Speech Transcription v. Qualcomm: Dismissed With Prejudice in 6 Days
Speech Transcription, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Qualcomm, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas asserting US8938799B2 against the Snapdragon 855 SoC. The case was dismissed with prejudice just six days after filing — one of the shortest closed patent actions on record in E.D. Tex.
A six-day patent action against Qualcomm's flagship SoC — then silence
On 8 November 2023, Speech Transcription, LLC — represented by Garteiser Honea PLLC — filed a patent infringement complaint against Qualcomm, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:23-cv-00516). The single patent asserted was US8938799B2 (application no. US11/597486), and the accused product was the Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 System on Chip.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Dismissed with Prejudice'. The docket order states that the Court accepts and acknowledges a Notice and that all claims and causes of action are dismissed with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits — Speech Transcription is barred from reasserting the same claims against Qualcomm based on US8938799B2.
The six-day duration between filing and closure is notably brief and suggests the parties reached a resolution — or Speech Transcription elected to withdraw — almost immediately after the complaint was filed. The specific terms, if any, that preceded the dismissal are not disclosed in the available public record. No defendant law firm or agent appears on the docket, consistent with the case resolving before Qualcomm formally appeared.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 6 days
Case closed in 6 days — exceptionally short for E.D. Tex. patent litigation
US8938799B2 — Speech transcription processing technology
Any company developing or deploying speech recognition, transcription, or voice-processing functionality on SoC-based platforms — including mobile, automotive, and edge AI applications — should assess exposure to US8938799B2. The patent was asserted against one of the world's highest-volume SoC products, and no court has ever construed its claims or assessed its validity. That absence of judicial record is a risk amplifier, not a comfort.
Official order — verbatim text
The Court's order accepts a Notice from the parties and enters dismissal with prejudice of all claims and causes of action. The with-prejudice designation renders the dismissal a final judgment on the merits for preclusion purposes, permanently barring Speech Transcription from reasserting these claims against Qualcomm. The order does not disclose any underlying terms or conditions that preceded the dismissal.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the ruling means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice is a final, claim-ending judgment
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Speech Transcription cannot refile the same patent infringement claims — based on US8938799B2 against Qualcomm — in any federal court. The Court's order accepting the Notice makes the dismissal binding and judicially entered, not merely a voluntary withdrawal.
Res judicata effectSpeech Transcription loses its right to re-litigate these claims
The with-prejudice nature of the dismissal forecloses Speech Transcription from reasserting US8938799B2 against Qualcomm on the same accused product. The patent itself remains in force — this disposition does not invalidate US8938799B2 — but enforcement against Qualcomm on the Snapdragon 855 SoC is permanently barred. The specific terms that preceded the dismissal are not disclosed in the available record.
Enforcement against Qualcomm barredQualcomm secures permanent protection from this specific claim
Qualcomm achieved dismissal with prejudice without a recorded appearance on the docket — Qualcomm's law firm and agents are absent from the public record, suggesting resolution before formal response. The dismissal provides Qualcomm a preclusion shield against the same infringement claims under US8938799B2 relating to the Snapdragon 855 SoC.
Claim preclusion for QualcommRapid resolution limits public record — uncertainty remains for the sector
The six-day closure means no claim construction, no invalidity analysis, and no merits ruling entered the public record. Third parties — including competitors and licensees active in speech-processing SoC technology — cannot draw conclusions about US8938799B2's scope or validity from this case. Independent FTO analysis against the patent remains necessary for anyone operating in this technology space.
No merits ruling — FTO still requiredFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Speech Transcription, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Qualcomm, Inc. | Company | /Search 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 ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the speech transcription & SoC IP space
Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from Speech Transcription v. Qualcomm — covering portfolio activity, filing trends, and white-space opportunities in speech-processing semiconductor technology.
Speech Transcription's portfolio scope beyond US8938799B2
US8938799B2 may not be the only asset held by or associated with Speech Transcription, LLC. NPE vehicles in the speech and audio-processing space frequently hold continuation families or related patents. Mapping the full citation and family network around US8938799B2 reveals the true assertion perimeter and helps anticipate follow-on enforcement risk against SoC and edge AI platforms.
NPE portfolio mappingFiling trends in on-device speech transcription for SoC architectures
On-device speech recognition and transcription is a high-growth filing area, driven by edge AI, privacy requirements, and latency constraints. Patent activity around neural processing units (NPUs) and dedicated speech inference engines on SoCs has accelerated. Understanding where the filing density sits relative to US8938799B2's priority date helps identify freedom-to-operate corridors and crowded claim spaces.
Edge AI speech filing trendsQualcomm's defensive patent position in speech and AI processing
Qualcomm holds a deep defensive patent portfolio covering SoC architecture, DSP, and AI inference — including speech and voice processing on Snapdragon platforms. Understanding Qualcomm's own filing activity in speech transcription provides a benchmark for what claim space is already occupied by a major industry actor, and where challengers or partners may find exposure or opportunity.
Qualcomm speech AI IPAdjacent R&D opportunities near US8938799B2's claim space
The assertion of US8938799B2 against a SoC product points to potential white space in hardware-accelerated transcription pipelines, low-power speech encoding, and real-time inference architectures not covered by the existing patent landscape. R&D teams building next-generation voice interfaces — particularly for wearables, automotive, and IoT — should map this white space before filing or designing around.
Voice AI white spaceSimilar patent infringement cases: speech technology & SoC platforms in E.D. Tex.
Explore comparable NPE-initiated patent infringement actions asserting speech-processing and semiconductor IP in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the speech-processing SoC IP landscape
A six-day lifecycle in E.D. Tex. leaves more questions than answers — but the with-prejudice bar is real and final.
With-prejudice bar is absolute — but only as to Qualcomm and the 855 SoC
Speech Transcription cannot re-sue Qualcomm on US8938799B2 for the Snapdragon 855. However, the dismissal does not bind third parties, and US8938799B2 could still be asserted against other defendants or other accused products. Companies adjacent to this technology space should treat the patent as still active enforcement risk.
No appearance by Qualcomm is consistent with pre-litigation resolution
The absence of any recorded Qualcomm counsel or agent, combined with a six-day close, is consistent with the parties resolving the matter before formal litigation commenced. The specific terms are not disclosed in the available record. Patent teams monitoring NPE activity in semiconductor IP should note that speed-to-resolution can suppress public disclosure entirely.
Speech v Qualcomm — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice. The Eastern District of Texas entered an order on 14 November 2023 — six days after filing — accepting a Notice and dismissing all claims and causes of action with prejudice. This bars Speech Transcription from reasserting the same claims against Qualcomm.
Speech Transcription, LLC asserted US8938799B2 (application no. US11/597486) against the Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 System on Chip. The case is categorised as a patent infringement action. No claim construction or validity analysis entered the public record before the case closed.
The public record does not disclose the reasons. The six-day duration and the absence of any recorded Qualcomm counsel are consistent with the parties reaching a resolution before formal litigation commenced, but the specific circumstances and any terms are not disclosed in the available docket record.
No. A dismissal with prejudice bars Speech Transcription from re-litigating the same claims against Qualcomm, but it does not constitute a ruling on the validity or scope of US8938799B2. The patent remains in force and could be asserted against other defendants or products. Independent FTO analysis is still necessary for third parties.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:23-cv-00516). Speech Transcription was represented by attorney Randall T. Garteiser of Garteiser Honea PLLC. No defendant counsel appears on the public docket record.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.