In re SAP America, Inc., SAP SE, Petitioners

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Let me dig deeper into the parties, patents, and parallel proceedings.

Let me verify the patent titles, accused products, and the case's ultimate disposition.

Case Overview: In re SAP America, Inc., No. 2025-118 (Fed. Cir.)

Parties and their business models. The underlying infringement suit is Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. SAP America, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00021-JRG (E.D. Tex.), brought by Valtrus Innovations Ltd. and, after joinder, Key Patent Innovations Ltd. ("KPI") — two Dublin, Ireland-based patent monetization entities, i.e., NPEs/PAEs. Valtrus is the successor to a portfolio of roughly 1,500 patents (about half U.S.) acquired from Hewlett Packard Enterprise in May 2021 (assignments recorded at Reel/Frame 56157/0492 and 55269/0001); KPI is Valtrus's parent and the beneficiary of a declaration of trust executed the same day Valtrus took title, and Patent Platform Services LLC ("PPS") serves as the U.S. licensing agent for the HPE portfolio. Valtrus reports licensing 50+ entities without litigation while running a broad assertion campaign (SAP, Google, TierPoint, Lumen, DataBank, and a FedEx notice letter, among others), and in 2026 sought JPML consolidation of a dozen data-center-cooling suits. On the defense side, SAP America, Inc. and SAP SE are the U.S. and German operating arms of the enterprise-application-software giant (S/4HANA, HANA, cloud integration), with SAP America maintaining offices in the Eastern District of Texas's Sherman Division — the fact that anchored SAP's transfer motion.

Accused technology and asserted patents. Valtrus accuses SAP's enterprise data and integration stack — specifically SAP HANA, SAP HANA on AMD EPYC, SAP Cloud Integration, SAP Data Services, and SAP Business Network Asset Collaboration (with Kafka-based message streaming also implicated) — of infringing seven HPE-origin patents: U.S. 6,823,409; 6,889,244; 7,152,182; 7,313,575; 6,691,139; 7,936,738; and 6,871,264. Technical sketches for the three most fully documented: the '244 patent claims a method of transmitting messages between nodes each coupled to a fault tolerant storage system (FTSS) via store-and-forward messaging (whether Ethernet/Internet was disclaimed was the central Markman dispute); the '575 patent addresses "zero-latency enterprise" performance through a real-time information director (RTID) that transforms data under polymorphic metadata defining security and data-integrity rules; and the '738 patent provides fault tolerance in message-based communication systems (e.g., SIP) by inserting "context information" into an outgoing message so the response carries the same context, allowing protocol-stack state to be restored after a failover. Caveat: I could not verify the precise titles/subject matter of the '409, '182, '139, and '264 patents from well-sourced records, and PTAB filings abbreviate the '738 as directed to fault tolerance in communication systems while some aggregator pages label it "Storing Context Information in an Outgoing Message" — treat those labels as unconfirmed. Note also that although the case metadata lists only the '738 patent, the mandamus petition did not turn on any individual patent; the '738 was simply one of seven asserted patents and the subject of a separate IPR (below).

Procedural posture, venue fight, and why it matters. Valtrus filed in the Marshall Division before Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap on January 15, 2024. SAP moved for intra-district transfer to the Sherman Division under §1404(a) on March 20, 2024; Judge Gilstrap denied it on December 13, 2024 (Dkt. 93) after applying the Fifth Circuit's In re Volkswagen private/public factors, finding most witnesses outside Texas and the divisions comparably convenient. SAP petitioned the Federal Circuit for mandamus on February 4, 2025, and on April 10, 2025 a per curiam panel (Dyk, Prost, Chen) denied the petition (In re SAP America, Inc., No. 25-118) — notably holding that the district court did err in weighing the closed, dismissed AT&T co-pending Marshall case and in treating the case's "smooth[]" progress as a congestion factor, yet still concluding SAP failed to show Sherman was "clearly more convenient." SAP was represented by Winston & Strawn (lead: former USPTO Director Katherine Vidal, with Michael Bittner, M. Brett Johnson, Thomas Melsheimer, and Thanh Nguyen); Valtrus by Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg (Matt Berkowitz, Navid Bayar, Brian Baran, Patrick Colsher, Khue Hoang). The case is notable on several axes. First, on venue law: it is a clean illustration of how near-insurmountable the mandamus bar is even when the district court commits identifiable Volkswagen factor errors, and it fed directly into the ongoing Marshall-vs-Sherman intra-district fight in the country's busiest patent venue. Second, on NPE practice: the case showcases the HPE-portfolio monetization playbook, and SAP's standing attack under Article III and 35 U.S.C. §281 — Judge Gilstrap found Valtrus had Article III standing but lacked "all substantial rights" under §281, allowing KPI's joinder to cure (Nov. 8, 2024); the same trust structure later produced outright Article III dismissals in Valtrus's N.D. Cal. suits against Google. Third, on IPR linkage: SAP filed a January 2025 wave of IPRs (IPR2025-00416 through -00421, including -00419 on the '738 patent and -00420 on the '244 patent), raising §325(d) and Fintiv/§314(a) discretionary-denial arguments; SAP then moved to withdraw the '738 IPR in June 2025 (Board authorized termination June 23, 2025), a filing in which SAP stated the parties had not settled. Related proceedings include the duplicative Valtrus II (No. 2:24-cv-00533, filed July 12, 2024, consolidated Feb. 24, 2025) and SAP's Delaware declaratory-judgment action (No. 1:24-cv-00756-GBW). Per the Unified Patents docket, Judge Gilstrap dismissed the consolidated case with prejudice on December 11, 2025, leaving no merits or validity ruling on the '738 patent — a disposition pattern consistent with a confidential settlement (the reason is not stated on the public record, so that characterization is an inference). Finally, practitioners should not conflate this case with the later, separate In re SAP America mandamus (denied Nov. 6, 2025, by Judges Linn/Dyk and colleagues), which concerned constitutional challenges to the USPTO's rescission of the Fintiv-related 2022 memo and arose from the unrelated Cyandia v. SAP litigation (No. 2:24-cv-00096, E.D. Tex.) — a different dispute that ultimately produced a $17M jury verdict and a post-trial equitable-defense win for SAP.

I'll research this case thoroughly. Let me start with the docket and the underlying district court litigation.

Now I have the underlying case identified: Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. SAP America, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00021-JRG. Let me dig into the docket, PTAB proceedings, and later developments.

Rich results. Let me now pin down the Markman outcome, the trial/verdict, and the final disposition.

Let me try to confirm the final disposition of the underlying EDTX case.

I'll research the underlying district court case and the counsel involved.

Let me dig deeper into the plaintiff-side counsel and their firms.

Clarification on who the "plaintiff" is

There is a caption mismatch worth flagging up front. The Federal Circuit case you've asked about, In re SAP America, Inc., SAP SE, No. 2025-118 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 10, 2025), is a mandamus petition — SAP is the petitioner there (and the defendant below), and the metadata's "Plaintiff(s)" field reflects the petition caption, not the underlying infringement plaintiff. The actual patent-infringement plaintiff in the underlying district case is:

• Valtrus Innovations Ltd. (Irish NPE holding a portfolio originating from Hewlett‑Packard), and
• Key Patent Innovations, Ltd. (its parent, added as a co-plaintiff in the First Amended Complaint, Dkt. 57, filed July 29, 2024).

The underlying case is Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. SAP America, Inc. et al., No. 2:24-cv-00021-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.), consolidated for pretrial purposes with Valtrus II, No. 2:24-cv-00533-JRG, on Feb. 24, 2025, with 2:24-cv-00021 as the lead case. U.S. Pat. No. 7,936,738 ("Fault Tolerant Systems") was one of seven originally asserted patents; per Valtrus's April 10, 2025 claim-narrowing election, claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 and 33 of the '738 patent remained asserted. The case was dismissed with prejudice by Judge Gilstrap's order of Dec. 11, 2025 following settlement.

I've listed the plaintiff-side team first, then the SAP side (in case the caption is what you intended).

---

Plaintiff-side counsel of record — Valtrus Innovations Ltd. / Key Patent Innovations, Ltd.

Lead counsel (national / trial team): Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP ("RJLF")

The PACER docket (retrieved Dec. 4, 2025) designates two RJLF attorneys as LEAD ATTORNEY:

Other plaintiff-side counsel of record (appearances on the docket)

Local counsel (E.D. Tex.)

In-house counsel: I found no in-house attorney of record for Valtrus or Key Patent Innovations on the docket. That is consistent with Valtrus being a holding/licensing entity (its U.S. licensing agent was Patent Platform Services, LLC, per SAP's standing motion, Dkt. 54). No sealed filings were identified that appear to harbor undisclosed plaintiff counsel, but sealing practice in this district means a small number of contemporaneous filings are under seal.

---

If you meant the caption's "plaintiffs" (i.e., SAP as petitioner)

For completeness, the petitioner/respondent-appearing side in the Federal Circuit mandamus was Winston & Strawn LLP:

• Katherine Vidal — Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, DC (lead on the petition; former USPTO Director)
• Michael A. Bittner, M. Brett Johnson, Thomas M. Melsheimer, Thanh Dinh Nguyen — Dallas, TX
• Sean H. Suber — Chicago, IL
• (Also active below: Louis L. Campbell, Scott M. Border, Samuel W. Riebe, Matt R. McCullough, William Logan, Patrick David Clark — Winston & Strawn, per the PTAB service lists.)

Source: In re SAP America, Inc., SAP SE, No. 2025-118 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 10, 2025) (per curiam order denying mandamus), as reported by VitalLaw; IPR2025‑00418 Patent Owner Power of Attorney (Jan. 29, 2025) service list.

---

Sourcing notes and caveats

• Docket entries cited are from the E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00021-JRG docket as captured in the PTAB exhibits and the Justia/Docket Alarm reproductions of PACER: Dkt. 5 (Fair appearance), Dkt. 9–15 (Colsher, Carnes, Bayar, Hoang, Morris, Eklem, Berkowitz appearances), Dkt. 18 (Notice of Compliance), Dkt. 57 (First Amended Complaint adding Key Patent Innovations), Dkt. 83 (sealed order denying SAP's motion to dismiss for lack of standing), Dkt. 85 (Plaintiffs' Statement re Valtrus II), Dkt. 295 (Aug. 22, 2025 memorandum order).
• Docket numbers should be verified against live PACER. The most recent full docket snapshot I could retrieve was dated Dec. 4, 2025; today's date is later, so additional appearances (or withdrawals) may exist. I did not have direct PACER access in this session.
• Two attorneys I could not fully verify: Brian C. Baran (firm affiliation) and whether Joy Wang ever entered a district-court appearance. Both are flagged above rather than asserted.
• Attorneys' experience notes are drawn from firm press releases (RJLF Legal 500 2026 and IP STARS 2026 announcements) and the Federal Circuit order; I did not independently verify each attorney's case history against a full professional profile.

I'll research the underlying district court case and identify defense counsel.

The underlying district court case is Valtrus Innovations Ltd. et al. v. SAP America, Inc. and SAP SE, No. 2:24-cv-00021-JRG (E.D. Tex.). Let me identify defense counsel with precision.

Let me verify the docket attorney entries — the search results show both Winston & Strawn and Gish PLLC appearing, which needs clarification.

I need to resolve one ambiguity — the docket shows Gish PLLC attorneys listed in the attorney block, which conflicts with other evidence. Let me check.