Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. BMC Software, Inc.

I'll research this case against public sources before drafting.

Case Overview & Background — Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. BMC Software, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-00464 (E.D. Tex.)

The parties. Plaintiff Realtime Data LLC, doing business as IXO, is a Tyler, Texas–based patent-holding company — not an operating technology vendor. It is catalogued as a patent assertion entity in Unified Patents' litigation database (entity type "NPE (Patent Assertion Entity)," industry high-tech) and in Stanford's NPE Litigation Database, and its portfolio traces to inventor James J. Fallon's late-1990s work on lossless data compression. Realtime was among the most prolific serial filers of the 2010s, with successive campaigns in 2008–2010 (CME Group, Thomson Reuters, MetroPCS), 2015 (the wave at issue here), and 2016–2019 (storage, backup and WAN-optimization vendors). Defendant BMC Software, Inc. is a Houston-based enterprise software company (founded 1980) known for mainframe and distributed IT systems management, workload automation and storage/data-management tooling; it was taken private by a Bain Capital–led investor group in 2013. BMC is an operating company and a customer-facing software licensor, i.e., the archetypal target in a compression-patent campaign rather than a fellow patent holder asserting a portfolio.

The asserted patent and accused technology. The case is docketed as an assertion of U.S. Patent No. 6,597,812, "System and Method for Lossless Data Compression and Decompression" (priority to December 10, 1998; naming James J. Fallon). In one line: the '812 claims a computer-implemented method of losslessly compressing a data stream by detecting a block of data, applying run-length encoding where appropriate, and separately maintaining a dictionary, building an index, searching the dictionary for string matches, and outputting compressed data in a format that signals the encoding used — with a mirror-image decompression path (the Federal Circuit's opinion enumerates exactly these claim 1 steps: preamble, "detecting," a first "outputting," "maintaining," "building," "searching," and a second "outputting"). Functionally, this is a patent on hybrid run-length-plus-dictionary (Lempel-Ziv-style) lossless compression — the kind of codec embedded in backup, storage, database and data-transfer software. Caveat on the accused product: I could not retrieve the BMC complaint itself or a docket exhibit identifying the specific BMC product(s) accused, so I cannot responsibly name them. What is verifiable is the campaign's shape: the May 2015 complaints targeted enterprise data-management software in which compression is a feature rather than a standalone product, and the '812 was the flagship patent of that wave. Any statement that a particular BMC module (e.g., a mainframe compression utility or storage-management component) was accused would be speculation and should be confirmed against the complaint (Dkt. 1) and the infringement contentions.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Realtime filed the BMC complaint on May 8, 2015 in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division — the same day it filed a coordinated wave of complaints against Actian (6:15-cv-00463), Dropbox (465), EchoStar (466), Oracle (467), Riverbed (468), SAP (469) and Teradata (470) (complaint dated May 8, 2015, 17 pages; docket history shows the case terminated October 5, 2015). The case did not go to judgment; it was folded into the consolidated Tyler proceeding, Realtime Data LLC v. Actian Corp., No. 6:15-cv-463, in which BMC Software, Inc. appears as a consolidated defendant — that lead case was captioned before Judge Robert W. Schroeder III with Magistrate Judge John D. Love (the "-RWS-JDL" suffix on the companion dockets). I did not personally view the 6:15-cv-00464 docket sheet, so the precise assignment suffix and the order effecting consolidation should be confirmed on PACER/RECAP. Venue mattered for two structural reasons: Realtime itself resided in Tyler, giving it a strong venue hook pre-TC Heartland, and E.D. Tex. in 2015 offered a fast docket and plaintiff-favorable procedures — though co-defendants in the same wave (Dropbox, Teradata) did obtain § 1404(a) transfers to N.D. Cal., showing the venue advantage was already eroding. The case's notability is chiefly as the IPR-linkage story: the '812 patent was challenged in IPR2016-00783 (petition filed April 1, 2016 by SAP America, Inc. et al.; captioned in the Federal Circuit appeal as to Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Co.), where the Board's final written decision of September 28, 2017 held claims 1–4, 8, 14–17, 21 and 28 unpatentable as obvious over O'Brien (U.S. Pat. No. 4,929,946), alone or in view of Nelson, and the Federal Circuit affirmed in Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 10, 2019) (Stoll, J.) — an opinion now routinely cited for the proposition that no separate "motivation to combine" finding is required where a secondary reference merely explains the primary reference. In other words, the patent Realtime used to open this 2015 wave was substantially invalidated in parallel PTAB proceedings, with BMC's individual docket closed by consolidation within five months — a compact illustration of how post-Alice IPR practice blunted NPE campaigns against enterprise software vendors.

Sources / verification notes

• Case existence, filing date, page count, and Oct. 5, 2015 termination: references cited in later Realtime patents and PTAB papers ("Complaint for Patent Infringement … No. 6:15-cv-00464 (E.D. Texas), May 8, 2015, 17 pages"; "filed May 8, 2015 (terminated October 5, 2015)") — e.g., https://patents.google.com/pat

I'll research this case through multiple searches to build a chronological picture.

Realtime Data LLC (d/b/a IXO) v. BMC Software, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-00464-RWS-JDL (E.D. Tex., Tyler Div.)

Analyst framing note. This docket was a five‑month "wave" filing that never reached claim construction, discovery of consequence, or trial. Its entire legal significance is (a) as one of eight parallel complaints Realtime filed the same week in May 2015, and (b) as the case in which the only asserted patent — U.S. Patent No. 6,597,812 ("the '812 patent," Data compression systems and methods, issued 2003‑07‑22, inventor James J. Fallon) — was later invalidated at the PTAB and on appeal in other defendants' IPRs, after this case was already over.

Sourcing caveat, stated up front. I was able to verify the filing date, case number, judge assignment, consolidation order, the joint motion‑to‑dismiss activity, and the 2015‑10‑05 final judgment. I was not able to retrieve the individual PACER docket entries for 6:15‑cv‑464 (the docket histories cited in Realtime's patent specifications describe it as only 3 pages, consistent with a very short docket). Accordingly, I do not assert docket entry numbers, and I flag below exactly where the record is silent.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

On the patent identification — an important conflict in the record. Your metadata lists the '812 patent as the patent at issue. That is consistent with the '812 being a core Realtime asset and with BMC being named in the SAP‑led IPR petition, but I could not independently confirm from a primary source that the '812 was pleaded in the BMC complaint. What I could confirm is that the AO 120 filing form for the parallel lead case 6:15‑cv‑463 identifies only U.S. 7,378,992; 7,415,530; and 8,643,513 — i.e., the "wave" complaints I can see asserted those three patents, not the '812. Two possibilities: (i) BMC's complaint did plead the '812 (a per‑defendant variation, which Realtime did sometimes use), or (ii) the '812 attribution in the case metadata is a family/marketing attribution rather than an asserted‑patent attribution. Treat the '812 assertion in this specific docket as unconfirmed. This matters because the case was dismissed within five months, so no claim‑construction or infringement record exists that would resolve it. This refines, rather than repeats, the prior summary's caution.

Answer and counterclaims. The record I could access does not show a filed answer or counterclaims by BMC in 6:15‑cv‑464. Given the pace (complaint May → judgment October) and that BMC's dismissal track ran through the consolidated motion practice, it is plausible BMC never answered in its own docket; but I cannot source that, and I do not assert that no answer exists.

2. Consolidation order — the key pre‑trial structural ruling

• 2015‑07‑23: The Court entered an order consolidating the eight cases for purposes of pre‑trial issues, except venue (recited verbatim in the PTAB petition papers, e.g., Petition at 1, SAP America Inc. et al. v. Realtime Data LLC, IPR2016‑00783). This is the single most consequential ruling affecting 6:15‑cv‑464: BMC's case was functionally folded into Judge Schroeder's lead action for motion practice, Markman, and discovery, while retaining its own docket number and venue.

3. Pre‑trial motions of substance

• 2015‑07‑24 — Joint Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the FAC (BMC joined): the eight‑defendant, 37‑page motion described above. In the parallel Actian docket, briefing ran through the fall: Realtime's omnibus opposition (‑10‑19‑2015, with attachments running to ~200 pages), Actian/Pervasive's renewed motion to dismiss the FAC (‑09‑29‑2015, 32 pp.), defendants' reply (‑09‑11‑2015 and ‑11‑06‑2015), and a further filing ‑11‑10‑2015. The court's resolution of that motion is outside this docket's life span (BMC exited on 2015‑10‑05).
• No motion to transfer venue was pursued by BMC in this docket within the case's life (contrast Teradata, whose case was transferred to N.D. Cal. in January 2016, and Apple's, transferred April/May 2016).
• No motion to stay pending IPR could have been filed: the first IPR petition against the '812 was not filed until 2016‑04‑01 (SAP America Inc. et al. v. Realtime Data LLC, IPR2016‑00783) — six months after this case closed. This is the cleanest illustration of the case's timing: BMC exited before the PTAB machinery that eventually killed the patent even started.
• No summary judgment motion was filed or decided in 6:15‑cv‑464.

4. Claim construction (Markman)

The case did not reach Markman. Judge Schroeder's consolidated Markman activity occurred in 2016 — e.g., Realtime's Opening Claim Construction Brief (‑05‑23‑2016), Defendants' Responsive Brief, Realtime's Reply (‑06‑27‑2016), a joint claim construction chart, and a claim construction order in the Oracle case on 2016‑07‑28. All of that post‑dates BMC's dismissal by roughly eight months. There is no BMC‑specific construction ruling.

5. Discovery milestones

None of strategic significance occurred before dismissal. With the case terminating four months after the consolidation order, no substantial fact discovery, no expert reports, and no invalidity‑contentions battles attributable to BMC appear in the record I could reach. (Realtime's later privilege/discovery fights and defendants' motion for leave to supplement invalidity contentions belong to the 2016–2017 consolidated proceeding, not here.)

6. Trial, verdict, post‑trial motions

None. No trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new‑trial motion, and no fee motion (no prevailing‑party determination under § 285 was sought in this docket to my knowledge).

7. Final disposition

• 2015‑10‑05 — Final Judgment with Prejudice entered in 6:15‑cv‑464‑RWS‑JDL; docket terminated the same day. This is confirmed by three independent sources: (i) the PTAB petition in IPR2016‑00783, which recites that "On October 5, 2015, the Court entered a Final Judgment with Prejudice in the BMC case (Case No. 6:15‑cv‑464‑RWS‑JDL)"; (ii) Realtime's own prosecution‑file submissions, which list the case as "Terminated 10/5/2015"; and (iii) the case‑status listing on Unified Patents ("Status: closed").
• Characterization: the entry of a final judgment with prejudice — rather than a bare notice of voluntary dismissal — is the signature of an agreed/consented judgment resolving a settled case. The record I can access does not disclose the settlement consideration, license terms, or any monetary payment, and I will not speculate as to amounts. Notably, no consent judgment or license was recorded on the face of the patents, and Realtime continued litigating the same patent family against BMC's co‑defendants for years afterward.
• No appeal was taken, and none was possible: a consensual dismissal with prejudice leaves no adverse judgment to review. The case is closed; there is no present posture.

8. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '812 patent — and why they post‑date this case

I'll research the counsel of record for Realtime Data LLC in this docket and related Realtime Data litigation.

Let me pull the actual docket and complaint from CourtListener/PACER mirrors.

Now let me get the case-specific docket for 6:15-cv-00464 itself.

Bottom line

This docket was short‑lived — complaint filed May 8, 2015, and a final judgment with prejudice entered October 5, 2015 (the case caption in later filings reads 6:15-cv-464-RWS-JDL, i.e., Judge Robert W. Schroeder III / Mag. J. John D. Love). Because the case was resolved in under five months, the plaintiff's side appearances were limited essentially to the filing/signing counsel who handled Realtime's entire May 2015 E.D. Tex. wave.

Important sourcing caveat: I was able to corroborate plaintiff's counsel through (a) the complaint and docket histories from the eight companion suits filed the same day (6:15-cv-463 through -470), (b) RAK's PTAB power of attorney and mandatory notices for Realtime, and (c) Realtime's later E.D. Tex. filings — but I could not retrieve a PACER/CourtListener docket sheet for -464 itself in this session. The roster below is therefore a high‑confidence inference from companion filings, not a verbatim read of the -464 docket text. I flag each item accordingly.

---

Plaintiff's counsel of record — Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles)

Realtime Data's counsel in the May 2015 E.D. Tex. campaign was Russ August & Kabat ("RAK"), 12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025 (310‑826‑7474. The same firm filed all eight complaints on May 8, 2015 and served as Realtime's PTAB counsel throughout the parallel IPR/CBM proceedings.

Local counsel: I found no confirmed Texas local counsel of record for Realtime in the -464 docket. The 2015 companion dockets available to me list only RAK attorneys (unlike the 2008–2012 campaign, where Realtime used McKool Smith's Marshall/Tyler-capable lawyers for the local-counsel function). I am not asserting local counsel existed; on the available record it appears RAK handled the filings directly, with pro hac vice admissions. This is the single item most worth verifying on PACER.

In-house counsel: None. Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO is a non‑practicing entity; no in-house attorney appeared.

---

Counsel who represented Realtime in other Realtime matters — not this docket

Do not conflate these with -464:

• McKool Smith (Dallas / Marshall / Austin / New York / DC) — Robert A. Cote, Jr., Samuel Franklin Baxter, Dirk D. Thomas, Brett E. Cooper, John C. Briody, John M. Shumaker, Holly E. Engelmann, Warren Lipschitz, Thomas G. Fasone III — Realtime's counsel in the 2008–2012 campaigns (6:08-cv-00144, 6:10-cv-00246/247/248). Some of these names surface in PTAB filings with "(Inactive)" status, confirming they were no longer on the active matters.
• Weil, Gotshal & Manges (Daniel J. Melman, New York) — appears in older Realtime-related docket listings, not in the 2015 wave.
• Haynes and Boone LLP (Dallas: John Russell Emerson, Stephanie N. Sivinski, Matthew P. Chiarizio; Palo Alto: Jennifer M. Lantz) — Realtime's counsel in the later N.D. Cal. matters (2017–2019), including the Riverbed transfer litigation. (In the -468 docket Haynes Boone appears for Riverbed, the defendant — an easy mix‑up.)

---

What I could and could not verify

Verified:

• Case filed May 8, 2015 in E.D. Tex., Tyler Division; complaint ran 17 pages and is cited as "Complaint for Patent Infringement, filed in Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO v. BMC Software, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-00464 (E.D. Texas), May 8, 2015."
• Terminated by Final Judgment with Prejudice on October 5, 2015, per Riverbed's mandatory notice in IPR2016‑00980 (describing -464 as one of "seven similar suits" filed the same day).
• RAK as plaintiff's firm for the May 8, 2015 wave; RAK's Los Angeles address and attorney roster.
• BMC was subsequently named alongside SAP America, Sybase, HP, Dell, EchoStar and Hughes in the consolidated 6:15-cv-463 proceedings (defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint), consistent with -464 being folded into the lead case.

Not verified / open items:

1. The -464 docket sheet itself (PACER/CourtListener pull) — who formally appeared, whether pro hac vice motions were filed, and whether any local counsel was designated.
2. Whether U.S. Patent No. 6,597,812 was actually pleaded in the -464 complaint. The '812 patent was challenged in IPR2016‑00783 (SAP America, Inc., et al. v. Realtime Data, filed April 1, 2016), and BMC's docket history is cited as an exhibit in Realtime-related IPR papers — but I could not confirm from the complaint text which patents the BMC suit asserted. Given the five-month dismissal, this is worth checking against the complaint (Dkt. 1) rather than the docket, and against the AO‑120 form filed with the complaint.
3. Whether the dismissal followed a license/settlement or a venue/consolidation rationale — the judgment was "with prejudice," which usually signals settlement, but I have no document confirming the basis. Note that the same day's wave saw Dropbox and Teradata transferred to N.D. Cal. in early 2016.

Suggested next steps: pull Dkt. 1 (complaint signature block — this is the single most reliable counsel-of-record evidence for a case this short), the AO‑120 form, and any pro hac vice orders from the -464 docket; cross-check against the 6:15-cv-463 lead-case docket where consolidated motions were filed (per the July 23, 2015 consolidation order in the 463 family, motions had to be filed in the lead case, and only "Lead and Local Counsel" were added to it).

I'll research the docket and counsel of record for BMC Software in this case.

Let me look for the docket sheet and the motion-to-dismiss filings where BMC appeared.

Bottom line

I could not verify any attorney of record for BMC Software in this docket from accessible sources. I'm therefore not naming counsel rather than guess. What I can document is the case's unusually short life, which explains why the counsel record is thin and hard to source.

What is verified

So the case did assert the '812 patent (correcting the prior summary's uncertainty), but it was resolved — most likely by consolidation into the 00463 lead case and/or dismissal — within about five months of filing, ending October 5, 2015.

Defendant's counsel of record — NOT CONFIRMED

Why the record is thin: with a docket of only ~3 pages, BMC likely never filed an answer in 00464; the case was terminated before substantive motion practice. There may be no notice of appearance in 00464 at all, and BMC's counsel would instead appear (if at all) in the consolidated 6:15-cv-00463 action.

Sources that did not yield counsel names: searches of CourtListener/RECAP, Justia patent file histories, Google Patents/patentimages IDS exhibits, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, Unified Patents portal, and PTAB filings all returned the plaintiff's team (McKool Smith — Robert A. Cote, Jr. and Samuel F. Baxter as lead; Brett E. Cooper, John C. Briody, Benjamin J. Warlick, Dirk D. Thomas, Laurie L. Fitzgerald, John M. Shumaker; local counsel Ireland Carroll & Kelley — Otis W. Carroll, Jr. and James Patrick Kelley, Tyler, TX) but no BMC-side appearance. Those names are plaintiff's counsel, not the answer to your question.

How to close the gap (specific, checkable steps)

1. PACER docket for 6:15-cv-00464 (txsd) — pull the full docket report; it is short. Look for ECF Nos. 3–8 (waiver of service, notice of appearance, Rule 7.1 disclosure, stipulation/agreed order of dismissal).
2. Docket in 6:15-cv-00463-RWS-JDL, ECF Nos. 60–120 (July–October 2015) — the signature blocks on the July 24, 2015 joint motion to dismiss and the Oct. 1, 2015 renewed motion identify each defendant group's counsel, including whoever signed for BMC. This is the single most likely place BMC's counsel appears by name.
3. IPR2016-00783 (SAP America et al. v. Realtime Data, '812 patent) — petitioner's mandatory notices and power of attorney list counsel for the SAP/Sybase side, which coordinated with BMC on the joint defense; useful cross-check, though it does not itself establish who entered in 00464.
4. BMC's Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure statement in any 2015 Realtime case — it carries the signature of record counsel.

If you can supply the PACER docket text or the signature page of the July 24, 2015 motion, I'll build out the full counsel table with roles, firms, office locations, and experience notes.