Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. SAP America, Inc. et al.

I'll research this case across dockets, opinions, and PTAB records.

Good foundation. Now let me verify the accused products, the IPR outcomes, and the dismissal.

Now let me pin down the accused technology and the dismissal specifics.

Case Overview & Background

Parties. Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO is a New York–based patent-holding company that does not appear to sell a commercial product; it monetizes a compression patent portfolio developed by inventor James J. Fallon (named inventor on the patents; the assignee address of record is New York, NY). Stanford's NPE Litigation Database classifies Realtime in its "individual-inventor-started" asserter category, and Unified Patents tags it as an NPE/PAE. On the other side sat four operating companies: SAP America, Inc. (Newtown Square, PA), the U.S. subsidiary of SAP SE; Sybase, Inc. (Dublin, CA), the database vendor SAP had acquired in 2010; Hewlett-Packard Company; and HP Enterprise Services, LLC (the HP hardware/enterprise-services side, later reorganized as Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., which was substituted as a party by order dated Feb. 5, 2016). Dell Inc. was added as a defendant by the amended complaint filed June 2, 2015 (Dkt. 16), and appeared separately in the case. Plaintiff's lead counsel included Marc A. Fenster, Brian D. Ledahl, Reza Mirzaie and Jeffrey Z.Y. Liao (Russ, August & Kabat); SAP/Sybase were represented by Thomas Melsheimer and John C. Carraway, among others. (Counsel listing is drawn from docket appearance entries and should be confirmed against PACER before being relied on in a filing.)

Accused technology and patents. This was an enterprise data-compression case, not a consumer-product case: Realtime alleged that the defendants' database, data-management and data-storage products and services — the kind of products in which compression, deduplication and storage-acceleration are core features — infringed its portfolio. I was not able to retrieve the complaint's specific accused-product list from a public source, so the precise product-by-product mapping (e.g., which SAP/Sybase database releases or which HP storage/software offerings) should be pulled from the complaint (Dkt. 1, 34 pages) and first amended complaint (Dkt. 16, 50 pages) rather than assumed. The patents-in-suit, per the AO-120 filing and the parties' own IPR submissions, were four at filing — U.S. Patent Nos. 6,597,812; 7,378,992; 7,415,530; and 8,643,513 — with U.S. Patent No. 9,116,908 added by amended complaint on September 14, 2015. Technical sketches: the '812 patent (Fallon; issued July 22, 2003) claims methods/systems for lossless data compression and decompression that combine run-length encoding with parametric dictionary encoding and bit packing — claim 1 recites detecting a run-length sequence, outputting an encoded run-length sequence, and then "maintaining a dictionary," building a data-block string, searching the dictionary, and outputting a code word; the '992 patent ("Content independent data compression") covers compression applied without regard to data type; the '530 patent ("System and methods for accelerated data storage and retrieval") claims a data accelerator that compresses different blocks with different techniques and stores descriptors identifying which technique was used, with compression/storage occurring faster than uncompressed storage; the '513 and '908 patents are later members of the same compression family. One important correction to this case's prior summary: the '812 patent was unquestionably asserted here — it appears as Exhibit D to the complaint and as item 4 on the PTO § 290 notice, and Realtime's own IPR filings describe the May 8, 2015 suit as alleging infringement of "6,597,812; 7,378,992; 7,415,530; and 8,643,513."

**

I'll research this case systematically across the docket, court opinions, PTAB, and legal press.

Good foundation. Now let me dig into the docket specifics, claim construction, and the parallel IPRs.

Let me pull the full docket and the dismissal documents.

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO — No. 6:15-cv-00469 (E.D. Tex.)

Lead trial counsel: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA). Local counsel: Ward & Smith Law Firm (Tyler/Longview, TX). No in-house counsel for Realtime appears on the docket; Realtime (a New York LLC with a Plano, TX business address) litigated entirely through outside counsel. This case was filed May 8, 2015 and assigned to Judge Robert W. Schroeder III and Magistrate Judge John D. Love.

Russ August & Kabat — 12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025 (lead counsel)

Ward & Smith Law Firm — 112 E. Line St. / Tyler, TX (local counsel)

Contact data from the docket aggregators: RAK main line (310) 826-7474 / fax (310) 826-6991 (mafenster@raklaw.com, ahoffman@raklaw.com, bledahl@raklaw.com, rmirzaie@raklaw.com, jliao@raklaw.com); Ward & Smith (903) 757-6400 (jw@wsfirm.com, claire@wsfirm.com).

Important caveats on completeness

1. Consolidation truncates the roster. On July 23, 2015, Judge Love entered an Order of Consolidation (ECF No. 29) making 6:15-cv-463 (Realtime v. Actian Corp.) the lead case for all pretrial issues, directing that "only each defendant's lead and local counsel" be added to the lead case and that any additional attorney file a notice of appearance in the lead case. So the 6:15-cv-469 docket sheet (last refreshed by public aggregators in December 2016) is not a complete list of who worked the case; later Realtime-team appearances will be on the 6:15-cv-463 docket.
2. No sealed or pro hac vice gaps identified for plaintiff counsel. Unlike several defendants (e.g., Dell's Corrine Saylor, ECF No. 30, July 24, 2015), I found no sealed or restricted plaintiff-side appearances.
3. Unverified items: the specific ECF numbers tying Mirzaie and Henry to notices of appearance are inferred from aggregator rosters rather than read off the docket; Rubin's PTAB role is confirmed but his district-court appearance is not. These should be checked against PACER before being cited as docket facts.

Related correction to the existing case summary

The prior summary said it could not confirm that the '812 patent itself was asserted. It was: in the joint motion to terminate the SAP/Sybase IPR proceedings (Oct. 19, 2016), the parties state that "On May 8, 2015, Realtime filed suit against SAP and Sybase alleging infringement of U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,597,812; 7,378,992; 7,415,530; and 8,643,513 in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 6:15-cv-469-RWS-JDL)." SAP/Sybase's corresponding petition challenging claims 1–4, 8, 14–17, 21 and 28 of the '812 is IPR2016-00783 (filed Apr. 1, 2016). The case terminated by joint stipulation of dismissal/final judgment (per the PTAB exhibit reproducing the E.D. Tex. § 1116 notice and judgment for No. 6:15-cv-469).

Sources: Justia Dockets, No. 6:2015cv00469 (entry list, ECF 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 29); Plainsite docket 2lext6hu2 (counsel roster and entries 36, 37, 39, 42); UniCourt docket 750919 (plaintiff attorney roster); PTAB Papers, IPR2016-00878 Power of Attorney (May 20, 2016); PTAB Joint Motion to Terminate as to SAP America/Sybase (Oct. 19, 2016); Google LLC v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, No. 2021-1545 (Fed. Cir. June 15, 2022) (counsel listing).

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances in this case.

Counsel of Record — Defendants in Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO v. SAP America, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-00469-RWS-JDL (E.D. Tex.)

First, a correction/confirmation for the case file: the '812 patent was asserted here. The AO 120 (Patent/Trademark Form) filed in this case lists four patents, including "4 — 6,597,812 — 7/22/2003." So the prior summary's uncertainty on that point can be resolved: the '812 was one of four patents (with the '992, '530, and '513) pleaded against the SAP/Sybase and HP defendants.

Also worth recording: the case was consolidated for pretrial purposes into lead case No. 6:15-cv-463 (Order of Consolidation, Dkt. 29, July 23, 2015), with venue issues left in the individual case; Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. was substituted for Hewlett-Packard Company (Dkt. 38, Feb. 5, 2016); and the case ended by Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with final judgment entered Aug. 2, 2016 (per the AO 120 closing form).

---

1. SAP America, Inc. and Sybase, Inc.

Caveat: because all pretrial motions were ordered filed in the consolidated lead case (6:15-cv-463), the SAP/Sybase answer, counterclaims, and motion-to-dismiss briefing appear on the 463 docket rather than 469. I could not retrieve the signature blocks from those consolidated-case filings, so any additional Fish & Richardson attorneys of record for SAP/Sybase (e.g., the associates who signed the Rule 12(b)(6) motion and the Second Amended Complaint answer) are not verified and I am not naming them.

2. Hewlett-Packard Company / HP Enterprise Services, LLC (later Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co.)

Four notice-of-appearance entries were filed in this case on September 16, 2015 (Dkts. 33–36), all on behalf of HP Enterprise Services, LLC and Hewlett-Packard Company:

Local counsel gap: I could not confirm a Tyler/Longview local-counsel of record for HP in this docket. Klarquist is an Oregon firm and Winn/Vandenberg/Carraway/Rinehart are out-of-district, so a local counsel admission almost certainly exists in the consolidated lead case, but I found no sourced name. I am not guessing one.

3. Names appearing on this docket that I could not tie to a specific defendant

Third-party docket aggregators (UniCourt's attorney list for 6:15-cv-00469) also show Deron R. Dacus (The Dacus Firm, Tyler, TX — an E.D. Tex. local-counsel staple), Corrine M. Saylor, Thomas M. Dunham, James Michael Woods, Katherine Kelly Lutton, Michael Andrew Bittner, and Rex Andrew Mann. The ones I could trace — Dacus (Dkt. 27), Saylor (Dkt. 30, pro hac vice), Dunham (Dkt. 31), Woods (Dkt. 32) — all filed "on behalf of Dell Inc.", even though Dell is not a named defendant in the 469 caption (Dell was a defendant in the lead case, 6:15-cv-463). I could not determine whether those entries were the result of the consolidation order directing the clerk to add consolidated defendants' lead and local counsel, or a filing error. Their firm affiliations and roles should not be relied on without the underlying PDFs. Lutton, Bittner, and Mann I could not source at all — treat them as unverified.

---

Bottom line

• SAP/Sybase: Thomas M. Melsheimer, Fish & Richardson (Dallas) — confirmed via Dkt. 26.
• HP/HPES: Garth A. Winn, John D. Vandenberg, John C. Carraway, and Kyle B. Rinehart of Klarquist Sparkman (Portland) — confirmed via Dkts. 33–36 and corroborated by the Klarquist signatures on HP's IPR2016-00978 papers; Olivia M. Kim (then Sidley Austin, LA) — confirmed as the filer of Dkt. 28.
• No sealed or withheld appearances appear in the public docket; the docket is short (roughly 38 entries) because pretrial activity was consolidated into 6:15-cv-463. If you need the complete consolidated-case roster (all Fish, Sidley, Klarquist, and local counsel), the next step would be pulling the docket sheet and the Rule 12(b)(6) motion/answer signature blocks from 6:15-cv-463 on PACER.