Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 17K views

    Apple Granted Stay On Injunction in Epic Ruling

    Uploaded by

    TechCrunch
    File order (DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, SIDNEY R. THOMAS and RICHARD C. TALLMAN): Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) has moved to stay, in part, the district court’s September 10, 2021, permanent injunction pending appeal. Apple’s motion (Dkt. Entry No. [19]) is granted. Apple has demonstrated, at minimum, that its appeal raises serious questions on the merits of the district court’s determination that Epic Games, Inc. failed to show Apple’s conduct violated any antitrust laws but did show that the same conduct

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Apple Granted Stay On Injunction in Epic Ruling

    Uploaded by

    TechCrunch
    17K views2 pages
    File order (DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, SIDNEY R. THOMAS and RICHARD C. TALLMAN): Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) has moved to stay, in part, the district court’s September 10, 2021, permanent injunction pending appeal. Apple’s motion (Dkt. Entry No. [19]) is granted. Apple has demonstrated, at minimum, that its appeal raises serious questions on the merits of the district court’s determination that Epic Games, Inc. failed to show Apple’s conduct violated any antitrust laws but did show that the same conduct

    Original Title

    Apple granted stay on injunction in Epic ruling

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    File order (DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, SIDNEY R. THOMAS and RICHARD C. TALLMAN): Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) has moved to stay, in part, the district court’s September 10, 2021, permanent injunction pending appeal. Apple’s motion (Dkt. Entry No. [19]) is granted. Apple has demonstrated, at minimum, that its appeal raises serious questions on the merits of the district court’s determination that Epic Games, Inc. failed to show Apple’s conduct violated any antitrust laws but did show that the same conduct

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    17K views2 pages

    Apple Granted Stay On Injunction in Epic Ruling

    Uploaded by

    TechCrunch
    File order (DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, SIDNEY R. THOMAS and RICHARD C. TALLMAN): Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) has moved to stay, in part, the district court’s September 10, 2021, permanent injunction pending appeal. Apple’s motion (Dkt. Entry No. [19]) is granted. Apple has demonstrated, at minimum, that its appeal raises serious questions on the merits of the district court’s determination that Epic Games, Inc. failed to show Apple’s conduct violated any antitrust laws but did show that the same conduct

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Case: 21-16506, 12/08/2021, ID: 12309816, DktEntry: 27, Page 1 of 2

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED


    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 8 2021
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    EPIC GAMES, INC., No. 21-16506

    Plaintiff-counter- D.C. No. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR


    defendant-Appellant, Northern District of California,
    Oakland
    v.
    ORDER
    APPLE, INC.,

    Defendant-counter-claimant-
    Appellee.

    EPIC GAMES, INC., No. 21-16695

    Plaintiff-counter- D.C. No. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR


    defendant-Appellee,

    v.

    APPLE, INC.,

    Defendant-counter-claimant-
    Appellant.

    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, THOMAS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

    Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) has moved to stay, in part, the district court’s

    September 10, 2021, permanent injunction pending appeal. Apple’s motion (Dkt.

    Entry No. 19) is granted.

    Apple has demonstrated, at minimum, that its appeal raises serious questions
    Case: 21-16506, 12/08/2021, ID: 12309816, DktEntry: 27, Page 2 of 2

    on the merits of the district court’s determination that Epic Games, Inc. failed to

    show Apple’s conduct violated any antitrust laws but did show that the same

    conduct violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. See City of San Jose v. Off.

    of the Com’r of Baseball, 776 F.3d 686, 691–92 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[U]nder

    California law ‘[i]f the same conduct is alleged to be both an antitrust violation and

    an “unfair” business act or practice for the same reason—because it unreasonably

    restrains competition and harms consumers—the determination that the conduct is

    not an unreasonable restraint of trade necessarily implies that the conduct is not

    “unfair” toward consumers.’” (quoting Chavez v. Whirlpool Corp., 113 Cal. Rptr.

    2d 175, 184 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001))). Apple has also made a sufficient showing of

    irreparable harm, see Disney Enters., Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc., 869 F.3d 848, 865–66

    (9th Cir. 2017), and that the remaining factors weigh in favor of staying part (i) of

    the injunction and maintaining the status quo pending appeal, see Nken v. Holder,

    556 U.S. 418, 434–35 (2009).

    Therefore, we grant Apple’s motion to stay part (i) of paragraph (1) of the

    permanent injunction. The stay will remain in effect until the mandate issues in

    this appeal. The existing briefing schedule remains in place.

    2 21-16506

    You might also like