13-3741(L)

13-3748(CON), 13-3783(CON), 13-3857(CON), 13-3864(CON), 13-3867(CON)

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

 ________________________________________ 

 

UNITED STATES,

 Plaintiff-Appellee

, v. APPLE INC.,

 Defendant-Appellant.

 ________________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York  No. 12-cv-2826 (DLC)

APPELLANT APPLE INC.’S OPENING BRIEF

(PAGE PROOF)

Cynthia E. Richman GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER 

 

LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 955-8500 Orin S. Snyder GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue  New York, New York 10116 (212) 351-4000 Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.

Counsel of Record 

 Daniel G. Swanson Blaine H. Evanson GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER 

 

LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, California 90071 (213) 229-7804 tboutrous@gibsondunn.com

 Attorneys for Appellant Apple Inc.

 

Case: 13-3864 Document: 91 Page: 1 02/25/2014 1165341 75

 

 

i

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, defendant-appellant Apple Inc. states that it has no parent corporation. To the best

of Apple’s knowledge and belief, and based on publi

cly filed disclosures, as of

February 25, 2014, no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of Apple’s

stock.

Case: 13-3864 Document: 91 Page: 2 02/25/2014 1165341 75

 

 

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

 

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.......................................................................... 2

 

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES............................................................................... 2

 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 3

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................ 4

 

I.

 

Apple’s Entry into the E

-Books Market .......................................................... 4

 

II.

 

Trial and Post-Trial Proceedings ................................................................... 10

 

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...............................................................................12

 

STANDARD OF REVIEW .....................................................................................15

 

ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................15

 

I.

 

The District Court Erred in Finding Apple Liable for a Price-Fixing Conspiracy ..................................................................................................... 16

 

A.

 

The District Court’s Liability Theory Is

Fundamentally Flawed ..........16

 

1.

 

The District Court’s Holding That Apple Joined a Conspiracy in

Mid-December 2009 Is Legally Baseless ......................................16

 

2.

 

Pricing Discussions and Increased Prices Do Not Convert Lawful Agreements into an Illegal Conspiracy ..........................................20

 

B.

 

The District Court Applied the Wrong Legal Standards for Evaluating Evidence in a Conspiracy Case ...........................................28

 

1.

 

The District Court Disregarded the “Stringent Standards” Limiting

Inferences in a Conspiracy Case ....................................................28

 

2.

 

The District Court’s Inference of Conspiracy Flowed from Its

Misinterpretation of the Proper Legal Standards ...........................34

 

II.

 

The District Court’s Application of the

 Per Se

 Rule and the Rule of Reason Were Legally Incorrect ..................................................................... 46

 

A.

 

The District Court Incorrectly Invoked the

 Per Se

 Rule .......................47

 

Case: 13-3864 Document: 91 Page: 3 02/25/2014 1165341 75