Malikie Innovations v. SAP America — Dismissed With Prejudice in 94 Days
Malikie Innovations Ltd. asserted four patents against SAP America’s HANA and S/4 HANA platforms in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties jointly moved to dismiss with prejudice after just 94 days, signalling a private resolution before any substantive court rulings on the merits.
Four-patent HANA infringement action ends in rapid joint dismissal
Malikie Innovations Ltd., a patent assertion entity holding intellectual property originally associated with BlackBerry/Key Patent Innovations, filed suit against SAP America, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on 12 September 2025, asserting infringement of four US patents — US7685396B2, US9552498B2, US7496606B2, and US10503742B2 — against SAP’s flagship HANA in-memory database platform and S/4 HANA enterprise suite.
The case was resolved and dismissed with prejudice by joint motion on 15 December 2025 — just 94 days after filing. The court granted the motion, dismissing all claims between the parties with prejudice, with each side bearing its own legal costs. A ‘with prejudice’ dismissal extinguishes Malikie’s right to refile these specific claims against SAP on these patents, suggesting the parties reached a definitive private resolution, likely a licence or covenant not to sue.
The 94-day duration is notably brief even for cases that settle early, suggesting negotiations may have been underway before or shortly after filing. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is standard for negotiated resolutions and does not imply either party acknowledged liability. The precise financial or licensing terms of any agreement remain undisclosed, as is typical for privately settled patent disputes in this venue.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 94 days
94 days — well under the E.D. Texas median time-to-trial, consistent with early settlement
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars any re-filing on these patents
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits as a matter of procedural law — Malikie cannot refile these four patent claims against SAP America or SAP SE in any US court. The joint nature of the motion indicates both parties consented, which is the hallmark of a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral concession. No court ruling on validity or infringement was issued.
Final — no re-filing permittedMalikie trades re-filing rights for a likely private resolution
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Malikie permanently relinquishes the ability to pursue SAP again on these four patents. This strongly suggests Malikie received consideration — most likely a licence fee or lump-sum payment — sufficient to justify that concession. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against third parties; only SAP benefits from this bar.
Patents valid vs. third partiesSAP secures permanent resolution on four asserted patents
SAP America gains certainty: Malikie cannot revive these claims or assert the same four patents against SAP HANA or S/4 HANA under this cause of action. Each party bearing its own costs avoids any fee-shifting exposure for SAP. Whether SAP obtained a broader licence covering its full product portfolio or affiliates beyond SAP SE is not disclosed in the public record.
Permanent bar on these claimsEnterprise software vendors face continued PAE pressure on legacy IP
Malikie — as successor to a large BlackBerry/Key Patent Innovations portfolio — has demonstrated willingness to assert data-management and enterprise-software patents in E.D. Texas. The rapid resolution here suggests the asserted patents carried sufficient licensing value to warrant a quick settlement. Competing HANA-adjacent vendors and cloud database providers should assess exposure to the same portfolio.
PAE portfolio risk remains activeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Malikie Innovations Ltd. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7685396B2, US9552498B2, US7496606B2, US10503742B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | SAP America, Inc. | Company | SAP America, Inc. — US subsidiary of SAP SE; developer of SAP HANA and S/4 HANA platformsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Claire Abernathy Henry | Attorney | Counsel for Malikie Innovations Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Khue Van Hoang | Attorney | Counsel for Malikie Innovations Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matt Berkowitz | Attorney | Counsel for Malikie Innovations Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Patrick R. Colsher | Attorney | Counsel for Malikie Innovations Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rikesh Patel | Attorney | Counsel for Malikie Innovations Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sean M Mccarthy | Attorney | Counsel for Malikie Innovations Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Miller Fair Henry PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Malikie Innovations Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP | Law Firm | Representing Malikie Innovations Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Katherine K. Vidal | Attorney | Counsel for SAP America, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Andrew Bittner | Attorney | Counsel for SAP America, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas M. Melsheimer | Attorney | Counsel for SAP America, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Winston Strawn LLP (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing SAP America, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Winston Strawn LLP (Redwood City) | Law Firm | Representing SAP America, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order tracks the precise language of the joint motion: all claims are dismissed with prejudice, and no relief beyond the dismissal itself was granted. The ‘DENIED AS MOOT’ language for pending motions confirms no substantive ruling — on claim construction, validity, or infringement — was ever issued. The with-prejudice designation is the legally operative term: it forecloses re-litigation of these claims between these parties, consistent with a privately negotiated resolution whose financial terms remain confidential.
US7685396B2 and three further patents — data management and enterprise software architecture
The four asserted patents — US7685396B2, US9552498B2, US7496606B2, and US10503742B2 — originate from application filings spanning 2003 to 2015, covering a range of data-management, data-access, and enterprise software architecture innovations originally developed within the BlackBerry/Research In Motion and Key Patent Innovations ecosystem. The patents were asserted specifically against SAP HANA, an in-memory database platform, and SAP S/4 HANA, SAP’s next-generation ERP suite built on that database layer.
The strategic significance of this portfolio lies in its breadth across data-handling functions that underpin modern enterprise platforms. As HANA and S/4 HANA are foundational to SAP’s commercial strategy, any licensing exposure on core data-access or memory-management patents carries significant commercial weight. Malikie’s ability to assert this portfolio against SAP — and reach resolution in 94 days — suggests the patents were sufficiently mapped to commercially sensitive product features to motivate early settlement.
Should you run an FTO against US7685396B2 and the Malikie HANA portfolio?
Any enterprise software vendor, cloud database provider, or in-memory computing platform operator with data-management or data-access functionality should treat this case as a signal. The four patents asserted here cover a cluster of architectural concepts that appear broadly applicable beyond SAP HANA — Oracle Exadata, Microsoft SQL Server, Snowflake, and similar platforms may present comparable surface area. A targeted FTO analysis is advisable before new product launches or platform upgrades in these categories.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the four asserted patents against your product’s technical architecture, identify independent and dependent claim scope, surface prior art relevant to validity challenges, and flag other Malikie and Key Patent Innovations filings that may target adjacent features. This allows your legal and R&D teams to prioritise design-around options or licensing negotiations before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7685396B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases: enterprise software and data management in E.D. Texas
Related cases involving enterprise software and in-memory database patents asserted in the Eastern District of Texas against major technology vendors.
What this case signals for the enterprise software IP landscape
A 94-day resolution in E.D. Texas against a major ERP vendor suggests calculated licensing strategy, not speculative litigation.
E.D. Texas remains the venue of choice for PAE portfolio assertions
Malikie filed in the Eastern District of Texas — a venue with well-established plaintiff-friendly procedural norms. The rapid dismissal suggests SAP calculated that early resolution was commercially preferable to a Markman hearing and potential discovery on SAP HANA’s architecture. Enterprise software companies should treat E.D. Texas filings from Malikie as requiring immediate triage.
Joint cost-bearing signals mutual agreement — not SAP capitulation
The ‘each party bears its own costs’ order is standard language in negotiated patent settlements and should not be read as a sign of SAP’s weakness. It simply reflects that no party was adjudicated a prevailing party. In-house teams monitoring this case should note that the absence of fee-shifting is neutral and does not indicate the strength or weakness of either side’s position.
Malikie v SAP — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice in Case No. 2:25-cv-00946 means Malikie Innovations and Key Patent Innovations permanently waived the right to reassert these four patents against SAP America and SAP SE in US courts. The dismissal arose from a joint motion, strongly indicating a private resolution — likely a licence or payment — was reached. No court ruling on infringement or validity was issued.
Malikie Innovations asserted four US patents: US7685396B2, US9552498B2, US7496606B2, and US10503742B2. These patents, originating from application filings between 2003 and 2015, were asserted against SAP HANA and SAP S/4 HANA in the Eastern District of Texas.
The 94-day resolution suggests pre-filing or very early negotiations between the parties. Malikie’s filing in E.D. Texas with a multi-patent assertion against core SAP products likely created sufficient litigation risk and cost pressure for SAP to reach a rapid commercial resolution. The precise terms are undisclosed, but the joint motion and with-prejudice dismissal are consistent with a licensing agreement.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. is a patent assertion entity that acquired a significant portion of the patent portfolio originally developed by BlackBerry (formerly Research In Motion) and associated with Key Patent Innovations Ltd. It has been active in asserting these patents against enterprise technology companies in the Eastern District of Texas and other venues.
No. The order that each party bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees is standard language in jointly negotiated patent settlements and does not indicate that either party prevailed. No court adjudicated the merits. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement simply reflects the agreed terms of the joint motion to dismiss and is neutral with respect to the underlying merits of Malikie’s patent claims.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.