Speech Transcription LLC v. Stellar Cyber Inc. — Dismissed With Prejudice
Speech Transcription, LLC asserted US8938799B2 — a patent covering security protection apparatus and methods for endpoint computing systems — against Stellar Cyber Inc. in the Northern District of California. The case closed after just 116 days when the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its own claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), permanently extinguishing its right to refile.
An endpoint security patent case that ended before it began
Speech Transcription, LLC filed suit against Stellar Cyber Inc. on 23 June 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, before Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. The sole patent asserted was US8938799B2, directed at a security protection apparatus and method for endpoint computing systems — a technology domain directly relevant to Stellar Cyber’s extended detection and response (XDR) security platform.
On 17 October 2025, just 116 days after filing, Speech Transcription filed a voluntary notice of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing the entire action with prejudice. Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the merits: the plaintiff is permanently barred from asserting the same claims against Stellar Cyber arising from the same patent. Stellar Cyber obtained a full release from the litigation without any public record of a trial, judgment, or damages award.
The sub-four-month resolution is notably swift even for early-exit patent cases in the Northern District of California. A dismissal at this stage — before any substantive briefing deadline would typically have concluded — suggests a possible confidential settlement, a licensing agreement reached under the pressure of litigation, or a strategic reassessment by the plaintiff. The public record does not disclose any consideration exchanged, and the terms, if any, remain private.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 116 days
116 days — resolved well before the typical 2–3 year N.D. Cal. patent trial timeline
Dismissed with prejudice: what Rule 41 finality means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit, with a permanent cost
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The critical qualifier here is ‘with prejudice’ — voluntarily added by Speech Transcription. That election converts what would otherwise be a dismissal without prejudice (allowing refiling) into a final, res judicata bar against the same claims on the same patent against Stellar Cyber.
Voluntary dismissal — permanent barSpeech Transcription surrenders its right to refile against Stellar Cyber
By stipulating ‘with prejudice,’ Speech Transcription, LLC permanently foreclosed its ability to reassert US8938799B2 against Stellar Cyber Inc. in any future action on the same grounds. This is an unusually strong concession for a plaintiff to make unilaterally. It may reflect a negotiated settlement in which Stellar Cyber demanded a prejudice designation as a condition of any agreement, or it may signal a commercial resolution that renders further litigation commercially unnecessary.
No right to refileStellar Cyber exits cleanly — no judgment, no public liability
Stellar Cyber Inc. achieved a full exit from the litigation without any court-entered finding of infringement, validity, or damages. The with-prejudice designation additionally provides Stellar Cyber with a permanent defense if Speech Transcription — or an assignee of US8938799B2 — were ever to attempt to reassert the same patent on the same factual basis. No defendant law firm is recorded on the public docket at time of closure, which is consistent with an early negotiated resolution.
Clean exit — permanent defense securedEarly endpoint security cases often settle before claim construction
In the Northern District of California, the 116-day window here falls before most substantive milestones — initial case management, claim construction scheduling, or early motion practice. Cases resolving this quickly in the cybersecurity and endpoint protection space typically suggest a licensing transaction or nuisance-value settlement. Other XDR and endpoint security vendors should note that US8938799B2 remains active and enforceable against parties other than Stellar Cyber.
Patent remains enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Speech Transcription, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8938799B2 covering endpoint security protectionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Stellar Cyber Inc. | Company | Stellar Cyber Inc. — cybersecurity company offering an AI-driven XDR security platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen Michael Lobbin | Attorney | Counsel for Speech Transcription, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | SML Avvocati PC | Law Firm | Representing Speech Transcription, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley | Judge | California Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — the procedural vehicle available to a plaintiff before the defendant has filed an answer or summary judgment motion, requiring no court approval. The voluntary addition of ‘with prejudice’ is the operative phrase: it elevates what would be a procedural withdrawal into a final adjudication on the merits by consent. No court findings on infringement, validity, or claim scope were made. For Stellar Cyber, the filing functions as a permanent shield against re-assertion of this patent by this plaintiff on these facts.
US8938799B2 — Security Protection for Endpoint Computing Systems
US8938799B2 was filed under application number US11/597486 and issued as a granted U.S. patent covering a security protection apparatus and method specifically directed at endpoint computing systems. The patent sits within the cybersecurity domain, addressing the architecture and methodology for protecting individual endpoints — devices such as workstations, servers, or network-connected nodes — from security threats. Endpoint protection is a foundational layer of modern enterprise security infrastructure.
The patent’s strategic relevance in 2025 is heightened by the rapid proliferation of XDR (extended detection and response) and EDR (endpoint detection and response) platforms. Stellar Cyber’s product suite directly addresses endpoint-level threat detection, making it a commercially logical enforcement target. The patent remains active and enforceable against the broader market: any vendor offering security apparatus or software methods that operate at the endpoint computing layer should assess their exposure. The fact that Speech Transcription was willing to dismiss with prejudice for one defendant does not signal the patent is unchallenged — it signals a resolved commercial relationship with one party.
Should your endpoint security product be cleared against US8938799B2?
If your organisation develops, sells, or integrates security software or hardware operating at the endpoint computing layer — including EDR agents, XDR platforms, endpoint firewalls, or host-based intrusion prevention systems — US8938799B2 is a patent you should have on your FTO radar. The claim set covers apparatus and methods for endpoint protection broadly, and the patent’s enforcement against an XDR vendor demonstrates that the holder is willing to litigate in the Northern District of California.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map the independent and dependent claims of US8938799B2 against your product architecture automatically. Eureka identifies claim-by-claim overlap with your technical stack, surfaces prior art that could support an IPR petition if needed, and flags related continuations or family members that may extend the patent’s reach. Running this analysis now — before a demand letter arrives — is considerably more cost-effective than responding under litigation pressure.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8938799B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar endpoint security patent cases in N.D. California
Explore related patent infringement actions asserting endpoint security and cybersecurity method patents before the Northern District of California federal court.
What this case signals for the endpoint security IP landscape
A swift with-prejudice exit in N.D. Cal. rarely means the patent is dead — it means one defendant is safe.
US8938799B2 remains a live threat to other endpoint security vendors
The with-prejudice dismissal resolves only Speech Transcription’s claims against Stellar Cyber. The patent itself — covering security protection apparatus and methods for endpoint computing systems — remains in force and fully assertable against other XDR, EDR, and endpoint security providers. Any company in this space should treat this case as a signal to audit their exposure to US8938799B2.
Early N.D. Cal. dismissals with prejudice typically reflect a deal — not a weakness
A plaintiff that dismisses with prejudice just 116 days after filing in the Northern District of California has almost certainly received something in return. The voluntary nature and speed of exit is more consistent with a licensing agreement or settlement payment than with a unilateral retreat. IP teams should not interpret this outcome as evidence of a weak patent claim.
Speech v Stellar — key questions answered
In this case, Speech Transcription filed a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and elected to dismiss with prejudice. This permanently bars Speech Transcription from reasserting the same claims under US8938799B2 against Stellar Cyber Inc. in any future proceeding. It is a final disposition on the merits by consent, not a finding by the court.
US8938799B2 is a granted U.S. patent filed under application US11/597486. It covers a security protection apparatus and method for endpoint computing systems — technology relevant to modern EDR and XDR security platforms. The patent remains active and enforceable against defendants other than Stellar Cyber Inc.
The public record does not disclose the reason. However, a with-prejudice voluntary dismissal at this early stage — before substantive motion practice in N.D. Cal. — is typically consistent with a confidential settlement or licensing agreement. It is less commonly associated with a unilateral retreat, as plaintiffs who lack confidence in their claims tend to dismiss without prejudice to preserve optionality.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal is defendant-specific. US8938799B2 remains a valid, enforceable patent against all other parties. Vendors in the endpoint security, XDR, and EDR markets who were not party to this action retain full exposure and should conduct independent FTO analysis.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:25-cv-05235) and assigned to Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. The Northern District of California is one of the most active venues for technology patent litigation in the United States.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.