o9 vs. SAP Lawsuit: 22,000-File Download and Trade Secret Claims

The o9 SAP lawsuit is a trade secret case filed on November 25, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in which Dallas-based supply chain AI company o9 Solutions accuses SAP SE and three former o9 executives of orchestrating the theft of more than 22,000 confidential files to clone o9’s technology and poach its customers.¹ SAP denies wrongdoing. As of June 2026, three motions to dismiss are pending before District Judge Sam A. Lindsay, and no substantive ruling has been entered.²

Who Is Being Sued and Why

The complaint names SAP SE along with three Dutch nationals who had held senior positions at o9’s European operations: Stephan de Barse, Stijn-Pieter van Houten, and Sean Zonneveld.¹ Each moved directly from o9 to a senior role at SAP:

De Barse was o9’s Chief Revenue Officer from August 2018 until his resignation on January 3, 2025, with an effective departure date of February 28, 2025. He joined SAP as President of its Global Business Suite. More than thirty of o9’s management leaders had reported to him.
Zonneveld was o9’s Global Senior Vice President from July 2019 until May 30, 2025, then became SAP’s Global Chief Revenue Officer for Procurement.
Van Houten was a Senior Vice President and Knowledge Innovation Lead at o9 from September 2020 until May 30, 2025, then became SAP’s Chief Product Officer for Supply Chain Management Planning.³

o9 alleges SAP launched an “aggressive campaign” starting in late 2024 to gut o9’s leadership and obtain its most sensitive intellectual property because SAP’s own platform was “outdated” and losing ground.⁴ The complaint further alleges that the three defendants recruited numerous other o9 executives and senior employees to follow them to SAP during the first half of 2025.

The Alleged 22,000-File Download

According to the complaint, van Houten and Zonneveld collectively downloaded more than 22,000 files from o9’s Google shared drives between December 1, 2024 and May 30, 2025. The download volumes were “very unusual” and far exceeded the employees’ normal activity.³ Several spikes stand out:

December 30, 2024: van Houten downloaded over 9,000 files in a single day.
January 1, 2025: van Houten downloaded another 2,690 files.
January 3, 2025, the same day de Barse submitted his resignation: Zonneveld downloaded more than 1,200 files.
January 31, 2025: Zonneveld downloaded over 530 files specifically related to Henkel, described in the complaint as a former top o9 client.⁵

The complaint alleges Zonneveld sent himself reminder emails to “Download Spullen,” the Dutch word for “stuff,” on December 30 and 31, 2024. It also alleges the defendants tried to cover their tracks by deleting records of emails, phone calls, and meetings with SAP.³

o9 points to one email as evidence of coordination: on February 4, 2025, four days after Zonneveld downloaded the Henkel files, de Barse (already at SAP) emailed SAP leadership with the subject line “Alignment Henkel.”⁵

What the Files Allegedly Contained

o9 claims the downloaded materials included the technical architecture and design of its Enterprise Knowledge Graph, product roadmaps for 2024 and 2025, customer-specific project strategies and implementation designs, pricing data, internal sales and marketing playbooks, competitive intelligence comparing o9 to SAP IBP, and detailed client account plans.⁴

Legal Claims and Damages Sought

o9 brought claims under four legal theories: violation of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, violation of the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, breach of contract arising from confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-solicitation, and stock option agreements the individual defendants signed, and tortious interference.⁵

The federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, enacted in 2016, allows companies to sue in federal court when trade secrets connected to interstate commerce are stolen. If a court finds the misappropriation was willful and malicious, it can award exemplary damages of up to double the actual damages, plus attorney fees.⁶ The Texas statute offers similar remedies, including injunctions, actual damages, disgorgement of profits, and doubled exemplary damages on proof of willfulness by clear and convincing evidence.⁷

The complaint does not name a specific dollar figure. o9 is seeking compensatory damages for lost profits and goodwill, punitive damages, disgorgement of unjust enrichment, reasonable royalties, attorney fees, and injunctive relief to stop SAP from possessing or using the files and to halt the solicitation of o9’s customers and employees.⁵

SAP’s Response

SAP has publicly denied the allegations. A company spokesperson said at the time of filing that SAP would “review o9’s complaint and respond, as appropriate, within the legal process.”⁴

In January 2026, roughly two months after the suit was filed, reports emerged that SAP had separated from all three former o9 executives. An SAP spokesperson confirmed that “three people are currently leaving the company” but said an internal review “had not revealed any evidence of misconduct on the company’s part.” SAP also argued that the Texas court lacks jurisdiction because the three individuals are Dutch citizens who moved between Dutch offices, not American ones.⁸

Where the Case Stands

The case (No. 3:25-cv-03245) is assigned to District Judge Sam A. Lindsay, with Magistrate Judge David L. Horan handling pretrial matters. Three motions to dismiss are pending:

A forum non conveniens motion arguing the case should be heard in the Netherlands rather than Texas.
Two separate motions challenging the legal sufficiency of o9’s complaint for failure to state a claim, one of which also requests a more definite statement of the allegations.²

On May 26, 2026, Magistrate Judge Horan offered the parties the option to consent to having him issue binding rulings on these motions rather than recommendations to Judge Lindsay. No substantive ruling has been entered.²

Why the Case Matters

o9 and SAP are two of the dominant vendors, alongside Kinaxis, in a supply chain planning software market projected to reach $32 billion by 2026.⁹ o9, valued at $3.7 billion, has been aggressively courting SAP’s legacy customers, and the allegedly stolen files strike at the core of what differentiates its Digital Brain platform from SAP’s Integrated Business Planning tool.¹⁰

The dispute carries echoes of earlier trade secret battles. Waymo sued Uber in 2017 over a former engineer who allegedly took nearly 14,000 files related to self-driving car technology; that case settled during trial for equity valued at roughly $244 million.¹¹ SAP has been on the receiving end of a similar claim before: Oracle sued SAP in 2007 over the mass downloading of software by SAP’s subsidiary TomorrowNow, resulting in years of litigation.¹²

1
Supply Chain Brain. AI Firm Accuses SAP of Stealing Supply Chain Trade Secrets
2
PACER Monitor. o9 Solutions Inc v. SAP SE et al
3
o9 Solutions. Complaint by o9 Solutions
4
D Magazine. Dallas Tech Firm o9 Solutions Accuses SAP of a Coordinated Attack in Trade Secrets Lawsuit
5
FreightWaves. o9 Solutions Accuses SAP of Trade Secret Theft in High-Stakes Supply Chain Software Dispute
6
Cornell Law Institute. 18 U.S. Code § 1836
7
Fort Worth Law Reporter. Trade Secrets Under Texas Law
8
Heise Online. Stolen o9 Trade Secrets: SAP Dismisses Three Executives
9
Bolders Consulting Group. SAP IBP vs Competitors
10
Contrary Research. o9 Solutions
11
Butzel Long. Waymo v. Uber Epic Trade Secret Case Settles for $244 Million
12
Pinsent Masons. Oracle Makes Additional Court Claims About Alleged SAP Misbehaviour