Apple’s lawyers have been hired to defend it against a lawsuit filed by Epic Games, of LA-based Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. The company is a recognized leader in anti-trust matters.
The company is the same one that gave Apple its victory in the second case against Apple infringement on Samsung …
In that case, it was found that Samsung had infringed five Apple patents, and the Cupertino company received $ 539M in damages.
Foss patents reports on the appointment.
About 20 hours before the deadline, Judge Edward Chen allowed Apple to respond to Epic Games ‘motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) regarding Epic Games’ access to the App Store and Apple’s developers. [three] high-profile LA-based anti-trust attorneys appeared just (electronically) before the District Court for the Northern District of California as an attorney for Apple.
Daniel G. Swanson, co-chair of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher’s Antitrust and Competition Practice Group; Richard J. Doren, member of the Executive Committee of the same company; and partner, Jay P. Srinivasan.
Gibson Dunn often represents Apple.
The site notes that the company is trading against Apple in the Qualcomm case. Although the case was settled out of court, Gibson Dunn could win that one as well, as Apple agreed to pay $ 6B plus a higher royalty per iPhone up front.
Epic is seeking a call against its removal from the App Store pending the outcome of the lawsuit that will follow, but Florian Mueller of the site thinks it will probably not be allowed. He suggests arguments made by Apple’s lawyers mean the judge will have two difficult questions to ask Epic.
First, why they want to prevent Apple from removing their apps from the App Store when the game company itself has the power to solve that problem.
The court will almost certainly ask why Epic not only can live and comply with the same app developer agreement that it had honored for years, willingly make a billion amount while this lawsuit continues. Monetary damage would be available, although Epic has so far only sought fair fraud. But U.S. courts generally do not accept a party if the mover can be made entirely by a payment at a later stage.
In other words, Epic may now agree to uninstall its own in-app purchasing system, at which point Apple will return it to the store. In the event that a court rules later in favor of Epic, it would then order Apple to take back the 30% commission between now and the trial.
Second, the judge wants to know why Epic is suing Apple for the request for information.
Counsel for Epic may also need to explain why at least one aspect of the TRO they are seeking against Apple’s availability – Fortnite in the App Store – is not being pursued by a similar motion against Google in the same district, at least not yet.
The next step will be for the court to decide on the request for information – which I agree will almost certainly go in Apple’s favor – before the actual case comes to a head.
FTC: We use revenue-generating links for auto-affiliate. More.
Check out 9to5Mac on YouTube for more Apple news:
