Opinion ID: 2812632
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Right to Control Unlock Codes

Text: The Plaintiffs seek a judgment “[o]rdering Apple to provide the unlock code upon request to all members of the Class . . . .” Apple contends that this injunctive relief would conflict with ATTM’s purported contractual right to prevent Apple from unlocking ATTM customers’ iPhones. As a threshold matter, we must determine whether the record supports a finding that ATTM currently has such a right. The only possible sources of this right in the record are brief excerpts of agreements between Apple and ATTM from 2006 and 2011, and the right is not embodied therein. We begin with the excerpt from the 2006 agreement. The limited excerpt in the record clearly states that any right of ATTM to control unlock codes was only to last during the “Term and the Wind-Down Period.” As Apple’s counsel conceded at oral argument, there is nothing in the record defining the term or wind-down period. Without a definition of the term or wind-down period, we cannot determine whether ATTM still has the right Apple claims it has. We therefore find that the excerpt of the 2006 agreement does not demonstrate that ATTM has any existing right to control unlock codes. We next turn to the excerpt of the 2011 agreement. The first clause of this excerpt appears to condition Apple’s obligation not to unlock iPhones on its use of a SIM solution not offered by AT&T’s SIM suppliers. There is no evidence in the record that Apple ever employed such a solution. In the absence of such evidence, we cannot determine whether ATTM currently has a right to control unlock codes, and cannot find that injunctive relief ordering Apple to disclose 28 WARD V. APPLE, INC. unlock codes would impair ATTM’s rights under its contracts with Apple.3