Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

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 D AVID L EDAHL , Russ August & Kabat, Los Ange-
les, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by
MARC A. F ENSTER, MINNA J AY , J AMES S. T SUEI, BENJAMIN
T. WANG; CHARLES R. MACEDO, Amster Rothstein &
Ebenstein LLP, New York, NY.
HEIDI L YN K EEFE , Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued
for defendant-cross-appellant. Also represented by D ENA
CHEN, MARK R. WEINSTEIN; P HILLIP EDWARD MORTON,
Washington, DC.
______________________
Case: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 1 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 1 of 27 --

MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.
META PLATFORMS, INC.
2
Before P ROST , T ARANTO, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
T ARANTO, 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-net-
working service to its customers, was infringing the ’227,
’538, and ’439 patents. After discovery was completed, Fa-
cebook 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 ac-
cused features of Facebook’s service. Mirror Worlds Tech-
nologies, 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 re-
jection 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: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 2 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 2 of 27 --

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, Stream-
based, Information Management System” (except for a
slight punctuation difference), descend from the ’227 pa-
tent through continuation applications and a continuation-
in-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 asso-
ciated with the documents. See J.A. 67 ¶ 57, 90 ¶ 57, 115
¶ 57. Such a system, Mirror Worlds explained, avoids “dis-
advantages 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-organiza-
tion scheme), and remember both the file name and loca-
tion 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 “time-
ordered 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 docu-
ments added “toward [the] head of the stream.” Id., col. 4,
lines 12–15. A stream can also “contain[] documents allot-
ted to future times and events, such as, reminders, calen-
dar 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: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 3 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 3 of 27 --

MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.
META PLATFORMS, INC.
4
correspondence, bills, movies, voice mail and software pro-
grams.” Id., col. 4, lines 16–18; see id., col. 14, lines 33–36
(“‘[D]ocument’ . . . includes traditional text based files, elec-
tronic 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 re-
ceived or generated by the “computer system”; sec-
ond, 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 “sub-
stream” being “a ‘subset’ of the main stream document col-
lection,” ’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 fol-
lows, 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 con-
taining data units only from the main stream;
receiving data units from other computer systems;
Case: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 4 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 4 of 27 --

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 chron-
ological 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 sub-
streams 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 ar-
rives . . . 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 pa-
tent—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 infor-
mation 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. Inde-
pendent claim 1 of the ’538 patent reads as follows, with
only the “glance view” limitations highlighted (the “main
Case: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 5 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 5 of 27 --

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 compris-
ing:
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 pre-
imposed document categorizations structures,
store the provided documents as a time-ordered
main stream of documents associated with respec-
tive 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 com-
puter system;
said computer system maintaining the main
stream live and responsive to subsequent events by
automatically incorporating therein new docu-
ments as provided to the computer system while
maintaining the thus expanded main stream time-
ordered;
providing selected search criteria;
causing said computer system to search said time-
ordered main stream according to said search cri-
teria and use search results to create a time-or-
dered substream of documents from the main time-
ordered stream;
Case: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 6 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 6 of 27 --

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 doc-
ument 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 es-
sentially instantaneously in response to said
touching with the cursor of the screen area as-
sociated 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 dif-
fers from the other claims at issue here in another re-
spect—it does not have a “main stream” or “substream”
limitation, but instead has a “main collection” and a “sub-
collection” 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 com-
puter service to its customer-users. Three features of the
Case: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 7 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 7 of 27 --

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 com-
ments, 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, vid-
eos, and other types of data, with other users on Facebook.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Third, the “Activ-
ity 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.” Mir-
ror 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 col-
lection).
Case: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 8 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 8 of 27 --

MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.
META PLATFORMS, INC.
9
system, which further processes stories before visually dis-
playing them to users. J.A. 3525 (describing how “addi-
tional ranking and advertising data [] is used by the
Multifeed Aggregator to produce News Feed stories”); Fa-
cebook 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 Ac-
tivity 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 judge-
ment 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 “com-
puter system” in which all data that came into or was gen-
erated by the identified system was stored in a time-
ordered “main stream,” as the “main stream” claims at is-
sue 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: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 9 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 9 of 27 --

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 Time-
lineDB 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 judg-
ment, concluding that the evidence of record did not estab-
lish the absence of a triable issue on the pertinent fact.
Mirror Worlds 2020, 800 F. App’x at 902, 908–09. We re-
manded for further proceedings, noting that, because fact
discovery was not complete, our decision was “without prej-
udice to otherwise-appropriate consideration of non-in-
fringement contentions on remand.” Id. at 910.
On remand, the parties completed fact and expert dis-
covery. 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 partic-
ular 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: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 10 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 10 of 27 --

MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.
META PLATFORMS, INC.
11
Facebook, relying on testimonial evidence, specified the fol-
lowing 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”), ad-
vertising 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 testimo-
nial evidence, specified the following information (assert-
edly 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-infringe-
ment—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 ac-
cused systems],” Facebook argued, “merely provides infor-
mation about the source or author of the link . . . [but] has
nothing to do with the content of any underlying docu-
ment.” J.A. 7462–63. Thus, Facebook contended, the
“glance view” limitation was not met because “the accused
hover-over functionality . . . does not provide ‘an abbrevi-
ated version of the document’ that is ‘indicative of content
thereof.’” J.A. 7464.
On March 8, 2022, the district court agreed with Face-
book about non-infringement and granted summary
Case: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 11 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 11 of 27 --

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 sat-
isfied 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 judg-
ment of non-infringement based on data received
from TAO, recent interaction information, or
ReadState,2 Facebook is entitled to summary judg-
ment of non-infringement on three independent ba-
ses: the record conclusively establishes that the
Multifeed Aggregator (part of the Multifeed Sys-
tem, the alleged computer system) receives infor-
mation 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 sum-
mary judgment of non-infringement with respect to
Timeline and Activity Log.
2 The district court identified a material factual dis-
pute over whether such information was stored in Mul-
tifeed Leaves. Mirror Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 3d at 549–
50.
Case: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 12 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 12 of 27 --

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 ei-
ther 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 pa-
tents, 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 docu-
ment,” 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 testi-
mony relying on unauthenticated screenshots).
The district court denied Facebook’s motion for sum-
mary judgment, however, insofar as Facebook argued inva-
lidity 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 ev-
idence 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: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 13 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 13 of 27 --

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 as-
serts 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 Erics-
son, 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 in-
fringing device (for an apparatus claim) or allegedly in-
fringing 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 lim-
itations 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 “mani-
festly 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 Securi-
ties LLC v. JABA Associates, LP, 49 F.4th 170, 180–81 (2d
Case: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 14 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 14 of 27 --

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 deter-
mination 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” limi-
tation, which appears only in the ’439 patent. What re-
mains 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 re-
garding the News Feed feature) and its challenge to appli-
cation of that construction to the evidence regarding the
Timeline and Activity Log features. Those conclusions suf-
fice to support the district court’s grant of summary judg-
ment of non-infringement. As the parties have agreed,
Oral Arg. at 16:02–16:56, 17:19–44, https://oralargu-
ments.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 be-
tween 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 errone-
ously “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: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 15 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 15 of 27 --

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 pre-
sent “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 sup-
posedly demonstrating that the Timeline and Multifeed
systems met the “glance view” limitation by displaying “‘an
abbreviated version of the document’ and ‘indicative of con-
tent thereof,’” as required by the uncontested claim con-
struction. 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 screen-
shots “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 cer-
tain 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 reason-
able basis for finding that the accused systems display an
Case: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 16 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 16 of 27 --

MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.
META PLATFORMS, INC.
17
“abbreviated version” of the underlying document indica-
tive of its content, as the claim requires. Mirror
Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 3d at 556. And Facebook’s ex-
pert, using authenticated screenshots, testified to the con-
trary—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 un-
derlying story, in fact, is not even input or otherwise pro-
vided 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 as-
serted claims of the ’227 patent, which focuses on the “main
stream” limitation, comes down to what findings the sum-
mary-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: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 17 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 17 of 27 --

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 Mir-
ror 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 un-
disputed, 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 con-
cluding 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 coeffi-
cient 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 accept-
ing 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 Face-
book’s proposed construction of “data unit” as a “docu-
ment,” 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: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 18 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 18 of 27 --

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 custom-
ary 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 under-
mines, 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] docu-
ment can contain any type of data, including but not lim-
ited 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 specifica-
tion 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: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 19 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 19 of 27 --

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 conclu-
sion is consistent with Mirror Worlds’ own statement, in
the prosecution history (noted infra), “that ‘data unit’ in-
cludes any type of data”). Mirror Worlds itself, in prosecu-
tion history, stressed the broad scope. J.A. 1348–50, 1498,
1502.
For those reasons, Mirror Worlds’ query-focused argu-
ment 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 re-
fer only to those units of data that happen to interest a par-
ticular 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 equiva-
lent expression.
It is hardly enough that “one of the principal goals of
the invention” is “managing personal electronic infor-
mation.” 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 per-
sonal 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: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 20 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 20 of 27 --

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” con-
tent. 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’ repre-
sentations to the Patent and Trademark Office. See Mirror
Worlds 2022, 588 F. Supp. 3d at 542. In opposing an indef-
initeness challenge presented to the Office (in a Covered
Business Method proceeding3), Mirror Worlds told the Of-
fice: “The definitions of ‘data unit’ in both the specification
and prosecution history do not include the narrowing limi-
tation that forms the basis of [the] indefiniteness chal-
lenge—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-in-
terpretation 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 pro-
ceedings 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: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 21 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 21 of 27 --

MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.
META PLATFORMS, INC.
22
unit” “definition[]” provided by Mirror Worlds in prosecut-
ing 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 sig-
nificance to the user (in the broadest sense),” J.A. 1497–98.
We therefore reject Mirror Worlds’ second proposed claim-
construction limitation on “data unit.”
2
The foregoing claim-construction conclusion suffices to
affirm the summary judgment of non-infringement by Fa-
cebook’s News Feed feature, which is served by the Mul-
tifeed system. In this court, Mirror Worlds’ only argument
against summary judgment regarding News Feed depends
on our agreeing with its “data unit” claim-construction ar-
gument. Mirror Worlds Opening Br. at 56. Having re-
jected 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 judg-
ment 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 de-
termined that Mirror Worlds failed to create a genuine dis-
pute of material fact as to whether several Facebook-
identified items of information (“data units”) are received
or created by the Timeline Aggregator (one of the two com-
ponents 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 infor-
mation—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: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 22 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 22 of 27 --

MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.
META PLATFORMS, INC.
23
but (b) not included in TimelineDB. Id. at 554–55 (refer-
ring 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 pa-
tent, with its undisputed “every” meaning.
Mirror Worlds accepts that coefficient information is
“provided to the Timeline Aggregator to construct re-
quests.” Mirror Worlds Opening Br. at 47 (citing Face-
book’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 Mul-
tifeed Aggregator, that “a ‘coefficient score’ . . . . provides a
numerical weight that describes the strength of the rela-
tionship 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 co-
efficients” and uses “[t]he coefficients (stored with the coeff
variable) . . . via the getCoefficientScore function”). A Coef-
ficient 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 pro-
vided 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 be-
tween . . . 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: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 23 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 23 of 27 --

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 un-
derstood 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 retry-
ing 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 relat-
ing 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-gener-
ated 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 in-
dexes them chronologically.” (emphasis added)). The ex-
hibits 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 evi-
dence, from Facebook witnesses with first-hand
knowledge, that the Timeline backend system does receive
Case: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 24 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 24 of 27 --

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 “aggrega-
tor [will] talk to both UDB and the Timeline DB” and that,
in response to a “request received by the Timeline Aggre-
gator,” the “Timeline Aggregator receives many fields con-
taining data units that are not written to TimelineDB”);
J.A. 8269 (Dr. Balakrishnan explaining system receives in-
formation not stored in TimelineDB); J.A. 8158 ¶ 12 (dec-
laration by Mr. Tang explaining that “[t]he Timeline
Aggregator also obtains information known as ‘coefficient’
data . . . [that] is not stored in the TimelineDB; the Aggre-
gator obtains this information from a separate and distinct
system called Coefficient.”); J.A. 8290–92 ¶¶ 307–13 (testi-
mony 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 Face-
book 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 specif-
ics of Facebook’s concrete evidence—not itself under-
mined—that Timeline Aggregator receives information not
stored in TimelineDB. Nor is there an answer to the expla-
nation by Facebook’s expert that Dr. Koskinen, while ad-
dressing some source code, disregarded other source code
Case: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 25 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 25 of 27 --

MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v.
META PLATFORMS, INC.
26
showing that Timeline receives data not stored in Time-
lineDB. 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’ conten-
tion that it presented evidence supporting a reasonable in-
ference 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 conten-
tion, including exhibits and testimony describing or depict-
ing 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 coeffi-
cient data in this evidence can reasonably support an in-
ference 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 refer-
ence to coefficient data in Mirror Worlds’ selected docu-
ments as having the import Mirror Worlds advocates.
Accordingly, Mirror Worlds’ evidence does not create a gen-
uine dispute of fact.
“It is well-established that unsupported expert opin-
ions 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 dis-
trict court did not err in concluding that the record would
require a reasonable jury to find that the Timeline Aggre-
gator in the Timeline backend system received
Case: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 26 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 26 of 27 --

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: 22-1600 Document: 71 Page: 27 Filed: 12/04/2024

-- 27 of 27 --