John G. Koeltl, United States District Judge
Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC, has filed this lawsuit against Facebook, Inc., alleging that three systems within Facebooks well-known social media website -- News Feed, Timeline, and Activity Log -- violate three patents owned by Mirror Worlds. Mirror Worldss patents protect a system for organizing electronic data in a time-ordered stream of information. The technology protected by Mirror Worldss patents has two necessary components relevant to this dispute: (1) a main stream or main collection and (2) substreams or subcollections. Facebook moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the undisputed facts demonstrate that neither the News Feed, the Timeline, nor the Activity Log have a main stream or a substream and therefore that Facebooks systems do not infringe the patents-in-suit. While the parties dispute the proper construction of certain terms in the claims in the patents-in-suit, including main stream and substream, those disputes do not affect the dispositive issues on this motion.
As explained in more detail below, after considering the parties tutorials, claim construction briefs, and summary judgment briefs, and after hearing oral argument, it is plain that Mirror Worlds cannot establish that any of the Facebook systems at issue contains a main stream within the meaning of the patents-in-suit. Facebooks motion for summary judgment is therefore granted.
I.
A.
Summary judgment may not be granted unless the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ; Univ. of Colo. Found., Inc. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 196 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The trial courts duty at the summary judgment motion stage of the litigation is merely to discern whether there are disputed material facts; it does not extend to resolving any such disputes. SunTiger, Inc. v. Scientific Research Funding Grp., 189 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ; see also Lemelson v. TRW, Inc., 760 F.2d 1254, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (For summary judgment, fact-finding is an inappropriate exercise ....). The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the district court of the basis for its motion and identifying the matter that it believes demonstrate[s] the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Where the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof, summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party can show that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving partys case. Id. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. The substantive law governing the case will identify those facts which are material and only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, a court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the moving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962) ). If the moving party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to come forward with specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). The nonmoving party must point to an evidentiary conflict created on the record, and may not rely only on mere denials or conclusory statements. Armco, Inc. v. Cyclops Corp., 791 F.2d 147, 149 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ; see also Applied Cos. v. United States, 144 F.3d 1470, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (It is well settled that a conclusory statement on the ultimate issue does not create a genuine issue of fact. ) (quoting Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 899 F.2d 1575, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ). With respect to the issues on which summary judgment is sought, if there is any evidence in the record from any source from which a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the non-movant, summary judgment is improper. Roche Palo Alto LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 531 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ; see also Hypoxico, Inc. v. Colo. Altitude Training, LLC, No. 02-cv-6191, 2008 WL 4129269, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2008).
B.
Infringement analysis is a two-step process: The first step is determining the meaning and scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed. The second step is comparing the properly construed claims to the device accused of infringing. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc ) (citation omitted), affd 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 ; see also N. Am. Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Claim construction, the first step in infringement analysis, is a matter of law. See Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. Courts determine the scope of a claim by applying well-known principles of claim construction and examining three relevant sources: the language of the claim, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). See generally Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-17 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The language of a claim provides the starting point in a claim construction analysis. See Phonometrics, Inc. v. N. Telecom Inc., 133 F.3d 1459, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Absent a special and particular definition created by the patent applicant, terms in a claim are to be given their ordinary and accustomed meaning. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa Per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998). [T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention .... Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. The specification, however, is also highly relevant to the claim construction analysis, because it is the best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. Id. at 1315 (citing Markman, 52 F.3d at 978 ). A court in its discretion may consider extrinsic evidence including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises, although the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has indicated that extrinsic evidence is less significant than the intrinsic record and that the Court should discount expert testimony that is clearly inconsistent with the construction of the claim indicated by the written record. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317-19.
With respect to the second step of infringement analysis, literal infringement requires that the accused device embody every limitation of a claim. See Southwall Tech., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1995). If the parties only dispute claim construction and do not dispute relevant facts concerning the structure and operation of the accused products, the question of literal infringement collapses into claim construction and is amenable to summary judgment. Gen. Mills, Inc. v. Hunt-Wesson, Inc., 103 F.3d 978, 983 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ; see also Mymail, Ltd. v. Am. Online, Inc., 476 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This second step of infringement analysis is a question of fact, and therefore summary judgment on a claim of literal infringement issue is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists, in particular, when no reasonable jury could find that every limitation recited in the properly construed claim either is or is not found in the accused device. Bai v. L & L Wings, Inc., 160 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ; see also Hypoxico, Inc., 2008 WL 4129269, at *2-3 (footnote omitted).
II.
The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted.
A.
This case involves three patents owned by Mirror Worlds -- U.S. Patent No. 6,006,227 (the 227 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 7,865,538 (the 538 Patent), and U.S. Patent No. 8,255,439 (the 439 Patent). Def.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 1. The patents-in-suit protect a technology originally developed in the early 1990s that organizes electronic information in a time-ordered stream rather than in a conventional hierarchical directory of folders. Def.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 4-9. The three patents-in-suit overlap in substantial part. Each contains two elements relevant to this dispute -- a main stream and a substream.
1.
The claims in the 227 Patent and the 538 Patent both include a main stream limitation. See Def.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 35, 37. A main stream is a stream that is inclusive of every data unit received by or generated by the computer system. Def.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 37; Pl.s 5 6.1 Stmt. ¶ 37. A stream is a time-ordered sequence of data units that functions as the diary of a person or an entitys electronic life and has three main portions: past, present, and future. Def.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 20; Pl.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 20.
The 439 Patent refers to a main collection limitation rather than a main stream limitation, although the 439 Patent describes the protected system as a time-ordered stream[ ] of information items or assets. Def.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 40; see Def.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 43. Facebook contends that main collection in the 439 Patent has the same definition as main stream in the 227 Patent and the 538 Patent. Def.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 43. Mirror Worlds contends that main collection in the 439 Patent has a different definition from that of main stream. However, Mirror Worlds does not contest that the main stream limitation in the 227 Patent and the 538 Patent and the main collection limitation in the 439 Patent present identical issues for purposes of this motion. Indeed, counsel for Mirror Worlds conceded at the argument of the present motion that the differences between the parties claim constructions do not affect the decision of this motion. See Tr. of Oral Arg. at 62-64.
Thus, all three patents-in-suit include, in substance, the following limitation: the technology must include a main stream, which is a time-ordered sequence of data units that is inclusive of every data unit received by or generated by the computer system.
2.
The claims in the 227 Patent and the 538 Patent both include a substream limitation. Def.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 48. A substream is [a] subset of data units yielded by a filter on the main stream, the filter identifying certain data units within the main stream that also remain in the main stream. Def.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 48; Pl.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 48. The 439 Patent refers to subcollections rather than substreams but, as with main collection and main stream, subcollections and substreams present identical issues for purposes of this motion. The Court construes subcollection to have the same meaning as substream, as Facebook suggests.
Thus, all three patents-in-suit also include, in substance, the following limitation: the technology must include a substream., which is a time-ordered sequence of data units that are a subset of data units drawn only from the main stream.
B.
Facebook is a well-known social media website. Facebook is comprised of multiple systems. Pl.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 67-68. Four of Facebooks systems are relevant to this dispute, three of which Mirror Worlds accuses of infringing the patents-in-suit. The three Facebook systems accused of infringing the patents-in-suit are News Feed, Timeline, and Activity Log. These are user-facing systems that display online content. Bronson Decl. ¶¶ 5-13. The fourth Facebook system relevant to this dispute is known as TAO, which stands for The Association of Objects. TAO serves as Facebooks principal behind-the-scenes data storage and organization system. See Bronson Decl. ¶¶ 4, 20.
1.
One of the Facebook systems relevant to this dispute is TAO. Mirror Worlds does not accuse TAO of infringing the patents-in-suit but Facebook contends that TAO is critical to understanding why none of Facebooks systems infringe the patents-in-suit.
TAO is the principal backend data storage and organization system for Facebook. TAO stores two types of information for Facebook -- objects and associations. Objects comprise the content posted on a Facebook webpage. Associations are types of interactions between objects. In almost every case when a user posts data on a Facebook webpage, the objects and associations that comprise much of the information the user sees on the Facebook webpage are information stored in TAO. Bronson Decl. ¶¶ 21-23.
For example, consider a user who posts a check in post, in which a user posts the users current physical location on Facebook. That post contains at least three objects: (1) the type of post, in this case a check in post, (2) the identity of the user who posted the check in post, and (3) the location of the check in post. If the user tags other users to the check in post by linking to the other users Facebook pages, then each of those tags is also an object. The interactions between all these objects, such as which user authored the post, which user tagged another user, and which user was tagged by another, are the associations. Much of these objects and associations would be stored in TAO. Bronson Decl. ¶¶ 24-25.
Some of the content in TAO has a timestamp while other content in TAO does not; in any event, the information stored in TAO is not organized by time. Although the content drawn from TAO may be organized in time order when displayed to a Facebook user on a Facebook website, such as News Feed when organized by Most Recent posts or Timeline, that content is not organized in time order when stored by Facebook in TAO. Bronson Decl. ¶¶ 27-39. Mirror Worlds does not allege that TAO infringes the patents-in-suit.
2.
News Feed is one of the accused Facebook systems.
News Feed is the default webpage for most Facebook users. It displays content on Facebook, such as photographs, videos, links, check in posts, and text posts, that may be relevant to the viewing user. This content may be generated by the viewing user, by other users to whom the viewing user is connected on Facebook, or by sponsors who pay for content. The News Feed also displays interactions between users on a single post. For example, User 1 may post a comment on a photograph that had been posted on Facebook by User 2, and both the comment and the photograph may be viewed on the News Feed for User 3 if User 3 is connected to User 1 and/or User 2. The viewing user may also interact with content posted by other users by commenting on or Liking that content. Bronson Decl. ¶¶ 6-9 & Fig. 1. The posts on News Feed can be organized by time by selecting to view the Most Recent posts. Pl.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 84-90.
The content a user sees on the News Feed page comes from a backend system known as the Multifeed System and TAO. The Multifeed System is an independent store of user data that determines what may be included in a users News Feed. The Multifeed System is independent of TAO, although it receives information from TAO. Bronson Decl. ¶ 21; Vickery Dep. at 16, 35-37. The Multifeed System is comprised of three parts -- the Multifeed Leaves, the Multifeed Tailer, and the Multifeed Aggregator. Bronson Decl. ¶ 21; Pl.s 56.1 Stmt. 11 91-98.
The Multifeed Leaves are servers that store indexes for the actions and objects that appear on a users News Feed. See Vickery Dep. at 15-16. All of the information for all of the objects and actions that might appear on News Feed is indexed on the Multifeed Leaves. The indexes on the Multifeed Leaves are organized by time. Pl.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 99-129. As counsel for Mirror Worlds conceded at the argument of this motion, the Multifeed Leaves are indexes of metadata, rather than the complete item that may eventually be presented to a user. See Tr. of Oral Arg. at 33; see also Vickery Dep. at 16.
The Multifeed Tailer is the means by which the indexes for actions and objects are written to the Multifeed Leaves. Each action and object written from the Multifeed Tailer to the Multifeed Leaves includes a time stamp. Pl.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 133-34.
The Multifeed Aggregator is a system that accumulates the relevant information indexed on the Multifeed Leaves to be displayed on a given users News Feed. Queries from the Multifeed Aggregator to the Multifeed Leaves include a time value. Pl.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 130-32. Because the Multifeed Leaves store only indexes for information rather than the information itself, the Multifeed Aggregator draws the actual content that is indexed by the Multifeed Leaves from TAO, and receives information from TAO, and then posts that information on the News Feed. Bronson Decl. ¶ 21; Vickery Dep. at 16, 50.
Thus, for example, when a user needs to retrieve a picture from the users News Feed, a query for that picture is sent to the Multifeed Aggregator, which uses the index for the picture that was originally written by the Multifeed Tailer and stored in the Multifeed Leaves to draw the actual content of the picture from TAO and then post the picture on News Feed to satisfy the query.
3.
Timeline is also an accused Facebook system.
Timeline is a website that displays to other Facebook users content that is focused on a particular Facebook user. The content on a users Timeline is generated principally by the user to whom the Timeline is dedicated, although the Timeline also displays interactions, such as Likes or comments, that other users have with the content posted on the users Timeline. Bronson Decl. ¶¶ 10-11 & Fig. 2; Pl.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 135-41.
Timeline displays data using a backend system (the Timeline Backend system) that is similar to the backend system for News Feed. A system called TimelineDB indexes actions and objects for Timeline in a time-ordered stream. A Timeline Aggregator receives queries from the user who calls up a Timeline webpage and retrieves the indexes for the users Timeline from TimelineDB. The Timeline Aggregator then answers the query by drawing the indexed content from TAO. Bronson Decl. ¶ 21; Pl.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 145-79; Huang Dep. at 77-78, 156.
4.
Activity Log is the final accused Facebook system.
Activity Log displays for a user a list of posts pertaining to that user. Activity Log lists posts that are contained on Timeline. It reorganizes those posts by the viewing user in a time-ordered stream and in a manner that is not viewable by other users on Facebook. Activity Log generates posts using the same backend system as Timeline, including TimelineDB
and TAO. Bronson Decl. ¶¶ 12-13, 21 & Fig. 3; Pl.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 180-91.
III.
Facebook argues that the undisputed facts demonstrate that Facebooks systems do not infringe the patents-in-suit.
A.
The infringement analysis for the patents-in-suit proceeds in three steps. First, Mirror Worlds must identify and define a computer system in which the allegedly infringing technology is housed. Second, Mirror Worlds must demonstrate that the computer system contains a main stream by establishing that all of the data received by or generated by the computer system is organized in a time-ordered stream. And third, Mirror Worlds must demonstrate that there is at least one substream, which is a time-ordered stream of data derived from the main stream. No reasonable juror could find that Mirror Worlds has satisfied the second step, the existence of a main stream.
Mirror Worlds has identified two separate alleged computer systems in this case. See Pl.s Sur-Reply at 2. With respect to News Feed, Mirror Worlds alleges that the computer system is the Multifeed System that directs the content that appears on a Facebook users News Feed page. And with respect to Timeline and Activity Log, Mirror Worlds alleges that the computer system is the Timeline Backend system, inclusive of TimelineDB and Timeline Aggregator. Mirror Worlds does not allege that TAO is part of either computer system.
Mirror Worlds has failed to demonstrate that each computer system it identifies contains a main stream or main collection. With respect to the alleged Multifeed System, Mirror Worlds alleges that the Multifeed Leaves are the main stream; and with respect to the Timeline Backend system, Mirror Worlds argues that TimelineDB is the main stream. See Pl.s Sur-Reply at 2-3. But a main stream must have two characteristics: (1) all of the data in the main stream must be organized in time order and, critically, (2) all of the data received by or generated by the computer system must be contained in the main stream. See Def.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 20, 37; see Pl.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 20, 37. The second requirement is not met here -- the Multifeed Leaves do not contains all of the information received by the Multifeed System, and neither does TimelineDB contain all of the information received by the Timeline Backend system. As explained above, when the Multifeed Aggregator receives a query, it looks to the Multifeed Leaves for the indexes of the content to be displayed on News Feed and then the Multifeed Aggregator receives the actual data that was indexed on the Multifeed Leaves from TAO to satisfy the query. Likewise, when the Timeline Aggregator receives a query, it looks to TimelineDB for the indexes of the content to be displayed on Timeline or Activity Log and then the Timeline Aggregator receives the actual data that was indexed on TimelineDB from TAO to satisfy the query. Thus, the aggregator elements of both the Multifeed System and the Timeline Backend system receive information from TAO, which is not stored in the alleged main streams of the Multifeed Leaves and TimelineDB. Mirror Worlds has therefore failed to demonstrate that Facebooks systems contain a main stream or main collection. There is an absence of evidence to show that Facebooks systems contain a main stream or main collection.
Whether the Facebook computer systems identified by Mirror Worlds contain substreams within the meaning of the patents-in-issue cannot be determined on this motion for summary judgment because the issue has not been developed sufficiently. In an answer to a Facebook interrogatory, Mirror Worlds identified the alleged infringing substream as the user-related information that appears in at least Facebooks Newsfeed, Timeline, Events, Activity Log, Graph Search, and search features. Ex. 8 to Keefe Decl. at 4. In the original motion for summary judgment, while Facebook referred to the requirement in the patents-in-suit for a substream, the lack of such a substream was not the topic of the arguments raised by Facebook. Rather, Facebook claimed that the lack of a computer system or a mainstream within the meaning of the patents-in-suit doomed the infringement contentions by Mirror Worlds. Mirror Worlds did not discuss substream in its response.
In its reply, Facebook contended that Mirror Worlds had not identified a substream because the user-related information identified in the interrogatory response by Mirror Worlds included information from sources such as TAO that was not in the computer systems identified by Mirror Worlds and therefore failed to satisfy the limitations of the patents-in-suit. Mirror Worlds responded in its sur-reply by identifying a new substream -- a list of actions and objects for News Feed, and a list of actions for Timeline and Activity Log. Pl.s Sur-Reply at 4. While it is unclear how this definition is consistent with the original interrogatory response, because the existence of a substream was not the focus of the original motion for summary judgment and the arguments have not been developed, it is not possible to determine that summary judgment should be granted because of the lack of a substream in Facebooks accused systems.
Accordingly, while summary judgment cannot be granted at this point based on the absence of a substream in the accused systems, because of the absence of evidence to show that Facebooks accused systems contain a main stream or a main collection, Mirror Worlds has failed to demonstrate that Facebooks systems infringe the patents-in-suit.
B.
As demonstrated above, TAO is an essential element of Facebooks systems, including the specific computer systems identified by Mirror Worlds and that distinguishes Facebooks systems from the technology patented by Mirror Worlds. Mirror Worlds attempts to explain away the significance of TAO in two ways, neither of which is persuasive.
First, Mirror Worlds relies heavily on the fact that Facebook witnesses stated in deposition testimony that TAO is independent of the Multifeed System and the Timeline Backend system. See, e.g., Marra Dep. at 41 (TAO and multifeed leaves are different data storage systems.); Huang Dep. at 30-31 (explaining that the TAO database is separate from the Timeline Backend system). But the independence of TAO does not save Mirror Worldss infringement contentions; it is what dooms them. As the witnesses relied upon by Mirror Worlds explained in their deposition testimony, the Multifeed Aggregator and the Timeline Aggregator receive data from TAO to answer queries for News Feed, Timeline, and Activity Log. See, e.g., Marra Dep. at 43-44 ([W]hen people query [News Feed], the query initially goes through multifeed. Ultimately, more data is retrieved from TAO to send to our user clients and then its returned to user clients.... [I]n order for your phone to display the story, we need to retrieve the full text of the story and all of the comments on the story and, ultimately, those are retrieved from TAO.); Huang Dep. at 30-31 ([T]he Timeline backend is useless without TAO .... For Timeline you need both. You need both the Timeline backend and you need TAO ....). Therefore, the alleged computer systems receive data from an independent source (that is, TAO) that is not part of an alleged main stream or main collection and that same independent source contributes data to the alleged substreams and sub collections. The main streams identified by Mirror Worlds -- the Multifeed Leaves and the TimelineDB -- do not contain all of the data received by or generated by the computer systems. That TAO is an independent source that contributes to the computer systems and to the substreams is one reason why Mirror Worldss infringement claims fail in this case.
Second, Mirror Worlds tries to establish that there are issues of disputed fact with respect to whether TAO is time-ordered. The undisputed evidence shows that while some -- not all -- of the objects and associations stored in TAO have time stamps, TAO does not store data in time order. See Bronson Decl. ¶¶ 27, 31. Moreover, Mirror Worlds has not explained why it matters to this case whether TAO is organized in time order. Mirror Worlds concedes that TAO is a source wholly apart from the alleged computer systems it has identified and the alleged main streams, and therefore the contributions of TAO to the Multifeed Aggregator, the Timeline Aggregator, News Feed, Timeline, and Activity Log preclude an infringement claim in this case whether or not TAO is organized in a time-ordered stream.
Accordingly, Mirror Worldss attempts to downplay the significance of TAO are without merit.
CONCLUSION
The Court has considered all of the arguments raised by the parties. To the extent not specifically addressed, the arguments are either moot or without merit. For the foregoing reasons, Facebooks motion for summary judgment is granted on grounds of non-infringement. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing this case. The Clerk is also directed to close all pending motions and to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Mirror Worlds originally claimed that three additional features of Facebook -- Events, Search, and Ticker -- also infringed the patents-in-suit but Mirror Worlds has withdrawn its claims as to those three features rather than defending them in response to the current motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment should therefore be granted dismissing those claims.
The parties agree that this correct definition of main stream applies to the 227 Patent, and Facebook contends that a main stream within the meaning of the 538 Patent has the same meaning. Mirror Worlds would define a main stream in the 538 Patent slightly differently as a stream that is inclusive of every document received by or generated by the computer system. Def.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 37; see Pl.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 37. The distinction between Mirror Worldss every document construction for a main stream in the 538 Patent and Facebooks every data unit construction for a main stream in the 538 Patent is immaterial for the present motion. See Pl.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 62 (A document as used in the asserted claims can contain any kind of data.). Therefore, for purposes of this motion, the Court construes main stream" to have the same definition in both the 227 Patent and the 538 Patent.
The parties agree that this is the correct definition for stream in the 227 Patent, and Facebook contends that it should also be the definition for stream in the 538 Patent and the 439 Patent. Mirror Worlds urges the same meaning for stream in the 538 Patent and the 439 Patent but would replace data units with documents. As with the main stream definition, document versus data unit is a distinction without a difference for purposes of this motion. Therefore, for purposes of this motion, the Court construes stream to have the same definition in all three patents-in-suit.
The parties largely agree that this is the correct definition for substream in the 227 Patent, and Facebook contends that a substream within the meaning of the 538 Patent has the same meaning while Mirror Worlds replaces data units with documents for the 538 Patent. Def.s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 48. As with the main stream and stream definitions, document versus data unit is a distinction without a difference for purposes of this motion. Therefore, for purposes of this motion, the Court construes substream to have the same definition in both the 227 Patent and the 538 Patent.