Malikie Innovations Ltd v. SAP America Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. (Ireland)
  • Defendant: SAP America, Inc. (Delaware) and SAP, Se (Germany)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg, LLP; Miller Fair Henry PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00946, E.D. Tex., 09/12/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant SAP America maintains a regular and established place of business in Plano, Texas, and because both defendants conduct business and have allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district. Venue over SAP, Se is also asserted on the basis that it is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s SAP HANA enterprise database products infringe four patents, originally developed by BlackBerry, related to hardware-level data encryption, dynamic memory management, unified data searching, and database synchronization.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue cover fundamental aspects of enterprise computing, including data security, system performance, and data management, which are critical functions in modern in-memory database platforms.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the asserted patents are part of a portfolio created by BlackBerry Ltd. and that Plaintiff Malikie is the successor-in-interest. No other significant procedural events, such as prior litigation or administrative challenges to the patents, are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-04-10	’606 Patent Priority Date
2004-02-05	’498 Patent Priority Date
2007-03-05	’396 Patent Priority Date
2009-02-24	U.S. Patent No. 7,496,606 issues
2010-03-23	U.S. Patent No. 7,685,396 issues
2015-10-27	’742 Patent Priority Date
2017-01-24	U.S. Patent No. 9,552,498 issues
2019-12-10	U.S. Patent No. 10,503,742 issues
2025-09-12	Complaint filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,552,498 - "On-Chip Storage, Creation, and Manipulation of an Encryption Key," issued January 24, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the security vulnerabilities and performance inefficiencies of prior art software-based encryption systems, where encryption keys were accessible to attackers and encryption operations slowed system performance (Compl. ¶25).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a hardware-based encryption engine that isolates encryption keys from software access by storing them on-chip. It purports to achieve stronger security by generating unique encryption keys for different portions of data by combining a base key with the specific memory address of the data being encrypted ('498 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶25). This process ensures that identical data stored at different memory locations will be encrypted differently ('498 Patent, col. 3:4-13).
• Technical Importance: This hardware-centric approach is designed to improve the security and efficiency of processing sensitive information compared to purely software-based solutions (Compl. ¶25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶26).
• Claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
  • Retrieving an encryption key from a secure memory.
  • Identifying a first memory address for a first portion of data.
  • Deriving a first unique key from the encryption key and the first address.
  • Encrypting the first data portion with the first unique key.
  • Identifying a second memory address for a second portion of data.
  • Deriving a second unique key from the encryption key and the second address.
  • Encrypting the second data portion with the second unique key.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,685,396 - "System and Method for Dynamic Memory Allocation," issued March 23, 2010

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses inefficiencies in dynamic memory allocation, particularly in memory-constrained environments, where traditional methods result in significant overhead from per-block "headers" and wasted space due to internal fragmentation ('396 Patent, col. 2:1-2; Compl. ¶30).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "header-less" dynamic memory allocation architecture. This system subdivides memory pages into fixed-size blocks that are free of header information. It manages allocation and de-allocation of these blocks using a "freelist," a data structure that uses pointers to keep track of available blocks, thereby maximizing usable memory and reducing processor cycles spent on memory management ('396 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶30). Figure 4 of the patent illustrates the freelist structure linking available blocks of different sizes.
• Technical Importance: This architecture aims to conserve memory resources and improve application performance, which is particularly valuable in devices with limited memory (Compl. ¶30).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶32).
• Claim 11 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
  • Initializing a freelist with block roots corresponding to different fixed size memory blocks.
  • Allocating a memory page and storing a pointer to it in the freelist.
  • Receiving a request for memory of a predetermined size.
  • Allocating a memory block of a corresponding size from the page if the requested size is less than or equal to a maximum size threshold.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,503,742 - "Electronic Device and Method of Searching Data Records," issued December 10, 2019

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the technical problem of performing searches across multiple, disparate applications (e.g., email, calendar, contacts) that yield inconsistent and poorly formatted results (Compl. ¶40). The proposed solution is a search method that uses stored metadata to map the data fields from various applications to a unified format, allowing a search client to query across all sources and display the results together in a consistent, filterable view ('742 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶39).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶42).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses SAP HANA products that include the "Fiori Search/Enterprise Search" functionality of infringement, alleging this feature enables searching across disparate applications and converting data for display in a unified format (Compl. ¶¶42, 44).

U.S. Patent No. 7,496,606 - "System and Method for Synchronizing Data Records Between Multiple Databases," issued February 24, 2009

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses inefficiencies in synchronizing data records between multiple databases, particularly over high-latency networks where prior art systems required multiple message exchanges to detect and resolve data conflicts (Compl. ¶50). The invention proposes associating each data record with a pair of synchronization parameters, which allows for conflict resolution with a single update message, thereby reducing network latency and improving efficiency ('606 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶¶49-50).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶51).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses SAP HANA products featuring "data synchronization/replication" of infringement (Compl. ¶51).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are broadly identified as "SAP's HANA products, including but not limited to SAP HANA and SAP S/4 HANA" (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint targets specific functionalities within the SAP HANA platform, alleging they correspond to the patented technologies. These include:
  • Data Volume Encryption: Accused of infringing the ’498 Patent’s hardware-level encryption method (Compl. ¶26).
  • Memory Management/Allocation: Accused of infringing the ’396 Patent’s header-less dynamic memory allocation method (Compl. ¶32).
  • Fiori Search/Enterprise Search: Accused of infringing the ’742 Patent’s unified search method (Compl. ¶42).
  • Data Synchronization/Replication: Accused of infringing the ’606 Patent’s efficient synchronization method (Compl. ¶51).
• The complaint does not provide extensive detail on the market context of these specific features, but positions the SAP HANA platform as a major enterprise product.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references exemplary claim charts attached as exhibits but does not include them in the provided documents (Compl. ¶¶26, 32). The infringement theory is therefore summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'498 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that SAP's HANA products with "Data Volume Encryption" directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’498 Patent (Compl. ¶26). The narrative theory suggests that SAP’s encryption feature performs the claimed method of retrieving a base encryption key, identifying memory addresses for different portions of data, deriving unique keys for each portion by combining the base key with the address, and encrypting each portion with its corresponding unique key.

'396 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that SAP's HANA products with "memory management/allocation" directly infringe at least claim 11 of the ’396 Patent (Compl. ¶32). The narrative theory suggests that SAP’s memory management system implements the claimed method of using a freelist structure to manage and allocate fixed-size, header-less memory blocks within a memory page to improve efficiency.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question for the ’498 Patent may be whether a claim for a hardware-based encryption engine can be construed to read on a predominantly software-based feature like SAP’s "Data Volume Encryption." For the ’396, ’742, and ’606 patents, a potential issue is whether claims arising from the context of memory-constrained mobile devices (the original BlackBerry environment) can extend to a large-scale enterprise server platform like SAP HANA.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’498 Patent, a key question will be what evidence demonstrates that SAP's system "derives" unique keys from a base key and a memory address in the manner required by the claim. For the ’396 Patent, the analysis may focus on whether SAP's memory blocks are truly "free of header information," or if associated metadata, wherever stored, performs the function of a header as understood in the art.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'498 Patent

• The Term: "deriving a first unique key from the encryption key and the first address" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive step of the claim. The infringement analysis will depend on whether SAP’s method of key generation falls within the scope of "deriving." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s specification provides a specific example (XOR operation), raising the question of whether the claim is limited to that example or covers any method of combination.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general verb "deriving," which is not explicitly limited. A party could argue this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any logical or mathematical combination of the key and the address.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the derivation process as an "exclusive-or'ed" (XOR) combination of the base key and the data sector address ('498 Patent, col. 3:9-13). A party could argue that this is the only embodiment disclosed and that the claim should be construed as limited to this specific operation.

'396 Patent

• The Term: "fixed size memory blocks free of header information" (Abstract, Claim 11 is directed to a system that uses them)
• Context and Importance: The "header-less" nature of the memory blocks is a primary point of novelty asserted by the patent. The dispute will likely turn on whether SAP's memory management architecture uses blocks that are genuinely "free of header information" or if it uses an equivalent structure that falls outside the claim's scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "header information" should be defined broadly as any per-block metadata used for memory management, regardless of where it is stored. The patent’s objective is to "eliminate per-block header overhead" (Compl. ¶30), suggesting the focus is on the function, not just the location.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification contrasts the invention with prior art where a header is physically prepended to a data payload ('396 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 2:45-50). A party could argue that "free of header information" means specifically lacking such a prepended data structure, and that metadata stored in a separate table would not constitute a "header."

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For both the ’396 and ’742 patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that SAP advertises and encourages customers to use the accused features (Compl. ¶¶34, 44). It also alleges contributory infringement on the basis that SAP supplies material components (hardware and software) for practicing the inventions that are not staple articles of commerce and are not capable of substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶35, 45).
• Willful Infringement: For the ’396 and ’742 patents, willfulness is alleged based on SAP's knowledge of the patents and their infringement "since at least the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶31, 37, 41, 47). This frames the willfulness claim as arising from post-suit conduct.

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

This case presents several fundamental questions regarding the application of patents developed for mobile computing to a large-scale enterprise software environment. The outcome will likely depend on the court's resolution of the following key issues:

• Definitional Scope: A core issue will be whether claim terms rooted in a specific technical context can be construed to cover different implementations. For the ’498 patent, can the method of "deriving" a unique key in a hardware engine read on the algorithms used in SAP's software-based encryption? For the ’396 patent, what constitutes "header information" in the context of a complex enterprise database, and does SAP's architecture meet the "header-less" requirement?
• Architectural Mismatch: The case raises a broader question of technological translation: can the specific solutions for data synchronization (’606 Patent) and unified search (’742 Patent), designed to solve problems of efficiency and consistency on resource-constrained mobile devices, be mapped directly onto the functionalities of a distributed, high-performance, in-memory database platform like SAP HANA?
• Evidentiary Proof: A key challenge will be demonstrating with technical evidence how the accused SAP HANA functionalities—which operate at a massive scale within a complex software stack—actually perform the specific, granular steps recited in the patent claims, which were originally described in the context of simpler device operations.