Apple antitrust hearing

[Cmaier]

Not sure what this one is about, exactly - I don’t have time to look at the docket and read the motions, but it looks like maybe an expert, in his reply report, exceeded the scope of the opposition he was supposed to be responding to, or relied on undisclosed evidence or something.

12/14/2021 - 10:00AM

4:11-cv-06714-YGR - In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litigation CLERKS NOTICE SETTING ZOOM HEARING FOR THE Motion to Strike or Exclude Reply Testimony of Professor Daniel L. McFadden Hearing [578] set for Tuesday, 12/14/2021 10:00 AM via Zoom Webinar Videoconference before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar. Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygr General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots orother visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited. Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/. Motion Hearing set for 12/14/2021 10:00 AM via Zoom Webinar Videoconference Only before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. (Related documents(s) [578])

 

[Cmaier]

Ah, it’s a Daubert motion. This type of motion means that an expert is alleged to not have an accepted scientific (or legally acceptable) basis for his or her report. (In this case, it is Apple arguing that Epic’s expert used unreliable methods to determine that the class of plaintiffs are all impacted (or impacted in the same way, which is necessary for a class action)).

 

[Cmaier]

Epic lawyer is going apoplectic. As lawyers say, if the facts are on your side argue the facts. If not, argue the law. And if that doesn’t work, pound your shoe on the table.

 

[Yoused]

Let us know if he goes for the Chewbacca strategy.

 

[Joelist]

Epic already lost most of their claims including their ludicrous market definition. This is Apple going for a kill shot on the only claim left, which is under CA state law not federal.

 

[Cmaier]

Epic already lost most of their claims including their ludicrous market definition. This is Apple going for a kill shot on the only claim left, which is under CA state law not federal.

Actually i think it’s not epic, but some other plaintiff? A different case, where the alleged class is consumers? It’s hard to follow.

 

[Joelist]

Epic may not be THIS plaintiff, but an Apple win here automatically kills the only thing Epic won on in their case. Without a valid class there was no injured group for their CA law claim.

 

[Cmaier]

Epic may not be THIS plaintiff, but an Apple win here automatically kills the only thing Epic won on in their case. Without a valid class there was no injured group for their CA law claim.

Seems like the plaintiff has a potential problem here, due in large part to a recent Supreme Court decision regarding apple and class certification.

 

[SuperMatt]

Apple gets injunction stayed as predicted AND deals major blow to Epic-Spotify-Tinder Coalition for App Fairness: U.S. appeals court denies motion to file amicus brief

Epic fail. By that wordplay I don't mean the order by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granting Apple's motion to ...

www.fosspatents.com

 

[Joelist]

Not only does Apple get their stay (and the cite on the stay indicates the end result will be the injunction is tossed completely) but the tossing of the Amicus and its language all but outright calls the Coalition for App Fairness a sock puppet for Epic and not a real advocacy group.