DCT

1:23-cv-00553

SpaceTime3D Inc v. Apple Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-00553, W.D. Tex., 02/10/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Apple maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including corporate offices and retail stores in Austin, and has committed acts of patent infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s graphical user interfaces for managing applications and web pages on its iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches infringe three patents related to three-dimensional graphical user interfaces.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for navigating and switching between multiple open applications or documents on electronic devices, particularly those with small screens, by representing them as manipulable images in a three-dimensional virtual space.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a long history of pre-suit knowledge by Defendant, including direct communications between Plaintiff's founder and Apple executives beginning in March 2008, and a July 2011 patent office rejection of an Apple patent application that cited a SpaceTime3D application as anticipating prior art.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-09-13 Earliest Priority Date for ’048, ’654, and ’868 Patents
2007-03-29 Plaintiff published parent patent application
2007-06-04 Plaintiff released public beta of its 3D browser
2008-03-01 Plaintiff's founder allegedly shared technology with an Apple executive
2008-05-01 An Apple campus representative allegedly communicated with Plaintiff's founder
2008-10-01 An acquaintance allegedly shared the technology with Steve Jobs
2011-07-01 U.S. patent examiner rejected an Apple application, citing Plaintiff's prior art
2014-11-04 U.S. Patent No. 8,881,048 Issued
2016-01-01 Earliest date of alleged infringement by Accused Products
2016-04-05 U.S. Patent No. 9,304,654 Issued
2017-07-04 U.S. Patent No. 9,696,868 Issued
2022-02-10 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,881,048 - “System and Method for Providing Three-Dimensional Graphical User Interface” (Issued Nov. 4, 2014)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Conventional graphical user interfaces (GUIs) on devices with finite screen space are inefficient for managing multiple applications (’048 Patent, col. 1:40-51). Users must perform tedious steps like closing, hiding, or overlapping windows, making it difficult to navigate and recall information, a problem particularly acute on ultra-mobile personal computers (UMPCs) (Compl. ¶23-25, ¶27).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes replacing the conventional 2D desktop metaphor with a system that captures computing output (like webpages or documents) and presents them as distinct objects within a simulated 3D virtual space (’048 Patent, Abstract). Instead of a new window replacing a previous one, it is added as a new object in the 3D space, creating a visual history that a user can navigate (’048 Patent, col. 2:50-65). This allows a user to switch from an interactive 2D view of one application to a 3D view showing images of multiple applications, and then select another image to return to a 2D view of the corresponding application (Compl. ¶22).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to improve the functionality of computing devices with limited screen sizes and processing power by manipulating static images of applications in a 3D space, which requires fewer resources than managing the active applications themselves (Compl. ¶22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶59).
  • The essential elements of Claim 8 are:
    • A system for providing a 3D GUI comprising a display, input device, processor, and memory.
    • The system receives at least first and second inputs, which are website addresses.
    • It receives first and second webpages from a source in response.
    • It displays at least a portion of the first webpage on a first object and the second on a second object within a 3D space.
    • This displaying step involves rendering the webpages, capturing images of them, and texturing those images onto the objects.
    • The first object is displayed in the foreground of the 3D space and the second is in the background.
    • Upon receiving an interaction on the first image, the system replaces the objects in the 3D space with a window in a 2D space that includes the rendered first webpage.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 9,304,654 - “System and Method for Displaying a Timeline Associated with a Plurality of Applications” (Issued Apr. 5, 2016)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the parent ’048 Patent, the invention addresses the inefficiency of managing multiple applications on resource-constrained devices (Compl. ¶23-25).
  • The Patented Solution: This patent builds on the 3D interface concept by introducing a "timeline" for organizing the open applications (’654 Patent, Abstract). The system opens multiple applications, generates images of their output, and displays these images within a 3D space. Crucially, the images are displayed in an order based on the time of the user's last interaction with each corresponding application, creating a chronological or recency-based navigation system (’654 Patent, Claim 10). A user can select an image from this timeline to switch from the 3D view back to the corresponding active 2D application (Compl. ¶84).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a time-based organizational metaphor for navigating open applications, which the complaint suggests is an intuitive and efficient method for users to manage their workflow on mobile devices (Compl. ¶22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶84).
  • The essential elements of Claim 10 are:
    • A system for displaying a timeline associated with multiple applications, comprising a display, input device, processor, and memory.
    • The system opens at least first, second, and third applications in response to user inputs.
    • It generates a plurality of images from the outputs of these applications.
    • It displays the images within a 3D space in an order based on the last time the processor received an input for and a last interaction with each application.
    • The first image in the order is displayed in the foreground, with the others in the background.
    • Upon receiving a fourth input (e.g., a user selecting an image), the system replaces the plurality of images in the 3D space with the corresponding application in a 2D space.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 9,696,868 - “System and Method for Providing Three-Dimensional Graphical User Interface” (Issued July 4, 2017)

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’868 Patent describes a system for using a 2D space to interact with applications and a 3D space to switch between them. It adds specific user interactions for manipulating the images within the 3D space, including allowing a user to move the plurality of images, where the movement of one image results in the movement of all images, and allowing a user to delete an image, which causes the remaining images to shift their position in the 3D space (Compl. ¶111).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint provides claim 10 as illustrative (Compl. ¶111).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Apple's App Switcher, which allows users to scroll through and close open applications by swiping them away in a stacked-card interface, of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶128-129).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The Accused Products are Apple’s iPhones, iPod touches, iPads, and Apple Watches (Compl. ¶46). The infringement allegations focus on the graphical user interfaces of these devices, specifically the Safari web browser's tab management feature and the operating system's application switching feature ("App Switcher") (Compl. ¶49, ¶54).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused Safari functionality as a system where open web pages are displayed as a vertically stacked series of overlapping tabs with a perspective effect, creating a 3D appearance (Compl. ¶49). Figure 4 of the complaint illustrates this feature, showing overlapping images of two websites in what is described as a three-dimensional space (Compl. p. 15, Fig. 4). A user can select one of these tabs to transition from the 3D-style tab view to a 2D view of the selected webpage (Compl. ¶50).
  • The accused App Switcher functionality is described as a system for displaying images of open applications in a 3D space, allowing a user to cycle through the images and select one to make it the active application in a 2D space (Compl. ¶51). Figure 5 of the complaint shows images of three open applications displayed in a 3D-style overlapping arrangement on an iPhone (Compl. p. 16, Fig. 5). The complaint alleges Apple is a "leading manufacturer[] of UMPC products" where this functionality is critical (Compl. ¶32).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,881,048 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a system for providing a three-dimensional (3D) graphical user interface, comprising: a display screen; an input device for receiving at least one input from an end user; a processor module...; and a memory module... The Accused Products (e.g., an iPhone) are systems with a display screen, a touchscreen input device, a processor, and memory containing executable code like the iOS operating system and Safari browser. ¶61-66 col. 7:35-42
receive at least first and second inputs from an end user... wherein the first and second inputs are website address... A user enters website addresses like "netflix.com" and "apple.com" into the Safari browser via the touchscreen. ¶67-69 col. 2:24-28
receive first and second webpages from at least one source in response to said first and second inputs... The Safari browser receives the corresponding webpages from servers in response to the user's inputs. Figure 13 shows the two-dimensional display of the received netflix.com and apple.com webpages (Compl. p. 25, Fig. 13). ¶68 col. 17:1-18
display at least a portion of the first webpage on a first object within a 3D space... and at least a portion of the second webpage on a second object within the 3D space... Safari's tab view displays multiple open webpages as stacked tabs in a perspective view, which the complaint alleges is a 3D space. Figure 14 shows a foremost tab (apple.com) and a portion of a tab behind it (netflix.com) (Compl. p. 26, Fig. 14). ¶70 col. 8:13-18
comprising; rendering the first and second webpages; capturing first and second images... and texturing the first image on the first object and the second image on the second object... The Safari browser renders the webpages, captures images of them, and displays these images as the tabs in the tab view. ¶71-73 col. 23:3-5
the first object being displayed in a foreground of the 3D space and the second object being displayed in a background of the 3D space... In the tab view, the tabs are stacked with one in the foreground and others progressively further in the background. ¶73 col. 8:10-12
receiving an interaction by the end user on the first image; replacing the first and second objects within the 3D space with a window within a two-dimensional (2D) space... wherein the window includes the rendered first webpage... A user taps on one of the tabs in the 3D tab view. In response, the system replaces the tab view with a 2D view displaying the fully rendered webpage corresponding to the selected tab. Figure 15 illustrates this transition (Compl. p. 27, Fig. 15). ¶74-75 col. 21:58-67

U.S. Patent No. 9,304,654 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a system for displaying a timeline associated with a plurality of applications... comprising: a display device; at least one input device; ... a processor...; and a memory device... The Accused Products (e.g., an iPhone) are systems containing a display, touchscreen, processor, and memory running an operating system with an App Switcher feature. ¶87-91 col. 7:35-42
opening said plurality of applications in response to said plurality of inputs, said plurality of applications comprising at least first, second, and third applications... A user opens multiple applications, such as Safari, Clock, and Calendar, through inputs on the touchscreen. Figure 20 shows these three applications open in their 2D views (Compl. p. 34, Fig. 20). ¶93 col. 1:43-45
displaying on said display device said timeline... comprising; generating a plurality of images... displaying said plurality of images within a three-dimensional space... The App Switcher generates images of the open applications and displays them as a series of overlapping cards in a perspective view, which the complaint alleges is a timeline in a 3D space. Figure 22 shows images of Safari, Clock, and Calendar in this view (Compl. p. 36, Fig. 22). ¶97-98 col. 3:6-12
in an order based on a last time that said at least one processor received (i) said first input and a last interaction with said first object... The complaint alleges the App Switcher displays the applications in an order based on the time of last use, with the most recently used application in the foreground. ¶99 col. 3:9-12
allowing said user to modify... comprising: receiving a fourth input from said at least one input device, said fourth input interacting with one of said plurality of images... A user interacts with the App Switcher by tapping on one of the application cards (images). ¶100 col. 21:58-67
replacing said plurality of images within said three-dimensional space with one of said first, second, and third objects corresponding to said one of said plurality of applications within a two-dimensional space... In response to the user's tap, the system replaces the 3D App Switcher view with the selected application, which is displayed in a full-screen 2D space. Figure 23 illustrates this transition from the 3D view to the 2D Calendar app (Compl. p. 38, Fig. 23). ¶101 col. 21:58-67

Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the perspective-based, layered interfaces of Safari's Tab View and the App Switcher constitute a "three-dimensional (3D) space" as that term is used in the patents. The patents refer to a "simulated 3-D Cartesian space" (’048 Patent, col. 8:11-12), which raises the question of whether the accused features, which primarily use z-axis scaling for a perception of depth, meet the claim limitation.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’654 patent, a key question will be whether the App Switcher's recency-based ordering meets the specific claim requirement of an order based on "a last time that said at least one processor received (i) said first input and a last interaction" with each application (’654 Patent, Claim 10). The analysis may focus on whether "recency" is technically equivalent to the two-part temporal condition recited in the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "three-dimensional (3D) space"

  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the asserted claims of all three patents. The infringement case depends on whether Apple's user interfaces, which use perspective and layering to create an illusion of depth, fall within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could resolve the infringement question for both the Safari Tab View and the App Switcher.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term is not limited to a fully navigable world, describing the invention as creating the "illusion of infinite space in three dimensions" on a traditional 2D display and abiding by the "visual rule of perspective whereby geometry or objects that are further away appear smaller" (’048 Patent, col. 5:6-7, col. 8:10-12). This language could support construing the term to cover interfaces that use perspective to imply depth.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to a "simulated 3-D Cartesian space" and recording an "x,y,z Coordinate" (’048 Patent, col. 8:11-12; Fig. 1A, element 42). This more formal geometric language could support a narrower construction requiring a defined coordinate system, potentially beyond a simple layered presentation.

  • The Term: "timeline" (in the ’654 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the asserted claims of the ’654 patent. The infringement allegation against the App Switcher hinges on whether its recency-based arrangement of application cards constitutes a "timeline" as claimed.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The parent patent's abstract describes "generating a timeline that includes an icon for each object presented within the virtual space, wherein the icons are organized in linear chronological order" (’048 Patent, Abstract). The complaint alleges Apple's App Switcher functions as a "visual time line" (Compl. ¶38). This suggests the term could be interpreted broadly to mean any chronological or recency-based ordering.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 10 of the ’654 patent recites a specific basis for the order: "a last time that said at least one processor received (i) said first input and a last interaction with said first object." A party could argue this requires more than a simple "last used" timestamp and instead mandates a specific, two-part technical event for ordering, potentially narrowing the claim scope to exclude a standard recency list.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Apple took active steps to encourage infringement by its users (Compl. ¶79, ¶106, ¶132). The basis for this allegation includes Apple’s distribution of instructions, such as support website articles and user guides, that allegedly guide end users to use the Accused Products (e.g., Safari Tab View and App Switcher) in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶52, ¶54-55).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Apple's infringement was and continues to be willful, based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶135). Pre-suit willfulness is based on allegations of Apple's actual knowledge of the technology and patents dating as early as 2008, through direct communications with Apple executives and an Apple campus representative, as well as citations to Plaintiff's patent applications during the prosecution of Apple's own patents (Compl. ¶40-44, ¶136-139). Post-suit willfulness is based on the notice provided by the filing of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶140).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the term "three-dimensional space," which the patents describe in the context of a "3-D Cartesian space," read on the perspective-based, layered-card interfaces used in Apple’s Safari Tab View and App Switcher, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the claimed and accused spatial metaphors?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional implementation: does Apple's recency-based App Switcher perform the specific, two-part temporal ordering required by Claim 10 of the ’654 patent, which bases the order on both the "last... input" and the "last interaction" associated with each application?
  • Given the complaint’s detailed allegations of pre-suit communications and citations within Apple's own patent prosecution history, a central issue for potential damages will be willful infringement: what evidence supports Apple’s alleged knowledge of the asserted patents and related technology years before the lawsuit was filed?