Nos. 21-16506 & 21-16695 _______________________
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
_______________________ EPIC GAMES, INC.,
Plaintiff/counter-defendant
,
Appellant/cross-appellee
;
v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant/counter-claimant, Appellee/cross-appellant
. _______________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers) No. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR _______________________
PRINCIPAL AND RESPONSE BRIEF FOR APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT APPLE INC.
_______________________
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. aniel G. Swanson G
IBSON
,
D
UNN
&
C
RUTCHER
LLP 333 S. Grand Ave. os Angeles, CA 90071 achel S. Brass ulian W. Kleinbrodt G
IBSON
,
D
UNN
&
C
RUTCHER
LLP 555 Mission St., Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Mark A. Perry Cynthia Richman Joshua M. Wesneski Anna Casey Zachary B. Copeland G
IBSON
,
D
UNN
&
C
RUTCHER
LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 955-8500 MPerry@gibsondunn.com
Attorneys for Apple Inc.
i
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the undersigned counsel of record certifies that Apple Inc. has no parent corporation and no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. ated: March 24, 2022 s/
Mark A. Perry
Mark A. Perry
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 5
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ....................................................................................... 5
STATUTORY PROVISIONS ................................................................................... 6
BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 6
I.
Factual Background ............................................................................... 6
A.
Apple’s Revolutionary Innovations ............................................ 7
1.
The App Store ................................................................... 7
2.
IAP .................................................................................... 8
3.
Security, Privacy, Reliability, Fraud Protection, And App Quality............................................................... 9
4.
Intellectual Property ....................................................... 12
5.
The Challenged Limitations ........................................... 13
B.
Competition For Digital Game Transactions ............................ 14
C.
Epic’s “Project Liberty” ............................................................ 18
II.
Proceedings Below .............................................................................. 20
III.
The District Court’s Decision ............................................................. 23
A.
Epic’s Claims ............................................................................ 25
1.
Sherman Act ................................................................... 25
2.
Cartwright Act ................................................................ 29
3.
UCL ................................................................................ 29