The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has thrown out a lawsuit by Blix claiming that Apple stifles third-party apps in App Store searches in favor of its own services. A judge also dismissed another claim by Blix alleging that Apple copied its ‘Sign in with Apple’ feature from the company.
App developer Blix filed the lawsuit against the Cupertino tech giant in February this year. The developer behind the BlueMail email management app claimed that Apple not only stole its anonymous email sign-in feature with “Sign in with Apple,” but it also “suppressed” Blix’s iPhone app in search results and kicked its macOS app out of the App Store.
Judge throws out Blix claim that Apple suppresses competition in App Store
The judge ruled that Blix failed to present direct or indirect evidence of Apple’s monopoly power or anticompetitive conduct in violation of the Sherman Act. The judge further stated that Apple having the power to restrict competition is not the same as stating that it actually did this since Blix could not prove the allegation:
“Apple Inc. won’t face claims it manipulated search results in its iOS and macOS App Stores to suppress competition after a federal judge in Delaware partially dismissed a lawsuit filed by email app maker Blitz Inc. Monday.
Blix alleged Apple copied patented messaging technology for its “Sign In With Apple” feature, then removed the developers’ app, BlueMail, from its App Store. The tech giant uses App Store search results to push consumers toward Apple products, suppressing third-party competition, the suit said.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed the antitrust claims without prejudice, concluding Blix failed to plead direct or indirect evidence of Apple’s monopoly power or anticompetitive conduct in violation of the Sherman Act.”
Blix had also sued Apple over the ‘Sign in with Apple’ feature introduced in iOS 13. Blix says it patented this in 2017 under its ‘Share Email’ feature, which enables public messaging without revealing a user’s true address:
“The challenged claim relies on the abstract idea of using a proxy to facilitate anonymous communications, Stark said. The claim doesn’t fall under an exception to patent eligibility that allows for abstract ideas to be patented if they describe a unique and inventive concept, he wrote.”
via Bloomberg Law
Read More:
2 comments
Comments are closed.