MEMORANDUM AND OPINION
RODNEY GILSTRAP, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendants microDATA GIS, Inc. ("microDATA") and Telecommunication System, Inc.'s ("TCS") (collectively, "Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6, 744, 858. (Dkt. No. 91.) The Court heard arguments on the motion during the pretrial hearing held on December 2, 2013. Having considered the parties' submissions and arguments, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART Defendants' motion.
Plaintiff Cassidian Communications, Inc. ("Cassidian") filed the above-styled action against Defendants on March 26, 2012, alleging that Defendants infringed claims 1, 3-8 and 12-14 of the U.S. Patent No. 6, 744, 858 (the 858 Patent). Specifically, Plaintiff identifies microDATA's X-SolutionTM system and TCS's Gemini system as the accused infringing instrumentalities.
The 858 Patent was first issued in June, 2004. It then went through an Ex Parte Reexamination with the Reexamination Certificate issued in December, 2008. Among the asserted claims, claims 1 and 3 are independent claims and the remaining claims are dependent claims. By the present motion, Defendants move for summary judgment that the accused infringing system and software do not infringe any of the asserted claims of the 858 Patent.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment should be granted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). "By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is "genuine" when the evidence is "such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. In considering motions for summary judgment, the Court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Id. at 255; Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398 (5th Cir. 2008).
A finding of infringement in patent cases requires that the accused infringing products or systems meet every limitation of an asserted claim. Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1998). "An accused device cannot infringe, as a matter of law, if even a single limitation is not satisfied." Id.
Defendants present four separate grounds upon which summary judgment of non-infringement should be granted. First, Defendants assert that the accused instrumentalities do not serve both a plurality of call centers and a plurality of Public Safety Answering Points ("PSAP"), as required by claims 1 and 3. Second, Defendants argue that the accused instrumentalities do not include or provide a partitioned database as required by claims 1 and 3. Third, Defendants argue that the accused systems do not perform the "presenting" step of claim 3, either directly or indirectly. Fourth, Defendants contend that the accused instrumentalities do not infringe claim 1 because not each and every incoming call handled by the accused systems is associated with an Automatic Number Information ("ANI") and an Automatic Location Information ("ALI"). The Court addresses each in turn.
a. Whether the Accused Systems Serve Both Call Centers and PSAPs
Independent claim 1 of the 858 Patent claims an emergency services communication system. Independent claim 3 claims a method for handling incoming emergency services calls. Claims 1 and 3 both describe a "call center" and a "Public Safety Answering Point" in the body of the claim. The Court previously construed "call center" to mean "the organizational unit(s) of a business/office that receives incoming calls and may provide services." See Dkt. No. 71 at 9. In so construing, the Court rejected Defendants' proposed construction that "call center" should be limited to PSAPs.
Here, Defendants argue that claims 1 and 3 require both call centers and PSAPs, which are two separate and distinct elements. Given that Plaintiff's infringement contention only identifies PSAP as "call centers, " Defendants contend that summary judgment of non-infringement should be granted because there is no evidence of a separate and distinct "call center" existing in the accused systems.
Plaintiff does not dispute that the only "call center" identified in its infringement contention is a PSAP. Rather, Plaintiff disputes that "call centers" and PSAPs must be separate and distinct elements. ...