Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07027/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07027-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

BOT M8 LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. C 19-07027 WHA 

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS 

TO SEAL

In this patent infringement suit, both parties move to seal documents submitted in a 

discovery dispute (Dkt. No. 97, 103). Generally, “a court may seal records only when it finds a 

compelling reason and articulates the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis 

or conjecture.” A classic example of a compelling reason is “business information that might 

harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” But, our court of appeals has “carved out an 

exception, for sealed materials attached to a discovery motion unrelated to the merits of a case. 

Under this exception, a party need only satisfy the “good cause” standard . . . to protect a party 

or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . .” 

Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1096–97 (9th Cir. 2016)(quotations and 

citations omitted). 

This is a discovery motion and plaintiff Bot M8 has shown good cause to seal at this 

stage. Their redactions are tailored to the information describing a patent assignment

agreement’s references to litigation funding, a privilege log describing the redacted material, 

Case 3:19-cv-07027-WHA Document 107 Filed 02/13/20 Page 1 of 2
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

and substantive references to this information in the parties’ briefs. But for the discovery 

dispute, this information would not usually be made public. Bot M8’s assertion of competitive 

harm are reasonable under the relaxed standard here. 

The parties are warned, however, that the assertions of competitive harm may be 

insufficient to satisfy the “compelling reason” standard. The underlying dispute here is 

whether Bot M8 possesses sufficient rights in the asserted patents to have standing to sue. 

Should the information sealed here be raised in a future motion to dismiss for lack of 

jurisdiction, the parties will not be permitted to rely on this order as cause to seal. The public 

is entitled to know who owns the patents-in-suit which, after all, grant the owner the right to 

publicly exclude others. 

Only the documents (or portions thereof) listed below may remain sealed (for now):

Docket Description Portion to Remain Sealed

98 Sony’s Brief Page 1: lines 24, 27;

Page 2: lines 22–23, 26–28;

Page 3: lines 1–3, 5–6, 10–11.

98-2 Portion of Patent 

Purchase 

Agreement.

Entirety.

98-3 Privilege Log. Entirety.

98-5 Responses to 

Interrogatory.

Page 2: lines 16–17.

104 Bot M8’s Brief. Page 1: lines 22–25;

Page 2: lines 1–5. 

To the above extent, the motions are GRANTED. Otherwise they are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2020.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-07027-WHA Document 107 Filed 02/13/20 Page 2 of 2