Speech Transcription v. Cybereason: Endpoint Security Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Speech Transcription, LLC filed suit against Cybereason Inc. in the Southern District of California asserting US8938799B2, a patent covering security protection apparatus and methods for endpoint computing systems. The case closed 146 days after filing when the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), permanently extinguishing its claims.
Endpoint Security Patent Suit Ends Permanently After 146 Days
Speech Transcription, LLC filed this patent infringement action on 22 June 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, asserting US8938799B2 against Cybereason Inc. The patent-in-suit relates to a security protection apparatus and method for endpoint computing systems — a technology domain directly relevant to Cybereason’s core cybersecurity product portfolio. Plaintiff was represented by SML Avvocati PC; Cybereason retained DLA Piper, LLP (US).
The case closed on 15 November 2025, just 146 days after it was filed. Plaintiff invoked Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) to voluntarily dismiss the action with prejudice before defendant had served an answer or motion for summary judgment. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits under federal law, meaning Speech Transcription is permanently barred from reasserting these same claims against Cybereason based on US8938799B2.
The speed of resolution — under five months — suggests the parties may have reached a confidential agreement, or that plaintiff concluded early litigation risk outweighed potential recovery. The public record does not disclose any settlement terms, licensing arrangement, or consideration exchanged. Because no answer was filed, no invalidity counterclaims were adjudicated, leaving the patent’s validity formally untested in this proceeding.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 146 days
146 days — resolved well before the typical 2–3 year district court trial timeline
Dismissed with prejudice: what Rule 41 means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right to dismiss, with finality
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant has served an answer or motion for summary judgment. When filed with prejudice, that dismissal operates as a final judgment on the merits. No judicial approval was required here — plaintiff filed a notice and the case closed automatically.
Procedural dismissal — merits not adjudicatedSpeech Transcription permanently extinguishes its claims against Cybereason
By electing dismissal with prejudice, Speech Transcription forecloses any future infringement action against Cybereason based on US8938799B2 for the same accused conduct. This is a materially different outcome from a dismissal without prejudice, which would preserve the right to refile. The with-prejudice designation suggests either a negotiated resolution or a strategic decision that pursuing this defendant further was not viable.
Claims against Cybereason permanently barredCybereason exits without an invalidity ruling — but with permanent protection
Cybereason obtains a durable shield: Speech Transcription cannot relitigate these specific claims. However, because no invalidity counterclaim was adjudicated, the patent US8938799B2 itself remains in force. Cybereason avoided the cost and exposure of full litigation, but other patent holders — or a future assignee of this patent — could still assert it against Cybereason on different grounds or time periods.
Patent validity left formally untestedEndpoint security IP risk remains live across the sector
US8938799B2 survives this litigation with no validity finding against it. Other endpoint security and EDR vendors should treat this patent as an active risk. The rapid closure — consistent with a confidential settlement or licensing deal — suggests the patent may carry enough claim breadth to motivate resolution. Companies in the endpoint protection, EDR, and XDR space should assess their exposure to the ‘799 patent’s claim scope.
US8938799B2 remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Speech Transcription, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8938799B2 covering endpoint security methodsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Cybereason Inc. | Company | Cybereason Inc. — cybersecurity company specialising in endpoint detection and response (EDR)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen M. Lobbin. | Attorney | Counsel for Speech Transcription, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | SML Avvocati PC | Law Firm | Representing Speech Transcription, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Catherine Huang | Attorney | Counsel for Cybereason Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | C/O Dla Piper, LLP (US) | Law Firm | Representing Cybereason Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and explicitly states ‘with prejudice,’ making the termination a final adjudication on the merits under federal law. This phrasing forecloses any future action by Speech Transcription against Cybereason on these same claims. Notably, no court order was required — the dismissal was self-executing. The verdict carries no findings on infringement, validity, or claim construction, leaving the underlying patent legally unimpaired.
US8938799B2 — Security Protection for Endpoint Computing Systems
US8938799B2 (application no. US11/597486) is a granted U.S. patent directed to security protection apparatus and methods for endpoint computing systems. The patent sits within the cybersecurity domain, specifically addressing how endpoint devices are protected against threats — a technology area that underpins modern endpoint detection and response (EDR) platforms. The application’s filing lineage and the B2 grant designation indicate it underwent substantive examination and survived prosecution.
This patent is commercially significant because endpoint security is one of the fastest-growing segments of the cybersecurity market, with major vendors including CrowdStrike, SentinelOne, Microsoft, and Cybereason competing for enterprise contracts. A patent covering protection apparatus and methods at the endpoint level could have broad claim reach across EDR, XDR, and next-generation antivirus products. The fact that a defendant of Cybereason’s profile was named — and the case resolved rapidly — suggests the claims carry sufficient breadth to motivate licensing discussions.
Should your endpoint security product be cleared against US8938799B2?
Any company developing, selling, or deploying security protection software or hardware for endpoint computing systems should assess their exposure to US8938799B2. This includes EDR platform vendors, XDR providers, managed security service providers (MSSPs), and enterprise IT teams deploying third-party endpoint agents. The ‘799 patent has now been asserted in litigation, confirming the holder is willing to enforce it commercially.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US8938799B2 against your product architecture and flag overlap risk before you receive a demand letter. Eureka also surfaces the full prosecution history, forward citations, and any continuation or divisional applications in the same family — giving your IP team a complete picture of the risk perimeter around endpoint security methods covered by this patent.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8938799B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar endpoint security patent cases in California federal courts
Cases asserting endpoint computing security patents in the Southern and Central Districts of California, including EDR and protection apparatus infringement actions.
What this case signals for the endpoint security IP landscape
A swift with-prejudice dismissal in a cybersecurity patent case typically signals quiet resolution — and a patent left standing.
With-prejudice dismissals in PAE cases often mask confidential licenses
When a patent assertion entity dismisses with prejudice this early — before an answer is filed — it frequently reflects a negotiated resolution rather than surrender. The absence of any public fee award or settlement disclosure means the commercial terms remain unknown. Competitors should not assume the patent was defeated; it was not.
US8938799B2 is unscathed: no invalidity ruling was obtained
Because Cybereason never filed an answer or invalidity counterclaim, the ‘799 patent emerges from this case with its claims formally intact. Any endpoint security vendor that overlaps with this patent’s claim scope — particularly those offering protection apparatus or methods for endpoint computing — faces the same exposure that brought Cybereason into litigation.
Speech v Cybereason — key questions answered
A dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is a final adjudication on the merits. Speech Transcription cannot refile this same infringement action against Cybereason based on US8938799B2 for the same accused conduct. The claims are permanently extinguished as against this defendant.
Yes. The dismissal resolved only Speech Transcription’s claims against Cybereason. No invalidity counterclaim was filed or adjudicated, so the patent’s validity was never tested in this proceeding. US8938799B2 remains in force and can be asserted against other parties.
The public record does not disclose the reason. A with-prejudice voluntary dismissal filed before the defendant answers is consistent with a confidential settlement or licensing agreement, or with a strategic decision that litigation against this specific defendant was not commercially viable. No court order was required, so no judicial explanation exists.
US8938799B2 covers a security protection apparatus and method for endpoint computing systems. Cybereason’s core product line centres on endpoint detection and response (EDR), which involves protecting endpoint devices from threats — a domain that overlaps with the patent’s technical scope. This alignment explains why Cybereason was named as a defendant.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal protects only Cybereason from further claims by Speech Transcription based on the same accused conduct. Other endpoint security vendors remain fully exposed to infringement assertions under US8938799B2 from Speech Transcription or any future assignee of the patent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.