SpaceTime3D v. Apple: 3D GUI Patent Case Transferred After 462 Days
SpaceTime3D, Inc. filed suit against Apple, Inc. in the Western District of Texas asserting four patents covering three-dimensional graphical user interfaces and application timeline display systems. After 462 days on the Waco docket before Judge Alan D. Albright, the case was transferred to the Austin Division and reopened as Case No. 1:23-cv-00553-ADA-DH.
Four UI patents, one transfer: SpaceTime3D pursues Apple in Austin
SpaceTime3D, Inc. filed this patent infringement action against Apple, Inc. on February 10, 2022 in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright. The complaint asserted four patents — US9304654B2, US8881048B2, US7735018B2, and US9696868B2 — covering systems and methods for displaying three-dimensional graphical user interfaces and application-associated timelines. The accused products relate to Apple's implementation of those GUI and timeline technologies across its device ecosystem.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Transferred.' The docket order states that the case transferred from the Western District of Texas has been received and opened in the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, as Case No. 1:23-cv-00553-ADA-DH. No merits ruling, claim construction order, or dispositive motion outcome is recorded in the available public record prior to transfer.
The transfer closed the Waco docket entry after 462 days without a substantive merits determination. The reassignment to the Austin Division — while remaining before the same district — suggests a venue realignment consistent with broader administrative changes in how Judge Albright's docket was managed during this period. The merits of the infringement claims, and any defenses Apple may have raised, remain unresolved in the publicly available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Transferred in 462 days
462 days on the Waco docket before transfer to Austin Division
US9304654B2, US8881048B2, US7735018B2 & US9696868B2 — 3D GUI & Timeline Display
Any organisation developing three-dimensional user interface features, application timeline navigation, or spatial display management for mobile or desktop platforms should assess freedom to operate against the SpaceTime3D portfolio. The four patents span a filing history from 2006 to 2015, and their claims — directed to GUI architecture rather than specific hardware — could potentially read on software features implemented across a wide range of consumer devices and operating systems beyond Apple's ecosystem.
Official order — verbatim text
The docket order records an administrative transfer rather than a substantive verdict. The case was received and opened in the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas as Case No. 1:23-cv-00553-ADA-DH. No findings on infringement, validity, or claim construction are recorded in the Waco proceeding; the transferred case carries the unresolved merits forward.
Case transferred — not dismissed or decided on the merits
A case transfer under the federal rules moves the action to a different venue or division without any ruling on the substance of the claims. The Waco docket entry is closed administratively, but the litigation continues in the receiving court — here, the Austin Division — under a new case number. No rights are extinguished and no findings of infringement or invalidity are made by the transferring court.
No merits rulingSame judge, new division: Austin as the new forum
The receiving case, 1:23-cv-00553-ADA-DH, sits in the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas — the same district but a different divisional assignment. Judge Alan D. Albright is identified on the original docket, and the 'ADA' designation in the new case number is consistent with continued assignment to the same judge. Parties and counsel carry forward; procedural history from the Waco case is incorporated into the transferred record.
Austin DivisionLitigation continues: four patents still in play
All four asserted patents — covering 3D GUI systems and application timeline display methods — remain active in the transferred proceeding. The parties' substantive positions, any scheduling orders entered in Waco, and any pending motions would typically carry forward into the Austin docket. Claim construction, summary judgment, and trial remain potential milestones ahead in Case No. 1:23-cv-00553-ADA-DH.
Case continuesWaco-to-Austin transfers and TXWD docket management
The Western District of Texas saw significant administrative restructuring of Judge Albright's Waco patent docket beginning in 2022–2023, with a number of cases reassigned to the Austin Division. This transfer is consistent with that pattern. For parties and counsel, the practical effect is a continuation of the same litigation in a forum that remains within the TXWD but under Austin Division administrative procedures and potentially different scheduling norms.
TXWD docket shiftFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | SpaceTime3D, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Apple, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Adam Tisdall | Attorney | Counsel for SpaceTime3D, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Charles L. Ainsworth | Attorney | Counsel for SpaceTime3D, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Elizabeth L. DeRieux | Attorney | Counsel for SpaceTime3D, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Floyd G. Short | Attorney | Counsel for SpaceTime3D, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew R. Berry | Attorney | Counsel for SpaceTime3D, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Max L. Tribble , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for SpaceTime3D, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Meng Xi | Attorney | Counsel for SpaceTime3D, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Christopher Bunt | Attorney | Counsel for SpaceTime3D, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | S. Calvin Capshaw , III | Attorney | Counsel for SpaceTime3D, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas V. DelRosario | Attorney | Counsel for SpaceTime3D, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Y. Gloria Park | Attorney | Counsel for SpaceTime3D, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Capshaw DeRieux LLP | Law Firm | Representing SpaceTime3D, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth PC | Law Firm | Representing SpaceTime3D, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Susman Godfrey LLP | Law Firm | Representing SpaceTime3D, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Allen Kathir | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian Rosenthal | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | J. Stephen Ravel | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Katherine Dominguez | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neema Jalali | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert Pierce Earle | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan Iwahashi | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephen Burbank | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven J. Wingard | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Wendy W. Cai | Attorney | Counsel for Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP | Law Firm | Representing Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP | Law Firm | Representing Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Scott, Douglass & McConnico LLP | Law Firm | Representing Apple, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the 3D graphical user interface patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from SpaceTime3D's four-patent assertion against Apple in the 3D GUI and application timeline display domain.
SpaceTime3D's 3D GUI filing activity and continuation risk
SpaceTime3D's four asserted patents span application filings from 2006 to 2015, suggesting a deliberate, multi-generation portfolio build in spatial and timeline UI navigation. Teams building 3D or gesture-based interfaces should investigate whether continuation applications from these families remain pending, as issued continuations could extend enforcement exposure well beyond the four patents already in suit.
Continuation riskFiling trends in spatial UI and application timeline navigation patents
The 3D GUI and application timeline space has seen sustained patent activity from both large platform players and smaller assertion entities. With major OS vendors investing in spatial computing — including AR/VR interface layers — the density of active patent families in this domain is increasing. Mapping filing trends from 2015 to present reveals which companies are staking claim positions adjacent to the SpaceTime3D portfolio.
Spatial UI filing trendsApple's GUI and spatial interface patent position
Apple holds an extensive patent portfolio in graphical user interface design, multitasking displays, and spatial navigation — the same technology domain SpaceTime3D is asserting. Understanding Apple's defensive patent landscape in this space, including any patents that could be deployed in cross-licensing or IPR proceedings, is relevant for any company building products in the 3D or timeline UI category.
Apple GUI patentsAdjacent R&D white space near 3D timeline and spatial UI claims
The SpaceTime3D claims focus on displaying timelines associated with multiple applications and rendering 3D GUI environments. Adjacent areas — including AI-assisted spatial layout, cross-device timeline synchronisation, and AR-layer application management — may offer R&D and patenting opportunities that are not yet densely claimed. Organisations active in these spaces should conduct a targeted white-space analysis before committing to development roadmaps.
UI white spaceSimilar 3D GUI and mobile UI patent cases in the Western District of Texas
Explore patent infringement cases involving graphical user interface and spatial navigation technologies litigated in the Western District of Texas, including comparable TXWD transfer and venue decisions.
What this case signals for the 3D GUI and mobile UI IP landscape
SpaceTime3D's four-patent assertion against Apple highlights the continued enforcement risk around graphical interface and timeline-navigation IP.
3D GUI patents remain a live enforcement vector against platform vendors
SpaceTime3D's willingness to litigate four patents covering three-dimensional interface and timeline display technologies against Apple signals that GUI-layer IP — often underestimated — carries real enforcement risk for major platform and device makers. Companies shipping touchscreen OS features should audit exposure to timeline and spatial navigation patent families.
TXWD transfers do not end cases — Austin Division docket requires monitoring
The Waco-to-Austin transfer means substantive proceedings continue under Case No. 1:23-cv-00553-ADA-DH. IP teams tracking Apple's litigation exposure or the SpaceTime3D portfolio should redirect monitoring to the Austin docket — claims construction and any invalidity contentions will emerge there, not from the closed Waco record.
SpaceTime3D v Apple — key questions answered
SpaceTime3D, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Apple, Inc. in the Western District of Texas (Waco Division) on February 10, 2022, asserting four patents covering 3D graphical user interfaces and application timeline display systems. After 462 days, the case was not decided on the merits — it was transferred to the Austin Division of the same district and reopened as Case No. 1:23-cv-00553-ADA-DH.
SpaceTime3D asserted four patents: US9304654B2 (App. No. 14/503142), US8881048B2 (App. No. 12/751879), US7735018B2 (App. No. 11/531676), and US9696868B2 (App. No. 14/614708). The patents cover systems and methods for displaying timelines associated with multiple applications and for providing three-dimensional graphical user interfaces.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Transferred.' The docket order states the case was received and opened in the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, as Case No. 1:23-cv-00553-ADA-DH. The specific reasons for the transfer are not set out in the available public record from the Waco docket. The transfer is consistent with broader administrative restructuring of the TXWD Waco patent docket during this period.
No. A case transfer is an administrative venue change, not a dismissal or merits ruling. The litigation continues in the Austin Division under Case No. 1:23-cv-00553-ADA-DH. All four asserted patents remain active in the transferred proceeding, and no findings of infringement, non-infringement, or invalidity were recorded before the Waco docket was closed.
The four asserted patents cover two related product categories identified in the complaint: systems and methods for displaying a timeline associated with a plurality of applications, and systems and methods for providing a three-dimensional graphical user interface. The application filing dates span from approximately 2006 to 2015, reflecting a portfolio built across multiple patent generations in the spatial and temporal UI navigation domain.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.