On Friday plaintiff Apple filed a motion to dismiss defendant Corellium’s counterclaims in the Southern District of Florida copyright infringement suit regarding Corellium’s alleged virtual Apple products, which allegedly copy Apple’s operating system.
Corellium counter-argued that Apple failed to pay $300,000 to Corellium in accordance with the Apple Security Bounty Program, whereby Apple pays security researchers who find and report software bugs. Apple asserted that this is not true because the defendant did not participate in the program and, even if Corellium did, it could have participated in the program without the alleged infringing conduct. Further, Apple stated that this should be treated as a single non-meritorious claim for breach of contract, not the quantum meruit and unfair competition claims that Corellium asserted.
Apple also argued that Corellium lacks standing to pursue declaratory or injunctive relief. Specifically, Apple alleged that Corellium has failed to establish the “irreducible minimum” Article III standing necessary for relief.
Apple claimed that Corellium failed to state a claim for constructive fraud and quantum meruit. They alleged that the constructive fraud claims are deficient because they do not establish the required fiduciary relationship between Apple and Corellium. According to Apple, the quantum meruit claims fail because Corellium’s allegations do not establish that there is an express agreement governing the disagreement and that “such claims cannot be pursued in the face of an actual agreement between the parties.”
Moreover, Apple alleged that Corellium failed to state a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Specifically, Apple stated that these unlawful business practices claims fail because Corellium has not alleged a “cognizable unfair business practice.” The company similarly claimed that Corellium failed to state a claim under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Apple concluded that unfair competition claims under California and Florida law “are not viable…[from] the same underlying problem – those laws are designed to protect consumers and competitors from anticompetitive, unfair, and deceptive practices that involve consumers; they are not designed or intended to address commercial disputes of that sort the sort that is at issue here.”
Apple has sought the court to dismiss these counterclaims for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Apple is represented by Latham & Watkins LLP with Lash & Goldberg LLP. Corellium is represented by Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Hecht Partners LLP.