Applications in Internet Time v. Salesforce: Force.com Patent Suit Transferred in 7 Days
Applications in Internet Time LLC filed a patent infringement action against Salesforce, Inc. in Nevada District Court, asserting two patents against the Force.com platform. Within just 7 days of filing, the court ordered an intradistrict transfer to the Northern Division, where the case continues as 3:25-cv-476.
Force.com Patent Suit Rerouted to Nevada Northern Division in Days
Applications in Internet Time LLC initiated a patent infringement action against Salesforce, Inc. on 29 August 2025 in the Nevada District Court (Case No. 2:25-cv-01621). The complaint asserts two patents — US8484111B2 and US7356482B2 — against Salesforce’s Force.com platform, a widely used cloud-based application development and CRM infrastructure product. The asserted patents appear to relate to internet-based application management and workflow processes.
On 5 September 2025, just seven days after filing, the court ordered an intradistrict transfer to the Northern Division, where the case has been re-docketed as 3:25-cv-476. This transfer is purely procedural and administrative in nature — it does not reflect any ruling on the merits, claim validity, or infringement. The litigation remains active and the substantive dispute between the parties is unresolved.
The speed of the transfer — seven days — suggests the reassignment was initiated by court administration rather than contested motion practice. No defendant law firm has been recorded at this stage, which may indicate Salesforce had not yet formally appeared before transfer. The public record does not disclose why the case was initially filed in the Southern Division or the specific basis for the Northern Division assignment, both of which may become clearer as the case progresses under its new docket number.
Filing to Case Transferred in 7 days
7 days from filing to transfer — among the fastest intradistrict reassignments on record
Intradistrict transfer: what it means and what happens next
What an intradistrict transfer means for this case
An intradistrict transfer moves a case between divisions within the same federal district court — here, from Nevada’s Southern Division to its Northern Division. It is an administrative reassignment, not a dismissal. The same district’s local rules, judges, and procedures apply. The case survives intact under a new docket number (3:25-cv-476), and no substantive rights are extinguished by the transfer.
Procedural reassignment onlyNorthern Division assignment: what changes for the parties
The Northern Division of the Nevada District Court is based in Reno. The reassignment may affect which judge handles the matter, scheduling norms, and logistical considerations for counsel and witnesses. Plaintiff’s firm King & Wood Mallesons and co-counsel Robison, Sharp, Sullivan & Brust must ensure they are admitted and active in the Northern Division. Salesforce has not yet formally appeared on the public record, so the transfer has minimal immediate impact on its litigation posture.
Reno venue, new docketLitigation continues under 3:25-cv-476 — merits unresolved
The substantive patent infringement claims against Salesforce’s Force.com platform remain entirely unresolved. Following reassignment, the case will proceed through standard district court phases: service of process, Salesforce’s appearance and answer, claim construction, and potentially trial or settlement. Practitioners tracking this dispute should monitor docket 3:25-cv-476 in the Nevada Northern Division for all future filings.
Active litigation, monitor 3:25-cv-476Force.com patent risk: what the transfer signals for Salesforce customers
An intradistrict transfer does not reduce the commercial risk to Salesforce or its Force.com customers. Two patents remain asserted against a platform central to Salesforce’s enterprise business. If the claims survive and proceed to claim construction, the outcome could have licensing and product implications for the broader Salesforce ecosystem. Companies building on Force.com should monitor the Northern Division docket for claim construction positions and any injunctive relief motions.
Force.com exposure unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Applications in Internet Time LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8484111B2 and US7356482B2 covering internet application technologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Salesforce, Inc. | Company | Salesforce, Inc. — enterprise cloud CRM and platform-as-a-service provider, maker of Force.comSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael A Burke | Attorney | Counsel for Applications in Internet Time LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael DeVincenzo | Attorney | Counsel for Applications in Internet Time LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | King & Wood Mallesons LLP | Law Firm | Representing Applications in Internet Time LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Robison, Sharp, Sullivan & Brust | Law Firm | Representing Applications in Internet Time LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Nevada District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reads as a purely administrative intradistrict transfer to the Northern Division, re-docketed as 3:25-cv-476. This phrasing confirms no merits adjudication occurred — no infringement finding, no validity ruling, and no claim construction was conducted. The transfer was completed within seven days of filing, consistent with an administrative reassignment initiated by court case management rather than a contested motion. Both parties’ substantive positions remain entirely open.
US8484111B2 & US7356482B2 — Internet-based application management and workflow technology
US8484111B2 (application no. US12/912375) and US7356482B2 (application no. US09/797488) are the two patents asserted against Salesforce’s Force.com platform. The earlier application number for US7356482B2 — filed in the US09 series — suggests an application date likely in the early 2000s, placing it among foundational internet application patents. US8484111B2 carries a later application number, suggesting a continuation or divisional lineage extending the portfolio’s coverage into more recent claim territory.
Force.com is Salesforce’s cloud-based PaaS layer, underpinning a significant portion of enterprise CRM, custom application development, and workflow automation globally. Patents targeting the application management and workflow methods used by such a platform carry substantial commercial leverage. If the asserted claims are construed broadly at the Northern Division, they could implicate not only Salesforce’s core infrastructure but also the ecosystem of ISVs and enterprises that build on Force.com — making this dispute one to watch closely across the enterprise software sector.
Should you run an FTO against US8484111B2 and US7356482B2?
Any organisation developing or commercialising cloud-based application management, workflow automation, or PaaS infrastructure products should consider whether US8484111B2 and US7356482B2 present a freedom-to-operate risk. The assertion against Force.com — one of the most widely deployed enterprise PaaS platforms — suggests the patent holder views the claims as broadly applicable to internet-based application delivery and management methods. Companies building on or competing with Salesforce’s platform are the most directly exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent claims of US8484111B2 and US7356482B2 against your product architecture, flag relevant prior art that could be used in an IPR petition, and identify continuation applications that may extend the family’s enforcement reach. Given the early stage of litigation, now is the optimal window to assess exposure before claim construction positions are locked in.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8484111B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar PaaS and cloud application patent infringement cases in federal district courts
Explore related patent infringement cases involving cloud application and PaaS platform technologies litigated in Nevada and other federal district courts.
What this case signals for the cloud CRM and PaaS IP landscape
A seven-day intradistrict transfer is procedural — but the underlying patent claims against Force.com are live and commercially significant.
Intradistrict transfers don’t kill cases — monitor the new docket immediately
When a case is transferred intradistrict, it continues under a new docket number. IP teams tracking Applications in Internet Time v. Salesforce must switch monitoring to 3:25-cv-476 in the Nevada Northern Division. Missing filings at this early stage — including Salesforce’s answer and any Rule 12 motions — could mean missing critical claim positions.
Force.com is a high-value target: two patents, one core platform
Asserting two patents against Force.com — Salesforce’s foundational PaaS layer — signals an attempt to capture maximum commercial exposure. Companies that have built products or services on top of Force.com should assess whether the asserted patent claims could implicate their own implementations, not just Salesforce’s core offering.
Applications v Salesforce — key questions answered
The Nevada District Court transferred the case intradistrict to the Northern Division on 5 September 2025, just seven days after filing. It continues as case 3:25-cv-476. No merits ruling has been issued; the patent infringement claims against Force.com remain active and unresolved.
Applications in Internet Time LLC asserted two patents: US8484111B2 (application no. US12/912375) and US7356482B2 (application no. US09/797488). Both appear to cover internet-based application management and workflow methods. The asserted products are Salesforce’s Force.com platform.
The public record reflects an intradistrict administrative transfer from Nevada’s Southern Division to its Northern Division (Reno). The transfer occurred within seven days of filing, suggesting it was initiated by court case management. The specific basis for the Northern Division assignment is not disclosed in the available public record.
No. An intradistrict transfer is purely procedural. The patent infringement claims against Salesforce’s Force.com platform survive intact. No validity, infringement, or claim construction ruling was made. The case proceeds under new docket number 3:25-cv-476 in the Nevada Northern Division with all substantive issues open.
The case is at an early procedural stage and no merits determination has been made. However, companies that build products or services on the Force.com platform should monitor claim construction proceedings in case 3:25-cv-476. Depending on how the claims are construed, the asserted patents’ scope may be relevant beyond Salesforce itself. An FTO analysis against US8484111B2 and US7356482B2 is advisable for high-exposure participants in the Force.com ecosystem.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.