throbber
Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 130 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 9
`
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`Jeremy J. Taylor (SBN 249075)
`jeremy.taylor@bakerbotts.com
`Arya Moshiri (SBN 324231)
`arya.moshiri@bakerbotts.com
`101 California St., Ste. 3600
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415.291.6200
`Facsimile: 415.291.6300
`Kurt M. Pankratz (pro hac vice)
`Bethany R. Salpietra (pro hac vice)
`kurt.pankratz@bakerbotts.com
`bethany.salpietra@bakerbotts.com
`2001 Ross Ave., Ste. 900
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: 214.953.6500
`Facsimile: 214.953.6503
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Lyft, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`LYFT, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`PLAINTIFF LYFT, INC.’S REPLY IN
`SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STAY
`PENDING PATENT OFFICE
`PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`Date: August 11, 2022
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Judge: Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
`Trial Date: October 16, 2023
`Courtroom: 3, Fifth Floor
`
`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
`
`LYFT’S REPLY ISO ITS MOTION TO STAY
`PENDING PATENT OFFICE PROCEEDINGS
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 130 Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 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
`26
`27
`28
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`None of the arguments presented by AGIS in its Opposition (Dkt. 120) (“Opp’n”) to Lyft’s
`Motion to Stay (Dkt. 103) (“Motion”) overcome the virtual certainty of modification to the asserted
`claims, which would streamline the issues in this case and avoid the time-consuming proceeding
`that would be rendered duplicative or unnecessary following the pending Patent Office proceedings.
`As an initial matter, any argument concerning the ’970 Patent is a red herring. AGIS has not asserted
`any valid claim of the ’970 Patent against Lyft, and thus it is currently immaterial to this Court’s
`analysis concerning a stay. With respect to the remaining four patents, the stay factors
`overwhelmingly favor granting a stay in this case, largely based on undisputed evidence. First,
`AGIS’s argument that it is too early to know whether the Patent Office proceedings will result in a
`simplification of the issues is not persuasive as the parties agree that each patent individually has an
`approximate 78% chance of being cancelled or changed, which results in a 99.8% likelihood that
`the Patent Office proceedings, collectively, will result in some level of simplification across the four
`patents. The Patent Office has already confirmed that the invalidity bases articulated in Lyft’s IPR
`petitions and the EPR requests have merit, and historical Patent Office statistics corroborate Lyft’s
`contention that the Patent Office proceedings will almost certainly impact the scope of this case.
`Second, this case is in the early stages of litigation, where motions on the pleadings are still pending
`and the parties have not engaged in merits discovery. Lastly, because AGIS is seeking a monetary
`award for any alleged infringement, AGIS has failed to articulate undue prejudice supported by
`Federal Circuit caselaw that would result from a stay of this case. Accordingly, Lyft respectfully
`requests the Court grant Lyft’s Motion.
`II.
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`Simplification of the Issues
`A stay will almost certainly simplify the issues in the instant case. Indeed, as Lyft pointed
`out in its Motion, there is a ~99.8% chance that at least one of the claims asserted in this action will
`either be canceled or amended as a result of the pending Patent Office proceedings. See Motion at
`6. The Patent Office has already determined that the invalidity bases identified in each of the IPR
`petitions and EPR requests have merit, thus undermining any argument that simplification is
`
`LYFT’S REPLY ISO ITS MOTION TO STAY
`PENDING PATENT OFFICE PROCEEDINGS
`
`1
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 130 Filed 05/09/22 Page 3 of 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
`26
`27
`28
`
`speculative at this point. See Dkts. 103-3; 103-4; 103-7; 103-8; 103-9. Specifically, with respect to
`the IPR petitions concerning the ’100 and ’838 Patents, the Patent Office previously instituted IPRs
`on precisely the same invalidity grounds presented in Lyft’s petitions over the arguments submitted
`by AGIS in those proceedings. See Dkts. 103-7; 103-8; 103-9. As this Court has previously
`recognized under a similar set of facts, “the PTAB’s prior institution decisions are strong indicators
`that IPR will again be instituted here.” Lighting Sci. Grp. Corp. v. Shenzhen Jiawei Photovoltaic
`Lighting Co., Ltd., No. 16-cv-03886-BLF, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94182, at *9 (N.D. Cal. June 19,
`2017). In Lighting Sci., the patent challenger argued that there was a high likelihood of IPR
`institution based on the substantive overlap between already-instituted IPR petitions and non-
`instituted IPR petitions. See generally, id. The Court specifically opined that it seemed “highly
`likely” that the “PTAB repeats its previous institution decisions” concerning the same claims and
`grounds of the challenged patents. Id. at *8. Other courts have reached similar conclusions. See,
`e.g., Goodman v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 17-cv-5539 (JGK), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193588,
`at *7-8 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2017) (finding it “more likely that the PTAB will initiate inter partes
`review” on patent challenger’s IPR petition when the PTAB previously instituted IPR on identical
`grounds). Here, the circumstances are just as in Lighting Sci., as Lyft’s IPR petitions substantially
`overlap with IPR petitions that were previously instituted on the ’100 and ’838 patents.
`Likewise, it is highly likely (and not speculative) that formal rejections concerning the
`claims of the ’728 and ’724 Patents are forthcoming in the relevant EPRs. The Patent Office issued
`its initial findings concerning the patentability of these claims in view of the grounds raised in the
`respective EPR requests, and AGIS failed to contest them by its extended deadline to do so. See
`Motion at 2 (explaining that AGIS requested two-month extensions to respond to the Patent Office’s
`reexamination decisions despite its representations to this Court that it would “try [its] hardest to
`get the [’728 and ’724 Patents] out of the Patent Office as quickly as possible,” and did not ultimately
`file any response). In view of the fact that AGIS presented no argument opposing the Patent Office’s
`initial findings, it seems improbable that the Patent Office would change course at this stage and
`decline to issue rejections in the EPRs.
`Though AGIS contests the likelihood of IPR institutions and EPR rejections (which, as Lyft
`
`LYFT’S REPLY ISO ITS MOTION TO STAY
`PENDING PATENT OFFICE PROCEEDINGS
`
`2
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 130 Filed 05/09/22 Page 4 of 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
`26
`27
`28
`
`demonstrates above, are actually likely to occur), AGIS does not challenge that the original, asserted
`claims are unlikely to survive IPR and/or EPR. Indeed, AGIS recognizes in its Opposition that
`original claims survive EPR only in the minority of cases (~20%), and that it is far more likely that
`claims will be amended or canceled during reexamination. See Opp’n at 5-6. AGIS also does not
`dispute that at least one challenged claim in an IPR petition is found to be unpatentable about 80%
`of the time. Compare Motion at 6 with Opp’n. These Patent Office statistics make it virtually
`certain that the pending IPR and EPR proceedings will impact the scope of this case, and proceeding
`in parallel or in advance of the conclusions from the Patent Office proceedings will result in
`duplicative and unnecessary efforts by the parties and this Court.
`Finally, this Court should ignore any argument by AGIS regarding the implication of the
`’970 Patent on Lyft’s request for a stay. See, e.g., Opp’n at 4 (arguing that the ’the ’970 Patent is
`not subject to any current challenge at the Patent Office). As Lyft originally argued in its Motion,
`AGIS has, to date, only asserted invalid claims of the ’970 Patent, and has not alleged that Lyft
`infringes any valid claim of the ’970 Patent. See Motion at 1; see also Dkts. 84-6 & 84-12 (Exs. E
`& K) (showing AGIS’s infringement allegations regarding invalid claims of the ’970 Patent). Like
`the ’724 and ’728 Patents, the Patent Office decided to reexamine the ’970 Patent, and ultimately
`found all challenged claims invalid. On December 9, 2021, revised claims emerged from the
`reexamination (See Dkt. 103-2). AGIS, however, has not asserted these revised claims in either its
`infringement contentions served February 25, 2022 or in its amended infringement contentions
`AGIS moved for leave to amend on April 1, 2022. Given the lack of any allegations concerning
`valid claims of the ’970 Patent, it is irrelevant to Lyft’s Motion that the ’970 is not presently involved
`in a Patent Office proceeding.
`Because each and every claim asserted by AGIS is currently involved in Patent Office
`proceedings and because it is a virtual certainty that some or all of the claims will be affected by
`these proceedings, the simplification of issues factor favors a stay.
`B.
`Stage of the Case
`This case is in its initial stages. At present, the parties await rulings on various gating
`motions, including Lyft’s Motion for Leave to File its First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 78) and
`
`LYFT’S REPLY ISO ITS MOTION TO STAY
`PENDING PATENT OFFICE PROCEEDINGS
`
`3
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 130 Filed 05/09/22 Page 5 of 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
`26
`27
`28
`
`AGIS’s Motion for Leave to Amend Infringement Contentions (Dkt. 84). These motions won’t be
`heard until later this summer, and no discovery beyond the granted jurisdictional discovery has
`occurred. As discussed in Lyft’s Motion, courts in this District routinely grant motions to stay
`pending the outcome of post-grant proceedings in cases where the litigation is in comparable or later
`stages of the case. See Motion at 5. A stay is particularly warranted here where the Court has
`decided to not compel AGIS to comply with Patent Local Rule 3-2 given the early stage of the case
`while AGIS disputes jurisdiction. Dkt. 129 at 3.
`C.
`Undue Prejudice
`Timing of the USPTO Review Requests
`1.
`AGIS’s arguments concerning the timing of USPTO review requests are directed solely at
`Lyft’s filing of its IPR petitions. See Opp’n at 6-7. Specifically, AGIS harps on the fact that Lyft
`filed its IPR petitions “exactly one year from the date of the filing of the complaint against Lyft in
`the EDTX,” ostensibly suggesting that doing so was unreasonable. Id. at 6. But, as explained in its
`Motion, Lyft acted diligently and reasonably in filing its IPR petitions. See Motion at 8-9; see also
`DSS Tech. Mgmt. v. Apple, Inc., No. 14-cv-05330-HSG, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57704, at *11 (N.D.
`Cal. May 1, 2015) (declining to “read a ‘dilatory motive’ into Defendant’s timely exercise of its
`statutory rights,” when Defendant “waited until the end of the one-year statutory period to file its
`IPR petitions). First, Lyft filed its IPR petitions well within the statutory timeframe, about one
`month before its bar date and shortly after the Patent Office decided to institute review of the ’100
`and ’838 Patents based on Uber’s IPR petitions. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); see also Brinkmann Corp.
`v. A&J Mfg., LLC, No. IPR2015-00056 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2015) (recognizing that a petitioner is
`deemed to have been served with the complaint on the date that petitioner’s waiver of service is
`filed with the district court); Waiver of the Service of Summons, AGIS Software Development LLC
`v. Lyft, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00024-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2021), ECF No. 10. In fact, but for
`AGIS’s decision to dismiss the instituted Uber IPRs, following settlement with Uber, Lyft’s IPRs
`would have been joined with the Uber IPRs and would have followed the same schedule. AGIS’s
`decision to terminate the Uber IPRs delayed resolution of Lyft’s IPRs by at least six months and
`belie any argument that it would be prejudiced by delay while Lyft’s IPRs proceed.
`
`LYFT’S REPLY ISO ITS MOTION TO STAY
`PENDING PATENT OFFICE PROCEEDINGS
`
`4
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 130 Filed 05/09/22 Page 6 of 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
`26
`27
`28
`
`The fact that Lyft’s co-defendant Uber filed its IPR petitions before Lyft—a fact AGIS raises
`in its Opposition—has no bearing on Lyft’s diligence in filing its own IPR petitions. See Opp’n at
`7; Asetek Holdings, Inc. v. Cooler Master Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47134, *15-16 (N.D. Cal.
`Apr. 3, 2014) (“Provided an accused infringer is diligent, delay due to preparing an IPR petition,
`ascertaining the plaintiff’s theories of infringement or otherwise researching the patents that have
`been asserted in an action does not unduly prejudice the patent owner”). As explained previously,
`AGIS’s actions with respect to the Uber IPRs resulted in the delay that AGIS is now seeking to
`leverage to avoid a stay.
`Because Lyft was diligent in filing its IPR petitions and AGIS’s actions resulted in delay,
`this factor weighs against a finding of undue prejudice.
`2.
`Timing of the Stay Request
`At this Court’s suggestion, Lyft filed its Motion shortly after deciding whether to file IPRs.
`See Ex. 17 (Jan. 27, 2022 Tr. of Proceedings) at 43:24-54:2 (“I will expect to see more motions on
`a potential stay . . . obviously Lyft has to decide whether it will [file] IPR’s, and that’s coming up
`pretty soon, so you will be able to let me know.”); id. at 44:21-45:2 (encouraging Lyft to “move
`along” on filing a motion to stay despite the absence of an operative complaint). Any minor delay
`in filing the Motion is hardly dilatory given that Lyft was simultaneously seeking discovery
`(including filing a motion to compel) and amending its complaint.
`3.
`Status of the USPTO Proceedings
`As discussed supra § II(A), it is highly likely that the Patent Office will institute Lyft’s IPRs
`and issue rejections in the pending EPRs. While the institution decisions on the IPRs may not occur
`until as late as August 8, 2022, it is possible that the PTAB may issue decisions earlier given its
`prior decisions to institute IPR on the same grounds. And, as noted above, because the Patent Office
`instituted IPRs on precisely the same substantive grounds in the Uber IPRs, it is highly likely that
`the PTAB will institute review based on Lyft’s IPRs.
`The EPR proceedings are also underway and would have likely already resulted in rejections
`had AGIS not created unnecessary delay by requesting extensions for its patent owner responses
`that it never ultimately filed. See Motion at 7-8. Indeed, the Patent Office usually issues a first
`
`LYFT’S REPLY ISO ITS MOTION TO STAY
`PENDING PATENT OFFICE PROCEEDINGS
`
`5
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 130 Filed 05/09/22 Page 7 of 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
`26
`27
`28
`
`action on the merits within 4.5 months of receiving a reexamination request, which, in this case,
`would have been in early March. See Dkt. 103-7 at 2 (showing average time from filing to a first
`action on the merits at 4.39 months).
`4.
` The Relationship of the Parties
`The Federal Circuit has confirmed that a stay does not cause undue prejudice to non-
`competitors, and AGIS does not dispute that the parties do not compete. See Smartflash LLC v.
`Apple Inc., 621 F. App'x 995, 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding no undue prejudice to plaintiff because
`the parties were not competitors). Monetary relief, therefore, is sufficient to compensate AGIS for
`any damages, and such damages will not be diminished by a stay. See VirtualAgility Inc. v.
`Salesforce.com, Inc., 759 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`Rather than arguing that AGIS will be unduly prejudiced by a stay based on the parties’
`relationship, AGIS argues that its particular circumstances fail to warrant a stay. Specifically, AGIS
`argues that it will be prejudiced by a stay given the advanced age of its CEO and primary witness,
`Mr. Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr., and because a stay would compress the case schedule. See Opp’n at 8.
`Both arguments are suspect. Notably, if AGIS was—as it contends—actually concerned about faster
`resolution of its claims, it would have immediately dismissed its Eastern District of Texas case
`against Lyft upon being informed that venue was improper there and refiled in an uncontested venue.
`But AGIS did not do this. Instead, AGIS fought Lyft’s venue challenge in the Eastern District of
`Texas, which took nearly a year to resolve in Lyft’s favor. See Order, AGIS Software Development
`LLC v. Lyft, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 19, 2022), ECF No. 334. Similarly, if
`AGIS was actually interested in prompt resolution of its infringement claims, it would have waived
`jurisdiction in this case so that the parties could promptly begin litigation on the merits. As this
`Court knows, AGIS has not done this either. Indeed, almost a year has passed since this case was
`initially filed and the parties have yet to engage in merits discovery (and AGIS contends that such
`discovery is not open).
`AGIS’s argument regarding prejudice due to schedule compression is also unavailing. AGIS
`is used to litigating in the Eastern District of Texas where compressed schedules are the norm, and
`there is no reason why the schedule in this case could not be revised to accommodate any needed
`
`LYFT’S REPLY ISO ITS MOTION TO STAY
`PENDING PATENT OFFICE PROCEEDINGS
`
`6
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 130 Filed 05/09/22 Page 8 of 9
`
`discovery following the stay, as the Court suggested at the Case Management Conference. AGIS
`Software Development LLC v. ZTE Corporation et al., No. 2:17-cv-00517-JRG (E.D. Tex. June 21,
`2017); AGIS Software Development LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00516-JRG (E.D. Tex. June 21,
`2017); AGIS Software Development LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00515-JRG (E.D.
`Tex. June 21, 2017); AGIS Software Development LLC v. HTC Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-00514-
`JRG (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2017); AGIS Software Development LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et
`al., No. 2:17-cv-00513-JRG (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2017); AGIS Software Development LLC v.
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, No. 2:19-cv-00362-JRG (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2019); AGIS
`Software Development LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:19-cv-00361-JRG (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2019);
`AGIS Software Development LLC v. Waze Mobile Limited, No. 2:19-cv-00359-JRG (E.D. Tex. Nov.
`4, 2019); AGIS Software Development LLC v. WhatsApp, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00029-JRG (E.D. Tex.
`Jan. 29, 2021); AGIS Software Development LLC v. Uber Technologies Inc. d/b/a Uber, No. 2:21-
`cv-00026-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan 29, 2021); AGIS Software Development LLC v. Lyft, Inc., No. 2:21-
`cv-00024-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2021); AGIS Software Development LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
`et al., No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2021); see also Ex. 17 at 43:11-12 (“If I stay the
`case, schedules can be changed.”) & 49:14-15 (“If I were to grant a stay, of course my comments
`about no continuances will have to fall away. A stay is a stay, that’s a whole different thing.”). Any
`concerns regarding a shortened schedule resulting from a stay could easily be abated by a
`commensurate extension.
`This factor therefore weighs against a finding of undue prejudice.
`CONCLUSION
`Because the balance of the factors weighs in favor of a stay, Lyft respectfully requests the
`Court grant its Motion.
`
`III.
`
`Dated: May 9, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Jeremy J. Taylor
`Jeremy J. Taylor
`
`Jeremy J. Taylor (SBN 249075)
`Arya Moshiri (SBN 324231)
`
`LYFT’S REPLY ISO ITS MOTION TO STAY
`PENDING PATENT OFFICE PROCEEDINGS
`
`7
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 130 Filed 05/09/22 Page 9 of 9
`
`jeremy.taylor@bakerbotts.com
`arya.moshiri@bakerbotts.com
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`101 California St., Ste. 3600
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415.291.6200
`Facsimile: 415.291.6300
`Kurt M. Pankratz (pro hac vice)
`Bethany R. Salpietra (pro hac vice)
`kurt.pankratz@bakerbotts.com
`bethany.salpietra@bakerbotts.com
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`2001 Ross Ave., Ste. 900
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: 214.953.6500
`Facsimile: 214.953.6503
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Lyft, 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
`
`LYFT’S REPLY ISO ITS MOTION TO STAY
`PENDING PATENT OFFICE PROCEEDINGS
`
`8
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket