Opinion ID: 2812632
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ATTM’s Arbitration Agreement

Text: Apple also contends that ATTM has an interest in this action because the district court will have to construe the arbitration provisions in the WSA. This argument is likewise without merit. As long as ATTM is not a party, any construction of the arbitration clause will likely focus on whether Apple may use ATTM’s arbitration clause for Apple’s benefit. See 874 F. Supp. 2d at 898–99 (holding that Apple, as a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, did not satisfy the requirements to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel, and declining to compel the plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims against Apple). 30 WARD V. APPLE, INC. ATTM does not have a legally protected interest in whether Apple may compel arbitration. Nor will the district court’s construction of the arbitration clause bind ATTM, a nonparty, in future actions. See Blonder-Tongue, 402 U.S. at 329. For the above reasons, we hold that Apple has not demonstrated that ATTM has a legally protected interest in this action.