Unknown Plaintiff v. Unknown Defendant

This ongoing appeal before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, case number 23-2038, involves U.S. Patent No. 10,559,199. While the specific identities of the plaintiff and defendant in this particular appeal (23-2038) are not readily available from the initial search, Federal Circuit cases generally involve appeals from district court patent infringement rulings or decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals, making it the definitive venue for such cases. Without further specific information about the parties in this exact appeal, it is not possible to definitively state whether they are operating companies, NPEs, or universities, nor can the specific accused product, service, or technology be identified at this time. Similarly, the underlying district court, division, and judge remain unknown without more specific case details.

U.S. Patent No. 10,559,199 is at the center of this dispute. A technical sketch of the patent is not immediately available from the search results, so a more detailed description of its claims would require direct access to the patent document or detailed legal analysis.

The notability of this specific case (23-2038) and its potential industry impact, IPR linkage, or market context cannot be determined without identifying the parties, the technology, and the nature of the dispute that led to the Federal Circuit appeal. The Federal Circuit frequently hears a wide range of patent cases, including those that clarify standards for inventorship, enablement, and claim scope, as well as those involving complex issues like obviousness-type double patenting and the interplay of patent term adjustments. However, without specific details for 23-2038, it is not possible to ascertain why it might be particularly notable among the numerous patent appeals heard by the court.

The patent infringement litigation involves SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.), Case No. 6:22-cv-00149-ADA, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. U.S. Patent 10,559,199 is among the patents asserted in this case, related to graphical user interfaces.

Regarding Federal Circuit Case No. 23-2038, no specific details linking it to the SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc. litigation or U.S. Patent 10,559,199 were found in the available search results. However, a related Federal Circuit mandamus proceeding, In re: Apple Inc., Case No. 2023-120, stemmed from the district court litigation. Other Federal Circuit appeals related to SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc. have been filed under case numbers 25-1022 and 25-1082.

Here is a chronological overview of the key legal developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• February 10, 2022: SpaceTime3D, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division. The complaint alleged infringement of patents, including U.S. Patent 10,559,199, related to graphical user interfaces. SpaceTime3D claimed Apple's iPhones, iPod touches, iPads, and Apple Watches infringed its patented technology for displaying and navigating three-dimensional spaces on a 2D surface. The complaint also included allegations of pre- and post-suit indirect and willful infringement.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• November 10, 2022 (approx.): The district court in Waco, Texas, denied Apple's motion to dismiss certain post-suit willful and indirect infringement claims. SpaceTime3D had agreed to dismiss pre-suit claims without prejudice, but the court found sufficient factual content to allow a reasonable inference of knowing inducement by Apple for post-suit infringement.
• November 7, 2022: Apple's motion to transfer the case within the Western District of Texas, from Waco to Austin, was fully briefed and pending.
• January 30, 2023: The district court denied Apple's motion to stay proceedings, including a scheduled claim construction hearing, pending a decision on its motion to transfer.
• March 6, 2023: Apple Inc. filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 2023-120). Apple sought an order directing the district court to promptly rule on its motion to transfer and to stay other proceedings. The Federal Circuit denied the mandamus petition, concluding that the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion by denying the stay, particularly given Apple's delay in seeking the stay of the Markman hearing.
• May 17, 2023: Following the Federal Circuit's directive in the mandamus proceeding, District Judge Alan D. Albright granted Apple's motion to transfer the case from the Waco Division to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• A claim construction hearing was initially scheduled for November 17, 2022, but it was deferred by the district court due to Apple's motion to stay, which was filed the day before the hearing.

Discovery Milestones:

• November 14, 2022: Fact discovery in the case was opened.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• No information regarding a trial, verdict, or post-trial motions in the district court has been found in the available records as the case was still navigating pre-trial motions and venue transfer as of mid-2023.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The litigation remains active, having been transferred to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas. Separate appeals concerning procedural matters (such as the mandamus petition, Case No. 2023-120) have been addressed by the Federal Circuit. Other Federal Circuit appeals, Case No. 25-1022 and Case No. 25-1082, have been filed related to SpaceTime3D, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• A search for Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings specifically for U.S. Patent 10,559,199 on the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) and other sources did not yield any results.

Despite aggressive web searches for "Federal Circuit case 23-2038" and "Federal Circuit case patent 10559199," a specific case matching both the provided case number (23-2038) and patent at issue (10559199) could not be identified through public search engines. This suggests that the case details may be incorrect, the case is very recent and not yet widely reported, or the relevant information is primarily accessible via PACER, which is not directly searchable through the provided tools.

Without a confirmed case caption (Plaintiff v. Defendant) or a direct link between the case number 23-2038 and US patent 10559199 in the public record, it is not possible to identify the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) in this specific patent infringement case.

To definitively identify the counsel, access to the official docket for Federal Circuit case 23-2038, likely through PACER, would be required. This would provide the specific parties involved and their respective legal representation.

I am unable to identify the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in Federal Circuit case 23-2038 involving US patent 10559199. Despite multiple searches for the case caption, parties, and docket information, the specific details for this case number in conjunction with patent 10559199 could not be found through public web searches. The search results yielded numerous other Federal Circuit cases with similar numbering schemes or general information about the court, but not the definitive parties for "23-2038" and patent "10559199".

Without identifying the specific plaintiff and defendant, it is not possible to determine which party is the defendant or to locate their legal representation. It is possible that the provided case number and patent combination is incorrect, or the case information is not publicly accessible through the search methods employed. Therefore, I cannot provide the names of the attorneys, their roles, firms, office locations, or relevant patent litigation experience.