Invalidity dossier
US 7574365
End-to-end solution for direct store delivery
Current assignee: SAP SE
Added 9/23/2026, 6:03:01 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US 7,574,365 B2
Title: End-to-end solution for direct store delivery
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7574365/en (fetched 2026-09-23)
Bibliographic data (as listed): Application US10/747,142; filed 2003-12-30; priority date 2003-12-30; published as US20050144127A1 on 2005-06-30; granted 2009-08-11; adjusted expiration 2028-03-07; status listed as Active. Inventors: Ralf Miller, Wolfgang Peter, Glenn Irwin. Assignee listed as SAP SE (originally SAP Aktiengesellschaft). Classification: G06Q10/08 (logistics, warehousing, loading or distribution) and G06Q20/102 (bill distribution or payments).
Purpose: The excerpt describes an end-to-end direct store delivery (DSD) system, method, and apparatus for distributing consumer products goods (CPG) "directly to the end customer bypassing retailer's warehouses." It notes that conventional paper-based approaches make promotion-display compliance and problem tracking difficult because route accounting may lag events by days. DSD is said to offer faster product availability and give CPG companies direct consumer contact.
Plain-language scope (per the excerpt): Orders (110-1 to 110-N) are received at a DSD ordering system (120), which may be a customer resource management system, and forwarded to a DSD sales system (131), which may be an enterprise resource planning system; orders may also be entered directly into the sales system. A backend process interface (130) processes the DSD backend process and communicates with a mobile interface (190) on portable devices (laptop, PDA, tablet PC, palm-top). Features mentioned include delivery-date determination with manual deviation, call-center order taking, a delivery driver selling additional truck-loaded product not in the original order, a vehicle space optimization (VSO) interface (133) that suggests optimal truck loading and displays 3-D color graphics with drag-and-drop repacking, and generation of vehicle dispatching orders (132) and picking/packing orders (134).
What the excerpt does not establish: It supplies no claim text, so the actual claimed scope cannot be determined or summarized here. It is an abbreviated source (explicitly noting omitted text), so systems and figures referenced but not described (e.g., FIGS. 2–5, the full order-generation logic) are incomplete. It does not establish litigation, ownership transfers beyond the listed reassignments, validity, or prior art.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:43:03 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 7574365. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.