After being given a second chance to formally respond to Apple’s lawsuit, Jon Prosser filed his response today, challenging the company’s account of how it obtained and published details about the Liquid Glass revamp. Here are the details.
A little background
A few days ago, US District Judge James Donato granted Jon Prosser’s request to annul the default came in against him and gave him another chance to respond to Apple’s complaint.
The rebellion had been dictated against him after missed several deadlines to respond to Apple’s complaint about the Liquid Glass redesign leak, which essentially meant that he could no longer formally contest the company’s allegations, and the lawsuit would continue without his participation.
That was a very different situation than the suit’s other co-defendant, Michael Ramacciotti, who had stayed at the home of now-former Apple employee Ethan Lipnik, whose iPhone development became the source of the leak.
According to Apple’s complaint, Ramacciotti learned the device’s passcode and accessed it without Lipnik’s knowledge while he was away. He then joined a FaceTime call with Prosser and showed him a development build of what would eventually become iOS 26.
Prosser would post two different videos with recreated versions of the leaked interface changes and app redesigns.
After Apple announced iOS 26, the company filed a federal lawsuit against Ramacciotti and Prosser, accusing them of misappropriation of trade secrets and violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
While Ramacciotti responded quickly and began cooperating with the discovery process, Prosser missed several deadlines and did not formally respond to the complaint. However, he disputed characterization that he ignored the case, saying he had been “in active communication with Apple since the initial stages” of the lawsuit.
Despite its claims, Apple asked the court to declare a breach against it, and the court granted the request.
Prosser eventually hired a lawyer and, after agreeing to file outstanding discovery, worked with Apple to jointly ask the court to vacate the breach. The two sides argued that allowing him to participate would be the most efficient way to move the case forward.
Judge James Donato granted the request and brings us to today.
Prosser responds
In a document filed today, Prosser disputes several aspects of Apple’s complaint, chief among them the allegation that he “planned or participated in any conspiracy or coordinated scheme (…) for the purpose of harming Apple.
From the presentation:
Prosser denies having conspired to break into iPhone development by Apple employees to seize Apple’s secrets, and denies having participated in any conspiracy or coordinated scheme alleged by Apple.
According to the document, Prosser “did not agree to anything (such as paying Ramacciotti) prior to the communications and actions of others.”
The document adds that “any payment made by Prosser was subsequent to the alleged theft.”
Prosser’s response admits that he participated in and recorded a FaceTime call with Ramacciotti where details of what became iOS 26 were revealed, but claims that Prosser did not know that the iPhone belonged to Lipnick, or “whether iOS 19 was in fact ‘unreleased’.”
As for payment, the document states that “Prosser admits to sharing a portion of YouTube advertising revenue with Ramacciotti after the publication of Prosser’s videos to maintain exclusive communication with Ramacciotti,” but adds that “once Prosser learned how Ramacciotti acquired the proprietary information, he disconnected communication with Ramacciotti.”
He also frames Prosser’s three videos as “reporting on information given to him, like any news organization would report on exclusives.”
Finally, the response states that “Ramacciotti’s act of showing off the features was not induced by Prosser and, as such, Ramacciotti is fully responsible for the disclosure of Apple’s alleged trade secrets, if any.”
Regarding the repair requested by Apple, the document questions whether the company has suffered any damage, argues that the alleged losses are speculative and affirms that Apple did not mitigate them.
Prosser asks the court to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice (meaning Apple would be barred from bringing the same claims again), award him attorneys’ fees and costs, and grant him a jury trial on all eligible issues.
You can read his full response below:
What is your opinion on Jon Prosser’s answer? Let us know in the comments.
Worth checking out on Amazon
FTC: We use automatic affiliate links that generate income. Further.
