Apple has submitted a response brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, contesting Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’ 2021 ruling and the ensuing injunction concerning its App Store operations. The 42-page document asserts that the injunction is “indefensible,” “overbroad,” and “flawed,” arguing that it improperly enlarges the initial decision and contravenes constitutional boundaries.
Apple’s brief puts forth four primary contentions against Epic Games’ appeal:
1. Epic fails to substantiate the zero-commission policy set by the district court, which Apple claims punishes it indefinitely.
2. Epic does not provide justification for the restrictions of the new injunction or the contempt findings.
3. Epic neglects a contradictory California court ruling in Beverage v. Apple, which calls into question the district court’s ruling.
4. Epic implores the court to ignore the Supreme Court’s verdict in Trump v. CASA, which requires limiting the injunction’s breadth.
Apple argues that the zero-commission policy prevents it from receiving compensation for its intellectual property and represents the most extreme element of the injunction. The company further contends that the injunction is based on privileged documents and that the original injunction is unlawful according to a recent Supreme Court decision against universal injunctions.
In summary, Apple requests the court to overturn the contempt order and the rejection of its motion, or, alternatively, to annul the new injunction and assign the case to another judge. This is not the first occasion where Apple has sought reassignment; similar appeals were made in June concerning the injunction and contempt findings.
