Apple lost an initial challenge in its lawsuit against Corellium, a security company that offers a virtualized version of iOS for security testing. Deciding on a summary judgment request, the presiding judge dismissed Apple’s copyright infringement claim on Corellium software, concluding that Corellium’s use of Apple’s code constitutes fair use. The judge postponed the decision on a separate charge for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), but the result is still a significant setback for the iPhone manufacturer’s legal case. The news was first reported by The Washington Post.
In particular, the judge concluded that additional resources within the Corellium tool reinforced his fair use case, particularly the ability to modify the kernel or to observe and interrupt processes.
“Corellium makes several changes to iOS and incorporates its own code to create a product that serves a transformative purpose,” wrote the judge in his decision. “Consequently, Corellium’s profit motive does not undermine its defense of fair use, especially considering the public benefit of the product.”
Crucially, the court did not dismiss the entire Apple case. Apple claimed that Corellium circumvented its authentication server and secure boot chain, among other measures, violating the DMCA’s prohibition on circumventing copy protection measures. Corellium also set up a fair use defense against the DMCA charges, but the judge did not find it convincing enough to dismiss the DMCA allegations before a full trial.
Apple filed its copyright lawsuit against Corellium in August 2019, adding alleged DMCA violations to the case in January. Throughout the case, Apple insisted that its goal is “not to overwhelm security research in good faith, but to end the illegal commercialization of Corellium of Apple’s valuable copyrighted works.” Still, the process has been alarming for many security companies that rely on Corellium products for iOS analysis.
The Oracle v. Google cast a great shadow over the trial and is cited several times in the decision as a prominent example of a copyright claim on software. However, the judge concluded that the case had little to do with specific allegations made by Apple.