Mirror Worlds Techs., LLC v. Facebook, Inc.
Docket Number | 17-cv-3473 (JGK) |
Decision Date | 02 March 2022 |
Citation | 588 F.Supp.3d 526 |
Parties | MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Marc A. Fenster, Adam S. Hoffman, Benjamin T. Wang, Jacob R. Buczko, James Tsuei, Minna Chan, Theresa Troupson, Russ, August, & Kabat, Brian D. Ledahl, Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Steven Udick, Russ August & Kabat, Frisco, TX, Charles Robert Macedo, Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLC, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.
Heidi Lyn Keefe, Lowell D. Mead, Alexandra Marie Leeper, Azadeh Morrison, Dena Chen, Mark Randolph Weinstein, Cooley Godward Kronish, LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Emily E. Terrell, Phillip E. Morton, Shane Hannon, Cooley LLP, Washington, DC, Joseph Michael Drayton, Cooley LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant.
The plaintiff, Mirror Worlds Technologies, LLC ("Mirror Worlds") brought this patent infringement suit against Facebook, Inc., alleging that three systems within Facebook's social media platform infringe three patents owned by Mirror Worlds.
Mirror Worlds owns U.S. Patent Nos. 6,006,227, 7,865,538, and 8,255,439, "which describe and claim systems and methods for presenting and storing data in time-ordered streams on a computer system." Mirror Worlds Techs., LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 800 F. App'x 901, 902 (Fed. Cir. 2020).1 The ’227 patent issued from an application filed in 1996. The ’538 and ’439 patents claim priority to the ’227 patent.
The ’227 patent states that, as of its priority date, conventional computers used hierarchical directories to store and organize data. ’227 patent, col. 1, lines 21–30.2 When creating a new document under that conventional system, users were required to name the document and choose a storage location within a pre-existing directory structure. Id. The patent states that this system had several disadvantages, including: needless overhead, file names that were often meaningless to the user, and requiring the user to remember a given document's name as well as where that document was stored. See id., col. 1, lines 40–59. As an alternative system, the ’227 patent describes storing documents in a chronologically ordered "stream." Id., col. 1, lines 4–6.
The ’227 patent defines a "stream" as Id., col. 4, lines 6–10. A stream contains documents from the past and present, and also could contain "documents allotted to future times and events, such as[ ] reminders, calendar items, and to-do lists." Id., col. 4, lines 18–21. The patent explains that "[a] document can contain any type of data," including "pictures, correspondence, bills, movies, voice mail and software programs." Id., col. 4, lines 16–18.
In addition to a "main stream," which contains every document in a given computer system, the patent describes "substreams." A substream is a "subset" of the main stream. Id., col. 5, lines 16–17. A user may create a substream by applying a filter to the documents in the main stream, for example "all emails I've sent to Schwartz." See id., col. 4, lines 50–51. Substreams are "dynamic" and "persistent" in that they will, at the user's request, collect applicable information as it is added to the main stream, and substreams will continue to exist "until destroyed by the user." See id., col. 5, lines 1–13. Each substream document is in the main stream, and the same document can exist in multiple substreams. Id., col. 5, lines 14–19.
Both the ’538 and ’439 patents incorporate by reference the patent application that issued as the ’227 patent. ’538 patent, col. 1, lines 14–16; ’439 patent, col. 1, lines 15–17. The specifications of the ’538 patent and the ’439 patent are "nearly identical." Compl., ECF No. 1 ¶ 9.
Each of the claims asserted by Mirror Worlds contains a "main stream" or "main collection" limitation and a "substream" or "subcollection" limitation. Mirror Worlds Techs., 800 F. Appx at 903.3 "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." id.
Mirror Worlds contends that three Facebook systems infringe the asserted claims: "News Feed," "Timeline," and "Activity Log." "News Feed provides a scrolling display (or ‘feed’) that provides stories that might be of interest to a viewing user, for example, if friends of the user posted comments or photos, uploaded videos, or performed other actions." ECF No. 241, at 13. Timeline "allows a user to share information such as text, images, photos, videos, and other types of data, with other users on Facebook." Tang Decl., ECF No. 250-17 ¶ 4. " ‘Activity Log’ is similar to Timeline in that it can provide a list of actions that occurred on Facebook that pertain to a particular user." Id. ¶ 6.
Mirror Worlds contends that the following Facebook components satisfy the main stream/main collection and computer system limitations: in News Feed, Mirror Worlds alleges that the Multifeed System (the backend infrastructure for News Feed) meets the computer system limitation, and that the Multifeed Leaves (a storage system for keeping track of recent user actions) meets the main stream/main collection limitation. In both Timeline and Activity Log, Mirror Worlds alleges that the Timeline backend system meets the computer system limitation, and that the TimelineDB (Timeline database) meets the main stream/main collection limitation. See Mirror Worlds Techs., 800 F. Appx at 905–06 ; ECF No. 288, at 4; Mirror Worlds’ Response to Facebook's Statement of Material Facts ("Mirror Worlds’ RTSMF"), ECF No. 288-1, at 12-13.
Mirror Worlds asserts claims 13, 14, and 17 of the ’227 patent. These claims recite:
’227 patent, col. 16.
Mirror Worlds asserts claim 1 of the ’538 patent and claim 1 of the ’439 patent. Claim 1 of the ’538 patent recites:
Claim 1 of the ’439 patent recites:
To continue reading
Request your trial