DCT
4:26-cv-00523
Keysoft Inc v. SAP Se
Key Events
Amended Complaint
Table of Contents
complaint Intelligence
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Keysoft, Inc. (Japan)
- Defendant: SAP Se (Germany)
- Plaintiff's Counsel: Scheef & Stone, LLP; Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
- Case Identification: 4:26-cv-00523, E.D. Tex., 08/14/2026
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a foreign corporation, and additionally because Defendant conducts business and maintains physical locations within the State of Texas and the judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's customer data and marketing automation platforms infringe a patent related to a system for using a customer's purchase history with a first provider to identify them for targeted marketing by a second provider.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the field of big data marketing and customer relationship management (CRM), concerning methods for leveraging consumer data across different commercial activities.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit previously survived an ex parte reexamination proceeding where the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) initially found a Substantial New Question of Patentability but ultimately issued a Reexamination Certificate confirming the patentability of all claims without amendment. The patent has also been asserted against Amazon and Salesforce in prior lawsuits that ended in confidential settlements.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1992-11-XX | Plaintiff Keysoft, Inc. founded |
| 2002-11-05 | '315 Patent Priority Date (PCT Filing) |
| 2012-09-18 | U.S. Patent No. 8,271,315 issues |
| 2018-XX-XX | Accused SAP Marketing Cloud platform introduced |
| 2020-XX-XX | Accused SAP Customer Experience (CX) platform introduced |
| 2025-03-19 | USPTO finds Substantial New Question of Patentability for '315 Patent |
| 2025-12-15 | USPTO issues Reexamination Certificate confirming all claims of '315 Patent |
| 2026-08-14 | First Amended Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,271,315, "Personal Information Utilization System And Personal Information Utilization Program For Commodity Based Identification," issued September 18, 2012.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of data silos between different commercial providers, where one provider's knowledge of a customer's purchase (e.g., a new house) is not available to other providers who offer related products (e.g., furniture, bedding, appliances), leading to missed opportunities for timely marketing '315 Patent, col. 1:25-43
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized system comprising a "personal information storage means" that stores both personal customer data and "commodity provision information" (i.e., purchase histories) '315 Patent, abstract The system allows a second, different provider to query the database using information about a first commodity (e.g., find all customers who bought a baby blanket) to identify and retrieve personal information of those customers, enabling the second provider to market a different, related commodity (e.g., a child's studying desk) '315 Patent, abstract '315 Patent, col. 13:28-63 '315 Patent, Fig. 7
- Technical Importance: The patent describes an architecture for cross-industry data sharing to "improve quality of service for customers by sharing and utilizing personal information on customers among variety of industries" '315 Patent, col. 1:46-49
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 of the '315 Patent Compl. ¶33 Compl. ¶57
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A system with a personal information storage means, a communication means, and a processor.
- The storage means stores personal information for multiple people and "first commodity provision information" about a first commodity from a "first commodity provider."
- The processor is configured to:
- Receive "second commodity provision information" from a "second commodity provider that is different than the first."
- Check the second commodity information against the stored first commodity information.
- Identify a specific person by using the second commodity information "as a key" where it at least partially coincides with the first.
- Read out a portion of that person's personal information.
- Transmit that personal information to an external terminal.
- The complaint's prayer for relief seeks a finding of infringement of "one or more claims," preserving the right to assert other claims Compl., Prayer for Relief (A)
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are SAP Customer Experience ("SAP CX") and SAP Marketing Cloud, collectively referred to as "SAP's platforms" Compl. ¶14
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint describes SAP's platforms as customer relationship management and marketing automation solutions that provide "centralized storage of customer data, including personal information, transaction histories and behavioral data associated with customers" Compl. ¶15
- The platforms are alleged to enable businesses to analyze this data by "segmenting customer data and identifying relationships or similarities between customer attributes, behaviors, and prior transactions" Compl. ¶20 This analysis is used to identify specific individuals or groups for targeted marketing campaigns, after which the platforms retrieve customer information and transmit marketing communications Compl. ¶21 Compl. ¶23
- The complaint alleges that SAP has derived "substantial revenue" from this functionality Compl. ¶24
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- Claim Chart Summary: The complaint does not include its referenced claim chart exhibit. The following table summarizes the infringement theory based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.
'315 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a personal information storage means | SAP's platforms provide centralized storage of customer data. | ¶15 | col. 5:21-23 |
| a communication means | SAP's platforms include functionality to enable data transmission between user terminals and SAP systems. | ¶16 | col. 5:17-18 |
| said personal information storage means storing... first commodity provision information pertaining to a first commodity provided... by a first commodity provider | SAP's platforms store personal information along with "transaction histories and behavioral data" from business customers. | ¶18 | col. 5:22-26 |
| receiving second commodity provision information from a second commodity provider that is different than the first commodity provider | Users of SAP's platforms define marketing campaigns and criteria for identifying target customers through user terminals. | ¶19 | col. 13:28-36 |
| checking said received second commodity provision information against the first commodity provision information | SAP's platforms analyze the received campaign criteria against the stored customer data, including transaction and behavioral data. | ¶20 | col. 13:37-40 |
| identifying... at least one specific information disclosing person... using the second commodity provision information as a key such that the second commodity provision information at least partially coincides with the first commodity provision information | Based on the analysis, the platforms identify individuals whose stored attributes "at least partially correspond to the received information" for the campaign. | ¶21 | col. 13:41-53 |
| reading out at least a portion of the personal information of said at least one specifically identified information disclosing person from said personal information storage means | The platforms retrieve a portion of the stored personal information associated with the individuals identified for the campaign. | ¶22 | col. 13:54-59 |
| transmitting said read out at least a portion of the personal information to said information search side terminal | The platforms transmit marketing messages and communications to terminals or devices associated with the identified individuals. | ¶23 | col. 13:60-63 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Question: A primary point of contention may be whether a single enterprise using SAP's platform to analyze its own customer data to market its own products satisfies the claim's requirement for a "second commodity provider that is different than the first commodity provider." The patent's background appears to contemplate two distinct commercial entities, raising the question of a potential structural mismatch between the claimed system and the accused functionality.
- Technical Question: The claim requires "identifying by using the second commodity provision information as a key." The complaint alleges SAP's platforms identify customers whose attributes "partially correspond" to user-defined criteria Compl. ¶21 A technical question for the court will be whether this standard database querying and segmentation constitutes using one type of commodity information "as a key" to unlock access to a person's identity in the specific manner claimed by the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a second commodity provider that is different than the first commodity provider"
Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical. Defendant may argue that in the accused systems, its customer is a single entity that acts as both the "first provider" (by supplying its own historical sales data) and the "second provider" (by running a new marketing campaign), thus failing the "different" provider limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term as a central non-infringement defense.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not explicitly define "provider" as a separate corporate entity. A plaintiff could argue that different divisions within a single company (e.g., the sales department for a past purchase vs. the marketing department for a new campaign) could be considered functionally "different" providers for the purposes of the invention.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background repeatedly uses examples involving distinct vendors in separate industries, such as a "furniture vendor, a bedding vendor and a household electric appliances vendor" all targeting a "prospective house purchaser" '315 Patent, col. 1:35-40 This context may support a narrower construction requiring legally distinct entities.
The Term: "commodity provision information"
Context and Importance: The complaint alleges SAP's platforms store "transaction histories and behavioral data" Compl. ¶15 Whether this data falls under the patent's definition of "commodity provision information" will be a key aspect of the infringement analysis.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines the term broadly as "information pertinent to commodity service which is provided for an information disclosing person" '315 Patent, col. 2:17-20 This could be argued to encompass a wide range of transactional and behavioral data.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's examples are concrete product purchases, such as a "baby blanket" '315 Patent, col. 9:40-42 or a "house" '315 Patent, col. 1:31-34 This may support a narrower reading limited to information about specific, discrete transactions, potentially excluding more generalized "behavioral data."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations or a separate count for indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement). The infringement count focuses on direct infringement by SAP for making, using, and selling the accused platforms Compl. ¶57
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement or plead facts typically used to support such a claim, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent. The prayer for relief requests a determination that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 for the purpose of awarding attorneys' fees Compl., Prayer for Relief (C)
VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural application: can the patent's system, which requires a "second commodity provider that is different than the first," be read to cover the scenario where a single business uses SAP's platform to analyze its own historical customer data for its own future marketing campaigns? The resolution will depend on the construction of "different" provider.
- A second central issue will be one of definitional scope: does the broad "transactional and behavioral data" allegedly stored and analyzed by SAP's platforms Compl. ¶15 Compl. ¶20 fall within the scope of the patent's term "commodity provision information", which the patent's examples link to specific product or service purchases?
- A key procedural factor will be the impact of the reexamination: how will the patent's successful navigation of an ex parte reexamination, which confirmed the validity of all claims over newly considered prior art, influence settlement discussions and the court's view of any invalidity defenses raised by the defendant?
Analysis metadata
Loading Amended Complaint
Suggested improvements