Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360-6 Filed 01/24/19 Page 1 of 18
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 5
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360-6 Filed 01/24/19 Page 2 of 18
`
` 1
`
` 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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware )
`Corporation, )
` )
` Plaintiff and Counter- ) Case No. 17CV0183-CAB
` Defendant, )
` )
` vs. )
` )
`ESET, LLC, a California Limited )
`Liability Corporation, and ESET )
`SPOL. S.R.O., a Slovak Republic )
`Corporation, )
` )
` Defendants and Counter-)
` Plaintiffs. )
`
`
`
`
`Reporter's Transcript of Claims Construction Hearing
`Volume 2, pages 1-198
`Before The Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo
`Tuesday, September 26, 2017, 9:00 a.m.
`San Diego, California
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceedings recorded by stenography, transcript produced by
`computer assisted software
`____________________________________________________________
`
`Mauralee Ramirez, RPR, CSR No. 11674
` Federal Official Court Reporter
`ordertranscript@gmail.com
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360-6 Filed 01/24/19 Page 3 of 18
`
` 2
`
`Appearances:
`For The Plaintiff:
` Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP
` Paul Andre
` James Hannah
` 990 Marsh Road
` Menlo Park, California 94025
`
`For The Defendants:
` Foley & Lardner LLP
` Nicola A. Pisano
` Scott A. Penner
` Wendy Cheung
` 3579 Valley Center Drive, Suite 350
` San Diego, California 92130
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 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
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360-6 Filed 01/24/19 Page 4 of 18
`
` 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
`
`San Diego, California; Tuesday, September 26, 2017; 9:00 a.m.
`THE CLERK: All right. We're on record this morning
`on 17CV0183-CAB-BGS, Finjan Incorporated versus ESET, LLC, et
`al., on calendar for day 2 of claim constructions.
`Counsel, please state your appearances.
`MR. ANDRE: Good morning, your Honor. Paul Andre and
`James Hannah for Finjan. And with us is our client
`representative Julie Mar-Spinola.
`THE COURT: Thank you.
`MR. PISANO: Good morning, your Honor. Nicola Pisano.
`With me is Scott Penner, senor counsel, and Wendy Cheung,
`associate counsel of Foley & Lardner, and today we have the
`client representative, general counsel Alexandra Albro.
`THE COURT: Thank you. Good morning.
`Okay. So I went home last night and spent more time
`reading about "before the web server makes the Downloadable
`available to web clients." And at the end of the day, I may
`not be fully appreciating or understanding what the plaintiffs
`are trying to do here, but claim 1 is about the inspector. It
`is not about the network gateway. It is not about the
`subsequent investigation that some other computer might do of
`the Downloadable.
`My understanding of the '844 patent is that it
`essentially is an efficiency that Downloadables get this
`inspection before they're made available to the web so that
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360-6 Filed 01/24/19 Page 5 of 18
`
` 4
`
` 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
`
`when somebody calls it up and says I want to download this, the
`network gateway computer can look at it and say it's already
`been inspected. It's got its UL, its Good Housekeeping Seal of
`Approval; or it's got these issues, and we need to further
`inspect it; or none of this happened, and we have to do it
`ourselves, which was what was going on before, they had to
`inspect everything that was going through. And this created
`this inefficiency to say this Downloadable has already been
`inspected, it has this profile link to it, here are the issues
`with it; under our policies, it's okay, it can come in; or
`under our policies, it's not okay, it can't come in; or we need
`to do further inspection with it.
`But the inspector discussion of claim 1 is all
`happening before there has been a call to download this
`Downloadable by a web client. It's happening before it goes to
`the web server to make it available to web clients, and so the
`Court is reading claim 1 not to cover something that is done by
`a network protection engine or a computer protection engine
`subsequently after the Downloadable has been called up to be
`forwarded, but before that.
`And so I'm not quite sure in terms of construing the
`claim, other than to just say "before the web server makes the
`Downloadable available to web clients" means before the
`Downloadable is available on a web server to be called up or
`forwarded to a web client. That's when that step in the method
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360-6 Filed 01/24/19 Page 6 of 18
`
` 5
`
` 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
`
`is happening.
`And you have two minutes to put your objection on the
`record and we're moving on, because I have read all I'm going
`to read about this, and we're not going to play ping-pong like
`Judge Brewster used to do. It was like last man standing.
`So go ahead.
`MR. ANDRE: Your Honor, I am going to put my objection
`on the record. We have three judges in Northern California
`that have done construction on this --
`THE COURT: Has the Federal Circuit construed it?
`MR. ANDRE: I argued on this two weeks ago to the
`Federal Circuit, and it was not appealed. The previous
`construction of Judge Freeman's of what this meant was not
`appealed. The parties accepted it and just didn't appeal claim
`construction. So it's not before the Federal Circuit on
`appeal. I guess appeal was waived of Judge Freeman's order.
`I have another trial in front of Judge Freeman coming
`up at the end of October in which she has construed this
`contrary to what your Honor is construing now. I have a trial
`in front of Judge Gilliam in April, that he has also construed
`contrary to your Honor.
`I understand why the defendants wanted to move the
`case out of Northern California and come down here, and this is
`the risk we face when you have multiple jurisdictions, you have
`inconsistent constructions. So this is going to lead to some
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360-6 Filed 01/24/19 Page 7 of 18
`
` 6
`
` 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
`
`issues.
`
`THE COURT: Well, I understand that I may not just be
`following their lead, but that's my fair reading of the patent,
`of the prosecution history, where the patent holder came in and
`said no, what's different about this patent is that it is not
`the work being done at the network gateway where it all had to
`be done before, it's being done prior to that by this
`investigator. That is, again, streamlining and creating an
`efficiency here.
`And the words "investigator" were specifically
`included into that claim specifically with the language that
`this happens before it's made available, and it is consistent
`with the rest of the claims where subsequent investigation or
`review of the Downloadable is done where each of those -- it
`says that the Downloadable was linked to a Security Profile
`before the web server made it available to the web client.
`And that's in the Network Gateway System claim 32.
`It's in 41, it's in 42.
`And so that's one of the fun things about being a
`district judge, I can listen to what other district judges have
`to say, but I don't have to follow it. Until the Federal
`Circuit says it means something else, I'm on my own.
`MR. ANDRE: That's correct. And I'm not saying there
`is anything binding from those other district court judges. I
`guess what I'm asking is -- I will respect your Honor's
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360-6 Filed 01/24/19 Page 8 of 18
`
` 7
`
` 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
`
`decision obviously. We would like to file a motion for
`reconsideration, so we ask to brief this issue out. The
`construction that you just provided was not contemplated or not
`proposed by the defendants or anyone. This is a new
`construction that we have not had a chance to deal with, so we
`will have to, with all due respect, file a motion for
`reconsideration if that's your order on this.
`I think the misapprehension here is how the computer
`systems look what it means before the web server makes it
`available to the web client. We tried to explain that
`yesterday, but I understand that we weren't convincing to your
`Honor, so I will put that in a -- we'll make our objection now
`and file a motion for reconsideration when the order comes out.
`THE COURT: That's fair. You asked for the
`construction. I'm not sure my construction comports with what
`you wanted.
`It's not your construction, which I found a little
`more confusing.
`But, in essence, the concern the defendants had was
`when is this step being practiced, and it's the Court's
`determination based on the language of the claims, all the
`claims together, and the prosecution history, and the
`specification that this investigation that is done by the
`investigator happens before the Downloadable is made available
`on the web server to be called up or forwarded to a web client.
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360-6 Filed 01/24/19 Page 9 of 18
`
` 8
`
` 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
`
`MR. PISANO: That's consistent with our position, your
`
`Honor.
`
`THE COURT: All right. And if you want to show me
`that that's clear error later, then you can file a motion for
`me to reconsider. Claim construction is always open to further
`discussion, I suppose.
`MR. ANDRE: I have actually had the Federal Circuit
`rule that precisely. They encourage courts to keep an open
`mind. Thank you, your Honor.
`THE COURT: All right. The other one that I think I
`may have messed up on yesterday is the "software components
`required to be executed by the Downloadable." And I guess in
`part having gone back and looked at that again when I was
`taking up my notes, I recognized that the plaintiffs argued
`something that is different than what the Court understood.
`The plaintiffs simply said that "while those skilled
`in the art understand this term simply described components of
`code that the Downloadable is required to execute." And that's
`at page 15 of the plaintiff's Opening Claim Construction Brief.
`And the defendants wanted to add additional language
`that I wasn't sure was necessary, and then I got sort of
`sidetracked who exactly was doing the executing, and so I want
`to just go back and revisit the defendants' proposed
`construction on that.
`This is on the '780. You had this section about code
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360-6 Filed 01/24/19 Page 10 of 18
`
` 9
`
` 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
`
`portions contained in a file different from the Downloadable,
`and I'm not sure. So could you just explain to me what the
`significance of that is? Because that's the only difference
`really, because otherwise you both agree that it's just
`"components of code that the Downloadable is required to
`execute."
`MR. PENNER: Yes, your Honor. I think we made that
`clear in our opening brief on page 13 and 14. We did strike
`out the "containing any file different from the Downloadable."
`So we agree that that shouldn't be part of the construction.
`And then in our responsive brief on this term at page 4, we
`pointed out that with those words struck out, it matches nearly
`identically as to what was listed as the quote/unquote "plain
`and ordinary meaning" that was provided by Finjan in their
`brief.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. PENNER: So that's why, as we proposed in our
`responsive brief, we think the term is now in agreement between
`the parties what it should mean.
`THE COURT: All right. To the extent I said something
`to the contrary yesterday, the Court is taking that back and
`I'm going to use the definition to the extent -- I don't know
`that it adds anything, other than just the recognition that the
`plain and ordinary meaning would mean to a person of skill in
`the art "components of code that the Downloadable is required
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360-6 Filed 01/24/19 Page 11 of 18
`
` 10
`
` 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
`
`to execute."
`Are plaintiffs okay with that?
`MR. HANNAH: That's fine, your Honor.
`THE COURT: It's your language, so hopefully not.
`Okay. Then we left off with the performing a hashing
`function on the Downloadable and the fetched software
`components to generate a Downloadable ID. The Court did look
`at the PTO's construction in the IPR for the '780 that was
`published in April of 2016. And that is at Docket 138-14 at
`page 9.
`And the Court is adopting the construction that the
`PTO applied to the extent it clarified performing the function
`on the Downloadable and the software components' needs
`together. So "performing a hashing function on the
`Downloadable together with its fetched software components." I
`think that reflects what's going on there.
`MR. PENNER: Your Honor, one question on the
`construction. Does "together with" mean temporally? We
`believe "together" means combined, as physically combined
`together as opposed to temporally where they are Hashed
`independently. So we think that's why the PTO put "together"
`with the italics. That's why we tried to explain that. We
`meant it to be physical combination, physical togetherness as
`opposed to the temporal togetherness.
`THE COURT: Well, when you say "combined," see, I get
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360-6 Filed 01/24/19 Page 12 of 18
`
` 11
`
` 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
`
`into just as a layperson and not a person of skill in the art
`that combined suggests meshing as opposed to together, which
`could be -- and for those of you on record, I'm using hand
`gestures here. But combined would be like crossing your
`fingers together in a clasp where you're sort of integrating
`things as opposed to just saying these things were done in
`tandem or together, one and then the other, but they're
`attached in some way. And so I don't know from a technical
`point of view if this -- I don't believe that the hashing is
`done by combining in the sense that you integrate them.
`MR. PISANO: All we mean is done in tandem. You get
`separate files feeding them in, and the bit stream comes in.
`THE COURT: Right. But it's done as one unit. The
`way I am interpreting what they meant by together is that it's
`done as one unit.
`MR. PENNER: That's exactly what we meant, your Honor.
`MR. HANNAH: Your Honor, we disagree with that. They
`do not have to meet the string in order to create a single file
`that has one Hash that's going to be together. The IPR, the
`Patent Board, simply adopted Judge Sleet's construction and his
`order. And during that trial, like my tutorial I gave, I was
`completely consistent with what I presented that if you had a
`web page and if you had software component and perform a Hash
`on those and then you store those together, then that's going
`to be the ID for that web page and those software components.
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360-6 Filed 01/24/19 Page 13 of 18
`
` 12
`
` 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
`
`That increases the efficiency because if you have another
`software component that might later come down the pike, then
`you can perform the analysis on that.
`So that's where the claim construction came from. It
`came from Judge Sleet's order with "put together with," and
`that's what was adopted and understood in that analysis.
`THE COURT: In the decision in the IPR, the Patent
`Office looked at the petitioner's petition saying that a person
`of skill in the art would have understood that the resulting
`series of separate Hashes could collectively comprise the
`unique identifier for the Downloadable. And that so if it's
`collective, it's being done together.
`MR. HANNAH: Right. Exactly, your Honor.
`THE COURT: Well, they rejected your argument, not
`yours personally, but whoever was representing Finjan at the
`IPR that said that that was putting an unnecessary limitation
`into the claim and said no, that means together, that it's done
`together.
`So the idea that you're going to do one and then do
`the other and do something else, I don't think comports with
`what they're saying here. They're saying all of this is done
`together in a collective.
`MR. HANNAH: So technically, it can be done in the
`collective if you have the same hashing function that's going
`to be performed on two different components, and you're going
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360-6 Filed 01/24/19 Page 14 of 18
`
` 13
`
` 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
`
`to generate resulting Hashes on those components that's
`together. That's exactly how we proved it in front of Judge
`Sleet.
`
`In the IPR, what we were arguing was in the broadest
`reasonable interpretation, you didn't need to put that
`limitation in. It was under a different claim construction
`standard. So that's where that argument came from. But they
`adopted Judge Sleet's analysis and his claim construction word
`for word, which said that if you have like an HTML file with a
`software component, such as an applet, and you generate a Hash
`on each of those, and then you perform an hashing function on
`those, and then you have an ID that identifies both of those
`components, then that's together.
`In the IPR, we just simply argued that the plain and
`ordinary meaning was broader because you went with the broadest
`reasonable interpretation which was broader understanding. But
`we have not disagreed --
`THE COURT: So wait. If I adopt this "together with,"
`we're going to have to construe "together with." We're
`construing the construction then. Because the argument here
`was "together with" is -- I'm sorry. I'm getting this
`backwards.
`So the petitioner wanted something else, and the IPO
`just adopted the district court's construction that performing
`the hashing function is together with the fetched software
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360-6 Filed 01/24/19 Page 15 of 18
`
` 14
`
` 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
`
`components, but then didn't shed any light on what "together
`with" means. But I mean, "together with" means together. So,
`again, I don't know. What are we disagreeing about what
`"together with" means?
`MR. HANNAH: I don't know, your Honor. I think that
`they're trying to introduce their claim construction again into
`your order saying that it has to be the single file. I think
`that's exactly what they're trying to do, and trying to get
`something on the record that is putting words into the claim
`construction that it has to be a single file as to acclimated
`together in order to generate this ID, and that position has
`been explicitly rejected with Judge Sleet and with every other
`court that has heard that argument. It does not have to be a
`single file. So that's the argument that they're trying to
`make saying that oh, "together with" really means a single
`file, and that's not true. That's just technically inaccurate.
`MR. PISANO: We are not saying it's a single file. So
`let's get that straight. We're saying it could be multiple
`files. But as you said, they are together hashed. So you get
`the bit stream, you get file A, it's fed in; file B is fed in
`after that; file C is fed in after that; so with the fetched
`components, that whole thing is hashed. You get a Hash.
`Now what I heard him just say is that he wants to
`argue is that if I take A and do a Hash and then I do B and do
`a Hash, and then I take those two Hashes and do a Hash, then I
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360-6 Filed 01/24/19 Page 16 of 18
`
` 15
`
` 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
`
`get a Hash. That's not what the patent says. It says you put
`them together and you get a Hash.
`THE COURT: They're saying that's not what they're
`
`saying.
`
`Honor.
`
`MR. HANNAH: That's not what we're saying at all.
`MR. PENNER: That is exactly what they said, your
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Because that I would agree and I
`think they're agreeing that this is not a Hash of a Hash. You
`have two components or you have two types of components. You
`have the Downloadable and the two fetched software components,
`and they are Hashed together resulting in this ID. So it's all
`going do be done together. And it's not they're not integrated
`or combined, it's just done as a unit.
`MR. HANNAH: That's what we're trying to say, your
`Honor. Is that it's not a single ID, and that's what they keep
`trying to argue. We'll adopt the Court's claim construction.
`We have lived with that in the past.
`THE COURT: Wait. Well, when you say it's not, I
`mean, it generates a Downloadable ID.
`MR. HANNAH: Yes, it downloads it.
`THE COURT: But that's an ID for that Downloadable
`with the fetched software components hashed together.
`MR. HANNAH: Yes, they're both hashed together.
`THE COURT: All right. I'm going to leave that for
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360-6 Filed 01/24/19 Page 17 of 18
`
` 16
`
` 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
`
`now. We may have to revisit that in the context of summary
`judgment, understanding that the Court is appreciating that
`this construction means that when you're hashing, you're taking
`the Downloadable and the software components and you're hashing
`them together to come out with an ID, a Downloadable ID for
`that joint process. Good. Okay.
`That leaves us where we left off yesterday. And just,
`again, the under submission outstanding things, whether or not
`Downloadable, which I would note the Patent Office in the '780,
`again, confirmed that a Downloadable is the definition that is
`set forth in the specification, and found no ambiguities in the
`history or anything, and just said it's an executable
`application program which is Downloadable from a source
`computer and run on a destination computer.
`And that is the definition of Downloadable that the
`Patent Office accepted and the Court is, again, accepting that
`for the '844, '780, and the '086.
`And there's an open question about the '621 and the
`'755. You were going to give me the current IPR on that by the
`end of this week, and then you have a week to respond.
`MR. HANNAH: Correct, your Honor.
`MR. PISANO: Okay, your Honor. I was just a little
`confused when we left yesterday. It may be the fog of my
`residual cold. But "executable" means -- I thought where we
`left was there was a definition of "executable". There's
`
`
`
`Case 3:17-cv-05659-WHA Document 360-6 Filed 01/24/19 Page 18 of 18
`
` 198
`
`in front of Judge Skomal and you need intervention or he's not
`reaching them, I might step in just to get them done. So,
`okay. thank you.
`MR. ANDRE: Thank you, your Honor.
`MR. PISANO: Thank you, your Honor.
`(Court in recess at 3:56 p.m.)
`*** End of requested transcript ***
`CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
`I, Mauralee Ramirez, Federal official Court Reporter,
`in and for the United States District Court for the Southern
`District of California, do hereby certify that pursuant to
`Section 753, Title 28, United States Code that the foregoing is
`a true and correct transcript of the stenographically reported
`proceedings held in the above-entitled matter and that the
`transcript page format is in conformance with the regulations
`of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
`
`
` Dated this 9th day of October 2017.
`/S/ Mauralee Ramirez________________
`Mauralee Ramirez, CSR No. 11674, RPR
`Federal Official Reporter
`
`
`
` 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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
