{"id":69079,"date":"2026-06-11T01:23:35","date_gmt":"2026-06-10T23:23:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/?p=69079"},"modified":"2026-06-11T01:25:47","modified_gmt":"2026-06-10T23:25:47","slug":"apple-jon-prosser-default-judgment-overturned","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/en\/news\/apple-jon-prosser-versaeumnisurteil-aufheben","title":{"rendered":"Apple and Jon Prosser want to overturn the default judgment"},"content":{"rendered":"

The legal battle over the Liquid Glass leak has taken a surprising turn: Apple and Jon Prosser's lawyer have jointly asked the court to overturn the default judgment issued against him last October. This could give the leaker a chance to formally respond to the lawsuit after all.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Last year, Apple took legal action against Jon Prosser, filing a lawsuit over the Liquid Glass design leak<\/a>. However, the leaker subsequently put himself in a difficult position: because he missed several deadlines for responding to the lawsuit, a default judgment was issued against him \u2013 initially depriving him of the right to even present a substantive defense. A court document that has now come to light reveals, however, that both sides have agreed to lift this default judgment \u2013 for quite different reasons: Prosser would thus have the opportunity to defend himself after all, while Apple primarily hopes the move will provide faster access to the necessary evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the proceedings are about<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Apple sued not only Prosser but also Michael Ramacciotti. According to court documents detailing the alleged actions of the two defendants<\/a>, Ramacciotti secretly accessed the iPhone of Apple employee Ethan Lipnick and, in exchange for payment, showed him a version of iOS 26 that was still under development. Lipnick was subsequently fired. The leaked images concerned the later officially unveiled Liquid Glass redesign.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While court documents indicate that Ramacciotti cooperated with the lawsuit from the outset, Prosser allegedly missed several deadlines for responding to the complaint. Prosser, however, has disputed this account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How the default judgment came about<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

After the deadline for filing a defense expired without Prosser being challenged<\/a>, the court granted Apple's request for a default judgment against him last October. In practical terms, this meant he forfeited his right to formally contest the allegations in court - the proceedings would have continued without his substantive defense. In the months that followed, the case progressed even without his participation<\/a>, while Apple pressed ahead with the production of evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

New lawyer, new attempt<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Things started moving in mid-April. Two days after Apple and Ramacciotti submitted a joint status report \u2013 in which Apple still referred to Prosser's outstanding cooperation<\/a> \u2013 a newly appointed lawyer for Prosser issued his own report. In it, he stated that he had only recently been retained and announced that Prosser would swiftly seek to have the default judgment overturned and would present compelling defenses against Apple's allegations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both sides request the annulment<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In a document<\/a> filed yesterday and published today, Apple and Prosser have jointly requested the court to lift the default judgment. Apple argues that, given the recent appointment of counsel and Prosser's commitment to promptly disclose evidence during discovery proceedings, lifting the judgment is the most efficient way to move the case forward without further delay. Apple is therefore not opposing the lifting, and both parties have expressed their agreement, subject to court confirmation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decision rests with the court<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Even if Apple does not file an objection, the matter is not yet settled. Judge James Donato must first approve the agreement before the default judgment is officially lifted. Only then would Prosser actually have the opportunity to defend himself against the lawsuit. For Apple, on the other hand, an orderly continuation with the participation of both parties offers the prospect of clarifying the full extent of access to internal information during the evidentiary hearing. (Image: Shutterstock \/ KinoMasterskaya)<\/p>\n\n\n\n