Speech Transcription, LLC v. Elasticsearch, Inc.
Infringement action filed 13 Jan 2026 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 4 Jun 2026, with US8938799B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8938799B2
- Application no.
- US11/597486
- Case no.
- 1:26-cv-00069
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Robert Pitman
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 13 Jan 2026 – 4 Jun 2026
- Duration
- 142 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Elastic Limitless Extended Detection and Response security system that enhances security operations by integrating different parameters such as security information and event management, security analytics, and endpoint security.
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Security protection apparatus and method for endpoint computing systems
A unified security management system and related apparatus and methods for protecting endpoint computing systems and managing, providing, and obtaining security functions is described. Various forms of the system, apparatus and methods may be used for improved security, security provisioning, security management, and security infrastructure.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 20 Jan 2015
- Earliest priority
- 14 Sep 2004
- Est. expiry
- 30 Dec 2031
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KUO, JEN-WEI
- Classification
- H04L29/06G06F21/60G06F21/56G06F12/14G06F11/30G06F21/64G06F21/57
- Prosecution counsel
- PATENT ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC
- Examiner
- MOORTHY, ARAVIND
Parties of record
Speech Transcription, LLC
- Core tech
- H04L29/06G06F21/60G06F21/56G06F12/14
- Counsel
- Joseph J. Zito · Rene A. Vazquez
- Firm
- Dnl Zito
Elasticsearch, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Joseph C. Masullo · Katherine Kelly Vidal · Saranya Raghavan · William M. Logan
- Firm
- Winston Taylor LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Joseph J. Zito | Speech Transcription, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Rene A. Vazquez | Speech Transcription, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Joseph C. Masullo | Elasticsearch, Inc. | Defendant |
| Katherine Kelly Vidal | Elasticsearch, Inc. | Defendant |
| Saranya Raghavan | Elasticsearch, Inc. | Defendant |
| William M. Logan | Elasticsearch, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“On June 3, 2026, Plaintiff dismissed all claims in this case without prejudice. (Dkt. 16). Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Defendant has not served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s notice is therefore “self-effectuating and terminates the case in and of itself; no order or other action of the district court is required.” In re Amerijet Int’l, Inc., 785 F.3d 967, 973 (5th Cir. 2015), as revised (May 15, 2015). As nothing remains to resolve, IT IS ORDERED that the case is CLOSED.”
Case 1:26-cv-00069 · W.D. Tex. · closed 4 June 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 1:26-cv-00069?
1:26-cv-00069 is a patent infringement action brought by Speech Transcription, LLC against Elasticsearch, Inc., filed on 13 Jan 2026 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 4 June 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 1:26-cv-00069?
US8938799B2 (“Security protection apparatus and method for endpoint computing systems”), assigned to SPEECH TRANSCRIPTION, LLC, currently active. The record also lists Elastic Limitless Extended Detection and Response security system that enhances security operations by integrating different parameters such as security information and event management, security analytics, and endpoint security..
How was case 1:26-cv-00069 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “On June 3, 2026, Plaintiff dismissed all claims in this case without prejudice. (Dkt. 16). Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Defendant has not served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s notice is therefore “self-effectuating and terminates the case in and of itself; no order or other action of the district court is required.” In re Amerijet Int’l, Inc., 785 F.3d 967, 973 (5th C
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 1:26-cv-00069 take?
142 calendar days, from filing on 13 Jan 2026 to closure on 4 June 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:26-cv-00069?
Chief Judge Robert Pitman presided. Joseph J. Zito and Rene A. Vazquez are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Speech Transcription. Joseph C. Masullo, Katherine Kelly Vidal, Saranya Raghavan and William M. Logan appear for defendant Elasticsearch.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:26-cv-00069 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.