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

I'll verify the case facts and surrounding context before drafting.

I'll research this case across the PTAB docket, the underlying district court litigation, and the Federal Circuit appeal.

Now let me dig into the PTAB docket history and the underlying district court litigation.

Let me pull the district court docket details, the Markman order, and the SAP case disposition.

I'll research the counsel of record for the petitioners in IPR2016-00783.

Let me dig into the specific filings and counsel appearances.

Threshold point on framing

IPR2016-00783 is not a district-court infringement suit — it is the PTAB inter partes review that the defendants in the parallel E.D. Tex. litigation filed as petitioners. So "plaintiff-side" counsel here means counsel of record for the petitioners (SAP America, Sybase, the HP entities, Teradata Operations). Two consequences worth flagging up front:

• No "local counsel" in the Rule 83 sense; PTAB practice uses lead counsel / backup counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.10), plus occasional pro hac vice admission (see Paper 36, Order Granting Admission Pro Hac Vice, Feb. 25, 2017).
• The petitioner group narrowed during the proceeding. The petition was filed and captioned SAP America, Inc. et al. v. Realtime Data LLC (Paper 1, Apr. 1, 2016), but the Final Written Decision and the Federal Circuit opinion both style the case Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Co. v. Realtime Data LLC, and the Board granted a Motion to Withdraw Counsel (Paper 55, June 26, 2017). At the June 30, 2017 oral hearing, petitioners' counsel appeared only for "the three petitioners, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Services, and Teradata" (Paper 61, Hearing Transcript). SAP/Sybase's exit from the petitioner lineup is visible in the caption change; the withdrawal order itself is the docket hook, though its sealed/unpublished text I have not reviewed.

Counsel of record for Petitioners

1. Jamie R. Lynn — lead counsel

• Firm / office: Baker Botts L.L.P. (email of record: jamie.lynn@bakerbotts.com). Texas-based; firm directory lists her in the Dallas office — office location should be treated as firm-directory-derived rather than docket-verified.
• Record basis: At the June 30, 2017 hearing, co-counsel stated: "Petitioner, Your Honor, we have lead counsel, Jamie Lynne [sic — Lynn], and I am backup counsel, Chris Carraway" (Paper 61, Hearing Transcript, IPR2016-00783, held June 30, 2017). She is also listed by name and registration number (Reg. No. 63,666) in the petitioners' Power of Attorney for the parallel Realtime Data IPR family (e.g., IPR2016-00878, Power of Attorney filed Apr. 18, 2016, listing her as authorized backup counsel for co-petitioners).
• Experience note: Registered patent attorney who argued this IPR through to a Final Written Decision invalidating all challenged claims of the '812 patent; her publicly indexed Realtime Data work ties her to the coordinated multi-petitioner defense of Realtime's compression patent portfolio. (I did not find a reliable public case list beyond this family — flagging rather than inventing.)

2. J. Christopher Carraway — backup counsel; argued the hearing

• Firm / office: Klarquist Sparkman, LLP — One World Trade Center, 121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1600, Portland, OR 97204 (503-595-5300).
• Record basis: Self-identified at the hearing: "I am again Chris Carraway, counsel for the three petitioners, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Services, and Teradata" (Paper 61). Carraway's Klarquist bio independently lists Realtime Data LLC v. SAP, Sybase, Hewlett-Packard, & Dell (E.D. Tex.) as a defense engagement in which "after filing Inter Partes Reviews, case settled" — i.e., the IPR campaign was his team's work product.
• Experience note: Clerked for Judge William C. Bryson (Fed. Cir.); career patent litigator for Microsoft, SAP, Amazon; notable wins include CyberFone v. LinkedIn, NBA, NFL, Netflix, Skype, Twitter, Yelp (§ 101 summary judgment, 885 F. Supp. 2d 710 (D. Del. 2012), aff'd) and the Best Buy/Target/Walmart v. Driessen IPR (all claims cancelled, aff'd).

3. John D. Vandenberg — backup counsel (petitioner side)

• Firm / office: Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Portland, OR. Reg. No. 31,312.
• Record basis: Named in the petitioners' Power of Attorney in the companion Realtime Data IPRs (IPR2016-00878, filed Apr. 18, 2016) as authorized to represent the petitioner group; also appeared for SAP/Sybase in the underlying E.D. Tex. case (Notice of Attorney Appearance, Realtime Data LLC v. SAP America Inc., No. 6:15-cv-00469 (E.D. Tex.)). His separate appearance in 00783 specifically is inferred from the shared POA/Klarquist team, not independently confirmed by a 00783 filing I could pull.

4. Garth A. Winn — backup counsel (petitioner side)

• Firm / office: Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Portland, OR. Reg. No. 33,220.
• Record basis: Same Power of Attorney listing as Vandenberg in the parallel Realtime IPRs; also appeared for SAP/Sybase in No. 6:15-cv-00469. Same caveat: 00783-specific appearance not independently verified.

5. Adam R. Shatzer — backup counsel, and only for the Dell-aligned petitioners

• Firm / office: Fish & Richardson P.C. (email of record: shartzer@fr.com; Reg. No. 57,264). Office not stated on the POA — Fish's Texas office is Dallas, but treat that as unverified.
• Record basis: Listed in the Power of Attorney for IPR2016-00878 as backup counsel "for co-Petitioners… as circumstances require," in a group that included Dell. Note the complication: contemporaneous PTAB filing reports for IPR2016-00783 list Dell, Inc. among the petitioners (PTO Litigation Center Report, Apr. 4, 2016), yet Dell does not appear in your case metadata, the Final Written Decision, or the Federal Circuit caption. I could not confirm that Shatzer appeared in 00783; do not assume he did.

What I could not verify

• In-house counsel: no in-house attorney of record appears on the public docket; PTAB practice generally routes through outside counsel, and I found no corporate counsel designation.
• Paper 55 (Order Granting Motion to Withdraw Counsel, June 26, 2017): the docket entry exists (Docket Alarm index for IPR2016-00783); I could not read its text, so the identity of the withdrawing attorney/firm is unconfirmed. If you need the precise exit of SAP/Sybase counsel, pull Paper 43/44 (motion) and Paper 55 (order) from PTAB E2E.
• Nothing here is sealed in the ordinary sense — PTAB filings are public — but the District Court docket (Realtime Data LLC v. SAP America Inc., No. 6:15-cv-00469) shows a separate defense team for SAP/Sybase (Michael A. Bittner, Rex A. Mann, Katherine Kelly Lutton, appearance notices filed May 26, 2015). Those attorneys were litigation counsel, not IPR counsel of record, and I could not confirm their firms from the sources retrieved, so I have not attributed firms to them.

For context (adverse side, not requested)

Patent Owner Realtime Data was represented at the hearing by William P. Rothwell (lead)

I'll research Patent Owner Realtime Data's counsel (i.e., the "defendant"/respondent side under the case metadata), and reconcile that framing with the real-world posture.

Framing correction and a fix to the earlier section

Two things before the names.

1. Who the "defendant" is here. Under the case metadata, the defendant is Realtime Data LLC d/b/a IXO — which in PTAB terms is the Patent Owner / respondent. So this section covers Realtime's counsel of record in IPR2016-00783 (not the petitioners again). One real-world wrinkle to keep straight: in the parallel E.D. Tex. infringement suits Realtime was the plaintiff, and the petitioners were the infringement defendants. So "defendants' counsel" pulls in two different teams depending on which case you mean — I address both at the end.

2. Correction to the earlier section. That section guessed that Paper 55 (June 26, 2017) was the vehicle for SAP/Sybase's exit from the petitioner lineup ("its sealed/unpublished text I have not reviewed"). That is wrong. Paper 55 is captioned Order — Motion to Withdraw Counsel, 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(e) and its full text is public; it granted Patent Owner Realtime Data's motion to withdraw Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox as its own counsel. The petitioners' counsel list in that same order's certificate of service still shows Klarquist and Baker Botts. The petitioner caption change from "SAP America, Inc. et al." to "Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Co." is a separate event; Paper 55 is not the docket hook for it. Flagging so the earlier section isn't relied on for that point.

---

Patent Owner Realtime Data LLC — counsel of record

There were two distinct defense teams across the life of the IPR.

Phase 1 (filing through mid-2017): Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC)

All five were withdrawn by order of the Board on June 26, 2017 (Paper 55), on Patent Owner's unopposed motion (Paper 52, filed June 20, 2017):

Office location: Sterne Kessler, 1100 New York Ave. NW, Washington, DC (firm-level; the PTAB filings do not print a firm address for them in the material I could retrieve).

Phase 2 (June 2017 → termination and appeal): Noroozi PC

Paper 55 expressly ordered that after Sterne Kessler's withdrawal, "William P. Rothwell would remain as lead counsel, and Kayvan B. Noroozi would continue to serve as backup counsel."

Non-appearing/adjacent Noroozi PC names: Joel P. N. Stonedale, Reg. No. 76,924 (Noroozi PC, Sugar Land) signs Realtime's December 2018 updated mandatory notices in the Realtime IPR family and would be the natural third chair, but I found no 00783-specific filing by him — do not list him as 00783 counsel of record.

---

Pro hac vice posture (and one open hole)

• Paper 36, Order Granting Admission Pro Hac Vice (Feb. 25, 2017) exists on the docket. Its text was not retrievable in my searches, and I could not verify whose motion it granted. The timing (about four months before Noroozi appears in the Paper 55 service list as "continuing" backup counsel) strongly suggests it admitted Noroozi pro hac vice, but that is inference, not confirmation. Worth noting a counter-signal: Noroozi's March 2018 PHV declaration in IPR2018-00614 lists his prior PHV applications and does not list IPR2016-00783 — which either means the table is incomplete or that Paper 36 admitted someone else (possibly a Sterne Kessler attorney). Pull Paper 36 and the underlying motion from PTAB E2E to close this out.
• No in-house counsel appears on the docket; Realtime routed everything through outside counsel (Noroozi PC took over the role from Sterne Kessler).
• Nothing here is sealed. PTAB filings are public; the gap is retrieval, not confidentiality.

---

If you actually meant the infringement defendants (the petitioners in the real-world posture