Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc. v. HP Inc.

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
UNIVERSAL CONNECTIVITY
TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
HP INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 24-cv-04097-NW (SVK)
SEALING ORDER RE MATERIALS
ACCOMPANYING HP’S RENEWED
MOTION TO STRIKE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 200, 209
Before the Court are two administrative sealing motions relating to Defendant HP Inc.’s
(“HP”) Renewed Motion to Strike Plaintiff Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.’s (“UCT”)
infringement contentions, (Dkt. 199). Dkts. 200 (re HP’s Renewed Motion), 209 (re UCT’s
Opposition). Having considered the Parties’ submissions, the relevant law and the record in this
action, the Court DENIES as moot HP’s Motion and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN
PART UCT’s Motion as set forth below.
Document to Be Sealed 	Portions to Seal 	Court Ruling
Ex. 1 to HP’s Renewed
Motion to Strike UCT’s
Infringement
Contentions (UCT’s
Third Amended
Infringement
Contentions (“TAIC”)
Cover Pleading)
[Dkt. 200-1].
HP filed its administrative motion to
consider whether another Party’s
materials should be sealed based on
UCT’s TAIC Cover Pleading as
“Highly Confidential – Attorney’s
Eyes Only.” UCT did not timely file
a statement or declaration in support
of sealing as required by Civil L.R.
79-5(f). However, UCT attached a
more restricted excerpt of the TAIC
Cover Pleading, and an argument in
support of sealing, in the submission
of its Opposition. See Dkt. 209-1.
Accordingly, HP’s administrative
motion to consider whether UCT’s
materials should be sealed is
DENIED as moot.
Case 5:24-cv-04097-NW Document 243 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 3

2
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
Ex. A to UCT’s
Opposition (excerpt of
UCT’s TAIC Cover
Pleading)
[Dkt. 209-1]
Portions highlighted at
ECF Page:
3
The Court previously sealed similar
information as containing quotation or
explanation of a confidential licensing
agreement between UCT’s parent and
Intel Corporation. See Dkt. 162.
Accordingly, for the same reasons as
set forth in Dkt. 162, the Court
GRANTS IN PART UCT’s sealing
request.
However, UCT’s sealing motion and
redactions appear to slightly farther
than its previous request: UCT now
seeks to seal even the name of the
counterparty to the license, Intel, and
the existence of the license. See, e.g.,
Dkt. 209-1 at 3:1; Dkt. 209
(refraining from mentioning Intel by
name). Such a request is
inappropriate where the name “Intel”
and the fact of an Intel license of some
(undisclosed) extent has been made
publicly available in this case, e.g., in
the Parties’ unsealed papers (Dkts.
199, 208, 211) and in this Court’s
prior Orders where unobjected to by
UCT (e.g., Dkts. 160, 162).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES IN
PART the request.
UCT need not submit a revised,
redacted copy of this document
because the unredacted information—
that the license is with Intel
Corporation—is apparent from this
Order.
Ex. O to UCT’s
Opposition (excerpt of
UCT’s First Amended
Claim Chart for U.S.
Patent no. 7,154,905)
[Dkt. 209-2]
Portions highlighted at
ECF Page:
10
The Court previously sealed similar
information as containing quotation or
explanation of confidential VESA
standards. See Dkt. 162. Accordingly,
for the same reasons as set forth in
Dkt. 162, the Court GRANTS UCT’s
sealing request.
Ex. S to UCT’s
Opposition (excerpt of
UCT’s First Amended
Claim Chart for U.S.
Patent no. 7,921,231)
[Dkt. 209-3]
Portions highlighted at
ECF Pages:
6, 10-11 and 13
The Court previously sealed similar
information as containing quotation or
explanation of confidential VESA
standards. See Dkt. 162. Accordingly,
for the same reasons as set forth in
Dkt. 162, the Court GRANTS UCT’s
sealing request.
The Clerk of Court shall maintain Dkts. 200-1 and 209-1–3 under seal until further order
of this Court.
Case 5:24-cv-04097-NW Document 243 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 3

3
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
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 4, 2026
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:24-cv-04097-NW Document 243 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 3