Case 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 28 Filed 03/03/22 Page 1 of 22
`
`
`
`JOSEPH N. AKROTIRIANAKIS (Bar No. 197971)
` jakro@kslaw.com
`ZACHARY W. BYER (Bar No. 301382)
` zbyer@kslaw.com
`MATTHEW NOLLER (Bar No. 325180)
` mnoller@kslaw.com
`KING & SPALDING LLP
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone:
`(213) 443-4355
`Facsimile:
`(213) 443-4310
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED and
`Q CYBER TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,
`and Q CYBER TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 3:21-cv-09078-JD
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF
`DEFENDANTS NSO GROUP
`TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
`AND Q CYBER TECHNOLOGIES
`LIMITED TO DISMISS [FED. R. CIV. P.
`12(B)(1), 12(B)(3), 12(B)(6), AND 12(B)(7)];
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES
`
`[Filed Concurrently with Declaration of
`Shalev Hulio and [Proposed] Order]
`
`Date:
`June 2, 2022
`Time: 10:00 a.m.
`Ctrm: 11
`
`Action Filed: 11/23/2021
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09078-JD
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 28 Filed 03/03/22 Page 2 of 22
`
`
`
`TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 2, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
`matter may be heard, Defendants NSO Group Technologies Limited (“NSO”) and Q Cyber
`Technologies Limited (“Q Cyber”) will bring on for hearing before the Honorable James Donato,
`United States District Judge, in Courtroom 11 of the United States Courthouse located at 450
`Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint of Apple Inc.,
`pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3), 12(b)(6), and 12(b)(7).
`This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the attached Memorandum of
`Points and Authorities, the Declaration of NSO Chief Executive Officer Shalev Hulio submitted
`herewith, the pleadings, papers and records on file in this case, and such oral argument as may be
`presented at any hearing.
`
`Dated: March 3, 2022
`
`KING & SPALDING LLP
`
`By:
`/s/Joseph N. Akrotirianakis
`JOSEPH N. AKROTIRIANAKIS
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED and
`Q CYBER TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09078-JD
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 28 Filed 03/03/22 Page 3 of 22
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`NSO’s Technology and Its Use in Preventing Terrorism and Other
`Crimes. ................................................................................................................ 2
`
`Use of Apple Devices in Committing Terrorism and Other Crimes. ................. 3
`
`Alleged Use of Apple’s Services by NSO. ......................................................... 3
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................. 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Court Lacks Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Because NSO Is
`Entitled to Common-Law Sovereign Immunity as the Agent of
`Foreign Governments.......................................................................................... 4
`
`The Court Should Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens. .................................... 5
`
`The Court Should Dismiss for Failure to Join an Indispensable
`Party. ................................................................................................................... 8
`
`The Court Should Dismiss Apple’s CFAA, UCL, and Unjust
`Enrichment Claims for Failure to State a Claim. ................................................ 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Apple Cannot State a CFAA Claim Because NSO’s Alleged
`Conduct Did Not Cause Apple Any Statutory “Damage or
`Loss.” ...................................................................................................... 9
`
`Apple’s UCL Claim Falls with Its CFAA Claim, and the
`UCL Cannot Be Applied to NSO’s Purely Foreign Conduct. .............. 12
`
`Unjust Enrichment Is Not An Independent Cause of Action,
`and Apple Cannot Seek Disgorgement. ................................................ 14
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`III.
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`i
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09078-JD
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 28 Filed 03/03/22 Page 4 of 22
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Air Turbine Tech., Inc. v. Atlas Copco AB,
`217 F.R.D. 545 (S.D. Fla. 2003) ................................................................................................6
`
`Allergan, Inc. v. Athena Cosmetics,
`738 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..............................................................................12, 13, 14, 15
`
`Andrews v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.,
`932 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2019) ...........................................................................................10, 12
`
`Argoquest v. Israel Discount Bank, Ltd.,
`228 F. App’x 733 (9th Cir. 2007) ..............................................................................................6
`
`Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc.,
`783 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................14
`
`AtPac, Inc. v. Aptitude Solutions,
`730 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (E.D. Cal. 2010)..............................................................................10, 11
`
`Balsley v. LFP, Inc.,
`2010 WL 11561883 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 26, 2010).........................................................................6
`
`Belhas v. Ya’alon,
`515 F.3d 1279 (D.C. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................5
`
`Brodsky v. Apple, Inc.,
`445 F. Supp. 3d 110 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .....................................................................................15
`
`Butters v. Vance Int’l, Inc.,
`225 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 2000) .....................................................................................................5
`
`Carijano v. Occidental Petrol. Corp.,
`643 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................5
`
`Chas S. Winner, Inc. v. Polistina,
`2007 WL 1652292 (D.N.J. June 4, 2007) ................................................................................11
`
`Clark v. Super. Ct.,
`50 Cal. 4th 605 (2010) .............................................................................................................14
`
`Contact Lumber Co. v. P.T. Moges Shipping Co.,
`918 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir. 1990) ...................................................................................................6
`
`Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist.,
`276 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................8
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`ii
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09078-JD
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 28 Filed 03/03/22 Page 5 of 22
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Dongxiao Yue v. Chun-Hui Miao,
`2019 WL 5872142 (D.S.C. June 27, 2019)..............................................................................13
`
`English v. Gen. Dynamics Mission Sys., Inc.,
`2019 WL 2619658 (C.D. Cal. May 8, 2019) ...........................................................................14
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Studivz Ltd.,
`2009 WL 1190802 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2009) .....................................................................6, 7, 8
`
`Fahrner-Miller Assocs., Inc. v. Mars Antennas & RF Sys., Ltd.,
`2014 WL 6871550 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2014) .............................................................................6
`
`Friends of Amador Cty. v. Salazar,
`2011 WL 4709883 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2011) ..............................................................................8
`
`Gardiner v. Walmart, Inc.,
`2021 WL 4992539 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2021) ..........................................................................15
`
`Giraldo v. Drummond Co.,
`493 F. App’x 106 (D.C. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................9
`
`Glob. Commodities Trading Grp., Inc. v. Beneficio de Arroz Choloma, S.A.,
`972 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................................5
`
`In re Google Android Consumer Priv. Litig.,
`2013 WL 1283236 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2013) .........................................................................12
`
`Healy v. Beer Inst., Inc.,
`491 U.S. 324 (1989) .................................................................................................................13
`
`hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp.,
`938 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2019) ...................................................................................................10
`
`Interface Partners Int’l Ltd. v. Hananel,
`575 F.3d 97 (1st Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................................5
`
`Israel Discount Bank Ltd. v. Schapp,
`505 F. Supp. 2d 651 (C.D. Cal. 2007) ...................................................................................5, 6
`
`Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
`29 Cal. 4th 1134 (2003) ...........................................................................................................14
`
`Lea v. Wyeth LLC,
`2011 WL 13195950 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2011) ........................................................................6
`
`Matar v. Dichter,
`No. 05-cv-10270 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2006) ..............................................................................5
`
`Moriah v. Bank of China Ltd.,
`107 F. Supp. 3d 272 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) ........................................................................................9
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`iii
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09078-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 28 Filed 03/03/22 Page 6 of 22
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Nexans Wires S.A. v. Sark-USA, Inc.,
`319 F. Supp. 2d 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ......................................................................................11
`
`Nowak v. Xapo, Inc.,
`2020 WL 6822888 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2020) ........................................................................11
`
`Oracle Am., Inc. v. Serv. Key, LLC,
`2012 WL 6019580 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2012) ...........................................................................15
`
`Otani Props., L.P. v. Centerline Tool, Inc.,
`2016 WL 10999268 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2016) .........................................................................8
`
`Phan v. Sargento Foods, Inc.,
`2021 WL 2224260 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2021) ...........................................................................15
`
`Philippines v. Pimentel,
`553 U.S. 851 (2008) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,
`454 U.S. 235 (1981) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`Robinson v. HSBC Bank USA,
`732 F. Supp. 2d 976 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .....................................................................................15
`
`Sajfr v. BBG Comms., Inc.,
`2012 WL 398991 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2012) .......................................................................13, 14
`
`Sharma v. Volkswagen AG,
`524 F. Supp. 3d 891 (N.D. Cal. 2021) .....................................................................................15
`
`Six Dimensions, Inc. v. Perficient, Inc.,
`969 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................................14
`
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................................15
`
`SPS Techs., LLC v. Briles Aerospace, Inc.
`2020 WL 12740596 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2020) ..........................................................................7
`
`Sullivan v. Oracle Corp.,
`51 Cal.4th 1191 (2011) ......................................................................................................12, 13
`
`Tsai v. Wang,
`2017 WL 2587929 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2017) .........................................................................15
`
`Umeda v. Tesla, Inc.,
`2022 WL 18980 (9th Cir. Jan. 3, 2022) .....................................................................................6
`
`United States v. Nosal,
`676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................................10
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`iv
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09078-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 28 Filed 03/03/22 Page 7 of 22
`
`
`
`Van Buren v. United States,
`141 S. Ct. 1648 (2021) .......................................................................................................10, 11
`
`WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Grp. Techs. Ltd.,
`472 F. Supp. 3d 649 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ...................................................................................5, 7
`
`Statutes
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1030(a) ...................................................................................................................9, 10
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1) ...................................................................................................................10
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(8) .............................................................................................................10, 11
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(11) ...........................................................................................................10, 12
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1030(g) ...............................................................................................................1, 9, 12
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)....................................................................................................................9
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7)....................................................................................................................8
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(A) ..............................................................................................................8
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b)(1)....................................................................................................................9
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Apple, Careers at Apple – Israel, https://www.apple.com/careers/il/hardware.html ..................7, 8
`
`Mark Hosenball, FBI paid under $1 million to unlock San Bernardino iPhone,
`Reuters (Apr. 28, 2016), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-
`encryption/fbi-paid-under-1-million-to-unlock-san-bernardino-iphone-
`sources-idUSKCN0XQ032 ........................................................................................................3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`v
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09078-JD
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 28 Filed 03/03/22 Page 8 of 22
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`Plaintiff Apple Inc. has sued Defendants (collectively “NSO”) for allegedly accessing
`computers Apple does not own, in a way that caused no cognizable damage or loss to Apple. Apple
`alleges (falsely) that NSO accessed Apple’s operating system on individual users’ Apple devices
`without authorization. But an operating system is not a “computer” protected by the Computer
`Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), and, in any event, a civil claim under the CFAA—unlike a
`criminal violation—requires the plaintiff to prove that it suffered “damage or loss” as defined by
`the statute. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g). NSO’s alleged conduct did not cause any such damage or loss.
`Even if everything Apple alleges were true, therefore, it cannot bring this lawsuit under the CFAA.
`The complaint’s flaws run even deeper, further necessitating dismissal of this action. First,
`NSO is immune from suit as an agent of foreign governments. Second, the case should be
`dismissed under forum non conveniens because NSO’s alleged conduct has no significant
`relationship to California, and Israeli courts would be an adequate forum for this action against
`Israel-based NSO. Third, NSO’s government customers are necessary parties who cannot be joined
`under Rule 19. Fourth, the complaint does not state a claim under the CFAA or California’s Unfair
`Competition Law (“UCL”), or a claim for unjust enrichment. Apple does not allege that NSO
`unlawfully accessed any computer owned by Apple, and NSO’s alleged access to Apple users’
`devices did not injure Apple in any way the CFAA protects. Apple’s UCL claim falls with its
`CFAA claim, and it also fails because the UCL cannot be applied to NSO’s purely foreign conduct.
`And unjust enrichment is not a standalone cause of action; it is an equitable remedy, which Apple
`cannot seek while asserting breach of contract or without alleging it lacks adequate legal remedies.
`To the extent that individual owners of Apple devices have claims against NSO’s
`government customers, those claims should be raised directly by those owners against those
`governments. Apple contorts here to stand in for owners who have purchased Apple devices and
`wishes this Court to make no distinction between NSO and its government customers. A suit based
`on this premise, however, is fundamentally flawed: Apple did not suffer the alleged harm, and
`neither NSO nor Apple controls the evidence relevant to the claims at issue here. For these reasons,
`the Court should dismiss Apple’s complaint with prejudice.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09078-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 28 Filed 03/03/22 Page 9 of 22
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`NSO’s Technology and Its Use in Preventing Terrorism and Other Crimes.
`A.
`Defendant NSO is an Israeli technology company that designs and markets a highly
`regulated technology to government agencies for uses such as counterterrorism and investigating
`serious crimes. (Declaration of Shalev Hulio (“Hulio Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-9.) Its sole director and majority
`shareholder is Defendant Q Cyber, also an Israeli corporation. (Compl. ¶ 16; Hulio Decl. ¶ 1.)
`NSO’s customers are exclusively governments and their authorized agencies. (Hulio Decl. ¶ 9.)
`The export of NSO’s Pegasus technology is regulated under Israel’s Defense Export
`Control Law (“ECL”). (Hulio Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. A.) NSO must register with the Israeli Ministry of
`Defense (“MoD”) and obtain appropriate export licenses. (Hulio Decl. ¶ 6.) Under the ECL, the
`MoD may investigate NSO and refuse or cancel NSO’s registration. (Id.) The MoD may also grant
`or deny individual licenses, considering several factors such as the intended use of NSO’s
`technology and the identity of its customer, or revoke NSO’s licenses entirely. (Id.; ECL Ch. C(3-
`4)). The MoD may also request declarations from NSO and information about its customers. (ECL
`Ch. D(6)(b)(1-4).) NSO customer contracts incorporate requirements that NSO customers
`demonstrate their identities and provide any necessary documentation for MoD approval. (Hulio
`Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.) MoD also requires NSO to have Pegasus end-users sign end-use certificates
`declaring that the technology will be used only to investigate terrorism and serious crimes. (Hulio
`Decl. ¶ 8.)
`NSO has voluntarily taken additional measures to ensure its technology is used responsibly
`by authorized authorities. Beyond the ECL, NSO also takes into account U.S. and European Union
`export control restrictions. (Hulio Decl. ¶ 10.) It also conducts due diligence on all potential
`customers, rule-of-law considerations, and other items. (Id.)
`NSO requires its customers—the governments and authorized agencies that license NSO’s
`technology—to agree that they will use the technology only for the prevention or investigation of
`serious crimes and terrorism, and that they will immediately notify NSO if there is any potential
`misuse. (Hulio Decl. ¶ 11.) If a customer improperly uses NSO’s technology, NSO can suspend or
`terminate service—something NSO has done in the past. (Id.) And the Israeli government may
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09078-JD
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 28 Filed 03/03/22 Page 10 of 22
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`deny or revoke export licenses if it learns of an abuse of NSO’s technology or non-compliance
`with the intended use, such as using the technology to violate human rights. (Id.)
`In addition, NSO’s technology includes certain technical safeguards, such as general and
`customer-specific geographic limitations. (Hulio Decl. ¶ 12.) For example, NSO’s Pegasus
`technology cannot be used against U.S. mobile phone numbers or against a device within U.S.
`geographic bounds. (Id.)
`Use of Apple Devices in Committing Terrorism and Other Crimes.
`B.
`While Apple’s security protections are important for good-faith users of Apple devices,
`they can serve as cloaks for nefarious criminals who only care about privacy to the extent their
`illegal, dangerous actions are concealable. It is no surprise that Apple detests NSO’s technology,
`because it enables governments to investigate how terrorists and other serious criminals use Apple
`devices to facilitate their heinous acts.
`Take, for example, the December 2015 terrorist attack here in California. After the FBI
`retrieved the iPhone of the shooter who killed 14 people and wounded 22 others in San Bernardino,
`Apple refused to help the FBI unlock the device to determine whether additional threats to national
`security existed. As a result of Apple’s refusal to cooperate, the FBI was required to pay nearly $1
`million to a contractor for a technical solution that would allow access to the terrorist’s iPhone.1
`In bringing this suit, Apple goes far beyond refusing to assist law enforcement investigate criminal
`misuse of its products—it now attempts to prevent law enforcement and national security agencies
`of governments from enlisting contractors to develop technical solutions to do so, as the FBI did.
`Alleged Use of Apple’s Services by NSO.
`C.
`Apple’s allegations are divorced from the reality of NSO’s business. NSO does not target
`anyone, and it contractually prohibits its customers from using the Pegasus technology against
`anyone not a suspected terrorist or serious criminal. (Hulio Decl. ¶ 16.) And if any of NSO’s
`
`
`1 Mark Hosenball, FBI paid under $1 million to unlock San Bernardino iPhone, Reuters (Apr. 28,
`2016), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption/fbi-paid-under-1-million-to-unlock-
`san-bernardino-iphone-sources-idUSKCN0XQ032.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`3
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09078-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 28 Filed 03/03/22 Page 11 of 22
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`government customers installed NSO’s technology on any particular device, then that government
`would have been acting on its own behalf—without NSO’s involvement. (Hulio Decl. ¶ 15.)
`Notably, Apple concedes that “Defendants did not breach data contained on Apple’s
`servers.” (Compl. ¶ 5 (emphasis added).) Apple does not allege that NSO stole data from it or
`altered data on its servers. Nor does Apple allege that NSO accessed any Apple-owned devices.
`Rather, the only “protected computers” under the CFAA that the complaint identifies are “Apple’s
`users’ devices.” (See Compl. ¶¶ 64-69.) But Apple does not allege that it owns its users’ devices;
`instead, Apple alleges that it owns only the “operating-system software” installed on those third-
`party devices. (Compl. ¶¶ 70, 77.)
`NSO has no knowledge of or control over the information, if any, a customer may have
`collected from any Apple user’s device. (Hulio Decl. ¶ 17.) And NSO does not monitor anybody
`with its technology, and it contractually prohibits its customers from using the technology for
`anything other than fighting terrorism and serious crime. (Hulio Decl. ¶ 16.)
`Apple alleges NSO “did abuse Apple services and servers.” (Compl. ¶ 5.) Even setting
`aside the vagueness of this allegation, it simply is unsupportable. NSO does not operate any of its
`technologies—it markets and licenses them to its government customers. (Hulio Decl. ¶ 13.) Those
`customers themselves then operate the technologies to advance their own governmental interests
`in fighting terrorism and serious crime. (Id.) NSO only provides advice and technical support to
`assist its customers with setting up, as opposed to operating, NSO’s technologies. (Id.) NSO does
`not participate in any customer’s installation of NSO technology on any device. (Id. n.1.) In fact,
`every export control license granted NSO prohibits NSO’s operation of technologies that it has
`licensed to foreign governments and authorized agencies. (Hulio Decl. ¶ 14.) And each of these
`export control licenses further proscribes NSO’s remote access to the technology it has licensed
`for anything but maintenance unrelated to operation of the technology. (Id.)
`ARGUMENT
`II.
`The Court Lacks Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Because NSO Is Entitled to
`A.
`Common-Law Sovereign Immunity as the Agent of Foreign Governments.
`
`/ /
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`4
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09078-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 28 Filed 03/03/22 Page 12 of 22
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`An agent of a foreign government is entitled to common-law sovereign immunity when it
`acts on behalf of the government. Statement of Interest of the United States at 8, 10, Matar v.
`Dichter, No. 05-cv-10270 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2006); Belhas v. Ya’alon, 515 F.3d 1279, 1285
`(D.C. Cir. 2008); Butters v. Vance Int’l, Inc., 225 F.3d 462, 466 (4th Cir. 2000). Because NSO
`acted entirely on behalf of foreign governments, it is immune. (Hulio Decl. ¶¶ 9, 13-15.)2
`The Court Should Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens.
`B.
`The Court should dismiss Apple’s complaint for forum non conveniens. Dismissal for
`forum non conveniens is appropriate when there is “an adequate alternative forum” and the balance
`of “private” and “public” factors favors dismissal. Glob. Commodities Trading Grp., Inc. v.
`Beneficio de Arroz Choloma, S.A., 972 F.3d 1101, 1110 (9th Cir. 2020). That is the case here. This
`action has no material connection to California and should be brought in Israel.
`First, Israel is an adequate alternative forum. See WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Grp. Techs. Ltd.,
`472 F. Supp. 3d 649, 677 (N.D. Cal. 2020). “Ordinarily, this requirement will be satisfied when
`the defendant is ‘amenable to process’ in the other jurisdiction.” Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454
`U.S. 235, 254 n.22 (1981). NSO, as a citizen of Israel (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17), is amenable to process
`in Israel. And Israel can “provide ‘some remedy’” for Plaintiff’s claims, which is all that is required
`for Israel to be an adequate forum. Carijano v. Occidental Petrol. Corp., 643 F.3d 1216, 1225-26
`(9th Cir. 2011). That requirement is “easy to pass,” id. (internal quotation marks omitted), and it
`is satisfied here because Israeli courts would recognize Apple’s breach of contract claim. See
`Interface Partners Int’l Ltd. v. Hananel, 575 F.3d 97, 100, 103 (1st Cir. 2009) (recognizing Israel
`entertains breach of contract actions). Indeed, “[c]ourts routinely hold that Israel is a proper forum
`and dismiss cases on the grounds that it would be more appropriate to hear a case in Israel.” Israel
`
`
`2 NSO incorporates here its arguments for immunity in WhatsApp v. NSO Group Technologies
`Ltd. See generally Opening Br., No. 20-16408 (9th Cir. Nov. 16, 2020), Dkt. No. 24; Reply Br.,
`No. 20-16408 (9th Cir. Feb. 5, 2021), Dkt. No. 65; see also Mot. to Dismiss at 9-10, No. 4:19-cv-
`07123-PJH (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020), Dkt. No. 45; Reply ISO Mot. to Dismiss at 9-11, No. 4:19-
`cv-07123-PJH (C.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2020), Dkt. No. 62. NSO acknowledges that the Ninth Circuit’s
`decision in that case currently forecloses its argument. WhatsApp, 17 F.4th 930 (9th Cir. 2021).
`But the Ninth Circuit has stayed its mandate to permit NSO to seek review by the Supreme Court.
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09078-JD
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 28 Filed 03/03/22 Page 13 of 22
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Discount Bank Ltd. v. Schapp, 505 F. Supp. 2d 651, 659 (C.D. Cal. 2007); see, e.g., Hananel, 575
`F.3d at 103; Argoquest v. Israel Discount Bank, Ltd., 228 F. App’x 733 (9th Cir. 2007); Fahrner-
`Miller Assocs., Inc. v. Mars Antennas & RF Sys., Ltd., 2014 WL 6871550, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec.
`4, 2014).
`Second, the “private factors” favor NSO. Those factors are “(1) the residence of the parties
`and the witnesses; (2) the forum’s convenience to the litigants; (3) access to physical evidence and
`other sources of proof; (4) whether unwilling witnesses can be compelled to testify; (5) the cost of
`bringing witnesses to trial; (6) the enforceability of the judgment; and (7) all other practical
`problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Umeda v. Tesla, Inc., 2022
`WL 18980, at *1 (9th Cir. Jan. 3, 2022). The burden on NSO to litigate in California is great—it
`is located in Israel and has no property or employees in California. Apple does not allege NSO has
`ever designed any of its technology in California or the United States, or that any of NSO’s foreign
`government customers have ever used NSO’s technology on any device located in California or
`the U.S. (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12.) Indeed, NSO’s potential witnesses and evidence are located in Israel
`(see Hulio Decl. ¶ 4), and no conduct Apple challenges was carried out by NSO in the U.S.
`Many of those foreign witnesses and much of that foreign evidence may prove unavailable
`in this Court. Israel’s export control laws impose strict limits on the information NSO and its
`employees may disclose outside of Israel. (Hulio Decl. ¶ 5.) NSO’s employees may be unable
`(based on Israeli law) or unwilling to testify in the United States. And NSO employees residing in
`Israel cannot be compelled to testify in this Court. See Contact Lumber Co. v. P.T. Moges Shipping
`Co., 918 F.2d 1446, 1451 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding foreign defendant could not “compel [foreign]
`witnesses to appear before U.S. courts”); Air Turbine Tech., Inc. v. Atlas Copco AB, 217 F.R.D. 545,
`546 (S.D. Fla. 2003) (holding courts cannot “compel testimony from non-United States citizens
`residing in foreign countries”); Balsley v. LFP, Inc., 2010 WL 11561883, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 26,
`2010) (same); Lea v. Wyeth LLC, 2011 WL 13195950, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2011) (holding
`courts cannot “compel the testimony of an individual who is indisputably outside the reach of its
`subpoena power”). Finally, any potential judgment against NSO could be more easily enforced in
`Israel, where NSO’s assets and operations are located. See Facebook, Inc. v. Studivz Ltd., 2009 WL
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09078-JD
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09078-JD Document 28 Filed 03/03/22 Page 14 of 22
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14