WSOU Investments v. Salesforce: Summary Judgment of Noninfringement After 1,459 Days
WSOU Investments sued Salesforce.com in the Western District of Texas alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,088,493, targeting the Salesforce Marketing Cloud Journey Builder product. After nearly four years of litigation before Judge Alan D. Albright, the court granted summary judgment of noninfringement — a full defense win decided on the merits.
Four-Year Patent Battle Ends in Full Merits Win for Salesforce
WSOU Investments, LLC — a patent assertion entity widely associated with monetising former Nokia patents — filed suit against Salesforce.com, Inc. on 18 December 2020 in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:20-cv-01170). The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,088,493, covers network path-selection and routing technology that WSOU mapped onto Salesforce Marketing Cloud’s Journey Builder feature, which orchestrates automated customer engagement workflows.
The case closed on 16 December 2024 when Judge Alan D. Albright granted summary judgment of noninfringement in Salesforce’s favour via ECF No. 377. The final judgment expressly held that claims 1 and 5 of the ‘493 patent — along with all dependent claims — are not infringed by Salesforce. The court notably flagged that counsel had been notified of the premature appeal issue before electing to file, a procedural signal that suggests the litigation concluded under some friction.
At 1,459 days, the case ran for nearly four years — longer than many assertion campaigns in W.D. Texas, suggesting substantive claim construction disputes or discovery complexity before the merits were resolved at summary judgment. WSOU’s broad litigation campaign against multiple technology defendants makes the outcome strategically significant: a summary judgment of noninfringement forecloses damages and, if the claims interpretation is upheld on appeal, narrows future assertion scope. The public record does not disclose licensing discussions or settlement negotiations prior to judgment.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Defendant in 1459 days
1,459 days — nearly 4 years in W.D. Texas, well above median district court patent case duration
Summary judgment for Salesforce: what the noninfringement ruling means for both parties
Summary judgment of noninfringement: no triable issue on the merits
A summary judgment of noninfringement is granted when, construing all facts in the plaintiff’s favour, no reasonable jury could find that the accused product meets every limitation of the asserted claims. Here, the court found that Salesforce’s Journey Builder does not practise claims 1 and 5 of the ‘493 patent or their dependents — ending the case without trial. This is a merits-based victory, not a procedural dismissal.
Decided on the meritsWSOU loses on the merits — enforceability of the ‘493 patent against Salesforce extinguished
The final judgment bars WSOU from re-asserting the same claims against Salesforce for the same accused product under res judicata principles. WSOU retains ownership of the ‘493 patent and may theoretically assert it against other defendants, but a public summary judgment record of noninfringement weakens the patent’s commercial leverage in future licensing negotiations and litigation campaigns.
Claims 1, 5 and dependents not infringedSalesforce clears Journey Builder of infringement liability
Salesforce secures a final judgment confirming Journey Builder does not infringe the ‘493 patent. The ruling provides freedom-to-operate certainty for the product as currently designed. The court’s noting of a premature appeal filing by WSOU’s counsel suggests post-judgment proceedings may follow, but the noninfringement finding itself stands unless reversed on appeal.
Full defense verdictPAE assertion risk against CRM journey automation tools recalibrated
This outcome signals that routing and path-selection patent claims mapped onto CRM workflow automation face a rigorous noninfringement scrutiny at summary judgment in W.D. Texas. Competitors operating similar journey orchestration platforms can draw on this record in their own freedom-to-operate analyses. The ruling also reflects continued judicial willingness in W.D. Texas to resolve patent cases at summary judgment rather than sending weak claims to trial.
CRM automation IP risk reducedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | WSOU Investments, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9088493B2, former Nokia-origin network routing patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Salesforce.com, Inc. | Company | Salesforce, Inc. — enterprise CRM and cloud software platform, maker of Marketing Cloud Journey BuilderSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ari B. Rafilson | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brett Aaron Mangrum | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian Matthew Koide | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Chen Jia | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Craig D. Cherry | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cristofer Leffler | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Darcy L. Jones | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gregory Phillip Love | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Heather S. Kim | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Hershy Stern | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James L. Etheridge | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey Huang | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jessica C. Sutliff | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John W. Downing | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan H. Hicks | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan K. Waldrop | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph M. Abraham | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joshua A. Whitehill | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Julianne Laporte | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Julie R. Fischer | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Katherine Bentfield | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lea Dartevelle Erhel | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marcus A. Barber | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark D. Siegmund | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Harris Lawrence | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Melissa Samano Ruiz | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Moses Xie | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Noah P. Dorman | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul G. Williams | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ryan A. Madden | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ryan Scott Loveless | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott Russell Maynard | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | ThucMinh Nguyen | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Timothy Franklin Dewberry | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Travis Lee Richins | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William D. Ellerman | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC | Law Firm | Representing WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Etheridge Law Group PLLC | Law Firm | Representing WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Folio Law Group PLLC | Law Firm | Representing WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Jackson Walker LLP | Law Firm | Representing WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kasowitz Benson Torres, LLP | Law Firm | Representing WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Koide IP Law PLLC | Law Firm | Representing WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Loveless Law Group | Law Firm | Representing WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rade LLC | Law Firm | Representing WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love PLLC | Law Firm | Representing WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian P. Biddinger | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Caleb R. Braley | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher R. Sabbagh | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher Sidney Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Evan Zachary Pearson | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Felipe Corredor | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | G. Blake Thompson | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jared Kneitel | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kevin P.B. Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nathan Sun | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nien-Ping Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Olga Slobodyanyuk | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rachael McCracken | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ray Robert Zado | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sam Stake | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Scott Lamar Cole | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Todd M. Briggs | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Conrad Metlitzky Kane LLP | Law Firm | Representing Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Mann, Tindel & Thompson Attorneys at Law | Law Firm | Representing Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP | Law Firm | Representing Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | SLC Trial Law, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s final judgment is framed in precise claim-specific terms — holding claims 1 and 5 and all dependent claims not infringed by Salesforce — which reflects a thorough summary judgment analysis rather than a narrower or conditional ruling. The explicit reference to ECF No. 377 and the court’s notation regarding the premature appeal filing suggest procedural tension in the closing phase. For Salesforce, the judgment provides a durable, merits-based noninfringement shield for Journey Builder. For WSOU, the public record of noninfringement weakens the patent’s assertion leverage against future targets in the CRM automation space.
US9088493B2 — Network path-selection and routing technology
U.S. Patent No. 9,088,493 (application number US14/198267) covers network routing and path-selection technology. WSOU asserted that this technology reads onto the orchestration logic underlying Salesforce Marketing Cloud’s Journey Builder — a feature that routes customers through automated engagement workflows based on behavioural triggers. The patent’s origin in the Nokia IP estate suggests a telecommunications networking lineage that WSOU mapped to cloud CRM applications.
The strategic significance of the ‘493 patent lies in its potential breadth across any platform that dynamically routes data or users through multi-step automated sequences — a description that fits a wide range of CRM, marketing automation, and workflow tools beyond Salesforce. WSOU’s decision to assert it against Salesforce’s flagship automation product reflects a broader PAE strategy of applying legacy telecom patents to high-revenue enterprise software products. The court’s summary judgment of noninfringement narrows that strategy’s effectiveness against Journey Builder specifically.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9088493B2?
Any company operating journey automation, customer workflow orchestration, or dynamic routing features in CRM or marketing platforms should assess exposure under U.S. Patent 9,088,493. Although Salesforce’s Journey Builder was found non-infringing, the patent’s claim scope — rooted in network path-selection — could potentially be mapped onto functionally similar products. WSOU’s active patent assertion campaign makes proactive FTO analysis a commercially prudent step.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the claim language of US9088493B2 against your product’s technical architecture, surfacing prior art, relevant prosecution history, and analogous noninfringement records from WSOU’s litigation campaign. This allows R&D and IP teams to assess design-around options or build a noninfringement opinion before any demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9088493B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: PAE assertions in CRM and cloud software, W.D. Texas
Explore related infringement actions asserting network routing and automation patents against CRM and cloud software defendants in the Western District of Texas.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable Salesforce Marketing Cloud – Journey Builder-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedWSOU Investments, LLC’s broader IP enforcement history
WSOU Investments, LLC’s full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat this case signals for the CRM and cloud software IP landscape
A PAE summary judgment loss in W.D. Texas on network-routing claims mapped to CRM automation has sector-wide implications for patent risk and product strategy.
Journey Builder cleared — but the ‘493 patent remains in WSOU’s portfolio
The noninfringement ruling is product-specific and defendant-specific. WSOU may still assert the ‘493 patent against other CRM, marketing automation, or workflow orchestration vendors. Companies operating comparable journey automation features should independently assess whether their implementations create exposure under the patent’s remaining claim scope.
Summary judgment at 1,459 days signals claim construction was the key battleground
Cases that survive nearly four years before resolving at summary judgment — rather than earlier on 12(b)(6) or §101 grounds — typically indicate substantive claim construction disputes drove the timeline. The noninfringement finding suggests Salesforce’s Journey Builder was ultimately found to fall outside the construed claim scope, which is the most durable form of noninfringement protection.
WSOU’s premature appeal flag: what it means for post-judgment proceedings
The court’s explicit notation that counsel was warned about a premature appeal before filing is unusual and may indicate procedural complications in the appellate phase. Parties monitoring WSOU’s appeal strategy — or Salesforce’s exposure to reversal — should track the Federal Circuit docket for any jurisdictional arguments arising from the timing of the appeal.
Noninfringement record creates prior art and claim construction leverage for future defendants
A public summary judgment record construing ‘493 patent claims narrowly creates a roadmap for any future defendant WSOU targets with this patent. Competitors in the CRM and marketing automation space can use this record in their own invalidity and noninfringement analyses, and potentially cite it in licensing negotiations to resist above-market royalty demands.
WSOU v Salesforce.com — key questions answered
The court granted summary judgment of noninfringement in favour of Salesforce. Judge Alan D. Albright held that claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,088,493 — and all dependent claims — are not infringed by Salesforce’s Journey Builder product. Final judgment was entered on 16 December 2024 after 1,459 days of litigation.
US9088493B2 covers network path-selection and routing methods, originating from Nokia’s IP estate. WSOU Investments asserted that the orchestration and routing logic in Salesforce Marketing Cloud’s Journey Builder — which automates customer engagement workflows — practised the patent’s claims. The court ultimately found no infringement on summary judgment.
WSOU Investments is a patent assertion entity that acquired and monetises a large portfolio of patents originating from Nokia’s R&D programs. WSOU has filed numerous infringement actions against major technology companies. The Salesforce case is one of several in which WSOU mapped legacy telecom patents onto enterprise cloud software products to assert infringement claims.
The judgment is specific to Salesforce’s Journey Builder and the construed claims of the ‘493 patent. It does not directly bind other defendants. However, the public summary judgment record and any claim construction findings create a useful reference for other companies facing similar assertions from WSOU, and may inform noninfringement or invalidity arguments in future cases involving the same patent.
The final judgment explicitly states that counsel was notified of the premature appeal issue before filing. This suggests WSOU’s counsel attempted to appeal before the final judgment was formally entered, which would deprive the appellate court of jurisdiction. The court’s notation serves as a procedural marker that the final judgment — not any earlier order — starts the clock for post-trial motions and a proper appeal.
Monitor CRM and cloud software patent risk with PatSnap Eureka
Track WSOU’s ongoing assertion campaign and run FTO analysis against US9088493B2 and related patents. Eureka’s litigation monitoring alerts your team before a demand letter arrives.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.