Inside the Trade Secret Lawsuit Accusing SAP of Coordinated File Theft
Dallas-based AI startup o9 Solutions alleges German software giant and three former executives orchestrated a scheme to steal 22,000 confidential files
A federal lawsuit filed in Texas accuses SAP and three former o9 Solutions executives of orchestrating one of the largest trade secret thefts in enterprise software history.
The complaint, filed November 25, 2025, centers on an email with a two-word Dutch subject line: “Download Spullen,” which translates to “Download Stuff.” According to the lawsuit, that New Year’s Eve message marked the beginning of what o9 Solutions describes as a coordinated campaign to steal proprietary information.
The complaint identifies the sender as Sean Zonneveld, then a senior vice president at o9 Solutions, a Dallas-based artificial intelligence company. The lawsuit alleges the recipient was Zonneveld’s personal email account. Over the following months, the complaint claims, Zonneveld allegedly downloaded more than 5,800 confidential files before departing to join SAP.
According to the lawsuit, he was not alone. The complaint alleges two other senior o9 executives departed around the same time and that together, the three allegedly transferred more than 22,000 files containing product designs, customer intelligence, pricing strategies, and competitive analysis. All three now hold leadership positions at SAP, overseeing products that compete with their former employer.
SAP has stated it is “committed to the highest standards of business ethics and respects the intellectual property rights of others” and will review the complaint. The three individual defendants have not publicly commented on the allegations. No court has ruled on the merits of the claims, and all parties are presumed innocent of any wrongdoing unless proven otherwise.
The Competitive Context According to the Lawsuit
The complaint provides context for o9’s allegations by describing competitive dynamics in the supply chain planning software market.
SAP built its business on enterprise resource planning software. The company’s planning tool, Advanced Planning and Optimization, launched in the early 2000s. According to industry commentary cited in the lawsuit, the platform relies on traditional database architecture and offers limited real-time analytical capabilities compared to newer AI-native solutions.
The complaint states that SAP launched Integrated Business Planning in 2013 as its next-generation solution, with a strategy to migrate APO customers to IBP. According to the lawsuit, that migration has faced market resistance. The complaint references concerns about IBP implementations, including what it describes as high costs, long timelines, operational risks, and implementation challenges. The lawsuit also notes that SAP has not provided automated migration tools.
SAP originally planned to retire APO in 2017, according to the complaint. That deadline was extended. By 2020, the company announced it would end APO support by 2027.
o9 Solutions was founded in 2009. The company’s flagship product, called Digital Brain, uses machine learning and a proprietary technology called Enterprise Knowledge Graph. According to company materials cited in the lawsuit, the platform connects data across organizations and enables real-time decision-making.
The complaint states that o9 achieved a $1 billion valuation by 2020, growing to $3.7 billion by 2023. The lawsuit reports that the company achieved 65 percent year-over-year subscription growth in 2022, followed by 47 percent in 2023 and 37 percent in 2024.
What the Lawsuit Alleges Happened
According to the complaint, the alleged scheme began with Stephan de Barse, who served as o9’s Chief Revenue Officer.
The lawsuit states that de Barse joined o9 in 2018 and rose to lead the company’s global sales organization. The complaint alleges that more than 30 managers reported to him, including heads of product, sales, and marketing. According to the filing, this role gave him access to strategic documents including product roadmaps, customer lists, pricing strategies, competitive intelligence, and technical specifications.
The lawsuit claims that SAP’s Chief Operating Officer began communicating with de Barse in November 2024. According to the complaint, senior SAP executives allegedly met with de Barse repeatedly over the following months, including what the lawsuit describes as in-person visits to SAP’s headquarters in Germany.
On December 30, 2024, the lawsuit alleges, de Barse had breakfast with Stijn-Pieter van Houten, o9’s Senior Vice President and Knowledge Innovation Lead. According to the complaint, van Houten oversaw the team responsible for translating o9’s technical capabilities into client solutions.
The complaint alleges that on the same day as this meeting, van Houten downloaded 9,892 files from o9’s systems. The lawsuit further alleges that two days later, on New Year’s Day, he downloaded another 2,690 files while on paid time off.
The complaint characterizes these downloads as anomalous, stating that in the weeks before December 30, van Houten had averaged approximately five downloads per day.
The Alleged “Download Spullen” Email
The lawsuit details similar allegations against Zonneveld.
According to the complaint, on December 30, the same day the lawsuit alleges de Barse and van Houten met, Zonneveld sent a test email to his personal account. The filing alleges that the next day, New Year’s Eve, he sent himself the message with the subject line “Download Spullen.”
The complaint alleges that on January 3, 2025, the day de Barse formally resigned from o9, Zonneveld downloaded 1,293 files. According to the lawsuit, his average download rate in the preceding month had been less than one file per day.
The complaint alleges the downloading continued for months. According to the filing, van Houten allegedly transferred at least 16,055 files and Zonneveld allegedly transferred at least 5,804. The lawsuit claims these materials included technical architecture documents, product roadmaps, customer lists, client-specific project files, sales strategies, and competitive intelligence.
The complaint describes what o9 characterizes as a significant example. According to the lawsuit, on January 31, 2025, Zonneveld allegedly downloaded more than 530 files, at least 300 of which concerned o9’s work with Henkel, the German consumer goods giant. The complaint alleges that four days later, while still employed by o9, de Barse exchanged emails with SAP leadership about “Alignment Henkel.”
The lawsuit notes that months later, de Barse shared an article on LinkedIn announcing that Henkel had partnered with SAP to implement an AI-powered returns management solution. The complaint contends this represents the kind of work o9 had been performing for the same client. SAP has not publicly addressed this specific allegation.
Allegations of File Deletion
The complaint alleges that the defendants attempted to conceal their activities.
According to the lawsuit, on February 19, 2025, Zonneveld met with SAP’s Chief Revenue Officer in Atlanta. The complaint alleges that on the same day, he created folders on his o9 account organized by customer names, containing files he had allegedly been downloading since de Barse’s resignation.
The lawsuit alleges that on the day of his resignation, April 30, 2025, Zonneveld deleted 11,373 documents and 1,312 folders from his o9-issued Google account. According to the complaint, the deleted folders included names such as “o9 features,” “SAP IBP vs. o9,” “APO replacement,” “Pricing Model and FAQ,” and “Architecture.”
The complaint contends that by allegedly deleting these files, the full scope of what was taken cannot be determined.
Allegations Regarding Product Terminology
The lawsuit alleges that SAP incorporated what o9 describes as stolen intelligence into its products and marketing.
According to the complaint, o9 has marketed its Enterprise Knowledge Graph technology since 2018. The lawsuit states this term describes the company’s approach to connecting disparate data sources and enabling real-time analytics.
The complaint alleges that in October 2024, around the time SAP allegedly began approaching o9’s executives, SAP announced plans to launch its own “SAP Knowledge Graph” in the first quarter of 2025. According to the lawsuit, by February 2025, SAP’s marketing materials described the new offering using similar terminology: “Enterprise Knowledge Graph.”
The lawsuit argues this timing was not coincidental, contending that SAP had offered IBP for more than a decade without using that language. The complaint alleges the terminology shift reflects o9’s stolen trade secrets.
SAP has not publicly addressed this specific allegation.
What the Lawsuit Seeks
o9 is asking for preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent SAP and the three executives from using any allegedly stolen information. The company also seeks monetary damages, including punitive damages, for what it describes as lost profits, damaged reputation, and competitive harm.
The case is filed under Case No. 3:25-CV-3245 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. o9 has requested a jury trial.
SAP will file its formal response in the coming weeks. The company may challenge the factual allegations or argue that the information in question does not qualify as protected trade secrets. Discovery will likely produce additional evidence regarding what the executives downloaded, when they communicated with SAP, and how SAP’s product strategy evolved.
Editorial Note: This article reports exclusively on allegations contained in a civil lawsuit filed by o9 Solutions, Inc. against SAP SE, SAP America, Inc., Stephan de Barse, Stijn-Pieter van Houten, and Sean Zonneveld. All claims, characterizations, and descriptions of events described in this article are allegations made by the plaintiff that have not been proven in court and remain disputed.
The defendants have not yet filed formal responses to the complaint. SAP has publicly stated it is “committed to the highest standards of business ethics and respects the intellectual property rights of others.” The individual defendants have not publicly commented on the allegations. All parties are presumed innocent of any wrongdoing unless and until proven otherwise through the legal process.
This article should not be interpreted as a determination or suggestion of wrongdoing by any party. Readers are encouraged to follow the legal proceedings for developments and to consider that the defendants’ perspectives have not yet been fully presented.
 | A guest post by
|