Sesame Software vs. CapStorm: CRM Data Backup Patent Dispute Settles
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Sesame Software, Inc. v. CapStorm, LLC |
| Case Number | 3:22-cv-16609 (N.D. Fla.) |
| Court | Florida Northern District Court |
| Duration | ~20 months Aug 2022 – Apr 2024 |
| Outcome | Settled – Dismissed with Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | CapStorm CopyStorm Software (e.g., CopyStorm/Restore version 10.52.2) |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Markets “Relational Junction,” a data replication and backup platform serving enterprise customers who manage CRM ecosystems, including Salesforce environments.
🛡️ Defendant
Develops and distributes CRM data management tools, most notably the “CopyStorm” product line, a Salesforce backup and restore solution.
Patents at Issue
This case involved **US Patent No. 10,540,237B2** (application number US16/181338), which covers data restoration and backup technology relevant to relational database and CRM environments. Sesame Software asserted this patent as being infringed by CapStorm’s product architecture. The ‘237 patent is squarely positioned in the software utility space, covering methods and systems for structured data backup.
- • US 10,540,237B2 — Data backup and restoration technology for CRM environments.
Developing CRM data backup solutions?
Check if your product might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
On April 24, 2024, Judge T. Kent Wetherell II ordered the case dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), based on the parties’ joint stipulation. This dismissal, reflecting a confidential settlement, means Sesame Software cannot re-file the same claims. Critically, the court ordered that each party bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees, eliminating fee-shifting exposure under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Key Legal Issues
While specific motion rulings were not publicly detailed, CRM software patent disputes typically involve battlegrounds such as claim construction, infringement analysis, and validity challenges. The timing of the settlement, after substantial discovery and motion practice (67+ docket entries), suggests that both parties had sufficient information to assess their respective risk profiles. For software method claims, debates over how terms like “restoring,” “backup,” or “relational data” are interpreted often define infringement outcomes and settlement leverage.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in CRM data backup software. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View the patent in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in CRM software patents
- Understand claim construction patterns
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own CRM software or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
CRM Data Backup and Restoration Methods
1 Patent at Issue
In CRM backup technology space
Settled
Design-around feasibility unclear from public record
✅ Key Takeaways
Dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) following joint stipulation is an efficient resolution mechanism that preserves settlement confidentiality.
Search related case law →Multi-firm defendant representation (local + regional IP-specialized) is a reliable indicator of substantive defense investment.
Explore precedents →CRM software patent cases are producing pre-trial settlements with increasing regularity in federal district courts.
Analyze software litigation trends →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved US Patent No. 10,540,237B2 (application US16/181338), covering data backup and restoration technology applied to CRM environments.
The parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss with prejudice (Doc. 67), indicating a confidential settlement. The court dismissed all claims and counterclaims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
It reinforces that patent assertions targeting specific CRM data management product versions — particularly in the Salesforce backup ecosystem — can generate pre-trial settlements, signaling active enforcement risk for competing toolmakers.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- USPTO Patent Center – US10540237B2
- PACER Case Lookup – 3:22-cv-16609
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C. § 285
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.