ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT PAGE | 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

SPEECH TRANSCRIPTION, LLC,

Plaintiff

v.

EXABEAM, INC.,

Defendant

Case No. 2:23-cv-605

Jury Trial Demanded 

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff Speech Transcription, LLC (“Plaintiff” and/or “ST”) files this Complaint against 

Exabeam, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Exabeam”) for infringement of United States Patent No. 

8,938,799 (hereinafter “the ’799 Patent”).

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff is a Wyoming limited liability company having an address at 1 East 

Broward Boulevard, Suite 700, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301.

2. Upon information and belief, Defendant is a corporation organized and existing 

under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 1051 E. Hillsdale 

Blvd., 4th Floor, Foster City, CA 94404. On information and belief, Exabeam may be served 

through its registered agent in the State of Delaware: Incorporating Services, Ltd. at 3500 S. 

Dupont Hwy., Dover, DE 19901.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271 et 

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT PAGE | 2

seq. Plaintiff is seeking damages, as well as attorney fees and costs. 

4. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (Federal 

Question) and 1338(a) (Patents). 

5. On information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant 

because Defendant has committed, and continues to commit, acts of infringement in this District, 

has conducted business in this District, and/or has engaged in continuous and systematic 

activities in this District.

6. On information and belief, Defendant’s instrumentalities that are alleged herein to 

infringe were and continue to be used, imported, offered for sale, and/or sold in this District.

7. Venue is proper against Defendant in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)

and 1391(c) because it has maintained an established and regular place of business in this 

District and has committed acts of patent infringement in the District from those regular and 

established places of business. See In re: Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355, 1362-1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 

See Figures 1 and 2 below.

Figure 1

(source: https://www.exabeam.com/contact/)

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 2
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT PAGE | 3

Figure 2

(source: Google Maps)

8. Venue is proper in the Western District of Texas as to Defendant pursuant to at 

least 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c)(2) and 1400(b). As noted above, Defendant maintains a regular and 

established business presence in this District.

PATENT-IN-SUIT

9. Plaintiff is the sole and exclusive owner, by assignment, of U.S. Patent No.

8,938,799 (hereinafter “’799 Patent”). The ’799 Patent is attached as Exhibit A.

10. The ’799 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with 

Title 35 of the United States Code.

11. Plaintiff possesses all rights of recovery under the ’799 Patent, including the 

exclusive right to recover for past, present and future infringement.

12. The priority date of the ’799 Patent is at least as early September 14, 2004. As of 

the priority date, the inventions as claimed were novel, non-obvious, unconventional, and nonroutine. 

13. Plaintiff alleges infringement on the part of Defendant of the ’799 Patent.

14. The ’799 Patent relates generally to a unified security management system and 

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 3
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT PAGE | 4

related apparatus and methods for protecting endpoint computing systems and managing, 

providing, and obtaining security functions. See Abstract, ’799 Patent. The endpoint devices may 

be of different forms such as desktop PC, laptop, a workstation, PDA, cell phone, smartphone, 

set-top box etc.. In one embodiment, a subsystem related to an endpoint is used to support a 

unified security management system, with the subsystem providing an open platform for 

repository of defense functions from any participating vendors’ software modules.

15. As noted, the claims of the ‘799 Patent have priority to at least September 14, 

2004. The deficiencies in the state of the art as of the Date of Invention were highly problematic.

Attacks on computer systems have advanced in variety and sophistication. See ’799 Patent at 

1:30-31. Conventionally, the deployment of defense functions in enterprise networks can be 

network-based or host-based, or both. The host-based deployment requires multiple defense 

function software modules to be installed in each host. The deployment of immunization 

functions is generally host­ based and requires an agent to be installed in each host for each 

supported immunization function. Consequently, a deployed security infrastructure consisting of 

multiple defense and immunization functions may burden the host with multiple defense function 

software and a number of agents for supporting the corresponding immunization functions. This 

situation may create software conflict and registry corruption issues in the host and cause enduser productivity loss and unnecessary IT labor cost for testing and validation, which may be 

exacerbated as the software upgrade/patch incidences for security functions and operating system 

increase. It may also create issues such as performance degradation and security vulnerability 

where security functions may be disabled by malware or human carelessness. In addition, the 

aforementioned multiple defense and immunization functions are managed by multiple vendors' 

management systems. The resulting heterogeneous environment gives rise to duplicated 

processes and technical and management complexity, leading to high total-cost-of-ownership 

(TCO) and low return-on-investment (ROI). See ’799 Patent at 3:49-67.

16. In addition, the vast majorities of residential internet users generally do not have 

sufficient knowledge on computer security, and thus are unlikely to have adequate security 

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 4
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT PAGE | 5

protection. Another observation is that the user may experience disruptions that require retries 

and/or reboots during a security function download, and computer behavior changes after the 

download. Another observation is that it is generally costly to acquire an adequate number of 

defense and immunization functions. Id. at 4:38-46.

17. One practical aspect of security for the residential user is the need to subscribe to 

and pay for multiple security services. Billing and user payments are largely handled via separate 

subscriptions, separate bills, and separate payment processes. Another observation is that 

numerous security vendors in the marketplace are available to provide various solutions to 

counter various security threats. These vendors desire exposure to potential markets. Users desire 

exposure to information about available security products that may be subscribed to or otherwise 

obtained. Despite the existence of information sources on the Internet and elsewhere, the 

necessary processes of identifying desirable vendors and products are inconvenient and often 

time consuming. Id. 4:50-63.

18. Password management is integral to overall endpoint security, and is associated 

with many unmet needs, both for residential users and especially for enterprise endpoint users 

and IT managers. It is difficult for end users to remember numerous and periodically changing 

sets of passwords/user IDs, and so end users oftentimes choose not to conform to security policy 

or practice and instead, for example, write passwords/user IDs information down on a post-on or 

into a computer file. For end users who do conform to good security practice, may forget their 

passwords and/or user IDs, and they must typically call a helpdesk and request a password reset 

in order to re-enter applications, or they must via other means obtain a new password/user ID 

pair. This process reduces end user productivity and adds an extra load and cost to already

burdened helpdesk. See ’799 Patent at 4:66 – 5:13.

19. The claims of the ’799 Patent overcome deficiencies existing in the art as of the 

date of invention, and comprise non-conventional approaches that transform the inventions as 

claimed into substantially more than mere abstract ideas.

20. The claims of the ’799 Patent are not drawn to laws of nature, natural phenomena, 

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 5
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT PAGE | 6

or abstract ideas. The specific combinations of elements, as recited in the claims, was not 

conventional or routine at the time of the invention.

21. Further, the claims of the ’799 Patent contain inventive concepts which transform 

the underlying non-abstract aspects of the claims into patent-eligible subject matter.

22. The ’799 Patent was examined by Primary United States Patent Examiner

Aravind Moorthy. During the examination of the ’799 Patent, the United States Patent Examiner 

searched for prior art in the following US Classifications: G06F 211604 (2013.01); G06F 21/564 

(2013.01); G06F 21/577 (2013.01); G06F 21/56 (2013.01); G06F 21/64 (2013.01); H04L 

63/1416 (2013.01); H04L 63/1408 (2013.01); H04L 63/1441 (2013.01); G06F 21/57 (2013.01).

23. After conducting a search for prior art during the examination of the ’799 Patent, 

the United States Patent Examiner identified and cited US 7,058,796 as the most relevant prior 

art reference.

24. After giving full proper credit to the prior art and having conducted a thorough 

search for all relevant art and having fully considered the most relevant art known at the time, the 

United States Patent Examiner allowed all of the claims of the ’799 Patent to issue. In so doing, 

it is presumed that Examiner Moorthy used his knowledge of the art when examining the claims. 

K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It is further 

presumed that Examiner Moorthy had experience in the field of the invention, and that the 

Examiner properly acted in accordance with a person of ordinary skill. In re Sang Su Lee, 277 

F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In view of the foregoing, the claims of the ’799 Patent are 

novel and non-obvious, including over all non-cited art which is merely cumulative with the 

referenced and cited prior art. Likewise, the claims of the ’799 Patent are novel and nonobvious, including over all non-cited contemporaneous state of the art systems and methods, all 

of which would have been known to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and which were 

therefore presumptively also known and considered by Examiner Moorthy.

25. The claims of the ’799 Patent were all properly issued, and are valid and 

enforceable for the respective terms of their statutory life through expiration, and are enforceable 

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 6
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT PAGE | 7

for purposes of seeking damages for past infringement even post-expiration. See, e.g., Genetics 

Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc., 655 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 

(“[A]n expired patent is not viewed as having ‘never existed.’ Much to the contrary, a patent 

does have value beyond its expiration date. For example, an expired patent may form the basis 

of an action for past damages subject to the six-year limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 286”) (internal 

citations omitted).

26. The nominal expiration date for the claims of the ’799 Patent is no earlier than 

June 7, 2033.

ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES

27. On information and belief, Defendant sells, advertises, offers for sale, uses, or 

otherwise provides exemplary products, including at least the Exabeam Fusion XDR, which is a 

threat detection, investigation, and response (TDIR) platform that comprises a set of technologies 

used for cybersecurity purposes within the different parts of organizations. The foregoing are

referred to as the “Accused Instrumentalities.”

COUNT I

(INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,938,799)

28. Plaintiff refers to and incorporates the allegations in Paragraphs 1 - 27, the same 

as if set forth herein. 

28. This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States and, in 

particular under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq. 

29. Defendant has knowledge of its infringement of the ’799 Patent, at least as of the 

service of the present complaint. 

30. The ’799 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with 

Title 35 of the United States Code.

31. Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe 

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 7
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT PAGE | 8

one or more claims, including at least Claim 14, of the ’799 Patent by manufacturing, using, 

importing, selling, offering for sale, and/or providing (as identified in the Claim Chart attached 

hereto as Exhibit B) the Accused Instrumentalities which infringe at least Claim 14 of the ’799

Patent. Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe the ’799 patent either directly or 

through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.

32. Defendant also has and continues to directly infringe, literally or under the 

doctrine of equivalents, at least claim 14 of the ’799 Patent, by having its employees internally 

test and use these exemplary Accused Instrumentalities.

33. The service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim chart and 

references cited, constitutes actual knowledge of infringement as alleged here.

34. Despite such actual knowledge, Defendant continues to make, use, test, sell, offer 

for sale, market, and/or import into the United States, products that infringe the ’799 Patent. On 

information and belief, Defendant has also continued to sell the exemplary Accused 

Instrumentalities and distribute 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. 

See Exhibit B (extensively referencing these materials to demonstrate how they direct end users 

to commit patent infringement).

35. At least since being served by this Complaint and corresponding claim chart, 

Defendant has actively, knowingly, and intentionally continued to induce infringement of the 

’799 Patent, literally or by the doctrine of equivalents, by selling exemplary Accused

Instrumentalities to their customers for use in end-user products in a manner that infringes one or 

more claims of the ’799 Patent.

36. Exhibit B includes at least one chart comparing the exemplary ’799 Patent Claims 

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 8
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT PAGE | 9

to the exemplary Accused Instrumentalities. As set forth in this chart, the exemplary Accused 

Instrumentalities practice the technology claimed by the ’799 Patent. Accordingly, the exemplary 

Accused Instrumentalities incorporated in this chart satisfy all elements of at least claim 14 of 

the ’799 Patent.

37. Plaintiff therefore incorporates by reference in its allegations herein the claim 

chart of Exhibit B.

38. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for Defendant’s 

infringement.

39. Defendant’s actions complained of herein will continue unless Defendant is 

enjoined by this court.

40. Defendant’s actions complained of herein are causing irreparable harm and 

monetary damage to Plaintiff and will continue to do so unless and until Defendant is enjoined 

and restrained by this Court. 

41. Plaintiff is in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

42. Plaintiff, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by 

jury of any issues so triable by right.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff asks the Court to:

(a) Enter judgment for Plaintiff on this Complaint on all causes of action asserted 

herein;

(b) Enter an Order enjoining Defendant, its agents, officers, servants, employees, 

attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with Defendant who receive notice of 

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 9
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT PAGE | 10

the order from further infringement of United States Patent No. 8,938,799 (or, in the alternative, 

awarding Plaintiff running royalties from the time of judgment going forward);

(c) Award Plaintiff damages resulting from Defendant’s infringement in accordance 

with 35 U.S.C. § 284;

(d) Award Plaintiff pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs; and

(e) Award Plaintiff such further relief to which the Court finds Plaintiff entitled under 

law or equity.

Dated: December 15, 2023 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Randall Garteiser 

Randall Garteiser

 Texas Bar No. 24038912

 rgarteiser@ghiplaw.com

M. Scott Fuller

 Texas Bar No. 24036607

 sfuller@ghiplaw.com

GARTEISER HONEA, PLLC

119 W. Ferguson Street

Tyler, Texas 75702

Telephone: (903) 705-7420

Facsimile: (903) 405-3999

René A. Vazquez

Virginia Bar No. 41988

rvazquez@sinergialaw.com

SINERGIA TECHNOLOGY

LAW GROUP, PLLC

18295 St. Georges Ct.

Leesburg, Virginia 20176

Telephone: (703) 89-2244

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 12/15/23 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 10