Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
- Jeffrey White
- 4:21-cv-03958
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In AliveCor v. Apple, Judge White denied Apple’s request to reconsider dismissal of its indemnification counterclaim based on a later Ninth Circuit decision.
Apple Inc.’s indemnification counterclaim remained dismissed under the court’s earlier order; AliveCor, Inc. opposed Apple’s unsuccessful reconsideration request. The court left open Apple’s ability to seek permission to amend the counterclaim.
What happened
AliveCor, Inc. sued Apple Inc., and Apple filed a counterclaim seeking attorneys’ fees under an indemnification provision in its developer agreement. The court had dismissed that counterclaim in a May 16, 2022 order.
Apple asked for permission to seek reconsideration, arguing that the Ninth Circuit’s later decision in Epic Games v. Apple changed the law. AliveCor opposed the request. Apple argued that its counterclaim broadly relied on the agreement’s indemnification section, while the court concluded that the counterclaim’s language tracked a different clause from the one addressed in Epic Games.
Judge White denied Apple’s motion. The court stated that reconsideration was not warranted, but said Apple could file a motion seeking permission to amend its counterclaim to allege a breach of contract involving the clause discussed in Epic Games.
The detailed version
- Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. · No. 4:21-cv-03958
- Jeffrey White
- June 12, 2023
Background
The court considered Apple Inc.’s motion for permission to file a motion asking the court to reconsider its May 16, 2022 order dismissing Apple’s indemnification counterclaim. AliveCor, Inc. opposed the motion.
Apple relied on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 67 F.4th 946 (9th Cir. 2023), and argued that the decision represented a change in law. In Epic Games, the Ninth Circuit held that clause (i) of Section 10 of Apple’s developer license program agreement could support Apple’s recovery of attorneys’ fees in an intra-party breach-of-contract dispute. Clause (i) concerned a party’s breach of a certification, covenant, obligation, representation, or warranty in the agreement.
The Court’s Analysis
The court rejected Apple’s argument that Epic Games changed the law applicable to Apple’s counterclaim. It explained that the Ninth Circuit’s analysis was expressly limited to clause (i), while Apple’s counterclaim sought attorneys’ fees arising from or related to AliveCor’s use of Apple software or services, products, and related app development and distribution. The court concluded that this language tracked clause (vi) of Section 10, not clause (i).
The court also noted that its earlier order had understood Apple’s indemnification counterclaim to be based solely on clause (vi) and had stated that the counterclaim was not a breach-of-contract claim. The court questioned whether Apple had acted with the reasonable diligence required for reconsideration because Apple did not raise its broader interpretation of the counterclaim until this motion.
Ruling
The court concluded that reconsideration of its order dismissing Apple’s counterclaim was not warranted and denied Apple’s motion. The court added that Apple could file a motion seeking leave to amend its counterclaim to allege a breach of contract involving clause (i) of Section 10.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.