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 Northern District of California and has a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cybersecurity products infringe a patent related to a hardware-based apparatus for providing an isolated, unified platform for endpoint security functions.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the management and operational challenges of running multiple security applications on a single computer by physically or logically separating security functions from the host operating system.
• Key Procedural History: This complaint is the initiating document in the litigation. No prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events are mentioned. The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on knowledge obtained from the service of the complaint itself.

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," issued January 20, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies problems with conventional endpoint security where multiple software modules from different vendors are installed directly on a host computer. This approach is said to burden the host, create software conflicts, reduce performance, and result in complex management and high total-cost-of-ownership. (’799 Patent, col. 3:48-68).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "Security Utility Blade (SUB)," which is a distinct hardware and software subsystem that resides at the network interface of an endpoint computer, physically separate from the host. (’799 Patent, col. 5:18-25). This SUB runs its own operating system and acts as an isolated, "open platform" where security software modules from various vendors can be downloaded and executed, managed by a remote server. This creates a "Unified Management Zone" that isolates security operations from the host system, aiming to improve stability and simplify administration. (’799 Patent, col. 8:42-51; FIG. 1B).
• Technical Importance: This architecture sought to decouple security functions from the host operating system, thereby preventing security software from causing host instability and creating a centralized, vendor-agnostic management framework. (’799 Patent, col. 5:1-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims but alleges infringement of "one or more claims" (’799 Patent, Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention's core concept.
• Independent Claim 1 recites:
  • An apparatus associated with an endpoint and configurable between a network and a host of the endpoint,
  • comprising computational resources, including at least 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.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

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

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint provides no description of the accused products' functionality or market position. Based on Defendant’s identity as Stellar Cyber Inc., the accused instrumentalities are presumably related to its cybersecurity platform offerings.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides only a conclusory allegation of infringement, stating that the Defendant’s products infringe as specified in a claim chart exhibit that was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶14). The complaint’s narrative theory of infringement is therefore limited to the general assertion that Defendant makes, uses, sells, or imports infringing products.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary issue will likely be whether the accused products, which may be primarily software-based, constitute an "apparatus" with "computational resources... not accessible by the host" as required by claim 1. The defense may argue that the claims, when read in light of the specification's repeated references to a hardware "Security Utility Blade" (SUB), are limited to a physical device and do not cover software-only or virtualized solutions.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will likely require evidence of whether the accused products function as an "open platform" that is "able to execute security function software modules from multiple vendors." The court may need to determine if a proprietary, closed-ecosystem product meets this limitation.
  • Technical Questions: Plaintiff will bear the burden of proving the negative limitation that the accused apparatus's resources are "not accessible by the host." This raises the question of what level of technical proof is required to show this isolation, particularly if the accused system runs on the same physical hardware as the host.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "apparatus"

  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term appears central to the dispute. The patent’s specification heavily emphasizes a hardware-based "Security Utility Blade (SUB)." If the accused products are software-only, the viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether "apparatus" can be construed to include non-physical or virtualized systems.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "apparatus" itself is generally broad. Plaintiff may argue it should not be limited to the specific embodiments shown.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the invention as a "hardware and software 'security subsystem'" (’799 Patent, col. 5:20-21) and a "Security Utility Blade" that can be "installed in a slot of motherboard" (’799 Patent, col. 9:54-55). Figures 2A-2D all depict a distinct physical component.

• The Term: "open platform"

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical for defining the required nature of the accused system. The claim requires the platform to be "able to execute security function software modules from multiple vendors" (’799 Patent, col. 18:8-10). Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if a proprietary system that does not actively integrate third-party modules can infringe.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that "able to execute" requires only the technical capability, not that the feature is actively used or marketed, and that integration via an API suffices.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may point to language about "participating vendors" and the system's role in a multi-vendor ecosystem to argue the term requires a system designed and intended for third-party module integration, not a closed, proprietary system. (’799 Patent, col. 6:53-54).

• The Term: "not accessible by the host"

  • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is a key feature of the patented security model. Its construction will define the required degree of separation between the security apparatus and the host system.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue this means functionally inaccessible through standard operating system calls, even if underlying physical resources are shared.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s focus on a separate hardware SUB suggests a requirement for hardware-enforced isolation, where the host processor and OS are physically or architecturally prevented from accessing the SUB's resources. The patent states the SUB's resources "may not be accessible by host 181 so as to form isolation in the direction from host 181 to SUB 101." (’799 Patent, col. 11:41-43).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe, but the only factual basis provided is Defendant's alleged knowledge of the ’799 Patent obtained "since being served by this Complaint." (Compl. ¶16). No facts are alleged to support pre-suit knowledge or specific acts of inducement, such as advertising or user manuals instructing infringing use.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement or allege facts that would support a claim of pre-suit knowledge. The prayer for relief includes a standard request for enhanced damages. (Compl. p. 4, ¶(c)).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "apparatus", which the patent heavily describes as a physical hardware module, be construed to cover a modern, potentially software-defined or virtualized, cybersecurity platform? The outcome of this construction may be dispositive.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused product is both an "open platform" for multi-vendor modules and that its resources are truly "not accessible by the host", as strictly required by the claims? Proving this negative limitation may present a significant technical and evidentiary challenge.
• A foundational question will be one of factual development: given the complaint's complete reliance on an unprovided exhibit, the case will depend entirely on the evidence Plaintiff can gather in discovery to connect the specific architecture and functionality of Defendant's products to the elements of the asserted claims.