Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 608 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2020 Page 1 of 30
`
`
`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 TO DISMISS DEFENDANT CORELLIUM, LLC’S
`COUNTERCLAIMS AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 608 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2020 Page 2 of 30
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Procedural History. ......................................................................................3
`
`Apple Security Bounty Program. .................................................................4
`
`Corellium’s Claims Against Apple. .............................................................6
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................6
`
`I.
`
`CORELLIUM LACKS STANDING TO PURSUE DECLARATORY OR
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. ...........................................................................................7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Corellium’s Declaratory Judgment Act Claims Must Be Dismissed. ..........8
`
`Corellium’s Claims for Injunctive Relief Must Be Dismissed. ...................9
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`CORELLIUM FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR CONSTRUCTIVE
`FRAUD. .................................................................................................................10
`
`CORELLIUM FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR QUANTUM
`MERUIT. ...............................................................................................................11
`
`CORELLIUM FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER CALIFORNIA’S
`UCL........................................................................................................................15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Corellium’s UCL Claims For Unlawful Business Practices Fail
`Because Its Constructive Fraud And Quantum Meruit Claims Fail. .........15
`
`Corellium’s UCL Claim For Unfair Business Practices Fails
`Because It Has Not Alleged A Cognizable Unfair Business
`Practice. ......................................................................................................16
`
`Commercial Disputes Are Not Cognizable Under The UCL. ...................17
`
`Corellium’s Claim Fails Because It Does Not Allege A
`Restitutionary Injury. .................................................................................18
`
`V.
`
`CORELLIUM FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER FLORIDA’S
`DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT. .................................19
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 608 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2020 Page 3 of 30
`
`
`A.
`
`Corellium Has Not Alleged A Deceptive Act Or Unfair Trade
`Practice. ......................................................................................................19
`
`B.
`
`Corellium Has Not Alleged “Actual Damages” Under The Act. ..............20
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................20
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 608 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2020 Page 4 of 30
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`A&M Gerber Chiropractic LLC v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.,
`925 F.3d 1205 (11th Cir. 2019) .............................................................................................7, 8
`
`Access Now, Inc. v. S. Fla. Stadium Corp.,
`161 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (S.D. Fla. 2001) ......................................................................................2
`
`Am. Honda Motor Co. v. Motorcycle Info. Network, Inc.,
`390 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (M.D. Fla. 2005) .............................................................................10, 11
`
`Bank of the West v. Superior Court,
`833 P.2d 545 (Cal. 1992) .........................................................................................................18
`
`Baron v. Acasta Capital,
`No. 16-CV-25118, 2017 WL 3084416 (S.D. Fla. July 19, 2017) ............................................14
`
`Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc.,
`62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 177 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) ...............................................................................16
`
`Big Five Props., Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London,
`No. 12-23916-CIV, 2013 WL 12091814 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2013) ..........................................8
`
`Cal. Med. Ass’n, Inc. v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare of Cal., Inc.,
`114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 109 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) .................................................................11, 12, 14
`
`Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co.,
`973 P.2d 527 (Cal. 1999) .........................................................................................................15
`
`Clark v. Superior Court,
`235 P.3d 171 (Cal. 2010) .........................................................................................................18
`
`In re ConocoPhillips Co. Serv. Station Rent Contract Litig.,
`No. 09-cv-02040, 2011 WL 1399783 (N.D. Cal. April 13, 2011) ...........................................17
`
`Corn v. Greco,
`694 So. 2d 833 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997) .........................................................................14, 15
`
`Cox v. Porsche Fin. Servs., Inc.,
`330 F.R.D. 322 (S.D. Fla. 2019) ................................................................................................9
`
`Cross v. Strader Const. Corp.,
`768 So. 2d 465 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000) ...............................................................................15
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 608 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2020 Page 5 of 30
`
`
`Davies v. Krasna,
`535 P.2d 1161 (Cal. 1975) .......................................................................................................10
`
`Davis v. Powertel, Inc.,
`776 So. 2d 971 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000) ...............................................................................19
`
`Day v. Taylor,
`400 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2005) ...............................................................................................12
`
`In re De Laurentiis Entm’t Grp. Inc.,
`963 F.2d 1269 (9th Cir. 1992) .................................................................................................12
`
`Dolphin LLC v. WCI Cmtys., Inc.,
`715 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2013) ...............................................................................................19
`
`Durell v. Sharp Healthcare,
`108 Cal. Rptr. 3d 682 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) .............................................................................12
`
`First Data Res., Inc. v. Safecard Servs., Inc.,
`574 So. 2d 311 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991) .........................................................................12, 15
`
`Fulton v. Brancato,
`189 So. 3d 967 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016) ...............................................................................11
`
`Graham v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
`172 Cal. Rptr. 3d 218 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) .............................................................................16
`
`Graphic Pallet & Transp., Inc. v. Balboa Capital Corp.,
`No. 11-CV-9101, 2012 WL 1952745 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2012) ..............................................17
`
`Gross v. White,
`340 F. App’x 527 (11th Cir. 2009) ..........................................................................................12
`
`Hedging Concepts, Inc. v. First All. Mortg. Co.,
`49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 191 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996), as modified on denial of reh’g
`(Feb. 22, 1996) .............................................................................................................11, 12, 15
`
`Herrejon v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,
`980 F. Supp. 2d 1186 (E.D. Cal. 2013)....................................................................................16
`
`Horsley v. Feldt,
`304 F.3d 1125 (11th Cir. 2002) ...............................................................................................12
`
`Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc.,
`733 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................8
`
`Jackson v. Calone,
`No. 2:16-cv-00891, 2017 WL 4844483 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2017)............................................7
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 608 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2020 Page 6 of 30
`
`
`Klein v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.,
`137 Cal. Rptr. 3d 293 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) .............................................................................12
`
`Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
`63 P.3d 937 (Cal. 2003) .....................................................................................................15, 18
`
`Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court,
`246 P.3d 877 (Cal. 2011) ...................................................................................................16, 18
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Applied Materials, Inc.,
`61 Cal. Rptr. 3d 221 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) ...............................................................................17
`
`Lavigne v. Herbalife, LTD,
`No. 18-cv-07480, 2019 WL 6721619 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2019) ..............................................7
`
`Lazar v. Hertz Corp.,
`82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 368 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) ...............................................................................16
`
`Leon v. Cont’l AG,
`301 F. Supp. 3d 1203 (S.D. Fla. 2017) ......................................................................................7
`
`Leon v. Tapas & Tintos, Inc.,
`51 F. Supp. 3d 1290 (S.D. Fla. 2014) ......................................................................................19
`
`Lepkowski v. CamelBak Prods., LLC,
`No. 19-cv-04598, 2019 WL 6771785 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2019) ..............................................9
`
`Malowney v. FDIC,
`193 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................7
`
`Marjam Supply Co. of Fla., LLC v. Pliteq, Inc.,
`No. 15-24363-CIV, 2018 WL 4932871 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2018) ............................................9
`
`Mattera v. Nusbaum,
`No. 17-22406-CIV, 2018 WL 8576509 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 17, 2018) ............................................7
`
`McBride v. Boughton,
`20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 115 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) ...............................................................................11
`
`MH Pillars Ltd. v. Realini,
`No. 15-CV-1383, 2017 WL 916414 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2017) ..........................................16, 17
`
`Miller v. Chase Home Fin., LLC,
`677 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................7
`
`Nat’l Alcoholism Programs/Cooper City, Fla., Inc. v. Palm Springs Hosp. Emp.
`Benefit Plan,
`825 F. Supp. 299 (S.D. Fla. 1993) ...........................................................................................20
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 608 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2020 Page 7 of 30
`
`
`Ocean Commc’ns, Inc. v. Bubeck,
`956 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) .............................................................................11
`
`Patriot Sci. Corp. v. Korodi,
`504 F. Supp. 2d 952 (S.D. Cal. 2007) ......................................................................................10
`
`Picktown Foods, LLC v. Tim Hortons USA, Inc.,
`No. 17-21072-CIV, 2017 WL 9854073 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 8, 2017) .............................................5
`
`PNR, Inc. v. Beacon Prop. Mgmt., Inc.,
`842 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 2003).......................................................................................................19
`
`Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack,
`167 Cal. Rptr. 3d 832 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) .............................................................................15
`
`Ritterman v. Lexington Ins. Co.,
`No. 18-61239-CIV, 2018 WL 7252902 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2018)..............................................8
`
`Rodriguez v. Recovery Performance & Marine, LLC,
`38 So. 3d 178 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010) .................................................................................20
`
`Rubenstein v. The Gap, Inc.,
`222 Cal. Rptr. 3d 397 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) .............................................................................16
`
`SFM Holdings, Ltd. v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC,
`600 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2010) ...............................................................................................14
`
`Shotz v. Cates,
`256 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................9
`
`Space Coast Credit Union v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.,
`295 F.R.D. 540 (S.D. Fla. 2013) ..............................................................................................14
`
`Speaker v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. Ctrs. for Disease Control &
`Prevention,
`623 F.3d 1371 (11th Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................4
`
`State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Perf. Ortho. & Neuro., LLC,
`278 F. Supp. 3d 1307 (S.D. Fla. 2017) ......................................................................................7
`
`Stewart Agency, Inc. v. Arrigo Enters., Inc.,
`266 So. 3d 207 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019) ...............................................................................19
`
`Taylor Woodrow Homes Fla., Inc. v. 4/46-A Corp.,
`850 So. 2d 536 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) ...............................................................................10
`
`Tiller v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`549 F. App’x 849 (11th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................8
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 608 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2020 Page 8 of 30
`
`
`Town of Chester, NY v. Laroe Estates, Inc.,
`137 S. Ct. 1645 (2017) ...............................................................................................................7
`
`Tyler v. Children’s Home Soc’y,
`35 Cal. Rptr. 2d 291 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) ...............................................................................10
`
`Virgilio v. Ryland Grp., Inc.,
`680 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................6
`
`W.R. Townsend Contracting, Inc. v. Jensen Civil Constr., Inc.,
`728 So. 2d 297 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) .........................................................................11, 12
`
`Walsky v. Monel, Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-23031, 2012 WL 4338868 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2012) ..............................................7
`
`In re Webkinz Antitrust Litig.,
`695 F. Supp. 2d 987 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .....................................................................................17
`
`Webster v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.,
`124 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (S.D. Fla. 2000) ....................................................................................12
`
`Wilson v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.,
`No. 17-23033-CIV, 2018 WL 4623539 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2018) ...........................................7
`
`Worldvision Enters., Inc. v. ABC, Inc.,
`191 Cal. Rptr. 148 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) ..................................................................................11
`
`XP Glob., Inc. v. AVM, L.P.,
`No. 16-CV-80905, 2016 WL 4987618 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2016) ..........................................10
`
`Zhang v. Superior Court,
`304 P.3d 163 (Cal. 2013) ...................................................................................................18, 19
`
`STATUTES
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 ..............................................................................................17, 18
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 ....................................................................................................18
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1573 ....................................................................................................................10
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ...............................................................................................................................7
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ..........................................................................................................................7
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)....................................................................................................................1
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 608 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2020 Page 9 of 30
`
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)......................................................................................................1, 4, 6, 12
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Tom Warren, Apple extends its bug bounty program to cover macOS with $1
`million in rewards, The Verge (Aug. 8, 2019),
`https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/8/20756638/apple-macos-security-bug-
`bounty-rewards-program............................................................................................................5
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 608 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2020 Page 10 of 30
`
`
`Plaintiff Apple Inc. (“Apple”) respectfully moves, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and for the reasons set forth in the memorandum of law below, to
`dismiss Defendant Corellium, LLC’s first through tenth counterclaims in its Answer, Affirmative
`Defenses, and Counterclaims to Apple’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 599). This motion
`is materially identical to Apple’s unresolved January 27, 2020 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 99).
`INTRODUCTION
`This is a simple case of blatant and widespread copyright infringement by defendant
`Corellium, LLC (“Corellium”). Corellium has built a business out of copying and selling access
`to unauthorized, lightly modified versions of Apple’s proprietary operating system (“iOS”), along
`with related software and images, for its own financial profit. Second Am. Compl. (ECF No. 589)
`¶¶ 25–44. Incredibly enough, Corellium does not deny any of the dispositive facts. See, e.g., ECF
`No. 599 at 6–7 (asserting Corellium does not “merely replicate Apple’s products”).1 And how
`could it? The very purpose of Corellium’s product is the creation of exact digital replicas of
`Apple’s iOS, iTunes, and graphical user interface elements (“GUI Elements”), which Corellium
`makes available through both a web-based platform and private on-premises installations for its
`own wealthy customers. ECF No. 589 ¶ 25. To be clear, Corellium’s business is copying and
`selling unauthorized access to Apple’s copyrighted works. It does so indiscriminately, to anyone
`who can pony up whatever Corellium charges, without regard to whether its customers are well-
`intentioned or maliciously motivated. Id. ¶¶ 34–43.
`With no meaningful defense to the merits of Apple’s claims, Corellium has countered by
`accusing Apple of failing to pay it certain money it contends Apple owes pursuant to the Apple
`Security Bounty Program, a program under which Apple pays “bounties” to security researchers
`who report software bugs. Importantly, even if what Corellium has said here was true (which it is
`not), these facts would have no bearing on Apple’s offensive Complaint. It is entirely possible to
`participate in Apple’s Security Bounty Program, and many people do so, without selling access to
`
`
`1 Emphasis added, internal quotations and citations omitted throughout unless otherwise stated.
`
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 608 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2020 Page 11 of 30
`
`
`Apple’s copyrighted works for profit, as Corellium does.
`But regardless, Corellium has now filed counterclaims contending that it submitted seven
`bugs under that program, and that Apple wrongly failed to pay, resulting in $300,000 owed to
`Corellium. See, e.g., ECF No. 599 at 39–40 (Counterclaims ¶¶ 48–59). This should be pleaded
`as a single (non-meritorious) claim for breach of contract. Instead, Corellium initially pleaded it
`as quantum meruit and unfair competition under California law—then, when faced with a motion
`to dismiss showing the claims were not and could not be pleaded under such theories, doubled
`down and now has a whopping twelve claims, all based on the same alleged failure to pay for the
`same seven “bugs.” Such “shotgun” pleadings are inappropriate and disfavored in this Circuit.
`Moreover, the overwhelming majority of Corellium’s claims—ten out of twelve—fail as a matter
`of black-letter law.
`As an initial matter, Corellium seeks declaratory and injunctive relief in numerous claims,
`both under the Declaratory Judgment Act and under various state-law provisions. Corellium has
`failed, however, to include allegations establishing the “irreducible minimum” Article III standing
`requirement for such relief—that Corellium faces “a real and immediate—as opposed to a merely
`conjectural or hypothetical—threat of future injury.” Access Now, Inc. v. S. Fla. Stadium Corp.,
`161 F. Supp. 2d 1357, 1364 (S.D. Fla. 2001) (emphasis in original). Corellium’s claims under the
`Declaratory Judgment Act, along with its claims for injunctive relief under California and Florida’s
`respective unfair competition laws, must thus be dismissed. Corellium’s other non-contract claims
`fare no better. Corellium’s claims for constructive fraud are deficient because Corellium’s
`allegations do not establish the requisite fiduciary relationship between the parties. Corellium’s
`quantum meruit claims fail under California and Florida law because Corellium’s allegations
`establish that there is an express agreement governing the dispute before the Court, and such claims
`cannot be pursued in the face of an actual agreement between the parties. And Corellium’s claims
`for unfair competition under California and Florida law are not viable for multiple reasons, all of
`which are the result of the same underlying problem—those laws are designed to protect
`consumers and competitors from anticompetitive, unfair, and deceptive practices that involve
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 608 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2020 Page 12 of 30
`
`
`consumers; they are not designed or intended to address commercial disputes of the sort that is at
`issue here.
`In short, Corellium’s only counterclaims that are not legally infirm are those in which it
`has pleaded its case as a breach of contract—which is in substance all that Corellium is actually
`alleging. Those contract counts should go forward past the pleadings stage, at which point Apple
`will demonstrate they have no merit in fact. The rest should be dismissed now.
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`Procedural History.
`Apple filed this lawsuit against Corellium on August 15, 2019. In its complaint, Apple
`alleges that Corellium’s entire business is based on infringing copyrights central to some of
`Apple’s most important products—the iOS operating system and GUI Elements that power
`Apple’s iPhone and related mobile devices. ECF No. 1. Corellium answered the complaint on
`October 28, 2019, and brought two counterclaims based on Apple’s alleged failure to pay monies
`owed under Apple’s Security Bounty Program. ECF No. 41. Apple moved to dismiss those
`counterclaims, and Corellium amended its answer, turning two claims into twelve—all based on
`the same alleged failure to pay for seven software “bugs” submitted in connection with Apple’s
`Security Bounty Program. ECF No. 48. Thereafter, after Corellium admitted in its discovery
`responses to violating a portion of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) by trafficking
`in a product designed to circumvent Apple’s security measures, Apple added a claim under that
`Act as well. ECF No. 56 ¶¶ 71–77. Corellium answered on January 10, 2020, asserting the same
`twelve counterclaims. ECF No. 64 at 28–57. Apple later amended its complaint solely to remove
`5 of 22 copyrighted works and Corellium filed a virtually identical answer. ECF Nos. 589, 599.
`While Corellium denies infringing Apple’s works and trafficking in technology intended
`to circumvent measures that control access to Apple’s works (in boilerplate fashion, see ECF No.
`599 at 16–20), its answer acknowledges that its product, which it sells for profit, “utilizes . . .
`Apple’s technology,” id. at 6, and permits users to “execut[e] iOS on different [non-Apple]
`hardware,” id. at 7. Corellium also acknowledges that its product competes directly with Apple’s
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 608 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2020 Page 13 of 30
`
`
`own security products. Id. at 11–13. Its principal defense appears to be its assertion that its
`admittedly derivative product, which it admits competes with Apple’s, and which allows
`purchasers to copy, display, modify, and use identical versions of Apple’s copyrighted works,
`without consent from Apple, is somehow so “transformative” that it does not infringe. Id. at 3–7.
`Separately, Corellium brings twelve counterclaims based on Apple’s alleged failure to pay
`monies owed under its Security Bounty Program, in which Corellium alleges it is a participant.
`Id. at 29–57 (Counterclaims ¶¶ 5–175).
`B.
`Apple Security Bounty Program.
`The Apple Security Bounty Program is a “program to reward the contributions of external
`researchers who help to identify ways that Apple can further strengthen the security” of Apple’s
`products. Apple Security Bounty Program Policy, Ex. B at 1.2 Apple created this program to
`incentivize security researchers to tell Apple about bugs in iOS that they have found so that Apple
`can fix them. This program is just one of the many things Apple does to encourage good-faith
`security research and protect its customers.
`The Apple Security Bounty Program is a contractual arrangement. As Corellium
`acknowledged in its original Answer and Counterclaims, and thus cannot dispute now, participants
`in the program must create an Apple developer account (ECF No. 42 at 23–24 (Counterclaims
`¶¶ 10, 17)) and, in so doing, agree to the Apple Developer Agreement. Participants in the Apple
`Security Bounty Program—like Corellium founder Chris Wade—must also agree to the Apple
`Security Bounty Program Policy, which is incorporated by reference into the Developer
`Agreement. See Ex. A ¶ 9;3 Ex. B; see also ECF No. 599 at 31 (Counterclaims ¶¶ 19–20) (restating
`
`2 Corellium acknowledges the Apple Security Bounty Program “is governed by” the Apple
`Security Bounty Program Policy. See, e.g., ECF No. 599 at 29 (Counterclaims ¶ 10). Because the
`Apple Security Bounty Program Policy, which is part of the Apple Developer Agreement, is
`central to Corellium’s counterclaims and its authenticity is not challenged, consideration of that
`express agreement as part of Apple’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion is appropriate. See Speaker v. U.S.
`Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, 623 F.3d 1371, 1379
`(11th Cir. 2010).
`3 The Apple Developer Agreement states the following regarding additional terms, such as the
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 608 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2020 Page 14 of 30
`
`
`portions of the Apple Security Bounty Program Policy). While Corellium modified its
`allegations—after seeing Apple’s first motion to dismiss (ECF No. 44)—to state that “the policy
`is a proposed course of action—not a contract or agreement,” ECF No. 599 at 29 (Counterclaims
`¶ 10), that naked allegation is belied by the remainder of Corellium’s allegations, which repeatedly
`discuss the “assurance” and “promise” that Apple allegedly breached. See Section III, infra. And
`when documents relied on in a complaint “contradict the general and conclusory allegations of the
`pleading,” the documents govern. Picktown Foods, LLC v. Tim Hortons USA, Inc., No. 17-21072-
`CIV, 2017 WL 9854073, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 8, 2017).
`The Apple Security Bounty Program Policy (the “Policy”) sets forth the program’s
`parameters, including what makes a bug eligible for a reward, see Ex. B at 1 (“Program
`Eligibility”); ECF No. 599 at 31 (Counterclaims ¶ 19) (listing a number of the same factors), and
`the maximum potential value for reporting particular types of bugs, see Ex. B at 1 (“Payments”);
`ECF No. 599 at 34, 40, 42, 51, 53 (Counterclaims ¶¶ 29, 57, 69, 132, 145) (incorporating the
`Policy’s valuation measure by reference). The Policy also explains Apple’s role in adjudicating
`whether and when reward payments for bug submissions will be made, and explains that the
`program is limited to bugs related to iOS and iCloud only; as a result, bugs related to other Apple
`operating systems, including macOS (Apple’s computer operating system), are ineligible.4 See
`Ex. B at 1 (“Program Eligibility”); ECF No. 599 at 31 (Counterclaims ¶ 19) (acknowledging that
`the bug must be “present in the most recent version of iOS” to be eligible).
`
`
`Apple Security Bounty Program Policy: “You will be responsible for reviewing and becoming
`familiar with any such modifications (including new terms, updates, revisions, supplements,
`modifications, and additional rules, policies, terms and conditions) (“Additional Terms”)
`communicated to you by Apple. All Additional Terms are hereby incorporated into this
`Agreement by this reference and your continued use of the Site will indicate your acceptance of
`any Additional Terms.” Ex. A ¶ 9 (emphasis omitted).
`4 The foregoing refers to the Apple Security Bounty Program in place at the times relevant to this
`dispute. On August 8, 2019, Apple announced that it will be expanding its Apple Security Bounty
`Program to cover additional Apple operating systems, including macOS, in the future. See Tom
`Warren, Apple extends its bug bounty program to cover macOS with $1 million in rewards, The
`Verge (Aug. 8, 2019), https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/8/20756638/apple-macos-security-bug-
`bounty-rewards-program.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 9:19-cv-81160-RS Document 608 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2020 Page 15 of 30
`
`
`C.
`Corellium’s Claims Against Apple.
`Corellium has now asserted twelve counterclaims against Apple: two claims under the
`Declaratory Judgment Act (Counts I and II); two claims for constructive fraud under California
`and Florida law, respectively (Counts III and IV); three claims for a violation of California
`Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. (Counts V, VI, and X); one claim under Florida’s
`Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida Statutes § 501.201, et seq. (Count VII); two
`claims for unjust enrichment/quantum meruit, under California and Florida law, respectively
`(Counts VIII and IX); and two claims, in the alternative, for breach of contract under California
`and Florida law, respectively (Counts XII and XIII). All but the declaratory judgment claims
`allege that Corellium submitted bugs to Apple that should have resulted in compensation under
`the Policy, but for which Apple has not paid compensation. ECF No. 599 at 39–57 (Counterclaims
`¶¶ 48–175). The declaratory judgment claims, in turn, seek to have the Court declare that the
`Policy is not a binding agreement between Corellium and Apple. Id. at 37–38 (Counterclaims
`¶¶ 38–47).
`While the Court must accept Corellium’s allegations as true for the purpose of evaluating
`a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), it bears mention that in reality, the claims are factually false. Each
`of the five bugs submitted prior to the filing of this lawsuit was ineligible for compensation under
`the terms of the Apple Security Bounty Program. And except in the two contract claims (which
`are pled in the alternative and not incorporated into counts subject to this motion), Corellium does
`not allege otherwise. As for the remaining two bugs, Apple has since determined that they are
`eligible for monetary rewards.
`
`ARGUMENT
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), if “the facts as pled” in a party’s claims
`“do not state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face, the count must be dismissed.” Virgilio
`v. Ryland Grp., Inc., 680 F.3d 1329, 1334 (11th Cir. 2012). And when the facts as pled do not
`establish an e