Speech Transcription LLC v. Stellar Cyber Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Speech Transcription, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Stellar Cyber Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: SML Avvocati P.C.
• Case Identification: 5:25-cv-05235, N.D. Cal., 06/23/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is deemed a resident of the district and/or has a regular and established place of business in the district where acts of infringement are allegedly occurring.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products infringe a patent related to a security apparatus for protecting endpoint computing systems.
• Technical Context: The patent addresses the field of cybersecurity, proposing a hardware-based subsystem to provide an isolated environment for executing security functions, aiming to improve resilience and performance over traditional host-based software agents.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-09-14	’799 Patent Priority Date
2015-01-20	’799 Patent Issue Date
2025-06-23	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,938,799 - Security Protection Apparatus and Method for Endpoint Computing Systems

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,938,799, Security Protection Apparatus and Method for Endpoint Computing Systems, issued January 20, 2015 (’799 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the challenges of conventional endpoint security where multiple software modules (e.g., antivirus, firewall) from different vendors are installed directly on a host computer's operating system. This approach is said to create software conflicts, reduce computer performance, increase management complexity, and leave security functions vulnerable to being disabled by malware or user error (’799 Patent, col. 3:41-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "unified security management system" centered on a hardware and software subsystem called a "Security Utility Blade" or "SUB" (’799 Patent, col. 5:21-27). This SUB is an apparatus that resides physically or logically between the network and the host computer. It runs its own dedicated, security-hardened operating system ("SUBOS") and functions as an "open platform" where security software modules from multiple vendors can be downloaded and executed in an environment isolated from the host system (’799 Patent, col. 7:6-9; col. 8:42-48; Fig. 1B). This isolation is intended to make the security functions more robust and less susceptible to attacks targeting the host.
• Technical Importance: The described approach sought to solve the persistent problem of software agent bloat and vulnerability on endpoints by moving security functions to a dedicated, hardware-isolated execution environment.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • An apparatus associated with an endpoint and configurable between a network and a host of the endpoint,
  • comprising computational resources, the computational resources at least comprising one processor,
  • wherein the computational resources are not accessible by the host,
  • are accessible over a secure connection by a management server,
  • and are configured to provide an open platform able to execute security function software modules from multiple vendors and provide immunization and defense functionality to protect the host.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name (Compl. ¶¶6, 14). It refers generally to "Defendant's instrumentalities" and "products including as specified in the infringement claim charts attached herewith as Exhibit B" (Compl. ¶14). However, Exhibit B was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant infringes by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing products" but provides no specific factual allegations in the body of the complaint detailing the infringing functionality (Compl. ¶14). All technical infringement allegations are deferred to a claim chart exhibit that was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶14). Consequently, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Given the patent's focus on a hardware-based "Security Utility Blade," a potential point of contention may arise if the accused instrumentalities are purely software-based products.

• Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether a software platform, potentially running in a virtualized or containerized environment on a host system, can meet the claim limitation of an "apparatus" with "computational resources... not accessible by the host." The dispute may center on whether "not accessible" requires physical separation, as described in the patent's preferred embodiments, or if logical separation is sufficient.
• Technical Questions: The complaint provides no basis to analyze technical mismatches. A key question for the court, should the case proceed, will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused products provide an "open platform" for executing modules "from multiple vendors" in the manner required by the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint offers no basis for this analysis, but based on the patent's disclosure, the following terms from claim 1 may be central to the dispute.

The Term: "apparatus associated with an endpoint"

• Context and Importance: The definition of "apparatus" is critical. Its construction will likely determine whether the claims are limited to physical hardware devices or can extend to cover software-only systems. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specification's detailed description centers on a hardware "Security Utility Blade" (SUB).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the generic term "apparatus" rather than explicitly requiring a "blade" or "card." The term "computational resources" could arguably encompass virtualized resources.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the SUB as a "hardware and software 'security subsystem'" that can be implemented as a plug-in card for a motherboard slot or an embedded chip (’799 Patent, col. 5:21-27; Figs. 2B-2D). This consistent focus on a physical component may support a narrower construction limited to a distinct hardware device.

The Term: "computational resources... not accessible by the host"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core "isolation" feature of the invention. The dispute will turn on the required degree and nature of the inaccessibility—physical versus logical.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: An argument could be made that resources within a secure software sandbox or virtual machine are "not accessible" by the host operating system for the purposes of security, even if they share the same physical processor.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that the "SUB runs an operating system (OS), separate from any host operating system" (’799 Patent, col. 7:6-8) and that the "resources of SUB 101 may not be accessible by host 181 so as to form isolation" (’799 Patent, col. 11:41-43). This language suggests a strong architectural separation, consistent with a physically distinct subsystem.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that "At least since being served by this Complaint and corresponding claim chart, Defendant has knowingly continued to induce infringe the '799 patent" (Compl. ¶16). This allegation is based on a theory of post-suit knowledge and intent, rather than pre-suit actions such as distributing user manuals or advertisements.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, the allegation of knowing inducement post-filing could form the basis for seeking enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 (Compl. ¶16).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "apparatus", as described in a specification heavily focused on a physical "Security Utility Blade," be construed broadly enough to read on a potentially software-only security product? The outcome of this hardware-versus-software question may be determinative.
• A threshold procedural question will be the sufficiency of the pleadings: does a complaint that fails to identify an accused product or provide any factual basis for infringement in its text—relying instead on an unfiled exhibit—meet the plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss?
• A key evidentiary question will concern functional operation: assuming the accused product is an "apparatus," does it actually possess "computational resources... not accessible by the host" and operate as an "open platform" for third-party modules as claimed, or is there a fundamental mismatch in its technical architecture and capabilities?