Peter Henrik Pedersen v. SAP America, Inc.

Case Overview: Peter Henrik Pedersen v. SAP America, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00591 (W.D. Tex.)

Parties and the accused technology. Plaintiff Peter Henrik Pedersen is an individual inventor based in Denmark who owns U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 (the "'920 patent"), titled "Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System" (filed July 12, 2001 as App. 09/904,270; issued November 15, 2005; claiming priority to Provisional App. 60/217,719). He does not appear to practice the patent commercially; Unified Patents classifies him as an individual/NPE asserter and has reported he is "believed to be associated with AiPi Solutions." The defendant, SAP America, Inc., is the U.S. subsidiary of SAP SE, the German enterprise-software giant whose products span ERP, CRM, and cloud-based marketing/communications platforms. The '920 patent claims a system and method for centrally managing how electronic messages from a plurality of "messengers" (senders) are distributed to recipients, using recipient profile data that specifies "where, when and how specific types of messages from each messenger are to be delivered" — in essence, profile-driven email/message filtering and routing (see the Federal Circuit's description in Pedersen v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 24-2090 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2026)). In Pedersen's parallel W.D. Tex. suits on the same patent (e.g., Pedersen v. Zoho Corp., No. 6:22-cv-00408), the accused instrumentalities were email-marketing software; for SAP, the complaint (ECF No. 1) accused SAP's messaging/email-distribution infrastructure, though the specific accused SAP product names are not visible in the public docket sources I reviewed and should be verified against the complaint itself if needed.

Procedural posture and venue. The case was filed June 8, 2022, in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas and assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright — the district and judge that, post-TC Heartland, became the country's busiest patent venue, known for fast, plaintiff-friendly scheduling. Pedersen was represented by William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP; SAP retained Thomas M. Melsheimer and Michael A. Bittner of Winston & Strawn LLP. The docket moved quickly but never reached the merits: SAP was served June 10, 2022, the answer deadline was extended to August 15, 2022 (ECF No. 7), and SAP appeared (ECF Nos. 8–9) on June 30, 2022. Notably, on July 15, 2022 — five days before Pedersen's dismissal — SAP filed its own declaratory-judgment action against Pedersen in the Northern District of Texas (SAP America Inc. v. Pedersen, No. 3:22-cv-01534, before Judge Ed Kinkeade), a classic defensive venue play to pull the dispute to Dallas; Pedersen answered there with counterclaims on August 4, 2022. On July 20, 2022, Pedersen filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (ECF No. 10) in the WDTX case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and the court entered a without-prejudice dismissal order, closing the case on March 6, 2023. No claim construction, infringement, or validity ruling was ever entered, and no fee award appears on the record; the reason for the dismissal (settlement, forum strategy, or abandonment) is not disclosed.

Why the case is notable. This suit was one node in a broad serial assertion campaign: between late 2021 and September 2022, Pedersen — through Ramey LLP in WDTX — sued roughly twenty technology and enterprise-software companies over the '920 patent, including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo/Verizon, Oracle, Salesforce, Adobe, Intuit, Zoho, Zendesk, Blackbaud, Constant Contact, Monday.com, Wix, Mailgun, Aurea, Upland, Ziff Davis, and Madwire. The SAP case is notable for its pattern: an individual-inventor NPE filing against a major operating company in Albright's court, followed by an abrupt 42-day without-prejudice dismissal immediately after SAP counter-programmed with its own N.D. Tex. DJ action — leaving the patent "live" but the venue battle unresolved in the public record. The campaign's ultimate fate, however, was set by the PTAB and appellate track: Unified Patents petitioned IPR2023-00029 on October 14, 2022, challenging claims 1 and 14–17 of the '920 patent as obvious (based on the Funk reference in view of Law or Kamakura), the Board found the claims unpatentable, and the Federal Circuit affirmed on March 26, 2026 in Pedersen v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 24-2090 (nonprecedential; Lourie and Hughes, JJ., with Chief District Judge Kleeh) — effectively extinguishing the asserted claims and validating the IPR-based defense model against this type of inventor-led messaging-patent campaign. Additional challenges (e.g., Adobe's IPR2023-00986 and Oracle's IPR2023-00867) reinforce that the case's industry significance lies less in the merits of the SAP-specific dispute than in how a broad individual-NPE assertion wave collided with venue maneuvering, coordinated IPR defense, and eventual Federal Circuit affirmance of invalidity.

I'll research the docket and parallel proceedings for this case.

I have good initial data. Let me dig deeper into the docket and the parallel SAP declaratory judgment action and PTAB proceedings.

Peter Henrik Pedersen v. SAP America, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00591-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

Court: U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas (Waco Division) | Judge: Alan D. Albright
Filed: 2022-06-08 | Patent: U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 ("Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System")
Disposition: Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice; case closed 2023-03-06

---

Chronology of Key Legal Developments

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2022-06-08 — Complaint (Dkt. #1). Peter Pedersen, an individual inventor, filed a patent infringement suit against SAP America, Inc. under 35 U.S.C. § 271, asserting U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920. Plaintiff demanded a jury. Filed by William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP. Supporting filings that day: AO 120 patent/trademark notice (Dkt. #2), summons request (Dkt. #3), and Certificate of Interested Parties (Dkt. #4). (Justia docket; Unicourt; DocketAlarm)
• 2022-06-09 — Summons issued (Dkt. #5).
• 2022-06-10 — Service. Summons returned executed; SAP America served, answer due 2022-07-01 (Dkt. #6, entered 06-15). (Justia/Unicourt)
• 2022-06-22/23 — Unopposed extension of answer deadline (Dkt. #7). Pedersen filed an unopposed notice extending SAP's answer deadline; the court reset SAP's answer due date to 2022-08-15.
• 2022-06-30 — SAP appearances (Dkt. #8, #9). Thomas M. Melsheimer and Michael A. Bittner of Winston & Strawn LLP entered appearances for SAP America.
• No answer or counterclaims were ever filed. SAP's answer was never due before the case was dismissed.

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

None. The docket reflects no motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or for summary judgment, and no other substantive motion practice. The case never advanced past the initial-pleadings stage. (Justia docket — complete through dismissal; Unicourt; PatSnap)

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

Not reached. No scheduling order under Judge Albright's Patent Standing Order issued, no claim construction briefing occurred, and no Markman order was entered before dismissal.

4. Discovery Milestones

None. No discovery requests, venue discovery, or protective orders appear on the docket. The case was dismissed approximately 42 days after filing — well before the discovery phase.

5. Trial / Verdict / Post-Trial Motions

None. No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee application. SAP obtained no merits ruling of any kind — no invalidity finding, no non-infringement judgment, and no fee award. (PatSnap analysis of PACER record)

6. Final Disposition

• 2022-07-20 — Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. #10). Pedersen filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — a plaintiff-initiated dismissal before the defendant served an answer or summary-judgment motion. Such a dismissal is self-executing upon filing, requires no court order, and operates without prejudice. (Justia docket, Dkt. #10; PatSnap; case metadata)
• 2023-03-06 — Case terminated/closed. The court's records reflect the case as terminated and closed on this date. (Case metadata; PatSnap — noting closure ~271 days after filing)

Practical effect: The dismissal left the '920 patent fully enforceable and did not adjudicate any claim. Pedersen retained the right to re-file against SAP; no settlement, license, or consent judgment is disclosed in the public record. The public record does not reveal whether any private arrangement accompanied the dismissal.

7. Parallel PTAB Proceedings on the '920 Patent — and Their Aftermath

The SAP suit was part of a much larger, coordinated enforcement campaign over the '920 patent (asserted against Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Salesforce, Oracle, Adobe, Intuit, Zoho, Wix, Zendesk, and others). Two PTAB proceedings and one Federal Circuit appeal are directly relevant:

• IPR2023-00029 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Pedersen.

  • Petition filed 2022-10-14 challenging claims 1 and 14–17 as obvious (Funk '162 in view of Law '586 or Kamakura '310, with expert declaration of Dr. Henry Houh).
  • 2023-05-15 — Institution granted on all challenged claims; scheduling order entered.
  • 2024-05-10 — Final Written Decision: the Board held claims 1 and 14–17 unpatentable as obvious. (PTAB FWD; Unified Patents; ipverse)
  • 2024-07-12 — Pedersen appealed to the Federal Circuit (No. 24-2090).
  • 2026-03-26 — Federal Circuit AFFIRMED (nonprecedential; Lourie and Hughes, C.JJ., and Chief District Judge Kleeh), holding the Board's obviousness determination supported by substantial evidence — specifically that Funk discloses the messenger-specific, user-specified delivery parameters of limitation 1.4. (Pedersen v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 24-2090 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2026); Vitallaw; Unified Patents)
  • Net effect: The asserted claims of the '920 patent were cancelled — the patent Pedersen had asserted against SAP is no longer enforceable.

• IPR2023-00986 — Adobe Inc. v. Pedersen. A separate IPR on the same patent, filed 2023-06-01, was terminated by settlement on 2023-10-11 before any institution decision — illustrating that other '920 defendants resolved via confidential settlement rather than adjudication. (PTAB record via ipverse)

• Related district-court action — SAP America Inc. v. Pedersen, No. 3:22-cv-01534 (N.D. Tex.). Records indicate SAP filed a declaratory judgment action against Pedersen over the same patent, filed 2022-07-14 — one week before Pedersen dismissed the W.D. Tex. suit — which is listed as closed. Public detail is sparse, and this DJ action appears to have been resolved/closed without a merits decision following the termination of the infringement suit. (Unified Patents litigation portal; Stanford NPE Litigation Database; Justia)

---

Bottom Line

This was a short-lived, paper-only case: complaint filed 2022-06-08, SAP's answer extended but never filed, and Pedersen voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on 2022-07-20 (Dkt. #10), with the case formally closed on 2023-03-06. There were no merits rulings, claim construction, discovery, trial, or fees. The substantive fate of the '920 patent was instead decided in the PTAB: IPR2023-00029 resulted in a Final Written Decision (2024-05-10) cancelling claims 1 and 14–17 as obvious, which the Federal Circuit affirmed on 2026-03-26 — extinguishing the patent as an enforcement asset and rendering the earlier voluntary dismissal moot in practical terms.

Note on sourcing: Docket details are drawn from Justia, Unicourt, and DocketAlarm mirrors of the PACER record for 6:22-cv-00591; PTAB and Federal Circuit events from the USPTO PTAB docket (ipverse), Unified Patents' case portal and insights posts, and the Vitallaw report of the March 26, 2026 Federal Circuit decision. The N.D. Tex. declaratory judgment action (3:22-cv-01534) is confirmed by the Unified Patents and Stanford NPE databases, but its docket details are limited in the public sources available; the exact relationship between that case's closure and this dismissal is not fully documented in the retrieved record.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Based on the PACER-derived docket for Peter Henrik Pedersen v. SAP America, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00591 (W.D. Tex., Waco Div., Judge Alan D. Albright), one attorney appears as counsel of record for plaintiff Peter Henrik Pedersen.

William P. Ramey III

• Role: Lead/counsel of record for the plaintiff (firm's Managing Partner; effectively first-chair for the case)
• Firm: Ramey LLP (formerly Ramey & Schwaller, LLP)
• Office: 5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 800, Houston, TX 77006 (some profiles list Suite 750; the firm's current site and court filings list Suite 800)
• Docket support: Every plaintiff-side filing in the case bears Ramey's signature/ECF log-in — the Complaint (Dkt. 1, filed 6/8/2022), AO 120 patent notice (Dkt. 2), summons request (Dkt. 3), Certificate of Interested Parties (Dkt. 4), the unopposed extension of time to answer (Dkt. 7), and the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. 10, filed 7/20/2022) that ended the case under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The case was closed on 3/6/2023. (Sources: Unicourt docket summary; Justia Docket, retrieved 7/20/2022.)
• Relevant experience / notable matters: Texas Bar No. 24027643; licensed since 2000; admitted to the W.D. Tex. and other Texas districts, the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court; a Houston-based patent-litigation plaintiff's lawyer who has been called "one of the more prolific NPE firms" (Bloomberg Law, Feb. 2025). Notable and often-contested engagements include CTD Network LLC v. Microsoft (W.D. Tex., sanctions denied 2025), VDPP v. Volkswagen (fee liability against Ramey personally, S.D. Tex., 2024), Vizio fee-award litigation affirmed by the Federal Circuit, and a W.D. Tex. order requiring Ramey to seek court permission before filing future patent suits (Cisco matter). He also represented the same patent owner, Peter Pedersen, in related PTAB proceedings (e.g., Adobe Inc. v. Pedersen, IPR2023-00986) per the power-of-attorney filings.

No other plaintiff attorneys appeared. The docket contains no notice of appearance, motion for pro hac vice admission, or other filing by any co-counsel, local counsel, or in-house lawyer for Pedersen in this case. Ramey is admitted to the Western District of Texas, so no local counsel was needed. Defendant SAP America, Inc. was represented by Thomas M. Melsheimer and Michael A. Bittner of Winston & Strawn LLP (appearances at Dkts. 8 and 9), but they are defense counsel, not plaintiff's counsel.

Caveats: The case was voluntarily dismissed about six weeks after filing, before any substantive motions or a scheduling order, so no formal "lead vs. of counsel" designations were ever made on the record; "lead/counsel of record" reflects that Ramey was the sole signatory on all filings. The full PACER docket was not directly accessed (paywall), but the Unicourt/Justia docket entries cited above are consistent across sources.

I'll research the counsel of record for SAP America, Inc. in this case. Let me start with several searches.

I've confirmed the two defendant attorneys of record from the docket. Now let me verify their firm affiliations, office locations, and backgrounds.

Counsel of Record — Defendant SAP America, Inc.

The docket for Pedersen v. SAP America, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00591 (W.D. Tex., Waco Div., Judge Alan D. Albright), reflects two attorneys of record for SAP America, Inc., both entering appearances on June 30, 2022, three weeks before the plaintiff's Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal (Docket No. 10, filed July 20, 2022). Both were Winston & Strawn LLP, Dallas partners — consistent with the firm's role as SAP's defense counsel (confirmed by PatSnap/Unicourt case-data aggregations and the attorneys' firm bios). No separate local counsel or SAP in-house counsel appears on the public docket; no additional appearances were filed in the case's brief life.

1. Thomas M. Melsheimer — Lead counsel

• Role: Lead trial counsel / partner; Notice of Attorney Appearance filed June 30, 2022 (Docket No. 8). Melsheimer is the Managing Partner of Winston & Strawn's Dallas office and co-chair of the firm's global Litigation Department.
• Firm/Office: Winston & Strawn LLP — Dallas, TX.
• Notable patent litigation experience: One of the most decorated trial lawyers in Texas; former Fish & Richardson Dallas managing partner. Landmark patent matters include Halo Electronics v. Bel Fuse (D. Nev., argued in the U.S. Supreme Court — Halo v. Pulse, 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016)); lead defense counsel in Ceats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines (E.D. Tex., jury invalidity verdict avoiding ~$300M exposure); Fresenius v. Baxter (N.D. Cal., jury invalidated all asserted claims); and, notably for SAP, SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC (N.D. Tex., obtained § 101 invalidity ruling and fee award for SAP). He is listed in IAM Patent 1000 and Chambers USA for IP. Sources: Winston & Strawn bio; Wikipedia; Texas Lawyer (Sept. 2018); docket entry 8 via Justia/Unicourt.

2. Michael A. Bittner — Co-counsel

• Role: IP trial partner; Notice of Attorney Appearance filed June 30, 2022 (Docket No. 9). (Bittner was a Winston & Strawn Dallas partner at the time; he has since moved to King & Spalding, Dallas.)
• Firm/Office: Winston & Strawn LLP — Dallas, TX (at time of appearance; currently King & Spalding LLP, Dallas).
• Notable patent litigation experience: IP trial lawyer focused on patent litigation, recognized by Chambers USA, IAM Patent 1000, and Legal 500. Representative matters include SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC (N.D. Tex.); Ericsson v. LG (E.D. Tex., FRAND/SEP); eDekka LLC v. 3balls.com (E.D. Tex., Alice invalidity + fees); Clear with Computers v. Altec (E.D. Tex.); and lead counsel for the largest joint-defense group in E.D. Tex. history in GeoTag, Inc. (400+ defendants). Former law clerk to Judge David J. Folsom (E.D. Tex.). Sources: Winston & Strawn bio; King & Spalding bio; Super Lawyers; docket entry 9 via Justia/Unicourt.

Caveats and procedural notes

• No in-house counsel of record: The docket (entries 8–9 only) shows no SAP in-house counsel appearing. SAP's in-house team may have supervised the matter, but no in-house attorney filed an appearance in this case.
• No local counsel designation: Both attorneys are Texas-licensed (Melsheimer, UT Law 1986; Bittner, UT Law 2008), so a separate local-counsel filing was unnecessary in the W.D. Tex.
• Short-lived engagement: The case was dismissed without prejudice before any answer was filed; the only defense-side activity was the two appearances (Docket Nos. 8–9) and the reset answer deadline (Docket reset, June 23, 2022). The case was closed March 6, 2023.
• Verify via PACER: The appearance notices' full text (including any firm designation on the signature blocks) is on PACER for 6:22-cv-00591; public aggregators (Justia, Unicourt, Docket Alarm) corroborate the names but the underlying filings themselves are the authoritative record.