Epic Games, Inc v Apple Inc

In Epic Games, Inc v Apple Inc, the primary judge had granted a stay of proceedings to the defendant Apple Inc, compelling the plaintiff Epic Games to litigate its claims in the United States. Epic appealed this decision to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issues were whether the primary judge had erred in considering whether there were strong reasons to refuse the stay and whether public policy considerations mandated that the proceeding remain in the Federal Court. The Full Court found that the primary judge had erred in his consideration of the strong reasons inquiry, failing to make a cumulative assessment of the reasons presented by Epic. The Full Court held that Epic had demonstrated strong reasons not to enforce the exclusive jurisdiction clause due to the significant advantages provided by Australian law, such as the statutory presumption of no undue influence in s 84 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). Furthermore, the Full Court found that public policy considerations, while not mandating the proceeding remain in the Federal Court, did indicate strong reasons for the proceeding to stay in Australia. Accordingly, the Full Court set aside the primary judge's orders granting the stay and dismissed Apple's application. The Full Court also ordered that Apple pay Epic's costs of the interlocutory application and the appeal.