Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 453 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 1 of 27
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`Case No. 9:19-cv-81160-RS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`v.
`
`CORELLIUM, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF APPLE INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 453 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 2 of 27
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Page
`Introduction ..............................................................................................................1
`
`Relevant Facts ..........................................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Security Measures Protecting Apple’s Copyrighted Computer
`Programs ......................................................................................................2
`
`The Corellium Apple Product ......................................................................4
`
`Corellium’s Marketing and Sale of the Corellium Apple Product ..............6
`
`Interactions Between Corellium and Apple .................................................6
`
`III.
`
`Legal Standard .........................................................................................................7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The DMCA’s Anti-Trafficking Provisions ..................................................7
`
`Summary Judgment .....................................................................................9
`
`IV.
`
`The Undisputed Facts Demonstrate That Corellium Violates 17 U.S.C.
`§§ 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b)(1) ..................................................................................9
`
`A.
`
`Corellium Traffics a Tool to Circumvent iOS’s Access and Rights
`Controls ........................................................................................................9
`
`B.
`
`Corellium Lacks Any Defenses to Its Unlawful Trafficking .....................13
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion .............................................................................................................20
`
`REQUEST FOR HEARING ..........................................................................................................21
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 453 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 3 of 27
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`321 Studios v. MGM Studios, Inc.,
`307 F. Supp. 2d 1085 (N.D. Cal. 2004) ...................................................................8, 14, 15, 16
`
`American Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.,
`573 U.S. 431 (2014) .................................................................................................................13
`
`Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.,
`673 F. Supp. 2d 931 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ............................................................................. passim
`
`Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Wendt,
`205 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................9
`
`Disney Enters., Inc. v. Hotfile Corp.,
`No. 11-20427-CIV, 2013 WL 6336286 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2013) .........................................19
`
`Disney Enters. Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc.,
`371 F. Supp. 3d 708 (C.D. Cal. 2019) .....................................................................................15
`
`JCW Software, LLC, v. Embroidme.com, Inc.,
`No. 10-80472-CIV, 2012 WL 13015051 (S.D. Fla. May 29, 2012) ..................................11, 15
`
`LEGO A/S v. Best-Lock Constr. Toys, Inc.,
`404 F. Supp. 3d 583 (D. Conn. 2019) ......................................................................................19
`
`MDY Indus. LLC v. Blizzard Entm’t, Inc.,
`629 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2010) ...........................................................................................8, 9, 15
`
`Office of Thrift Supervision v. Paul,
`985 F. Supp. 1465 (S.D. Fla. 1997) ...................................................................................13, 14
`
`Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 663 (2014) .................................................................................................................19
`
`Rayo v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc.,
`No. 19-21263-CIV, 2019 WL 7376775 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 15, 2019) ...........................................9
`
`Realnetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Ass’n,
`641 F. Supp. 2d 913 (N.D. Cal. 2009) .....................................................................................15
`
`Sony Computer Entm’t Am., Inc. v. Divineo, Inc.,
`457 F. Supp. 2d 957 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ...............................................................................14, 16
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 453 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 4 of 27
`
`
`State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Med. Serv. Ctr. of Florida, Inc.,
`103 F. Supp. 3d 1343 (S.D. Fla. 2015) ....................................................................................13
`
`Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley,
`273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001).....................................................................................................16
`
`Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes,
`111 F. Supp. 2d 294 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ......................................................................................16
`
`Vergara Hermosilla v. The Coca-Cola Co.,
`717 F. Supp. 2d 1297 (S.D. Fla. 2010) ....................................................................................20
`
`STATUTES
`
`17 U.S.C.
`§ 101.........................................................................................................................................13
`§ 1201............................................................................................................................... passim
`§ 1201(a) ....................................................................................................................................8
`§ 1201(a)(1)(E) ........................................................................................................................15
`§ 1201(a)(2) .................................................................................................................1, 8, 9, 15
`§ 1201(a)(2)(A) ........................................................................................................................14
`§ 1201(a)(3)(A) ..........................................................................................................................8
`§ 1201(a)(3)(B) ..........................................................................................................................8
`§ 1201(b) ....................................................................................................................................8
`§ 1201(b)(1) ..................................................................................................................... passim
`§ 1201(b)(2)(A) ..........................................................................................................................8
`§ 1201(b)(2)(B) ..........................................................................................................................8
`§ 1201(f)...................................................................................................................................16
`§ 1201(f)(1)–(3) .......................................................................................................................16
`§ 1201(g) ..................................................................................................................................16
`§ 1201(g)(3)(C) ........................................................................................................................18
`§ 1201(g)(4) .............................................................................................................................17
`§ 1201(g)(4)(B) ........................................................................................................................18
`§ 1201(j) .......................................................................................................................16, 18, 19
`§ 1201(j)(4) ..............................................................................................................................18
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ........................................................................................................................9
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`83 Fed. Reg. 54010, 54011 (Oct. 26, 2018) ...................................................................................15
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`A Statement from Amanda Gorton, CEO of Corellium, regarding Apple DMCA
`filing, https://corellium.com/statement-dmca/ (Dec. 29, 2019) .................................................2
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 453 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 5 of 27
`
`
`S. Rep. No. 105-190 .......................................................................................................................17
`
`S. Rep. No. 105-190 (1998) .............................................................................................................7
`
`S. Rep. No. 105-190 (1998) ...........................................................................................................16
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 453 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 6 of 27
`
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiff Apple Inc. respectfully moves for summary judgment as described below.
`INTRODUCTION
`Corellium’s business is selling virtual iPhones. Not devices that resemble iPhones in
`certain respects, but real, working digital replicas of iPhones, created using real, working copies
`of Apple’s proprietary operating system, iOS. The “Corellium Apple Product,” as it has come to
`be called, is an operational version of Apple’s copyrighted computer software, hosted on servers
`that Corellium controls, owns, and sells. Corellium’s position is that Apple and the courts alike
`are powerless to stop this conduct.
`Corellium is wrong. Its product infringes Apple’s rights several times over. Through this
`motion, Apple seeks summary judgment on just one of its claims—specifically that Corellium’s
`commercialization of its perfect digital facsimile of the iPhone violates the “anti-trafficking”
`provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In the course of discovery, Corellium has
`frankly admitted to all the elements of liability. The statute at issue—17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2) and
`(b)(1)—prohibits selling digital “lock picks,” i.e., tools that are designed to get around security
`measures that protect copyrighted works like iOS from unauthorized copying and use. As it is
`impossible to sell virtual iPhones without circumventing countless security measures that Apple
`has implemented, there is no question that the Corellium Apple Product does precisely what the
`law forbids. In the words of Corellium’s own expert witness, Alexander Stamos:
`Corellium is marketed as allowing you to emulate iOS. In doing so, they have
`to circumvent what you might call security protections since Apple has
`designed their systems to make it very . . . difficult to run iOS except on
`authorized Apple hardware.
`SOF ¶ 64. And Corellium itself has conceded the same essential facts in its written discovery
`responses:
`
`
`
`
`
`SOF ¶ 40. Simply put, that is what sections 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1) prohibit.
`Apple believes that these statutory provisions should be invoked only sparingly, in certain
`unusual cases. The only other time it has done so in litigation was against a company called
`Psystar, which was similarly in the business of selling access to live, working versions of an Apple
`operating system to its own customers. See Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 673 F. Supp. 2d 931, 941
`(N.D. Cal. 2009) (granting summary judgment on claims under sections 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1)).
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 453 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 7 of 27
`
`
`This case is just like that one: it concerns the commercialization of a product that consists in large
`measure of the unlicensed copying and use of Apple’s software, which is flatly illegal.
`Corellium has responded to the operative Complaint in part by mounting a public relations
`campaign that mischaracterizes Apple’s claims, implying that through this action Apple seeks to
`outlaw security research, or impose liability on the development and sale of security exploits, or
`control all security research on its platform such that the fruits of that work can be provided or sold
`only to Apple.1 None of that is true. This case and this motion are about what Corellium is doing.
`It is not about the lawfulness of security exploits as a general matter, but Corellium’s conduct in
`defeating security mechanisms specifically for the purpose of making a profit by enabling
`unauthorized copying and use of iOS. With respect to security exploits vel non, as repugnant as
`Apple finds it when they are sold and deployed against iPhone users (not least because the targets
`are often journalists and activists), they are not tools that enable unauthorized copying and use of
`iOS in the way that Corellium does. Accordingly, Apple has not brought a claim, nor sought relief,
`on a theory that would prevent security researchers from doing their valuable work, just as they
`have for many years before Corellium started infringing Apple’s rights.
`But with respect to what Corellium concedes it has done, Apple respectfully asks the court
`to grant summary judgment on the claims addressed herein, consistent with the common-sense
`conclusion that the law does not permit one company to sell the use of another company’s
`copyrighted software to the public.
`II.
`RELEVANT FACTS
`A.
`The Security Measures Protecting Apple’s Copyrighted Computer Programs
`The Apple iPhone is one of the most ubiquitous and iconic mobile devices available to the
`public today. One of the key features of the iPhone is its revolutionary but intuitive operating
`system known as iOS. Statement of Facts (“SOF”) ¶¶ 1–2. An operating system is the software
`that manages a computer’s most basic functions, including the user’s interaction with the device.
`SOF ¶¶ 2, 4. Apple distributes iOS to its customers both on Apple devices (e.g., the iPhone) and
`over the internet (in what are called “IPSW” files). SOF ¶¶ 7–8. Since iOS’s release more than a
`decade ago, Apple has continuously improved it by releasing new versions of the software. SOF
`¶ 5.
`
`
`1 See, e.g., A Statement from Amanda Gorton, CEO of Corellium, regarding Apple DMCA filing,
`https://corellium.com/statement-dmca/ (Dec. 29, 2019).
`2
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 453 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 8 of 27
`
`
`Apple has gone to great lengths to protect iOS in various ways. First, every version of iOS
`is protected by a registered copyright. SOF ¶ 6. Copyrights in computer programs cover two types
`of computer code—source code and object code2—as well as the dynamic visual display that the
`software generates, which is known as the graphical user interface (or “GUI”). The iOS GUI
`includes the look and layout of an iPhone’s home screen, featuring various application icons, along
`with the interaction afforded by the elements working together in response to the user’s commands.
`Second, Apple famously designs and sells its mobile devices and iOS as an integrated
`hardware/software system. SOF ¶¶ 10, 12. To protect the integrity of that system, Apple has
`implemented a series of technological control measures (“TCMs”) that, in the ordinary course of
`operation, ensure that iOS runs only on Apple devices, and that Apple devices run only authentic,
`unmodified versions of iOS. SOF ¶ 13. The TCMs also prevent people from copying and
`displaying iOS. SOF ¶ 11. As Corellium’s expert testified, “Apple has designed [its] systems to
`make it . . . very difficult to run iOS except on authorized Apple hardware.” SOF ¶ 64.
`The TCMs that “make it very difficult to” run iOS on non-authorized hardware include,
`among others:
`• The “authorization server validation check”: In the ordinary course of operation, this
`TCM prevents installation of iOS on a non-Apple device. SOF ¶ 14. When iOS is
`installed, the device communicates with an Apple “authorization server,” sending
`information to Apple about both the device itself and the version of iOS that the user
`seeks to install. Id. The authorization server examines this information, and if it checks
`out, returns a cryptographic signature, authorizing installation on the device. SOF ¶ 15.
`iOS will not install unless it has a valid signature from Apple’s authorization server.
`SOF ¶ 16.
`• The “secure boot chain”: When iOS is “booted up” on an Apple device, it goes through
`a series of steps that confirm that the device is authorized to run the exact version of
`the software that is about to load. SOF ¶ 17. That is, one where the iPhone is a
`legitimate iPhone and the software is a legitimate copy of iOS that is currently offered.
`Id. These steps are known as “signature checks.” Id. In the ordinary course of
`operation, this TCM prevents iOS from loading unless each step in the secure boot
`chain verifies that the Apple code running on the iPhone is authentic and authorized for
`installation on the particular iPhone at issue. Id.
`• The “Buddy program”: The Buddy program is another TCM that, in the ordinary
`course, restricts access to and protects rights in iOS by requiring a user to agree to
`Apple’s software license agreement before using iOS on the user’s Apple device. SOF
`
`2 Source code is code that a human writes when creating the computer program. Before the
`program can operate, the source code must be converted into object code, which is code that a
`computer processor can understand.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 453 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 9 of 27
`
`
`¶ 19. That software license agreement, in turn, provides that iOS may be used only on
`a single Apple-branded device, and prohibits distributing or making iOS available over
`a network. SOF ¶ 20. If the user does not accept the software license agreement, the
`Buddy program prevents the user from further accessing iOS. SOF ¶ 19.
`• The “trust cache”: The trust cache is a list of programs that Apple has approved for
`execution on iOS. SOF ¶ 21. In the ordinary course, the trust cache prevents users
`from installing and operating unapproved applications in iOS. Id.; PEX 1 ¶ 22.
`This is just a representative sample. Apple has also adopted a series of other complex
`
`measures that perform similar roles—ensuring that only Apple hardware is used to run iOS, and
`preventing iOS from being displayed and copied. See, e.g., SOF ¶¶ 22–23 (describing Apple’s
`implementation of “pointer authentication codes” (“PAC”) in newer versions of iOS).
`B.
` The Corellium Apple Product
`Corellium sells a product—the Corellium Apple Product—consisting of “virtual Apple
`iPhones” that include the same visual display as real Apple iPhones, and run the same exact iOS
`operating system as a real iPhone.3 Corellium is able to incorporate iOS into its product only by
`evading the technological control measures that protect Apple’s copyrights in iOS. At its core, the
`Corellium Apple Product is a series of highly sophisticated digital “lock picks” that allow the
`Corellium Apple Product to “unlock” the “locks” that protect Apple’s copyrighted works—that is,
`every version of iOS—and copy, display, and profit from them. The result is a product that serves
`up a range of virtual Apple devices, running a range of iOS versions. SOF ¶¶ 33–38.4 This
`includes the newest iPhone models running the newest iOS versions. SOF ¶ 36.
`It is undisputed that, to create these virtual Apple devices, the Corellium Apple Product
`must circumvent Apple’s security protections. SOF ¶ 64, see id. ¶¶ 40–49. As Corellium’s own
`experts and engineers have explained, Corellium “
`
`” on machines that
`Corellium itself controls, owns, and sells. SOF ¶ 40; PEX 51 at 286:1–21. The Corellium Apple
`
`
`3 Corellium also offers the ability to create other virtual Apple devices, such as a virtual iPad and
`a virtual iPod touch. For simplicity, this motion refers primarily to virtual iPhones—but all of its
`arguments apply equally to the other virtual devices created by the Corellium Apple Product.
`4 Corellium provides both a cloud-based product available to anyone with an internet connection
`and a Corellium account, and an “on-premises” product, which is a computer server containing the
`Corellium Apple Product that is installed and maintained at a customer’s location. SOF ¶ 34. With
`limited exceptions, the on-premises product operates in substantially the same way and has
`substantially the same functionality as the cloud product. SOF ¶ 35.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 453 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 10 of 27
`
`
`Product evades the TCMs that ordinarily prohibit installation of iOS on non-Apple hardware in at
`least the following ways:
`•
`
`
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`•
`
`
`As Apple’s TCMs have become more advanced, Corellium has updated its product to pick those
`new digital locks as well. See SOF ¶ 22 (describing Apple’s addition of PAC in certain versions
`of iOS 12); SOF ¶ 48 (
`
`).
`After the Corellium Apple Product has broken through or otherwise evaded Apple’s TCMs,
`the product is able to create virtual Apple devices—complete with functioning versions of iOS—
`that run on non-Apple hardware. To create those devices, the Corellium Apple Product makes
`copies of iOS and its components that cannot be made when Apple’s TCMs are in place. SOF
`¶¶ 40–50; PEX 3, Nieh Decl. ¶ 27. The Corellium Apple Product makes at least
`
` on Corellium’s server hardware—a copy the
`product could not have made if Apple’s TCMs were in effect. SOF ¶ 55. The Corellium Apple
`Product
`
`. SOF ¶ 55. Again, that copy could not
`have been made if Apple’s TCMs were still in effect. SOF ¶ 40. The end result of this copying is
`the creation of a virtual Apple iPhone, running iOS, displaying iOS’s graphical user interface, and
`generally functioning the way iOS functions on a physical iPhone. SOF ¶¶ 36–38.
`The Corellium Apple Product also contains a “clone” feature that specifically enables even
`more unauthorized copying of iOS. That feature makes a new copy of the entire contents of a
`Corellium-created virtual iPhone, including the copyrighted iOS code in each virtual iPhone. SOF
`¶ 56. Such cloning cannot be done when iOS is installed on a physical iPhone. SOF ¶ 11.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 453 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 11 of 27
`
`
`C.
`Corellium’s Marketing and Sale of the Corellium Apple Product
`Corellium makes no secret that its product is specifically designed to provide users with a
`digital Apple iPhone running Apple’s copyrighted operating system without the expense or
`limitations that come with buying and using a real iPhone with an authorized version of iOS.
`Corellium proudly boasts that its product runs “real iOS.” SOF ¶ 63. And it emphasizes all of the
`reasons why the Corellium Apple Product—with “real iOS” that Corellium has never paid for—is
`better than and should be purchased instead of actual Apple devices. Its marketing materials
`highlight:
`•
`
`
`
`
`
`•
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`
`.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`All of this is impossible when Apple’s TCMs are in place.
`
` that the Corellium Apple Product would not exist if it did not bypass and impair Apple’s
`TCMs. SOF ¶¶ 41–44, 46–49. Indeed, Corellium specifically markets the Corellium Apple
`Product as a
`
`
`
`
`
`
` selling access to an Apple product whose use Apple has not
`Corellium has made
`
`authorized or licensed. SOF ¶ 69. Corellium has made that money without knowledge of, or the
`ability to track or control, what its customers do with its version of Apple’s product. SOF ¶ 60.
`D.
`Interactions Between Corellium and Apple
`In early 2018, when Corellium was in its infancy, Corellium co-founder and Chief
`
`
`5 All emphases added unless otherwise stated.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 453 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 12 of 27
`
`
`Technology Officer, Chris Wade, began pitching the start-up as an acquisition target to Apple.
`SOF ¶ 28–29. During Mr. Wade’s acquisition talks with Apple, he met with various Apple
`employees over the course of several months to discuss what he and other Corellium employees
`could offer to Apple. SOF ¶ 28; PEX 55 at 9. He demonstrated the Corellium Apple Product to
`Apple, but did not get into the details of how the product’s underlying technology worked or the
`specifics of how it circumvented Apple’s TCMs. SOF ¶ 28. Ultimately, the talks ceased with no
`agreement being reached. SOF ¶ 31.
`Corellium claims that, during these acquisition talks, Apple encouraged Corellium’s
`development of its technology. ECF No. 64 at 10. It is undisputed, however, that no one at Apple
`ever told Mr. Wade that he could publicly commercialize a product consisting of a working virtual
`iPhone. SOF ¶¶ 26, 76, 78. To the contrary, the record shows that Corellium and its principals
`understood that Corellium did not have a license or permission from Apple to take to market the
`tool they had created, which was essentially just a way to sell access to Apple’s own software:
`• Corellium and Mr. Wade entered multiple agreements with Apple, all stating Apple’s
`silence or conduct does not amount to a license. SOF ¶¶ 27, 29–30.
`In a previous venture, Mr. Wade developed iOS emulation technology (similar to
`Corellium Apple Product) that he sold to Citrix. SOF ¶ 73. During discussions
`including Mr. Wade, Citrix CEO Mark Templeton, and Apple, Mr. Templeton emailed
`Apple expressing the understanding that Citrix could not commercialize Wade’s
`technology “because Apple does not license iOS.” SOF ¶ 74. Mr. Wade was then a
`was copied on that email. Mr. Templeton, no
` SOF ¶¶ 74–75.
`
`•
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`longer with Citrix,
`In late June 2018, Corellium CEO Amanda Gorton
`
`In 2018 and 2019, Corellium’s
`
` SOF ¶ 76.
`
` SOF ¶ 77.
`
`Corellium nevertheless chose to forge ahead.
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`A.
`The DMCA’s Anti-Trafficking Provisions
`Congress enacted the DMCA to bolster the rights of copyright owners in the digital age by
`creating special protections for technical measures that insulate copyrighted works from piracy.
`S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 10–11 (1998). To do so, Congress made it illegal to traffic in “digital lock
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 453 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 13 of 27
`
`
`picks” that evade technological protections that prevent unauthorized copying, displaying, and use
`of copyrighted works. A company that sells such tools violates federal law and is liable for
`damages and subject to injunctive relief.
`The DMCA contains two “anti-trafficking” provisions. Together, they prohibit selling
`tools to circumvent measures that protect access to, or rights in, copyrighted material, if the tools:
`(a) are “primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure
`that effectively” controls access to or protects rights in a copyrighted work; (b) have “only limited
`commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that
`effectively” controls access to or protects rights in a copyrighted work; or (c) are “marketed . . .
`for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively” controls access to or protects
`rights in a copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2), (b)(1).
`To “effectively control access to” a copyrighted work, a TCM must, “in the ordinary course
`of its operation, require[] the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the
`authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.” Id. § 1201(a)(3)(B). Such controls
`are known as “access controls.” One example of an access control is a requirement that a customer
`enter a password before entering a video streaming website. To “effectively protect” a copyright
`owner’s rights in a copyrighted work, a TCM must “in the ordinary course of its operation,
`prevent[], restrict[], or otherwise limit[] the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this
`title.” Id. § 1201(b)(2)(B). Such protections are known as “rights controls.” One example of a
`rights control is a measure that prevents a person from making an extra copy of a downloaded
`movie. Circumvention, in turn, includes “avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or
`otherwise impairing a technological measure.” Id. § 1201(b)(2)(A); see also id. § 1201(a)(3)(A).
`Often, TCMs both control access to and protect the rights in a copyrighted work. For
`example, if a copyrighted work cannot be accessed or copied without the use of a password, then
`the requirement for a password is both an access control and a rights control. See, e.g., 321 Studios
`v. MGM Studios, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 2d 1085, 1094–95 (N.D. Cal. 2004). As a result, “if a copyright
`owner puts in place an effective measure that both (1) controls access and (2) protects against
`copyright infringement, a defendant who traffics in a device that circumvents that measure could
`be liable under both § 1201(a) and (b).” MDY Indus., LLC v. Blizzard Entm’t, Inc., 629 F.3d 928,
`946 (9th Cir. 2010).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 453 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 14 of 27
`
`
`B.
`Summary Judgment
`Summary judgment is warranted where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
`and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “The moving
`party bears the initial burden of establishing the nonexistence of a triable fact issue.” Cont’l Cas.
`Co. v. Wendt, 205 F.3d 1258, 1261 (11th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). “Once this initial burden
`is met, ‘the nonmoving party must offer more than a mere scintilla of evidence for its position;
`indeed, the nonmoving party must make a showing sufficient to permit the jury to reasonably find
`on its behalf.’” Rayo v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., No. 19-21263-CIV, 2019 WL 7376775, at *1
`(S.D. Fla. Nov. 15, 2019) (citation omitted).
`IV.
`THE UNDISPUTED FACTS DEMONSTRATE THAT CORELLIUM VIOLATES
`17 U.S.C. §§ 1201(A)(2) AND 1201(B)(1)
`The undisputed material facts show Corellium violates the DMCA by trafficking in a tool
`that circumvents both the access and rights controls that protect iOS. Corellium has no valid
`defense to its acts of trafficking. Summary judgment should thus be granted in Apple’s favor.
`A.
`Corellium Traffics a Tool to Circumvent iOS’s Access and Rights Controls
`Corellium violates both section 1201(a)(2) (addressing tools that circumvent access
`controls) and section 1201(b)(1) (addressing tools that circumvent rights controls). The elements
`necessary to demonstrate liability under these provisions are largely the same. A party violates
`one or both provisions by: (1) manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or
`otherwise trafficking in (2) a technology, product, service, device, component or part thereof
`(3) that is primarily designed or produced for, has only limited commercially significant use other
`than for, or is marketed for use in (4) circumventing a technological measure that (5) either
`effectively protects access to a copyrighted work (under section 1201(a)(2)), or effectively protects
`an exclusive right in a copyrighted work or a portion thereof (under section 1201(b)(1)). See MDY
`Indus., 629 F.3d at 953.
`Each of these elements is established by the undisputed facts. To begin with, Corellium
`admits it manufactures, offers to the public, and provides the Corellium Apple Product to
`customers, SOF ¶¶ 33–34, 52–54, 66–68, 77, and the Corellium Apple Product is plainly a
`technology, product, or service. SOF ¶¶ 25, 35–39. That leaves only the question of whether the
`Corellium Apple Product meets any one of six separate and independent grounds for liability:
`1. Is the Corellium Apple Product, or a part thereof, primarily designed or produced for
`circumventing access contro