LearnMaster Files Eight Suits on Two Presentation Patents, Including Against Microsoft and Zoom.

The eight suits

LearnMaster LLC has filed eight patent infringement complaints on two related patents, U.S. Patents 10,705,694 and 12,572,265. The first, against Louper.io Ltd., was filed in the Eastern District of Texas on March 17, 2026, one week after the '265 patent issued. Five more followed in the Eastern District of Texas on September 2, 2026, and two more on October 20, 2026, against Microsoft Corporation in the Western District of Texas and Zoom Communications Video, Inc. in the District of Colorado. Seven complaints assert both patents; the Sony complaint asserts only the '265 patent.

The accused products in the table come from the claim charts attached to the complaints. Each complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and "Exemplary" patent claims identified in the attached charts and incorporates those charts by reference.

What the complaints plead

The eight complaints follow one template and differ mainly in the defendant, the court, the venue paragraph, and, for Sony, the single patent. Each says LearnMaster LLC is "a corporation organized and existing under the laws of New Mexico" with its principal place of business in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and that it is "the assignee of all right, title and interest" in the patents in suit, including the right to collect damages "for all relevant times." Each pleads subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a) and personal jurisdiction based on the defendant's "systematic and continuous business activities" in the district.

The six Eastern District of Texas complaints plead venue under 28 U.S.C. 1391(c) because the defendant "is a foreign corporation." They place Louper.io Ltd. in London, United Kingdom; Bending Spoons S.p.A. in Milan, Italy; Enghouse System Limited in Markham, Ontario, Canada; Livestorm SAS in Lyon, France; Redbrick Technologies Inc. in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada; and Sony Group Corporation in Tokyo, Japan. The Microsoft and Zoom complaints plead venue under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) on the ground that the defendant "has an established place of business in this District." The Microsoft complaint describes Microsoft as a Washington corporation with an established place of business in Austin, Texas, and was filed in the Midland/Odessa Division. The Zoom complaint describes Zoom Communications Video, Inc. as a Delaware corporation with an established place of business in Denver, Colorado.

Each count alleges direct infringement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing the products identified in the charts, and alleges, on information and belief, that "numerous other devices" that infringe have been made, used, sold, imported, and offered for sale by the defendant or its customers. Each count separately alleges direct infringement by "having its employees internally test and use" the products. For knowledge, each complaint alleges that "[t]he service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts and references cited, constitutes actual knowledge of infringement," and alleges induced infringement "[a]t least since being served by this Complaint and corresponding claim charts." The complaints allege, on information and belief, that the defendant continued to sell the products and distribute product literature and website materials inducing end users to use them in a way that infringes.

The prayer in each complaint asks for a judgment that each asserted patent is valid and enforceable, a judgment that the defendant "has infringed directly and indirectly," an accounting of damages not presented at trial, damages under 35 U.S.C. 284 "for Defendant's continuing or future infringement, up until the date such judgment is entered," with pre- or post-judgment interest, costs, and disbursements, a declaration that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285 with attorney fees, costs and expenses, and further relief at law or in equity. Each demands a jury under Rule 38(b). Each is signed by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC in Chicago, Illinois.

The two patents

U.S. Patent 10,705,694, titled Method, System and User Interface for Creating and Displaying of Presentations, issued July 7, 2020, from Application No. 15/900,271, filed February 20, 2018. The patent says it is a continuation of Application No. 14/485,320, filed September 12, 2014, now U.S. Patent 9,933,924, which is a continuation of Application No. 13/159,766, filed June 14, 2011, now U.S. Patent 8,850,320, and it claims the benefit of a provisional application filed June 15, 2010. It has 17 claims.

U.S. Patent 12,572,265, titled Methods, Systems, and User Interface for Displaying of Presentations, issued March 10, 2026, from Application No. 18/296,860, filed April 6, 2023. The patent says it is a continuation of Application No. 16/889,000, filed June 1, 2020, now abandoned, which is a continuation of the application that issued as the '694 patent. It has 21 claims.

The face of each patent states that the term is extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days and that the patent "is subject to a terminal disclaimer."

The charted claims

Claim 1 of the '694 patent covers a computer-implemented method for interactive delivery, by a processor, of a pre stored electronic presentation of a predetermined duration to user computers of multiple users, each with an information display and coupled to the processor by a computer network. The processor receives a playback request from a first user computer to play the presentation on that computer's display. At a selected point in time during playback, the processor receives a collaboration request from the first user computer to enter a collaboration mode with a second user computer, which is displaying content other than information associated with that point in the playback. The collaboration mode comprises synchronously displaying, on the second user computer's display, the information associated with that point in the playback as displayed on the first user computer. In response to an end collaboration request from the first user computer, the processor terminates the collaboration mode, including the synchronous display.

Claim 11 of the '265 patent covers a computer-implemented method for synchronous delivery of a media file to multiple user computers. A first user computer displays content other than the media file on its information display; receives, from a separate second user computer, a request to join a synchronous session including the second user computer; and receives, at its user interface, an indication of acceptance of that request. In response to the acceptance, the first user computer enters the synchronous session, which comprises synchronously displaying at least a portion of the media file on the displays of both computers. The method ends by terminating the synchronous session, at least by terminating the synchronous display at both computers.

The public '694 charts address claim 1, and the public '265 charts address claim 11. The '694 claim is framed around a processor that receives playback, collaboration, and end requests from a first user computer. The '265 claim is framed around the first user computer itself, which receives the join request and the acceptance and then enters and ends the synchronous session.

How the public charts map the claims

The Louper charts map the '694 claim to Presentation Rooms: uploaded video files as the pre stored presentation, a host's selection and loading of a source as the playback request, a shared default link as the collaboration request, synchronous review in which each frame is seen by everyone at the same time as the collaboration mode, and an "End session for everyone" option as the end request. The '265 chart maps the join request and acceptance to a guest waiting in the Lobby and the host admitting that guest to the room.

The Bending Spoons charts map both claims to Evernote Enterprise, treating an Evernote notebook as the pre stored presentation and the media file, sending an invitation as the collaboration request, a collaborator who can see and edit the shared notebook in real time as the synchronous display, and a "deactivate user" action as ending the collaboration and the session. The Enghouse charts map both claims to Enghouse Video VidyoRoom, with an uploaded presentation, an invitation to guests, the VidyoRoom as the collaboration mode, and "Stop sharing" as the end request.

The Livestorm charts map both claims to Livestorm, with uploaded media files, an invite link, synchronous playback for event participants, a registration request as the request to join, registered participant information as the indication of acceptance, and "end event" or "remove media file" as the end request. The Redbrick charts map both claims to Animoto, with uploaded projects, a team workspace as the collaboration mode, an invite email or invite link as the request, and changing or removing user roles as the end request.

The Sony chart maps '265 claim 11 to the Crunchyroll mobile application, using SharePlay sessions. It treats movies and TV shows as the media file, a profile page or subscription management page as the other content on the first user device, a second user's acceptance of a FaceTime call as the request to join and the indication of acceptance, starting SharePlay as entering the synchronous session, and ending a SharePlay session as terminating it.

The Microsoft and Zoom complaints attach the two patents as Exhibits 1 and 2 and claim charts as Exhibits 3 and 4. Those claim charts are not on the public docket.

The dockets

The Sony docket lists a notice of voluntary dismissal on September 4, 2026 and an order dismissing the case on September 10, 2026.

What to watch next

Watch the seven dockets other than Sony's for answers, Rule 12 motions, scheduling orders, consolidation orders, and dismissals entered after the latest public entries. Watch also for any challenge to venue under 28 U.S.C. 1391(c) in the Eastern District of Texas cases or under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) in the Microsoft and Zoom cases, and for any petition at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board against either patent. Any of the cases can end at any time, including by license, settlement, or voluntary dismissal.