Speech Transcription v. Exabeam: Dismissed With Prejudice After 424 Days
Speech Transcription, LLC asserted US8938799B2 against Exabeam, Inc.’s Fusion XDR threat detection platform in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice after 424 days, with each side bearing its own costs — a resolution pattern that typically signals a negotiated settlement.
Patent assertion against Exabeam’s TDIR platform ends with finality
On December 15, 2023, Speech Transcription, LLC filed suit against Exabeam, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:23-cv-00605), asserting infringement of US8938799B2. The accused product was Exabeam Fusion XDR, a threat detection, investigation, and response platform that integrates multiple security technologies. Speech Transcription was represented by Garteiser Honea PLLC, a firm with a notable track record of patent assertion in E.D. Texas.
The case closed on February 11, 2025, via a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court dismissed all claims with prejudice, meaning Speech Transcription is permanently barred from reasserting the same infringement claims against Exabeam based on the same patent. Notably, each party was ordered to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees, foreclosing any fee-shifting outcome under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
The 424-day duration and mutual cost-bearing terms are consistent with a confidential settlement reached before significant litigation milestones such as claim construction. The public record does not disclose whether any financial consideration was exchanged. What is clear is that the dismissal with prejudice forecloses future assertion of US8938799B2 against Exabeam by this plaintiff, providing Exabeam with a permanent safe harbor on the claims litigated here.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 424 days
424 days — above the median for E.D. Texas patent cases resolved before trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is a mutual agreement between all parties to end the litigation. When filed with prejudice, it carries the force of a final judgment on the merits — the plaintiff cannot refile the same claims against the same defendant. The court’s role is ministerial: it accepts and acknowledges the stipulation rather than adjudicating the underlying dispute.
Permanent dismissalSpeech Transcription permanently barred from re-asserting these claims
The with-prejudice designation means Speech Transcription, LLC cannot bring the same infringement claims under US8938799B2 against Exabeam in any future proceeding. This is a significant constraint on the plaintiff’s enforcement strategy for this patent against this defendant. Whether any confidential consideration was received in exchange is not disclosed in the public record — the cost-bearing terms suggest the parties reached their own resolution.
Re-assertion foreclosedExabeam secures a permanent safe harbour on the asserted claims
Exabeam, Inc. exits this litigation with a dismissal that has the legal weight of a judgment in its favour for preclusion purposes. The Fusion XDR platform cannot be subjected to the same infringement claims by this plaintiff under US8938799B2. The each-party-bears-own-costs term also means no financial exposure on attorneys’ fees, removing a secondary litigation risk that can arise under 35 U.S.C. § 285 in patent cases.
Claims extinguishedWhat the outcome signals for TDIR and cybersecurity patent risk
Patent assertion against cybersecurity platforms — particularly XDR and SIEM-adjacent products — is an active enforcement pattern. A with-prejudice dismissal at this stage, before claim construction, typically suggests either a licensing resolution or a defendant posture strong enough to prompt settlement. Other TDIR vendors facing similar speech-processing or data-ingestion patent claims should monitor US8938799B2’s enforcement history and assess their own exposure proactively.
Cybersecurity IP riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Speech Transcription, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8938799B2 covering speech transcription technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Exabeam, Inc. | Company | Exabeam, Inc. — cybersecurity company offering the Fusion XDR threat detection platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Randall T. Garteiser | Attorney | Counsel for Speech Transcription, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Speech Transcription, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric Hugh Findlay | Attorney | Counsel for Exabeam, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Findlay Craft PC | Law Firm | Representing Exabeam, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order closely tracks the language of the joint stipulation, indicating no independent judicial merits assessment. The phrase ‘all claims and causes of action asserted between Plaintiff and Defendant are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE’ is unambiguous — it extinguishes Speech Transcription’s infringement claims entirely as against Exabeam. The denial-as-moot of all pending relief requests confirms no interim rulings survived. The absence of a fee award under § 285 reflects the parties’ agreement, not a judicial finding of reasonableness.
US8938799B2 — speech transcription and data processing technology
US8938799B2 (application number US11/597486) is a granted US patent covering speech transcription technology. The patent was asserted here against Exabeam Fusion XDR — a cybersecurity platform focused on threat detection and investigation — suggesting the plaintiff’s theory mapped transcription or data-processing claims onto log ingestion, parsing, or analysis workflows within the XDR product. The specific claim mapping was not adjudicated publicly before dismissal.
The assertion of a speech transcription patent against a cybersecurity TDIR platform is strategically notable: it suggests either broadly-drafted method claims capable of reading on data-stream processing beyond traditional voice applications, or a novel claim construction theory. For cybersecurity vendors whose platforms ingest and process structured or unstructured data at scale, this patent warrants independent evaluation. The lack of a claim construction ruling leaves the scope of US8938799B2 judicially undefined.
Should you run an FTO against US8938799B2?
Any company developing or deploying threat detection, XDR, SIEM, or UEBA platforms that process data streams, log entries, or unstructured text should consider whether US8938799B2’s claims could be mapped to their product architecture. The fact that this patent was asserted against Exabeam Fusion XDR — a product not obviously in the speech domain — suggests the claims may read more broadly than the patent title implies. R&D teams building data ingestion or NLP-adjacent pipelines are particularly exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the claim language of US8938799B2 against your product’s technical specification, identify related patents in the same family, and surface prior art that may support invalidity arguments. Given that no claim construction order exists from this litigation, an Eureka-assisted FTO provides the most current, defensible scope analysis available — directly actionable for product counsel and engineering leads.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8938799B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: speech tech and cybersecurity platform assertions in E.D. Texas
These cases involve comparable patent assertion dynamics against cybersecurity and data-processing platforms in the Eastern District of Texas, resolved by joint stipulation.
What this case signals for the cybersecurity IP landscape
Patent assertion in the TDIR and XDR sector is accelerating. This case illustrates how quickly claims can be resolved — and what resolution actually forecloses.
With-prejudice dismissals create durable defendant safe harbours
For Exabeam and similarly-situated TDIR vendors, a with-prejudice dismissal under Rule 41 is functionally equivalent to a win on the merits for preclusion purposes. In-house teams should document these outcomes carefully — they can be cited defensively if related patents from the same portfolio are later asserted.
Pre-claim-construction resolution limits public signal on claim scope
Because this case resolved before any claim construction order, there is no judicial interpretation of US8938799B2’s claims on the record. Competitors and licensees cannot rely on court-construed claim language to assess their own exposure — independent FTO analysis remains essential for any product that processes or transcribes data streams.
Speech v Exabeam — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice means Speech Transcription, LLC is permanently barred from reasserting the same infringement claims under US8938799B2 against Exabeam, Inc. The dismissal carries the legal weight of a final judgment on the merits for claim preclusion purposes, even though no court adjudicated the substantive patent claims.
US8938799B2 is a granted US patent covering speech transcription and data processing methods. It was asserted against Exabeam Fusion XDR — a threat detection, investigation, and response platform — suggesting the plaintiff mapped broadly-drafted method claims onto Exabeam’s data ingestion or processing workflows. The specific claim theory was never publicly adjudicated before the case settled.
The public record shows a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own costs. This structure is consistent with a confidential settlement, but no financial terms are disclosed. The with-prejudice designation and mutual cost-bearing clause are the only publicly available resolution terms.
The mutual cost-bearing clause means neither party sought or received attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which allows fee awards in exceptional patent cases. This was a negotiated term — not a judicial finding — so it does not reflect a determination of litigation conduct. It does, however, eliminate any financial exposure on fees for both sides arising from this proceeding.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal only bars Speech Transcription from reasserting these specific claims against Exabeam. The plaintiff retains the right to assert US8938799B2 against other defendants. Other cybersecurity vendors — particularly those with XDR, SIEM, or UEBA products — should monitor this patent and related family members for future enforcement activity.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.