`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`IDENTITY SECURITY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-58-ADA
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`The Court, having held a discovery hearing on October 24, 2023, hereby orders as follows
`
`Order
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`with respect to that hearing between Plaintiff Identity Security LLC (“Identity Security”) and
`
`Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”):
`
`(1)
`
`Identity Security seeks to compel Apple to produce certain “indirect” financial information
`
`relating to revenues received by Apple with respect to the Accused Products. For example,
`
`Identity Security seeks revenue information with respect to (i) “Apple Pay”; (ii) Apple’s
`
`“App Store”; and (iii) subscriptions from the App Store. The Court grants Identity
`
`Security’s motion to compel. Apple is ordered to provide discovery to Identity Security
`
`disclosing usage and revenue information for Apple Pay, the App Store, and subscriptions
`
`from the App Store. Given the current stage of the case, Apple is ordered to produce this
`
`information in a readily accessible manner, and the parties are ordered to work together to
`
`coordinate any scheduling changes necessary to accommodate these productions. Identity
`
`Security is not presently seeking a witness on these productions.
`
`(2)
`
`In connection with two prior discovery hearings, Apple agreed to provide an interrogatory
`
`response identifying any alleged non-infringing alternatives it intends to advance in this
`
`litigation, Dkt. 140 ¶ 10, and to provide 30(b)(6) testimony on its interrogatory response
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00058-ADA Document 157 Filed 11/03/23 Page 2 of 3
`
`and the related non-infringing alternatives, see Dkt. 150 ¶ 4. Identity Security seeks to
`
`preclude Apple from offering any non-infringing alternatives in this litigation based on the
`
`timing of Apple’s related interrogatory response. The Court denies that relief. However,
`
`Identity Security does not waive the right to seek to strike any alleged non-infringing
`
`alternatives not adequately identified in the October 17 interrogatory response should
`
`Apple come forward with them in the future.
`
`(3)
`
`Identity Security seeks to compel Apple to produce any licenses produced in two other
`
`actions: (1) R.N. Neushtan Trust Ltd. v. Apple (“RNN”) 22-cv-1832-WHO (ND Cal); and
`
`(2) Lionra Technologies v Apple (“Lionra”), 23-cv-00513-ADA (WD Tex). Prior to the
`
`hearing, Apple agreed to produce the licenses already produced in the RNN case that have
`
`not yet been produced here and represented that no licenses have been produced in the
`
`Lionra case. The Court therefore denies this request for relief as moot. Identity Security is
`
`not seeking a witness on this license production.
`
`(4)
`
`Identity Security seeks productions showing the user interface for any applications of the
`
`Accused Functionality, including Touch ID, Face ID, Passcode, Apple ID, and name
`
`functionality. In other words, Identity Security seeks, for example, “what an individual
`
`would see when they set up an iPhone, what would an individual see when they’re trying
`
`to use touch ID or face ID.” Oct. 24 Hr’g Tr. 25:17–19. Apple is ordered to produce
`
`documents and/or videos showing such user interfaces for the applications of the Accused
`
`Functionality and startup functionality for each iteration of the individual operating
`
`systems for the Accused Products. Oct. 24 Hr’g Tr. at 23:15-32:4.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00058-ADA Document 157 Filed 11/03/23 Page 3 of 3
`
`It is so ORDERED.
`
`SIGNED this 3rd day of November, 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
