A federal judge’s June 30, 2025 ruling dismissed several of Celonis’s antitrust theories against SAP as pleaded, but it did not end the US case. The court also rejected SAP’s request to have German proceedings displace the US action. The original article’s December 7, 2026 trial date is no longer the date reported by SAP: its 2026 half-year report says trial is scheduled to begin September 13, 2027.
What did the judge decide?
Celonis sued SAP SE and SAP America, Inc. in March 2025 in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The case, No. 3:25-cv-02519, is an antitrust action under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2. Judge Vince Chhabria’s June 30, 2025 order granted in part and denied in part SAP’s motion to dismiss.
That is why the ruling was described as a split decision. It was numerically more favorable to SAP in the sense that the court dismissed more accusations than it allowed to proceed, but the order did not dispose of the entire case. A motion-to-dismiss ruling addresses whether claims are sufficiently pleaded at that stage; it is not a finding after trial that SAP did or did not violate antitrust law.
Which claims were dismissed, and what remained?
The July 2, 2025 account of the ruling reported that the court dismissed Celonis’s tying, bundling, predatory-pricing, monopolization and attempted-monopolization theories as then pleaded. The reported deficiencies included inadequate detail about the alleged tie, price and costs, or anticompetitive conduct.
#1 Best Overall
On tying, Celonis alleged that SAP’s data-access rules practically pushed customers toward SAP’s Signavio process-mining product, while also alleging that some methods of extracting data remained available. The court found the tying allegations insufficiently explained in light of those pleadings. This was a decision about the allegations presented, not a factual determination that SAP’s conduct was lawful.
Celonis’s broader allegations were that SAP used restrictions on access to data and its position in enterprise software to disadvantage Celonis and favor Signavio. Those are Celonis’s claims, not findings by the court. The antitrust action was not terminated by the June 2025 order.
Why did the US case continue despite parallel German litigation?
SAP asked the court to defer the US claims to German litigation. Judge Chhabria rejected that forum argument. The June 30, 2025 order stated: “This case concerns the legality of SAP’s conduct under U.S. antitrust law and the effects of that conduct on U.S. consumers and competitors, including Celonis’s U.S. subsidiary.”
The distinction matters: the judge’s decision was not a ruling on the merits of the German proceedings. It rejected the request to have those proceedings displace this US case, which concerned US antitrust law and alleged effects in the United States.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →What has changed since the 2025 report?
The case has continued, and later proceedings changed the picture reported in July 2025. SAP’s 2026 half-year report says it filed patent counterclaims in November 2025 and that, on June 25, 2026, the court allowed Celonis to add trade-secret claims.
| Date or period | Procedural development | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| June 30, 2025 | The court partly granted and partly denied SAP’s motion to dismiss. | Several antitrust theories were dismissed as pleaded, but the US case was not ended. |
| November 2025 | SAP filed patent counterclaims, according to SAP’s 2026 half-year report. | SAP also brought claims against Celonis in the case. |
| June 25, 2026 | The court allowed Celonis to add trade-secret claims, according to SAP’s report. | The case’s claims were not limited to the theories discussed in the 2025 account. |
| As of SAP’s 2026 half-year report | Trial was reported as scheduled to begin September 13, 2027. | This is a later reported date, not a guarantee that no subsequent scheduling order changed it. |
The December 7, 2026 date in the July 2, 2025 article is therefore stale. SAP’s half-year disclosure supplies the later September 13, 2027 date. The Justia docket index cited for the case identifies a retrieval cutoff of September 18, 2026, so the available information does not establish whether the main case’s schedule changed after that cutoff. A September 18, 2026 order in a related Celonis-SAP matter referred that separate case to Judge Chhabria to consider whether it was related; it was not a new merits ruling in this antitrust case.
Rank #4
How much is Celonis seeking?
SAP’s 2026 half-year report says Celonis was seeking around US$70 million in damages in the US antitrust case as of June 30, 2026. That is the amount SAP reported Celonis was seeking, not an award, an agreed valuation or a finding that SAP is liable.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the split ruling does—and does not—establish
- It establishes a procedural outcome: some antitrust theories were dismissed as pleaded, while the US action continued.
- It does not establish liability: the June 2025 decision was not a trial verdict or a finding that SAP violated US antitrust law.
- It did not send the US case to Germany: the judge rejected SAP’s request to defer the US action to German proceedings.
- Later activity expanded the case’s procedural context: SAP reported patent counterclaims, allowed trade-secret claims, a later trial date and Celonis’s claimed damages amount.
The case and schedule details above reflect the identified sources: the July 2, 2025 Tiatra account of the ruling, the June 30, 2025 order as reproduced in an archived document, the Justia docket index with a September 18, 2026 retrieval cutoff, and SAP’s 2026 half-year report. SAP’s report supports the later dates and figures as SAP reported them; it does not independently establish a court finding on the underlying allegations.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsQuick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
