Google Inc. v. IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd. et al

Filing 39

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 25 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting in part and denying in part 26 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

GOOGLE INC.,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

v.

Case No.16-CV-04173-LHK
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE AND ADDRESSING
SEALING MOTIONS

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

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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
1
Case No. 16-CV-04173-LHK
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND ADDRESSING
SEALING MOTIONS

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

and portions of its opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss and related exhibits. “Historically,

6

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

7

including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

8

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7

9

(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

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr.

12

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

13

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

14

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 447

15

F.3d at 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records

16

generally exist “when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such

17

as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements,

18

or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact

19

that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure

20

to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.

21

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

22

of a case,” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at

23

1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court

24

records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or

25

only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

26

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

27
28

2
Case No. 16-CV-04173-LHK
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND ADDRESSING
SEALING MOTIONS

1

merits of a case must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

8
9

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

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is

13

used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over

14

competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972)

15

(quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b). “Generally [a trade secret] relates to the

16

production of goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the

17

business. . . .” Id. (ellipses in original). In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that

18

sealing may be justified to prevent judicial documents from being used “as sources of business

19

information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that

26

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

27
28

3
Case No. 16-CV-04173-LHK
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND ADDRESSING
SEALING MOTIONS

1

document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of the

2

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

3

that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id. R. 79-5(d)(1).

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Motion to Seal

Document to be Sealed

ECF No. 4

11

Complaint

Ruling
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.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
Case No. 16-CV-04173-LHK
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND ADDRESSING
SEALING MOTIONS

Motion to Seal

Document to be Sealed

ECF No. 26

1

Plaintiff’s Opposition
to Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

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.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

ECF No. 26

Declaration of Robyn
Harding, Ex. 15.

ECF No. 26

Correspondence
relating to Defendants’
patent enforcement
efforts, Ex. 6.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Ruling
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.

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.
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.
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.

25
26
27
28

5
Case No. 16-CV-04173-LHK
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND ADDRESSING
SEALING MOTIONS

Motion to Seal

Document to be Sealed

ECF No. 26

1

Copy of Motions to
Transfer Venue filed by
defendants in related
case in the Eastern
District of Texas, Ex.
16
Declarations submitted
in support of the
Motions to Transfer
Venue filed in the
Eastern District of
Texas, Exs. 17–21.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

ECF No. 26

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Ruling
GRANTED. These motions were filed under seal in
the related case and contain the same confidential
information discussed above as relating to exhibit
15.

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.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16
17

Dated: October 11, 2016
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6
Case No. 16-CV-04173-LHK
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND ADDRESSING
SEALING MOTIONS