Speech Transcription, LLC v. Qualcomm, Inc.
Infringement action filed 8 Nov 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 14 Nov 2023, with US8938799B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8938799B2
- Application no.
- US11/597486
- Case no.
- 2:23-cv-00516
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 8 Nov 2023 – 14 Nov 2023
- Duration
- 6 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Qualcomm® Snapdragon™ 855 System on Chip (“SoC”)
- 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
- Randall T. Garteiser
- Firm
- Garteiser Honea PLLC
Qualcomm, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Randall T. Garteiser | Speech Transcription, LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“The Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims and causes of action asserted in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
Case 2:23-cv-00516 · E.D. Tex. · closed 14 November 2023
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 2:23-cv-00516?
2:23-cv-00516 is a patent infringement action brought by Speech Transcription, LLC against Qualcomm, Inc., filed on 8 Nov 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 14 November 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 2:23-cv-00516?
US8938799B2 (“Security protection apparatus and method for endpoint computing systems”), assigned to SPEECH TRANSCRIPTION, LLC, currently active. The record also lists Qualcomm® Snapdragon™ 855 System on Chip (“SoC”).
How was case 2:23-cv-00516 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “The Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims and causes of action asserted in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 2:23-cv-00516 take?
6 calendar days, from filing on 8 Nov 2023 to closure on 14 November 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:23-cv-00516?
Randall T. Garteiser is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Speech Transcription.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:23-cv-00516 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.