throbber
Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 323 Filed 10/03/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 26017
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-453 (RGA)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`ACTIVISION|BLIZZARD, INC.’S AMENDED ANSWER TO
`COMPLAINT AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Defendant Activision|Blizzard, Inc. (“Activision”) submits the following amended
`
`answer and affirmative defenses to the Complaint for Patent Infringement (D.I. 1) filed by
`
`Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC (“Acceleration Bay”).
`
`On October 4, 2016, Activision moved to dismiss all the accused Sony products from the
`
`case because Plaintiff lacks standing, and the Court granted the motion on August 24, 2017
`
`(D.I. 237). Therefore, the allegations relating to the accused Sony products no longer require a
`
`response.
`
`GENERAL DENIAL
`
`Unless specifically admitted below, Activision denies each and every allegation in
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`AS TO THE BACKGROUND
`
`1.
`
`Activision admits that Acceleration Bay previously asserted U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,701,344, U.S. Patent No. 6,714,966, U.S. Patent No. 6,732,147, U.S. Patent No. 6,829,634,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,910,069, and U.S. Patent No. 6,920,497 (the “Patents-in-Suit” or the
`
`“Acceleration Bay Patents”) against Activision in C.A. No. 15-228 (D. Del.), and that the
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 323 Filed 10/03/17 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 26018
`
`District Court issued an Order in that previous case finding that Acceleration Bay lacked
`
`standing. Except as expressly admitted, Activision denies the remainder of the allegations in
`
`paragraph 1.
`
`AS TO THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 2 and therefore, denies them.
`
`3.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 3 and therefore, denies them.
`
`4.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 4 and therefore, denies them.
`
`5.
`
`Activision admits it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware and that its principal place of business is located in Santa Monica, California.
`
`6.
`
`Denied.
`
`AS TO JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`Paragraph 7 contains conclusions of law and not averments of fact to which an
`
`answer is required, but insofar as an answer may be deemed required, Activision admits that
`
`Acceleration Bay purports to be bringing an action for patent infringement allegedly under
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq, and that 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 provide the Court with subject
`
`matter jurisdiction over federal questions and patent infringement actions. Except as expressly
`
`admitted, Activision denies the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 7.
`
`8.
`
`Paragraph 8 contains conclusions of law that are not averments of fact to which an
`
`answer is required, but insofar as an answer may be deemed required, Activision does not contest
`
`that venue may lie in this District; however, venue may be more appropriate in another district
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 323 Filed 10/03/17 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 26019
`
`for the convenience of the parties. Except as expressly admitted, Activision denies the remainder
`
`of the allegations in paragraph 8.
`
`9.
`
`Activision does not contest that the Court has personal jurisdiction in this action.
`
`Activision admits that it has transacted business in this district. Activision admits it is a
`
`corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. Activision denies
`
`any acts of patent infringement have taken place in this district, or elsewhere. The remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 9 contains conclusions of law that are not averments of fact to which an
`
`answer is required, but insofar as an answer may be deemed required, Activision denies the
`
`remaining allegations in paragraph 9.
`
`AS TO THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`10.
`
`Activision admits that the Complaint asserts the following six patents: U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 6,701,344, 6,714,966, 6,732,147, 6,829,634, 6,910,069, and 6,920,497. Except as expressly
`
`admitted, Activision denies the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 10.
`
`11.
`
`Activision admits that U.S. Pat. No. 6,701,344 (“the ’344 Patent”) is entitled
`
`“DISTRIBUTED GAME ENVIRONMENT” (a copy of which appears to be Exhibit 1), and that
`
`the face of the patent indicates that it was issued on March 2, 2004. Activision lacks knowledge
`
`or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in
`
`paragraph 11 and therefore denies them.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Activision admits that U.S. Pat. No. 6,714,966 (“the ’966 Patent”) is entitled
`
`“INFORMATION DELIVERY SERVICE” (a copy of which appears to be Exhibit 2), and that
`
`the face of the patent indicates that it was issued on March 30, 2004. Activision lacks
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 323 Filed 10/03/17 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 26020
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`set forth in paragraph 14 and therefore denies them.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Activision admits that U.S. Pat. No. 6,732,147 (“the ’147 Patent”) is entitled
`
`“LEAVING A BROADCAST CHANNEL” (a copy of which appears to be Exhibit 3), and that
`
`the face of the patent indicates that it was issued on May 4, 2004. Activision lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in
`
`paragraph 17 and therefore denies them.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Activision admits that U.S. Pat. No. 6,829,634 (“the ’634 Patent”) is entitled
`
`“BROADCASTING NETWORK” (a copy of which appears to be Exhibit 4), and that the face of
`
`the patent indicates that it was issued on December 7, 2004. Activision lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in
`
`paragraph 20 and therefore denies them.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Activision admits that U.S. Pat. No. 6,910,069 (“the ’069 Patent”) is entitled
`
`“JOINING A BROADCAST CHANNEL” (a copy of which appears to be Exhibit 5), and that
`
`the face of the patent indicates that it was issued on June 21, 2005. Activision lacks knowledge
`
`or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in
`
`paragraph 23 and therefore denies them.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 323 Filed 10/03/17 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 26021
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Activision admits that U.S. Pat. No. 6,920,497 (“the ’497 Patent”) is entitled
`
`“CONTACTING A BROADCAST CHANNEL” (a copy of which appears to be Exhibit 6), and
`
`that the face of the patent indicates that it was issued on July 19, 2005. Activision lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`set forth in paragraph 26 and therefore denies them.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`AS TO THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Activision admits that certain World of Warcraft products include or have
`
`included features relating to multiple realms but denies that such technology has ever infringed
`
`any of the Patents-in-Suit. Activision denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 32.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`Denied.
`
`Activision admits that at least one version of the World of Warcraft Downloader
`
`included features relating to peer-to-peer technology but denies that any such technology has
`
`ever infringed any of the Patents-in-Suit. Activision denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 34.
`
`35.
`
`Denied.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 323 Filed 10/03/17 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 26022
`
`36.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 36 and therefore denies them.
`
`37.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 37 and therefore denies them.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`AS TO ACTIVISION BLIZZARD’S ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT
`OF ACCELERATION BAY’S PATENTS
`
`41.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 41 as it relates to Destiny and therefore denies
`
`them. Activision denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 41.
`
`AS TO COUNT I
`(Alleged Direct Infringement of the ’344 Patent)
`
`42.
`
`Activision hereby incorporates by reference the responses of the preceding
`
`paragraphs.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 323 Filed 10/03/17 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 26023
`
`52.
`
`Denied.
`
`AS TO COUNT II
`(Alleged Direct Infringement of the ’966 Patent)
`
`53.
`
`Activision hereby incorporates by reference the responses of the preceding
`
`paragraphs.
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`61.
`
`62.
`
`63.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`AS TO COUNT III
`(Alleged Direct Infringement of the ’147 Patent)
`
`64.
`
`Activision hereby incorporates by reference the responses of the preceding
`
`paragraphs.
`
`65.
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Activision admits that it provides Terms of Use for its products and services
`
`(copies of which appear to be Exhibits 10 and 11). The remaining allegations in paragraph 69
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 323 Filed 10/03/17 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 26024
`
`constitute conclusions of law to which no response of Activision is required; to the extent a
`
`response is required, Activision denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 69.
`
`70.
`
`71.
`
`72.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 72 and therefore denies them.
`
`73.
`
`74.
`
`75.
`
`76.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`AS TO COUNT IV
`(Alleged Direct Infringement of the ’634 Patent)
`
`77.
`
`Activision hereby incorporates by reference the responses of the preceding
`
`paragraphs.
`
`78.
`
`79.
`
`80.
`
`81.
`
`82.
`
`83.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 83 and therefore denies them.
`
`84.
`
`85.
`
`86.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 323 Filed 10/03/17 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 26025
`
`87.
`
`Denied.
`
`AS TO COUNT V
`(Alleged Direct Infringement of the ’069 Patent)
`
`88.
`
`Activision hereby incorporates by reference the responses of the preceding
`
`paragraphs.
`
`89.
`
`90.
`
`91.
`
`92.
`
`93.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Activision admits that it provides Terms of Use for its products and services
`
`(copies of which appear to be Exhibits 10 and 11). The remaining allegations in paragraph 93
`
`constitute conclusions of law to which no response of Activision is required; to the extent a
`
`response is required, Activision denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 93.
`
`94.
`
`95.
`
`96.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 96 and therefore denies them.
`
`97.
`
`98.
`
`99.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`100. Denied.
`
`AS TO COUNT VI
`(Alleged Direct Infringement of the ’497 Patent)
`
`101. Activision hereby incorporates by reference the responses of the preceding
`
`paragraphs.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 323 Filed 10/03/17 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 26026
`
`102. Denied.
`
`103. Denied.
`
`104. Denied.
`
`105. Denied.
`
`106. Activision admits that it provides Terms of Use for its products and services
`
`(copies of which appear to be Exhibits 10 and 11). The remaining allegations in paragraph 106
`
`constitute conclusions of law to which no response of Activision is required; to the extent a
`
`response is required, Activision denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 106.
`
`107. Denied.
`
`108. Denied.
`
`109. Activision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 109 and therefore denies them.
`
`110. Denied.
`
`111. Denied.
`
`112. Denied.
`
`113. Denied.
`
`AS TO PLAINTIFF’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`These Paragraphs set forth the statement of relief requested by Plaintiff, to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent that these paragraphs require a response, Activision denies
`
`that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the requested relief and denies any allegations contained herein.
`
`Activision requests that a take-nothing judgment be entered in its favor and against Plaintiff on
`
`the entire Complaint.
`
`AS TO PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`This section purports to request a trial by jury and does not require a response.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 323 Filed 10/03/17 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 26027
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Further answering the Complaint, Activision asserts the following affirmative defenses,
`
`undertaking the burden of proof only as to those defenses required by law, regardless of how
`
`such defenses are denominated here. Activision reserves the right to rely upon any additional
`
`defenses that become available or apparent during discovery, and reserves its right to amend this
`
`Answer and to assert such additional defenses or, if appropriate, delete additional defenses as
`
`discovery proceeds, including the right to assert claims for inequitable conduct. Activision
`
`asserts each of these affirmative defenses in the alternative, without admitting that Activision is
`
`in any way liable to Plaintiff, that Plaintiff has been or will be injured or damaged in any way, or
`
`that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever. As a defense to the Complaint and each and
`
`every allegation contained in it, Activision alleges as follows:
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Failure to State a Claim for Relief)
`
`The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against Activision,
`
`and fails to allege sufficient facts.
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Invalidity)
`
`The Patents-in-Suit are invalid and void, at least, for failure to meet one or more of the
`
`conditions for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., including but not limited to
`
`failure to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Failure to Provide Notice and/or Failure to Mark)
`
`By reason of Plaintiff’s failure to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287, Plaintiff is
`
`precluded from seeking damages from Activision for any and all alleged infringement prior to
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 323 Filed 10/03/17 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 26028
`
`the filing of the Complaint. Any claim for damages is limited by the requirements of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 287(a).
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Claim Is Not Entitled to Injunctive Relief)
`
`Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief because any alleged injury to them is not
`
`immediate or irreparable, and because Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law for any claims it
`
`can prove.
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Prosecution History Estoppel)
`
`By virtue of statements, amendments made, or positions taken during prosecution of the
`
`applications for the Patents-in-Suit and/or related patents or patent applications, Acceleration
`
`Bay is barred from claiming that the Patents-in-Suit cover or include, either literally or by
`
`application of the doctrine of equivalents, any of Activision’s products, and is further barred
`
`from alleging infringement, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, because its
`
`infringement allegations ensnare the prior art, including prior art it specifically amended its
`
`claims to avoid.
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Damage Limitation)
`
`Plaintiff shall not be entitled to seek damages for alleged infringement prior to
`
`March 12, 2015.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 323 Filed 10/03/17 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 26029
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Activision respectfully requests that the Court enter a judgment in its
`
`favor and against Acceleration Bay as follows:
`
`A.
`
`An order declaring and entering judgment that Activision has not infringed and
`
`does not infringe directly (or under the doctrine of equivalents) any valid and
`
`enforceable claim of the Patents-in-Suit;
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`An order declaring and entering judgment that the Patents-in-Suit are invalid;
`
`An order dismissing with prejudice all of Acceleration Bay’s claims against
`
`Activision;
`
`D.
`
`An order declaring that Activision is a prevailing party and that this is an
`
`exceptional case, awarding Activision its costs, expenses, disbursements, and
`
`reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285;
`
`E.
`
`An order compelling Acceleration Bay to pay all costs associated with this action;
`
`and
`
`F.
`
`An order granting Activision any such other and further relief as the Court deems
`
`just and proper.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Defendant Activision demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 323 Filed 10/03/17 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 26030
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`Michael A. Tomasulo
`Gino Cheng
`David K. Lin
`Joe S. Netikosol
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 615-1700
`
`David P. Enzminger
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`275 Middlefield Road, Suite 205
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 858-6500
`Dan K. Webb
`Kathleen B. Barry
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 558-5600
`
`Krista M. Enns
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`101 California Street, 35th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 591-1000
`
`Michael M. Murray
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue,
`New York, NY 10166
`(212) 294-6700
`
`Andrew R. Sommer
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1700 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 282-5000
`
`October 3, 2017
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`
`/s/ Stephen J. Kraftschik
`__________________________________
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Stephen J. Kraftschik (#5623)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`skraftschik@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 323 Filed 10/03/17 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 26031
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on October 3, 2017, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed
`
`
`
`with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to all
`
`registered participants.
`
`
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served on
`
`October 3, 2017, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`Philip A. Rovner, Esquire
`Jonathan A. Choa, Esquire
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`1313 North Market Street, 6th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Paul J. Andre, Esquire
`Lisa Kobialka, Esquire
`James R. Hannah, Esquire
`Hannah Lee, Esquire
`Yuridia Caire, Esquire
`Greg Proctor, Esquire
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Aaron M. Frankel, Esquire
`Marcus A. Colucci, Esquire
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Stephen J. Kraftschik
`Stephen J. Kraftschik (#5623)
`
`
`
`
`
`

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