¶39).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all four patents. For the ’420 and ’916 Patents, knowledge is alleged from the date of the complaint filing (Compl. ¶27, ¶35). For the ’538 and ’984 Patents, the willfulness claim is supported by allegations of pre-suit notice provided to SAP in 2022 and SAP's subsequent alleged failure to cease infringement (Compl. ¶43, ¶51).

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

  • A central issue will be one of operational mechanics: does the internal operation of SAP’s accused enterprise software align with the specific steps recited in the patent claims? For the ’420 Patent, this involves whether the system actively "enriches" messages from a central repository, and for the ’916 Patent, whether the archiving function stores, validates, and reuses prior dependency structures. The resolution of these questions will likely depend on technical evidence revealed during discovery.
  • A key legal battle is likely to be one of claim scope: particularly for the ’420 Patent, can the phrase "creating enriched messages" be construed broadly to cover any architecture where a central hub facilitates data access, or will it be limited to a specific sequence where the hub itself performs the data extraction and injection? The outcome of claim construction will significantly influence the infringement analysis.
  • A third critical question, particularly relevant to potential damages, will be willfulness: did SAP possess pre-suit knowledge of the ’538 and ’984 patents and a factual basis for infringement, as alleged, and if so, was its continued conduct after notice objectively reckless?