DCT
1:25-cv-14029
Connectionopen Inc v. Source Elements LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: ConnectionOpen, Inc. (Nevada)
- Defendant: Source Elements, LLC (Illinois)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Hecht Partners LLP; Direction IP Law
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-14029, N.D. Ill., 11/14/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant has an established principal place of business within the Northern District of Illinois.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Source-Connect software product infringes two patents related to methods for synchronizing multiple audio and video streams from remote sources over the internet.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses network latency to enable geographically separated users, such as musicians or voice actors, to collaborate in real-time as if they were in the same room.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history of competitive conduct, including disparaging statements allegedly made by Defendant’s owner beginning in 2013 and an alleged interference by Defendant in Plaintiff’s receipt of an industry award in 2024.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-02-22 | Earliest Priority Date for ’790 and ’541 Patents |
| 2012-10-30 | U.S. Patent No. 8,301,790 Issues |
| 2013-01-01 | (On or before) Alleged disparaging statements begin |
| 2014-12-23 | U.S. Patent No. 8,918,541 Issues |
| 2024-02-22 | Plaintiff notified of winning NAB Pilot Innovation Challenge |
| 2024-03-19 | Public announcement of Plaintiff receiving "honorable mention" |
| 2025-11-14 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,918,541 - Synchronization of audio and video signals from remote sources over the internet, issued December 23, 2014 (’541 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: When multiple users (e.g., musicians) in different locations stream audio or video live over the internet, network latency causes the streams to arrive at different times, making it difficult or impossible for them to perform together in unison (Compl. ¶17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where all participants synchronize their system clocks to a common time reference using the Network Time Protocol (NTP). To overcome latency differences, the system identifies the stream from the most distant participant (the "delay reference stream") and intentionally buffers, or delays, all other streams to match its arrival time. This ensures all streams are rendered in sync, allowing for unified playback ('541 Patent, col. 16:2-9; Compl. ¶18). The system architecture is depicted in a diagram showing multiple clients connecting via the internet to a session server, with NTP servers providing the time reference (Compl. ¶16).
- Technical Importance: This approach enables real-time, synchronous collaboration over standard packet-switched networks like the internet, which are not inherently designed for such precise, time-sensitive applications (Compl. ¶15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Asserted Independent Claim: Claim 1
- Essential Elements of Claim 1:
- A session server having a list of Network Time Protocol (NTP) servers passed to each client.
- A client application that connects clients to each other and the session server, utilizing a formalized Internet time standard (NTP), with each client having a shared NTP clock.
- A timing mechanism for adjusting each client's NTP timestamp.
- A file calibrating mechanism in each client application with a buffer, a mixer, and an offset NTP timestamp to analyze and synchronize stream arrival latencies.
- Providing respective receivers at each client to decode NTP timestamps, compare them to a standard, and designate the stream with the highest latency as the "delay reference stream."
- A process where, once the delay reference stream is determined, its data is immediately rendered while other incoming streams are decoded and "paused" until their timestamps align with the delayed timestamp, ensuring all streams are in unison.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 8,301,790 - Synchronization of audio and video signals from remote sources over the internet, issued October 30, 2012 (’790 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the ’541 Patent, the technology addresses the problem of differing arrival times for audio/video streams from remote sources due to network latency, which prevents synchronized real-time collaboration (’790 Patent, col. 5:35-48).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method using a central "Master Metronome" or "master timestamp" as a time reference for all participants (’790 Patent, col. 7:50-52). Client applications use NTP to synchronize with this master time reference. The system then determines the stream with the greatest latency and delays all other streams to match it, creating a "Delayed Metronome" that all participants can follow to remain in unison (’790 Patent, col. 8:11-24; col. 9:16-34).
- Technical Importance: The technology enables geographically dispersed users to interact over the internet with the perception of being in the same room by actively managing and compensating for network-induced timing discrepancies (Compl. ¶15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Asserted Independent Claim: Claim 1
- Essential Elements of Claim 1:
- A session server having a master timestamp used as a time reference by all participants.
- A client application connecting participants and using a formalized Internet time standard (NTP) to synchronize client and server timestamps with the master timestamp.
- A timing mechanism that increases the polling frequency of the NTP to achieve synchronization to a precision of at least 10 milliseconds.
- A file calibrating mechanism with a buffer, mixer, and delayed timestamp to analyze and synchronize file arrival latencies.
- Respective receivers that decode timestamps, compare them to the master timestamp, and designate the stream with the highest latency as the "delay reference stream."
- A process where the delay reference stream is decoded immediately, while other streams are paused until their timestamps match the delayed reference stream's timestamp.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Defendant's "Source-Connect" software product (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
Source-Connect is described as software that facilitates remote collaboration for professionals like voice actors and engineers by creating real-time audio streaming sessions (Compl. ¶44). The complaint alleges it provides an architecture for synchronizing multiple streams of digital content from distinct remote sources and advertises features such as "[s]ynchronized timelines" (Compl. ¶21, ¶62). A user interface screenshot in the complaint shows multiple users connected in a session (Compl. ¶43). Plaintiff identifies Source-Connect as a "flagship product" and Defendant as a "direct competitor" in the remote connection software industry (Compl. ¶21, ¶22).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’541 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a. a session server having a list of Network Time Protocol (NTP) servers... passed to each client through the Internet so that each client will acquire that client's own time reference... | On information and belief, Source-Connect creates a session server with a list of NTP servers and passes this list to clients. | ¶46 | col. 14:60-65 |
| b. a client application... connecting a participant... and having an NTP clock which is shared with all clients... | Source-Connect's client application enables users to connect with each other, as shown in a session request alert, and on information and belief, uses a shared NTP clock. A screenshot shows a user being prompted to establish a session with another user (Compl. ¶47). | ¶47, ¶48 | col. 15:1-3 |
| c. a timing mechanism... adjusting each client's NTP timestamp in the client application of all clients... | On information and belief, Source-Connect's architecture necessitates adjusting client timestamps to maintain alignment across a session. | ¶49 | col. 15:3-6 |
| d. a file calibrating mechanism in each client application... having a buffer... a mixer... and an offset NTP timestamp... | On information and belief, Source-Connect uses local buffers to compensate for jitter and includes a file calibrator with a mixer to manage audio streams. | ¶51, ¶52 | col. 15:7-15 |
| e. respective receivers at each client... decoding the NTP timestamp from each client... the stream with the highest difference designated as the “delay reference” stream... | On information and belief, receivers decode timestamps and compare them to designate the stream with the highest latency as the reference. An included marketing diagram shows "Auto-Restore" functionality, which allegedly relies on this timing data (Compl. ¶54). | ¶54, ¶55 | col. 15:54-16:1 |
| f. once the delayed reference stream has been determined, its data is immediately decoded and rendered... other incoming streams are then decoded and then paused... | The complaint alleges that for synchronization to work, the stream with the most delay must be played immediately while others are buffered and paused to align with it. | ¶56 | col. 16:2-9 |
’790 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a. a session server having a master timestamp, said master timestamp used as a time reference by all participants... | On information and belief, to achieve advertised "[s]ynchronized timelines," Source-Connect includes a session server with a master timestamp as a time reference. | ¶63 | col. 11:9-11 |
| b. a client application... connecting a participant to the session server and to other participants and... utilizing a formalized Internet time standard... | The Source-Connect client application allows users to join sessions with others and, on belief, utilizes NTP or an equivalent as its time standard. | ¶64, ¶65 | col. 11:12-19 |
| c. a timing mechanism... increasing the frequency of polling of the NTP so that the master timestamp and all client timestamps are synchronized to a precision of at least 10 milliseconds... | On information and belief, Source-Connect uses polling to maintain microsecond-level synchronization, which requires achieving the claimed precision. | ¶66 | col. 9:1-8 |
| d. a file calibrating mechanism... having a buffer... a mixer, and a delayed timestamp... | On information and belief, Source-Connect uses local buffers to manage arrival discrepancies and includes a mixer to compile and return synchronized files to participants. | ¶67, ¶68 | col. 11:25-35 |
| e. respective receivers... decoding the timestamp from each client and comparing it with the timestamp of the master timestamp... designating the stream with the greatest latency as the delay reference stream... | The complaint alleges that to align streams, receivers must decode timestamps, compare them to the master time reference, and identify the stream with the highest latency. | ¶70, ¶71 | col. 11:36-46 |
| f. once the delayed reference stream has been determined, its data is immediately decoded and rendered... other incoming streams are then decoded and then paused... | As with the ’541 patent, the complaint alleges that logical necessity requires the furthest stream to be played immediately while others are paused to achieve synchronization. | ¶72 | col. 11:47-54 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: Many of the infringement allegations are made "on information and belief," asserting that the accused product "likely necessitates" or "must involve" the claimed technologies to achieve its advertised functionality (Compl. ¶46, ¶49, ¶63). A central question will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to demonstrate that Source-Connect actually implements the specific mechanisms recited in the claims, particularly the use of the Network Time Protocol (NTP) and the designation of a single "delay reference stream."
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory connects high-level marketing terms like "[s]ynchronized timelines" (Compl. ¶45) to the specific, multi-step process recited in the claims. A point of contention may be whether this advertised feature necessarily implies infringement of the claimed method, or if it can be achieved through alternative, non-infringing technical means.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "delay reference stream" (’541 Patent, Claim 1(e); ’790 Patent, Claim 1(e))
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the patented method of synchronization. Infringement requires showing that the accused product not only aligns streams but does so by specifically identifying "the stream with the highest difference [in time]" and using it as the timing benchmark against which all other streams are paused. The viability of the infringement case depends on proving the accused product performs this specific designation and subsequent pausing process.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not provide intrinsic evidence for a broad interpretation; the patents appear to define the term with specificity.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly defines the term: "The stream with the highest difference, or latency, is designated as the Delay Reference Stream" (’790 Patent, col. 9:22-24). This language suggests a specific, required step of identifying and formally "designating" a single stream as the reference, which may support a narrower construction.
The Term: "NTP clock" (’541 Patent, Claim 1(b)) / "Network Time Protocol (NTP)" (’790 Patent, Claim 1(b))
- Context and Importance: The complaint's infringement theory is predicated on the belief that Source-Connect uses NTP or an equivalent (Compl. ¶48, ¶65). The definition of this term is critical because if it is construed narrowly to require only the specific protocol formalized in internet RFCs, and the accused product uses a proprietary or different time-synchronization method, it could support a finding of non-infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Practitioners may argue that the term should cover functional equivalents, as the core of the invention is network time synchronization, not the specific protocol itself. The complaint's allegations for the ’790 patent refer to "the Network Time Protocol (NTP) or its equivalent" (Compl. ¶65), suggesting Plaintiff's intended scope.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims expressly name "NTP." The specification of the parent ’790 patent defines NTP as "an Internet draft standard, formalized in RFC 958, 1305, and 2030" (’790 Patent, col. 6:51-52). This specific reference to technical standards could support a narrower construction limited to the official protocol.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant encourages and instructs customers to use Source-Connect in an infringing manner through "online instruction materials on its website" (Compl. ¶57, ¶73).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the patents-in-suit and the infringing nature of Source-Connect "at least as early as when this Complaint was filed and served" (Compl. ¶57, ¶73). This forms a basis for potential post-suit willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: The complaint’s infringement theory is built largely on inference, alleging that the accused product must use the patented method to achieve its advertised results. A key question for the court will be whether Plaintiff can produce direct technical evidence (e.g., through source code review or network traffic analysis) that Source-Connect actually performs the specific steps of using NTP, designating a single "delay reference stream," and pausing all other streams accordingly.
- The case may also turn on a question of technical implementation: Does the accused product's "Auto-Restore & Replace" feature, which compensates for lost data packets, operate in a way that meets the claim limitations of a "file calibrating mechanism" that synchronizes streams by pausing them against a delay reference? Or is there a fundamental mismatch in the technical operation and purpose of these features?
- Finally, a central dispute will be one of definitional scope: Can the claim term "NTP," which is explicitly tied to a formal internet standard in the specification, be construed broadly to cover any functionally equivalent time-synchronization protocol that Defendant may use? The answer will significantly influence the outcome of the infringement analysis.