Pedersen v. Oracle: US6965920B2 Case Transferred to Austin Division
Peter Pedersen filed a patent infringement action against Oracle Corporation in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas, asserting US6965920B2 against Oracle's Responsys platform. After 494 days, the case was transferred unopposed to the Austin Division, with Judge Albright retaining the docket.
Waco-filed patent suit against Oracle's Responsys rerouted to Austin
On April 22, 2022, Peter Pedersen, represented by Ramey LLP, filed a patent infringement action against Oracle Corporation in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright. The suit asserts US6965920B2 (application no. US09/904270) against Oracle's Responsys platform. Oracle retained a large defence team across Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP and Shearman & Sterling LLP.
The recorded basis of termination is Case Transferred. The docket order dated August 24, 2023 states that Oracle's Motion to Transfer to the Austin Division was granted as unopposed after Pedersen filed a Notice of Non-Opposition on August 23, 2023, withdrawing his earlier opposition. The Court ordered the case transferred to the Austin Division while remaining on Judge Albright's docket.
The transfer came after a contested venue discovery phase: Pedersen had filed a Notice of Venue Discovery, but Oracle subsequently asserted that no discovery was actually conducted. The case's resolution at the venue stage — rather than on the merits — means substantive infringement questions relating to US6965920B2 and Oracle's Responsys platform remain unadjudicated in the public record. Whether the Austin Division proceeding reached a further resolution is not reflected in the available record for this case number.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Transferred in 494 days
494 days from filing to transfer order — resolved before trial
US6965920B2 — digital communications and messaging technology
Any company operating a digital marketing automation, email marketing, or customer engagement platform with functional overlap with Oracle's Responsys product should treat US6965920B2 as an active risk. The patent remains in active litigation in the Austin Division of the W.D. Texas, and no claim construction narrowing the scope has been issued. Product teams building or acquiring marketing automation capabilities should assess exposure now, before a claim construction record is established.
Official order — verbatim text
The August 24, 2023 order grants Oracle's transfer motion as unopposed after Pedersen withdrew opposition, and expressly preserves Judge Albright's docket assignment in the Austin Division. The order does not address the merits of any patent infringement claim and does not constitute a final judgment — it is a procedural venue ruling only.
Case transferred — not dismissed or decided on the merits
A case transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) moves the action to a different venue without adjudicating the underlying claims. The original court retains no further jurisdiction over the substance of the dispute. Here, the Waco Division transferred the case to the Austin Division — both within the Western District of Texas — so the same judge, Alan D. Albright, retains the docket. No merits ruling has been issued.
Venue change, not dismissalAustin Division: same judge, different divisional rules
Because the transfer is intra-district — from Waco to Austin within the W.D. Texas — Judge Albright continues to preside. However, divisional standing orders and local practice can differ. The fact that Pedersen ultimately withdrew his opposition to transfer suggests the venue dispute was resolved without contested briefing on the merits of Oracle's convenience arguments. The specific grounds Oracle relied on in its Motion are not fully detailed in the available excerpt.
Intra-district transferLitigation continues in Austin Division under the same docket
A transfer order is a procedural step, not a final judgment. The patent infringement claims asserted under US6965920B2 against Oracle's Responsys platform survive the transfer and proceed in the Austin Division. The substantive questions of infringement, validity, and any damages remain open. Parties, counsel, and any scheduling orders carry over unless modified by subsequent orders in the Austin Division.
Claims survive transferUnopposed transfer: what Pedersen's withdrawal signals
Pedersen's decision to withdraw opposition after filing a Notice of Venue Discovery — without apparently conducting that discovery — suggests the plaintiff assessed that contesting venue further was not cost-effective. Oracle's Notice of Non-Opposition argument, that the response deadline had already passed, may have factored into that calculation. The specific terms of any arrangement between the parties are not disclosed in the available record.
Plaintiff withdrew oppositionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Peter Pedersen | Individual | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Oracle | Individual | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for Peter PedersenSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing Peter PedersenSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Aaron L. Morris | Attorney | Counsel for OracleSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Charles S. Bullock | Attorney | Counsel for OracleSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Philip Whittlesey | Attorney | Counsel for OracleSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew G. Berkowitz | Attorney | Counsel for OracleSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Patrick R. Colsher | Attorney | Counsel for OracleSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Taylor Mauze | Attorney | Counsel for OracleSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Yue (Joy) Wang | Attorney | Counsel for OracleSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP | Law Firm | Representing OracleSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Shearman & Sterling LLP | Law Firm | Representing OracleSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the digital marketing platform patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence around the digital marketing automation sector implicated by Pedersen's assertion of US6965920B2 against Oracle Responsys.
Peter Pedersen's patent portfolio and assertion history
Tracking the full patent portfolio associated with Peter Pedersen and the prosecution history of US6965920B2 can surface related continuation or divisional patents that may be deployed in follow-on assertions against Oracle or similarly positioned marketing automation vendors. Understanding the family scope is essential before any licensing discussion or invalidity analysis.
Portfolio watchFiling trends in digital marketing automation and customer engagement IP
The digital marketing automation space — covering email orchestration, customer journey management, and omnichannel engagement — has seen sustained patent filing activity from both established vendors and NPEs. Mapping filing trends around the core technologies of Oracle Responsys helps product teams identify crowded claim spaces and white space for differentiated R&D investment.
Landscape analysisOracle's patent portfolio in marketing and cloud communications
Oracle holds a substantial patent portfolio in cloud infrastructure, data management, and marketing technology, including assets related to the Responsys and Eloqua platforms. Understanding Oracle's defensive and offensive IP posture in the customer engagement space provides competitive intelligence for vendors building adjacent or competing products and for parties considering licensing engagement with Oracle.
Oracle IP watchR&D white space near the US6965920B2 claim landscape
With active litigation defining the contested zone around US6965920B2's claim scope, adjacent technical areas — such as AI-driven personalisation, real-time event-triggered messaging, and privacy-preserving audience segmentation — may represent lower-risk R&D and filing opportunities. A targeted landscape search can identify where innovation is outpacing existing claim coverage in the marketing tech stack.
Innovation gapSimilar patent cases: digital marketing platform assertions in W.D. Texas
Explore patent infringement cases involving digital marketing, messaging, and customer engagement platforms filed in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the enterprise software IP landscape
Venue strategy and patent portfolio positioning around enterprise marketing platforms are live issues for IP teams watching the W.D. Texas docket.
Waco filings against large cloud vendors face real transfer pressure
Oracle successfully secured an intra-district transfer from Waco to Austin without contested briefing, suggesting that individual patent holders asserting against major cloud defendants in Waco should anticipate and prepare for venue motions early. Failing to conduct noticed venue discovery can forfeit the right to oppose transfer.
US6965920B2 remains live — merits unadjudicated against Responsys
No infringement, validity, or damages ruling has been issued. Companies operating digital marketing or messaging platforms with functional overlap with the claims of US6965920B2 should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk. The transfer to Austin does not terminate the assertion.
Pedersen v Oracle — key questions answered
The case was transferred. On August 24, 2023, Judge Alan D. Albright granted Oracle's unopposed Motion to Transfer the case from the Waco Division to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas. Judge Albright retains the docket. No merits ruling on infringement or validity of US6965920B2 has been issued.
Peter Pedersen asserted US6965920B2 (application no. US09/904270) against Oracle's Responsys platform. The specific claims asserted and the technical basis for the infringement allegation are not detailed in the available public docket record for this case number.
Oracle filed a Motion to Transfer to the Austin Division on June 7, 2023. Pedersen initially filed a Notice of Venue Discovery but subsequently withdrew opposition on August 23, 2023. The Court treated the motion as unopposed and granted it on August 24, 2023. The specific convenience or venue grounds argued by Oracle are not fully detailed in the available order excerpt.
No. A transfer is a procedural venue change, not a final judgment. The infringement claims asserted under US6965920B2 against Oracle's Responsys platform survive the transfer and continue in the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas before Judge Albright. No dismissal or settlement has been recorded in the available docket for this case number.
Peter Pedersen was represented by William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP. Oracle Corporation was represented by Aaron L. Morris, Charles S. Bullock, David Philip Whittlesey, Matthew G. Berkowitz, Patrick R. Colsher, Taylor Mauze, and Yue (Joy) Wang, with counsel from Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP and Shearman & Sterling LLP.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.