Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, VE Opening LLC v. Salesforce, Inc., case number 7:25-cv-00539, was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in November 2025. The plaintiff, VE Opening LLC, is identified as a patent owner, often characteristic of a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), though specific details about its operations are not immediately available. The defendant, Salesforce, Inc., is a well-known operating company that provides cloud-based software, specializing in customer relationship management (CRM) services. The litigation alleges infringement of US Patent 9916079, which, based on general patent classifications, likely pertains to data processing, system management, or related enterprise software technologies. A more precise one-line technical sketch of the patent would require direct examination of the patent's claims.

The procedural posture of this case has recently seen a significant development: on July 9, 2026, the case was transferred from the Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where it is now docketed as 3:2026cv07159. While the Western District of Texas, particularly the Waco division under Judge Alan Albright, has historically been a popular venue for patent plaintiffs due to its expeditious dockets, a shift in assignment practices in 2022 introduced district-wide random assignment, reducing the certainty of appearing before a specific judge. The transfer to the Northern District of California, with Judge Peter H. Kang presiding in the new venue, alters the strategic landscape of the case, as the Northern District of California is also a significant patent litigation hub, especially for technology companies, but with different local rules and judicial preferences.

This case is notable for its involvement of Salesforce, a major technology company, as a defendant, which places it within the broader trend of NPEs asserting patents against established tech firms. The transfer of the case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California highlights the ongoing importance of venue considerations and transfer motions in patent litigation. The initial filing in the Western District of Texas reflects the plaintiff's likely strategy to leverage that court's historically fast-paced patent docket, while the successful transfer indicates a potential shift in the court's approach to venue or strong arguments presented by the defense. Further details regarding the specific accused products or services of Salesforce will be found in the filed pleadings.

The patent infringement litigation VE Opening LLC v. Salesforce, Inc., Case No. 7:25-cv-00539, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in 2025 and has since been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case involves U.S. Patent No. 9,916,079.

Here is a chronological summary of the key legal developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2025-11-19: VE Opening LLC filed the initial complaint for patent infringement against Salesforce, Inc. in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division.
• 2026-02-05: VE Opening LLC filed an Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Prior to 2026-02-12: Salesforce, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
• 2026-02-12: VE Opening LLC filed a Response in Opposition to Salesforce's Motion to Dismiss.
• 2026-02-12: The initial Motion to Dismiss was mooted by a Text Order in light of the amended complaint.
• Prior to 2026-01-26: Salesforce, Inc. filed a Motion to Change Venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
• 2026-01-26: VE Opening LLC filed a Notice of Venue Discovery regarding the motion to change venue.
• Prior to 2026-06-09: Salesforce, Inc. filed a second Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (referenced as Dkt. No. 23).
• 2026-06-09: Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland issued a Report and Recommendations (R&R) regarding Salesforce's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.
• 2026-06-23: VE Opening LLC filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendations.
• 2026-07-01: Judge David Counts issued an Order Adopting the Report and Recommendations.
• 2026-07-09: An Order Granting Motion to Transfer (Dkt. No. 16) was signed by Judge Derek T. Gilliland, transferring the case to the Northern District of California.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• Before the transfer, a Markman Hearing had been set for 2026-10-20 in Waco before Judge Derek T. Gilliland. This schedule is now subject to revision by the transferee court.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• 2026-05-28: An Order Granting Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order was issued, setting various deadlines, including for amended pleadings by 2027-01-29, joinder of parties by 2026-11-20, and dispositive/Daubert motions by 2027-07-30. These dates are likely to be reset by the Northern District of California.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• Before the transfer, a Jury Selection/Trial had been set for 2027-11-01 in Midland before Judge David Counts. No trial has occurred, and no verdict has been reached. These dates will be reset in the new venue.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal – Final Disposition or Present Posture:

• 2026-07-09: The case was transferred from the Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where it received new case number 3:26-cv-07159.
• 2026-07-13: The case was officially transferred in by the Northern District of California.
• 2026-07-13: An Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines was issued in the Northern District of California, setting an Initial Case Management Conference for 2026-10-14. The case is currently active in the Northern District of California.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on the Asserted Patents:

• A search of the USPTO's P-TACTS system for patent 9916079 does not currently show any active or terminated Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings directly involving VE Opening LLC or Salesforce, Inc. for this patent. One search result mentioned "IPR2025-00341" but associated it with "TESLA INC. v. INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC," indicating it is not related to the current litigation concerning patent 9916079. Therefore, there is no direct PTAB proceeding currently identified as affecting this litigation.

The plaintiff in this patent infringement case is VE Opening LLC. The case, originally filed as 7:25-cv-00539 in the Texas Western District Court, was transferred to the California Northern District Court on July 14, 2026, and is now proceeding as 3:26-cv-07159.

Based on the available docket information, the following counsel has appeared for the plaintiff:

• Steven G. Kalberg
  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff
  • Firm: (Firm information not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, will require further search)
  • Note: (Relevant patent litigation experience not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, will require further search)

Further investigation is needed to determine Mr. Kalberg's firm, office location, specific role (e.g., lead counsel, local counsel), and relevant patent litigation experience, as well as to identify if other attorneys have appeared on behalf of VE Opening LLC.The plaintiff in this case, VE Opening LLC, is represented by the following counsel:

• Steven G. Kalberg
  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff
  • Firm: Direction IP Law. The firm appears to have significant experience in patent litigation, particularly representing patent owners and Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs).
  • Note: Mr. Kalberg is identified with Direction IP Law, a firm that has handled 862 cases, with 98% representing patent owners and 94% identified as NPEs. His experience ratings include L3 in District Court (DCT), L1 in PTAB, and L1 in CAFC, indicating substantial engagement in various aspects of patent litigation.

Steven G. Kalberg was added as an attorney for VE Opening LLC in this case on December 11, 2025. The case was originally filed in the Texas Western District Court (7:25-cv-00539) and subsequently transferred to the California Northern District Court (3:26-cv-07159) on July 14, 2026. A related case, VE Opening LLC v. Dropbox, Inc. (5:26-cv-07549), also shows Steven G. Kalberg appearing for VE Opening LLC after a transfer from the Western District of Texas.

At this time, no other counsel for the plaintiff has been explicitly identified in the provided docket snippets for case 7:25-cv-00539 or its transferred iteration 3:26-cv-07159. To provide the office location for Direction IP Law, a further search is required.The plaintiff in this case, VE Opening LLC, is represented by the following counsel:

• Steven G. Kalberg
  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff
  • Firm: Direction IP Law.
  • Office Location: While the provided search results indicate his firm is "Direction IP Law", a specific office location for the firm or for Mr. Kalberg was not found in the search results.
  • Note: Mr. Kalberg is associated with Direction IP Law, a firm with extensive patent litigation experience, having handled 862 cases, with 98% representing patent owners and 94% involving Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs). His experience includes appearances in District Court (rated L3), at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) (rated L1), and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) (rated L1).

Steven G. Kalberg formally appeared on behalf of VE Opening LLC on December 11, 2025. The case, initially filed as 7:25-cv-00539 in the Texas Western District Court, was transferred to the California Northern District Court on July 14, 2026, and is now identified as 3:26-cv-07159. This transfer suggests that Mr. Kalberg and Direction IP Law are likely serving as lead counsel, with potential for local counsel to be identified in the California Northern District filings as the case progresses. However, no additional counsel for VE Opening LLC have been identified from the provided search results.

Salesforce, Inc. is represented by attorneys from Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. and Naman Howell Smith & Lee, PLLC.

Here's a breakdown of the counsel identified for Salesforce, Inc.:

• Uma Everett

  • Role: Attorney (pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
  • Location: Not specified in the search results, but Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox is based in Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Ms. Everett was granted pro hac vice admission to practice in this case.

• Ryan Richardson

  • Role: Attorney (pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein, & Fox, P.L.L.C.
  • Location: Not specified in the search results, but Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox is based in Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Richardson was granted pro hac vice admission to practice in this case.

• Salvador Manuel Bezos

  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC
  • Location: Not specified in the search results, but Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox is based in Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Identified as an attorney for Salesforce, Inc.

• Jacqueline P. Altman

  • Role: Attorney (pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Naman Howell Smith & Lee, PLLC
  • Location: Not specified in the search results.
  • Experience Note: Ms. Altman was granted pro hac vice admission to practice in this case.

It is worth noting that Salesforce also has in-house counsel, with Sabastian Niles serving as President and Chief Legal Officer, overseeing global legal affairs. Salesforce actively manages its intellectual property, including patent prosecution and litigation, through its in-house IP team.