What the patents claim
Claim 1 of US 12,572,265 receives a request to play a media file on a first computer and a request for a synchronous session with a separate second computer that is showing other content. The first computer sends an invitation to the second and receives its acceptance. It then starts the session, in which both screens show the file in sync, and later terminates it.
Claim 1 of US 10,705,694 is the server-side version. At a selected point during playback of a stored presentation, the first user asks to collaborate with a second user who is showing other content. The server shows that point of the presentation on the second display in sync until the first user ends the collaboration.
What we found
Nokia’s US 8,417,827 (priority December 2001) receives a playback invite from a host terminal that names a guest terminal and an existing media file. It forwards the invite to the guest, relays the guest’s acceptance to the host and sends a start-playback request so that both play in sync. When the host ends the session, it sends a stop request and terminates the session. A dependent claim gives a guest who joins late the elapsed time, so that it starts at the current point.
Microsoft’s US 2010/0083324 (filed September 2008) synchronises video playback among several users across a network. One client controls the playback state, and the others conform to it.
Hewlett-Packard’s US 6,108,687 (1998) presents slides in sync to several networked workstations. Genband’s US 7,996,566 (December 2008) shares streaming media with synchronised playback control.
None of the four appears in the citation record of the ’694 (37 references) or the ’265 (42 references).
Why it matters to the defendants
Nokia maps onto nearly every step of the ’265 claim: the playback request, the invitation, the acceptance, the synchronised session and the termination. Its late-joiner clause also comes close to the ’694’s collaboration at a selected point in playback. The open points are that the second computer was showing other content before the session, which Nokia does not state expressly, and the ’694’s framing as a stored presentation of fixed duration. The same references serve both defendants. For Microsoft, the 2008 application is its own.
The answer in Patent Mechanics
The search as it appears in the app, abridged.
| Reference | Assignee | Priority | Citation record | Fit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US 8,417,827 | Nokia | 2001 | Not cited | Strong |
| US 2010/0083324 | Microsoft | 2008 | Not cited | Partial |
| US 6,108,687 | Hewlett-Packard | 1998 | Not cited | Partial |
| Element | Claim language (abridged) | ’827 | ’324 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1[a] | Request to play a media file on the first computer | ✓ | ✓ |
| 1[b] | Request a synchronous session with a second computer showing other content | ? | ? |
| 1[c] | Send an invitation to the second computer | ✓ | ? |
| 1[d] | Receive acceptance and start the session | ✓ | ? |
| 1[e] | Terminate the synchronised display on both | ✓ | ? |
References
| Reference | Title | Priority | Covers | Gaps |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US 8,417,827 | Synchronous media playback and messaging system (Nokia) | 2001-12-12 | Host invites a guest to play an existing media file; acceptance relayed; synchronised start; host ends the session; late joiner gets the elapsed time | Guest showing other content before the session is not stated |
| US 2010/0083324 | Synchronized video playback among multiple users across a network (Microsoft) | 2008-09-30 | Several users watch the same video in sync; one client controls playback state | Invitation and acceptance not confirmed |
| US 6,108,687 | Synchronized display to a plurality of computers (Hewlett-Packard) | 1998-03-02 | Synchronised presentation of slides across networked workstations | Live slide show, not a stored media file joined mid-playback |
Limits of this analysis
- We used the earliest date, the June 2010 provisional, and all references predate it.
- Our index holds the full claims and roughly the first 10,000 characters of each description. Passages were checked in that text, and a full claim chart is the next step.
- Watch-together and co-viewing products sold before 2010 are likely further non-patent evidence and are outside this search.
“Not cited” means the reference does not appear in the examiner or applicant citations of the patent or its family in our index. This article is research, not legal advice, and makes no finding that any claim is invalid.
You can do what’s written in this article, and a lot more, today on Patent Mechanics. Try it with a 7-day free trial, no credit card required.