Ace Breaking News – Apple won against Envirodigm in a trade secret lawsuit surrounding iphone’s anodization process, but an appeal has revived the case in the hopes of catching Apple in some wrongdoing Appleinsider Wesley Hilliard Published: Oct 15 2026, 10:45 PM EDT

A little-known lawsuit was brought against Apple in 2020 by Envirodigm alleging trade secret theft. The company said it had a meeting with Apple in August 2013, revealed a secret anodization process that could be used for iPhone, then Apple used that process from 2015 on without involving Envirodigm.

Apple went on to win the case via summary judgment due to Envirodigm’s failure to disclose the formula Apple allegedly stole. According to a report from Bloomberg Law, Apple has told the California appeals panel that its summary judgement should be upheld.

“First off, if you don’t disclose it in your trade secret disclosure, as precedent holds, “you lose the claim,” Apple’s representative Michael von Loewenfeldt said to the panel. “That’s what happened here, plain and simple.”

The original trial

Envirodigm is a consulting company which Apple hired to ask questions about the anodization process it wanted to use for future iPhone models. The consultant was brought on after the 2012 “Scuffgate” involving iPhone 5.

The company disclosed its secret formula under a non-disclosure agreement during the August 2013 meeting. Apple didn’t involve the company after that, but the lawsuit alleges Apple took the formula, perfected it, and used it starting in 2015 iPhones.

Apple essentially uses the same process today.

The case reached summary judgment in favor of Apple in the first place because California case law says undisclosed or vaguely described trade secrets can’t form the basis for misappropriation claims.

Envirodigm’s appeal

The appeal appears to shrug this loss off, arguing that it still has the ability to form a case around the breach of a non-disclosure agreement. Envirodigm’s lawyer argues the breach of contract claims can be made independently of the trade secret misappropriation claim, which they lost.

“Apple has conceded that it used that two-to-one ratio of organic to inorganic acid in order to anodize the aluminum iPhone body,” Envirodigm’s representative said. “They started experimenting with that within two months of the August 2013 meeting, and they’ve used it to manufacture iPhones from 2015 through basically ever since.”

Where the appeal goes from here depends entirely on if the appeal panel decides there is merit in Envirodigm’s argument that the breach of contract and misappropriation arguments are separate matters. Apple has made it clear that it believes there is “no daylight” between the two topics, and both should be treated with the same summary judgement and end the appeal.

At Sterling Publishing & Media Service Agency, we prioritise transparency and accountability in all our operations. We wish to clarify that we are not responsible for any external content, hyperlinks, or costs associated with our services. Nevertheless, we remain committed to delivering outstanding services and greatly value your continued support. Thank you for your trust in us.