Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
WSOU Investments v. Salesforce | Patent 9,088,493 Litigation | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID6:20-cv-01170
FiledDec 2020
ClosedDec 2024
Patent Litigation

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.

Resolution time
1459days
1,459 days — nearly 4 years in W.D. Texas, well above median district court patent case duration
Patents asserted
1
US9088493B2 — customer journey automation technology, network routing and path-selection methods
Outcome
Judgment on the merits for Defendant
Summary judgment of noninfringement granted; claims 1, 5 and dependents held not infringed by Salesforce
Cost ruling
Merits Ruling
Final judgment on the merits; no damages awarded; post-trial motions and appeal window triggered
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

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.

Case at a glance
Case no.6:20-cv-01170
CourtTexas Western
JudgeAlan D Albright
FiledDecember 18, 2020
ClosedDecember 16, 2024
Duration1459 days
OutcomeJudgment on the merits for Defendant
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisJudgment on the merits for Defendant
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Texas Western District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

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

Case timeline: Complaint filed DEC 18 2020, DEC–JAN — 1459 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in WSOU Investments, LLC v Salesforce.com, Inc. from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Texas Western District Court. DEC 18 2020 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings DEC 16 2024 Judgment on the merits for Defendant 1459 DAYS TOTAL
Court ruling

Summary judgment for Salesforce: what the noninfringement ruling means for both parties

Legal mechanism

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 merits
Patent holder outcome

WSOU 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 infringed
Defendant outcome

Salesforce 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 verdict
Commercial implications

PAE 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 reduced
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 6:20-cv-01170 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffWSOU Investments, LLCCompanyPatent assertion entity — holder of US9088493B2, former Nokia-origin network routing patentSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantSalesforce.com, Inc.CompanySalesforce, Inc. — enterprise CRM and cloud software platform, maker of Marketing Cloud Journey BuilderSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAri B. RafilsonAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselBrett Aaron MangrumAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselBrian Matthew KoideAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselChen JiaAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselCraig D. CherryAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselCristofer LefflerAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselDarcy L. JonesAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselGregory Phillip LoveAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselHeather S. KimAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselHershy SternAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJames L. EtheridgeAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJeffrey HuangAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJessica C. SutliffAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJohn W. DowningAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJonathan H. HicksAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJonathan K. WaldropAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJoseph M. AbrahamAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJoshua A. WhitehillAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJulianne LaporteAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJulie R. FischerAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselKatherine BentfieldAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselLea Dartevelle ErhelAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMarcus A. BarberAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMark D. SiegmundAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMatthew Harris LawrenceAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMelissa Samano RuizAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMoses XieAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselNoah P. DormanAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselPaul G. WilliamsAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselRyan A. MaddenAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselRyan Scott LovelessAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselScott Russell MaynardAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselThucMinh NguyenAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselTimothy Franklin DewberryAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselTravis Lee RichinsAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselWilliam D. EllermanAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmCherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmEtheridge Law Group PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmFolio Law Group PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmJackson Walker LLPLaw FirmRepresenting WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmKasowitz Benson Torres, LLPLaw FirmRepresenting WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmKoide IP Law PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmLoveless Law GroupLaw FirmRepresenting WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmRade LLCLaw FirmRepresenting WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmSteckler Wayne Cherry & Love PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselBrian P. BiddingerAttorneyCounsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselCaleb R. BraleyAttorneyCounsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselChristopher R. SabbaghAttorneyCounsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselChristopher Sidney SmithAttorneyCounsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselEvan Zachary PearsonAttorneyCounsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselFelipe CorredorAttorneyCounsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselG. Blake ThompsonAttorneyCounsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJared KneitelAttorneyCounsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselKevin P.B. JohnsonAttorneyCounsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselNathan SunAttorneyCounsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselNien-Ping WangAttorneyCounsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselOlga SlobodyanyukAttorneyCounsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselRachael McCrackenAttorneyCounsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselRay Robert ZadoAttorneyCounsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselSam StakeAttorneyCounsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselScott Lamar ColeAttorneyCounsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselTodd M. BriggsAttorneyCounsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmConrad Metlitzky Kane LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmMann, Tindel & Thompson Attorneys at LawLaw FirmRepresenting Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmSLC Trial Law, PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Alan D AlbrightJudgeTexas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“In accordance with ECF No. 377 which GRANTED Summary Judgment of Noninfringement for U.S. Patent No. 9,088,493, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: 1. Claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,088,493 (“the ’493 patent”)— as well as claims dependent on these aforementioned claims— are not infringed by Defendant SALESFORCE, INC. F/K/A SALESFORCE.COM, INC. 2. As Counsel was directly notified of before they elected to file their premature appeal, this FINAL JUDGMENT starts the time for filing any post-trial motions or appeal.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 6:20-cv-01170, Texas Western District Court

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.

PACER case 6:20-cv-01170 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US9088493B2 — Network path-selection and routing technology

Publication No.US9088493B2
Application No.US14/198267
Patent details
ProductNetwork path-selection and routing methods for automated workflow orchestration
Cited in actionDecember 18, 2020

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.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

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.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9088493B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

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.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
WSOU Investments, LLC patent enforcement history, Texas Western case history, WSOU Investments, LLC’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
WSOU v. other tech defendantsNokia-origin PAE campaignsW.D. Texas CRM patent casesJourney automation IP disputes
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What 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.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock full strategic analysis for CRM and cloud software patent risk, including WSOU’s district court campaign patterns and Federal Circuit appeal exposure.
Appeal risk assessmentWSOU campaign mapClaim scope benchmarking
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

WSOU v Salesforce.com — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

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.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.