A new report suggests that Apple is retaining Gibson Dunn lawyers in order to fight back the case thrown at them by Epic Games. These are the same lawyers that Apple used in its court battle against Samsung.
As per FOSS Patents, the lawyers have been confirmed a little less than a day before the deadline that Apple was given by the judge to respond to Epic Game's lawsuit. These lawyers include Daniel G. Swanson, Richard J. Doren, and Jay P. Srinivasan.
As per Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, Gibson Dunn has represented Apple many times in the past. Some of these cases include high profile ones like Apple v Samsung and Apple v Qualcomm. Gibson Dunn will be going against the same firm that represented Qualcomm, Swaine & Moore, which will also be representing Epic Games in the court battle which is going schedule to start on Monday via a Zoom call.
Florian Mueller believes that Epic's attempt to gain a temporary restraining order against Apple's ban on Fortnite in the App Store might fail. There are two reasons for it on which the court might disagree with Epic Games. The first issue would be that why can't Epic Games honor their agreement with Apple which they had signed up for, respected for many years, and earned around a billion dollars.
Epic's motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), a type of court order that comes down even faster and is even more preliminary in nature than a preliminary injunction, faces a high hurdle. The court is almost certainly going to ask why Epic can't just live and comply with the same app developer agreement it had been honoring for years, gladly making a billion-dollar amount, while this litigation is ongoing. Monetary damages would be available even though Epic is so far seeking only injunctive relief.
The second issue raised by Florian Mueller is that Epic Games' counsel will be questioned as to why they are not requesting a temporary restraining order against Google, in the same district, in the same way, that they are seeking it against Apple. Google has also banned Fortnite from the Play Store because Epic Games did not follow the terms of service with its direct payment software update.
Counsel for Epic may also have to explain why at least one aspect of the TRO they are seeking against Apple--Fortnite's availability on the App Store--isn't being pursued through a similar motion against Google in the same district, at least not yet.
Even though the media is squeezing every drop out of the Apple v Epic Games battle, things are only beginning to heat up. We will know more once Apple responds to Epic Games' motion in court on Monday.
