IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: PTAB ruling on patent challenged by Apple and Google is affirmed by Federal Circuit, (Sep 1, 2026)

By Steven Melendez

The Federal Circuit affirmed a ruling finding some, but not all, claims of a 3D computing interface patent unpatentable.

In an appeal of an inter partes review heard by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Federal Circuit held that the Board correctly found some—but not all—claims of a patent held by SpaceTime3D, Inc., and challenged by Apple Inc. and Google LLC to be unpatentable. The Federal Circuit upheld a Board decision not to consider evidence first submitted by Apple in a reply (Apple Inc. v. SpaceTime3D, Inc., No. 25-1022 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 31, 2026)).

Background. SpaceTime3D owns U.S. Patent No. 8,881,048, which relates to a graphical user interface (GUI) displaying web pages as objects in a three-dimensional space and, upon user selection of one of those objects, displaying the corresponding web page in a two-dimensional space.

Conventional GUIs display web pages as windows on a finite 2D desktop, meaning that as users open additional windows, they may overlap, making it harder for users to organize and retrieve necessary information. The ‘048 patent instead allows users to navigate among images in simulated 3D space, returning to a web page in 2D space by selecting the corresponding image. Images can be displayed on objects at different depths.

Apple and Google filed inter partes review (IPR) petitions challenging claims 1 through 18 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The PTAB found that the companies had not proven claims 1 through 13 unpatentable but had proven claims 14 through 18 unpatentable. Both sides appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Claims. Independent 1 is representative of claims 1 through 13, and independent claim 14 is representative of claims 14 through 18, according to the appellate ruling. Claim 1 recites receiving the first and second web pages, then “rendering the first and second webpages.” Then, it recites, capturing images of the rendered web pages and displaying them on the objects in 3D space, with the first object in a foreground and the second object in a background of the 3D space. Upon a user interaction with the first image, the claim requires “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.”

Claim 14 is similar but does not expressly recite rendering the web pages, saying instead “wherein the window includes the first webpage.”

Obviousness grounds. Apple argued for obviousness, citing U.S. Patent No. 6,414,677 (“Robertson”) in view of Preston Gralla, Que, HOW THE INTERNET WORKS (6th ed. 2002) (“Gralla”) and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0086612 (“Gettman”), as well as U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0230356 (“Sauve”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,577,330 (“Tsuda”). Google filed “a substantially identical petition,” according to the ruling.

Robertson teaches a GUI with object thumbnails displayed in a 3D environment, with a corresponding object “displayed in a preferred viewing position” upon selection of a thumbnail, while Gettman discloses a virtual 3D browser in which webpages may be displayed and selected. Gralla describes how conventional web pages and browsers work, including browsers’ interpretation of hypertext markup language (HTML). Sauve discloses a tabbed web browser using a “quick pick” interface to display thumbnails of open tabs which users can select to display the associated content. Tsuda discloses arranging windows within a virtual 3D space, where windows can be “stacked horizontally.”

The PTAB constructed Claim 1’s limitation of “the rendered first webpage” to mean “the rendered version from which the corresponding image was captured,” finding that the prior art did not teach using the existing rendered version rather than rendering a web page anew. While Apple submitted evidence related to browser caching of web pages in a reply, the Board declined to consider it, holding it was being used to teach a claim limitation that “could have been presented earlier.”

With regard to claims 14 through 18, without the “rendered” language, the Board found Apple had proven the claims unpatentable based on both combinations of prior art.

Rendered web page. Apple argued the PTAB claim construction around “rendered first webpage” was erroneous. But the Federal Circuit panel found the definite article in the phrase “the rendered first webpage” indicates a reference back to the web page previously rendered to generate an image. “Apple’s proposed construction fails to give sufficient effect to this antecedent relationship,” according to the ruling, which finds the specification confirms that view by referring to a 2D version of the web page previously hidden off screen.

Apple argued that the Board was improperly limiting the claim to one embodiment, but the Federal Circuit found it simply confirmed the correct understanding of the language. Apple also argued that nothing in the patent refers to keeping track of previously rendered versions of web pages, which would be necessary to show them again, though SpaceTime3D disputed that argument, and the Federal Circuit found it ultimately did not “undermine the Board’s claim construction.”

Additionally, Apple argued that the Board violated the Administrative Procedure Act by declining to consider its evidence submitted in reply. But the Federal Circuit has previously ruled in Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 75 F.4th 1374, that “a petitioner may not in reply rely on new prior art to teach a claim limitation” and the “Board reasonably concluded that Apple’s reply crossed that line,” according to the ruling.

Apple also argued the PTAB applied an unduly rigid standard by requiring Sauve or Tsuda to expressly disclose a “rendered first webpage.” But the Federal Circuit found the Board made no legal error in finding Apple’s expert testimony unpersuasive in arguing a skilled artisan would have interpreted Sauve to display an existing version of a web page previously used to to generate a thumbnail.

Cross-appeal. In its cross-appeal. SpaceTime3D argued the Board misconstrued “the first webpage” in claim 14, erred in finding prior art teaches “a window within a two-dimensional (2D) space,” and erred in finding the Sauve-Tsuda combination teaches the “foreground” and “background” limitations.

SpaceTime3D argued the definite article “the” required the same rendered version to be used. But the court found this referred only to the same web page, not necessarily the same rendering as in claim 1.

Additionally, SpaceTime3D argued the Board incorrectly treated a conventional web browser as the claimed 2D space rather than the space where the browser itself resides. But the court found the claims do not impose that limitation, while noting Gettman explicitly refers to a “two dimensional” browser.

SpaceTime3D also argued that the windows displayed in Tsuda are all at least partially in the foreground and that the Board improperly relied on contrary testimony by Apple’s expert. But the Federal Circuit found the Board properly considered SpaceTime3D’s argument and “reasonably credited” the expert’s “differing explanation.”

The Case is No. 25-1022.

Judge: Stark, L.

Attorneys: Brian Rosenthal (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP) for Apple Inc. Gregory S. Cordrey (Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth LLP) for SpaceTime3D, Inc.

Companies: Apple Inc.; SpaceTime3D, Inc.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews TechnologyInternet