Apple Inc. et al. v. SpaceTime3D, Inc.

Case Overview: Apple Inc. et al. v. SpaceTime3D, Inc. (IPR2023-00343)

Parties and posture. Strictly speaking, this matter is not a district court infringement suit but an inter partes review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board — the validity counterpoint to a parallel infringement campaign. Petitioner Apple Inc. (Cupertino-based device/OS maker) filed the IPR petition on December 13, 2022 (Paper 2), and Google LLC was joined as a co-petitioner through its joinder motion filed in LG's parallel case, IPR2023-00579 (Paper 14; see Final Written Decision, Paper 47). Patent Owner SpaceTime3D, Inc. is a small New York entity founded by inventor E. Eddie Bakhash (the sole named inventor of the patent family) that launched a well-reviewed "SpaceTime" 3D web browser around 2007 but today functions essentially as a patent-assertion entity, having sued Samsung (E.D. Tex. No. 2:19-cv-00372, terminated), LG (E.D. Tex. No. 2:22-cv-00049), and Apple. The co-pending infringement case against Apple is SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00149-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Division), assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright (per the "ADA" docket suffix and the March 19, 2023 Markman order in that case). Venue matters because Waco/Albright was, during this period, the most-active patentee-friendly forum in the country, and Apple both litigated there (moving unsuccessfully for intra-district transfer to Austin and later seeking stays) while simultaneously attacking validity at the PTAB — a standard "two-front" defense. The IPR itself is at the Board, before Administrative Patent Judges Sheila F. McShane (author), David C. McKone, and Frederick C. Laney.

Patent and accused technology. The challenged patent is U.S. Patent No. 9,304,654 B2, "System and Method for Displaying a Timeline Associated With a Plurality of Applications," issued April 5, 2016 to inventor Bakhash. The '654 patent is part of a three-patent family (along with the '048 and '868 patents) claiming a September 13, 2005 priority date, and it generally covers a 3D graphical user interface in which a user can switch between open applications/webpages by (i) viewing captured images of them arranged as textured objects in a virtual 3D space, (ii) selecting one, and (iii) "replacing" the 3D objects with a live, interactive window in a 2D space — plus a chronological timeline of icons of the objects shown in the 3D space (Paper 47; claim 1 of the '654 patent as construed in the related Samsung case, E.D. Tex. No. 2:19-cv-00372). SpaceTime3D accused Apple's products and operating-system features — including iOS/macOS app-switching interfaces and Safari's multi-page/3D-style viewer, per complaint allegations quoted in Apple's motion-to-dismiss briefing (W.D. Tex. ECF No. 54, Nov. 10, 2022) — of practicing these claims. Apple's petition relied on U.S. Patent Publications 2005/0091596 (Anthony), 2005/0088447 (Hanggie), and 2006/0107229 (Matthews) in § 103 combinations, supported by a declaration from Dr. Henry Fuchs.

Outcome and significance. The Board instituted, held oral argument on March 18, 2024, and on July 2, 2024 (Paper 47) issued a Final Written Decision holding all challenged claims 1–19 unpatentable as obvious, rejecting SpaceTime3D's § 325(d) cumulative-grounds argument and its objective-indicia/nexus evidence (a decision practitioners have highlighted for its "nexus, nexus, nexus" teaching). Per the case metadata, the decision has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, though I was unable to verify the Federal Circuit docket number in available sources. The case is notable because it was one of three coordinated Apple/Google IPRs (IPR2023-00242, -00343, -00344) — with Google joining via LG's companion petitions and parallel ex parte reexaminations (e.g., 90/019,351) running in tandem — that collectively sought to extinguish SpaceTime3D's GUI-interface family across its Apple, LG, and (earlier) Samsung assertions, illustrating the coordinated, multi-petitioner response that major tech defendants mount against serial GUI/software patent assertions, and it capped SpaceTime3D's earlier failed IPR wave (IPR2020-01417/01418/01419, dismissed pre-institution) with a clean sweep for the petitioners.

I'll research this case. Note that the metadata identifies a PTAB IPR (IPR2023-00343), so the underlying district court infringement case needs to be identified separately. Let me search.

I've identified the underlying litigation: SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00149-ADA (W.D. Tex.), plus related cases. Let me dig deeper into the docket, the parallel LG/Google case, and the appeal.

Excellent progress. The CAFC has now decided the appeals (August 2026). Let me dig into the district court docket details and final dispositions.

Scope note and sources

The case metadata identifies a PTAB inter partes review (IPR2023-00343), not the district court suit itself. The underlying infringement litigation on U.S. Patent No. 9,304,654 (the "'654 patent") is:

• SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00149-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Div., Judge Alan D. Albright) — the primary Apple suit asserting the '654 patent (with the related '048 and '868 patents).
• SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. [LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.) et al., No. 2:22-cv-00049 (E.D. Tex.) — parallel suit against LG and Google LLC asserting the same three patents (this is where Google's exposure to the '654 patent arose).
• A terminated earlier suit, SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2:19-cv-00372-JRG (E.D. Tex.) — produced a Dec. 7, 2020 Markman order on the same patent family (Dkt. 104).

Below is the chronological development, grounded in docket entries and rulings I could verify. Where a fact is not well sourced, I flag it.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2022-02-10 — SpaceTime3D filed the Apple complaint in W.D. Tex., asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 8,881,048 ('048), 9,304,654 ('654) and 9,696,868 ('868), alleging direct, induced, contributory, and willful infringement (No. 6:22-cv-00149-ADA, ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 16–19, 57, 82, 109, 135). Same day, SpaceTime3D filed the parallel E.D. Tex. LG/Google action (2:22-cv-00049) on the same patents (see SpaceTime3D mandatory notices, IPR2023-00242, Paper 3).
• Apple answered and the case proceeded under Judge Albright's standard patent schedule (Apple's answer/counterclaim date is not independently verified; no substantive counterclaim rulings appear in the sourced record).
• A prior Samsung suit on the same family (2:19-cv-00372, E.D. Tex., filed 2019) had already been terminated, and earlier Samsung-era IPR petitions (IPR2020-01417/-01418/-01419) were dismissed before institution — noted in the PTAB Final Written Decision (IPR2023-00343, Paper 47).

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• 2022-07-14 — Apple moved for intra-district transfer from Waco to the Austin Division under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (ECF No. 34).
• 2022-11-10 — Order on Apple's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 54): with the parties' agreement, SpaceTime3D's pre-suit indirect/willful infringement claims were dismissed without prejudice (leave to replead after discovery); the Court denied dismissal of post-suit indirect and willful claims, holding the complaint's filing supplied the required knowledge/notice under BillJCo (W.D. Tex. 2022) and SRI Int'l (Fed. Cir. 2021).
• 2022-11-16 — Apple moved to stay all proceedings pending resolution of its transfer motion — filed the day before the scheduled Markman hearing (ECF No. 51); the Court postponed claim construction (ECF Nos. 62, 66) and heard argument 2023-01-30 (ECF No. 74).
• 2023-02-02 — Court denied the stay pending transfer (ECF No. 75), reasoning intra-district transfers need not be prioritized like inter-district ones, and that a stay would prejudice SpaceTime3D's timely enforcement interest and waste judicial resources already invested in preliminary claim constructions (summarized in Fish & Richardson's Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up, Feb. 2023).
• 2023-03-06 — Federal Circuit mandamus: in In re Apple Inc., No. 2023-120, 2023 WL 2359699 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2023), the panel (Dyk, Reyna, Chen) granted Apple's petition in part, directing the district court to promptly rule on the pending transfer motion and to stay other proceedings until then.
• 2023-03-08 — District court complied: set Markman for 2023-03-17 by Zoom and temporarily stayed the case for 60 days pending resolution of the transfer motion (ECF No. 34 motion).
• 2022-12-13 — Apple filed the three IPR petitions (IPR2023-00242 on '048, IPR2023-00343 on '654, IPR2023-00344 on '868) — within the one-year § 315(b) bar running from the 2022-02-10 complaint. (Sotera-type stipulations followed in May 2023: Apple committed not to pursue the instituted IPR grounds in district court — e.g., Apple's May 2023 stipulation re IPR2023-00344/'868, Ex. 1026 in IPR2023-00578.)

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• 2023-03-17 — Markman hearing held (public Zoom); the Court had issued preliminary constructions on 2023-03-16.
• 2023-03-19 — "Final Claim Constructions of the Court" (signed 2023-03-19): "texturing" ('048 claims 1, 8) construed as "drawing or mapping an image onto a 3D object"; the preambles to the '868 independent claims were given plain and ordinary meaning and held non-limiting. Apple had urged the Court to adopt the constructions Judge Gilstrap (the E.D. Tex. Samsung court) had already adopted for the same family in the Dec. 7, 2020 Samsung Markman order (Apple Opening Claim Construction Brief, ECF No. 38, filed 2022-09-01). The sourced final order addresses '048/'868 terms; I did not find a separate final '654-term construction in the Apple case docket.

4. Discovery milestones

• 2022-11-14 — Fact discovery opened under the scheduling order (ECF No. 31 at 3).
• Discovery was effectively truncated by the successive stays: the 2022-11-16 stay motion halted the original schedule, the Mar. 8–May 2023 temporary stay followed the mandamus, and IPR institution (July 2023) led to a further stay of the Texas litigation pending the IPRs and ensuing appeals (Apple's counsel confirmed at the 2026-07-06 Federal Circuit argument that the Texas case "has been stayed" pending the IPR appeals). No expert discovery or trial-phase discovery milestones of note were reached.

5. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect on the litigation

IPR2023-00343 (Apple v. SpaceTime3D; '654 patent) — the subject case:

• 2022-12-13 — Petition filed (Paper 2) challenging claims 1–19 on obviousness grounds (combinations of Anthony, Hanggie, and Matthews).
• Preliminary response (Paper 6) plus ordered supplemental briefing on § 325(d) discretion and the "replacing" term (Papers 7–8).
• 2023-07-06 — Institution decision (Paper 11).
• Google joined as petitioner (Paper 14) via joinder from IPR2023-00579 (LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and Google LLC's parallel petition on the '654 patent). The Board instituted the LG/Google petition and granted Google's joinder to Apple's IPR2023-00343 (order of 2024-02-07 in the consolidated -242/-343/-344 proceeding; joinder-related institution as to Google on 2023-08-07).
• Patent Owner Response (Paper 19), Reply (Paper 26), Sur-reply (Paper 33).
• 2024-03-18 — Consolidated oral hearing with IPR2023-00344 ('868); transcript at Paper 40.
• 2024-03-25 — The Office ordered three ex parte reexaminations of the family patents, including Reexam 90/019,351 on the '654 patent; the Board (order of 2024-04-10) authorized briefing on SpaceTime3D's motion to stay the reexaminations.
• 2024-07-02 — Final Written Decision (Paper 47): all challenged claims 1–19 of the '654 patent unpatentable as obvious; the Board rejected SpaceTime3D's objective-indicia evidence for failure to show nexus (McShane, joined by McKone and Laney).

Related family IPRs: IPR2023-00242 ('048) FWD issued 2024-06-13 — claims 1–13 not shown unpatentable, claims 14–18 unpatentable; IPR2023-00344 ('868) FWD issued 2024-07-02 — all challenged claims unpatentable. These IPRs, plus the May 2023 Sotera stipulations, are what stayed and hollowed out the district court litigation: the asserted-validity questions were being decided at the Board first.

6. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. The W.D. Tex. Apple case never went to trial; no verdict, JMOL, or new-trial motions exist. (The W.D. Tex. case is listed on DocketAlarm as "Terminated May 18, 2023" — possibly reflecting the intra-district transfer or administrative closure after the stays — but Apple's appellate counsel represented in July 2026 that the Texas litigation was still pending but stayed; I could not verify the precise May 2023 docket event, so treat that termination entry cautiously. The E.D. Tex. LG/Google case likewise did not reach trial.)

7. Final disposition / present posture — appeal outcome

• SpaceTime3D appealed the '654 and '868 Final Written Decisions to the Federal Circuit (SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Google LLC, Fed. Cir. No. 25-1083; argued 2026-07-06 alongside Apple's appeal of the '048 IPR, No. 25-1022).
• 2026-08-31 — Federal Circuit (Judge Stark, joined by Judges Prost and Reyna) issued two nonprecedential decisions:
  1. In the '654/'868 appeal (SpaceTime3D v. Apple, Google, No. 25-1083), the court affirmed the Board's determinations that all challenged claims of the '654 and '868 patents are obvious (IPWatchdog, "SpaceTime3D Gets Mixed Results at Federal Circuit in Pair of Appeals from Apple and Google IPRs," 2026-08-31).
  2. In the '048 appeal (Apple, Google v. SpaceTime3D, No. 25-1022), the court affirmed the split outcome — claims 1–13 of the '048 patent survive; claims 14–18 are unpatentable — rejecting Apple's reply-stage new-prior-art argument ("a petitioner may not in reply rely on new prior art to teach a claim limitation") and SpaceTime3D's cross-appeal on claim 14's "first webpage" construction.

8. Bottom line on the litigation

• The '654 patent is now finally dead as an enforcement asset: IPR2023-00343's FWD (all claims 1–19 unpatentable) was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on 2026-08-31. SpaceTime3D is estopped from asserting the '654 patent against Apple and Google in the stayed Texas litigations, which effectively ends the '654 infringement claims in both the W.D. Tex. Apple action and the E.D. Tex. LG/Google action.
• The only surviving patent of the family after all appeals is the '048 patent, claims 1–13 only; any remaining Texas infringement exposure is limited to those claims if the stayed district court proceedings are lifted.

Unverified items to flag: Apple's answer/counterclaim date; the exact May 2023 event that terminated the W.D. Tex. Apple case on DocketAlarm (transfer vs. dismissal vs. administrative closure); whether any '654-specific claim construction was entered in the Apple case; and the precise Fed. Cir. docket numbers for the consolidated '654/'868 appeal (25-1083 is based on the CAFC argument calendar and IPWatchdog; the companion docket sheet referenced consolidated Nos. 25-1022/-1051 and cross-appeal 25-1082 for the '048 matter).

Preliminary clarification on the case posture

IPR2023-00343 is not a patent infringement case — it is an inter partes review before the PTAB. Apple Inc. is the Petitioner (it filed the petition on Dec. 13, 2022), Google LLC was later joined as a co-Petitioner (via joinder IPR2023-00579), and SpaceTime3D, Inc. is the Patent Owner. IPR practice has no "plaintiff"/"defendant" labels, and the case-metadata labels of "plaintiff/defendant" track the challenger v. patent owner orientation rather than any infringement suit. The underlying district court infringement cases on the '654 patent run the other direction: SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00149 (W.D. Tex.), and SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00049 (E.D. Tex.) — there SpaceTime3D is the plaintiff (see Final Written Decision, Paper 47, § C).

With that caveat, here is the counsel of record for the Apple/Google (petitioner/plaintiff-side) parties in IPR2023-00343.

Apple Inc. (Petitioner) — Fish & Richardson P.C.

Counsel of record per PTAB filings (petition, panel-change order, and Board correspondence): Fish & Richardson P.C., with service address 60 South Sixth St., Suite 3200, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (emails: axf-ptab@fr.com; patrick@fr.com; khan@fr.com; kdarby@fr.com).

• W. Karl Renner — Lead counsel for Apple. Principal at Fish & Richardson (Minneapolis). A longtime lead IPR/PTAB counsel for Apple and other major tech companies in high-volume post-grant campaigns; repeatedly identified as "lead counsel" for Petitioner Apple in the related IPRs (IPR2023-00242/-00343/-00344) in counsel correspondence on the docket.
• Andrew B. Patrick — Backup counsel, Fish & Richardson (firm service address above). Co-signer of Apple's petition-stage correspondence and listed as Petitioner counsel on PTAB filings.
• Usman A. Khan — Backup counsel, Fish & Richardson. Listed alongside Renner/Patrick/Darby as counsel for Petitioner Apple.
• Kenneth Wayne Darby, Jr. — Backup counsel, Fish & Richardson. Active on the docket (e.g., lead author of the April 2024 email correspondence regarding the parallel reexaminations 90/019,351–353).

(Note: The Board's orders and Apple's papers do not designate the individual backup roles beyond the lead/backup structure set in the petition; I did not find a separate in-house Apple attorney of record in the PTAB filing, as only registered practitioner counsel appear on the PTAB record.)

Google LLC (Joined Petitioner) — Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Counsel of record for Google (joined as Petitioner, "second-chair" to Apple per Google's joinder representations, IPR2023-00579, Paper 2, 6):

• Erika H. Arner — Lead counsel for Google on the PTAB record. Partner at Finnegan (Washington, DC office); heads/co-leads the firm's post-grant/IPR practice and is a prominent PTAB litigator with extensive experience representing Google and other tech clients.
• Cory C. Bell — Backup counsel, Finnegan. Listed for Google in Board orders and service certificates; active on the joinder and reexamination-consolidation correspondence.
• Yanyi Liu — Backup counsel, Finnegan. Appears with the Google team on PTAB filings.
• Yinan Liu — Backup counsel, Finnegan. Appears with the Google team on PTAB filings.

Sources for these designations include: the PTAB Panel Change Order (IPR2023-00242/-00343/-00344, Paper 19); the Order Granting Requests for Oral Argument (Paper 30, reciting Google's joinder and second-chair commitment); Patent Owner's Notice of Deposition of Dr. Henry Fuchs (IPR2023-00343, Paper 17, Sept. 21, 2023), which served the Fish & Richardson and Finnegan teams as the "Petitioners' correspondence addresses of record"; and the Final Written Decision, IPR2023-00343, Paper 47 (July 2, 2024). Because PTAB filings are not on PACER (they are in the USPTO's PTAB docket system), I did not pull a PACER docket; the above is grounded in the PTAB record documents located via Docket Alarm and the Board's published orders.

For completeness: SpaceTime3D (Patent Owner) counsel

If you actually need the patent owner's counsel (i.e., the true infringement plaintiff in the W.D. Tex./E.D. Tex. cases), SpaceTime3D was represented in the IPR by Todd E. Fitzsimmons (Fitzsimmons IP Law, P.C., Gardena, CA) and Gregory S. Cordrey (Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP, Irvine, CA) — per the deposition notice signature blocks.

Status note on the appeal

The FWD (all claims 1–19 unpatentable) was appealed by SpaceTime3D to the Federal Circuit; that appeal is SpaceTime3D Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 25-1083 (Fed. Cir., filed Oct. 21, 2024). I did not locate the Federal Circuit appearance/entry-of-appearance docket entries in this search, so the appellate counsel of record (likely a new set of appellate counsel for SpaceTime3D) should be verified separately on PACER if needed.

Threshold clarification (important)

This "case" is an inter partes review — IPR2023-00343, Apple Inc. and Google LLC v. SpaceTime3D, Inc. — not an infringement complaint. In the IPR posture, the parties before the Board are Apple (petitioner), Google (joined co-petitioner), and SpaceTime3D (patent owner/respondent — the "Defendant" as labeled in the case metadata). In the parallel infringement suit, SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00149-ADA (W.D. Tex., Albright, J.), the roles flip: SpaceTime3D is plaintiff and Apple is the defendant. I address both below because "the defendant" depends on which docket you mean.

1. SpaceTime3D, Inc. — patent owner/respondent before the PTAB (the metadata "Defendant")

Counsel of record are identified from SpaceTime3D's mandatory notices and the Board's service lists in the coordinated SpaceTime3D IPR wave (IPR2023-00242/-00343/-00344 and LG's IPR2023-00579, to which Google joined):

• Todd E. Fitzsimmons — Lead Counsel (PTAB designation; Reg. No. 44,683)

  • Firm: Fitzsimmons IP Law, P.C. — mailing P.O. Box 199, Gardena, CA 90248 (phone 571-210-8000; todd@fitziplaw.com)
  • Designated SpaceTime3D's lead counsel for the Apple/Google IPRs and the related LG case (mandatory notices, e.g., Patent Owner Mandatory Notices, IPR2023-00242, Paper 3 (Dec. 7, 2022)); sole/boutique IP litigator steering SpaceTime3D's PTAB defense of the 3D-GUI family (the '048/'654/'868 patents) across the coordinated Apple/Google/LG challenges and the related Samsung/Apple/LG enforcement campaign.

• Gregory Cordrey — Backup Counsel (PTAB designation; Reg. No. 44,089)

  • Firm: Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP (JMBM) — 3 Park Plaza, Suite 1100, Irvine, CA 92614 (gxc@jmbm.com)
  • Appeared on SpaceTime3D's behalf in the joint Board conference covering IPR2023-00242/-00343/-00344 and the parallel reexaminations (90/019,351-353) and is on the Director Review service list as patent-owner counsel (e.g., IPR2023-00242, Paper 53 (Aug. 6, 2024), denying Director Review of the FWD).

Source caveat: The mandatory-notice designation I could retrieve verbatim is from the sister case IPR2023-00242 (Paper 3, Dec. 7, 2022) and the 2024 Director Review service list; the same Fitzsimmons/Cordrey pair appears in the Board email chains covering IPR2023-00343. I could not pull IPR2023-00343's own Paper 3 signature page to confirm an identical designation, but nothing suggests different counsel. I found no other SpaceTime3D PTAB counsel of record in available sources — no filings are sealed.

2. Apple Inc. — the actual defendant in the underlying W.D. Tex. infringement case

• Brian Rosenthal — counsel of record for Apple in the district litigation (as signatory)
  • Signed the February 2023 Sotera-type stipulation in SpaceTime3D v. Apple, No. 6:22-cv-00149-ADA, as "Attorney for Apple Inc." (Ex. 1026 in IPR2023-00578). His firm/office is not disclosed in the snippet I retrieved, so I will not guess; PACER's attorney-appearance records for 6:22-cv-00149-ADA would confirm his firm and any co-counsel. Apple's substantive filings in that case (motion to dismiss ECF 54; Markman briefing ECF 38; transfer/stay motions ECF 34/55) are public, but their signature blocks were not visible in my search results.
• Apple's PTAB-side team (same "two-front" defense, in case it is useful): W. Karl Renner (lead), Andrew B. Patrick, Usman A. Khan, and Kenneth Wayne Darby, Jr. — all Fish & Richardson P.C., 3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 — the signature block on Apple's IPR2023-00343 petition/exhibit filings (Paper 10, May 24, 2023). Renner is a veteran lead IPR counsel for Apple; the group handled all three coordinated Apple IPRs (-00242/-00343/-00344) with the Fuchs declaration and the reexamination coordination.

3. For completeness — Google LLC (metadata co-"Plaintiff"/joined petitioner)

• Google joined Apple's petition through the LG proceeding and is represented at the Board by Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP — Erika Arner, Cory Bell, and Yinan Liu (service list, IPR2023-00242, Paper 53; Bell identified as counsel for "Joint Petitioner Google" in the April 2024 Board conference exhibit). In LG's companion IPR2023-00579, LG Electronics' counsel were Matthew Satchwell, Brent Yamashita, and Chris Duerden of DLA Piper LLP (US).

Bottom line: If "defendant" is read per the IPR metadata, SpaceTime3D's counsel of record are Todd E. Fitzsimmons (lead, Fitzsimmons IP Law) and Gregory Cordrey (backup, JMBM). If you mean the actual accused infringer in the parallel W.D. Tex. suit, Apple's district-court signatory is Brian Rosenthal (firm unverified here — confirm via PACER), with the Fish & Richardson PTAB team (Renner, Patrick, Khan, Darby) handling validity. One unresolved flag from my searches: a Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP (Austin) letterhead — J. Stephen Ravel — appears in an Apple-related stipulation exhibit, but the snippet is ambiguous as to which party he represents; verify on PACER before relying on it.