throbber
Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 274 Filed 09/12/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 20047
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 16-454 (RGA)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant Electronic Arts Inc. (“Electronic Arts”) submits the following answer and
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`affirmative defenses to the Complaint for Patent Infringement (D.I. 1) filed by Plaintiff
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC (“Acceleration Bay”).
`
`On October 4, 2016, Electronic Arts 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. 241). Therefore, the allegations relating to the accused Sony products no longer
`
`require a response.
`
`GENERAL DENIAL
`
`Unless specifically admitted below, Electronic Arts denies each and every allegation in
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`AS TO THE BACKGROUND
`
`1.
`
`Electronic Arts 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
`
`District Court issued an Order in that previous case finding that Acceleration Bay lacked
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 274 Filed 09/12/17 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 20048
`
`standing. Except as expressly admitted, Activision denies the remainder of the allegations in
`
`paragraph 1.
`
`AS TO THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Electronic Arts 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.
`
`Electronic Arts 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.
`
`Electronic Arts 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.
`
`Electronic Arts 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 at 209 Redwood Shores
`
`Parkway, Redwood City, California 94065.
`
`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, Electronic Arts 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, Electronic Arts 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, Electronic Arts does not
`
`contest that venue may lie in this District; however, venue may be more appropriate in another
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 274 Filed 09/12/17 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 20049
`
`district for the convenience of the parties. Except as expressly admitted, Electronic Arts denies
`
`the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 8.
`
`9.
`
`Electronic Arts does not contest that the Court has personal jurisdiction in this
`
`action. Electronic Arts admits that it has transacted business in this district. Electronic Arts
`
`admits it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware.
`
`Electronic Arts 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, Electronic Arts denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 9.
`
`AS TO THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`10.
`
`Electronic Arts 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. Electronic
`
`Arts denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 10.
`
`11.
`
`Electronic Arts 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. Electronic Arts 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.
`
`Electronic Arts 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. Electronic Arts lacks
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 274 Filed 09/12/17 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 20050
`
`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.
`
`Electronic Arts 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. Electronic Arts 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.
`
`Electronic Arts 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. Electronic Arts 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.
`
`Electronic Arts 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. Electronic Arts 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-00454-RGA Document 274 Filed 09/12/17 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 20051
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Electronic Arts 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. Electronic Arts 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.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`AS TO THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`
`29.
`
`Electronic Arts admits that FIFA includes features relating to multiplayer
`
`technology but denies that such technology has ever infringed any of the Acceleration Bay
`
`Patents. EA denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 29.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Electronic Arts admits that FIFA includes features relating to multiplayer
`
`technology but denies that any such technology has ever infringed any of the Acceleration Bay
`
`Patents. Electronic Arts denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 33.
`
`34.
`
`Electronic Arts admits that NHL includes features relating to multiplayer
`
`technology but denies that such technology has ever infringed any of the Acceleration Bay
`
`Patents. Electronic Arts denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 34.
`
`35.
`
`Denied.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 274 Filed 09/12/17 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 20052
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`Denied.
`
`Electronic Arts admits that PGA includes features relating to multiplayer
`
`technology but denies that such technology has ever infringed any of the Acceleration Bay
`
`Patents. Electronic Arts denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 37.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Electronic Arts admits that Plants v. Zombies includes features relating to
`
`multiplayer technology but denies that such technology has ever infringed any of the
`
`Acceleration Bay Patents. EA denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 40.
`
`AS TO ELECTRONIC ARTS’ ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT
`OF ACCELERATION BAY’S PATENTS
`
`41.
`
`Denied.
`
`AS TO COUNT I
`(Alleged Direct Infringement of the ’344 Patent)
`
`42.
`
`Electronic Arts 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-00454-RGA Document 274 Filed 09/12/17 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 20053
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT II
`(Alleged Direct Infringement of the ’966 Patent)
`
`54.
`
`Electronic Arts hereby incorporates by reference the responses of the preceding
`
`paragraphs.
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`61.
`
`62.
`
`63.
`
`64.
`
`65.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT III
`(Alleged Direct Infringement of the ’147 Patent)
`
`66.
`
`Electronic Arts hereby incorporates by reference the responses of the preceding
`
`paragraphs.
`
`67.
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`70.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 274 Filed 09/12/17 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 20054
`
`71.
`
`Electronic Arts admits that for the accused products, it provided an End User
`
`License Agreement and Terms of Service. The remaining allegations in paragraph 71 constitute
`
`conclusions of law to which no response of Electronic Arts is required; to the extent a response is
`
`required, Electronic Arts denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 71.
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
`74.
`
`75.
`
`76.
`
`77.
`
`78.
`
`79.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT IV
`(Alleged Direct Infringement of the ’634 Patent)
`
`80.
`
`Electronic Arts hereby incorporates by reference the responses of the preceding
`
`paragraphs.
`
`81.
`
`82.
`
`83.
`
`84.
`
`85.
`
`86.
`
`87.
`
`88.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 274 Filed 09/12/17 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 20055
`
`89.
`
`90.
`
`91.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT VI
`(Alleged Direct Infringement of the ’069 Patent)
`
`92.
`
`Electronic Arts hereby incorporates by reference the responses of the preceding
`
`paragraphs.
`
`93.
`
`94.
`
`95.
`
`96.
`
`97.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Electronic Arts admits that for the accused products, it provided an End User
`
`License Agreement and Terms of Service. The remaining allegations in paragraph 97 constitute
`
`conclusions of law to which no response of Electronic Arts is required; to the extent a response is
`
`required, Electronic Arts denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 97.
`
`98.
`
`99.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`100. Denied.
`
`101. Denied.
`
`102. Denied.
`
`103. Denied.
`
`104. Denied.
`
`105. Denied.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 274 Filed 09/12/17 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 20056
`
`COUNT VI
`(Alleged Direct Infringement of the ’497 Patent)
`
`106. Electronic Arts hereby incorporates by reference the responses of the preceding
`
`paragraphs.
`
`107. Denied.
`
`108. Denied.
`
`109. Denied.
`
`110. Denied.
`
`111. Electronic Arts admits that for the accused products, it provided an End User
`
`License Agreement and Terms of Service. The remaining allegations in paragraph 111
`
`constitute conclusions of law to which no response of Electronic Arts is required; to the extent a
`
`response is required, Electronic Arts denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 111.
`
`112. Denied.
`
`113. Denied.
`
`114. Denied.
`
`115. Denied.
`
`116. Denied.
`
`117. Denied.
`
`118. Denied.
`
`119. Denied.
`
`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, Electronic Arts
`
`denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the requested relief and denies any allegations contained
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 274 Filed 09/12/17 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 20057
`
`therein. Electronic Arts requests that a take-nothing judgment be entered in its favor and against
`
`Plaintiff on the entire Complaint.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`This section purports to request a trial by jury and does not require a response.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Further answering the Complaint, Electronic Arts 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. Electronic Arts 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.
`
`Electronic Arts asserts each of these affirmative defenses in the alternative, without admitting
`
`that Electronic Arts 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, Electronic Arts 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 Electronic
`
`Arts, 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.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 274 Filed 09/12/17 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 20058
`
`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 Electronic Arts for any and all alleged infringement prior
`
`to 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
`(Waiver / Estoppel)
`
`Plaintiff’s claims against Electronic Arts are barred and unenforceable against Electronic
`
`Arts, in whole or in part, by one or more of the equitable doctrines of waiver and estoppel.
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Damage Limitations)
`
`Plaintiff shall not be entitled to seek damages for alleged infringement prior to March 31,
`
`2015.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 274 Filed 09/12/17 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 20059
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Electronic Arts 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 Electronic Arts 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
`
`Electronic Arts;
`
`D.
`
`An order declaring that Electronic Arts is a prevailing party and that this is an
`
`exceptional case, awarding Electronic Arts 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 Electronic Arts any such other and further relief as the Court
`
`deems just and proper.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Defendant Electronic Arts demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 274 Filed 09/12/17 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 20060
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`September 12, 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-00454-RGA Document 274 Filed 09/12/17 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 20061
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on September 12, 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
`
`September 12, 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