IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

SPEECH TRANSCRIPTION, LLC, 

Plaintiff 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

v. 

EXABEAM, INC., 

Defendant. 

CIV. ACTION NO. 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP 

DEFENDANT EXABEAM, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF SPEECH 

TRANSCRIPTION, LLC’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT 

INFRINGEMENT PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 101 AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN 

SUPPORT 

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 10 Filed 04/26/24 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 87
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1

A. The ’799 Patent. ............................................................................................................... 3

B. Claim 14. .......................................................................................................................... 3

Legal Standard ................................................................................................................................ 3

A. Failure to State a Claim. ................................................................................................... 3

B. Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Under § 101. ................................................................... 4

Argument ........................................................................................................................................ 5

A. Alice Step One. ................................................................................................................ 6

B. Alice Step Two ................................................................................................................. 8

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 10

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 10 Filed 04/26/24 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 88
ii 

 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Page(s) 

Cases 

Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 

838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................5 

Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 

838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................6 

Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 

573 U.S. 208 (2014) ......................................................................................................... passim

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...............................................................................................................3, 5 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...............................................................................................................3, 5 

CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 

955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................4 

Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 

776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................5 

Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 

859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................7 

cxLoyalty Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc., 

986 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2021)..............................................................................................6, 7 

e-Numerate Sols., Inc. v. United States, 

149 Fed. Cl. 563 (2020) .............................................................................................................7 

Elec. Commc’n Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, 

LLC, 958 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ........................................................................................3 

Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 

830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................6 

FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 

839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................7 

Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc., 

996 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2021)..................................................................................................8 

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 10 Filed 04/26/24 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 89
iii 

 

Internet Pats. Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 

790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................6 

Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 

66 F. Supp. 3d 829 (E.D. Tex. 2014) .........................................................................................4

NexusCard, Inc. v. Kroger Co., 

173 F. Supp. 3d 462 (E.D. Tex. 2016), aff'd, 688 F. App'x 916 (Fed. Cir. 

2017) ..........................................................................................................................................7 

Parus Holdings Inc. v. Sallie Mae Bank, 

137 F. Supp. 3d 660 (D. Del. 2015), aff’d, 677 F. App’x 682 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................9 

SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 

898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................8 

Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Prods., Inc., 

983 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................8 

Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 

921 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................4 

Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 

874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................6 

Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc., 

10 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 212 L. Ed. 2d 778, 142 S. Ct. 

2707 (2022) ........................................................................................................................7, 8, 9 

Statutes 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c)(2) and 1400(b) ..............................................................................................2 

35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim

Other Authorities 

Rule 12 .............................................................................................................................................8 

Rule 12(b)(6) ....................................................................................................................................3 

U.S. Patent No. 8,939,799...................................................................................................... passim

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 10 Filed 04/26/24 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 90
1 

Defendant Exabeam, Inc. (“Exabeam”) respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the 

entirety of the First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (“Complaint” or “FAC”) filed 

by plaintiff Speech Transcription, LLC (“Plaintiff”), for failure to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted. The asserted claim of U.S. Patent No. 8,939,799 (the “’799 patent”) is directed to 

an abstract idea with no inventive concept, and thus is invalid as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. 

§ 101 (“Section 101”). 

INTRODUCTION 

The complaint alleges infringement of the ’799 patent. The ’799 patent is directed to a 

security management system that receives and executes security software from multiple vendors. 

See e.g., ’799 patent at Abstract. The asserted claim of the ’799 patent, claim 14, concerns nothing 

more than a highly abstract concept: 

A security subsystem configurable between a network and a host of an endpoint, 

the security subsystem comprising computing resource 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. 

This claim lacks any specific components or structure that would elevate its abstract 

concept to a level eligible for patent protection. It is characterized by a broad generality, described 

in functional language, and relies on unspecified, generic computing elements. Based on the 

Supreme Court’s Alice criteria for determining patent eligibility, it is evident that the asserted claim 

of the ’799 patent does not meet the necessary standards and is, therefore, unequivocally invalid. 

BACKGROUND 

On December 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed its initial complaint in this action alleging that 

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 10 Filed 04/26/24 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 91
2 

 

Exabeam infringes claim 14 of the ’799 Patent. On April 1, 2024, Defendant moved to dismiss 

the asserted claim. Dkt. No. 6. In response, on April 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed its First Amended 

Complaint (Dkt. No. 7), which merely added conclusory allegations to four paragraphs of the 

initial complaint. See FAC ¶¶ 20, 21, 23, 26. Consequently, no substantive alterations were made. 

Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity that has filed numerous lawsuits, each alleging 

infringement of claim 14 of the ’799 patent. According to Pacer,1

 these cases are typically resolved 

within a few months of filing, strongly suggesting Plaintiff is just seeking cost-of-defense based 

settlements: 

Plaintiff employs a largely uniform approach in drafting these complaints against the 

various defendants. Indeed, Plaintiff’s complaint in this case mistakenly refers to the Western 

District of Texas instead of the Eastern District, suggesting a template-based approach to these 

complaints. See FAC ¶ 9 (“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).”). 

 

1

 Plaintiff’s litigation history is publicly documented and thus, subject to judicial notice. 

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 10 Filed 04/26/24 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 92
3 

 

A. The ’799 Patent. 

The ’799 patent relates generally to the protection and management of endpoint computing 

systems. It describes a unified approach to security, facilitating the enhancement of security 

measures, the management of security protocols, and the streamlined provision and acquisition of 

security services. 

B. Claim 14. 

In the complaint, Plaintiff expressly identifies only one asserted claim allegedly infringed 

by Exabeam, claim 14 of the ’799 patent. See FAC ¶¶ 31, 32, 36. Claim 14 is additionally the 

sole claim charted in Plaintiff’s complaint. See FAC Ex. B. 

Claim 14 of the ’799 patent recites: 

A security subsystem configurable between a network and a host of an endpoint, the 

security subsystem comprising computing resource 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. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

A. Failure to State a Claim. 

A complaint cannot survive a motion to dismiss unless it “contain[s] sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 667 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. While the 

Court must accept factual allegations as true, it is not required to accept as true allegations that 

amount to legal conclusions, conclusory statements, “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 10 Filed 04/26/24 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 93
4 

 

cause of action,” or “‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Id. at 678 

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). 

B. Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Under § 101. 

The Court may determine patent eligibility under § 101 on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to 

dismiss. See Elec. Commc’n Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC, 958 F.3d 1178, 1184 

(Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[W]e have repeatedly affirmed § 101 rejections at the motion to dismiss stage, 

before claim construction or significant discovery has commenced . . . .”) (citation omitted); See 

also Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 3d 829, 847 (E.D. Tex. 2014); 

Network Architecture Innovations LLC v. CC Network Inc., 2017 WL 1398276, at *7 (E.D. Tex. 

Apr. 18, 2017). 

35 U.S.C. § 101 outlines the categories of inventions that are eligible for patent protection 

under United States law. It states: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, 

machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may 

obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” There is, however, 

“an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not 

patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (citation omitted). 

In Alice, the Supreme Court established a two-step framework to determine whether a claim is 

directed to such ineligible subject matter. 

Alice step one: The first step is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to 

one of those patent-ineligible concepts”—e.g., an abstract idea. Id. at 217. “Alice step one 

presents a legal question that can be answered based on the intrinsic evidence” and “does not 

require an evaluation of the prior art or facts outside of the intrinsic record.” CardioNet, LLC v. 

InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “Under this inquiry, [courts] evaluate the 

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 10 Filed 04/26/24 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 94
5 

 

focus of the claimed advance over the prior art to determine if the character of the claim as a whole, 

considered in light of the specification, is directed to excluded subject matter.” Trading Techs. 

Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted). Where a claim 

recites “a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting detail that confines the claim 

to a particular solution to an identified problem,” the “functional nature of the claim confirms that 

it is directed to an abstract idea.” Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 

1269 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 

Alice step two: If a claim is directed to ineligible subject matter, the second step is to 

“consider the elements of each claim both individually and as an ordered combination to determine 

whether [any] additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent eligible 

application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quotation omitted). This step is a search for an “inventive 

concept—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in 

practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.” Id. at 217–

18 (quotations omitted). For a computer-implemented invention to satisfy step two, “it must 

involve more than performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities 

previously known to the industry.’” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 

Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347‒48 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 225). Claims 

that “merely require generic computer implementation, fail to transform [an] abstract idea into a 

patent-eligible invention. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. 

ARGUMENT 

The sole claim charted in this Complaint, claim 14, fails both steps of the two-part Alice

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 10 Filed 04/26/24 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 95
6 

 

test2

. 

A. Alice Step One. 

Claim 14 claims the abstract idea of a middleman platform for accepting and running 

security software modules from various vendors. This is clear given that claim 14 is framed in 

broad, functional terms, claiming nothing more than an “open platform” for “receiving and 

executing security function software modules.” 

When evaluating claims expressed in functional language, courts examine “whether the 

claims in the patent focus on a specific means or method, or are instead directed to a result or effect 

that itself is the abstract idea and merely invokes generic processes and machinery.” Two-Way 

Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 

Furthermore, claims "directed to generalized steps to be performed on a computer using 

conventional computer activity are not patent eligible." Id. 

Here, claim 14 concerns a generic “security subsystem configurable between a network 

and a host of an endpoint” written in functional terms to perform a series of steps. ‘799 Patent at 

19:47-52. Claim 14, however, does not specify how the steps, or functions, are to be carried out. 

See Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claim 

was ruled ineligible due its abstract nature because “[t]here is nothing in [the] claim that is directed 

to how to implement out-of-region broadcasting on a cellular telephone”); Internet Pats. Corp. v. 

Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (determining the claim as abstract 

because it “contains no restriction on how the result is accomplished”). The use of this type of 

 

2

 Any argument by Plaintiff in its opposition regarding other claims of the ’799 patent should be 

rejected because the Complaint – like Plaintiff’s other complaints – discusses only claim 14. 

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails under Iqbal and Twombly if Plaintiff is alleging infringement of any 

other claims of the ’799 patent. 

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 10 Filed 04/26/24 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 96
7 

 

“result-focused, functional character of claim language . . . has been a frequent feature of claims 

held ineligible under § 101.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. 

Cir. 2016); see also cxLoyalty Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc., 986 F.3d 1367, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2021) 

(ruling patent-ineligible a claim for a “platform” which “provides the ability for a participant to 

use a single loyalty program GUI to make points-based purchases directly from multiple thirdparty vendor systems via multiple APIs.”). 

The security subsystem outlined in Claim 14 essentially involves merely gathering security 

tools from various sources and integrating them into a single "open platform," a process that is 

intrinsically abstract. Courts have held that merging features from various vendors does not alter 

the abstract essence of the claim. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096–

97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The mere combination of []sources, however, does not make the claims 

patent eligible.”); see also cxLoyalty, Inc. 986 F.3d 1367 at 1380-81. 

The abstract idea articulated in claim 14 is analogous to a server rack designed to 

accommodate a diverse array of servers, each with the potential to perform a wide range of 

functions. The rack may be outfitted with capabilities for power supply, cooling, and connectivity. 

The servers can be from any number of vendors and perform any number of functions. While the 

servers themselves may be capable of performing non-abstract functions, either separately or in 

combination, the rack that holds and connects them is nothing more than an abstract concept. See 

also e-Numerate Sols., Inc. v. United States, 149 Fed. Cl. 563, 584 (2020) (“The mere combination 

of data sources, however, does not make the claims patent eligible”); NexusCard, Inc. v. Kroger 

Co., 173 F. Supp. 3d 462, 467 (E.D. Tex. 2016), aff'd, 688 F. App'x 916 (Fed. Cir. 2017) 

(“[D]escribing two abstract ideas in connection with each other...does not cause either abstract 

idea to then become a concrete thing.”); see also Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 10 Filed 04/26/24 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 97
8 

 

F.3d 1044, 1055–56 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that claims directed to “configuring a computer 

system to combine data from multiple electronic data sources” are inherently abstract). 

Additionally, claim 14 closely resembles those found to be ineligible in Universal Secure 

Registry LLC v. Apple Inc., 10 F.4th 1342, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 212 L. Ed. 2d 778, 

142 S. Ct. 2707 (2022). There, the Federal Circuit examined the patent eligibility of a claim 

concerning an electronic device designed for conducting secure financial transactions, which 

verifies the user through two forms of identification—namely, biometric data and secret 

information supplied by the user. Id. at 1351-52. The Federal Circuit determined that the patent 

claims in question were aimed at the abstract idea of authenticating a user with standard tools while 

creating and sending that authentication, which merely amalgamated several pre-existing tools into 

one device without enhancing the technology itself. Id. at 1352. 

Lastly, Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations that claims of the ’799 Patent “comprise 

nonconventional approaches that transform the inventions as claimed into substantially more than 

mere abstract ideas” and “are not drawn . . . to abstract ideas” fail to save claim 14. See FAC ¶¶ 

19-20. Conclusory allegations hold no merit in Section 101 analysis at the Rule 12 stage. Simio, 

LLC v. FlexSim Software Prods., Inc., 983 F.3d 1353, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020). 

B. Alice Step Two 

Despite Plaintiff’s allegations in its complaint, claim 14 of the ’799 patent also fails at Alice

step two because no inventive concept can be identified in the claim. Claim 14’s recited elements 

are well-known, routine, and conventional, and fail to transform the abstract idea into a patenteligible invention. 

“Security subsystem,” “network,” “host,” “endpoint,” and “computing resources” are all 

generic and conventional computer components recited in claim 14. Similarly, claim 14 only 

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 10 Filed 04/26/24 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 98
9 

 

recites functionality for executing the abstract idea of amalgamating widely recognized and 

unoriginal tools provided by others. See SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 

(Fed. Cir. 2018) (determining claim ineligible under Alice Step Two because “[t]here is, in short, 

nothing ‘inventive’ about any claim details individually or in combination, that are not themselves 

in the realm of abstract ideas.”); see e.g., Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc., 996 F.3d 

1355, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (holding “the claimed elements ... comprise generic computing 

components—e.g., ‘servers’—arranged in a conventional manner and thus do[] not transform the 

claim into something other than the abstract idea”). Significantly, claim 14 does not specify any 

computer or software that represents an improvement upon existing technology. Parus Holdings 

Inc. v. Sallie Mae Bank, 137 F. Supp. 3d 660, 674 (D. Del. 2015), aff’d, 677 F. App’x 682 (Fed. 

Cir. 2017) (finding the claims in question were devoid of an inventive concept because of their 

lack of specificity and did not “reference any customization” of the hardware and software 

described in the claims). 

Additionally, claim 14 does not recite any unique security methods. Rather, it claims a 

security subsystem that provides for an “open platform” to aggregate already known defense 

software modules—i.e., a server rack. Claim 14 concerns nothing more than the “combination of 

[] long-standing conventional methods” for security which would “yield[] expected results of an 

additive increase in security” from each individual vendor’s module. Universal Secure Registry, 

10 F.4th at 1353. “There is nothing in the specification suggesting, or any other factual basis for 

a plausible inference (as needed to avoid dismissal), that the claimed combination of these 

conventional [] techniques achieves more than the expected sum of the security provided by each 

technique.” Id. Nothing within claim 14 offers a basis for its salvage at Alice step two. 

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 10 Filed 04/26/24 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 99
10 

 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Exabeam respectfully requests that this Court find claim 14 of 

the ’799 patent to be invalid under Section 101 and dismiss Speech Transcription, LLC’s 

Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 

Dated: April 26, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Eric H. Findlay 

Eric H. Findlay 

State Bar No. 00789886 

Brian Craft 

State Bar No. 04972020 

FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C. 

7270 Crosswater Avenue, Ste. B 

Tyler, TX 75703 

Tel: (903) 534-1100 

Fax: (903) 534-1137 

Email: efindlay@findlaycraft.com 

Email: bcraft@findlaycraft.com 

Brett Schuman 

BSchuman@goodwinlaw.com 

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 2800 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel.: +1 415 733 6000 

Fax: +1 415 677 9041 

Fred Feyzi 

FFeyzi@goodwinlaw.com 

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

601 Marshall Street 

Redwood City, CA 94063 

Tel.: +1 650 752 3100 

Fax: +1 650 853 1038 

Attorneys for Defendant Exabeam, Inc. 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 10 Filed 04/26/24 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 100
11 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented

to electronic services are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF

system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on this the 26th day of April, 2024. 

/s/ Eric H. Findlay 

Eric H. Findlay 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT’S 35 U.S.C. § 101 MOTION 

PRACTICE ORDER 

______ The parties agree that prior claim construction is not needed to inform the Court’s analysis 

as to patentability. 

__X__ The parties disagree that prior claim construction is not needed to inform the Court’s 

analysis as to patentability. 

/s/ Brett Schuman 

Brett Schuman 

Case 2:23-cv-00605-JRG-RSP Document 10 Filed 04/26/24 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 101