To Read The Full Story
Continue reading your article with a Membership
The patents-in-suit are included in the table below, which shows which were filed in which court:
| Patent Number | Description | District of Delaware | Eastern District of Pennsylvania | Northern District of Illinois |
| U.S. Patent No. 8,396,886 | “Continuous processing language for real-time data streams” | Yes | Yes* | |
| U.S. Patent No. 8,549,035 | “Operational information providers” | Yes | Yes | |
| U.S. Patent No. 8,782,059 | “Systems and methods for selecting and importing objects” | Yes | ||
| U.S. Patent No. 8,577,927 | “Producing a virtual database from data sources exhibiting heterogeneous schemas” | Yes | Yes* | |
| U.S. Patent No. 9,009,354 | “Services and management layer for diverse data connections” | Yes | Yes* | |
| U.S. Patent No. 7,853,482 | “Complex prices in bidding” | Yes | ||
| U.S. Patent No. 7,818,365 | “System, method, and computer program product for online and offline interactive applications on mobile devices” | Yes | ||
| U.S. Patent No. 7,383,253 | “Publish and subscribe capable continuous query processor for real-time data streams” | Yes |
*added when filed amended complaint
This is the MDLP’s decision:
In its arguments against centralization, SAP had stated that none of the asserted patents are common to all three actions, that each case involves a unique defendant and unique allegedly infringing products, and the patents are not sufficiently related to warrant centralization.
But, in its order, the MDLP determined that SAP’s arguments were unpersuasive:
“While no patent is common to all actions, four of the eight patents are involved in three of the four actions. Defendants are separate companies, but they are related, sharing the same parent company. The two Northern District of Illinois actions, which together involve seven of the eight patents, have been consolidated. This suggests that there are enough similarities among the patents that centralization of all the actions in the various districts may offer important efficiencies.”
It also emphasized that continuing to hear the cases separately would lead to a significant possibility of duplicative pretrial proceedings, conflicting schedules, and inconsistent rulings absent centralization – particularly with respect to complex and time-consuming tasks such as claim construction and ruling on issues of patent validity.
It added:
“The efficiencies to be gained, for both the parties and the judicial system, by having a single court overseeing claims construction and discovery relating to the patents are substantial. In this case, centralization is superior to any voluntary efforts by the parties and the judges presiding over these cases.”
Counsel
TSX Alpha is being represented by a team at Morrison & Foerster LLP: Daralyn J. Durie, Adam R. Brausa, John Douglass, Tannyr M. Pasvantis, Ryan J. Malloy, Regan J. Rundio, Elizabeth C. Knuppel, Catherine J. Canby, and Daniel M. Silver, as well as at McCarter & English LLP’s Alexandra M. Joyce.
SAP is being represented by a team at Ropes & Gray: James R. Batchelder, James L. Davis Jr., Kathryn C. Thornton, Abed Balbaky, and Meredith Cox.
In Delaware, Venable LLP’s Frank C. Cimino, Megan S. Woodworth, Jason M. Dorsky, and Daniel A. O’Brien helped file SAP’s complaint. Meanwhile, it was also represented by Aleksander J. Goranin, Tyler Marandola, and Brianna Vinci at Duane Morris LLP in Pennsylvania.
SAP suing Celonis in the UPC
SAP has recently asserted a patent (EP3913496 (“Enabling data access by external cloud-based analytics system”)) against rival software startup Celonis in the Unified Patent Court last month (July 21, 2025 ip fray article). While Celonis was originally founded in 2011 as a spinoff from the Technical University of Munich (TUM) and received support from SAP’s own startup accelerate program in 2012, the relationship recently turned sour, with Celonis bringing a U.S. antitrust complaint against SAP in the Northern District of California (which was dismissed for the largest part, but can be amended).