1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THEODORE J. BOUTROUS JR. (SBN 132099) tboutrous@gibsondunn.com RICHARD J. DOREN (SBN 124666) rdoren@gibsondunn.com DANIEL G. SWANSON (SBN 116556) dswanson@gibsondunn.com JAY P. SRINIVASAN (SBN 181471) jsrinivasan@gibsondunn.com
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: 213.229.7000 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 VERONICA S. LEWIS (
pro hac vice
) vlewis@gibsondunn.com
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
2100 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: 214.698.3100 Facsimile: 214.571.2900 CYNTHIA E. RICHMAN (
pro hac vice
) crichman@gibsondunn.com
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-5306 Telephone: 202.955.8500 Facsimile: 202.467.0539 E. JOSHUA ROSENKRANZ (
pro hac vice
) jrosenkranz@orrick.com
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019-6142 Telephone: 212.506.5000 Facsimile: 212.506.5151 WILLIAM F. STUTE (
pro hac vice
) wstute@orrick.com
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1152 15th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005-1706 Telephone: 202.339.8400 Facsimile: 202.339.8500
Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
PAUL R. RIEHLE (SBN 115199) paul.riehle@faegredrinker.com
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
Four Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 591-7500 Facsimile: (415) 591-7510 CHRISTINE A. VARNEY (
pro hac vice
) cvarney@cravath.com KATHERINE B. FORREST (
pro hac vice
) kforrest@cravarth.com GARY A. BORNSTEIN (
pro hac vice
) gbornstein@cravarth.com YONATAN EVEN (
pro hac vice
) yeven@cravath.com LAUREN A. MOSKOWITZ (
pro hac vice
) lmoskowitz@cravath.com M. BRENT BYARS (
pro hac vice
) mbyars@cravath.com
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
825 Eighth Avenue New York, New York 10019 Telephone: (212) 474-1000 Facsimile: (212) 474-3700
Attorneys for Epic Games, Inc.
Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 120 Filed 10/12/20 Page 1 of 21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- JOINT
CASE
MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT Case No.: 4:20-cv-05640-YGR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
EPIC GAMES, INC.,
Plaintiff
, vs. APPLE INC.,
Defendant .
No. 4:20-CV-05640-YGR
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Date: October 19, 2020 Time: 9:30 a.m. Courtroom: 1, 4th Floor (via Zoom) Judge: Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers APPLE INC.,
Counterclaimant
, vs. EPIC GAMES, INC.,
Counter-defendant
. Pursuant to the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California, Civil Local Rule 16-9, and the Court’s Order of September 29, 2020 (ECF No. 103), Plaintiff and Counter-defendant Epic Games, Inc. (“Epic”), and Defendant and Counterclaimant Apple Inc. (“Apple”), together, the “Parties”, individually, a “Party”, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby submit this Joint Case Management Statement in advance of the October 19, 2020 Case Management Conference.
1.
JURISDICTION & SERVICE
The Parties agree that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Clayton Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 26, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337 for Epic’s claims. The Parties further agree that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Epic’s state law claims
Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 120 Filed 10/12/20 Page 2 of 21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- JOINT
CASE
MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT Case No.: 4:20-cv-05640-YGR pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and also has subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 based on diversity of citizenship of Epic and Apple. Although Epic does not seek monetary damages, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The Parties agree that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Apple’s counterclaims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Parties further agree that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Apple’s counterclaims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and also has subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 based on diversity of citizenship of Epic and Apple. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The Parties agree that no issues exist regarding personal jurisdiction or venue, and that no Party remains to be served.
2.
FACTS EPIC’S STATEMENT
: Epic’s recitation of the facts will be brief given the Court’s familiarity with this case after having heard Epic’s motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Apple has a complete monopoly in two relevant markets: (1) the market for the distribution of apps compatible with the iOS to users of iOS devices (the “iOS App Distribution Market”); and (2) the market for the processing of payments for the purchase of digital content, including in-game content, that is consumed within iOS apps (the “iOS In-App Payment Processing Market”). Apple requires all app developers to agree that Apple’s own App Store be the sole mechanism to distribute consumer apps on iOS and that its own payment processing tool, In-App Purchase (“IAP”), be the sole mechanism to process in-app purchases of digital content on iOS. This anti-competitive conduct harms app developers, consumers, and would-be competing app distributors and payment processing providers. Apple’s claims that the restrictions it imposes on developers are pro-competitive will not bear scrutiny. For example, if Apple is correct that the App Store is a “vital driver” of the “consumer appeal” of Apple’s mobile devices, then the App Store could succeed in a competitive market; consumers and developers that valued the App Store’s offering would choose to transact through the App Store. Apple’s actions that
force
consumers and developers to use the App Store, and make it the
only
software distribution method on iOS, expressly prevent competition that
Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 120 Filed 10/12/20 Page 3 of 21