Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-22-01709/USCOURTS-ca13-22-01709-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Facebook, Inc.
Appellant
Meta Platforms, Inc.
Appellant
Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

META PLATFORMS, INC.,

Defendant-Cross-Appellant

______________________ 

2022-1600, 2022-1709

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York in No. 1:17-cv-03473-JGK, 

Judge John G. Koeltl.

______________________ 

Decided: December 4, 2024

______________________ 

BRIAN DAVID LEDAHL, Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by 

MARC A. FENSTER, MINNA JAY, JAMES S. TSUEI, BENJAMIN 

T. WANG; CHARLES R. MACEDO, Amster Rothstein & 

Ebenstein LLP, New York, NY. 

 HEIDI LYN KEEFE, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued 

for defendant-cross-appellant. Also represented by DENA 

CHEN, MARK R. WEINSTEIN; PHILLIP EDWARD MORTON, 

Washington, DC. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

2

Before PROST, TARANTO, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

TARANTO, Circuit Judge.

Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC (Mirror Worlds) 

owns U.S. Patent Nos. 6,006,227; 7,865,538; and 8,255,439, 

which describe and claim methods for storing, organizing,

and presenting data in time-ordered streams (i.e., in a 

chronological manner) on a computer system. In 2017, 

Mirror Worlds brought the present action in district court 

against Meta Platforms, Inc.—which was formerly known 

as Facebook, Inc. and which we call “Facebook” to adhere 

to the usage of the parties and district court—alleging that

Facebook, by providing several features of its social-networking service to its customers, was infringing the ’227, 

’538, and ’439 patents. After discovery was completed, Facebook moved for summary judgment of non-infringement

of the asserted claims of the patents. The district court 

granted summary judgment. Although the court rejected 

Facebook’s defense of invalidity of the asserted claims for 

ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the court concluded that

there was no infringement as a matter of law because, on 

several grounds, the evidence would not allow a reasonable 

finding that all claim limitations were satisfied by the accused features of Facebook’s service. Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 588 F. Supp. 3d 526, 539, 

550, 555, 557 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (Mirror Worlds 2022).

Mirror Worlds appeals the grant of summary judgment 

of non-infringement, while Facebook cross-appeals the rejection of the invalidity defense. We agree with the district 

court’s non-infringement ruling. Given that conclusion,

and the fact that the patents at issue expired more than six 

years ago, we do not, and both parties agree that we need 

not, address the cross-appeal regarding invalidity. 

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

3

I 

A 

The ’227 patent titled “Document Stream Operating 

System” issued from an application filed June 28, 1996. 

The ’538 and ’439 patents, both titled “Desktop, Streambased, Information Management System” (except for a 

slight punctuation difference), descend from the ’227 patent through continuation applications and a continuationin-part application. All three patents expired by the end of

April 2018. 

The three patents disclose methods for operating a 

computer system in which automatic storage of documents 

is organized by chronology—specifically, timestamps associated with the documents. See J.A. 67 ¶ 57, 90 ¶ 57, 115 

¶ 57. Such a system, Mirror Worlds explained, avoids “disadvantages of conventional” systems, which require users 

to give a file name to a document, manually choose where 

to store the document (in a user-created storage-organization scheme), and remember both the file name and location of the stored document. Mirror Worlds Opening Br. at 

14; ’227 patent, col. 2, lines 14–16; id., col. 1, lines 41–59; 

see also ’538 patent, col. 1, lines 47–65; ’439 patent, col. 1, 

lines 49–67. 

The ’227 patent calls for storage of documents in a 

chronologically ordered “stream.” E.g., ’227 patent, col. 1, 

lines 4–6; id., col. 2, lines 30–32. A “stream” is a “timeordered sequence of documents that functions as a diary of 

a person or an entity’s electronic life.” Id., col. 4, lines 6–8. 

“The tail of a stream contains documents from the past,” 

id., col. 4, lines 10–11, with more recent and new documents added “toward [the] head of the stream.” Id., col. 4, 

lines 12–15. A stream can also “contain[] documents allotted to future times and events, such as, reminders, calendar items, and to-do lists.” Id., col. 4, lines 19–21. A 

“document,” as described in the ’227 patent, “can contain 

any type of data including but not limited to pictures, 

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 3 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

4

correspondence, bills, movies, voice mail and software programs.” Id., col. 4, lines 16–18; see id., col. 14, lines 33–36 

(“‘[D]ocument’ . . . includes traditional text based files, electronic mail files, binary files, audio data, video data, and 

multimedia data.”). 

The ’227 patent states that “[e]very document created 

and every document sen[t] to a person or entity is stored in 

a main stream.” Id., col. 4, lines 8–10 (emphasis added). 

In a prior appeal in the present case, we noted the following 

understanding of the “main stream” requirement (which is 

in the asserted claims of the ’227 and ’538 patents): 

The parties agree that the “main stream” has two 

properties: first, it includes every data unit received or generated by the “computer system”; second, it is a time-ordered sequence of data units.

Mirror Worlds Technologies v. Facebook, Inc., 800 F. App’x 

901, 903 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (Mirror Worlds 2020); J.A. 3–4. 

The ’227 patent also describes “substream[s]”—a “substream” being “a ‘subset’ of the main stream document collection,” ’227 patent, col. 5, lines 16–17, created by filtering 

based on user-generated search criteria. See id., col. 4, line 

48, through col. 5, line 13.

Representative claim 13 of the ’227 patent reads as follows, the highlighted portion requiring the main stream 

just noted:

A method which organizes each data unit received 

by or generated by a computer system, comprising 

the steps of:

generating a main stream of data units and at least 

one substream, the main stream for receiving 

each data unit received by or generated by the 

computer system, and each substream for containing data units only from the main stream;

receiving data units from other computer systems;

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 4 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

5

generating data units in the computer system;

selecting a timestamp to identify each data unit;

associating each data unit with at least one chronological indicator having the respective timestamp;

including each data unit according to the 

timestamp in the respective chronological indicator 

in at least the main stream; and

maintaining at least the main stream and the substreams as persistent streams.

Id., col. 16, lines 9–25 (emphasis added). Claims 14 and 17, 

which depend on claim 13, are also at issue here, but the

added elements are not the basis of the non-infringement 

ruling before us on appeal.

The ’538 and ’439 patents similarly describe a “system 

[that] is stream-based in that it creates time-ordered 

streams of information items or assets, beginning with the 

oldest and continuing through current and on to future 

items.” ’538 patent, col. 1, line 65, through col. 2, line 1; 

’439 patent, col. 1, line 67, through col. 2, line 3; see also

’538 patent, col. 2, lines 7–8 (“When a new document arrives . . . it appears at the head of the stream”); ’439 patent, 

col. 2, lines 9–10 (same). 

Claim 1 of the ’538 patent and claim 1 of the ’439 patent—the claims at issue from those patents—both contain 

a requirement not present in claims 13, 14, and 17 of the 

’227 patent: display of a “glance view,” which is described 

as a “pop-up window” containing document-specific information such as the “document’s title, application type and 

owner,” and “rich multimedia cues,” that is displayed when 

the user passes a cursor over the document. ’538 patent, 

col. 7, lines 17–26; ’439 patent, col. 7, lines 20–29. Independent claim 1 of the ’538 patent reads as follows, with 

only the “glance view” limitations highlighted (the “main 

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 5 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

6

stream” limitations not differing for present purposes from 

those of the ’227 patent): 

A method of operating a computer system comprising:

providing the computer system with documents 

from diverse applications in respective formats 

unique to the respective applications;

causing the computer system to automatically, 

without user interaction and without requiring a 

user to designate directory structures or other preimposed document categorizations structures, 

store the provided documents as a time-ordered 

main stream of documents associated with respective automatically generated time indicators;

said time-ordered main stream being unbounded to 

thereby accommodate documents associated with 

time indicators related to past, present and future 

times;

said time-ordered main stream requiring no fixed 

beginning or end and being maintained and being 

selectively retrievable and searchable by the computer system;

said computer system maintaining the main 

stream live and responsive to subsequent events by 

automatically incorporating therein new documents as provided to the computer system while 

maintaining the thus expanded main stream timeordered;

providing selected search criteria;

causing said computer system to search said timeordered main stream according to said search criteria and use search results to create a time-ordered substream of documents from the main timeordered stream;

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 6 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

7

further causing said computer system to maintain 

said substream live and responsive to subsequent 

events by automatically incorporating therein new 

document provided to the computer system that 

meet the search criteria while maintaining the 

thus expanded substream time-ordered;

displaying at least selected portion of the live main 

stream or substream on computer display means as 

a display reflecting the time-ordered nature 

thereof; 

automatically showing on the display means 

a display of a glance view of a displayed document in response to touching with a cursor a 

screen area associated with the document;

said glance view being an abbreviated version 

of the document and indicative of content 

thereof; and

said showing of the glance view occurring essentially instantaneously in response to said 

touching with the cursor of the screen area associated with the document.

’538 patent, col. 16, lines 20–63 (emphases added).

We do not set out claim 1 of the ’439 patent. That claim

is materially the same as the just-quoted claim 1 of the ’538 

patent in the “glance view” requirement. Although it differs from the other claims at issue here in another respect—it does not have a “main stream” or “substream” 

limitation, but instead has a “main collection” and a “subcollection” limitation, see ’439 patent, col. 16, line 20, 

through col. 17, line 47—we need not and do not address 

that difference in deciding the appeal. 

B 

Facebook provides a popular social-networking computer service to its customer-users. Three features of the 

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 7 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

8

service are at issue here. First, the “News Feed” feature 

provides “a scrolling display (or ‘feed’) that provides stories 

that might be of interest to a viewing user,” such as comments, photos, or videos posted by another user. Mirror 

Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 3d at 531 (internal quotation 

marks omitted). Second, the “Timeline” feature “allows a 

user to share information such as text, images, photos, videos, and other types of data, with other users on Facebook.” 

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Third, the “Activity Log” feature lists actions taken by a specific user. Id. 

Mirror Worlds alleges that Facebook infringes the patents

based on two of Facebook’s “backend” computer systems

(which are distinguished from the unaccused “frontend” 

systems that present material to users) related to the three 

just-noted features. Mirror Worlds Opening Br. at 16, 20, 

38; see also Mirror Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 3d at 531–

32.

One of the backend systems at issue is “the Multifeed 

system, which serves Facebook’s News Feed feature.” Mirror Worlds Opening Br. at 16. The Multifeed system, which 

Mirror Worlds contends meets the “computer system” 

claim limitation, includes three parts: Multifeed Leaves, 

Tailer, and Aggregator. Mirror Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 

3d at 546; Mirror Worlds 2020, 800 F. App’x at 904. Leaves

stores information about recent user actions. J.A. 7458; 

Mirror Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 3d at 545.1 Mirror 

Worlds contends that Leaves meets the claimed “main 

stream” or “main collection” limitation. Mirror Worlds 

Opening Br. at 20. Tailer writes user actions to Leaves for 

storage, Mirror Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 3d at 546, and 

Aggregator retrieves and uses information from Leaves to 

provide “stories” to users through News Feed’s frontend 

1 We use “Leaves” as a singular because the term 

names what is contended to be a main stream (or main collection). 

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 8 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

9

system, which further processes stories before visually displaying them to users. J.A. 3525 (describing how “additional ranking and advertising data [] is used by the 

Multifeed Aggregator to produce News Feed stories”); Facebook Response Br. at 50; Mirror Worlds Opening Br. at 

20; Mirror Worlds 2020, 800 F. App’x at 904.

The second backend system at issue is “the Timeline 

backend system, which serves Facebook’s Timeline and Activity Log features.” Mirror Worlds Opening Br. at 16. The 

Timeline system includes two components of significance 

here: TimelineDB and Timeline Aggregator. Mirror 

Worlds 2020, 800 F. App’x at 904; Mirror Worlds 2022, 588 

F. Supp. 3d at 550. TimelineDB—a database that stores 

information about actions taken by Facebook users—is 

what Mirror Worlds contends meets the “main stream” and 

“main collection” limitations. Mirror Worlds Opening Br. 

at 18; Mirror Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 3d at 550; J.A.

7460. Timeline Aggregator receives and uses information, 

including by querying TimelineDB, that frontend systems 

further process for presentation to users as the Timeline 

and the Activity Log. Mirror Worlds 2020, 800 F. App’x at 

904; Mirror Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 3d at 551; J.A. 7460.

C 

Mirror Worlds brought this case on May 9, 2017. After 

claim-construction briefing was complete, but before the 

fact discovery closed, Facebook moved for summary judgement of non-infringement. See Mirror Worlds 2020, 800 F. 

App’x at 905. Facebook argued that Mirror Worlds failed

to provide evidence that the accused systems had a “computer system” in which all data that came into or was generated by the identified system was stored in a timeordered “main stream,” as the “main stream” claims at issue required. Id. (It made the same argument about “main 

collection” in the ’439 patent. Id.) The district court 

granted Facebook summary judgment, concluding that the 

respective aggregators of the accused systems received 

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 9 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

10

data from “The Association of Objects” (TAO)—Facebook’s 

principal backend data storage of “objects” (i.e., users and 

content, such as pictures and comments that are posted on 

Facebook) and “associations” (i.e., the relationship between 

objects)—that was not stored in Multifeed Leaves or TimelineDB and not otherwise stored in a time-ordered manner. 

Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 320 F. 

Supp. 3d 538, 541, 544–45, 547–49 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (Mirror 

Worlds 2018); see Mirror Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 3d at 

549. In 2020, however, we reversed the summary judgment, concluding that the evidence of record did not establish the absence of a triable issue on the pertinent fact. 

Mirror Worlds 2020, 800 F. App’x at 902, 908–09. We remanded for further proceedings, noting that, because fact 

discovery was not complete, our decision was “without prejudice to otherwise-appropriate consideration of non-infringement contentions on remand.” Id. at 910.

On remand, the parties completed fact and expert discovery. On May 20, 2021, Mirror Worlds moved for partial 

summary judgment of no invalidity based on Facebook’s 

prior-art defenses. See Mirror Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 

3d at 535; J.A. 177. The same day, Facebook moved for 

summary judgment, arguing that (1) the asserted claims 

are ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, 

(2) Facebook does not infringe the asserted claims, and (3) 

there was no willful infringement. Mirror Worlds 2022, 

588 F. Supp. 3d at 535; J.A. 177, 7442.

With respect to non-infringement of all three patents 

at issue, Facebook argued that the record did not permit a 

reasonable finding that the accused systems met the “main 

stream” or “main collection” limitations—with the “every 

data unit” understanding quoted supra—and in support 

Facebook now had additional evidence pinpointing particular information that assertedly the accused “computer 

systems” receive, via their aggregators, but do not store in 

the accused “main streams” or “main collections.” See 

J.A. 7442, 7445–46, 7457–58. For Multifeed Leaves, 

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 10 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

11

Facebook, relying on testimonial evidence, specified the following such information (assertedly received by Multifeed 

Aggregator but not included in Leaves): a coefficient score 

(i.e., “numerical weight that describes the strength of the 

relationship between a user and a friend on Facebook”), advertising information from “AdFinder,” recommendations 

from the “Ego” system (e.g., about which people a user may 

wish to be “friends” with or groups the user may wish to 

join), associations and objects from TAO, information about 

a user’s recent interactions (e.g., recently liked videos), and 

“ReadState” information (i.e., information about “which

stories were already recently presented to the user”). 

J.A. 7458–60; Mirror Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 3d at 546–

50. For TimelineDB, Facebook, again relying on testimonial evidence, specified the following information (assertedly received by Timeline Aggregator but not included in 

TimelineDB): a coefficient score as well as information 

about the user (e.g., birthday) and major life events (e.g., 

graduation) received from the TAO and user database 

(UDB). J.A. 7460–61; Mirror Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 3d 

at 550–55.

For the asserted claims of the ’538 and ’439 patents, 

Facebook presented an additional ground of non-infringement—that Mirror Worlds could not show that the accused 

systems satisfied the “glance view” limitation of those 

claims. J.A. 7442, 7461–66; Mirror Worlds 2022, 588 F. 

Supp. 3d at 555–56. The “hover-over content [of the accused systems],” Facebook argued, “merely provides information about the source or author of the link . . . [but] has 

nothing to do with the content of any underlying document.” J.A. 7462–63. Thus, Facebook contended, the 

“glance view” limitation was not met because “the accused 

hover-over functionality . . . does not provide ‘an abbreviated version of the document’ that is ‘indicative of content 

thereof.’” J.A. 7464.

On March 8, 2022, the district court agreed with Facebook about non-infringement and granted summary 

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 11 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

12

judgment on that basis. Mirror Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 

3d at 557. It determined that no genuine dispute of fact 

existed as to whether Multifeed Leaves or TimelineDB satisfied the “main stream” or “main collection” limitations, 

“mean[ing] that Facebook is entitled to summary judgment 

of non-infringement with respect to all the asserted 

claims.” Id. at 555. With respect to News Feed, the court 

concluded: 

[W]hile Facebook is not entitled to summary judgment of non-infringement based on data received 

from TAO, recent interaction information, or 

ReadState,2 Facebook is entitled to summary judgment of non-infringement on three independent bases: the record conclusively establishes that the 

Multifeed Aggregator (part of the Multifeed System, the alleged computer system) receives information from (1) Coefficient service, (2) AdFinder, 

and (3) Ego that is not stored in the Multifeed 

Leaves (the alleged main stream).

Id. at 550 (footnote added). With respect to Timeline and 

Activity Log, the court held summary judgment warranted 

because: 

Facebook has proven that the Timeline Aggregator 

receives the following data that is not contained in 

the TimelineDB: (1) background user information; 

(2) major life event information; and (3) coefficient 

data. Each of these sets of information constitutes 

an independent basis entitling Facebook to summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to 

Timeline and Activity Log.

2 The district court identified a material factual dispute over whether such information was stored in Multifeed Leaves. Mirror Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 3d at 549–

50.

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 12 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

13

Id. at 555. The district court wrote that “Mirror Worlds 

has failed to create a dispute of material fact as to whether 

the Timeline Aggregator receives” any of these types of

data, concluding that each of Mirror Worlds’ arguments either lacked record support or necessarily failed under the 

district court’s construction of “data unit.” Id. at 554–55. 

Regarding the asserted claims of the ’538 and ’439 patents, the district court also determined that “Mirror 

Worlds presents no admissible evidence to create a dispute 

of material fact as to whether Facebook’s contextual dialog 

box indicates the content of the underlying story or document,” which would be required in order to meet the glance 

view limitation. Id. at 557; see also id. at 556 (granting

Facebook’s motion to exclude Mirror Worlds’ expert’s testimony relying on unauthenticated screenshots). 

The district court denied Facebook’s motion for summary judgment, however, insofar as Facebook argued invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court held that the 

asserted claims were not invalid under § 101. Mirror 

Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 3d at 557.

The district court entered final judgment dismissing 

the case on March 8, 2022. J.A. 66. Mirror Worlds timely 

appealed. Facebook cross-appealed regarding the rejection 

of its § 101 contention. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

II

Following Second Circuit law, we review the grant of 

summary judgment “without deference, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and 

drawing all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.” 

Medgraph, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 843 F.3d 942, 947 (Fed. 

Cir. 2016) (citing Kuebel v. Black & Decker Inc., 643 F.3d 

352, 358 (2d Cir. 2011); Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 

95 (2d Cir. 2010)). As relevant here, when, on a properly 

made record, the evidence precludes a reasonable finding 

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 13 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

14

of a fact that plaintiff must prove to prevail on a claim of 

its complaint, summary judgment under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 56(a) for the defendant on that claim is 

warranted, other issues regarding that claim thus being 

immaterial to the outcome. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–48 (1986). Here, Mirror Worlds asserts literal infringement of specified patent claims (there 

is no live doctrine-of-equivalents contention), and Mirror 

Worlds has the burden of persuasion (by a preponderance 

of the evidence) on literal infringement, requiring (for a 

given patent claim) that it proves that an accused process 

meets “each and every limitation” of that claim. See Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Systems, Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1215 (Fed. 

Cir. 2014).

For literal infringement, “the court first determines the 

scope and meaning of the claims asserted, and then the 

properly construed claims are compared to the allegedly infringing device (for an apparatus claim) or allegedly infringing act (for a method claim).” Niazi Licensing Corp. v.

St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc., 30 F.4th 1339, 1350 (Fed. Cir.

2022). The first step, claim construction, presents an issue

of law, and our review is de novo when intrinsic evidence is

controlling and involves clear-error review to the extent 

that underlying findings of fact relevant to claim meaning

may have been made by the district court. See id. at 1351;

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 

318, 331–32 (2015). Application of the construed claim limitations to the accused products or processes presents an 

issue of fact. See Niazi, 30 F.4th at 1351. Regarding the 

exclusion of certain evidence by the district court, the 

abuse-of-discretion standard of review—specifically, the 

standard requiring deference unless the ruling is “manifestly erroneous”—governs here. SEB S.A. v. Montgomery 

Ward & Co., Inc., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 

(applying Second Circuit law); see also Picard Trustee for 

SIPA Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC v. JABA Associates, LP, 49 F.4th 170, 180–81 (2d 

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 14 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

15

Cir. 2022); Torcivia v. Suffolk County, New York, 17 F.4th 

342, 365–66 (2d Cir. 2021).

We proceed as follows. We first address, and reject,

Mirror Worlds’ challenge to the summary-judgment determination that the evidence would not allow a reasonable 

finding that the accused features meet the “glance view” 

limitations of the ’538 and ’439 patents. Our conclusion on 

that matter forecloses infringement regarding those two 

patents, so we need not address the “main collection” limitation, which appears only in the ’439 patent. What remains is the ’227 patent. For that patent, we address, and 

reject, Mirror Worlds’ challenge to the “data unit” claim 

construction (a ruling that settles non-infringement regarding the News Feed feature) and its challenge to application of that construction to the evidence regarding the 

Timeline and Activity Log features. Those conclusions suffice to support the district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement. As the parties have agreed, 

Oral Arg. at 16:02–16:56, 17:19–44, https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=22-1600_1011202

4.mp3, if we uphold the non-infringement determination of 

the district court, there is no possible further dispute between the parties over these patents (which expired by the 

end of April 2018), so we need not, and we do not, address 

the ineligibility issue raised by Facebook on cross-appeal.

A 

Mirror Worlds argues that the district court erroneously “overlooked” evidence that demonstrates “at least a 

genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the accused 

system satisfied the ‘glance view’ limitations.” Mirror 

Worlds Opening Br. at 61–62. The evidence alleged to have 

been improperly “overlooked” was testimony from Mirror 

Worlds’ expert Dr. Eric Koskinen. Id. (citing J.A. 13326–

34, 13400–05). The district court excluded parts of that 

testimony and held that, on the proper record, a jury could 

not reasonably find that the accused processes meet that 

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 15 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

16

limitation of the ’538 and ’439 patents. Mirror 

Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 3d at 555–57. Specifically, the

district court concluded that Mirror Worlds failed to present “admissible evidence to create a dispute of material 

fact as to whether Facebook’s contextual dialog box”—

which Mirror Worlds identified as the relevant component 

of the accused features for this purpose—“indicates the 

content of the underlying story or document” and thus 

meets the “glance view” limitation. Mirror Worlds 2022, 

588 F. Supp. 3d at 557. We see no reversible error in the 

district court ruling.

The testimony on which Mirror Worlds relies included 

certain screenshots and referred to certain source code supposedly demonstrating that the Timeline and Multifeed

systems met the “glance view” limitation by displaying “‘an 

abbreviated version of the document’ and ‘indicative of content thereof,’” as required by the uncontested claim construction. See id. at 556. The screenshots were 

unauthenticated and from third-party websites. Id. The 

district court explained that it is “plainly unreasonable for 

a technical expert to rely on unauthenticated, undated 

screenshots in forming an opinion” and that such screenshots “are not independently admissible” under Federal

Rules of Evidence 901. Id. We see no abuse of discretion 

in the district court’s exclusion of the screenshots and Dr. 

Koskinen’s testimony relying on them. 

The district court’s grant of summary judgment on the 

remaining record was proper. Dr. Koskinen refers to certain Facebook source code, which is not itself presented to 

us, and the most specific assertion Mirror Worlds makes 

about the code to support its “glance view” argument is that 

the code is used “to create a contextual-dialog component 

containing a member-bio-story component and displays it 

on hover.” Mirror Worlds Opening Br. at 62; J.A. 13326 

¶ 178, 13329–30 ¶ 183, 13332 ¶ 188, 13400 ¶ 365, 13403 

¶ 370. Dr. Koskinen’s testimony does not supply a reasonable basis for finding that the accused systems display an 

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 16 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

17

“abbreviated version” of the underlying document indicative of its content, as the claim requires. Mirror 

Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 3d at 556. And Facebook’s expert, using authenticated screenshots, testified to the contrary—that the contextual dialog boxes, created by the 

cited source code, show only information about the source 

or author, not a summary of the information contained 

within the document. J.A. 8158–59 ¶¶ 14, 16 (testimony 

from Facebook’s Mr. Yifei Tang that although “these source 

code files are responsible for a ‘hover over’ functionality,” it 

“merely provides information about the source or author of 

the link,” not “information about the underlying content of 

the linked-to article”); J.A. 8160–61 ¶¶ 17–18. According 

to this uncontroverted evidence, “[t]he content of the underlying story, in fact, is not even input or otherwise provided to the source code responsible for creating the 

contextual dialog box, and thus, it cannot take that content 

into account when generating” the hover-over contextual 

dialog box. J.A. 8161 ¶ 19.

On this record, we affirm the district court’s grant of 

summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’538 and 

’439 patents based on the “glance view” limitation. We turn 

to the ’227 patent.

B 

The infringement issue before us regarding the asserted claims of the ’227 patent, which focuses on the “main 

stream” limitation, comes down to what findings the summary-judgment record indicates could reasonably be made

about whether Multifeed Leaves and Timeline DB (i.e., the 

accused main streams, organized chronologically) include 

every data unit received or generated by, respectively, the 

Multifeed and Timeline backend systems (i.e., the accused 

computer systems). See Mirror Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 

3d at 531, 540–41; Mirror Worlds 2020, 800 F. App’x at 903. 

If there is a single data unit received or generated by the 

specified computer system that does not get put into the 

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 17 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

18

corresponding main stream, the limitation is not met by 

the specified system-stream combination. The district 

court concluded that the record compels a finding that 

there is such a data unit (or more than one) for each of the 

Multifeed and the Timeline system-stream combinations

and on that basis granted Facebook summary judgment.

We agree with the district court. We first consider Mirror Worlds’ challenge to the district court’s construction of 

the phrase “data unit,” which Mirror Worlds argues is 

“overly broad and inconsistent with the scope of the term 

in light of the intrinsic record.” Mirror Worlds Opening Br. 

at 42. We reject that challenge, and that rejection, it is undisputed, ends Mirror Worlds’ infringement case as to the 

News Feed feature (which uses the Multifeed computer 

system). We then consider Mirror Worlds’ argument that, 

even under the claim construction adopted by the district 

court (and upheld here), “[t]he district court erred in concluding that Facebook presented ‘unequivocal evidence’ 

that the Timeline backend system receives data units that 

are not stored in the TimelineDB.” Id. at 31. We reject 

that argument, finding it sufficient to focus on the coefficient score as a data unit that is received by the specified 

computer system but not included in the specified main 

stream.

1 

The district court construed “data unit” as “an item of 

information.” Mirror Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 3d at 543; 

id. at 547 n.17 (explaining that, as a consequence of accepting Mirror Worlds’ argument that “‘data unit’ can refer to 

data in any format (that is, textual or otherwise),” “there is 

no subject matter or format limitation built into the term 

‘data unit’”). Although the district court rejected Facebook’s proposed construction of “data unit” as a “document,” id. at 543, Mirror Worlds argues the district court 

incorrectly refused to exclude from “data unit” a search 

query (request) as well as information not of direct user 

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 18 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

19

interest. Mirror Worlds Opening Br. at 41–56. We reject 

Mirror Worlds’ claim-construction challenge. 

a 

There is no sound basis for concluding that a search 

query, or information contained within a search query (like 

search criteria), falls outside the broad term “data unit.” 

See Mirror Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 3d at 547; id. n.17. 

We generally give claim terms “their ordinary and customary meaning” to a relevant artisan as understood in light 

of the intrinsic evidence. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 

1303, 1312–14, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The phrase 

“data unit” has a facially broad ordinary meaning that does 

not exclude a query or a search criterion. 

Nothing in the specification limits the format or subject 

matter of “data unit” to support the proposed exclusion. 

The specification in fact underscores, rather than undermines, the propriety of giving the term its ordinary 

breadth. When describing the main stream as storing 

“[e]very document created and every document sen[t] to a 

person or entity,” the specification states that “[a] document can contain any type of data, including but not limited to pictures, correspondence, bills, movies, voice mail 

and software programs.” ’227 patent, col. 4, lines 8–10, 16–

18; see also id., col. 3, lines 6–7 (“each data unit includes 

textual data, video data, audio data and/or multimedia 

data”); id., col. 14, lines 33–36 (explaining that document 

“includes traditional text based files, electronic mail files, 

binary files, audio data, video data, and multimedia data”). 

And we see nothing in the specification to the contrary that 

justifies curtailing the claim language’s breadth to exclude 

a query or information in a query. Although the specification describes use of search queries to create substreams, 

see id., col. 6, lines 61–64; see also id., col. 4, lines 48–56, 

that description does not negate the broader ordinary scope 

of the claim phrase (itself reinforced by the specification 

generally). See Mirror Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 3d at 547 

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 19 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

20

(stating that “[a] query is plainly an ‘item of information,’” 

a phrase proposed by Mirror Worlds, and that this conclusion is consistent with Mirror Worlds’ own statement, in 

the prosecution history (noted infra), “that ‘data unit’ includes any type of data”). Mirror Worlds itself, in prosecution history, stressed the broad scope. J.A. 1348–50, 1498, 

1502.

For those reasons, Mirror Worlds’ query-focused argument is contrary to the strong intrinsic evidence. Because 

this construction dispute is fully resolvable on the intrinsic 

record alone, as the district court also concluded, we need 

not address the slight extrinsic evidence invoked by Mirror 

Worlds. 

b 

We also agree with the district court’s conclusion that 

a relevant artisan “would not understand ‘data unit’ to refer only to those units of data that happen to interest a particular user at a particular time.” Mirror Worlds 2022, 588 

F. Supp. 3d at 541. The broad claim language, “data unit,”

does not suggest any such limitation. And neither does the 

rest of the intrinsic evidence, which nowhere limits data 

units to information “of direct user interest” or an equivalent expression. 

It is hardly enough that “one of the principal goals of 

the invention” is “managing personal electronic information.” Mirror Worlds Opening Br. at 49 (emphasis 

added) (citing ’227 patent, col. 3, lines 61–62); see also ’227 

patent, col. 2, lines 49–51 (“Another object of the present 

inventions is to provide an operating system in which personal data is widely accessible anywhere . . . .”). It is not 

clear how that language justifies limiting the claim term to 

information “of direct user interest,” and in any event other 

objectives do not invoke such a notion. See ’227 patent, col. 

2, lines 13–48. And the broad ordinary meaning does allow 

achievement of the goal invoked here by Mirror Worlds. 

The suggested narrowing is similarly unsupported by the 

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 20 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

21

specification’s mention of a “diary” as an analogy for the 

invention. Id., col. 4, lines 6–8, 27–28. The analogy is 

about time-based organization, not about “personal” content. We see nothing in the specification to justify adoption 

of the ill-defined narrowing that Mirror Worlds proposes. 

See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1326–27 (explaining that a term 

“should not be read restrictively” according to one of the 

multiple objectives set forth in the written description); 

Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Intel Corp., 325 F.3d 1346, 

1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (explaining that a principal use or 

object of an invention does not “constitute[] a limitation on 

the scope of the invention” and that “statements from the 

description of the preferred embodiment” do not “indicate 

that the invention can be used only” according to those 

statements). 

Our conclusion is reinforced by Mirror Worlds’ representations to the Patent and Trademark Office. See Mirror 

Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 3d at 542. In opposing an indefiniteness challenge presented to the Office (in a Covered 

Business Method proceeding3), Mirror Worlds told the Office: “The definitions of ‘data unit’ in both the specification 

and prosecution history do not include the narrowing limitation that forms the basis of [the] indefiniteness challenge—i.e., ‘an item of information that is of direct user 

interest in the user’s timeline.’” J.A. 2009–10. Although 

that statement was made in connection with a different 

claim-construction standard (the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard), it is consistent with the broad “data 

3 See § 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 

Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329–31 (2011). Such proceedings were part of the Transitional Program for Covered 

Business Method Patents, which expired in 2020. See 

Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 

F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2019); GTNX, Inc. v. INTTRA, 

Inc., 789 F.3d 1309, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 21 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

22

unit” “definition[]” provided by Mirror Worlds in prosecuting the ’227 patent’s application, J.A. 1498 (“A ‘data unit’ 

is a ‘document’ because a ‘document can contain any type 

of data’ . . . .”), and with the most natural reading of Mirror 

Worlds’ remarks indicating that “all data units” are “of significance to the user (in the broadest sense),” J.A. 1497–98. 

We therefore reject Mirror Worlds’ second proposed claimconstruction limitation on “data unit.”

2 

The foregoing claim-construction conclusion suffices to 

affirm the summary judgment of non-infringement by Facebook’s News Feed feature, which is served by the Multifeed system. In this court, Mirror Worlds’ only argument 

against summary judgment regarding News Feed depends 

on our agreeing with its “data unit” claim-construction argument. Mirror Worlds Opening Br. at 56. Having rejected that argument, we need not discuss News Feed, and 

the Multifeed system, further.

What remains is Mirror Worlds’ argument that, even 

under the claim construction of “data unit” adopted by the 

district court, the evidence sufficed to avoid summary judgment of non-infringement regarding the Timeline system 

(which serves the Timeline and Activity Log features). 

Mirror Worlds Opening Br. at 31–41. The district court determined that Mirror Worlds failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether several Facebookidentified items of information (“data units”) are received 

or created by the Timeline Aggregator (one of the two components of the specified Timeline “computer system”) but 

not included in TimelineDB (the specified “main stream”): 

background user information, major life-event information, 

and coefficient data. Mirror Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 3d 

at 555. It is sufficient for us to discuss the coefficient information—about which we agree with the district court that 

the evidence of record allows only one reasonable finding, 

namely, that it is (a) received by the Timeline Aggregator 

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 22 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

23

but (b) not included in TimelineDB. Id. at 554–55 (referring back, in part, to finding about News Feed feature). 

That is enough for non-infringement given the demanding 

“each” claim language chosen by Mirror Worlds in its patent, with its undisputed “every” meaning.

Mirror Worlds accepts that coefficient information is

“provided to the Timeline Aggregator to construct requests.” Mirror Worlds Opening Br. at 47 (citing Facebook’s expert Ravin Balakrishnan, J.A. 8286 ¶ 300, who 

cited testimony by Facebook’s Mr. Tang, see J.A. 14161). 

The nature of this coefficient information is undisputed on 

appeal. It is information “used to identify the other users

on Facebook who are believed to have a closer friendship 

with the user in question.” J.A. 7460; see also J.A. 8158 

¶ 12 (testimony by Mr. Tang about Timeline); J.A. 8169 

¶ 12 (testimony by Mr. Yun Mao, in the context of the Multifeed Aggregator, that “a ‘coefficient score’ . . . . provides a 

numerical weight that describes the strength of the relationship between the user and a particular friend”); J.A. 

8291–92 ¶¶ 308–13 (explaining how the source code 

demonstrates that the Timeline aggregator “get[s] the coefficients” and uses “[t]he coefficients (stored with the coeff 

variable) . . . via the getCoefficientScore function”). A Coefficient service produces and transmits such information to 

the Multifeed Aggregator. Mirror Worlds 2022, 588 F. 

Supp. 3d at 547. But Mirror Worlds contends that it provided evidence that all data used by the Timeline backend 

system is stored in TimelineDB, Mirror Worlds Opening 

Br. at 34–38, and “show[ed] an absence of interaction between . . . Coefficient and the Timeline Aggregator.” Id. at 

36. Like the district court, we disagree.

To show that TimelineDB could be found to meet the 

“main stream” limitation, Mirror Worlds does not focus 

specifically on coefficient data; instead, it relies on evidence 

it characterizes as establishing its own generalization that 

TimelineDB stores all information used by the Timeline 

backend system. Mirror Worlds Opening Br. at 31–34 

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 23 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

24

(citing J.A. 13304, 13306, 13309–10, 13291–92, 13294, 

13296, 14291, 14454–55, 14532, 14272–77, 15241–46). But 

the cited exhibits and testimony cannot be reasonably understood to establish that generalization. Some indicate at 

most that data about user actions through the Timeline 

feature is stored, at least some of the time, or under certain 

circumstances, in TimelineDB, J.A. 14273; J.A. 14275 (“If 

the first write is against UDB, system will then attempt to 

write the same data into TimelineDB synchronously . . . .”); 

J.A. 14291 (“We have a whole architecture set up for retrying writes to TimelineDB if the UDB write succeeds, but 

TimelineDB write fails.”). Other cited exhibits indicate no 

more than that the Timeline feature—through its frontend 

system—displays “everything relating to [a user].” J.A. 

14532. Others are nontechnical high-level promotions 

about the Timeline feature as a whole, not reasonably read 

as either comprehensive or focused on the specific issue of 

Timeline Aggregator and Timeline DB. J.A. 14532 (“The 

centrality of timeline is important here - everything relating to you is here and you can review it”); J.A. 15244 

(“building timeline involved backfilling . . . minutiae, new 

friendships, photos, life events”); J.A. 15245 (“Timeline: 

Time-ordered index for all time”); J.A. 15246 (flowchart 

showing arrows between Aggregator and TimelineDB). 

The remaining cited evidence demonstrates only that a 

specific type of data not encompassing the system-generated coefficient information—i.e., “user actions”—is stored 

in the TimelineDB. See J.A. 13304, 13306, 13309–10, 

13291–92, 13294, 13296, 14555 (“Timeline is a backend 

system that persists all actions by users and pages and indexes them chronologically.” (emphasis added)). The exhibits simply cannot be reasonably understood to support 

a generalization that TimelineDB contains “all” the data

received or generated by the Timeline backend system. 

On the other hand, there was focused concrete evidence, from Facebook witnesses with first-hand 

knowledge, that the Timeline backend system does receive 

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 24 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

25

information—coefficient data in particular—that is not 

stored in TimelineDB. See, e.g., J.A. 8289–93 ¶¶ 305–16 

(Dr. Balakrishnan explaining that the Timeline “aggregator [will] talk to both UDB and the Timeline DB” and that, 

in response to a “request received by the Timeline Aggregator,” the “Timeline Aggregator receives many fields containing data units that are not written to TimelineDB”); 

J.A. 8269 (Dr. Balakrishnan explaining system receives information not stored in TimelineDB); J.A. 8158 ¶ 12 (declaration by Mr. Tang explaining that “[t]he Timeline 

Aggregator also obtains information known as ‘coefficient’ 

data . . . [that] is not stored in the TimelineDB; the Aggregator obtains this information from a separate and distinct 

system called Coefficient.”); J.A. 8290–92 ¶¶ 307–13 (testimony by Dr. Ravin Balakrishnan confirming that source 

code demonstrated that the Timeline Aggregator received 

a coefficient score from “Coefficient 2,” which was not 

stored in TimelineDB); J.A. 14161, 77:6–19 (testimony by 

Mr. Tang explaining the Timeline Aggregator will use the 

coefficient score “from Coefficient 2 system”); see also J.A. 

14162, 78:6–13; J.A. 8286–87 ¶¶ 300–301.

The testimony of Mirror Worlds’ expert Dr. Koskinen 

does not create a genuine dispute. To the extent that he 

made the “all” data generalization argued by Mirror 

Worlds, it is at most in a few conclusory assertions. See, 

e.g., J.A. 13302 ¶ 108; J.A. 13303 ¶ 112; J.A. 13306 ¶ 118. 

Dr. Koskinen’s discussion of specific evidence about Facebook products, which is largely limited to the “user actions” 

subcategory of “data units,” see J.A. 13291–300 ¶¶ 82–100; 

J.A. 13304–06 ¶¶ 114–116, does not reasonably support a 

generalization about all data units. No cited testimony 

from Dr. Koskinen addresses coefficient data or the specifics of Facebook’s concrete evidence—not itself undermined—that Timeline Aggregator receives information not 

stored in TimelineDB. Nor is there an answer to the explanation by Facebook’s expert that Dr. Koskinen, while addressing some source code, disregarded other source code 

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 25 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

26

showing that Timeline receives data not stored in TimelineDB. See J.A. 8269–70. There is, in short, no discernible 

grounding that can reasonably support the generalization 

argued by Mirror Worlds.

We are equally unpersuaded by Mirror Worlds’ contention that it presented evidence supporting a reasonable inference that the coefficient data is never received by the 

Timeline backend system and, thus, does not need to be 

stored in TimelineDB to meet the claim requirements. 

None of the evidence Mirror Worlds cites for this contention, including exhibits and testimony describing or depicting the Timeline system, refers to the coefficient data. See

Mirror Worlds Opening Br. at 34–39 (citing J.A. 13626, 

13642, 13664–65, 14273, 14281–82, 14285, 14301, 14542). 

According to Mirror Worlds, the lack of reference to coefficient data in this evidence can reasonably support an inference that the coefficient data does not enter the 

Timeline system at all. We, like the district court, find this 

evidence insufficient to create a genuine dispute of fact. It 

is nothing more than speculation to treat the lack of reference to coefficient data in Mirror Worlds’ selected documents as having the import Mirror Worlds advocates. 

Accordingly, Mirror Worlds’ evidence does not create a genuine dispute of fact.

“It is well-established that unsupported expert opinions do not create a genuine issue of material fact.” Minkin 

v. Gibbons, P.C., 680 F.3d 1341, 1352 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2012); 

see also Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Salvinco, 

Inc., 542 F.3d 290, 311 (2d Cir. 2008); Garcia v. Hartford 

Police Department, 706 F.3d 120, 128 (2d Cir. 2013). In 

these circumstances, even resolving all ambiguities and 

drawing all reasonable inferences against Facebook, see 

Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio 

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 588 (1986), we conclude that the district court did not err in concluding that the record would 

require a reasonable jury to find that the Timeline Aggregator in the Timeline backend system received 

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 26 Filed: 12/04/2024
MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.

META PLATFORMS, INC. 

27

information, namely coefficient information, that is not 

contained within TimelineDB.

III

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of 

the district court with respect to non-infringement of the 

’227, ’538, and ’439 patents, and we dismiss Facebook’s 

cross-appeal.

Costs are awarded to Facebook. 

AFFIRMED AS TO THE APPEAL & DISMISSED AS 

TO THE CROSS-APPEAL

Case: 22-1709 Document: 5 Page: 27 Filed: 12/04/2024