(24) Litigation and Claims
Intellectual Property Litigation
In September 2006, U.S.-based i2 Technologies US, Inc. and i2 Technologies, Inc. (i2) instituted legal proceedings in the United States against SAP. i2 alleges that SAP’s products and services infringe one or more of the claims in each of seven patents held by i2. In its complaint, i2 seeks unspecified monetary damages and permanent injunctive relief. SAP submitted its answer to the complaint in December 2006. The trial has been scheduled for November 2008.
In October 2006, U.S.-based Sky Technologies LLC (Sky) instituted legal proceedings in the United States against SAP and Oracle. Sky alleges that SAP’s products and services infringe one or more of the claims in each of five patents held by Sky. In its complaint, Sky seeks unspecified monetary damages and permanent injunctive relief. SAP submitted its answer to the complaint in January 2007. The Markman hearing was held in June 2007. The trial has been scheduled for October 2008.
In January 2007, German-based CSB-Systems AG (CSB) instituted legal proceedings in Germany against SAP. CSB alleges that SAP’s products and services infringe one or more of the claims of a German patent and a German utility model held by CSB. In its complaint, CSB has set the amount in dispute at €1 million and is seeking permanent injunctive relief. In these proceedings CSB is not precluded from requesting damages in excess of the amount in dispute. In July 2007, SAP filed its response in the legal proceedings including a nullity action and cancellation proceedings against the patent and utility model, respectively.
The infringement hearing has been re-scheduled for April
2009. Hearings for the nullity and cancellation proceedings
have not yet been scheduled.
In March 2007, U.S.-based Oracle Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries (‘’Oracle’’) instituted legal proceedings in the United States against TomorrowNow, Inc. and its parent company, SAP America, Inc. and SAP America’s parent company SAP AG (“SAP”). Oracle filed an amended complaint in June 2007. As amended, the lawsuit alleges copyright infringement, violations of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, unfair competition, intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, and civil conspiracy. The lawsuit alleges that SAP unlawfully copied and misappropriated proprietary, copyrighted software products and other confidential materials developed by Oracle to service its own customers. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages including punitive damages. In July 2007, SAP and TomorrowNow filed their answer. The trial has been scheduled for February 2009. Additionally, in June 2007, SAP became aware that the United States Department of Justice had opened an investigation concerning related issues and had issued subpoenas to SAP and TomorrowNow; SAP and TomorrowNow are cooperating with the investigation and are responding to the original subpoenas and additional subpoenas issued by the Department of Justice.
In April 2007, U.S.-based Disc Link Corporation (Disc Link) instituted legal proceedings in the United States against SAP and 27 other defendants. Disc Link alleges that SAP’s products infringe one or more of the claims of a single patent held by Disc Link. SAP and Disc Link have resolved this dispute for an amount immaterial to SAP’s business, financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.
In April 2007, U.S.-based Versata Software, Inc. (formerly Trilogy Software, Inc.) (Versata) instituted legal proceedings in the United States against SAP. Versata alleges that SAP’s products and services infringe one or more of the claims in each of five patents held by Versata. In its complaint, Versata seeks unspecified monetary damages and permanent injunctive relief. SAP submitted its answer to the complaint in July 2007. The trial has been scheduled for August 2009.
In June 2007, SAP initiated legal proceedings, in the form of a declaratory judgment action, against U.S.-based Emergis Technologies (Emergis) in the United States. In the Declaratory Judgment action, SAP seeks a declaration by the court that an Emergis patent is invalid and unenforceable, and that SAP’s products and services do not infringe one or more of the claims of the patent held by Emergis. SAP and Emergis have resolved this dispute for an amount that is immaterial to SAP’s Consolidated Financial Statements.
In August 2007, U.S.-based elcommerce.com, Inc. (elcommerce) instituted legal proceedings in the United States against SAP. elcommerce alleges that SAP’s products and services infringe one or more of the claims in one patent held by elcommerce. In its complaint, elcommerce seeks unspecified monetary damages and permanent injunctive relief. SAP submitted its answer to the complaint in December 2007. A trial date has not yet been set.
August 2007, SAP instituted legal proceedings in the United States against i2. SAP alleges that i2’s products infringe one or more of the claims in each of two patents held by SAP. In its complaint, SAP seeks unspecified monetary damages and permanent injunctive relief. i2 submitted its answer to the complaint in October 2007. In March 2008, SAP requested permission from the Court to amend its complaint and add a third patent to the proceedings. The trial has been scheduled for March 2009.
In November 2007, U.S.-based Diagnostic Systems Corp. (DSC) instituted legal proceedings in the United States against SAP and several other defendants. DSC alleges that SAP’s products and services infringe one or more of the claims in one patent held by DSC. In its complaint, DSC seeks unspecified monetary damages and permanent injunctive relief. SAP submitted its answer to the complaint in December 2007. A trial date has not yet been set.
We will continue to vigorously defend against the claims. We make a provision for a liability for such matters when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. We currently believe that resolving these claims, individually or in aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on SAP’s business, financial position, income, or cash flows. Consequently, the provisions currently recorded for these claims and suits are neither individually nor in aggregate material to SAP. Any litigation, however, involves potential risk and potentially significant litigation costs, and therefore there can be no assurance that these actions would not have a material adverse effect on SAP’s business, financial position, income, or cash flows. Due to the inherent uncertainties of the actions outlined above we currently cannot make an estimate of the possible loss in case of an unfavorable outcome.
Other Litigation
In October 2006, South African-based Systems Applications Consultants (PTY) Limited (Securinfo) informed us that it had filed a lawsuit against SAP at the High Court of South Africa alleging that SAP has breached a software distribution agreement with Securinfo. In its complaint, Securinfo sought damages of approximately €496 million and relief preventing SAP from breaching its agreement with Securinfo. In May 2007 Securinfo has waived the action.
In January 2008, U.S.-based Acorn Systems, Inc. (‘’Acorn’’) instituted legal proceedings in the United States against SAP AG and SAP Global Marketing, Inc. (“SAP”). Acorn filed an amended complaint in March 2008. As amended, the lawsuit alleges breach of contract, fraud and fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, misappropriation of trade secrets, violations of the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act of 1983, and unfair competition. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages, although Acorn alleges in the complaint that it has suffered at least $116 million damages. In February 2008, SAP filed a response to the original complaint.
In March 2008, SAP instituted legal proceedings against Acorn in the Commercial Court of Brussels asking the Court to declare, inter alia, that SAP had not breached the contract, SAP did not commit fraud and that SAP had not misappropriated Acorn trade secrets.
We are also subject to a variety of other claims and suits that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of our business. We make a provision for a liability for such matters when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. We currently believe that resolving these claims and suits, individually or in aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on SAP’s business, financial position, income, or cash flows. Consequently, the provisions currently recorded for these claims and suits are neither individually nor in aggregate material to SAP. However, these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and our view of these matters may change in the future.
