SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Overview of the Parties and the Asserted Patents. SpaceTime3D, Inc., the plaintiff, is a patent-holder controlled by inventor Eddie (E.) Bakhash, who is the sole inventor of the entire patent family; it does not appear to sell products and is best characterized as a patent-assertion/licensing entity that has pursued parallel enforcement campaigns (e.g., SpaceTime3D v. Samsung, No. 2:19-cv-372-JRG (E.D. Tex., terminated); SpaceTime3D v. LG Electronics, No. 2:22-cv-00049 (E.D. Tex., active per SpaceTime3D's IPR mandatory notices filed Dec. 7, 2022)). Apple Inc., the defendant, is the manufacturer of the accused iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, and Apple Watch devices. SpaceTime3D alleges that Apple's "app switcher"/task-switcher interfaces—including the Safari tab view, the iOS App Switcher, and the Apple Watch Dock—display images of open applications or webpages in a three-dimensional space and let users switch between a 2-D active app and a 3-D gallery of open apps, infringing the asserted family. Per the case metadata, the patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 9,304,654, 8,881,048, 7,735,018, and 9,696,868—a continuation family sharing a common specification (priority to a Sept. 13, 2005 provisional; the '018 patent issued from App. No. 11/531,676 and the '048/'654/'868 patents are continuations). In one line each: the '018 patent covers methods/systems for a 3-D GUI where computing output is captured and presented as objects in a virtual 3-D space with a timeline of icons; the '048 patent covers a 3-D GUI system that textures captured images of webpages onto objects in a foreground/background 3-D space and switches to a 2-D window on selection; the '654 and '868 patents are continuations covering similar 3-D GUI app-switching and sorting interfaces with real-time and static information sources. Note: the original Waco complaint (ECF No. 1, filed Feb. 10, 2022) asserted only the '048, '654, and '868 patents, and I could not confirm from available sources whether the '018 patent was added to this action by amendment; the metadata treats all four as in play.

Procedural Posture and Venue. Filed in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas on Feb. 10, 2022 (6:22-cv-00149-ADA), the case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright. Apple moved for intra-district transfer to the Austin Division on July 14, 2022 (ECF No. 34) and, on the eve of the Nov. 17, 2022 Markman hearing, moved to stay all proceedings pending that transfer ruling (ECF No. 55). Judge Albright denied the stay on Feb. 2, 2023 (ECF No. 75), reasoning that intra-district transfer need not be prioritized; the Federal Circuit granted Apple mandamus in In re Apple Inc., No. 23-120 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2023), holding that intra-district transfer motions must be prioritized like inter-district ones and directing that the transfer motion be decided before further substantive proceedings. Meanwhile, the court issued claim constructions on Mar. 19, 2023 (construing "texturing" as "drawing or mapping an image onto a 3D object" and holding the '868 preambles non-limiting), and in an earlier Nov. 10, 2022 order (ECF No. 54) denied in part Apple's motion to dismiss, allowing post-suit willful- and indirect-infringement claims to proceed. The case was then transferred to the Austin Division after roughly 462 days and reopened as No. 1:23-cv-00553-ADA-DH ("ADA" = Judge Albright; "DH" in WDTX convention is Magistrate Judge Dustin M. Howell, though I could not independently verify the magistrate assignment in this session). The case remains pending and has not been decided on the merits. The venue fight matters because Waco under Judge Albright was, until the 2022–2023 division realignment, the nation's most patent-plaintiff-friendly "rocket docket," and Apple (with other defendants) waged an aggressive campaign of transfer motions and Federal Circuit mandamus to push such cases out of Waco.

Why the Case Is Notable. This case sits at the intersection of several high-visibility dynamics: (1) it is part of a classic NPE/individual-inventor pattern—a single family of 3-D GUI patents asserted sequentially against Samsung, LG, and Apple for core mobile-OS task-switching features, with SpaceTime3D citing Apple's own support pages instructing users to "look through the webpages you have open"; (2) it produced the Federal Circuit's In re Apple (No. 23-120) mandamus ruling clarifying that intra-district transfer motions receive the same prioritization as inter-district motions—a decision that affected every patent case pending before Judge Albright during the WDTX realignment; (3) it is tightly linked to PTAB proceedings: Apple filed IPR2023-00242 against the '048 patent (later joined by Google as co-petitioner), and IPR2023-00343/-00344 against related family members, giving a Sotera-style estoppel stipulation (May 24, 2023) that it would not pursue in court any grounds reasonably raised in the IPRs, while the USPTO also ordered ex parte reexaminations of the family in March 2024 (with the parties disputing whether those reexams should be stayed pending IPR final written decisions); and (4) in market context, the accused features are core iOS/iPhone/Apple Watch user-interface functions, meaning the case had potential exposure to Apple's flagship products and was litigated against the backdrop of SpaceTime3D's prior claim-construction loss to Samsung in E.D. Tex., which Apple urged Judge Albright to follow. (I was unable within this session's search limits to confirm the case's most recent docket events, any trial date, or disposition; the available sources support the status as transferred and ongoing in the Austin Division.)

SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc. — Key Legal Developments & Outcome

Caveat on scope: The case metadata lists four patents (7,735,018; 8,881,048; 9,304,654; 9,696,868), but the operative complaint and every order I located describe three asserted patents — U.S. Patent Nos. 8,881,048 ("'048"), 9,304,654 ("'654"), and 9,696,868 ("'868") (see Order Denying Stay, ECF 75, 6:22-cv-00149-ADA, quoting ECF 1 ¶¶ 16–19; Apple Opening Claim Construction Br., ECF 38 at 1, filed 2022-09-01). I found no docket evidence that the '018 patent (7,735,018) was added to this case; it may belong to SpaceTime3D's parallel campaign. That point, and anything else I could not verify, is flagged below.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2022-02-10 — SpaceTime3D, Inc. filed suit in the W.D. Tex., Waco Division (Case No. 6:22-cv-00149-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright), alleging Apple's iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, and Apple Watch devices (app-switcher / Safari tab-viewer "3D space" interfaces) infringed the '048, '654, and '868 patents. SpaceTime asserted direct, indirect (induced), and willful infringement with a jury demand. (Complaint, ECF 1; quoted in Order Denying Stay, ECF 75.)
• 2022 (spring/summer) — Apple answered (exact answer/counterclaim docket entry not independently verified) and, per the claim-construction briefing, signaled it would contest priority date and validity.
• 2022-11-10 — Order on Apple's motion to dismiss (ECF 54): The parties jointly agreed pre-suit indirect and willful claims should be dismissed without prejudice. The Court (per its then-applicable BillJCo line of cases) denied dismissal of post-suit willful infringement (complaint filing supplies notice) and post-suit induced infringement (rejecting Apple's pre-suit-knowledge requirement). (Order, ECF 54.)

2. Transfer, Stay, and Mandamus — the Central Pretrial Battle

• 2022-07-14 — Apple moved for intra-district transfer from Waco to the Austin Division under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (ECF 34). The motion was fully briefed by 2022-11-07.
• 2022-11-14 — Fact discovery opened per the Court's scheduling order (ECF 31).
• 2022-11-16 — One day before the scheduled Markman hearing (Nov. 17), Apple moved to stay all proceedings pending resolution of the transfer motion (ECF 55), citing Federal Circuit mandates prioritizing transfer motions (e.g., In re Apple, 2022 WL 16753325, Nov. 8, 2022). The Court postponed Markman.
• 2023-01-30 — Oral argument on the stay; denied from the bench.
• 2023-02-02 — Written Order Denying Stay (ECF 75). Judge Albright reasoned intra-district transfer receives more deference than inter-district transfer; the Court could retain the case on its docket either way; Apple showed no irreparable injury; a stay would prejudice SpaceTime3D's timely enforcement right; and the public interest weighed against a stay.
• 2023 (Feb.) — Apple filed a mandamus petition in the Federal Circuit (No. 2023-120), arguing the district court was obligated to prioritize the pending transfer motion.
• 2023-03-06 — Federal Circuit granted the writ: In re Apple Inc., No. 2023-120, 2023 WL 2359699 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2023) (Dyk, Reyna, Chen; nonprecedential). The panel held Fifth Circuit law requires transfer motions to be prioritized regardless of whether the transfer is inter- or intra-district, rejected reliance on unpublished Sundell v. Cisco language, and ordered the district court to timely decide transfer before further substantive proceedings (beyond the already-scheduled claim construction hearing).
• 2023-03-08 — District court Order Setting Markman Hearing and Temporarily Staying Case for 60 days pending resolution of the transfer motion, scheduling Markman for March 17, 2023.

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

• 2023-03-16 — Court issued preliminary constructions for the '048 and '868 patents.
• 2023-03-17 — Markman hearing held (terms: "texturing"; preambles of the '868 independent claims).
• 2023-03-19 — Final Claim Constructions Order (6:22-cv-00149-ADA):
  • "texturing" ('048 patent claims 1, 8) = "drawing or mapping an image onto a 3D object";
  • Preambles of the '868 independent claims = plain and ordinary meaning; not limiting.
  • Notably, Apple's briefing (ECF 38) argued that Judge Payne in the parallel E.D. Tex. Samsung litigation (SpaceTime3D v. Samsung, 2:19-cv-372-JRG, Claim Construction Order, Dec. 7, 2020, Dkt. 104) had previously rejected the same SpaceTime3D constructions and adopted Apple's verbatim — an argument that evidently carried weight.

4. Transfer Granted; Reopening in Austin

• ~2023-05-17 — After the mandamus remand, Judge Albright granted Apple's intra-district transfer motion (~462 days after filing, per the case summary). The case was transferred from Waco to the Austin Division, reopened as Case No. 1:23-cv-00553-ADA-DH (Albright, J., presiding; magistrate judge initials "DH").
• 2023-05-24 — Apple's IPR stipulation letter already references the new docket number "1:23-cv-00553-ADA-DH," confirming the transfer was effectuated by that date. (Exact transfer order date and docket number not independently verified.)

5. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• 2022-11-14 — Fact discovery opened (later than typical Albright schedule) — the trigger for Apple's stay motion and eventual mandamus.
• 2022-2023 — Apple conducted venue-related discovery and (per its opening brief) reserved the right to contest the asserted 2005 provisional priority date, a validity-sensitive issue given the GUI prior art (Mac OS X / Windows XP).
• Discovery of substance (expert discovery, depositions of the sole inventor Ezra Bakhash, etc.) was substantially interrupted by the transfer/stay fight; I could not verify specific post-transfer discovery milestones.

6. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

• IPR2023-00242 (Apple Inc. v. SpaceTime3D, Inc.) — Challenged claims 1–18 of the '048 patent. Filed late 2022 (mandatory notices dated 2022-12-07); grounds: (1) Robertson + Gralla + Gettman; (2) Suave + Tsuda (per Apple's 2023-05-24 stipulation letter). Google LLC later appeared/joined as co-petitioner (PTAB hearing transcript caption, March 18, 2024). Oral hearing held 2024-03-18. Final written decision outcome not verified in available sources — this is a significant gap in the record.
• IPR2023-00344 (Apple v. SpaceTime3D) — Challenged claims 1–20 of the '868 patent (Anthony/Hanggie/Matthews/Robertson grounds, per Apple's stipulation letter, which is on the IPR2023-00578 exhibit record). Institution/FWD status not verified.
• Apple gave Sotera-type estoppel stipulations for both IPRs (2023-05-24 letter for IPR2023-00242), agreeing not to pursue instituted grounds (or grounds reasonably raisable) in the district court — a litigation posture designed to support a later stay motion and narrow the district-court invalidity case.
• Related co-defendant IPRs (e.g., LG Electronics' IPR2023-00578) used this case's claim-construction briefing as exhibits, indicating coordinated invalidity attacks across SpaceTime3D's parallel W.D. Tex. suits, but those are separate cases.

7. Trial, Verdict, Post-Trial Motions

• None reached. The case was never tried. There is no verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee award on this record.

8. Final Disposition / Present Posture

• Present status: active, post-transfer, in the Austin Division (1:23-cv-00553-ADA-DH). The case was not decided on the merits and, per the case metadata, remains ongoing. I could not verify from available sources whether the case has since settled, been dismissed (stipulated or otherwise), or been stayed pending the IPRs — the searches returned no dispositive order. If you need the current docket posture, the authoritative check is PACER for 1:23-cv-00553-ADA-DH or the PTAB FWDs in IPR2023-00242 / IPR2023-00344.

---

Chronological Timeline (Verified Events)

Unverified/open items (do not treat as established): Apple's answer/counterclaim filing date and contents; whether the '018 patent was ever added to this case; the PTAB institution decisions and final written decisions in IPR2023-00242 and IPR2023-00344 (and any IPR on the '654 patent); post-transfer discovery milestones; and the current live/pending/settled status on the Austin docket.

Press and analysis coverage of SpaceTime3D v. Apple

Published press coverage of the district-court case itself is thin and mostly appears in law-firm alerts and appellate-news summaries rather than mainstream tech or business outlets; I found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360 feature, Ars Technica, or Verge article devoted to the merits of the Waco/Austin suit, and no outlet reported damages figures, a settlement, or a verdict. The earliest substantive reporting came from the parties' transfer fight: Winston & Strawn reported on 2023-02-10 that Judge Albright had denied Apple's motion to stay on February 2, 2023, recounting that SpaceTime3D sued Apple in Waco on February 10, 2022 over three GUI patents (the '048, '654, and '868), that Apple moved for intra-district transfer to Austin on July 14, 2022, and that the stay ruling applied the four-factor test with the court calling Apple's prejudice claims "sheer speculation." The National Law Review then covered the sequel: on March 6, 2023, the Federal Circuit granted Apple a writ of mandamus in In re Apple Inc., No. 23-120, holding that intra-district transfer motions must be prioritized like inter-district ones and ordering Judge Albright to decide the transfer motion before proceeding with substantive matters — the procedural ruling that ultimately pushed the case to Austin as Case No. 1:23-cv-00553-ADA-DH.

The most detailed analysis came only at the appellate stage, because Apple and Google challenged the same patents in parallel IPRs. IPWatchdog reported on 2026-08-31 that the Federal Circuit handed SpaceTime3D "mixed results" in two nonprecedential decisions authored by Judge Stark (joined by Judges Prost and Reyna): it affirmed the PTAB's split decision on the '048 patent — claims 1–13 upheld, claims 14–18 obvious — and affirmed the Board's finding that all challenged claims of the '654 and '868 patents were obvious. IPWatchdog's account highlights the decisive claim-construction fight over "the rendered first webpage," which the Board read to require restoring the previously rendered version from which a thumbnail was captured rather than generating a live page, and notes the court's holding that Apple could not raise its browser-caching theory for the first time in its IPR reply ("a petitioner may not in reply rely on new prior art to teach a claim limitation"). Law360 carried a one-paragraph synopsis the same day, describing the rulings as affirming PTAB decisions that found two patents and some claims of a third covering GUI technology unpatentable "siding with challenges made by Apple and Google." The underlying opinion is available via Justia.

Where accounts diverge or go beyond the court record, the differences are modest. IPWatchdog and Law360 agree on the August 31, 2026 outcome, but only IPWatchdog supplies the reasoning and quotes from the opinion, while Law360 treats the case as a routine appellate item. The one outlet offering interpretation beyond the docket is PatSnap's litigation-intelligence blog, an analyst-style write-up that frames SpaceTime3D's suit as a "four-patent assertion" (including the '018 patent) signaling ongoing enforcement risk around 3D GUI and timeline-navigation IP; it speculates that unasserted continuation applications could "extend enforcement exposure well beyond the four patents already in suit" and ties the portfolio to Apple's investments in spatial computing and AR/VR interface layers — commentary that goes well beyond the judicial record and reflects the author's own risk assessment rather than any court or party statement. Notably, none of the located coverage reports any damages demand, award, or settlement figure for the district case, and no outlet appears to have covered the Austin Division proceedings since transfer; if such numbers exist in the record, the press has not reported them.

Sources

• SPACETIME3D, INC. v. APPLE INC. , 25-1083 (Fed. Cir. 2026) - SPACETIME3D, INC. v. APPLE INC. , 25-1083 (Fed. Cir. 2026)
• SpaceTime3D Gets Mixed Results at Federal Circuit in Pair of Appeals from Apple and Google IPRs - SpaceTime3D Gets Mixed Results at Federal Circuit in Pair of Appeals from Apple and Google IPRs
• SpaceTime3D v. Apple — 3D GUI & Timeline Patent Transfer | PatSnap - Your Agentic AI Partner
• Audio Instance - Audio Instance
• Audio List - },
• SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:2022cv00149 - Document 54 (W.D. Tex. 2022) - SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:2022cv00149 - Document 54 (W.D. Tex. 2022)
• #18 in Apple Inc. v. SpaceTime3D, Inc. (Fed. Cir., 25-1022) – CourtListener.com - 🚀 Limited-time offer
• Appellate : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - - August 31, 2026
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
• Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 54 Filed 11/10/22 Page 1 of 8

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — SpaceTime3D, Inc.

Based on the available record, SpaceTime3D is represented by a small, specialized team led by Todd E. Fitzsimmons, with Gregory Cordrey as co-counsel. These two attorneys are the only plaintiff-side counsel I can confirm with reasonable certainty from the docket-adjacent record (PTAB filings, hearing transcripts, and Federal Circuit schedules that cross-reference this litigation). I could not access the full PACER attorney list for either 6:22-cv-00149-ADA or the transferred 1:23-cv-00553-ADA-DH action in this session, so the entries below should be treated as the core, confirmed team rather than an exhaustive list of every attorney who may have entered an appearance.

1. Todd E. Fitzsimmons — Lead Counsel

• Firm/Location: Fitzsimmons IP Law, P.C., P.O. Box 199, Gardena, CA 90248 (phone 571-210-8000; todd@fitziplaw.com; USPTO Reg. No. 44,683).
• Role: Designated "Lead Counsel for Patent Owner" (SpaceTime3D) in the parallel IPR proceedings arising out of this very litigation — IPR2023-00242 ('048 patent) — where the mandatory notice expressly identified the ongoing SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 6:22-cv-00149 (WDTX, filed Feb. 10, 2022) as the related litigation. He also argued the March 18, 2024 PTAB oral hearing on behalf of SpaceTime3D and is listed as SpaceTime3D's arguing counsel in the related Federal Circuit appeals (Appeal Nos. 25-1022 and 25-1083, argued July 6, 2026). He signs SpaceTime3D's substantive papers in the IPR/reexam fight over the same patents.
• Experience note: A solo/boutique patent trial and PTAB lawyer who has run the SpaceTime3D family enforcement campaign across forums — including the SpaceTime3D v. Samsung (E.D. Tex. 2:19-cv-372) and SpaceTime3D v. LG Electronics (E.D. Tex. 2:22-cv-00049) litigations and the related LG IPRs — and who appeared for SpaceTime3D on appeal at the Federal Circuit in 2026.

2. Gregory (S.) Cordrey — Co-Counsel (Backup/Of Counsel role in parallel proceedings)

• Firm/Location: Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP, 3 Park Plaza, Suite 1100, Irvine, CA 92614 (phone 949-623-7200 / 949-623-7236; gxc@jmbm.com; USPTO Reg. No. 44,089).
• Role: Designated Backup Counsel for Patent Owner SpaceTime3D in IPR2023-00242 (and the related IPR2023-00343/-00344 proceedings on the '654 and '868 patents), and he appeared with Fitzsimmons at the March 18, 2024 PTAB oral hearing for SpaceTime3D. In the district court litigation itself, he functions as co-counsel/co-litigator for the plaintiff on the same patent family; he was also the SpaceTime3D contact on Board conference calls regarding the ex parte reexaminations that run parallel to this case.
• Experience note: IP/patent litigator at JMBM who, together with Fitzsimmons, has handled SpaceTime3D's IPR defenses against Apple (and previously LG), including briefing on the Sotera-style estoppel stipulation and the reexam-vs-IPR stay dispute.

3. Jaysen Chung — Possible Additional Appellate/Of Counsel (unconfirmed for district court)

• Firm/Location: Not confirmed in the available sources.
• Role/Note: The Federal Circuit's July 2026 oral-argument schedule lists "Todd Fitzsimmons, Jaysen Chung" as arguing counsel for SpaceTime3D in a related PTO appeal (No. 25-1083), suggesting Chung is part of SpaceTime3D's appellate team. However, I could not verify whether Chung has entered an appearance in the district court action (6:22-cv-00149 / 1:23-cv-00553), so he should not be listed as district-court counsel of record without further PACER confirmation.

Caveats and sourcing notes

• Primary sources relied on: SpaceTime3D's PTAB Mandatory Notice dated Dec. 7, 2022 (IPR2023-00242), which designates Fitzsimmons as lead and Cordrey as backup counsel and identifies this exact WDTX case as the related litigation; the PTAB oral-hearing transcript of March 18, 2024 (naming both counsel "on behalf of Patent Owner"); the PTAB conference-call email thread (Exhibit 3003, Apr. 2024, listing "Greg Cordrey on behalf of Patent Owner SpaceTime3D"); and the CAFC scheduled-cases list (July 2026).
• What I could not confirm: (a) the complete PACER "attorney appearance" list for the Waco action (6:22-cv-00149-ADA) or the transferred Austin action (1:23-cv-00553-ADA-DH); (b) whether SpaceTime3D has any Texas local counsel of record (I saw references to J. Stephen Ravel of Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP, Austin, in a cc line of an Apple Sotera-stipulation letter in the case, but that appears tied to Apple's side or IPR-related service lists rather than plaintiff's counsel, and I could not confirm his role); and (c) whether any additional attorneys from Fitzsimmons IP Law or JMBM filed notices of appearance after transfer.
• The original complaint (ECF No. 1) signature block was not retrievable in this session; if SpaceTime3D used different or additional counsel at filing (a common pattern for plaintiff-side NPE cases), that would only show up on the PACER docket itself.

Bottom line: The plaintiff's counsel of record is, with high confidence, Todd E. Fitzsimmons (Fitzsimmons IP Law, P.C., Gardena, CA) as lead counsel, with Gregory Cordrey (Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP, Irvine, CA) as co-counsel — the same tandem that has represented SpaceTime3D in the parallel IPR/reexam and appellate proceedings tied to this case.

Based on my research, here is what I can verify about counsel of record for Apple Inc. in SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (W.D. Tex. 6:22-cv-00149-ADA, transferred to 1:23-cv-00553-ADA-DH). I was limited in search steps, so this list is partial and every item below is grounded in a specific source.

Verified Apple counsel

Brian Rosenthal — Lead/Trial Counsel for Apple

• Firm/office: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP — Partner, New York office (200 Park Avenue).
• Role: Lead counsel for Apple Inc. in the district court litigation (and on appeal). He signed Apple's May 24, 2023 Sotera-style stipulation letter in this very case, captioned to 1:23-cv-00553-ADA-DH (exhibit to IPR2023-00242, "Exhibit-1054-May_24,_2023_Stipulation_by_Apple.pdf," signed "/s/ Brian Rosenthal, Attorney for Apple Inc."), and signed Apple's February 2023 IPR2023-00344 stipulation letter captioned to 6:22-cv-00149-ADA (DocketAlarm exhibit in IPR2023-00578). He also appears as Apple's counsel on the Federal Circuit docket in the related appeals (e.g., Apple Inc. v. SpaceTime3D, Inc., No. 25-1022, CourtListener docket entries all entered by "Brian Rosenthal"), and argued for Apple in the July 6, 2026 Federal Circuit oral argument in that PTAB appeal.
• Experience note: Gibson Dunn's partner bio confirms he is a patent trial lawyer who "litigated over 120 patent cases, most as lead counsel," with Apple among his clients; he has won defense verdicts before Judge Albright in the W.D. Tex. (e.g., VMware/Dell EMC vs. WSOU) and argued patent appeals to the Federal Circuit — consistent with his role steering Apple's transfer/venue campaign in this case and the related In re Apple, No. 23-120 mandamus proceeding.

Related Apple counsel in the parallel PTAB proceeding (not district-court "of record," flagged as such)

Fish & Richardson P.C. (IPR counsel for Apple as petitioner)

At the March 18, 2024 PTAB oral hearing in IPR2023-00242 (Apple Inc. and Google LLC v. SpaceTime3D, challenging the '048 patent), these attorneys appeared on behalf of Petitioner Apple Inc.:

• W. Karl Renner (Fish & Richardson, Washington, D.C.)
• Andrew Patrick (Fish & Richardson, Washington, D.C.)
• Kenneth Darby (Fish & Richardson, Washington, D.C.)
• Usman Khan (Fish & Richardson, Washington, D.C.)

(Source: IPR2023-00242 hearing transcript, Paper 44, April 17, 2024, "ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER, APPLE INC.") These are Apple's PTAB counsel in the validity proceedings that Apple tied by stipulation to the district case; they are not necessarily counsel of record in the district court action itself.

Explicitly unverified / gaps (do not treat as established)

• Other Gibson Dunn attorneys on Apple's district-court filings. Apple's substantive WDTX filings (transfer motion ECF 34, claim-construction brief ECF 38, stay motion ECF 55) almost certainly carry a multi-attorney Gibson Dunn signature block and additional local counsel, but the full signature blocks were not accessible within my search limits, and I did not find a complete CM/ECF attorney list. I will not speculate on names.
• Local counsel. W.D. Tex. Civil Local Rule AT-1 typically requires local counsel, but I could not verify who served in that role for Apple in this case.
• In-house Apple counsel. Not identified from available sources.
• Clarification to avoid confusion: The names "J. Stephen Ravel (Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP, Austin)" and "Max Tribble (Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston)" appear on the cc/address lines of Apple's own stipulation letters in the PTAB exhibit record. Based on firm profiles (Susman Godfrey's prominent plaintiff-side IP practice and the letter-addressee structure), those attorneys appear to represent plaintiff SpaceTime3D in the district court action — not Apple. If you need plaintiff's counsel, they should be verified separately against PACER.

Authoritative source for a complete list: The definitive check is the docket sheet for 6:22-cv-00149-ADA (Waco) and 1:23-cv-00553-ADA-DH (Austin) on PACER (the "Attorneys" tab / ECF 1–75 filing signatures), and the Federal Circuit docket for In re Apple, No. 23-120 and Apple v. SpaceTime3D, No. 25-1022 (CourtListener recap confirms Rosenthal as the filing attorney on the CAFC side).