Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04173/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04173-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

1

Case No. 16-CV-04173-LHK

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND ADDRESSING 

SEALING MOTIONS

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

GOOGLE INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

IXI MOBILE (R&D) LTD., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.16-CV-04173-LHK 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE AND ADDRESSING

SEALING MOTIONS

Plaintiff Google Inc. (“Plaintiff”) sues Defendants IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd. and IXI IP, 

LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of United States

Patent No. 7,552,124 (“the ‘124 Patent”). Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss for lack of 

personal jurisdiction. ECF No. 25. Plaintiff has also filed an administrative motion to file under 

seal portions of the complaint, ECF No. 4, and an administrative motion to file under seal portions 

of its opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss and related exhibits, ECF No. 26. 

The parties have informed the Court that Plaintiff has filed a Petition for Inter Partes 

Review (“the Petition”) of the ‘124 Patent with the United States Patent & Trademark Office

(“PTO”). The parties jointly request a stay of this case until the PTO either denies institution of 

Case 5:16-cv-04173-LHK Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 1 of 6
2

Case No. 16-CV-04173-LHK

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND ADDRESSING 

SEALING MOTIONS

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

the petition on all claims or provides a final written decision on any instituted claims. The Court 

intends to grant the parties’ request for a stay and will do so in a separate order. Accordingly, 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is DENIED without prejudice. 

The Court has reviewed Defendant’s motions to file under seal portions of the complaint 

and portions of its opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss and related exhibits. “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 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 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. 

for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), 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 (9th Cir. 2006). 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.

Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 

of a case,” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. 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 omitted)). 

Parties moving to seal records attached to motions unrelated or only tangentially related to the 

Case 5:16-cv-04173-LHK Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 2 of 6
3

Case No. 16-CV-04173-LHK

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND ADDRESSING 

SEALING MOTIONS

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

merits of a case must 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. The 

“good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will 

result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th 

Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 

examples or articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 

470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

Pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court 

documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential research, 

development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The Ninth Circuit has 

adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the Restatement of Torts, holding that “[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.

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 

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), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that 

is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format each 

Case 5:16-cv-04173-LHK Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 3 of 6
4

Case No. 16-CV-04173-LHK

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND ADDRESSING 

SEALING MOTIONS

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

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. R. 79-5(d)(1).

Here, as discussed above, Plaintiff moves to file under seal portions of the complaint, ECF 

No. 4, and portions of Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss and related exhibits, 

ECF No. 26. Plaintiff’s complaint and Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss are 

each more than tangentially related to the merits of the case. Plaintiff must therefore satisfy the 

“compelling reasons” standard discussed above. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (9th Cir. 

2006). With this standard in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:

Motion to Seal Document to be Sealed Ruling

ECF No. 4 Complaint DENIED. Plaintiff’s supporting declaration attached 

to its motion to file portions of the complaint under 

seal states that Plaintiff “does not maintain a claim 

of confidentiality over any portion of the 

Complaint,” but that Plaintiff understands that 

Defendants or their agents may consider the 

information confidential. ECF No. 4-1, at 1–2.

Neither Defendants nor any third parties have 

submitted supporting declarations for the designated 

material. Moreover, the information sought to be 

sealed discusses Defendants’ efforts to obtain 

licenses from Plaintiff and other third parties. This 

information is not confidential and does not meet 

the “good cause” or “compelling reasons” standards 

for sealing. 

Case 5:16-cv-04173-LHK Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 4 of 6
5

Case No. 16-CV-04173-LHK

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND ADDRESSING 

SEALING MOTIONS

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

Motion to Seal Document to be Sealed Ruling

ECF No. 26 Plaintiff’s Opposition 

to Defendants’ Motion 

to Dismiss

DENIED as to Pages 1–3; 7, 9–12, 18–19, and 23. 

Plaintiff states that it does not maintain a claim of 

confidentiality over this material but that 

Defendants or their agents may consider the 

information confidential. Neither Defendants nor 

any third parties have submitted supporting 

declarations for the designated material. Moreover, 

the information sought to be sealed discusses 

Defendants’ efforts to obtain licenses from Plaintiff

and other third parties. This information is not 

confidential and does not meet the “good cause” or 

“compelling reasons” standards for sealing. 

DENIED as to Page 5, lines 22–25. This

information is related to Plaintiff’s business and is 

substantially the same as information provided in

the unredacted material on the same page. Plaintiff 

has accordingly not shown “good cause” or 

“compelling reasons” for sealing this information.

GRANTED as to the rest because the information 

relates to the confidential organization of Plaintiff’s 

business and locations of Plaintiff’s data centers and 

servers, the disclosure of which could cause 

competitive harm to Plaintiff.

ECF No. 26 Declaration of Robyn 

Harding, Ex. 15. 

GRANTED. The exhibit contains confidential 

information relating to the organization of Plaintiff’s 

business and the locations of Plaintiff’s data centers 

and servers, information that could cause 

competitive harm to Plaintiff if disclosed. 

ECF No. 26 Correspondence 

relating to Defendants’

patent enforcement 

efforts, Ex. 6.

DENIED. Plaintiff states that it does not maintain a 

claim of confidentiality over this material but that 

Defendants or their agents may consider the 

information confidential. Neither Defendants nor 

any third party have submitted supporting 

declarations for this material. Moreover, the 

information sought to be sealed discusses 

Defendants’ efforts to obtain licenses from Plaintiff

and other third parties. This information is not 

confidential and does not meet the “good cause” or 

“compelling reasons” standards for sealing. 

Case 5:16-cv-04173-LHK Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 5 of 6
6

Case No. 16-CV-04173-LHK

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND ADDRESSING 

SEALING MOTIONS

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

Motion to Seal Document to be Sealed Ruling

ECF No. 26 Copy of Motions to 

Transfer Venue filed by 

defendants in related 

case in the Eastern 

District of Texas, Ex. 

16

GRANTED. These motions were filed under seal in 

the related case and contain the same confidential 

information discussed above as relating to exhibit 

15.

ECF No. 26 Declarations submitted 

in support of the

Motions to Transfer 

Venue filed in the 

Eastern District of 

Texas, Exs. 17–21.

DENIED. Plaintiff states that it does not maintain a 

claim of confidentiality over this material but that 

Defendants or their agents may consider the 

information confidential. Neither Defendants nor 

any third party have submitted declarations in 

support of sealing this material. Moreover, the 

information sought to be sealed discusses 

Defendants’ efforts to obtain licenses from Plaintiff

and other third parties. This information is not 

confidential and does not meet the “good cause” or 

“compelling reasons” standards for sealing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04173-LHK Document 39 Filed 10/11/16 Page 6 of 6