SAP America Seeks Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement Against PulseLink and Signal Point on Seven Patents.

The parties and the court

The case is SAP America, Inc. v. PulseLink Systems, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-08308 (E.D. Pa.), filed October 29, 2026. The docket shows the case assigned to Judge Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro. Plaintiff SAP America, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Newtown Square, Pennsylvania. The complaint says defendants PulseLink Systems, LLC and Signal Point Networks, LLC are Texas limited liability companies formed in February 2026, that their Texas formation records list an entity address in Pennsylvania, and that the same individual is managing member of both. It says a third-party company has acted as the defendants' licensing and enforcement agent, and it alleges, on information and belief, that the defendants' patent acquisition, licensing, and enforcement activities have been directed, controlled, or coordinated from Pennsylvania. Jurisdiction is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202, and venue under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c). SAP's Rule 7.1 disclosure statement identifies its corporate parent.

How the dispute arose, according to the complaint

The complaint says that on May 23, 2026, PulseLink sent SAP a letter identifying a "substantial" portfolio acquired from a prior owner and naming SAP products and services that "appear relevant" to themes in the portfolio. On September 12, 2026, the licensing agent sent a second letter on behalf of PulseLink, Signal Point, and the owners of the patents it identified. According to the complaint, that letter named the seven patents, specific claims, and accused SAP products, called its descriptions "affirmative charges of infringement" under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), reserved induced and contributory infringement, stated that it was intended as actual notice under 35 U.S.C. 287(a), requested preservation of evidence, and offered discussions toward a commercial portfolio license. The complaint defines the Accused Products as the SAP products and services accused in the September 12 letter and related SAP products and services.

The accused products

According to the complaint's description of the September 12 letter, the '981 patent accusations target the SAP Business Technology Platform Cloud Foundry Runtime (claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, and 15); the '385 patent targets SAP Integration Suite, including Cloud Integration integration flows, API Management, Open Connectors, and Integration Advisor (claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, and 11); the '749 patent targets SAP Integration Suite, advanced event mesh (claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 15, and 20); the '634 patent targets SAP Integration Suite Cloud Integration together with SAP Cloud ALM Integration and Exception Monitoring and message tracking (claims 1, 11, 12, 17, 18, and 19); the '030 patent targets SAP Cloud ALM for operations (claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 16); the '830 patent targets SAP HANA Smart Data Integration and a group of other SAP data-integration, replication, and database products (claims 1-8, 12, and 13); and the '915 patent targets SAP Joule realtime voice agents and intelligent voice capabilities embedded in SAP applications (claims 1, 2, 3, 8, and 9).

The patents

The complaint says PulseLink purports to own the '981, '385, '749, and '634 patents, and Signal Point purports to own the '030, '830, and '915 patents, after March 2026 assignments from a prior owner. Patent titles as stated in the complaint: U.S. Patent 10,782,981, Systems and Methods of Dynamic Port Assignment; U.S. Patent 7,698,385, Method and Apparatus for Designing Web Services Using a Sequence and Multiplex Architectural Pattern; U.S. Patent 9,787,749, Method, Apparatus, and System for Providing and Using Multi-Protocol Eventing; U.S. Patent 9,602,634, Global Session Identifier; U.S. Patent 8,165,030, System and Method for Monitoring a Network Communication at Multiple Network Layers; U.S. Patent 7,660,830, System for Integrating Diverse Database and Maintaining Their Consistency; and U.S. Patent 9,356,915, Enhancing Privacy by Obscuring Traversal Using Relays Around Network Address Translator (TURN) Connections, and Related Methods, Systems, and Computer-Readable Media.

The noninfringement claims

For each Asserted Patent, SAP seeks a declaration of noninfringement. On the '981 patent, the complaint says claims 1, 9, and 15 require dynamically reassigning ports associated with a first node to a second node dependent upon a number of instances of the application, and that the '981 Accused Products do not perform at least those limitations. On the '385 patent, the complaint says claims 1, 7, and 11 require identifying compositional logic of protocol demultiplexers for demultiplexing, sequencing, and multiplexing composite messages and separating that logic from service logic, and that the accused Integration Suite products do not satisfy at least those limitations. Parallel claims for relief make similar noninfringement allegations for the '749, '634, '030, '830, and '915 patents, citing claim limitations from the patent exhibits.

The relief sought

The prayer asks the court to declare that SAP does not directly or indirectly infringe any claim of each of the seven Asserted Patents, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents; to permanently enjoin defendants and those in active concert with them from charging or threatening that any SAP products infringe patents in that acquired portfolio, including the Asserted Patents, under any subsection of 35 U.S.C. 271; to declare the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285 and award reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses; to award costs; and to grant other just and proper relief. SAP demands a jury trial.

What to watch next

Watch for PulseLink's and Signal Point's answers or Rule 12 motions and the scheduling order. Also watch whether the defendants file a separate infringement action on these patents.