Litigation involving Apple Inc.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons.

[9] In October 2007 (four months after the iPhone was introduced), Paul Holman and Lucy Rivello filed a class action lawsuit (numbered C07-05152) in the Northern District of California.

The lawsuit said that this was an unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practice (see False advertising) under California's Unfair Competition Law; that the combination of AT&T Mobility and Apple was to reduce competition and cause a monopoly in violation of California's antitrust law and the Sherman Antitrust Act; and that this disabling was a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

[17] The remaining claim, in its final version, was that Apple monopolised the market for iPhone applications and that the plaintiffs were damaged by paying Apple's 30% commission for paid applications in the App Store, which the court rejected saying that the commission was "a cost passed-on to consumers by independent software developers", not paid by the consumers directly, and so the plaintiffs did not have standing under the Illinois Brick doctrine.

[25][26] In March 2024, in response to a complaint filed by Spotify in 2019, Apple was hit with a 1.8 billion euro fine by the European Commission for abusing its dominant position on the market for the distribution of music streaming apps.

[33][34] Fifteen states and Puerto Rico also filed a companion federal case in Austin, Texas, against Apple, Penguin, Simon & Schuster and Macmillan.

[52][53] Eligible members of the class were entitled to extended warranties, store credit, cash compensation, or battery replacement, and some incentive payments, with all unfiled claims expiring after September 2005.

Apple agreed to pay all costs of the litigation, including incentive payments to the class members and the plaintiffs' attorney fees, but admitted no fault.

[60] Separately, digital forensics researchers reported they regularly use the data collected from Apple mobile devices in working with law enforcement officials investigating crimes and have been doing so since at least mid-2010.

[57] The court ruled that without a showing of legal damages compensable under current law, the plaintiffs had not shown they sustained injury in fact by the defendants' actions.

The complaint alleged Apple's acts in favoring its own stores constituted breach of contract, false advertising, fraud, trade libel, defamation, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.

[109][110] Cohen thereafter launched a media offensive claiming the DRS was biased in favor of large businesses and made frequent threats of lawsuits against Nominet.

[112] Cohen stated he believed that the DRS system was unfair for a number of reasons and would seek redress against Nominet with the High Court via judicial review.

[117][118] Bloomberg reported Cisco's iPhone as a product marketed for less than $100 and part of the Linksys home routers, enabling internet-based calls through Skype and Yahoo!

[126] In June 2008, NYC filed a motion to amend its application to delete the leaf element from its design, leaving the stem, and the TTAB dismissed Apple's opposition and counterclaims in accordance with the parties' stipulation in July 2008.

[143][145] In February 2012, Proview sued Apple in the Santa Clara Superior Court,[146] alleging several permutations of fraud (intentional misrepresentation, concealment, inducement) and unfair competition.

[163] In response, DePlume filed a motion to dismiss the case based on First Amendment grounds under California's state Anti-SLAPP statute, a law designed to dispense with meritless legal claims attempting to silence valid exercises of freedom of speech.

After several years in court, Apple's claims against Microsoft were dismissed, primarily due to a license John Sculley had negotiated with Bill Gates for Windows 1.0.

The decision was upheld on appeal in 1994, but legal disputes on this topic were still ongoing until 1997, when the two companies came to a wide-ranging agreement that included Microsoft buying non-voting Apple stocks.

[187] In April 2009, OdioWorks, the operators of BluWiki, backed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), defensively sued Apple seeking a declaration of non-infringement and non-circumvention.

The leaked documents also revealed that in 2019, Corellium offered a trial of its product to NSO Group, whose customers have for years been caught using its Pegasus spyware against dissidents, journalists, and human rights defenders.

[206] Creative claimed it began using its menuing method on its Nomad players in September 2000, approximately a year prior to Apple's first iPod release in October 2001.

[216] The suit illustrated the vagaries of litigating patent licensing and royalty collection issues in the commercial exploitation of intellectual property rights.

Typhoon originally filed the suit in December 2007 against Dell after settling with some smaller companies but, in mid-2008, amended its complaint to add Apple,[219] Fujitsu, Toshiba, Lenovo, Panasonic, HTC, Palm, Samsung, Nokia, and LG.

[227] Apple filed a patent infringement suit against High Tech Computer Corp. (HTC) in March 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware[228] in the two companies' ongoing battle with each other,[229] and a complaint against HTC under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in Washington, D.C.[230][231] Apple's suit alleged 20 separate patent infringements relating to the iPhone's user interface, underlying architecture and hardware.

[266] On August 9, 2013, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) announced its decision regarding an Apple-initiated case, whereby Samsung is accused of infringing four Apple patents related to user interfaces and headphone input functionality.

[268] In a damage-only retrial court session on November 13, 2013, as ordered by Judge Koh in December 2012, a Samsung Electronics representative stated in a San Jose, U.S. courtroom that Apple's hometown jury found that the company copied some features of both the iPhone and iPad.

[265] The San Jose jury eventually awarded Apple $290 million in damages after jurors completed a one-page assessment form for each infringed patent.

[269] In the first week of January 2014, a filing with the U.S. District court in San Jose showed that legal executives from both parties agreed to meet prior to February 19, 2014, to engage in settlement discussions.

The case brought the anti-circumvention and anti-trafficking facets of the DMCA into this licensing dispute, with Apple ultimately prevailing and awarded permanent injunctive relief, and the decision affirmed on appeal in 2011.