German software giant SAP has agreed to pay Teradata $480 million to end a long-simmering dispute between the companies, including claims that SAP violated antitrust law and stole trade secrets, along with patent infringement claims against Teradata.

Teradata said in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday that it has entered into a settlement agreement with SAP to resolve all past and pending litigation between the companies.

As a result of the deal, the filing said SAP has agreed to pay $480 million, with Teradata expecting to see between $355 million and $362 million after legal fees and expenses. Additional terms of the settlement were not immediately available.

SAP and Teradata provided identical statements when asked for comment on the settlement Tuesday, saying the companies have agreed to dismiss all pending litigation.

"The parties will each make such accounting or other disclosures as required, and will otherwise have no other comment on their agreement," the statements said.

The deal comes after the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition from SAP in October that sought review of a Ninth Circuit ruling that revived Teradata's claims.

Teradata alleged in its 2018 suit that SAP stole its enterprise data analytics software trade secrets when the two companies worked together in 2008 and used those secrets to build the HANA database. The suit alleges SAP then tied the database to its other products to block competition from Teradata's analytical database services.

SAP has counterclaims for patent infringement in the case as well.

U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick trimmed claims from both sides in 2021, but a Ninth Circuit panel later overruled the ruling on Teradata's claims, finding there were key areas of dispute regarding market effects and confidential information.

SAP argued in its Supreme Court petition that the appeals panel improperly applied a per se analysis instead of the rule of reason to the tying claim, which alleges that SAP required its customers to purchase its enterprise resource management software and database services together.

Per se antitrust claims involve conduct that's assumed to be illegal, while claims under the rule of reason are analyzed to balance any alleged harm against any benefits. The petition said the panel also wrongly held that a software product cannot qualify as "integrated" if the allegedly tied item is sold separately.

Teradata argued in a response to the petition that no review is needed because the tying claim is bound for trial regardless of what legal standard applies since the Ninth Circuit found triable disputes under both a per se and rule-of-reasons analysis.

The justices denied the petition without explanation in October.

SAP is represented by Kannon Shanmugam, William Marks, Abigail Vice, Anna Lipin, Mikaela Milligan, William Michael and Anna Stapleton of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Brian Stekloff, Emily Clarke and Moira Penza of Wilkinson Stekloff LLP, Tharan Lanier, Catherine Zeng, Nathaniel Garrett, Gregory Castanias, Joshua Fuchs, Joseph Beauchamp, H. Albert Liou and Justin White of Jones Day, and Roy Chamcharas, John Vandenberg, Klaus Hamm, Kristin Cleveland, Kyle Rinehart and Mark Wilson of Klarquist Sparkman LLP.

Teradata is represented by Deanne Maynard, Brian Matsui, Mark Whitaker and Alex Avvocato of Morrison Foerster LLP.

The case is Teradata Corp. et al. v. SAP SE et al., case number 3:18-cv-03670, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.