Some links on this page are affiliate links: if you buy through them we may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you.
The U.S. Supreme Court denied SAP SE’s petition for review on October 6, 2025, leaving intact a Ninth Circuit ruling that allowed Teradata’s antitrust and trade-secret claims to proceed. But the expected trial never took place: SAP and Teradata settled on February 19, 2026, and the remaining claims were dismissed with prejudice on March 20, 2026.
What the Supreme Court decided
The case was SAP SE v. Teradata Corp., No. 24-1324. The Supreme Court denied SAP’s petition for a writ of certiorari, according to the Court’s docket.
That was a procedural decision, not a ruling on the underlying antitrust or trade-secret allegations. The Court did not issue a merits opinion, find that SAP violated U.S. law, or endorse every aspect of the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning. It simply declined to hear SAP’s appeal.
Recommended Free Tools
The denial meant that the Ninth Circuit’s decision remained operative and that Teradata’s revived claims could continue in the district court.
#1 Best Overall
What the Ninth Circuit had ruled
On December 19, 2024, the Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for SAP. The court held that Teradata had presented disputes that could not be resolved before trial, including questions about:
- whether SAP’s licensing practices unlawfully tied products;
- whether SAP had sufficient market power in the alleged tying market;
- whether the alleged conduct caused substantial anticompetitive effects; and
- whether SAP misappropriated Teradata trade secrets or used shared information beyond the parties’ agreements.
The decision did not establish liability. It meant only that Teradata’s claims had enough evidentiary support to proceed. The Ninth Circuit opinion therefore revived the litigation rather than deciding its final outcome.
The software-tying dispute
Teradata alleged that SAP used its position in enterprise-resource-planning software to tie SAP’s HANA database products to S/4HANA offerings.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →In the alleged arrangement, S/4HANA was the tying product and SAP HANA—including runtime and full-use database licenses—was the tied product. Teradata claimed that customers’ access to or use of S/4HANA was conditioned on purchasing or using HANA, disadvantaging competing enterprise data-warehouse providers such as Teradata.
SAP argued that the Ninth Circuit had applied the wrong legal framework to technologically integrated software products. In its certiorari petition, SAP urged the Supreme Court to clarify whether the rule of reason—not a per se approach—should govern this kind of software-tying claim.
The issue was significant because modern enterprise products can be deeply integrated while still being separately licensed, sold, or used. A ruling could have affected how courts evaluate alleged tying involving software ecosystems, platform compatibility, bundled functionality, and downstream foreclosure.
However, the Supreme Court’s denial left those broader questions unresolved. It did not create a nationwide rule that all integrated software tying claims should be analyzed under either the per se rule or the rule of reason.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
The trade-secret allegations
Teradata also accused SAP of misappropriating technical information related to Teradata’s “batched merge” method, which concerns the efficient aggregation of large data batches.
The Ninth Circuit identified triable questions about whether Teradata properly designated the method as confidential, whether SAP’s use was allowed under the parties’ agreements, and whether the information qualified for trade-secret protection. Again, the court did not find that SAP had misappropriated a legally protected trade secret.
Why a trial appeared likely after the denial
The litigation’s procedural path suggested that the case would return to trial:
- The district court granted summary judgment for SAP.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed that ruling on December 19, 2024.
- The Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc on March 4, 2025.
- The mandate returned the case to the district court on April 1, 2025.
- SAP filed its Supreme Court petition on June 2, 2025.
- The Supreme Court denied review on October 6, 2025.
Teradata disclosed that the district court had scheduled trial to begin on April 13, 2026. At that point, the Supreme Court’s denial had removed SAP’s principal appellate obstacle to moving forward.
But a scheduled trial is not the same as a trial that occurred. The case changed course before the April date.
The $480 million settlement
SAP and Teradata entered a settlement agreement on February 19, 2026. Teradata’s SEC disclosures state that the agreement resolved all past and pending litigation between the companies and included mutual releases covering asserted or potentially assertable claims and liabilities.
SAP paid Teradata a gross amount of $480 million. Teradata reported approximately $359 million in net cash proceeds before taxes after legal and settlement-related expenses of about $121 million. SAP separately reported the payment as approximately €408 million in its financial disclosures.
On March 20, 2026, the remaining claims, defenses, and counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice. The relevant disclosures are available in Teradata’s SEC filing, its first-quarter 2026 results, and SAP’s first-quarter disclosure.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
What the settlement does—and does not—mean
The settlement ended the litigation, but it did not produce a jury verdict or a final judicial finding that SAP violated antitrust or trade-secret law. Nor did it establish that Teradata would have won at trial.
Best Value
Likewise, the $480 million figure is a gross settlement payment, not Teradata’s after-tax profit from the case. The company’s reported net cash benefit was lower because of legal and settlement-related costs, and taxes were not included in the approximately $359 million figure.
The most accurate description is that Teradata defeated SAP’s effort to end the claims at summary judgment, survived SAP’s attempt to obtain Supreme Court review, and then resolved the dispute through a negotiated settlement before trial.
Related appellate background
The case also involved a jurisdictional complication because SAP had patent counterclaims. The Federal Circuit initially addressed the appellate route and transferred the relevant appeal to the Ninth Circuit after determining that SAP’s patent counterclaims were not compulsory counterclaims arising from the same transaction or occurrence. The Federal Circuit opinion provides that background.
That jurisdictional history helps explain why the case passed through multiple appellate courts, but it does not change the ultimate result: the Supreme Court declined review, and the parties later settled.
Current status
As of 2026, there was no Teradata-SAP antitrust trial. The April 13, 2026 trial date was overtaken by the February settlement, and the remaining claims were dismissed with prejudice on March 20.
The Supreme Court’s action therefore mattered as a step in the case’s history, not as a final decision on the legality of SAP’s software practices. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling allowed Teradata to pursue its claims, but the settlement ended the dispute before a court or jury could decide whether SAP’s conduct was unlawful.
Quick Recap
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.
