Speech Transcription LLC v. SentinelOne: US8938799B2 Dismissed With Prejudice
Speech Transcription LLC filed a patent infringement action against cybersecurity firm SentinelOne in the Northern District of California, asserting US8938799B2 against the Singularity XDR platform. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed with prejudice after just 78 days — before SentinelOne filed any answer or dispositive motion.
A swift pre-answer exit: Speech Transcription drops XDR patent claim
On 29 February 2024, Speech Transcription LLC filed suit against SentinelOne Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:24-cv-01228), presided over by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. The complaint alleged infringement of US8938799B2 — a patent covering speech transcription technology — by SentinelOne’s Singularity XDR cybersecurity platform. The pairing of a speech-transcription patent with an extended detection and response product suggests the asserted claims may relate to voice-command, audio-processing, or transcription-based functionality within the XDR system.
The case closed on 17 May 2024 after just 78 days, when Speech Transcription filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Crucially, the notice itself confirms that SentinelOne had not yet filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment, making this a unilateral dismissal that required no court order. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the critical qualifier: Speech Transcription permanently forfeited its right to re-assert the same claims against SentinelOne based on the same patent.
A dismissal with prejudice obtained this quickly — before any substantive response from the defendant — is commercially significant. It may reflect an out-of-court resolution, a licensing agreement, or a strategic decision by the plaintiff that continued litigation was not viable, but the public record is silent on which factor drove the exit. The involvement of Perkins Coie and Shutts & Bowen on the defence side suggests SentinelOne mounted a credible, well-resourced response before any formal filing, which may have influenced the plaintiff’s calculus.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 78 days
78 days from filing to dismissal — well under the district average for patent cases
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): unilateral dismissal before any defendant filing
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may 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. SentinelOne had filed neither, so Speech Transcription could act unilaterally. The ‘with prejudice’ election converted what would otherwise be a without-prejudice voluntary dismissal into a permanent bar against re-filing the same claims against this defendant.
Plaintiff-initiated, no court order neededWith prejudice vs. without prejudice: a permanent consequence chosen by the plaintiff
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice would preserve Speech Transcription’s option to re-file the same patent claims against SentinelOne in the future. By electing dismissal with prejudice, the plaintiff permanently surrendered that right. This distinction matters: it rules out a tactical refile and signals the dispute is fully resolved between these parties on US8938799B2. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement, licence, or purely strategic assessment drove this election.
No re-filing option against SentinelOneSentinelOne exits litigation without a merits ruling or admission
SentinelOne obtained a dismissal with prejudice — commercially equivalent to a win — without filing a single substantive pleading. The Singularity XDR platform faces no injunction, no damages exposure, and no infringement finding related to US8938799B2. Because no court ruled on validity or infringement, SentinelOne also avoids any adverse precedent. The defendant’s exposure on this patent is effectively closed, though the patent remains valid and enforceable against third parties.
Full protection, no merits adjudicatedUS8938799B2 remains live: third-party XDR and security vendors should monitor
The dismissal resolves only the Speech Transcription v. SentinelOne dispute. US8938799B2 was not invalidated and its claims were not construed — it remains an enforceable asset that could be asserted against other cybersecurity or XDR vendors. Companies whose products incorporate speech input, transcription pipelines, or audio-processing components within security platforms should treat this case as a signal to review freedom-to-operate exposure against this patent.
Patent still enforceable vs. othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Speech Transcription, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8938799B2 (speech transcription technology)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Sentinelone, Inc. | Company | SentinelOne Inc. — cybersecurity company, developer of the Singularity XDR platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Barbara A. Stern | Attorney | Counsel for Speech Transcription, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Randall Garteiser | Attorney | Counsel for Speech Transcription, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea IP Trial Boutique | Law Firm | Representing Speech Transcription, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Law Office of Barbra Stern PA | Law Firm | Representing Speech Transcription, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gene W. Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Sentinelone, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jodi-Ann Rene Tillman | Attorney | Counsel for Sentinelone, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph William Bain | Attorney | Counsel for Sentinelone, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nathaniel Bryan Sabri | Attorney | Counsel for Sentinelone, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Perkins Coie LLP | Law Firm | Representing Sentinelone, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Shutts & Bowen LLP | Law Firm | Representing Sentinelone, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley | Judge | California Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and explicitly records that SentinelOne filed neither an answer nor a motion for summary judgment. This framing is procedurally precise: it confirms the plaintiff’s unilateral authority to act. The ‘with prejudice’ election goes beyond what the rule requires by default, permanently extinguishing Speech Transcription’s right to reassert US8938799B2 against SentinelOne. No infringement finding, validity ruling, or claim construction was issued — the substantive merits remain entirely unadjudicated.
US8938799B2 — speech transcription technology asserted in XDR context
US8938799B2 (application number US11/597486) is a granted U.S. utility patent covering speech transcription technology. In this action, it was asserted against SentinelOne’s Singularity XDR platform — an extended detection and response cybersecurity system — suggesting the patent holder identified claim language broad enough to cover audio-processing or voice-command functionality within an enterprise security context. The application filing date implies the underlying technology predates the modern XDR category by a significant margin.
The assertion of a speech-transcription patent against a cybersecurity XDR platform reflects a broader trend of NPE enforcement activity targeting technology-adjacent use cases. For sector participants, the key risk is that US8938799B2 was never subjected to claim construction or validity analysis in this proceeding, leaving its scope legally undefined. Any vendor whose product captures, processes, or transcribes audio data within a security or monitoring platform should assess exposure, particularly given that the patent remains assigned to an entity with demonstrated willingness to litigate in the Northern District of California.
Should your security platform run an FTO against US8938799B2?
R&D and product teams at cybersecurity companies — particularly those developing or marketing XDR, EDR, SIEM, or SOAR platforms that incorporate voice input, audio logging, or transcription components — should treat this case as a trigger for FTO review. US8938799B2 was never invalidated and its claims were never construed. The lack of a merits ruling means no public claim construction narrows its apparent scope, and the patent remains fully enforceable against parties other than SentinelOne.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US8938799B2 against your product’s feature set, identify prior art that could support an inter partes review petition, and benchmark this patent against the broader speech-transcription and audio-processing landscape. Given the plaintiff’s use of specialist assertion counsel, early intelligence on claim scope and validity is a cost-effective alternative to reactive litigation defence.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8938799B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: speech transcription and cybersecurity platform IP disputes
Cases involving speech transcription patents asserted against cybersecurity or XDR platforms in the Northern District of California and comparable federal venues.
What this case signals for the cybersecurity and XDR IP landscape
A rapid with-prejudice exit before any defence filing is a pattern worth tracking across the XDR and endpoint security sector.
Pre-answer dismissals with prejudice often signal confidential resolution
When a plaintiff dismisses with prejudice before the defendant files anything, it typically reflects either a negotiated outcome or a sudden recognition that the case lacks merit. The 78-day timeline and the engagement of Perkins Coie suggest SentinelOne communicated a strong defence posture early, which may have accelerated the plaintiff’s decision to exit cleanly rather than face a costly validity challenge.
US8938799B2 remains a live enforcement risk for other security vendors
No court construed the claims of US8938799B2 in this proceeding. Cybersecurity platforms that process voice commands, integrate transcription APIs, or use audio-to-text functionality within detection or response workflows should conduct an FTO review. The patent’s enforceability is undiminished, and a patent assertion entity holding it retains the ability to target further defendants.
Speech v Sentinelone — key questions answered
Speech Transcription LLC filed a patent infringement suit against SentinelOne in the Northern District of California on 29 February 2024, asserting US8938799B2 against the Singularity XDR system. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice on 17 May 2024 — just 78 days after filing — before SentinelOne filed any answer or dispositive motion.
SentinelOne is permanently protected from any future assertion of US8938799B2 by Speech Transcription LLC arising from the same facts. The ‘with prejudice’ designation functions as a final judgment on the merits for preclusion purposes, meaning the plaintiff cannot refile the same claims against this defendant. No infringement finding or admission was made.
No. The case was dismissed before any substantive proceedings occurred. There was no claim construction hearing, no invalidity ruling, and no IPR petition recorded in connection with this action. US8938799B2 remains a valid, enforceable patent that could be asserted against other defendants.
The public record does not disclose the reason. Possible explanations include a confidential settlement or licensing agreement, a strategic reassessment after SentinelOne’s defence counsel (Perkins Coie) signalled a robust invalidity or non-infringement position, or a cost-benefit analysis by the plaintiff. The engagement of four defence attorneys before any formal filing suggests SentinelOne responded assertively at an early stage.
Potentially, yes. Because this case ended without claim construction or validity analysis, the patent’s scope remains legally undefined. Vendors whose platforms incorporate speech input, transcription APIs, or audio-processing functionality within security or monitoring workflows should consider an FTO review. The patent is owned by an entity that has shown willingness to litigate in the Northern District of California.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.