Speech Transcription LLC v. SentinelOne: Venue Transfer to N.D. California in 62 Days
Speech Transcription LLC filed a patent infringement action against cybersecurity firm SentinelOne in Florida’s Southern District, asserting US8938799B2 against the Singularity XDR system. Within 62 days, both parties jointly stipulated to transfer the case to the Northern District of California — one of the most patent-active venues in the US.
Joint venue transfer signals likely home-court advantage play in Silicon Valley
Speech Transcription LLC filed suit against SentinelOne, Inc. on 29 December 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 0:23-cv-62432), asserting infringement of US8938799B2. The patent-in-suit relates to speech transcription technology, and the accused product is SentinelOne’s Singularity XDR platform — a widely deployed extended detection and response cybersecurity system.
Before any substantive litigation activity reached a conclusion, both parties filed a Stipulation and Joint Motion to Transfer the Case to the Northern District of California on or around 29 February 2024. Chief Judge Rodney Smith granted the transfer the same day, directing the Clerk to move the matter to N.D. California. The case was formally closed in S.D. Florida after just 62 days, with no merits ruling, no cost award, and no dismissal of underlying claims.
The speed of the transfer — and the joint nature of the stipulation — suggests both parties agreed the Northern District of California was a more appropriate or convenient forum, consistent with SentinelOne’s base in the Bay Area. The public record is silent on whether any licensing discussions were concurrent, and the underlying infringement claims remain live. The substantive merits of the US8938799B2 assertions against Singularity XDR have yet to be tested.
Filing to resolution in 62 days
62 days from filing to transfer — resolved faster than the typical venue dispute in S.D. Florida
What the transfer to N.D. California means for both parties
Joint stipulation transfer: both sides agreed to move venue
A stipulated transfer occurs when plaintiff and defendant jointly ask the court to relocate the case to another district. Unlike a contested transfer motion — where a defendant argues the original forum is inconvenient — a joint stipulation signals mutual agreement. Here, Speech Transcription LLC and SentinelOne both consented to N.D. California, avoiding protracted venue litigation and preserving resources for the substantive dispute.
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) transferN.D. California is among the most patent-sophisticated courts in the US
The Northern District of California — home to San Jose and San Francisco divisions — consistently handles complex technology patent cases and has deep judicial familiarity with software and cybersecurity IP. SentinelOne is headquartered in the Bay Area, making N.D. Cal a logical home forum. For Speech Transcription LLC, agreeing to transfer may reflect a calculation that a merits-focused court benefits a strong patent claim, or may have been a practical concession to secure case momentum.
Patent-heavy tech venueS.D. Florida closure does not end the case — claims remain live
The closure of docket 0:23-cv-62432 in S.D. Florida reflects only an administrative transfer, not a resolution on the merits. The infringement allegations against Singularity XDR under US8938799B2 are now active before a new judge in N.D. California. Neither party has conceded liability, and no damages, injunctive relief, or invalidity findings have been made. The litigation clock effectively restarts under the new court’s scheduling order.
Substantive claims intactEarly transfer typically precedes discovery — key battlegrounds lie ahead
Cases transferred at this early stage — before claim construction, before discovery, and before any Markman hearing — leave the most consequential patent litigation phases ahead. In N.D. California, parties will face Patent Local Rules requiring early disclosure of infringement and invalidity contentions. Observers should watch for SentinelOne’s invalidity contentions and whether an IPR petition follows, as defendants in software patent cases frequently pursue parallel USPTO review.
Discovery and IPR risk aheadFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Speech Transcription, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8938799B2 (speech transcription technology)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Sentinelone, Inc. | Company | SentinelOne, Inc. — publicly traded cybersecurity company, developer of Singularity XDR platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Barbara A. Stern | Attorney | Counsel for Speech Transcription, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Randall Thomas Garteiser | Attorney | Counsel for Speech Transcription, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gene W. Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Sentinelone, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jodi-Ann Rene Tillman | Attorney | Counsel for Sentinelone, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph William Bain | Attorney | Counsel for Sentinelone, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Smith | Chief Judge | Florida Southern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The court’s order is purely procedural — it grants a joint stipulation to transfer and directs the Clerk to move the case to N.D. California. There is no finding on infringement, validity, or damages. The phrasing ‘upon consideration… is GRANTED’ is standard administrative language. For both parties, the S.D. Florida docket closes without prejudice to any substantive right; the case continues in full under new California docket management.
US8938799B2 — Speech Transcription Technology
US8938799B2 (application number US11/597486) is a granted US patent in the speech transcription domain. The patent covers technology related to the automated conversion or processing of spoken language into structured data or text. Speech transcription patents of this era typically address system architectures for capturing, processing, and outputting voice input — claims that, depending on scope, may read onto software platforms that incorporate audio processing, voice command, or logging functionality, including enterprise security and monitoring tools.
The strategic significance of this patent lies in its assertion against a cybersecurity platform rather than a traditional voice or telephony product. This cross-vertical assertion suggests the patent holder believes at least some claims of US8938799B2 are broad enough to encompass data processing or audio-handling features within SentinelOne’s Singularity XDR architecture. For competitors operating in the XDR, SIEM, or enterprise monitoring space, this case is an important signal that speech-tech IP may now represent an unexpected vector of infringement risk.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US8938799B2?
If your product team builds or maintains a cybersecurity platform, enterprise monitoring system, or any software incorporating voice input, audio logging, or transcription-adjacent features, the assertion of US8938799B2 against SentinelOne’s Singularity XDR makes a freedom-to-operate review directly relevant. The case signals that patent holders are actively mapping this patent’s claims against non-traditional targets in enterprise security — meaning prior assumptions about your product’s FTO status may need revisiting.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows you to map the claims of US8938799B2 against your product’s feature set and identify prior art that may be used in invalidity arguments or design-arounds. Eureka’s claim monitoring tools can also alert you if continuation patents in the same family are filed or granted, ensuring you’re not caught off-guard by evolving claim scope as this litigation progresses in N.D. California.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8938799B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases in speech tech and cybersecurity
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the cybersecurity and speech-tech IP landscape
A speech transcription patent asserted against an XDR platform raises novel questions about patent scope in AI-adjacent security products.
Speech-tech patents are increasingly being asserted against non-traditional targets
The assertion of a speech transcription patent (US8938799B2) against SentinelOne’s Singularity XDR — a cybersecurity detection platform — suggests patent assertion entities are identifying unexpected claim reads in security and AI-adjacent software. Cybersecurity product teams should audit whether voice or transcription features embedded in their platforms create exposure to this patent family.
Joint transfers to N.D. Cal before discovery often precede IPR filings
When a well-resourced defendant like SentinelOne (represented by Perkins Coie LLP) consents to transfer rather than fighting venue, it frequently signals the defendant prefers N.D. California’s procedures — including its familiarity with PTAB-parallel strategies. Companies monitoring this space should watch for an inter partes review petition against US8938799B2 in the months following transfer.
Speech v Sentinelone — key questions answered
The case was filed on 29 December 2023 in S.D. Florida, asserting US8938799B2 against SentinelOne’s Singularity XDR platform. Both parties jointly stipulated to transfer the case to the Northern District of California, and Chief Judge Rodney Smith granted the transfer on 29 February 2024. The S.D. Florida docket was closed after 62 days with no merits ruling.
US8938799B2 is a granted US patent in the speech transcription technology domain (application no. US11/597486). Speech Transcription LLC alleged that SentinelOne’s Singularity XDR system infringed this patent. The specific claim mapping has not been publicly litigated to date, as the case was transferred before substantive proceedings began.
No. The transfer is a procedural step agreed to by both parties — it is not a ruling on the merits. The infringement claims remain active in the Northern District of California. SentinelOne has not been found liable or non-liable, and no damages, invalidity findings, or injunctions have been issued.
SentinelOne is headquartered in the San Francisco Bay Area, making N.D. California a natural home forum. For the plaintiff, consenting to transfer may reflect a strategic preference for a court with deep patent expertise, or a practical decision to avoid a contested transfer motion. Joint transfers of this kind typically occur early in litigation when venue efficiency is a shared interest.
Speech Transcription LLC was represented by Garteiser Honea PLLC and the Law Office of Barbara Stern PA, with attorneys Randall Thomas Garteiser and Barbara A. Stern named on the docket. SentinelOne was represented by Perkins Coie LLP and Shutts & Bowen LLP, with attorneys Gene W. Lee, Jodi-Ann Rene Tillman, and Joseph William Bain appearing for the defence.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.