Google LLC v. Point Financial, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: June 6, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-04033
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-04033-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY 9 v. RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDERING DEFENDANT TO SHOW 10 POINT FINANCIAL, INC., CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE 11 Defendant. [Re: ECF No. 3] 12 13 Plaintiff Google LLC (“Google”) seeks to enjoin Defendant Point Financial, Inc. (“PFI”) 14 from (1) interfering with Google’s contractual relationships with non-party CNEX and certain 15 vendors with which Google works to manufacture and test used in its servers, and 16 (2)“taking possession of and/or selling to Google’s competitors software and equipment 17 containing Google’s intellectual property and trade secrets.” Dkt. No. 3-1 at 1. On May 8, 2025, 18 Google filed this lawsuit as well as a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary 19 Injunction. Dkt. Nos. 1 (“Compl.”), 3 (“Mot.”). Pursuant to the Court’s order setting a briefing 20 schedule on the motion, Dkt. No. 11, PFI filed an opposition brief, Dkt. No. 30 (“Opp.”), and 21 Google filed a reply, Dkt. No. 32 (“Reply”). The Court held a hearing on Google’s motion on 22 May 19, 2025, Dkt. No. 35, at which the Court issued an injunction from the bench. This Order 23 memorializes the Court’s ruling. 24 As discussed on the record at the TRO hearing, the Court ORDERS Defendant PFI to 25 SHOW CAUSE why a preliminary injunction should not issue on July 10, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in 26 Courtroom 1 of the Robert F. Peckham Federal Building & United States Courthouse, located at 27 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113. 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Google is a multinational technology company with billions of users, many of whom store 3 information on (“ ”) . Mot., Ex. 3 ¶¶ 3–4. To 4 protect the information stored on these drives, Google must periodically update its security 5 hardware, software, and protocols. Id. ¶ 7. These updates require significant investment of 6 financial resources and engineering time, id. ¶ 8, and also sometimes involve work by outside 7 companies, id. ¶ 9. 8 This case involves such an external partnership. On August 2, 2016, Google entered into a 9 Master Purchase Agreement (“MPA”) with a company called CNEX Labs, Inc. (“CNEX”), which 10 had been founded in 2013. Mot., Ex. 2 ¶ 8; Mot., Ex. 4. Pursuant to that agreement, CNEX was 11 (“ ”) 12 . Mot., Ex. 2 ¶¶ 9–11. Three years later, 13 in September of 2019, Google and CNEX entered into Statement of Work No. 1171292 (“SOW”) 14 for the “ ,” which would involve 15 “ ” Mot., Ex. 2 ¶¶ 13–14; Mot., Ex. 5. 16 Thereafter, the SOW was amended multiple times. E.g., Mot., Ex. 6; Opp., Exs. A, C, D, E. 17 CNEX and Google were also parties to a non-disclosure agreement, Mot., Ex. 7, in addition to 18 confidentiality provisions set out in the MPA, Mot., Ex. 4 § 11. 19 The needed to be , 20 so Google provided certain intellectual property to CNEX to assist in development of the product, 21 including “ ,” and “ 22 23 ” of the . Mot., Ex. 3 ¶¶ 11–14. Google also communicated various 24 for the , including “ , 25 , and .” Id. ¶ 16. Although Google shared this information 26 for purposes of the project, the initial MPA between Google and CNEX stated that “ 27 1 As CNEX commenced work on the , it regularly 2 reported back to Google on its progress. Mot., Ex. 3 ¶¶ 32–33. CNEX and Google also 3 collaborated engineering and test runs, id. ¶ 34, and both CNEX and Google communicated with 4 various vendors that helped to manufacture and test the , see Mot., Ex. 2 ¶¶ 21–27. 5 Specifically, (“ ”) 6 , id. ¶ 24, (“ ”) 7 , id. ¶ 26, and (“ ”) 8 , id. ¶ 27; see also Mot., Exs. 8, 9, 10. 9 Google entered directly into agreements with each of these vendors, Mot., Exs. 8, 9, 10, though 10 CNEX received the orders from Google and relayed them to the vendors for production and 11 testing, Mot., Ex. 2 ¶ 22. 12 After several years of working together with Google on the 13 , CNEX ceased operations on April 12, 2024, notifying Google of its closure on April 15, 14 2024. Mot., Ex. 2 ¶ 35. Thereafter, Google sought to exercise a provision of the MPA stating that 15 the for the would be 16 17 . See Mot., Ex. 16. That provision states that CNEX granted to Google 18 19 20 21 22 Mot., Ex. 4 § 10.4(C). Accordingly, Google now asserts that “upon the cessation of CNEX’s 23 operations, Google received all license and access rights to continue the production of the 24 to ensure the completion of the .” Mot. at 8–9. 25 This dispute arose because, two months after CNEX ceased operations, Defendant in this 26 proceeding contacted Google to assert that it had a security interest in all of CNEX’s assets 27 pursuant to a loan from PFI on which CNEX had defaulted. Mot., Ex. 11. PFI asserted that such 1 used to manufacture the . See id. In August 2024, PFI proceeded to contact 2 Google’s vendors for manufacturing and testing of the to instruct them to discontinue using 3 the and the to fulfill 4 Google’s orders, asserting that to do so would violate PFI’s rights. See Mot., Exs. 14, 15. Google 5 responded by meeting with its vendors to assure them that it had the right to use the information to 6 continue to produce the Mot., Ex. 2 ¶¶ 37–42. However, Google believes that PFI intends 7 to continue to instruct “the Vendors that Google does not have the right to manufacture the 8 using the ,” and that PFI may attempt to sell the 9 to Google’s competitors. Mot. at 10. Since Google believes 10 those actions are in contravention of its agreements with CNEX and the vendors, Google filed suit 11 and sought a TRO to prevent PFI from taking either action. 12 II. LEGAL STANDARD 13 The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is identical to the standard for 14 issuing a preliminary injunction. See Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1159 n.3 (9th Cir. 15 2017) (“[T]he legal standards applicable to TROs and preliminary injunctions are substantially 16 identical.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). An injunction is a matter of equitable 17 discretion and is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that 18 the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 19 U.S. 7, 22 (2008). And “a TRO ‘should be restricted to . . . preserving the status quo and 20 preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a [preliminary injunction] hearing 21 and no longer.’” E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 932 F.3d 742, 779 (9th Cir. 2018) 22 (quoting Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 23 70, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974)). 24 A plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief must establish “[1] that he is likely to 25 succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 26 relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public 27 interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. “[I]f a plaintiff can only show that there are serious questions 1 injunction may still issue if the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor, and the 2 other two Winter factors are satisfied.” Friends of the Wild Swan v. Weber, 767 F.3d 936, 942 3 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 4 III. DISCUSSION 5 A. Analysis 6 1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits 7 The first Winter factor asks whether the Plaintiff is “likely to succeed on the merits” of his 8 claims. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. In this lawsuit, Google asserts three claims for relief against PFI: 9 (1)tortious interference with Google’s contractual relationships, (2) violations of the Defend 10 Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1831 et seq., and (3) violations of California’s Uniform Trade 11 Secrets Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 3426 et seq. Google argues that it has shown a likelihood of success 12 on the merits for all three claims. 13 Google’s first claim for tortious interference with contract requires: “(1) the existence of a 14 valid contract between the plaintiff and a third party; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of that 15 contract; (3) the defendant’s intentional acts designed to induce a breach or disruption of the 16 contractual relationship; (4) actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship; and 17 (5)resulting damage.” Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc., 9 Cal. 5th 1130, 1141 (2020). Google 18 argues that it has shown that it has existing contracts with CNEX and the manufacturing and 19 testing vendors. Mot. at 14 (citing Mot., Exs. 4, 8, 9, 10, 16). It further argues that PFI is aware 20 of Google’s “license and access rights to the that Google 21 obtained from CNEX under the MPA and SOWs,” and that PFI’s communications with the 22 vendors reveal that PFI is aware of Google’s contracts with those entities as well. Id. (citing Mot., 23 Exs. 14, 15). Accordingly, Google asserts that the content of PFI’s emails to the vendors 24 evidences PFI’s intentional acts to interrupt or induce a breach of Google’s contracts. See id. At 25 least one vendor did temporary cease work on the contracts, requiring Google to “ 26 ” to reassure the vendor of Google’s rights to the 27 . Id. at 15 (citing Mot., Ex. 2 ¶ 40). This temporary stoppage damaged Google, and 1 , to , and to 2 . Id. 3 The Court finds that Google has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its 4 tortious interference claim. Although PFI is correct that a defendant “cannot be held liable for 5 intentional interference with a contract” under California law if the challenged conduct “was 6 lawful and undertaken to enforce its rights,” Opp. at 10 (citing Cabanas v. Gloodt Assocs., 942 F. 7 Supp. 1295, 1306 (E.D. Cal. 1996), aff’d sub nom. Cabanas v. Gloodt Assocs., Inc., 141 F.3d 1174 8 (9th Cir. 1998), and Webber v. Inland Empire Invs., 74 Cal. App. 4th 884, 905 (1999)), the Court 9 concludes that this is not such a case. As Google argues on reply, PFI’s right to foreclose on 10 CNEX’s assets does not entitle PFI to greater property rights than CNEX held with regard to the 11 . See Reply at 2. The MPA and SOW 12 , Mot., Ex. 4 § 11.3; Mot., Ex. 5 § 7.2, and 13 , 14 Mot., Ex. 4 § 10.4. Under that protocol, Google could continue to work directly with the vendors 15 to fulfill orders in the wake of CNEX’s closure. Indeed, the communications 16 between CNEX executives and vendors in late April 2024 appear to be consistent with this 17 understanding, Mot., Ex. 12; Reply, Exs. 5–7, and the Court is not persuaded by PFI’s 18 interpretation—as a stranger to the original contracts—that the agreement contemplated a 19 perpetual royalty arrangement even in the event that CNEX closed. Rather, it appears that PFI, 20 like CNEX, is bound by the agreement that Google had a “perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive, 21 worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty-free license” upon CNEX’s cessation of business operations. 22 See Mot., Ex. 4 § 10.4(C). The Court also finds that Google is likely to succeed in its argument 23 that Google did not invoke the “ ,” Reply at 3–5, since Google has submitted 24 evidence indicating that CNEX never invoiced Google for royalty payments and did not list 25 royalty payments due from Google in its bankruptcy filings. Reply, Ex. 1 ¶¶ 8–11; id. Exs. 3, 4. 26 Therefore, Google has established a likelihood of success on showing that PFI’s communications 27 with the vendors, which PFI acknowledges were intentional, were designed to (and did) disrupt 1 Similarly, the Court concludes that Google has shown a likelihood of success on the merits 2 on its federal and state trade secret claims. Courts often analyze claims under the federal Defend 3 Trade Secrets Act and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act together, because “the elements 4 are substantially similar.” InteliClear, LLC v. ETC Glob. Holdings, Inc., 978 F.3d 653, 657 (9th 5 Cir. 2020). To succeed on a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets under either act, a plaintiff 6 must prove: “(1) that the plaintiff possessed a trade secret, (2) that the defendant misappropriated 7 the trade secret; and (3) that the misappropriation caused or threatened damage to the plaintiff.” 8 Nat’l Specialty Pharmacy, LLC v. Padhye, 734 F. Supp. 3d 922, 929 (N.D. Cal. 2024) (quoting 9 InteliClear, 978 F.3d at 657–58) (discussing DTSA); CytoDyn of New Mexico, Inc. v. 10 Amerimmune Pharms., Inc., 160 Cal. App. 4th 288, 297 (2008) (“Under the UTSA, a prima facie 11 claim for misappropriation of trade secrets ‘requires the plaintiff to demonstrate: (1) the plaintiff 12 owned a trade secret, (2) the defendant acquired, disclosed, or used the plaintiff’s trade secret 13 through improper means, and (3) the defendant’s actions damaged the plaintiff.’”). 14 The Parties dispute whether Google has sufficiently identified a “trade secret” subject to 15 the protection of the DTSA or the CUTSA. It has. The DTSA defines “trade secret” as: 16 [A]ll forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, 17 formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or 18 memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if-- 19 (A)the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and 20 (B)the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from 21 not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or 22 use of the information[.] 23 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3). The CUTSA defines “trade secret” as: 24 [I]nformation, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: 25 (1)Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being 26 generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and 27 (2) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain 1 Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(d). Here, Google has submitted declarations describing the trade secrets 2 at issue in this case as well as its efforts to maintain their secrecy. Mot., Ex. 3 ¶¶ 13–31. Based on 3 those declarations, the Court finds that Google has shown a likelihood of success in demonstrating 4 that the materials include at least technical and engineering compilations that Google takes steps to 5 protect, such as by requiring nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements prior to sharing the 6 information. The secrecy of this information appears to drive economic value for Google via the 7 resulting superior competitive position. See id. ¶¶ 13, 39–42. 8 The declarants also explain that Google’s trade secrets are inextricably intertwined with 9 CNEX’s intellectual property in the , id. ¶ 38, such that 10 Google’s intellectual property is at risk of disclosure if PFI sells the 11 . Although PFI attempts to argue that the amendments to the SOW indicate that the 12 product does not include Google’s trade secrets, Opp. at 13, the Court disagrees. None of the 13 amendments appear to have eliminated the original —and 14 accompanying confidentiality and nondisclosure requirements—in the MPA. In light of PFI’s 15 repeated statements that it possesses and intends to sell the , 16 then, PFI has misappropriated Google’s trade secrets and threatened harm to Google. Therefore, 17 the Court concludes that Google has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its trade 18 secret claims as well. That said, the Court recognizes that CNEX retained the right to its own 19 intellectual property. Mot., Ex. 4 § 11.3; Mot., Ex. 5 § 7.2. At this time, Google has submitted 20 persuasive evidence that the entities’ intellectual property is intertwined in the 21 . But upon proof that CNEX’s separately owned rights have been segregated 22 from Google’s intellectual property, it is possible that an injunction regarding the 23 may be narrowed. 24 2. Irreparable Harm 25 The second Winter factor considers whether the movant “is likely to suffer irreparable 26 harm in the absence of preliminary relief.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Google argues that it will 27 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an order restraining PFI from interfering with Google’s 1 Mot. at 19. Specifically, Google argues that it will be unable to complete the on 2 schedule, that it will be unable to “ ” necessary to deploy the 3 , and that it will suffer reputational damage, among other 4 harms. Id. at 20. In addition, Google argues that sale of the 5 would publicly release Google’s trade secrets, and that it is “well established that the loss of 6 market position and the disclosure of trade secrets can constitute irreparable harm.” Id. Finally, 7 Google argues that release of the trade secrets at issue in this case would present a security threat. 8 Id. PFI responds that Google has not made an adequate showing of irreparable harm because 9 (1)“Google admits . . . that it researched and developed potential alternative methods to provide 10 the same ” as would be provided by the at issue in 11 this action, and (2) “Google can have its third-party Vendors manufacture the CNEX 12 by simply exercising the Rights and paying the agreed upon royalty.” 13 Opp. at 8–9. 14 Disclosure of trade secrets as well as damage to reputation and market position are 15 irreparable harms. See, e.g., WeRide Corp. v. Kun Huang, 379 F. Supp. 3d 834, 853–54 (N.D. 16 Cal. 2019), modified in part, No. 18-cv-07233, 2019 WL 5722620 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2019) (“It is 17 well established that the loss of market position and the disclosure of trade secrets can constitute 18 irreparable harm.”); Comet Techs. United States of Am. Inc. v. Beuerman, No. 18-cv-01441, 2018 19 WL 1990226, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2018) (“[C]ourts in this district have ‘presume[d] that 20 Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if its proprietary information is misappropriated.’” (quoting 21 W.Directories, Inc. v. Golden Guide Directories, Inc., No. 09-cv-1625, 2009 WL 1625945, at *6 22 (N.D. Cal. 2009))); Citibank, N.A. v. Mitchell, No. 24-cv-08224, 2024 WL 4906076, at *5 (N.D. 23 Cal. Nov. 26, 2024) (“[A]n intention to make imminent or continued use of a trade secret . . . will 24 almost always certainly show irreparable harm.” (quoting Sun Distrib. Co. v. Corbett, No. 18-cv- 25 2231, 2018 WL 4951966, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2018))); Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. 26 Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 841 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Evidence of threatened loss of prospective 27 customers or goodwill certainly supports a finding of the possibility of irreparable harm.”). 1 Google’s vendor contracts presents a risk of reputational harm, and PFI’s assertion that it plans to 2 sell the presents a significant risk of trade secret disclosure. In 3 its opposition, PFI does not address either of these two irreparable harms. Therefore, the second 4 Winter factor supports issuance of the requested TRO. 5 3. Balance of Equities 6 The third Winter factor considers whether “the balance of equities tips” in the movant’s 7 favor. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Google argues that the equities favor granting the requested 8 injunction, because “Google owns licenses and access rights to the 9 and the ,” and there is “no urgency in the sale” of 10 those materials. Mot. at 22. Even if PFI suffered harm as a result of the delayed sale, Google 11 argues that “such harm [would] not outweigh” the harm presented if Google’s trade secrets were 12 to be disclosed to a competitor or a “bad actor.” Id. In response, PFI argues that “[e]quity dictates 13 denial of Google’s request for an injunction,” because Google is a larger company with greater 14 resources at its disposal, so it would be “a far greater hardship to PFI to be deprived of the income 15 stream from the CNEX assets than the hardship to Google” in paying the royalties PFI claims 16 Google owes. Opp. at 14–15. 17 The Court finds that the equities favor Google. In focusing on the Parties’ respective 18 economic positions, PFI ignores the serious equitable issue presented by wrongful disclosure of 19 trade secrets. As discussed in the preceding subsection of this Order, such disclosure is widely 20 considered to be an irreparable harm, whereas the potential harm to PFI of a delayed sale is only 21 financial. And in light of the fact that Google has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the 22 merits of its tortious interference claim, the Court concludes that it is hardly a hardship on PFI to 23 require it to refrain from disrupting Google’s contracts. Accordingly, the Court finds that it is in 24 the interest of equity to require a brief delay of any sale in order to confirm and preserve the 25 Parties’ respective contractual and intellectual property rights. See Comet Techs., 2018 WL 26 1990226, at *5 (“[T]he Court finds that granting Plaintiff’s TRO will result in little meaningful 27 hardship to Defendant because the TRO ‘would essentially only require him to abide by existing 1 Inc. v. Souza, 861 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1092 (E.D. Cal. 2012))); Dish Network L.L.C. v. Ramirez, 2 No. 15-cv-04712, 2016 WL 3092184, at *7 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2016) (noting that the balance of 3 hardships favors the movant when it would “do no more than require Defendant to comply with 4 federal and state . . . laws”). 5 4. Public Interest 6 The final Winter factor considers whether an injunction is in the public interest. Winter, 7 555 U.S. at 20. Google argues that “[w]hen the reach of an injunction is narrow, limited only to 8 the parties, and has no impact on non-parties, the public interest will be ‘at most a neutral factor in 9 the analysis rather than one that’” militates either in favor of or against granting the injunction. 10 Mot. at 22–23 (quoting Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1138–39 (9th Cir. 2009)). In 11 addition, Google argues that the public interest favors protecting Google’s “bargained-for license 12 and access rights to the ” and Google’s intellectual property 13 rights. Id. at 23. PFI does not address this factor of the Winter analysis. 14 The requested injunction is largely limited to the two Parties in this lawsuit, and thus this 15 factor is generally neutral. See Selecky, 586 F.3d at 1138–39. In addition, it is in the public 16 interest to protect contractual and statutory rights, and to protect (to the extent possible) against 17 cybersecurity threats. See Henry Schein, Inc. v. Cook, 191 F. Supp. 3d 1072, 1078 (N.D. Cal. 18 2016) (“Similarly, the public interest is served when defendant is asked to do no more than abide 19 by trade laws and the obligations of contractual agreements signed with her employer. Public 20 interest is also served by enabling the protection of trade secrets.”). Given the Court’s conclusion 21 that Google has shown a likelihood of success on the merits, both concerns are better addressed by 22 Google’s position. Therefore, the fourth Winter factor also weighs in favor of granting a 23 temporary restraining order. 24 B. Security 25 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, “[t]he court may issue a preliminary injunction 26 or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court 27 considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been 1 discretion as to the amount of security required, if any.” Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 2 919 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228, 1237 (9th Cir. 1999)). 3 PFI requests that the Court set security at $150,000,000.00, which is its claimed value of 4 the CNEX assets as estimated by PFI’s President. Opp. at 15 (citing Opp., Ex. F). However, PFI 5 provides no evidentiary support for its purported valuation of the CNEX assets. The declaration 6 from PFI’s President does not disclose a proper foundation for the validity of his estimate, and 7 CNEX itself apparently valued the assets at $0 in its bankruptcy filings. See Reply, Ex. 3 at 3–4; 8 Reply, Ex. 4 at 5–6. Therefore, the Court estimates that the damage to PFI if it is wrongfully 9 enjoined is limited to the attorneys’ fees and costs involved in defending itself against Google’s 10 suit. The Court estimates the cost of the legal defense to be $250,000.00 and sets security at that 11 amount. 12 C. Expedited Discovery 13 The Parties seek expedited discovery in order to ascertain whether CNEX’s and Google’s 14 respective intellectual property can be effectively segregated, so that PFI can proceed with a 15 foreclosure sale of those assets belonging to CNEX. Expedited discovery may be permitted on a 16 showing of good cause, which “may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in 17 consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” 18 Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). Here, the 19 Parties agree about the need for expedited discovery, and the mutual request is GRANTED. 20 IV. ORDER 21 For the foregoing reasons, PFI and any persons in active concert or participation with PFI, 22 are hereby RESTRAINED, ENJOINED, and ORDERED as follows: 23 1. PFI is ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from contacting the Vendors and taking any 24 action intended to or having the effect of interfering with Google’s license and access rights to the 25 “ ” (defined at ECF 3-1, pg. 2, lines 8-14, which includes 26 27 1 ” (defined at ECF 3-1, pg. 7, lines 13-19; which includes 2 3 4 5 (see ECF 3, Ex. 4, § 1.15)) 6 or any action intended to disrupt or having the effect of disrupting of the manufacture of the 7 ; and 8 2. PFI is ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from taking further possession of the 9 , which Google alleges contains its trade secrets, and from 10 disclosing, selling, or licensing the to any third parties. 11 This Temporary Restraining Order granted on May 19, 2025 at 10:40 a.m. shall expire on 12 July 10, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. unless otherwise extended for good cause or with the consent of all 13 parties. 14 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 15 Defendant PFI is FURTHER ORDERED to appear in Courtroom 1 of the Robert F. 16 Peckham Federal Building & United States Courthouse, located at 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, 17 CA 95113 on July 10, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be 18 granted and why Defendant PFI, and any persons in active concert or participation with PFI 19 should not, pending trial, be ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from (a) contacting the Vendors and 20 taking any action intended to or having the effect of interfering with Google’s license and access 21 rights to the and its license rights to the 22 or any action intended to disrupt or having the effect of disrupting of 23 the manufacture of the and (b) taking further possession of the 24 , which Google alleges contains its trade secrets, and from disclosing, 25 selling, or licensing the to any third parties. 26 This Order to Show Cause and supporting papers shall be served on Defendant PFI no later 27 than June 5, 2025, by hand-delivery or electronically, including email. Any opposition papers 1 2025. If desired, the Parties may work out an alternative briefing schedule and submit it as a 2 || stipulation for the Court’s approval, so long as the deadline for the reply brief is no later than June 3 || 26, 2025. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: May 22, 2025

A LABSON FREEMAN 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12

15 16

= 17

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