Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06050/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-06050-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

Case No. 16-cv-06050-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER 

SEAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

X ONE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.16-cv-06050-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 279, 282

On October 3, 2019, Plaintiff X One, Inc. filed an administrative motion to file under seal 

Plaintiff’s Request for Reconsideration, Further Objections and Notice of Second Patent Claim 

Reduction. ECF No. 279. On October 15, 2019, the Court denied the administrative motion to 

file under seal. ECF No. 283. However, this denial was made in error, without considering the 

declaration in support of sealing filed by Defendant Uber Technologies on October 7, 2019. ECF 

No. 282. The Court now GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the administrative motion to file 

under seal. 

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 285 Filed 10/16/19 Page 1 of 5
2

Case No. 16-cv-06050-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER 

SEAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Thus, when considering a sealing request, “a strong presumption in 

favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of 

overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 

447 F.3d at 1178–79 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Compelling reasons 

justifying the sealing of court records generally exist “when such ‘court files might have become a 

vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 

scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 

U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s 

embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the 

court to seal its records.” Id.

By contrast, records attached to non-dispositive motions generally are not subject to the 

strong presumption of access, provided those motions are “not related, or only tangentially related, 

to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 

1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive 

motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the 

underlying cause of action.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Parties moving to 

seal records attached to motions unrelated or only tangentially related to the merits of a case need 

only meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098–99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80. 

In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established 

by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request 

that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged, protectable as a trade secret or 

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). “The request must be narrowly 

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 285 Filed 10/16/19 Page 2 of 5
3

Case No. 16-cv-06050-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER 

SEAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Id. 

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), in turn, requires the submitting party to attach a “declaration 

establishing that the document sought to be filed under seal, or portions thereof, are sealable,” a 

“proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material,” and a proposed order 

that “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as 

an “unredacted version of the document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, 

the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id.

The first question before the Court is whether the instant motion to seal is subject to the 

good cause or compelling reasons standard. Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s Request for 

Reconsideration, Further Objections and Notice of Second Patent Claim Reduction is a nondispositive filing, and the Court agrees. The Request for Reconsideration, Further Objections and 

Notice of Second Patent Claim Reduction concerns the Court’s case narrowing order, and not to 

the merits of the case. A “good cause” showing is therefore sufficient to support sealing. 

“Compelling reasons”—and a fortiori, “good cause”—exist when the publication of court 

files “could result in infringement upon trade secrets.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 

1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). The Ninth Circuit has adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set 

forth in the Restatement of Torts: “A trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or 

compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to 

obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 

1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972) (quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b). “Generally [a 

trade secret] relates to the production of goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or 

to other operations in the business. . . .” Id. (ellipses in original). In addition, the U.S. Supreme 

Court has recognized that sealing may be justified to prevent judicial documents from being used 

“as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 

U.S. at 598. 

Defendant contends that the redacted portions of the Request for Reconsideration, Further 

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 285 Filed 10/16/19 Page 3 of 5
4

Case No. 16-cv-06050-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER 

SEAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Objections and Notice of Second Patent Claim Reduction contain confidential information about 

the “functionality and operation of Uber’s applications.” ECF No. 282 ¶ 2. Having reviewed the 

information to be redacted, the Court agrees that much of the information reveals insights into the

technical operation of Uber’s applications, and that disclosure of this information would harm 

Uber’s competitive standing in the ride-sharing industry. The applications are, in essence, the 

“goods” that Uber “produces,” which makes information about their technical operation a “trade 

secret.” See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 747 F. App’x at 466 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding “information 

concerning the vehicles’ design and development details” to be trade secrets). Therefore, “good 

cause” for sealing exists.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court rules on the instant motion as follows:

Document Page/Line Ruling

Request for Reconsideration, 

Further Objections and Notice of 

Second Patent Claim Reduction

Page 2, lines 15-16 GRANTED. 

Request for Reconsideration, 

Further Objections and Notice of 

Second Patent Claim Reduction

Page 2, lines 20-21 DENIED. The information 

Defendant seeks to seal is publicly

disclosed in the preceding sentence, 

e.g., “Uber receives maps from 

multiple third-party providers.”

Request for Reconsideration, 

Further Objections and Notice of 

Second Patent Claim Reduction

Page 2, lines 27-28 GRANTED.

Request for Reconsideration, 

Further Objections and Notice of 

Second Patent Claim Reduction

Page 3, lines 5-6 GRANTED.

Request for Reconsideration, 

Further Objections and Notice of 

Second Patent Claim Reduction

Page 3, lines 5-6 GRANTED.

Plaintiff shall file its Request for Reconsideration, Further Objections and Notice of 

Second Patent Claim Reduction in accordance with this order by October 22, 2019. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2019

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 285 Filed 10/16/19 Page 4 of 5
5

Case No. 16-cv-06050-LHK

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER 

SEAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-06050-LHK Document 285 Filed 10/16/19 Page 5 of 5