Speech Transcription LLC v. Elasticsearch Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Speech Transcription, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Elasticsearch, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: DNL Zito
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00069, W.D. Tex., 01/13/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s endpoint security system infringes a patent related to a unified, platform-based security management system for computing devices.
• Technical Context: The dispute concerns the architecture of endpoint security systems, which protect individual computing devices (like PCs and servers) from network-based threats.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during the patent's prosecution, the U.S. Patent Examiner considered U.S. Patent No. 7,058,796 as the most relevant prior art before allowing the claims to issue.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-09-14	U.S. Patent No. 8,938,799 Priority Date
2015-01-20	U.S. Patent No. 8,938,799 Issues
2026-01-13	Complaint Filed

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.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Conventional endpoint security requires installing multiple software modules from different vendors directly onto a host computer's operating system (Compl. ¶15; ’799 Patent, col. 3:43-46). This approach can burden the host system, create software conflicts, cause performance degradation, and lead to a complex and costly management environment (’799 Patent, col. 3:52-67).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a "Security Utility Blade" (SUB), which is a distinct hardware and software subsystem that sits between the network and the host computer (’799 Patent, col. 5:18-25). This SUB runs its own security-hardened operating system and acts as an isolated "open platform" where security software modules from various vendors can be downloaded and executed, independent of the host's primary operating system (’799 Patent, col. 5:51-54; Fig. 1B). This architecture is intended to centralize and simplify security management while protecting the host from both external threats and instabilities caused by the security software itself.
• Technical Importance: The invention proposed an architectural shift from host-based security agents, which integrate deeply with a device's primary operating system, to a decoupled, platform-based approach intended to improve stability and management efficiency (’799 Patent, col. 3:61-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 14 (Compl. ¶31).
• Independent Claim 14 requires:
  • A security subsystem configurable between a network and a host of an endpoint,
  • the security subsystem comprising computing resources for providing:
  • an open platform for receiving and executing security function software modules from multiple vendors
  • for providing defense functions for protection of the host.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Elastic Limitless Extended Detection and Response security system" (the "Accused Instrumentality") (Compl. ¶27).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the Accused Instrumentality as a security system that "enhances security operations by integrating different parameters such as security information and event management, security analytics, and endpoint security" (Compl. ¶27). The complaint supports its venue allegations with visual evidence, such as a map showing the location of Defendant's Austin office (Compl. Fig. 2). No further technical details regarding the architecture or operation of the accused system are provided in the complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentality directly infringes at least Claim 14 of the ’799 Patent (Compl. ¶31, ¶32). The substantive basis for this allegation is contained entirely within a claim chart cited as "Exhibit B" to the complaint (Compl. ¶31, ¶36). This exhibit was not provided with the filed complaint. As a result, the pleading itself does not contain sufficient factual detail to construct a claim chart or to analyze the specifics of the infringement theory.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the high-level descriptions available, the infringement analysis may raise several technical and legal questions.
  • Scope Questions: The core dispute may focus on whether the accused software-based system, which "integrates" security parameters, constitutes the "security subsystem" recited in the claims. The patent specification appears to consistently describe this subsystem as a distinct hardware and software component, a "Security Utility Blade (SUB)," that is physically or logically positioned "between a network and a host" (’799 Patent, col. 5:18-25). The analysis will question whether a software product that runs on a host can meet this structural limitation.
  • Technical Questions: A central technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the Accused Instrumentality provides an "open platform for receiving and executing security function software modules from multiple vendors," as required by Claim 14. This analysis will probe whether the product's function of "integrating different parameters" is technically equivalent to the claimed architecture of a platform that receives and runs distinct software modules from third parties.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "open platform"
• Context and Importance: This term is the central functional element of the asserted independent claim. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the Defendant's system for "integrating" security functions can be defined as an "open platform" that "receiv[es] and execut[es] security function software modules." Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be the primary point of potential dispute between the patent's described architecture and the accused software product.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the SUB "functions in some embodiments as an open platform for repository of defense function software modules... from any participating vendors" (’799 Patent, col. 5:51-54). This language could be argued to support a broader meaning covering any system architecture that allows for the use and management of security tools from multiple sources.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description and figures illustrate this platform as a specific architectural component, the "Repository and Execution Unit 108," into which software modules are downloaded and stored for execution (’799 Patent, Fig. 5A; col. 8:42-56). This embodiment could support a narrower construction requiring a distinct repository and execution environment, rather than a system that merely integrates data from various security sources.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the ’799 Patent" (Compl. ¶34). It further alleges that Defendant sells the Accused Instrumentalities to customers for infringing use (Compl. ¶35).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present complaint" and its attached (but unprovided) claim chart (Compl. ¶29, ¶33). This forms the basis for an allegation of post-suit willful infringement.

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

1. A Threshold Pleading Question: The complaint's primary infringement allegations are made exclusively by reference to an external document, Exhibit B, which was not filed. A preliminary issue will be whether the complaint, on its own, pleads sufficient factual content to state a plausible claim for relief under the standards set by Iqbal and Twombly.

2. A Core Definitional Question: The case will likely turn on a question of architectural scope: can the term "security subsystem configurable between a network and a host," as described in the context of a hardware "blade" in the patent, be construed to cover a software-only product that "integrates" security functions on the host itself?

3. An Evidentiary Question of Functionality: Assuming the architectural scope question is resolved in Plaintiff's favor, a key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused system's method of "integrating different parameters" meet the claim requirement of providing an "open platform for receiving and executing security function software modules from multiple vendors," or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed execution platform and the accused product's functionality?