Connectionopen Inc v. Source Elements LLC

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., 03/05/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant having an established place of business within the district and a substantial part of the alleged infringing activities occurring there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Source-Connect product infringes patents related to a method for synchronizing multiple streams of time-based digital audio or video from remote sources over the internet.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses network latency in real-time remote collaboration, enabling users in different locations (e.g., musicians, voice actors) to interact as if they were in the same room.
• Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is a First Amended Complaint. The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-02-22	Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,790 and 8,918,541
2012-10-30	U.S. Patent No. 8,301,790 Issues
2014-12-23	U.S. Patent No. 8,918,541 Issues
2026-03-05	Complaint Filing Date

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”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: When multiple users stream live audio or video over the internet from different locations, network latency causes the streams to arrive at different times, making synchronous collaboration (e.g., musicians playing in unison) difficult or impossible (Compl. ¶12; ’790 Patent, col. 6:33-48).
• The Patented Solution: The invention establishes a common time reference for all participants using a formalized standard like the Network Time Protocol (NTP) (’790 Patent, col. 6:48-54). The system identifies the stream with the highest latency (the "delay reference stream") and then buffers the other, faster-arriving streams just long enough to ensure all streams are rendered in unison, compensating for the different travel times over the network (Compl. ¶¶13, 33-34; ’541 Patent, col. 10:20-34). Figure 2 of the patent illustrates the system architecture, involving multiple clients, a session server, and NTP servers (Compl. ¶11).
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a method for achieving real-time, synchronized multi-party audio and video collaboration over standard internet connections, a significant challenge in professional recording and broadcast industries (Compl. ¶¶9-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
• Claim 1 outlines a method for synchronous delivery and playback of electronic files, comprising the key elements of:
  • A session server providing a list of Network Time Protocol (NTP) servers to clients.
  • A client application that uses NTP or an equivalent to establish a shared time reference (an "NTP clock") with other clients.
  • A "timing adjustor" that enables each client to acquire NTP timestamps from all other clients in the session.
  • A "file calibrator" that analyzes arrival latencies and synchronizes the streams so they arrive at the same time.
  • Receivers that decode NTP timestamps, designate the stream with the highest latency as the "delay reference stream," and use its timestamp as a reference.
  • Immediately rendering the delay reference stream while pausing other streams until their timestamps align with the reference, ensuring they are played in unison.

U.S. Patent No. 8,301,790 - “Synchronization of audio and video signals from remote sources over the internet”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the ’541 Patent, the invention addresses the problem of differing arrival times for media streams from remote users, which prevents them from playing or performing in unison (Compl. ¶12; ’790 Patent, col. 6:33-48).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system where participants connect to a session server that provides a "master timestamp" as a universal time reference (’790 Patent, claim 1). Client applications use a formalized Internet time standard, such as NTP, to synchronize their local clocks to this master timestamp. A timing mechanism polls the network to maintain synchronization, and a file calibrating mechanism buffers streams to compensate for latency, ensuring all participants experience the combined media in unison (Compl. ¶¶13, 42-43, 46-47; ’790 Patent, col. 10:26-34).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for geographically dispersed users to collaborate on time-sensitive audio and video projects over the internet, which has applications in industries like music production and remote voiceover recording (Compl. ¶¶9-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1.
• Claim 1 outlines a method for synchronous delivery, comprising the key elements of:
  • A session server with a "master timestamp" used as a time reference by all participants.
  • A client application that connects to the server and other participants, using a "formalized Internet time standard (the Network Time Protocol (NTP) or its equivalent)" to synchronize its own timestamp with the master timestamp.
  • A "timing mechanism" that increases the polling frequency of NTP to achieve precision of at least 10 milliseconds.
  • A "file calibrating mechanism" with a buffer to analyze arrival latencies and a mixer to compile synchronized files.
  • Receivers at each client and the server that receive information packets from each client.
  • A process of decoding and rendering streams, where the stream with the highest latency is designated as the reference and other streams are paused until they are in sync.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Defendant’s flagship product, “Source-Connect” (Compl. ¶1; Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

• Source-Connect is a software product that provides an architecture for synchronizing multiple streams of time-based digital content from separate remote sources (Compl. ¶18). It is marketed as a tool for remote collaboration among professionals like voice actors, producers, and engineers by creating real-time audio streaming sessions (Compl. ¶22).
• The complaint alleges the product advertises “[s]ynchronized timelines,” a feature that requires clients to have time references synchronized to a common time base (Compl. ¶23). A screenshot in the complaint depicts the Source-Connect user interface during a multi-user session, showing connections to several remote participants (Compl. ¶21). The product also includes features like "Auto-Restore & Replace," which allegedly rely on knowing the timing of data packets to repair stream dropouts, further suggesting the use of precise time-stamping (Compl. ¶33).
• The complaint identifies Defendant as a direct competitor in the remote connection software industry (Compl. ¶17). A screenshot of the product's marketing page shows various subscription and license pricing tiers, indicating its commercial positioning (Compl. ¶19).

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, the list is passed to each client... so that each client will acquire that client's own time reference;	On information and belief, Source-Connect maintains a list of NTP servers, either itself or through the host OS, and passes this to each client so it can acquire its own time reference (Compl. ¶24).	¶24	col. 10:55-60
b. a client application... each client having an NTP clock which is shared with all clients;	Source-Connect sessions involve multiple clients connecting to a centralized session server (Compl. ¶25). On information and belief, each client has an NTP clock or equivalent that is shared with all other clients (Compl. ¶26).	¶25; ¶26	col. 11:3-8
c. a timing adjustor... enabling the NTP timestamp adjustor of each client to acquire the NTP timestamp from all clients...	The product's architecture allegedly enables an NTP timestamp adjustor on each client to acquire timestamps from all clients and enables the session server to calculate latency and synchronize all clients' streams (Compl. ¶27).	¶27	col. 11:9-16
d. a file calibrator in each client application... having a buffer having a method for analyzing the difference in arrival latencies of streams by all clients, and a method for synchronizing the streams... and a mixer that returns each stream to all clients;	On information and belief, Source-Connect uses local buffers to compensate for jitter and includes a file calibrator with a buffer to analyze latency differences and a mixer to return synchronized streams to all clients (Compl. ¶29; Compl. ¶30).	¶29; ¶30	col. 11:17-26
e. respective receivers at each client... decoding the NTP timestamp... the stream with the highest difference designated as the “delay reference” stream and the NTP timestamp from the delay reference stream is used as a reference time delayed NTP timestamp;	On information and belief, receivers decode the NTP timestamp from each client, compare it to a standard, identify the stream with the highest latency as the "delay reference" stream, and use its timestamp as the reference (Compl. ¶33).	¶33	col. 11:32-43
f. once the delayed reference stream has been determined, its data is immediately decoded and rendered... other incoming streams are then decoded and paused until their NTP timestamp or equivalent agrees with the delayed NTP timestamp... so that all incoming streams are in sync...	The complaint alleges that it logically follows from the system's function that the delay reference stream is rendered immediately, while other streams are decoded and paused until their timestamps align, ensuring all streams are in unison (Compl. ¶34).	¶34	col. 11:44-52

’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, Source-Connect includes a session server with a master timestamp that is used as a time reference by all session participants (Compl. ¶43).	¶43	col. 12:7-10
b. a client application... having a client timestamp and utilizing a formalized Internet time standard (the Network Time Protocol (NTP) or its equivalent)... the client and server timestamp being synchronized with the master timestamp;	Source-Connect clients connect to a session server and other participants (Compl. ¶44). On information and belief, each client application has a timestamp and uses NTP or an equivalent to synchronize with the master timestamp (Compl. ¶45).	¶44; ¶45	col. 12:11-19
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;	Source-Connect's advertised "synchronized timelines" suggests high precision, which likely requires polling (Compl. ¶46). On information and belief, the product includes a timing mechanism that increases polling frequency to achieve at least 10ms precision (Compl. ¶46).	¶46	col. 12:20-25
d. a file calibrating mechanism, said file calibrating mechanism having a buffer, a mixer, and a delayed timestamp... said buffer having a means for analyzing the difference in arrival latencies... and said mixer compiling the synchronized files into multiple files...	On information and belief, Source-Connect uses local buffers and includes a file calibrating mechanism with a buffer to analyze latency, a mixer to compile the streams, and a delayed timestamp to serve as the timing means for the synchronized files (Compl. ¶¶47-49).	¶¶47-49	col. 12:26-36
f. ...other incoming streams are then decoded and then paused until their timestamp agrees with the delayed timestamp and only then are they rendered to the client... so that all incoming streams are in sync with the delayed timestamp and are therefore in unison with one another.	The complaint alleges that it logically follows from the system's architecture that the slowest stream is rendered immediately, while other streams are paused until their timestamps match, ensuring all are rendered in unison (Compl. ¶52).	¶52	col. 12:48-56

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The claims in both patents recite the use of "Network Time Protocol (NTP) or an equivalent." The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Source-Connect either uses NTP or "requests NTP timestamps from the operating system it runs on" (Compl. ¶23; Compl. ¶42). A central legal question will be whether requesting general system-level timestamps constitutes an "equivalent" to NTP as understood in the context of the patents.
• Technical Questions: Many of the complaint’s allegations regarding the internal operations of Source-Connect are made "on information and belief" or are presented as logical necessities of its advertised functions (Compl. ¶¶23, 27, 33, 34, 52). A key factual question for discovery will be whether the accused product's architecture actually performs the specific steps claimed, such as designating one stream as the "delay reference stream" and pausing all others relative to it, or if it achieves synchronization through a technically distinct method. A screenshot of a session request alert box shows the system facilitating connections between users, which may provide some evidence for the client application and server elements (Compl. ¶25).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "Network Time Protocol (NTP) or an equivalent" / "formalized Internet time standard... (the Network Time Protocol (NTP) or its equivalent)" (’541 Patent, claim 1; ’790 Patent, claim 1)
• Context and Importance: The entire patented method of synchronization is predicated on establishing a common, precise time reference among all participants. The scope of "equivalent" will be critical, as it determines whether the claims cover systems that achieve synchronization using time sources other than a formal NTP implementation, such as by leveraging the host operating system's clock. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's theory of infringement relies on a potentially broad interpretation that includes OS-level timestamps.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers more generally to using a "standard time reference that all musicians will agree upon" and a "Master Metronome" (’790 Patent, col. 6:48-51). This language could suggest that the inventive concept is the functional use of any reliable, shared time source, not strictly NTP itself.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly and repeatedly identifies NTP and its corresponding RFC standards (’790 Patent, col. 6:51-52; ’790 Patent, col. 9:1-10). This specific disclosure could be used to argue that an "equivalent" must be a protocol that shares the key technical characteristics of NTP, such as its method of polling servers and calculating network-adjusted time, rather than any generic timestamping function.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The basis for this allegation is that Defendant "actively encourage[s] and instruct[s] its customers and end users (for example, through online instruction materials on its website)" to use Source-Connect in a manner that directly infringes the patents (Compl. ¶35; Compl. ¶53).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a specific count for willful infringement, but the inducement allegations claim Defendant acts "knowingly and intentionally" (Compl. ¶35; Compl. ¶53). The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the patents and the infringing nature of its product "at least as early as when this Complaint was filed and served," which may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶35; Compl. ¶53).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "NTP or an equivalent" be construed to cover the act of requesting general timestamps from a host operating system, as alleged by the Plaintiff on information and belief, or is it limited to specific network time-synchronization protocols that are technically analogous to NTP? The outcome of this claim construction dispute may be dispositive.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: the complaint infers many of the internal functions of the accused product from its external marketing and performance. A central issue for discovery will be whether Source-Connect's software architecture actually implements the specific, multi-step synchronization method recited in the claims—particularly the designation of a "delay reference stream" and the corresponding buffering of all other streams—or if it achieves its "synchronized timelines" through a fundamentally different technical process.