throbber
Case 1:14-cv-12745-MLW Document 33 Filed 01/29/15 Page 1 of 15
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`
`Aplix IP Holdings Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-12745-MLW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. and
`Sony Computer Entertainment America,
`LLC,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`APLIX’S BRIEF OPPOSING
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendants’ motion for a stay is, at best, premature and should be denied. There is
`
`no active proceeding in the United States Patent and Trademark Office with respect to a
`
`single patent in this lawsuit. Defendants have asked the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“the Board”) to review claims in only three of the five patents-in-suit, but the Board has
`
`not yet agreed to institute any review. Plaintiff Aplix IP Holdings Corporation (“Aplix”)
`
`has not yet filed an opposition to any of those petitions. And defendant Sony Computer
`
`Entertainment America, LLC (“SCEA”) acknowledges that it has not even filed all of its
`
`petitions for review with the Board; it represents only an intention to file additional
`
`petitions “soon.” Courts have not hesitated to find a stay premature in any single one of
`
`these situations, let alone this combination. In these circumstances, a stay would not
`
`result in judicial economy, but would instead prejudice Plaintiff—delaying the case
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-12745-MLW Document 33 Filed 01/29/15 Page 2 of 15
`
`indefinitely and for no reason beyond Defendants’ speculation that it will succeed on its
`
`petitions, including those it has not yet filed. For these reasons, Aplix asks this Court to
`
`deny Defendants’ motion to stay proceedings.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A. A team of Massachusetts inventors, led by Dr. Beth Marcus, develop
`unique technologies for improving data entry, control, and game-play
`on hand-held devices and host devices.
`
`
`This case concerns patented technology covering game devices such as the hand-
`
`
`
`held Sony PlayStation Vita gaming console as well as the Sony PlayStation DualShock 3
`
`and DualShock 4 controllers.1
`
` Beginning in 2003, a group of Massachusetts inventors, led by Dr. Beth Marcus,
`
`developed interactive-design technologies for improving data entry, control, and game-
`
`play on hand-held devices and host devices.2 Among other advancements, Dr. Marcus
`
`and her team deployed configurable input systems and elements on multiple surfaces of a
`
`hand-held device, implementing unique combinations of and applications for particular
`
`types of input elements.3 The team designed hand-held accessory devices that would
`
`enable users to remotely operate (and play video games on) cell phones and tablet
`
`devices.4 Without discussing any of the patent claim language, Defendants
`
`mischaracterize the scope of these inventions, reducing them to single aspects of single
`
`figures included in the patents, and falsely claim that the USPTO “did not have an
`
`
`1 Amended Complaint, ¶ 1 (ECF Docket No. 23).
`2 Amended Complaint, ¶ 2.
`3 Amended Complaint, ¶ 2.
`4 Amended Complaint, ¶ 2.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-12745-MLW Document 33 Filed 01/29/15 Page 3 of 15
`
`opportunity” to analyze the prior art during examination of the patents.5 However, the
`
`issued claims, which are the only appropriate measure of “the invention,” reflect that Dr.
`
`Marcus and her team’s innovations were well ahead of their time in the infancy of the
`
`smartphone world.
`
`Marcus and her team applied for patents on their inventions, and, after a thorough
`
`review, the United States Patent & Trademark Office awarded them several patents.6
`
`These patents were assigned to Dr. Marcus’ company, Zeemote, Inc., a Boston-area start-
`
`up, which sought to commercialize the technology.7 Aplix, a Japanese operating
`
`company, acquired Zeemote’s assets, including the patents.8 This lawsuit asks the Court
`
`to find that the Defendants infringe the patents by importing, marketing, selling, and
`
`using the PlayStation Vita and accessories, including memory cards and pre-installed or
`
`bundled games, as well as the DualShock 3 and DualShock 4 controllers.9
`
`B. Aplix files suit in June 2014; grants Defendants multiple extensions to
`respond.
`
`
` Aplix filed this lawsuit seven months ago, accusing Sony Computer
`
`Entertainment, Inc. (“SCEI”) and Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC
`
`(“SCEA”) of infringing Aplix’s patents.10 Aplix’s initial complaint sought to vindicate
`
`
`5 Defendants’ Brief at 6, 7, and 8.
`6 Amended Complaint, ¶ 2.
`7 Amended Complaint, ¶ 2.
`8 Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 2, 17.
`9 Amended Complaint, ¶ 2.
`10 June 27, 2014 Complaint (ECF Docket No. 1).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-12745-MLW Document 33 Filed 01/29/15 Page 4 of 15
`
`its rights with respect to three patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,218,313; 7,463,245; and
`
`7,667,692 (referred to herein as the ’313, ’245, and ’692 patents, respectively).11
`
` Defendant SCEA requested, and Aplix agreed to, a 75-day extension of
`
`Defendant SCEA’s deadline to respond to the complaint.12 On October 6, 2014,
`
`Defendants answered Aplix’s complaint and SCEA filed a counterclaim. 13
`
` Within the requisite period, Aplix amended its complaint, adding allegations
`
`relating to two additional patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,280,097 and 7,932,892 (referred to
`
`as the ’097 and ’892 patents, respectively).14 Defendants again requested an extension of
`
`their time to answer, and Aplix agreed to a 45-day extension.15 Aplix agreed to 120 days
`
`of extensions in total.
`
` On December 31, 2014, Defendants answered Aplix’s amended complaint and
`
`SCEA filed another counterclaim.16 Aplix answered the counterclaim two weeks later.17
`
`C. Defendants seek Board review of only
`of the patents-in-suit.
`
`some of the claims of only some
`
`Inter partes review provides a mechanism by which the Patent Office may elect to
`
`
`
`review a patent’s validity in light of prior patents and printed publications identified by a
`
`third party. The procedure addresses no other issues of validity or infringement.
`
`
`11 June 27, 2014 Complaint, ¶¶ 10-12.
`12 ECF Docket No. 8 at 1.
`13 ECF Docket Nos. 17, 18.
`14 Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 13,16.
`15 ECF Docket No. 25.
`16 ECF Docket Nos. 28, 29.
`17 ECF Docket No. 32.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-12745-MLW Document 33 Filed 01/29/15 Page 5 of 15
`
`If the Board grants a petition, it has 12 months (which can be extended to 18 months), to
`
`issue a final decision.18 Either party may appeal a final decision to the Federal Circuit
`
`Court of Appeals—it is not yet clear how long this entire process will take. As
`
`Defendants’ own exhibit provides, “the true extent to which IPR simplifies patent
`
`litigation remains to be seen.”19
`
`Five months after Aplix filed suit, defendant SCEA filed its first two petitions for
`
`inter partes review with the Board, purporting to seek review of the ’245 patent and
`
`claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 of the ’692 patent. Since then, SCEA has filed three
`
`additional petitions for inter partes review, each relating to the ’313 patent. These
`
`petitions do not seek review of every claim at issue in Aplix’s first complaint.20 And
`
`defendant SCEI is not a party to any of the petitions for review.21
`
`Aplix’s preliminary responses to the ’245 and ’692 petitions are not due until early
`
`March and its responses to the ’313 petitions are not due until late April.22 Once Aplix
`
`submits each response, the Board has up to three months to decide whether to grant the
`
`requested review.23 Accordingly, the Board will have until late July to evaluate whether
`
`even to grant these petitions—more than one year after Aplix filed its lawsuit in this
`
`Court.
`
`
`18 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11).
`19 Defendants’ Ex. N, Love & Ambwani, at 105.
`20 Defendants’ Brief at 8 (conceding that 16 of the claims in the ’245, ’692
`and ’313 patents are not included in Defendant SCEA’s “first round of IPRs”).
`21
`Id.
`22 35 U.S.C. § 313; 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b).
`23 77 Fed. Reg. 48,655.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-12745-MLW Document 33 Filed 01/29/15 Page 6 of 15
`
`To date, neither Defendant has filed any petition for inter partes review relating to
`
`the ’097 or the ’892 patent. Defendants provide no definite timeframe by which they
`
`anticipate filing such a petition, instead representing that SCEA will file additional
`
`petitions “soon.”24
`
`
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A STAY IS PREMATURE AND
`INAPPROPRIATE UNDER THE GOVERNING THREE-FACTOR TEST.
`
` “The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances
`
`justify an exercise of that discretion.” Nken v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1749, 1761 (2009). If
`
`Defendants meet that burden, the decision to stay a case in the district court’s discretion.
`
`Cf. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426-27 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A court, however,
`
`“is under no obligation to delay its own proceedings by yielding to ongoing PTO patent
`
`reexaminations.” Avago Techs. Fiber IP v. IPtronics, Inc., No. 10-CV-02863, 2011 WL
`
`3267768, at *4 (N.D. Ca. July 28, 2011) (citations omitted). In exercising this discretion,
`
`courts typically assess three factors:
`
`(1) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case;
`
`(2) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical
`disadvantage to the non-moving party; and
`
`(3) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24 Defendants’ Brief at 9.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-12745-MLW Document 33 Filed 01/29/15 Page 7 of 15
`
`SCVNGR, Inc. v. eCharge Licensing, LLC, 13-CV-12418, 2014 WL 4804738, at *8 (D.
`
`Mass. Sept. 25, 2014). These factors weigh strongly against Defendants’ request for a
`
`stay.
`
`A. It is purely speculative at this stage whether a stay will result in the
`simplification of a single issue.
`
`
`The majority of courts have held that whether a stay will result in the
`
`simplification of issues is purely speculative before the Board has instituted trial. Freeny
`
`v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-00361 (WCB), 2014 WL 3611948, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 22,
`
`2014) (observing the “majority of courts that have addressed the issue have postponed
`
`ruling on stay requests or have denied stay requests when the PTAB has not yet acted on
`
`the petition for review”); see also CDX Diagnostics, Inc. v. U.S. Endoscopy Group, Inc.,
`
`No. 13-cv-05669 (NSR), 2014 WL 2854656, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2014); Rensselaer
`
`Polytechnic Inst. v. Apple, Inc., No. 1:13-CV-0633, 2014 WL 201965, at *9 (N.D.N.Y.
`
`Jan. 15, 2014); U.S. Nutraceuticals, LLC v. Cyanotech Corp., No. 5:12-cv-366-Oc-10PL,
`
`2013 WL 6050744, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 15, 2013); Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Comm.,
`
`Inc., No. 13-cv-346 (BBC), 2013 WL 6044407, at *4 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 14, 2013);
`
`Automatic Mfg. Sys., Inc. v. Primera Tech., Inc., No. 6:12-cv-1727-Orl037, 2013 WL
`
`1969247, at *3 (M.D. Fla. May 13, 2013). At least one court in this District has found
`
`similarly, explaining it was “premature for the Court to analyze this potential
`
`reexamination” when Defendants had not established that an inter partes review would
`
`occur. Trs. of Boston Univ. v. Everlight Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 12-11935, 2013 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 96916, at *5 (D. Mass. July 11, 2013) (Saylor, J.).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-12745-MLW Document 33 Filed 01/29/15 Page 8 of 15
`
` In an attempt to meet its burden and demonstrate the presently unknowable
`
`conclusion that the Board will institute trial, and the resulting trial will simplify matters,
`
`Defendants cite statistics regarding both the percentage of inter partes review petitions
`
`that have been granted and the outcome of inter partes review proceedings to date.
`
`Defendants’ statistics, however, are both misleading and irrelevant.
`
` Citing an October 2014 law-review article, Defendants represent that
`
`inter partes
`
`review is instituted about “84% of the time it is requested” and that “all instituted claims
`
`are canceled 77.5% of the time.”25 More recent and complete data, however, tells a
`
`different story. As of January 15, 2015, the United States Patent Office’s official
`
`statistics on inter partes review petitions terminated to date reflect that the Board has
`
`instituted trials on only 68% of challenged claims.26 Of the instituted claims, the Board
`
`found only 36% of those claims un-patentable.27 Thus, only 24% of challenged claims
`
`were ultimately found un-patentable.28 These numbers showcase the difficulty in
`
`predicting that Board action will necessarily result in simplification of district court
`
`litigation.
`
` For this reason, when presented with statistical data, courts have held that such
`
`information should not govern individual outcomes. See, e.g., Boundaries Solutions, Inc.
`
`v. Corelogic, Inc., 5:14-cv-00761, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175590, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec.
`
`19, 2014) (“While appreciating the statistical rate at which petitions have been granted to
`
`25 Defendants’ Brief at 1 and 14 (citing Ex. N, Love & Ambwani, at 102).
`26 Exhibit A, Inter Partes Review Petitions Terminated to Date (as of
`1/15/2015) (http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/stats/aia_ trial_statistics.jsp).
`27
`Id.
`28
`Id.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-12745-MLW Document 33 Filed 01/29/15 Page 9 of 15
`
`date, this court is unwilling to assume the PTO and its Administrative Law Judges are
`
`nothing more than well-educated, well-trained rubber stamps.”); Dane Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Gatekeeper Sys., Inc., No. 12-2730, 2013 WL 4483355, at *2 (D. Minn. Aug. 20, 2013)
`
`(denying motion to stay pending review of inter partes review petition “because the
`
`PTO’s review of [Defendant’s] petitions is speculative, and because the scope of the
`
`PTO’s possible review is also speculative”).
`
` Moreover, even if the Board institutes review, the simplification that Defendants
`
`predict may not materialize for two key reasons. First, Defendants argue that the inter
`
`partes review estoppel rules will “limit the number of claims and defenses that this Court,
`
`and a jury, would have to consider at trial.”29 Defendant SCEA, however, is the only
`
`“party” to the Board proceedings. In these circumstances, Defendants assert that only
`
`SCEA “will be estopped from asserting invalidity on any grounds that it raised, or
`
`reasonably could have raised, in the IPRs.”30 While Aplix reserves its right to argue that
`
`the estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) would bind both Defendants, the plain
`
`language of Defendants’ brief previews that they are prepared to argue otherwise. In
`
`such circumstances, the Court should give no weight to Defendants’ claim that an
`
`estoppel effect is a reason to stay this case.
`
` Second, courts recognize that where defendants have not sought review of all the
`
`claims asserted by the patent owner, a stay is unlikely to provide substantial
`
`simplification of issues. See, e.g., SCVNGR, Inc. v. eCharge Licensing, LLC, 13-cv-
`
`
`29 Defendants’ Brief at 11.
`30 Defendants’ Brief at 11.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-12745-MLW Document 33 Filed 01/29/15 Page 10 of 15
`
`12418, 2014 WL 4804738, at *10 (D. Mass. Sept. 25, 2014) (denying stay where “only
`
`three of the eight patents-in-suit are subject to IPR”); Davol, Inc. v. Atrium Med. Corp.,
`
`No. 12-CV-958, 2013 WL 3013343, at *6 (D. Del. June 17, 2013) (“the court is
`
`concerned by [Defendant’s] failure to seek inter partes review of the ′420 Patent—a stay
`
`of this action in its entirety will do little to advance the parties' dispute over the ′420
`
`Patent, and allowing litigation to proceed solely with respect to that patent while the
`
`parties await a PTO decision on the other two patents-in-suit would invite substantial
`
`inefficiency.”). To date, Defendants have not sought any review of two of the patents-in-
`
`suit, and Defendants concede that the filed petitions do not seek review of all the claims
`
`in the three patents included in Aplix’s initial complaint.31 This factor counsels against a
`
`stay.
`
`B. A stay will unduly prejudice Aplix and present a clear tactical
`advantage for Defendants.
`
`
` A patent plaintiff has “an interest in the timely enforcement of its patent right.”
`
`Ambato Media, LLC v. Clarion Co., Ltd., No. 2:09-cv-242-JRG, 2012 WL 194172, at *1
`
`(E.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2012). Under this principle, courts have held that “[w]aiting for the
`
`administrative process to proceed risks prolonging the resolution of the dispute, and can
`
`result in inherent prejudice to the plaintiff.” Audatex N. Am., Inc. v. Mitchell Int’l, Inc.,
`
`No. 13-CV-1523, 2014 WL 4546796, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2014). And beyond the
`
`prejudice of any delay itself, staying the case for a prolonged amount of time increases
`
`the chances that “witnesses may become unavailable, their memories may fade, and
`
`
`31 Defendants’ Brief at 8.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-12745-MLW Document 33 Filed 01/29/15 Page 11 of 15
`
`evidence may be lost while the PTO proceedings take place.” Ambato Media, LLC, 2012
`
`WL 194172, at *5.
`
` Aplix filed suit seven months ago, fully anticipating that discovery would be well
`
`underway by this time. Instead, Defendants requested two lengthy extensions, delaying
`
`the case’s progress. Because the Board has until June to decide whether or not to grant
`
`Defendant SCEA’s first two requests for review, a stay would effectively pause this
`
`matter for almost a year while nothing happened in either forum. Productive activity can
`
`take place in the interim—this Court can set a scheduling order and the parties can
`
`execute a protocol for the discovery of Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”),
`
`negotiate a protective order, and exchange initial disclosures. Each of these activities
`
`would need to occur in almost any scenario, regardless as to the Board’s decisions. In
`
`contrast, further delay threatens to cause this litigation to drag on for years, especially if
`
`the review process does not resolve the entire matter. Even if review is partially granted,
`
`the Court may be able to proceed in part, and will have continued to make progress.
`
` Defendants’ stay also appears timed to gain a tactical advantage regarding
`
`discovery and disclosure obligations. Defendants requested, and obtained, lengthy
`
`continuances from Aplix. Defendant SCEA apparently used the pending seven months to
`
`craft its petitions for inter partes review. Then, instead of waiting for the Board to rule
`
`on the proceedings, Defendants seek to stay the matter at the pleadings stage. In other
`
`words, Defendants delayed the proceedings to their advantage and now seek a premature
`
`stay to further that advantage. If successful, they will have deferred any progress on
`
`Aplix’s claims for over a year. This factor weighs against granting a stay.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-12745-MLW Document 33 Filed 01/29/15 Page 12 of 15
`
`C. Although the litigation remains in its early stages, the litigation may
`progress without prejudice to either party.
`
`
`Although this case remains in its early stages, this factor should not favor a stay.
`
`This case has progressed slowly primarily as a result of Defendants’ multiple requests for
`
`lengthy extensions. While Aplix has granted Defendants 120 days in extensions,
`
`Defendants should not be permitted to use this self-imposed, requested delay as a sword
`
`to implement its desired stay. Moreover, the early stage of proceedings means that even
`
`if the Board ultimately institutes proceedings, having gone forward with initial discovery
`
`will not be unduly harmful to the efficient management of these proceedings. As noted
`
`above, the parties will need to enter a protective order, an ESI protocol, and exchange
`
`initial disclosures in almost any scenario. In the at least four months before the Board
`
`rules on Defendant SCEA’s first two petitions, a scheduling conference in this action can
`
`occur and the parties have the opportunity to make meaningful progress.
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
` Defendants bear the burden of proof in seeking a stay of these proceedings. Given
`
`that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has not instituted a single review of a single claim
`
`at issue in this lawsuit, Defendants cannot meet this burden. Recognizing this dilemma,
`
`Defendants cite outdated statistics, claiming that review is likely. The governing factors,
`
`however, ask courts to focus on the facts and circumstances unique to each case. Where,
`
`as here, there is meaningful progress that both parties can make pending the Board’s
`
`determination of review, a stay is not appropriate. Even should the Board at some point
`
`down the road grant review as to some claims of some of the patents in suit, there is no
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-12745-MLW Document 33 Filed 01/29/15 Page 13 of 15
`
`efficiency in granting a stay here when other claims not subject to review are at issue in
`
`this action, and when only one of the defendants has sought Board review. The Court
`
`should deny Defendants’ motion.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-12745-MLW Document 33 Filed 01/29/15 Page 14 of 15
`
`Dated: January 29, 2015. Respectfully submitted,
`
` APLIX IP HOLDINGS CORPORATION
`
` By its attorneys,
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/Brandon T. Scruggs
` Lisa M. Tittemore (BBO # 567941)
` Brandon Scruggs (BBO # 672541)
` SUNSTEIN KANN MURPHY & TIMBERS LLP
` 125 Summer Street
` Boston, MA 02110-1618
` Telephone: (617) 443-9292
` Facsimile: (617) 443-0004
` E-mail:
`
`
`
`
`ltittemore@sunsteinlaw.com
`bscruggs@sunsteinlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Robert J. Gilbertson (pro hac vice)
`Sybil L. Dunlop (pro hac vice)
`X. Kevin Zhao (pro hac vice)
`GREENE ESPEL PLLP
`222 South Ninth Street, Suite 2200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 373-0830
`Facsimile: (612) 373-0929
`E-mail:
`BGilbertson@GreeneEspel.com
`
`
`SDunlop@GreeneEspel.com
`
`
`KZhao@GreeneEspel.com
`
`Sherman W. Kahn (pro hac vice)
`MAURIEL KAPOUYTIAN WOODS LLP
`27 W. 24th Street, Third Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Telephone: (212) 529-5131
`Facsimile: (212) 529-5132
`E-mail:
`skahn@mkwllp.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Aplix IP Holdings Corporation
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-12745-MLW Document 33 Filed 01/29/15 Page 15 of 15
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` I
`
`
`
`04088/05001 2248243.1
`
` hereby certify that this document, filed through the ECF system, will be sent
`electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing
`(NEF) and that paper copies will be sent to those non-registered participants (if any) on
`January 29, 2015.
`
`
`/s/ Brandon T. Scruggs
`Brandon T. Scruggs
`
`
`
`
`
`15

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