throbber
Case 3:20-cv-01179-VC Document 1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 1 of 10
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953)
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`Paul A. Kroeger (CA SBN 229074)
`pkroeger@raklaw
`Philip X. Wang (CA SBN 262239)
`pwang@raklaw.com
`Kent N. Shum (CA SBN 259189)
`kshum@raklaw.com
`Jonathan Ma (CA SBN 312773)
`jma@raklaw.com
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`Telephone: (310) 826-7474
`Facsimile: (310) 826-6991
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Neodron Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT AGAINST
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement agains Motorola Mobility LLC
`
`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
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`3:20-cv-01179
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01179-VC Document 1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the United States
`
`of America, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., in which Plaintiff Neodron Ltd. (“Plaintiff” or “Neodron”)
`
`makes the following allegations against Defendant Motorola Mobility LLC (“Defendant”):
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This complaint arises from Defendant’s unlawful infringement of the following
`
`United States patents owned by Neodron, each of which generally relate to touchscreen
`
`technology: United States Patent Nos. 7,903,092 (“’092 Patent”); 8,749,251 (“’251 Patent”); and
`
`9,411,472 (“’472 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`2.
`
`Touchscreen technology plays a ubiquitous and important role in countless
`
`electronic devices today. Beyond just providing greater usability to smartphones, tablets and
`
`notebooks, touchscreens now fill our lives in public and private spaces, from our homes and cars
`
`to the restaurants and stores we visit.
`
`3.
`
`But just a few decades ago, touchscreen technology could only be found in science
`
`fiction books and film. Although the underlying science behind touch technology can be traced
`
`back to the 1940s, working touchscreens were not conceived and feasible until the mid-1960s,
`
`when the first finger-driven touchscreen was invented by E.A. Johnson in 1965 at the Royal Radar
`
`Establishment in Malvern, United Kingdom. Since then, it took several generations and major
`
`technological advancements for touchscreens to achieve the level of complexity—and
`
`convenience—we see and enjoy today.
`
`4.
`
`Built on the fundamental breakthrough that our hands and fingers can form changes
`
`in the capacitance of electrodes and electrode-connections when they are in close proximity to
`
`them, touch technology has developed rapidly over the years. Along the way, engineers have
`
`worked tirelessly to try to overcome the limitations and roadblocks touch technology presents.
`
`From conceiving various ways to detect (and correctly ignore) unintentional touches, to
`
`minimizing signal “noise,” to reducing the latency and power consumption that comes with any
`
`complex, multi-part electrical process, there have been many advances to various aspects of the
`
`technology—each building a little on a related advancement before it—to get us to the highly
`
`advanced state we enjoy today.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement agains Motorola Mobility LLC
`
`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
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01179-VC Document 1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 3 of 10
`
`
`
`5.
`
`These advancements range from fundamental ones, which make basic touch
`
`technology work, to optional improvements, which typically represent one technological option
`
`that improves aspects of the user experience and functionality of a touchscreen. This infringement
`
`action is about the latter: several patented improvements—which took years of research and
`
`millions of dollars in U.S. investments to develop, and which are infringed by Defendant’s accused
`
`products.
`
`PARTIES
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff Neodron, Ltd. is an Irish company, having its principal place of business
`
`at Unit 4-5, Burton Hall Road, Sandyford, Dublin 18, D18a094. Neodron is the sole owner by
`
`assignment of all right, title, and interest in each Asserted Patent.
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Motorola Mobility LLC is a Delaware
`
`limited liability company with its principal office located at 222 W. Merchandise Mart Plaza, Suite
`
`1800, Chicago, Illinois 60654.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United
`
`States Code. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a).
`
`9.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant in this action because
`
`Defendant has committed acts within this District giving rise to this action, and has established
`
`minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Defendant would not
`
`offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Defendant, directly and through
`
`subsidiaries or intermediaries, has committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in this
`
`District by, among other things, importing, offering to sell, and selling products that infringe the
`
`asserted patents.
`
`10.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). On information and
`
`belief, Motorola Mobility LLC has a regular and established place of business in the District. For
`
`example, Motorola Mobility LLC maintains offices and/or employs employees at 3325 Scott
`
`Boulevard, Santa Clara, California 95054. Motorola Mobility LLC also advertises jobs, including
`
`
`
`2
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement agains Motorola Mobility LLC
`
`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
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01179-VC Document 1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`engineering jobs, in this District, as shown below.1
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`11.
`
`Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Local Rule 3-5(b) and 3-2(c), this civil action should be
`
`assigned on a district-wide basis because it pertains to “Intellectual Property Rights.”
`
`COUNT I
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,903,092
`
`12.
`
`Neodron realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if
`
`
`1 See, e.g., https://lenovocareers.com/areas-mobile.html.
`3
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement agains Motorola Mobility LLC
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01179-VC Document 1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`13.
`
`Neodron owns by assignment all rights, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,903,092 (the “’092 Patent”), entitled “Capacitive Keyboard with Position Dependent Reduced
`
`Keying Ambiguity.” The ’092 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office on March 8, 2011. A true and correct copy of the ’092 Patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit 1.
`
`14.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, and/or
`
`imports certain products (“Accused Products”), such as the Motorola Moto G6, that directly
`
`infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, claims 1–14 of the ’092 Patent.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant also knowingly and intentionally induces infringement of claims 1–14
`
`of the ’092 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Through the filing and service of this
`
`Complaint, and also through the filing and service of a complaint with the United States
`
`International Trade Commission (ITC) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1337, Defendant has had knowledge of the ’092 Patent and the infringing nature of the Accused
`
`Products. Despite this knowledge of the ’092 Patent, Defendant continues to actively encourage
`
`and instruct its customers and end users (for example, through user manuals and online instruction
`
`materials on its website) to use the Accused Products in ways that directly infringe the ’092 Patent.
`
`Defendant does so knowing and intending that its customers and end users will commit these
`
`infringing acts. Defendant also continues to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import the
`
`Accused Products, despite its knowledge of the ’092 Patent, thereby specifically intending for and
`
`inducing its customers to infringe the ’092 Patent through the customers’ normal and customary
`
`use of the Accused Products.
`
`16.
`
`The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of claims 1–14 of the ’092
`
`Patent. A claim chart comparing independent claims 1, 2, and 13 of the ’092 Patent to
`
`representative Accused Product, the Motorola Moto G6, is attached as Exhibit 2.
`
`17.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Products, Defendant has injured Neodron and is liable for infringement of the ’092
`
`Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement agains Motorola Mobility LLC
`
`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
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01179-VC Document 1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 6 of 10
`
`
`
`18.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’092 Patent, Neodron is entitled to
`
`monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendant’s infringement, but in no
`
`event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendant, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant’s infringing activities have injured and will continue to injure Neodron,
`
`unless and until this Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ’092 Patent,
`
`and, specifically, enjoining further manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offers for sale that
`
`come within the scope of the patent claims.
`
`COUNT II
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,749,251
`
`20.
`
`Neodron realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`21.
`
`Neodron owns by assignment all rights, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,749,251 (the “’251 Patent”), entitled “Proximity Sensor” The ’251 Patent was duly and legally
`
`issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on June 10, 2014. A true and correct copy
`
`of the ’251 Patent is attached as Exhibit 3.
`
`22.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, and/or
`
`imports certain products (“Accused Products”), such as the Motorola Moto G6, that directly
`
`infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, claims 1–20 of the ’251 Patent.
`
`23.
`
`Defendant also knowingly and intentionally induces infringement of claims 1–20
`
`of the ’251 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Through the filing and service of this
`
`Complaint, and also through the filing and service of a complaint with the United States
`
`International Trade Commission (ITC) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1337, Defendant has had knowledge of the ’251 Patent and the infringing nature of the Accused
`
`Products. Despite this knowledge of the ’251 Patent, Defendant continues to actively encourage
`
`and instruct its customers and end users (for example, through user manuals and online instruction
`
`materials on its website) to use the Accused Products in ways that directly infringe the ’251 Patent.
`
`Defendant does so knowing and intending that its customers and end users will commit these
`
`
`
`5
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement agains Motorola Mobility LLC
`
`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
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01179-VC Document 1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`infringing acts. Defendant also continues to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import the
`
`Accused Products, despite its knowledge of the ’251 Patent, thereby specifically intending for and
`
`inducing its customers to infringe the ’251 Patent through the customers’ normal and customary
`
`use of the Accused Products.
`
`24.
`
`The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of claims 1–20 of the ’251
`
`Patent. A claim chart comparing independent claims 1 and 16 of the ’251 Patent to representative
`
`Accused Product, the Motorola Moto G6, is attached as Exhibit 4.
`
`25.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Products, Defendant has injured Neodron and is liable for infringement of the ’251
`
`Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`26.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’251 Patent, Neodron is entitled to
`
`monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendant’s infringement, but in no
`
`event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendant, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`27.
`
`Defendant’s infringing activities have injured and will continue to injure Neodron,
`
`unless and until this Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ’251 Patent,
`
`and, specifically, enjoining further manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offers for sale that
`
`come within the scope of the patent claims.
`
`COUNT III
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,411,472
`
`28.
`
`Neodron realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`29.
`
`Neodron owns by assignment all rights, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,411,472 (the “’472 Patent”), entitled “Touch Sensor with Adaptive Touch Detection
`
`Thresholding.” The ’472 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office on August 9, 2016. A true and correct copy of the ’472 Patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit 5.
`
`30.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, and/or
`
`
`
`6
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement agains Motorola Mobility LLC
`
`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
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01179-VC Document 1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`imports certain products (“Accused Products”), such as the Motorola Moto G6, that directly
`
`infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, claims 1–23 of the ’472 Patent.
`
`31.
`
`Defendant also knowingly and intentionally induces infringement of claims 1–23
`
`of the ’472 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Through the filing and service of this
`
`Complaint, and also through the filing and service of a complaint with the United States
`
`International Trade Commission (ITC) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1337, Defendant has had knowledge of the ’472 Patent and the infringing nature of the Accused
`
`Products. Despite this knowledge of the ’472 Patent, Defendant continues to actively encourage
`
`and instruct its customers and end users (for example, through user manuals and online instruction
`
`materials on its website) to use the Accused Products in ways that directly infringe the ’472 Patent.
`
`Defendant does so knowing and intending that its customers and end users will commit these
`
`infringing acts. Defendant also continues to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import the
`
`Accused Products, despite its knowledge of the ’472 Patent, thereby specifically intending for and
`
`inducing its customers to infringe the ’472 Patent through the customers’ normal and customary
`
`use of the Accused Products.
`
`32.
`
`The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of claims 1–23 of the ’472
`
`Patent. A claim chart comparing independent claims 1 and 13 of the ’472 Patent to representative
`
`Accused Product, the Motorola Moto G6, is attached as Exhibit 6.
`
`33.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Products, Defendant has injured Neodron and is liable for infringement of the ’472
`
`Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`34.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’472 Patent, Neodron is entitled to
`
`monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendant’s infringement, but in no
`
`event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendant, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`35.
`
`Defendant’s infringing activities have injured and will continue to injure Neodron,
`
`unless and until this Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ’472 Patent,
`
`and, specifically, enjoining further manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offers for sale that
`
`
`
`7
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement agains Motorola Mobility LLC
`
`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
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01179-VC Document 1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 9 of 10
`
`
`
`come within the scope of the patent claims.
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Neodron respectfully requests that this Court enter:
`
`a.
`
`A judgment in favor of Neodron that Defendant has infringed, either literally and/or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’092 Patent, the ’251 Patent, and the ’472 Patent;
`
`b.
`
`A permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from further acts of infringement of
`
`the ’092 Patent, the ’251 Patent, and the ’472 Patent;
`
`c.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Defendant to pay Neodron its damages, costs,
`
`expenses, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for Defendant’ infringement of the ’092
`
`Patent, the ’251 Patent, and the ’472 Patent; and
`
`d.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Defendant to provide an accounting and to pay
`
`supplemental damages to Neodron, including without limitation, pre-judgment and post-judgment
`
`interest;
`
`e.
`
`A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to Neodron its reasonable attorneys’ fees against Defendant; and
`
`f.
`
`Any and all other relief as the Court may deem appropriate and just under the
`
`circumstances.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Neodron, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of
`
`any issues so triable by right.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 14, 2020
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Reza Mirzaie
`
`Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953)
`Email: rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`Paul A. Kroeger (CA SBN 229074)
`Email: pkroeger@raklaw
`Philip X. Wang (CA SBN 262239)
`8
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement agains Motorola Mobility LLC
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01179-VC Document 1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 10 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`pwang@raklaw.com
`Kent N. Shum (CA SBN 259189)
`Email: kshum@raklaw.com
`Jonathan Ma (CA SBN 312773)
`jma@raklaw.com
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Blvd. 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`Fax: (310) 826-6991
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Neodron Ltd.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement agains Motorola Mobility LLC
`
`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
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

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