VE Opening LLC v. Sprinklr, Inc. — Case Transferred to Austin Division After 68 Days
VE Opening LLC filed a patent infringement action against Sprinklr, Inc. in the Midland Division of the Western District of Texas, asserting US9916079B2 covering cross-application data sharing on computing devices. Sprinklr filed an unopposed motion to transfer to the Austin Division, citing employee presence and office locations there, and the court granted the transfer in 68 days.
Venue Realignment: Why Sprinklr Moved This Case to Austin
VE Opening LLC filed this patent infringement action on 22 August 2025 in the Midland Division of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asserting US9916079B2 — a patent directed to methods and systems enabling the sharing of information between applications on a computing device. The defendant, Sprinklr, Inc., is a cloud-based customer experience and unified CXM platform company whose products involve cross-application data handling and communication workflows.
Within the litigation period, Sprinklr filed an unopposed motion for intra-district transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and (b), arguing that its offices and employees with relevant knowledge are located in the Austin Division, and that the company has no personnel or offices in the Midland Division. The court granted the motion on 29 October 2025, ordering the clerk to transfer the case to the Western District of Texas, Austin Division without delay. The substantive infringement claims remain entirely unresolved.
The 68-day resolution of this procedural stage is consistent with the typical pace of unopposed intra-district venue motions in the Western District of Texas. That VE Opening LLC did not oppose the transfer may suggest a tactical decision to avoid early friction, or simply that counsel accepted the venue argument. The public record is silent on any licensing discussions, claim construction positions, or damages theories at this stage.
Filing to Case Transferred in 68 days
68 days from filing to transfer — typical intra-district transfers resolve within 30–90 days when unopposed
Intra-district transfer granted: what moving to Austin means for this case
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a): transferring to a more convenient venue
Section 1404(a) allows a district court to transfer a civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought, for the convenience of parties and witnesses or in the interest of justice. Here, Sprinklr invoked both subsections (a) and (b) for an intra-district transfer — moving from Midland to Austin within the same Western District of Texas. Because the plaintiff did not oppose, the court conducted a streamlined analysis and granted the motion.
Procedural transfer — no merits rulingAustin Division: a busier, more patent-familiar docket
The Austin Division of the Western District of Texas handles a substantial volume of patent litigation and has developed judicial familiarity with technology disputes. For Sprinklr, transferring to Austin — where it has employees with relevant knowledge — reduces the burden of producing witnesses in a distant forum. For VE Opening LLC, Austin may present a more scrutinised litigation environment, but the underlying infringement claims remain fully intact.
Case continues in Austin DivisionSubstantive litigation begins anew in the Austin Division
A transfer under § 1404 does not dismiss or adjudicate any claims. The case is re-docketed in the receiving division, and all pending or future motions — including scheduling, claim construction, and any dispositive motions — will be heard by an Austin Division judge. The infringement dispute over US9916079B2 is at the earliest stages, and Sprinklr’s defence strategy on the merits has not yet been disclosed in the public record.
Merits dispute unresolvedVenue strategy matters in software patent disputes
This transfer illustrates a common early-stage tactic in software patent litigation: defendants with established local presence move quickly to shift venue before significant litigation investment occurs. For companies operating cross-application data sharing or unified platform technologies, monitoring where infringement actions are filed — and evaluating intra-district transfer eligibility — can meaningfully affect litigation economics and judicial familiarity with the technology.
Venue strategy — software IPFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | VE Opening LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9916079B2 covering cross-app data sharing methodsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Sprinklr, Inc. | Company | Sprinklr, Inc. — cloud-based unified customer experience management (CXM) platform providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David R. Bennett, Esq., | Attorney | Counsel for VE Opening LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Direction IP law | Law Firm | Representing VE Opening LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeanne M. Heffernan | Attorney | Counsel for Sprinklr, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph A. Loy | Attorney | Counsel for Sprinklr, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kirkland & Ellis, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Sprinklr, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a straightforward application of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and (b) to an intra-district transfer request. Because the motion was unopposed, the court did not weigh the full Gulf Oil factors at length; instead, it confirmed that venue is proper in Austin given Sprinklr’s presence there, and that Midland lacks a meaningful connection to the defendant. Critically, no substantive infringement findings were made — the order is purely procedural, and VE Opening LLC’s claims under US9916079B2 survive intact and will be litigated in the Austin Division.
US9916079B2 — Cross-Application Data Sharing on Computing Devices
US9916079B2 (application no. US14/730517) is directed to methods and systems enabling the sharing of information between applications running on a computing device. This category of patent covers inter-application communication frameworks — the underlying mechanisms by which software platforms pass data, context, or state between discrete application components. Such patents sit at the intersection of operating system design, API architecture, and application integration, making them broadly relevant to modern cloud-based software stacks.
For unified CXM platforms like Sprinklr, which aggregate data across channels, applications, and integrations, the claim scope of US9916079B2 is strategically significant. If the asserted claims are interpreted broadly, they could implicate any architecture in which a platform mediates or facilitates information exchange between co-running applications. This patent is potentially relevant not only to Sprinklr but to any SaaS vendor, integration platform, or enterprise software provider whose product relies on cross-application data flows.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9916079B2?
Any company developing or commercialising software that enables applications on a computing device to share information — including unified platforms, API middleware, CXM suites, mobile SDKs, or integration hubs — should evaluate its exposure to US9916079B2. The active assertion of this patent against a major CXM vendor in federal court signals that the patent holder is willing to pursue litigation. R&D and product teams building inter-app communication features should review their architectures against the claim language now.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and product teams to map US9916079B2’s claim scope against their existing product architecture, identify prior art that may support a validity challenge, and surface related patents in VE Opening LLC’s portfolio that could represent further assertion risk. Running a proactive FTO analysis before Sprinklr’s Austin Division proceedings generate adverse claim construction findings is the strategically sound approach.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9916079B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar cross-application software patent disputes in the Western District of Texas
Explore patent infringement cases involving cross-application data sharing and platform software patents litigated in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the unified CXM and platform software IP landscape
Cross-application data sharing patents are being actively asserted against SaaS and CXM platforms. Venue posture matters from day one.
Intra-district transfers can shift litigation dynamics early and cheaply
Sprinklr’s swift, unopposed transfer motion — resolved in under 70 days — illustrates that defendants with genuine Austin-area operations can reshape the litigation venue before discovery or claim construction begins. Companies facing patent suits in less convenient Western District divisions should evaluate § 1404 transfer eligibility as a first-line procedural response.
US9916079B2 targets a broad software interaction layer — assess your exposure
The asserted patent covers methods and systems for sharing information between applications on a computing device — a capability central to unified CXM, integration platforms, and API-driven SaaS architectures. Any platform that enables cross-app data passing or workflow integration should assess whether its implementation falls within the claim scope of US9916079B2.
VE v Sprinklr — key questions answered
VE Opening LLC filed a patent infringement action against Sprinklr, Inc. in the Midland Division of the Western District of Texas, asserting US9916079B2. Sprinklr filed an unopposed intra-district transfer motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and (b), citing its Austin offices and employees. The court granted the transfer on 29 October 2025, moving the case to the Austin Division. No merits rulings have been issued.
US9916079B2 covers a method and system for enabling the sharing of information between applications on a computing device. Sprinklr operates a unified customer experience management platform that involves cross-application data flows and integrations. VE Opening LLC appears to contend that Sprinklr’s platform falls within the scope of these claims, though no claim construction or infringement finding has yet been made.
Sprinklr moved for intra-district transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and (b) on the grounds that it has offices and employees with relevant knowledge in Austin, and no employees or offices in Midland. VE Opening LLC did not oppose the motion. The court granted the transfer, finding Austin to be the more convenient venue. The case will now proceed before an Austin Division judge.
No. A transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 is a purely procedural venue change. All of VE Opening LLC’s patent infringement claims under US9916079B2 remain fully intact. The case is re-docketed in the Austin Division, where litigation on the merits — including discovery, claim construction, and any dispositive motions — will proceed.
VE Opening LLC is the plaintiff patent holder in this action. The public record does not provide detailed background on its business operations, suggesting it may function as a patent assertion entity. That it filed in the Midland Division and did not oppose transfer is consistent with a litigation strategy focused on asserting the patent rather than disputing venue. Further details on its portfolio and prior litigation activity would require additional investigation.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.