LG Electronics USA Inc. v. SpaceTime3D, Inc.

Case Overview & Background

Parties and technology. This matter is not a district-court infringement suit but an inter partes review (IPR2023-00579) at the PTAB, tightly coupled to parallel infringement litigation. The patent owner, SpaceTime3D, Inc. (New York), is an inventor-founded company controlled by Ezra "Eddie" Bakhash, who built and released a well-reviewed 3D web browser ("SpaceTime") in 2007; its more recent activity is monetizing a family of 3D-GUI patents against major platform and device makers. Classifications vary by database — the Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists SpaceTime3D as a "Product company" in the LG case, while Unified Patents classifies the owner as "NPE (Small Company)" — reflecting its hybrid operating/assertion history. The original petitioners were operating companies LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and Google LLC, which filed on February 10, 2023, seeking review of all claims 1–19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,304,654 ("System and Method for Displaying a Timeline Associated with a Plurality of Applications," issued April 5, 2016, from a continuation chain claiming priority to a September 13, 2005 provisional). The '654 patent covers a GUI in which images of open applications are displayed in a simulated three-dimensional space, ordered chronologically as a "timeline" by last user input/interaction, and where selecting an image replaces the 3D view with that application's live 2D window for editing. In the underlying E.D. Tex. case (SpaceTime3D v. LG Electronics Inc. et al., No. 2:22-cv-00049, before Judge Robert W. Schroeder III), SpaceTime3D accused LG's Android smartphones and tablets (e.g., Optimus Zone 3, LG K10, G Pad X 10.1, running Android 5–8) of infringing the '654 patent plus siblings '048 and '868 through the "Recent apps" multitasking screen — the stacked, depth-rendered card carousel ordered by recency that lets a user tap a card to return to the app in 2D (per the complaint analysis and SpaceTime3D's filings).

Procedural posture and venue. The petition was substantively identical to Apple Inc.'s lead petition in IPR2023-00343, and LG/Google moved for joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), with Google committing to an "understudy" role (IPR2023-00579, Paper 1). On May 4, 2023, LG and SpaceTime3D signed a settlement and license agreement; SpaceTime3D voluntarily dismissed the E.D. Tex. suit, and the Board terminated the IPR as to LG (Papers 8, 10, 13), leaving Google as the sole petitioner. On August 7, 2023, a panel of Administrative Patent Judges Lorin, McKone, and Chung (Chung authoring) instituted review of all claims 1–19 on the same Anthony/Hanggie obviousness grounds as the Apple IPR (Anthony, U.S. Pub. 2005/0091596 — 3D chronological timeline of data objects; Hanggie, U.S. Pub. 2005/0088447 — 2D/3D compositing window manager; plus Matthews, U.S. Pub. 2006/0107229 — transformable desktop image — for dependent claims 6, 9, 14, and 18) and granted Google's joinder (Paper 14). On July 2, 2024, the Board issued its Final Written Decision holding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious, terminating the case. SpaceTime3D appealed, and on August 31, 2026, a Federal Circuit panel (Prost, Reyna, and Stark; Stark authoring) affirmed in SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Google LLC, Nos. 25-1083, 25-1084, rejecting SpaceTime3D's claim-construction challenges to the "order based on a last time" (1c-2) and 3D-images-to-2D-objects replacement (1d-2) limitations (see Justia slip op.; IPWatchdog, Aug. 31, 2026). The PTAB venue matters because the IPR joinder framework let a coordinated Apple-led proceeding bind LG's and Google's interests — the settlement gave LG estoppel cover in E.D. Tex. (the original "rocket docket" where SpaceTime3D had sued LG, Samsung in 2:19-cv-00372, and, in W.D. Tex., Apple in 6:22-cv-00149) — while Fintiv/§ 325(d) arguments about the uncited Anthony/Hanggie art shaped the institution decision.

Why it matters. The case is notable as a textbook example of a small inventor-company/NPE asserting early-2000s GUI concepts against the ubiquitous Android "Recent apps" multitasking interface, and of the coordinated Big Tech response: Apple filed the lead IPRs (IPR2023-00342/343/344 family), Google joined with substantively identical petitions, and LG litigated, then settled out and licensed — a now-familiar split among defendants. Practically, the '654/'868 thread produced a clean, precedential-style affirmance of the Board's obviousness findings on the Anthony-Hanggie combination and the Board's construction of claim terms like "one of" the enumerated open-and-interact events; the same day, however, the Federal Circuit issued a "mixed result" for the petitioners in the parallel '048 patent appeal (Apple Inc., Google LLC v. SpaceTime3D), affirming the Board's split outcome that kept claims 1–13 of the '048 patent alive because of the "rendered first webpage" limitation while finding claims 14–18 obvious — illustrating how near-identical specifications and differing claim language can produce divergent validity outcomes across one patent family (IPWatchdog, Aug. 31, 2026). The '654 patent's maintenance fee also lapsed in April 2024 per USPTO records, underscoring the commercial stakes. Sources: PTAB Institution Decision (IPR2023-00579, Paper 14), Settlement/Termination orders (Papers 8, 13, and parallel IPR2023-00577/578 orders), Federal Circuit slip op. 25-1083/25-1084 (Justia), IPWatchdog, Unified Patents portal, Docket Alarm, Stanford NPE Litigation Database, and complaint materials from the E.D. Tex. docket. Caveats: the precise FWD panel composition (DocketAlarm lists McKone, Laney, McShane, Lorin, and Chung across the docket) and the exact docket number of the pre-institution 2020 IPR (parties cited both IPR2020-01418 and -01419) are not independently confirmed by the documents retrieved.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. LG Electronics (and the Joined IPR2023-00579)

Important framing note on what "this case" is

The docket you've identified — IPR2023-00579 — is not a district-court infringement action. It is a PTAB inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,304,654 (the "'654 patent"), captioned LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. and Google LLC v. SpaceTime3D, Inc. The underlying patent infringement litigation is SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc. et al., No. 2:22-cv-00049-RWS (E.D. Tex.), which asserted the '654 patent along with two related patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,881,048 and 9,696,868) against LG's Android smartphones/tablets (e.g., LG K10, Optimus Zone 3, G Pad). Because the IPR and the LG litigation were litigated in parallel and resolved together, I cover both chronologically below. Many of the district-court categories in your template (trial, verdict, JMOL) are N/A because the LG case settled before trial; the substantive merits were instead decided in the IPRs.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (District Court)

• 2022-02-10 — SpaceTime3D filed the infringement complaint in E.D. Tex. (Marshall Division), SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00049, assigned to Judge Robert W. Schroeder III. The complaint accused LG's mobile-device "app switcher"/multi-window interfaces of infringing the '048, '654, and '868 patents (jury demanded). (Korean trade press reported the filing on 2022-02-15/16; Ex Parte and Stanford NPE Litigation Database confirm filing date and venue.)
• 2022 — LG answered the complaint and filed a Motion to Dismiss (a Rule 12(b)(6)-type attack on pleading of damages/willfulness/indirect infringement). SpaceTime3D filed its Opposition on 2022-07-19 (Dkt. 40), arguing, inter alia: (i) it seeks both pre- and post-suit damages; (ii) LG's patent-marking argument (35 U.S.C. § 287) is premature and factually disputed; and (iii) the complaint adequately pleads post-suit willful and induced infringement.
  • Caveat: I could not independently locate the district court's written ruling on LG's motion to dismiss; the case settled before any substantive order was confirmed in the public record I retrieved.

2. IPR Petitions and Joinder (the PTAB Thread)

• 2023-02-10 — LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. ("LGE"), and Google LLC jointly filed three IPR petitions on the three asserted patents: IPR2023-00579 (the '654 patent, this docket), IPR2023-00577 ('048 patent), and IPR2023-00578 ('868 patent). The '654 petition challenged claims 1–19 on obviousness grounds over Anthony + Hanggie (the "HAC" system), plus Matthews for dependent claims (IPR2023-00579, Paper 2).
• 2023-02-10 — Google concurrently filed a Motion for Joinder to Apple's earlier petition on the same patent, Apple Inc. v. SpaceTime3D, IPR2023-00343 (Apple's petition had been filed 2022-12-13), per 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (Paper 1). This joinder strategy allowed Google to ride on the Apple IPR's schedule and grounds.
• 2023-02-24 — SpaceTime3D filed mandatory notices identifying itself as sole real party-in-interest, disclosing the E.D. Tex. LG case and the W.D. Tex. Apple case (SpaceTime3D v. Apple Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00149) as related matters (Paper 6).

3. Settlement of the LG Litigation and Termination of LGE from the IPRs

• 2023-05-04 — LGE and SpaceTime3D executed a Settlement and License Agreement. Per the parties' later joint filing, SpaceTime3D voluntarily dismissed all claims in the LGE Litigation with prejudice on that date, and LG agreed to dismissal of the litigation "relating to" the patents (IPR2023-00577/578/579, Joint Motion to Terminate, Paper 8; Ex. 1056 Settlement Agreement filed 2023-05-09, corrected 2023-05-15).
• 2023-05-09/15 — LGE and SpaceTime3D filed a Joint Motion to Terminate the IPRs as to LGE (Paper 8), certifying there were no collateral agreements.
• 2023-05-17 — SpaceTime3D filed its Preliminary Response in IPR2023-00579 (Paper 11), arguing § 325(d) discretionary denial (the asserted references were cumulative of art considered in prosecution) and challenging the Anthony/Hanggie/Matthews combinations on the merits.
• 2023-05-31 — The Board (Judges Lorin, McKone, Chung) issued its Decision on Settlement Prior to Institution in the consolidated IPR2023-00577/00578/00579 proceedings, terminating the IPRs as to LGE (Paper 13). Because Google did not object, Google LLC remained the sole petitioner in IPR2023-00579.
• District court effect: The E.D. Tex. case was dismissed with prejudice as part of this settlement (spring 2023; case closed). LG's counsel (DLA Piper) confirms the case "settled favourably in 2023" before Judge Schroeder. No trial, verdict, or post-trial motions ever occurred. No Markman order issued before dismissal, although claim-construction briefing had begun (see § 4).

4. Claim Construction / Markman Activity

• 2022-11-22 — District court granted an unopposed extension for preliminary election of asserted claims/prior art (Dkt. 88).
• 2022-11-30 — SpaceTime3D filed its Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 93), preceded by technical-tutorial compliance notices (Dkts. 89–92). The case had therefore reached the Markman stage when it settled in May 2023.
• In the IPR — The petition noted that in the co-pending LG litigation the parties had agreed to constructions of "3D space" ("a virtual space defined by a three-dimensional coordinate system") and "2D space" ("a finite graphical area defined by a two-dimensional coordinate system"), which the petitioners adopted. SpaceTime3D's POPR also briefed the preamble and "2D/3D space" terms. The Board's institution decision did not adopt any express constructions requiring analysis beyond the parties' agreed terms.
• No final Markman ruling is confirmed in the public record for the LG case (mooted by settlement).

5. Institution, Joinder, and Trial Phase Before the Board

• 2023-08-07 — The Board issued its Decision Granting Institution and Granting Motion for Joinder (Paper 14, IPR2023-00579). It (i) instituted review of all claims 1–19 on the same obviousness grounds already instituted in the Apple IPR (IPR2023-00343), and (ii) joined Google as a party to IPR2023-00343. The institution decision expressly recited the parallel district court cases (LG in E.D. Tex., Apple in W.D. Tex.) and noted the earlier Samsung E.D. Tex. case (2:19-cv-00372) had terminated.
• 2023-09-25 — Panel reconstituted (Paper 15): Judges McKone, McShane, and Laney replaced the original Lorin/McKone/Chung panel.
• 2023-10 to 2024-03 — In the consolidated/joined IPR2023-00343 proceeding, SpaceTime3D filed its Patent Owner Response (Paper 19), Google/Apple filed a Reply (Paper 26), and SpaceTime3D filed a Sur-reply (Paper 33). A protective order was entered (unopposed motion, 2023-10-19).
• 2024-03-18 — Oral argument held before the Board (Paper 40, transcript).

6. Final Written Decision and Outcome

• 2024-07-02 — The Board issued its Final Written Decision (Paper 21 in IPR2023-00579; also entered in IPR2023-00343), captioned Apple Inc. and Google LLC v. SpaceTime3D, Inc., IPR2023-00343 / Patent 9,304,654 B2, authored by APJ McShane. The Board held, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–19 of the '654 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the instituted grounds (Anthony + Hanggie, and Anthony + Hanggie + Matthews). IPR2023-00579 was terminated on 2024-07-02.
• Status: Docket aggregators (Docket Alarm, Ex Parte) list IPR2023-00579 as "Final Written Decision – Appealed," indicating SpaceTime3D pursued a Federal Circuit appeal of the unpatentability decision. I could not confirm the Federal Circuit appeal number or any appellate disposition from the sources retrieved — treat the appeal's existence/present posture as unverified.

7. Parallel PTAB Proceedings and Their Effect

• IPR2023-00343 (Apple Inc. v. SpaceTime3D, '654 patent) — Apple's petition (2022-12-13) instituted 2023-08-07 on the same grounds; Google was joined to it through IPR2023-00579. The 2024-07-02 FWD in that proceeding is the operative merits decision for both dockets, and it is the decision SpaceTime3D's appeal challenges.
• IPR2023-00577 & IPR2023-00578 (LGE + Google on the '048 and '868 patents) — Filed the same day as IPR2023-00579, they followed the same trajectory: LGE settled out (2023-05-31 Board order terminating LGE), Google continued as sole petitioner. The Board issued FWDs holding the '048 claims unpatentable (2024-06-13) and the '868 claims unpatentable (2024-07-02). These, plus Apple's companion IPRs on the '048 patent (IPR2023-00242) and '868 patent (IPR2023-00344), collectively extinguished SpaceTime3D's infringement positions against both LG and Apple on the whole patent family.
• Earlier Samsung wave — The '654 patent had been the subject of IPR2020-01418, dismissed before institution (Paper 12), and the '048 patent of IPR2020-01417 (Samsung-related), also dismissed; the underlying Samsung litigation (E.D. Tex. 2:19-cv-00372) had already terminated. Those early non-instituted IPRs had no collateral-estoppel effect and did not drive the outcome here.

Bottom Line

• District court outcome (LG): Settled — SpaceTime3D and LGE entered a confidential Settlement and License Agreement on 2023-05-04; SpaceTime3D voluntarily dismissed the E.D. Tex. action with prejudice; the case never went to Markman decision, trial, or verdict.
• PTAB outcome ('654 patent): All challenged claims 1–19 held unpatentable in the Final Written Decision of 2024-07-02 (following Google's joinder to the Apple IPR), with the docket now showing an appeal status at the Federal Circuit (appeal particulars unconfirmed).
• Practical effect: Even though LG settled out of the IPR, Google (joined to Apple's IPR) carried the merits to a full win, invalidating the asserted claims — which is why SpaceTime3D's related Apple litigation and its LG enforcement campaign collapsed.

Source basis: PTAB papers in IPR2023-00579 (Papers 1, 2, 8, 11, 13, 14, 21), the IPR2023-00343 Final Written Decision (2024-07-02), the Board's Settlement Decision (2023-05-31), E.D. Tex. Docket 2:22-cv-00049 filings (Dkts. 40, 88, 89–93), Stanford NPE Litigation Database, Ex Parte/Docket Alarm case analytics, and DLA Piper counsel profiles. Where a fact could not be verified (e.g., the MTD ruling, the Federal Circuit appeal number), I have flagged it as unconfirmed rather than speculate.

Important threshold clarification

This docket is not a patent infringement case. IPR2023-00579 is an inter partes review before the PTAB — an administrative validity proceeding in which there are petitioners and a patent owner, not plaintiffs/defendants. Based on the underlying papers:

• Petitioners at filing (Paper 2, filed 2023-02-10): LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and Google LLC (LG's "plaintiff" designation in the case metadata maps to its petitioner status).
• Patent Owner: SpaceTime3D, Inc. (owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,304,654).
• Disposition: LG and SpaceTime3D settled (Settlement & License Agreement dated May 4, 2023); LGE was terminated from the IPR pre-institution (Paper 8 Joint Motion; granted; see "Decision — Settlement Prior to Institution," IPR2023-00577/‑578/‑579). Google LLC remained as the sole petitioner, was joined to Apple Inc. v. SpaceTime3D, Inc., IPR2023-00343 (Institution Decision, Aug. 7, 2023, Paper 14), and the Board issued a Final Written Decision on July 2, 2024 finding claims 1–19 unpatentable. SpaceTime3D appealed (now SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Fed. Cir. No. 25-1083).
• The parallel infringement suit referenced in the Board's decision was SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00049 (E.D. Tex.) — there, SpaceTime3D was the plaintiff and LG the defendant. SpaceTime3D voluntarily dismissed those claims on May 4, 2023 under the settlement.

Counsel of record for LG (the "plaintiff"/petitioner side)

I was able to verify only limited counsel information before exhausting search steps, and the full PTAB docket (mandatory notices, signature blocks, updated appearances) was not fully retrievable in the searches performed. What is supported by the record located:

• W. Karl Renner — likely lead counsel for LG Electronics (Alston & Bird LLP, Washington, D.C. office).
  • Support: DocketAlarm's case index for IPR2023-00579 associates Renner (Alston & Bird) with the LG Electronics party in this exact docket (DocketAlarm search URL combining attorney_exact-W. Karl Renner + Alston & Bird + LG Electronics, returning "LG Electronics Inc. v. SpaceTime3D, Inc. — IPR2023-00579").
  • Background note: Renner is a veteran lead PTAB/IPR litigator (formerly Fish & Richardson; at Alston & Bird) who has handled large-company petitioner campaigns before the Board; he is widely known in post-grant practice, though I could not pull a specific bio page or the petition signature page in this session to independently confirm his role designation (lead vs. backup) for this case.

I did not find reliable, document-level confirmation of:

• Additional LG back-up counsel, local counsel, or in-house LG attorneys of record in IPR2023-00579 (if any);
• Google LLC's counsel of record after joinder (Google became the sole petitioner and the party that appears in the Institution Decision and Final Written Decision captions);
• SpaceTime3D's patent-owner counsel (if you intended the underlying E.D. Tex. infringement plaintiff instead).

Where to verify the complete roster

The authoritative source is the PTAB filing system (ptab.uspto.gov / PTAB Portal) for IPR2023-00579:

• Paper 2 (Petition, filed 2023-02-10) — signature block with lead and back-up counsel for LG/Google.
• Paper 4/5-type mandatory notices — designate lead/back-up counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8.
• Paper 8 (Joint Motion to Terminate as to LGE) and Paper 13 (grant) — LG counsel's appearances.
• Later Google-era filings (Papers 14+) and the Final Written Decision — Google counsel's appearances.

DocketAlarm (docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00579) hosts the papers, but the underlying PDFs' signature pages were not fully accessible in my searches. I have not fabricated any attorney beyond W. Karl Renner, and that identification is based on an indirect index signal rather than a direct signature-page sighting — treat the full roster as unverified pending a PTAB portal check.

Threshold caveat — this is an IPR, not a district court infringement action

The docket you supplied (IPR2023-00579, PTAB) is an inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,304,654, not a patent infringement complaint. In the IPR posture, SpaceTime3D, Inc. is the Patent Owner (the respondent whose patent claims LG/Google sought to cancel), and LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and Google LLC were the petitioners. The related infringement suit is SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00049 (E.D. Tex.), which the IPR record identifies as co-pending litigation involving the '654 patent (see IPR2023-00343 Final Written Decision, Papers cited therein). I treat "defendant's counsel" below as SpaceTime3D's PTAB counsel of record, with the district-court context flagged separately.

Counsel I could verify in the record

Greg Cordrey — counsel for Patent Owner SpaceTime3D, Inc. (role designation not confirmed from accessible text)

• Identified as acting "on behalf of Patent Owner SpaceTime3D" in the closely-parallel, same-patent IPRs IPR2023-00242 / -00343 / -00344 (Apple and Google v. SpaceTime3D), per a party communication filed as Exhibit 3003 in IPR2023-00242 (Docket Alarm OCR). IPR2023-00343 challenges the identical '654 patent claims 1–19, and the Board's IPR2023-00343 Final Written Decision confirms Google's IPR2023-00579 petition was the basis for Google's joinder there — so this is the same patent-owner representation team network. However, I could not confirm from the accessible snippets whether Cordrey is lead or backup counsel in IPR2023-00579 specifically, and his firm/office are not stated in the located document text.

Counsel of record not confirmed for SpaceTime3D in IPR2023-00579

The Patent Owner's Preliminary Response (Paper 11, filed May 17, 2023) and the Petition record (Paper 2) in IPR2023-00579 necessarily carry SpaceTime3D's lead/backup counsel designations, but the full-text signature pages were behind paywalls (Docket Alarm) and were not extractable from the search snippets I obtained. I did not locate a complete, reliable attorney list for SpaceTime3D in IPR2023-00579 itself, and I will not invent one. If you need the verified list, the authoritative source is the PTAB's own case viewer/PTAB API or the signature blocks on Papers 2 and 11 of IPR2023-00579.

Related counsel appearances you should not conflate with SpaceTime3D's representation

• Susman Godfrey L.L.P. (Meng Xi, Partner) — appears in the record as petitioner-side (LG) IPR counsel: an email chain filed as Exhibit 1055 (IPR2023-00577 docket, Feb. 2023) shows Xi advising that LG "will be filing IPRs tomorrow against the '048, '654, and '868 patents" (the three patents at issue in IPR2023-00577/578/579). So Susman Godfrey's role in these IPRs was for LG Electronics, not SpaceTime3D.
• DLA Piper LLP (US) (Christopher "Chris" Duerden, San Francisco — 555 Mission St.) — per his DLA Piper bio and the Exhibit 1055 email chain, DLA Piper defended LG Electronics in the underlying E.D. Tex. infringement suit (2:22-cv-00049), which settled favorably in 2023. DLA's appearance on Patexia's profile for IPR2023-00579 is consistent with petitioner/LG-side involvement, not patent-owner representation.
• Y. Gloria Park (Susman Godfrey) — a Law.com "Rising Star" profile (Oct. 2023) states she represented SpaceTime3D in its E.D. Tex. patent litigations against Samsung and LG and secured favorable settlements. That is district-court plaintiff-side representation of SpaceTime3D, a separate engagement from the PTAB IPR counsel question. If SpaceTime3D's IPR counsel team overlaps with its district-court team, that would need verification from the IPR papers; I could not confirm that overlap.

Bottom line

The only attorney affirmatively tied to SpaceTime3D (Patent Owner) in the related same-patent IPR record I could access is Greg Cordrey (via Exhibit 3003 in the Apple IPR2023-00242 line, which includes the identical '654 patent proceeding IPR2023-00343). I could not verify from accessible sources: (a) whether Cordrey was lead or backup counsel in IPR2023-00579, (b) his firm/office, or (c) the remainder of SpaceTime3D's PTAB team in this specific case. Recommend pulling Papers 2 and 11 from the USPTO PTAB portal (IPR2023-00579) or the Docket Alarm full-text downloads before relying on a complete counsel list. No filings relevant to this question are sealed that I'm aware of — the gap is one of source accessibility, not confidentiality.