Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 456 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
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`v.
`
`CORELLIUM, LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`__________________________________/
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT CORELLIUM, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 456 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 2 of 27
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ............................................................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`CORELLIUM’S CREATION ................................................................................. 3
`
`APPLE’S IOS ......................................................................................................... 4
`
`THE UNIQUE CORELLIUM PRODUCT ............................................................. 5
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION ........................................................................................... 6
`
`III. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES................................................................................ 6
`
`A.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................. 6
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Standard ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`Copyright Infringement .............................................................................. 7
`
`Fair Use ....................................................................................................... 7
`
`Digital Millennium Copyright Act.............................................................. 8
`
`THE CORELLIUM PRODUCT CONTAINS NO APPLE CODE ......................... 8
`
`COPYRIGHT DOES NOT PROTECT THE FUNCTION OF SOFTWARE ......... 9
`
`SECURITY RESEARCH IS FUNCTIONAL AND THUS FAIR USE ................ 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Corellium’s Usage Is Highly Transformative ........................................... 10
`
`Nature Of The Works At Issue: Software Is Accorded Less Protection... 12
`
`The Use Of Portions Of Apple’s iOS Software Package And Its
`Graphical User Interface Are Appropriate And Necessary To Bring
`About Corellium’s Transformative Purpose ............................................. 13
`
`Corellium Has No Adverse Effect On The Market For Apple’s Products 14
`
`i
`COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
`ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (561) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAX
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 456 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 3 of 27
`
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`APPLE MISUSED COPYRIGHT IN AN ATTEMPT TO GAIN A
`MONOPOLY ON SECURITY RESEARCH CONTRARY TO PUBLIC
`POLICY ................................................................................................................ 15
`APPLE SHOULD BE ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING COPYRIGHTS
`AGAINST CORELLIUM ..................................................................................... 15
`
`APPLE CANNOT SHOW THAT CORELLIUM INFRINGES THE SPECIFIC
`REGISTERED COPYRIGHTS THAT APPLE ASSERTS HERE....................... 16
`
`H.
`
`CORELLIUM’S PRODUCT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE DMCA .................... 17
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`No Technological Protection Mechanism Exists That Protects Access
`To Or Rights In iOS .................................................................................. 17
`
`If Apple Had An Effective Technological Protection Measure That The
`CP Circumvents, Substantial Fair Use Limits The DMCA Trafficking
`Prohibition................................................................................................. 18
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
`ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (561) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAX
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 456 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 4 of 27
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Alcatel USA, Inc. v. DGI Techs., Inc.,
`166 F.3d 772, 792 (5th Cir. 1999) .............................................................................................6
`
`Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc.,
`121 F.3d 642 (11th Cir. 1997) ...................................................................................................6
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Authors Guild v. Google, Inc.,
`804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015)...........................................................................................6, 10, 11
`
`A.V. ex. rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms, LLC,
`562 F.3d 630 (4th Cir. 2009) .....................................................................................................9
`
`Bateman v. Mnemonics, Inc.,
`79 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir. 1996) .............................................................................................8, 12
`
`Cambridge Univ. Press v. Patton,
`769 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................9
`
`Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.,
`510 U.S. 569 (1994) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,
`499 U.S. 340 (1991) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC,
`139 S. Ct. 881 (2019) ...............................................................................................................16
`
`Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters.,
`471 U.S. 539 (1985) ...................................................................................................................7
`
`HCA Health Servs. of Ga., Inc. v. Employers Health Ins. Co.,
`240 F.3d 982 (11th Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................................6
`
`HGI Assocs., Inc. v. Wetmore Printing Co.,
`427 F.3d 867 (11th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................15
`
`Katz v. Google Inc.,
`802 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 2015) .............................................................................................7, 9
`
`Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.,
`387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004) ...............................................................................................9, 18
`iii
`COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
`ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (561) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAX
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 456 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 5 of 27
`
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
`475 U.S. 574 (1986) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc.,
`337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (N.D. Cal. 2004) ...................................................................................18
`
`Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................9
`
`Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc.,
`977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir.1992) ..............................................................................................9, 12
`
`Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corp.,
`203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) .............................................................................................11, 12
`
`Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,
`464 U.S. 417 (1984) (Blackmun, J., dissenting) ..............................................................6, 7, 12
`
`Tingley Sys., Inc. v. HealthLink, Inc.,
`509 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (M.D. Fla. 2007) ...................................................................................14
`
`Statutes
`
`17 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................................................8
`
`17 U.S.C. § 102(b) .....................................................................................................................8, 18
`
`17 U.S.C. § 107 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`17 U.S.C. § 410(a) ...........................................................................................................................5
`
`17 U.S.C. § 501 ................................................................................................................................5
`
`17 U.S.C. § 1201 ..................................................................................................................... passim
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1030 ............................................................................................................................19
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`Fed. R. Civ. Pro. Rule 56 .................................................................................................................1
`
`Local Rule 56.1 ................................................................................................................................1
`
`Reports
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 105–551(II), (1998) ................................................................................................18
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 (1976) .........................................................................................................7
`
`
`iv
`COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
`ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (561) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAX
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 456 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 6 of 27
`
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 388, 103d Cong., 1st Sess.(1993).............................................................................5
`
`S. Rep. No. 105-190 (1998) ...........................................................................................................18
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Compiler, WIKIPEDIA, THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA (May 11, 2020), availiable at,
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiler .....................................................................................4
`
`Flaw in iPhone, iPads may have allowed hackers to steal data for years, REUTERS,
`Apr. 22, 2020, availible at, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-apple-cyber/flaw-
`in-iphone-ipads-may-have-allowed-hackers-to-steal-data-for-years-idUSKCN2242IK ...........2
`
`Stan Lee, Steve Ditko, Jack Kirby, Spider-man!, availible at,
`https://read.marvel.com/#/book/4746 .......................................................................................2
`
`Swift (May 11, 2020), availiable at,
`https://developer.apple.com/swift/ .............................................................................................4
`
`China believed to have used iPhone exploits to track Uyghur Muslims, APPLE
`INSIDER (Sep, 1, 2019), availible at,
`https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/09/01/china-believed-to-have-used-
`iphone-exploits-to-track-uyghur-muslims .................................................................................2
`
`WEBKIT.ORG (May 11, 2020), availible at,
`https://webkit.org .......................................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
`ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (561) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAX
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 456 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 7 of 27
`
`
`Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 56.1, Defendant
`Corellium, LLC (“Corellium”) hereby moves for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”) as to and
`dismissal of each of Apple’s claims against Corellium.
`I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`Corellium does not infringe any of Apple’s copyrights. As an initial matter, Apple’s
`copyrighted code is nowhere in the accused product. Corellium’s virtual hardware platform
`contains no copyrighted iOS code at all nor was any copyrighted iOS code used in its creation. But
`even if Corellium or its customers used some or all of Apple’s copyrighted iOS code, which they
`do not, Corellium is entitled to summary judgment of non-infringement because its use is
`categorically fair use. And to the extent Apple argues that Corellium permits its users to make
`unauthorized copies of iOS to virtualize, such copies would be considered intermediate and
`necessary for those users’ research into the functional elements of iOS security, and thus, fair use.1
`Corellium offers a security research and testing platform that enables users to load and run
`mobile operating systems, including Android, Linux, and iOS, on virtualized hardware. The
`platform, lauded by the research industry, also enables users to run third-party applications on
`those mobile operating systems for research, and it provides advanced tools for those same
`purposes.
`
` use Corellium for highly socially-beneficial research that protects not only
`end users of mobile operating systems and applications but also the citizens of the United States.
`Corellium’s users, i.e. security researchers, care only about the function and ideas of
`portions of operating systems that they are analyzing—not the creative elements, which are only
`of interest to commercial consumers. Security researchers care only about what those operating
`systems do with data but not how they do it nor how pretty they look doing it. As an example, no
`Corellium user is interested in how the iOS calendar app looks or how well it organizes their
`meetings. For that, they would use a commercial smartphone or tablet. All they care about is what
`
`
`1 Corellium contends that it does not copy any copyrightable elements of iOS; the virtualization
`system deletes Apple’s iOS files that it downloads within seconds and what is left is transformative
`new software based entirely on functional elements of Apple’s iOS. However, disputed facts
`including the portions of code downloaded, the duration each one is kept there, and the creativity
`versus utilitarianism of the portions used, pose questions for the finder of fact. This is rendered
`moot because Corellium is entitlted to summary judgment on its fair use defense.
`
`
`1
`COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
`ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (561) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAX
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 456 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 8 of 27
`
`
`iOS does with a user’s private data: whom that data goes to, whether outsiders can get access to
`the data, and whether important data can get lost or damaged.
`Further, Corellium does not violate the DMCA because no technological measures exist in
`the allegedly infringed code. Apple makes its allegedly copyrighted code freely available online,
`without any technological restriction or license agreement. Anyone with a web browser can
`download a copy of that code, open the code file, access the contents of the file, and copy, modify,
`distribute, and display that file, without any technological restriction or license agreement. And
`even if that was not true, DMCA trafficking prohibitions do not prohibit fair use. Corellium is thus
`entitled to summary judgment as to all DMCA claims as well.
`“[W]ith great power there must also come -- great responsibility!”2 Apple has hundreds
`of millions of portable supercomputers in the pockets and homes of Americans. Many households
`have several of these devices, which, in addition to storing and sharing our personal data, have
`sensitive microphones and high definition cameras. We must ensure that our devices are secure.
`Software companies, including Apple, frequently make security mistakes that have enormous
`consequences on user privacy, and independent researchers have been instrumental in identifying
`these mistakes and holding Apple accountable.3 Yet, by the filing of this lawsuit, Apple is
`attempting to assert complete dominance over how research into its mistakes is conducted and the
`timing and content of the public narrative on what is found; Apple seeks a monopoly on security
`research into its software and to undermine the very existence of fair use. Apple has shown that it
`cares more about control than security for end users. In grabbing for this power, Apple is
`abandoning the responsibility it has to respect the fair use of its software by security researchers.
`However, the law prohibits such a misuse of copyright. Copyright law’s built-in safeguards
`exclude functional elements and uses and limit copyright protection only to creative elements.
`Security research is exclusively focused on function and ideas. And the fair use doctrine is worded
`
`
`2 Stan Lee, Steve Ditko, Jack Kirby, Spider-man!, AMAZING FANTASY (VOL. 1) 15, at 13 (Marvel
`Comics Aug. 1962), https://read.marvel.com/#/book/4746.
`3 See e.g. Christopher Bing, Josephf Menn, Flaw in iPhone, iPads may have allowed hackers to
`steal data for years, REUTERS, Apr. 22, 2020, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-apple-
`cyber/flaw-in-iphone-ipads-may-have-allowed-hackers-to-steal-data-for-years-
`idUSKCN2242IK; William Gallagher, China believed to have used iPhone exploits to track
`Uyghur Muslims, APPLE INSIDER (Sep, 1, 2019), https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/09/01/china-
`believed-to-have-used-iphone-exploits-to-track-uyghur-muslims.
`
`
`2
`COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
`ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (561) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAX
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 456 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 9 of 27
`
`
`unambiguously to permit the public, not Apple, to decide our level of involvement in security
`research for the software that runs our lives.
`Apple is not harmed by the existence of Corellium’s product. Corellium does not supplant
`the sale of Apple’s iOS devices. No commercial consumer would consider Corellium a substitute
`for an iPhone or an iPad. Further, Apple provides its iOS code online for download by anyone,
`free, unencrypted, and without any access controls or agreement required. For the most part, the
`iOS files available online cannot be read by humans. That does not change in Corellium’s system.
`Corellium cannot be used by people to enjoy the fruits of Apple’s creativity.
`Apple was aware of this technology since at least 2014 when Senior Apple executives
`invited Mr. Wade to give a technical demonstration. Yet, five years later, despite interactions,
`demonstrations, and Apple’s encouragement of Corellium to continue, Apple suddenly sued
`Corellium—but only after a failed acquisition attempt. Apple has unduly prejudiced Corellium.
`Apple’s premise for this lawsuit is faulty. Software security research belongs to the public.
`A software’s security properties are functional and are not part of the bundle of rights conferred
`by the existence of a copyright. The first amendment, furthermore, guarantees researchers the right
`to talk publicly about what they find. Even if Apple is foolhardy enough not to want their help,
`security researchers have a statutory right to the tools necessary to permit fair use research.
`II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`CORELLIUM’S CREATION
`In 2011, Chris Wade created iEmu, a product that emulated some versions of iOS. SMF4 ¶
`. In 2014, Wade developed Virtual, which went further than
`25.
`iEmu and allowed users to create virtualized hardware to run a modified version of iOS, similar to
`Corellium. Id. ¶¶ 26-27.
`
` Id. ¶ 27. Ultimately, Citrix Systems Inc. purchased Virtual in late 2014. Id. ¶ 28.
`In August 2017,
` founded
`Corellium, which provides virtualized hardware that is capable of running portions of Linux,
`Android, or iOS operating systems. Id. ¶¶ 29-30. Corellium’s users can choose between a cloud-
`based or on-premises version of the product. Id. ¶ 44.
`
`A.
`
`
`4 References to “SMF” are to Defendant Corellium, LLC’s Statement of Material Facts in Support
`of its Motion for Summary Judgment and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, filed concurrently.
`
`
`3
`COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
`ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (561) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAX
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 456 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 10 of 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`APPLE’S iOS
`iOS is an operating system distributed by Apple. Id. ¶ 1. It contains software ranging from
`low-level firmware to high-level pieces that the user perceives as the operating system. Id. ¶ 2.
`Importantly, the publicly distributed iOS code does not include certain software,
`
`
`
`. ¶¶ 5-6, 12-13. And most parts of iOS,
`including the kernel5 (or core) of the operating system are not encrypted. Id. ¶ 8.
`
`
`5 The kernel is the core of the operating system that has complete control over all system resources.
`SMF ¶ 8.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
`ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (561) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAX
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 456 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 11 of 27
`
`
`Many parts of iOS are open source, including most of the kernel, the compiler6 (Clang),
`Swift,7 the web browser engine (WebKit),8 and more. Id. ¶¶ 10-11. Other parts that Apple created
`exclusively are potentially subject to copyright protection. However, the copyrights asserted by
`Apple in this action do not cover the kernel or other core functions of iOS but instead cover
`tangential portions of discrete apps or programs such as, inter alia, Animojis, Apple TV, Apple
`Music, and certain improvements to a Notes app. Id. ¶¶ 20-22. Each copyright asserted explicitly
`“[e]xclude[s] . . . [p]reviously published Apple material,” including prior registrations of code. Id.
`¶ 21. In addition, iTunes versions 12.3, 12.4, 12.5.1, and 12.6 are not incorporated into iOS. Id. ¶
`24. Copyright registration necessarily extends only to “those component parts of the work that
`both are the subject matter of copyright and in which the copyright owner has the right to claim.”
`17 U.S.C.A. § 410(a) (1994). See also H.R. Rep. No. 388, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. 23 (1993).
`
`
`
`
` It does not stop
`anyone from downloading, inspecting, or using an IPSW file with portions of iOS in it. Id. ¶ 19.
`
`
`.
`
`C.
`
`THE UNIQUE CORELLIUM PRODUCT
`Corellium developed its hardware virtualization, including the ability to run portions of
`Android, Linux, and iOS, without the inclusion or use of any copyrighted Apple code. Id. ¶¶ 30,
`41-42. It is a standalone product designed solely for security research. Id. ¶ 30. It is rich with
`features specifically built for security researchers, one of which is to permit portions of operating
`systems, including portions of iOS, to run. Id. ¶¶ 47-52.
`
`
`6 “A compiler is a computer program that translates computer code written in one programming
`language (the source language) into another language (the target language).” Compiler,
`WIKIPEDIA, THE FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA (May 11, 2020), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiler.
`7 “Swift is a powerful and intuitive programming language for macOS, iOS, watchOS, tvOS and
`beyond” Swift, APPLE.COM (May 11, 2020), https://developer.apple.com/swift/.
`8 “WebKit is the web browser engine used by Safari, Mail, App Store, and many other apps on
`macOS, iOS, and Linux.” WEBKIT.ORG (May 11, 2020), https://webkit.org.
`
`
`5
`COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
`ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (561) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAX
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 456 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 12 of 27
`
`
`Significantly, Corellium does not unencrypt or in any way use any files that are encrypted
`by Apple in its iOS distribution. Id. ¶ 9. And because Corellium’s product does not run on Apple
`hardware, the secure boot chain is simply not necessary. Id. ¶ 64.
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`D.
`In this action, Apple has asserted the following causes of action against Corellium.
`(1) Direct Federal Copyright Infringement, under 17 U.S.C. § 501, of the Computer
`Programs in the Copyright Registrations identified, dated, and numbered in Exhibit A to Apple’s
`First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 56, Ex. A;
`(2) Direct Federal Copyright Infringement, under 17 U.S.C. § 501, of the Graphical User
`Interface Elements in the Copyright Registrations identified, dated, and numbered, id.;
`(3) Contributory Federal Copyright Infringement of the Copyright Registrations identified,
`dated, and numbered, id.; and
`(4) Unlawful Trafficking Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) under
`17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2), (b), id. at 25.
`III. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`A.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`Standard
`1.
`Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings . . . show that there is no genuine
`issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986); HCA Health Servs. of Ga., Inc. v.
`Employers Health Ins. Co., 240 F.3d 982, 991 (11th Cir. 2001). Once the moving party
`demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the non-moving party must “come
`forward with ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita Elec. Indus.
`Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). The Court
`must view the record and all factual inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-
`moving party and decide whether “‘the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require
`submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.’”
`Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at
`251-52)).
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
`ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (561) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAX
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 456 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 13 of 27
`
`
`Copyright Infringement
`2.
`To establish a claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show “(1) ownership of a
`valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.” Feist
`Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). “[O]ne who, with knowledge of
`the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of
`another, may be held liable as a ‘contributory’ infringer.” Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City
`Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 487 (1984) (Blackmun, J., dissenting). “[I]f a significant portion of
`the product’s use is noninfringing, the manufacturers and sellers cannot be held contributorily
`liable for the product's infringing uses.” Id. at 491, emphasis in original.
`Fair Use
`3.
`Courts developed the doctrine of fair use to put a necessary limit on copyright, which
`otherwise would tend “to limit, rather than expand, public knowledge.” Authors Guild v. Google,
`Inc., 804 F.3d 202, 212 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8); Sony, 464 U.S. at 428-
`29 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). Fair use was codified in Section 107 of the Act, as follows:
`[T]he fair use of a copyrighted work . . . for purposes such as
`criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple
`copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
`infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of
`a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered
`shall include—
`
`(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
`is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
`
`(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
`
`(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
`the copyrighted work as a whole; and
`
`(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
`copyrighted work.
`
`17 U.S.C. § 107 (emphasis added). Courts do not consider these four statutory factors in isolation.
`Katz v. Google Inc., 802 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 2015). Rather, “[a]ll are to be explored, and the
`results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright.” Id. at 1182 (quoting Campbell v.
`Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 578 (1994)). The factors are not exclusive. Harper & Row
`Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 549 (1985).
`
`
`7
`COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
`ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (561) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAX
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 456 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 14 of 27
`
`
`Fair use stops copyright owners from taking their copyrights so far that they harm the
`progress the arts and sciences. Fair use is designed to adapt to changing technology and to account
`for the nature of the copyrighted material. See H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 66 (1976). As technology
`advances, it also changes how it affects our lives and rights, and the fair-use doctrine “must be
`construed in light of [its] basic purpose.” Sony, 464 U.S. at 432 (citation omitted); H.R. Rep. No.
`94-1476, at 66 (explaining that Congress did not intend “to freeze the doctrine in the statute,
`especially during a period of rapid technological change”).
`Fair use determinations may be decided on summary judgment. Campbell, 510 U.S. 569;
`Katz, 802 F.3d at 1184.
`Digital Millennium Copyright Act
`4.
`Section 1201(a)(2) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) states that
`No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or
`otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device,
`component, or part thereof, that:
`
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of
`circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls
`access to a work protected under this title;
`
`(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other
`than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls
`access to a work protected under this title; or
`
`(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that
`person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a
`technological measure that effectively controls access to a work
`protected under this title.
`
`17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2) (emphasis added); Section 1201(b) is very similar to Section 1201(a)(2).
`It focuses on measures protecting “a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a
`portion thereof.” 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201(b) (emphasis added).
`THE CORELLIUM PRODUCT CONTAINS NO APPLE CODE
`B.
`The code that runs Corellium’s virtualization environment contains no copyrighted Apple
`code at all. SMF ¶ 42. Nor did Corellium use Apple’s copyrighted code to create it. Id. ¶ 41. Apple
`has not and cannot provide any evidence of direct infringement in the CP itself. Likewise, the CP
`does not contain Apple’s graphical user interface. Id. ¶ 46. The CP is a standalone hardware
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
`ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (561) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAX
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 456 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2020 Page 15 of 27
`
`
`virtualization solution, created by Corellium from the ground up. Id. ¶¶ 29-30, 41-42. Corellium
`is entitled to summary judgment that the CP does not directly infringe any of Apple’s copyrights.
`COPYRIGHT DOES NOT PROTECT THE FUNCTION OF SOFTWARE
`C.
`The functional results of software are not protected by copyright. Section 101 defines a
`“computer program” as “a set of stateme