SAP America, Inc. v. Peter Henrik Pedersen

Case Overview & Background: SAP America, Inc. v. Peter Henrik Pedersen (3:22-cv-01534, N.D. Tex.)

Parties and Patent

SAP America, Inc. — the U.S. subsidiary of German enterprise-software giant SAP SE and a major provider of ERP, CRM, and cloud-based business software — brought this action as the plaintiff seeking declaratory relief. The defendant, Peter Henrik Pedersen, is an individual inventor and patent owner classified by Stanford's NPE Litigation Database as a non-practicing entity ("Individual" asserter category) who has been described by Unified Patents as "believed to be associated with AiPi Solutions." Pedersen was represented by William P. Ramey III (Ramey LLP), with Neal G. Massand later entering an appearance; SAP was represented by Thomas M. Melsheimer and Michael A. Bittner of Winston & Strawn. The sole patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920, titled "Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System" (issued Nov. 15, 2005). Technically, the '920 patent claims an electronic message management system that centrally filters and distributes messages from multiple "messengers" to individually selected recipients using recipient-established "delivery parameters" (where, when, and how specific types of messages from specific messengers are delivered), implemented via recipient profile, messenger profile, message input, and individual message generator applications on a networked computer system (independent claim 1, with dependent claims 14–17 covering configuration of messages to recipient profiles and delivery by email, voice, fax, digital transmission, SMS, and similar channels).

Procedural Posture and Venue

The docket (Justia/PACER) shows this is a declaratory judgment action filed July 15, 2022 in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas, before Judge Ed Kinkeade (note: the case metadata in the prompt lists a 2022-04-22 filing date, but the verified docket entries, UniCourt, and the Unified Patents portal all point to a mid-July 2022 filing — the April 22 date matches a different Pedersen case, Pedersen v. Salesforce, 6:22-cv-00409, filed the same day in W.D. Tex.). The DJ filing came on the heels of Pedersen v. SAP America, Inc., 6:22-cv-00591 (W.D. Tex., Waco Div., Judge Alan D. Albright), an infringement suit Pedersen filed against SAP on June 8, 2022, which he voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on July 20, 2022 (Rule 41(a)(1), before SAP answered). In the N.D. Tex. action, Pedersen answered and asserted a patent-infringement counterclaim (Aug. 4, 2022), SAP moved to dismiss those counterclaims under Rule 12(b)(6) (Aug. 25, 2022), and the court entered patent-case scheduling orders (Aug. 5, 2022); the last publicly retrieved docket activity is SAP's proposed scheduling order of Sept. 6, 2022. The Unified Patents litigation portal now lists the case as "Closed," although I could not locate the specific termination order in public sources. Venue is notable for two reasons: SAP selected the N.D. Tex. (Dallas) forum — generally viewed as more defendant-friendly than Judge Albright's W.D. Tex.-Waco docket — and the DJ action created a first-filed/parallel-venue dynamic with Pedersen's earlier Waco suit, which he then voluntarily dismissed, suggesting a settlement, covenant, or strategic retreat whose terms are not disclosed in the public record.

Why the Case Is Notable

The case is a defensive chapter in a broad NPE campaign: Pedersen asserted the '920 patent against a long list of technology companies — including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Oracle, Adobe, Intuit, Salesforce, Zoho, Wix, Zendesk, Constant Contact, Blackbaud, Monday.com, Ziff Davis, and Aurea Software — mostly in the W.D. Tex.-Waco patentee-friendly venue. SAP's DJ action is a classic countermeasure by an operating company seeking certainty on non-infringement/invalidity while the patentee's campaign was at its peak. The decisive linkage is the parallel IPR: on Oct. 14, 2022, Unified Patents petitioned for inter partes review (IPR2023-00029), challenging claims 1 and 14–17 as obvious over Funk + Law and Funk + Kamakura; the PTAB instituted (May 15, 2023) and ultimately found the challenged claims unpatentable, a decision the Federal Circuit affirmed on March 26, 2026 in Pedersen v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2024-2090 (nonprecedential), holding the Board's obviousness findings supported by substantial evidence. That affirmance effectively neutralized the '920 patent after roughly four years of district-court and PTAB warfare, validating the defensive-IPR playbook that industry stakeholders (via Unified Patents) deployed against profile-driven, rules-based messaging patents that swept in enterprise email-marketing and CRM software. Notably, because SAP's N.D. Tex. DJ case and Pedersen's W.D. Tex. case both ended without a merits ruling (dismissal/closure), the public record does not identify with specificity which SAP products were accused — likely SAP's marketing/email-messaging cloud offerings given the campaign's focus, but that is inference, not a documented fact.

Key Legal Developments — SAP America, Inc. v. Peter Henrik Pedersen, 3:22-cv-01534 (N.D. Tex.)

Patents at issue: U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 ("Profile responsive electronic message management system"), issued 2005-11-15; owned by defendant-inventor Peter Henrik Pedersen. Judge: Ed Kinkeade (N.D. Tex.). Note on dates: the case metadata states a 2022-04-22 filing, but the PACER-derived docket (Justia) and UniCourt both record the complaint as filed 2022-07-15; I use the docket dates below.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings (2022)

• 2022-07-15 — Complaint (Filing 1): SAP America, Inc. filed a declaratory-judgment action with jury demand against Pedersen (35 U.S.C. § 271, property-rights/patent), seeking DJ relief on the '920 patent. AO 120 notice to the USPTO was e-filed the same day (Filing 4); certificate of interested persons filed (Filing 2). Counsel for SAP: Michael Bittner (Winston & Strawn; Thomas Melsheimer also later identified in related proceedings). Source: Justia docket, https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txndce/3:2022cv01534/[365057](/patent/365057).
• 2022-08-04 — Answer + Counterclaims (Filing 5): Pedersen answered with jury demand and asserted a counterclaim for patent infringement against SAP; William P. Ramey III (Ramey LLP) entered for Pedersen. Certificate of interested persons (Filing 6) filed same day.
• 2022-08-05 — Scheduling orders (Filings 7–8): Judge Kinkeade required a scheduling conference/report for patent cases and ordered Pedersen to secure local counsel under LR 83.10(a).
• 2022-08-25 — SAP's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss counterclaims (Filing 9): SAP moved to dismiss Pedersen's infringement counterclaims for failure to state a claim.
• 2022-08-26 — Neal G. Massand appeared for Pedersen (Filing 10).
• 2022-09-06 — SAP filed proposed scheduling/discovery order (Filing 11).

The public docket (Justia) was last retrieved 2022-09-06, so later N.D. Tex. entries are not publicly available in the sources retrieved; I could not verify the court's ruling on the 12(b)(6) motion or any subsequent N.D. Tex. orders. (The Unified Patents litigation portal lists the case as "Closed," but the terminating order itself was not retrieved.)

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• Motion to dismiss counterclaims (12(b)(6)) — the only substantive pre-trial motion confirmed on the docket (Filing 9, 2022-08-25). Outcome unverified from available records.
• No confirmed motions to transfer, stay pending IPR, or for summary judgment in the N.D. Tex. docket based on retrieved materials. The case appears to have gone dormant after September 2022, before Markman or merits briefing.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• Not reached. No Markman order or claim-construction ruling has been identified in either the N.D. Tex. DJ action or the parallel W.D. Tex. infringement action; both cases terminated before claim construction.

---

4. Discovery milestones

• No discovery orders, privilege disputes, or expert-designation milestones of strategic significance are documented in the retrieved record. The only scheduling-related filing was SAP's 2022-09-06 proposed order (Filing 11), and no agreed scheduling order is confirmed.

---

5. Trial / verdict / post-trial

• No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion occurred. The case resolved on dispositive/termination events described below, with no merits ruling in the district court.

---

6. Disposition / present posture

• Parallel W.D. Tex. infringement action (6:22-cv-00591, Pedersen v. SAP America, Judge Alan Albright): Pedersen had separately sued SAP for infringement of the '920 patent in W.D. Tex. That case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), case closed 2023-03-06, ~271 days after filing — no claim construction, infringement, or invalidity ruling, and no fee award. Source: PatSnap litigation record for 6:22-cv-00591 ("Basis of Termination: Voluntary dismissal").
• N.D. Tex. DJ action (this case): Listed as closed in the Unified Patents litigation portal for the '920 patent, consistent with the DJ action becoming moot after the W.D. Tex. infringement suit was dismissed and after the PTAB invalidated the asserted claims (below). I could not retrieve the specific final order (e.g., dismissal or stay-lifted dismissal) from the public sources; that detail remains unconfirmed. The prompt's "Active" status appears stale relative to the portal's closed status.
• No appeal from the district court is identified; the only appeal is Pedersen's from the PTAB (below).

---

7. Parallel PTAB IPR proceedings and effect on the litigation

• IPR2023-00029 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Pedersen (the operative proceeding):
  • Petition filed 2022-10-14 challenging claims 1, 14–17 of the '920 patent (Funk '162 + Law '586 or Kamakura '310; expert: Dr. Henry Houh).
  • Institution decision 2023-05-15 (Scheduling Order, Paper 8).
  • Final Written Decision 2024-05-10 (Paper 29): claims 1 and 14–17 held unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (APJs White, Wormmeester, Hume; White authoring).
  • Pedersen appealed (Fed. Cir. No. 2024-2090; notice of appeal dated 2024-07-12, citing the FWD and claim-construction rulings).
  • Federal Circuit affirmed on 2026-03-26 (nonprecedential): the Board's obviousness findings were supported by substantial evidence. Sources: Fed. Cir. slip op., Pedersen v. Unified Patents, No. 2024-2090 (Mar. 26, 2026); USPTO PTACTS notice of appeal; IPVerse/Greyb PTAB case record; Unified Patents announcement (2026-03-26).
• IPR2023-00867 — Oracle Corp. v. Pedersen (filed 2023-04-24): terminated — settled 2023-10-11.
• IPR2023-00986 — Adobe Inc. v. Pedersen (filed 2023-06-01): terminated — settled 2023-10-11.
• Effect on the litigation: The Unified Patents IPR — filed about a month after the N.D. Tex. case went quiet — resulted in invalidation of all claims that Pedersen was asserting (claims 1 and 14–17), which mooted the infringement counterclaims and the DJ action. The 2026 Federal Circuit affirmance is the definitive substantive outcome for the '920 patent: the asserted claims are invalid as obvious, with no district-court merits ruling, judgment, damages, or fees ever entered against SAP.

---

Bottom line

The SAP/Pedersen '920 patent dispute produced no trial and no district-court merits ruling. Pedersen's W.D. Tex. infringement suit against SAP was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice (2023-03-06), and SAP's N.D. Tex. DJ action is listed as closed. The real outcome came from the PTAB: IPR2023-00029 invalidated all asserted claims (1, 14–17) on obviousness grounds (FWD 2024-05-10), affirmed by the Federal Circuit on 2026-03-26 — eliminating any enforceable infringement exposure for SAP (and other defendants) on the '920 patent, subject only to the unconfirmed district-court closing order and the "without prejudice" nature of the W.D. Tex. dismissal.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff SAP America, Inc. — SAP America, Inc. v. Peter Henrik Pedersen, No. 3:22-cv-01534 (N.D. Tex.)

Based on the public docket (Justia/PACER-derived snapshot retrieved 9/6/2022) and firm/parallel-case records, SAP America, Inc. — the plaintiff/declaratory-judgment plaintiff — is represented by Winston & Strawn LLP. No filings in this case are sealed, and the complaint, disclosure statement, motion to dismiss the counterclaims, and scheduling proposals were all publicly filed by the counsel below.

1. Michael Andrew Bittner

• Role: Lead/attorney of record for SAP America, Inc. (ECF filer on the substantive pleadings)
• Firm/Office: Winston & Strawn LLP, Dallas, TX (at the time of this case; per recent E.D. Tex. filings, he has since moved to King & Spalding LLP)
• Experience: Veteran patent litigator; joined Winston & Strawn from Fish & Richardson (where he led a 400+ defendant joint defense group in the E.D. Tex.); represented SAP America in the parallel Pedersen suit over the same patent (Pedersen v. SAP America, 6:22-cv-00591, W.D. Tex., voluntarily dismissed) and in SAP's successful fee-recovery case, SAP America v. InvestPic (N.D. Tex. before Judge Ed Kinkeade, affirmed by the Federal Circuit).
• Docket evidence: Filed the Complaint (Dkt. 1), Certificate of Interested Persons (Dkt. 2), the 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Pedersen's Counterclaims (Dkt. 9), and the Proposed Scheduling/Discovery Order (Dkt. 11). Justia lists Bittner as the sole "Represented By" attorney for SAP America in this case.

2. Thomas M. Melsheimer

• Role: Counsel for SAP America (of record in the parallel W.D. Tex. action; co-counsel on the matter)
• Firm/Office: Winston & Strawn LLP, Dallas, TX (Dallas Office Managing Partner)
• Experience: One of Texas's leading trial lawyers and Winston's Dallas IP practice head; appeared for SAP America in the parallel W.D. Tex. case over U.S. Patent 6,965,920 (6:22-cv-00591) and on the SAP v. InvestPic fee award before the same N.D. Tex. judge (Judge Ed Kinkeade).
• Caveat: UniCourt and PatSnap docket records affirmatively show Melsheimer's notice of appearance for SAP in the W.D. Tex. action (6:22-cv-00591), and he is identified as SAP's counsel in that related litigation. The public Justia snapshot for the N.D. Tex. case (retrieved 9/6/2022) does not independently list a separate Melsheimer appearance entry for 3:22-cv-01534, so his formal notice of appearance in this docket is inferred from the parallel case and firm records rather than directly observed in the snapshot. If you need confirmation, Dkt. entries 1–11 via PACER would show any additional counsel listed on the complaint caption.

Not confirmed / not applicable:

• Local counsel: None needed for SAP — Winston & Strawn's Dallas office sits within the N.D. Tex. (the court's Local Rule 83.10(a) local-counsel order in this case, Dkt. 7, was directed at defendant Pedersen's out-of-district counsel, not at SAP).
• In-house counsel: Winston's press materials reference SAP in-house attorneys Samir Pandya and Kevin Hamel in connection with the related InvestPic matter, but there is no public docket evidence that in-house counsel entered appearances in this specific case, so I have not listed them as counsel of record.
• Defendant's counsel (for reference only): Pedersen is represented by William P. Ramey III (Ramey LLP) and Neal G. Massand (Dkt. 5, 10) — not plaintiff counsel.

Sources: Justia docket for 3:22-cv-01534 (dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txndce/3:2022cv01534/365057); UniCourt case page for 6:22-cv-00591 (Pedersen v. SAP America, W.D. Tex.); PatSnap litigation intelligence summary for Pedersen v. SAP America (US6965920B2); Winston & Strawn press release on the SAP v. InvestPic Federal Circuit affirmance (winston.com); Plainsite E.D. Tex. docket (Aurelian IP v. SAP America) confirming Bittner's Winston & Strawn Dallas contact details.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Peter Henrik Pedersen

Case: SAP America, Inc. v. Peter Henrik Pedersen, No. 3:22-cv-01534 (N.D. Tex., Judge Ed Kinkeade) — a declaratory-judgment action by SAP over U.S. Patent 6,965,920. Pedersen answered and counterclaimed for infringement (Dkt. 5). Note the related infringement suit, Pedersen v. SAP America, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00591 (W.D. Tex.), had the parties flipped; the docket entries below are from the N.D. Tex. DJ action.

1. William P. Ramey III — Lead Counsel

• Firm: Ramey LLP, 5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 800, Houston, TX 77006.
• Role: Lead/attorney of record for Pedersen. Added to the case when he filed Pedersen's Answer with jury demand and Counterclaim against SAP on August 4, 2022 (Dkt. 5); also filed Pedersen's Certificate of Interested Persons (Dkt. 6). Justia/PACER docket confirms "Attorney William P Ramey, III added to party Peter Pedersen(pty:dft)."
• Experience: A Houston-based patent litigator and founding partner of Ramey LLP, frequently representing individual inventors/NPEs in patent enforcement. He represented Pedersen in the parallel W.D. Tex. infringement case (6:22-cv-00591), in Pedersen v. Google LLC, and as patent-owner counsel in the PTAB IPRs on the same '920 patent (IPR2023-00029 and IPR2023-00867, where Ramey LLP served as counsel with USPTO Customer No. 63467).

2. Neal G. Massand — Local Counsel

• Firm: Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC, 8140 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 615, Dallas, TX 75231.
• Role: Entered a Notice of Attorney Appearance for Pedersen on August 26, 2022 (Dkt. 10). He is a Dallas-based IP litigator and registered patent attorney (Reg. No. 54,296), and his appearance plainly satisfied Judge Kinkeade's August 5, 2022 order (Dkt. 7) requiring entry of N.D. Tex. local counsel under Local Rule 83.10(a) because Pedersen's out-of-district counsel did not reside in the district.
• Experience: IP/commercial litigator at Ni, Wang & Massand; has served as PTAB lead counsel in multiple IPRs (e.g., IPR2023-01168) and handles patent cases in the N.D./E.D. Tex. and W.D. Tex.; a Super Lawyers–rated IP attorney in Dallas.

3. Jacob B. Henry — PTAB Counsel (not of record in this DJ action, as far as the retrieved docket shows)

• Firm: Ramey LLP, Houston, TX.
• Role: No notice of appearance appears in the retrieved N.D. Tex. docket for Henry. However, he was named lead counsel for Pedersen in the parallel PTAB proceedings on the same patent (IPR2023-00867 mandatory notices, June 2023), so he is the patent-owner counsel in the related post-grant fight — worth flagging if you're tracking the broader representation team.

Caveats

• The public docket copy (Justia, retrieved September 6, 2022) only runs through Dkt. 11 (SAP's proposed scheduling order). The case is now listed as closed on Unified Patents' litigation portal, and the related W.D. Tex. case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), closed March 6, 2023). PACER would show any later filings, substitutions of counsel, or a dismissal stipulation in the N.D. Tex. action; I did not find a later termination order or any counsel substitution in open sources.
• No filings in this case appear to be sealed; the appearances above are all public docket entries.
• I found no indication of in-house counsel for Pedersen (he is an individual inventor based in Denmark) and no other outside attorneys on the N.D. Tex. docket beyond Ramey and Massand as retrieved.