throbber
Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 112 Filed: 12/04/06 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:989
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`ALR
`
`
`FILED
`
`
`
`
`
`DECEMBER 4, 2006
`
` MICHAEL W. DOBBINS
`Civil Action No. 05cv4811
`CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`
`))))))))))
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CQG, INC. and CQGT, LLC,
`Defendants.
`
`______________________________________
`
`Hon. Judge Moran
`Hon. Magistrate Judge Cole
`
`AMENDED ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS OF
`CQG, INC. AND CQGT, LLC
`
`Defendants CQG, Inc. and CQGT, LLC (“collectively CQG”) hereby files this Amended
`
`Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is a Delaware Corporation with a principal
`1.
`place of business at 222 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 1100, Chicago, Illinois 60606.
`
`CQG is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations made in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies those allegations.
`
`Defendant CQG is a Colorado Corporation with its principal place of
`2.
`business at 1050 17th Street, Suite 2000, Denver, CO 80265.
`
`CQG admits the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
`
`3.
`IL 60606.
`
`Defendant CQG has a regional office at 311 S. Wacker, Suite 3810, Chicago,
`
`CQG admits the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
`
`Defendant CQGT is a Colorado Limited Liability Company with its
`4.
`principal place of business at 1050 17th Street, Suite 2000, Denver, CO 80265.
`
`CQG admits the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
`
`
`
`
`
`CQG EXHIBIT
`
`
`
`0001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1014
`
`
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 112 Filed: 12/04/06 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:990
`
`5.
`
`Defendant CQGT was formed by CQG on August 12, 2005.
`
`CQG admits the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the acts of Congress
`6.
`relating to patents, namely the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. This
`Court thereby has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`CQG admits the allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Complaint.
`
`Defendant CQG regularly conducts business in this district. Defendant CQG
`7.
`has an office located in this district. Defendant CQG provides trading software that is for
`use with the exchanges in this district, including the Chicago Board of Trade (“CBOT”)
`and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”). This Court has jurisdiction generally
`over Defendant CQG.
`
`CQG admits that it has an office in this district and that it provides trading software that
`
`facilitates making trades on the CBOT and CME exchanges. Except as expressly admitted, CQG
`
`denies the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant CQGT is a wholly owned subsidiary of CQG.
`
`CQG admits the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
`
`Defendants have committed and continue to commit acts of patent
`9.
`infringement in this district. Therefore, this Court has specific jurisdiction over the
`Defendants.
`
`CQG denies the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
`
`Defendants CQG resides in this district, because Defendant is subject to
`10.
`personal jurisdiction in this district. Therefore, this District is a proper venue pursuant to
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1400(b).
`
`CQG admits that the Court determined that it is personal jurisdiction in this district, and
`
`accordingly venue is proper.
`
`2
`
`0002
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 112 Filed: 12/04/06 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:991
`
`COUNT I:
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304 (“the
`11.
`‘304 patent”), titled “Click Based Trading with Intuitive Grid Display of Market Depth,”
`which issued on July 20, 2004. A true and correct copy of the ‘304 patent is attached as
`Exhibit A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304 (“the ‘304 Patent”), identified in Exhibit A in the Complaint,
`
`is a document that speaks for itself. Except as expressly admitted, CQG is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 11
`
`of the Complaint, and on that basis denies those allegations.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is in compliance with any applicable marking
`12.
`and notice provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`CQG is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies those allegations.
`
`Defendants have and continue to infringe the ‘304 patent by making, using,
`13.
`selling and/or offering for sale products and methods covered by claims of the ‘304 patent
`without Plaintiff Trading Technologies’ authorization in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`CQG denies the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
`
`In addition, Defendants’ actions have and continue to constitute active
`14.
`inducement of and/or contributory infringement of the ‘304 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C.
`§ 271(b) and (c).
`
`CQG denies the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
`
`15.
`
`Defendants’ infringement of the ‘304 patent is willful and deliberate.
`
`CQG denies the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
`
`Defendants’ infringement of the ‘304 patent has caused irreparable harm to
`16.
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies and will continue to do so unless enjoined.
`
`CQG denies the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint.
`
`3
`
`0003
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 112 Filed: 12/04/06 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:992
`
`COUNT II:
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,722,132
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies incorporates paragraphs 1-16 as if set forth in
`
`full.
`
`CQG incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1-16, as set forth above, as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,773, 243
`18.
`(“the ‘132 patent”), titled “Click Based Trading with Intuitive Grid Display of Market
`Depth,” which issued on August 3, 2004. A true and correct copy of the ‘132 patent is
`attached as Exhibit B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,772,132 (“the ‘132 Patent”), identified in Exhibit B in the Complaint, is
`
`a document that speaks for itself. Except as expressly admitted, CQG is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 18
`
`of the Complaint, and on that basis denies those allegations.
`
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies is in compliance with any applicable marking
`19.
`and notice provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`CQG is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, and on that basis denies those allegations.
`
`Defendants have and continues to infringe the ‘132 patent by making, using,
`20.
`selling and/or offering for sale products and methods covered by claims of the ‘132 patent
`without Plaintiff Trading Technologies’ authorization in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`CQG denies the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint.
`
`In addition, Defendants’ actions have and continue to constitute active
`21.
`inducement of and/or contributory infringement of the ‘132 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C.
`§271(b) and (c).
`
`CQG denies the allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint.
`
`22.
`
`Defendants’ infringement of the ‘132 patent is willful and deliberate.
`
`CQG denies the allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint.
`
`4
`
`0004
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 112 Filed: 12/04/06 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:993
`
`Defendants’ infringement of the ‘132 patent has caused irreparable harm to
`23.
`Plaintiff Trading Technologies and will continue to do so unless enjoined.
`
`CQG denies the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrines of estoppel, acquiescence and/or
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`unclean hands.
`
`3.
`
`CQG has not directly or indirectly infringed, contributed to the infringement of,
`
`infringed through the doctrine of equivalents, or otherwise, nor induced others to infringe any
`
`valid claim of either the ‘304 Patent or the ‘132 Patent. In addition, CQG is not currently
`
`directly or indirectly infringed, contributing to the infringement of, nor inducing the infringement
`
`of any valid claim of either the ‘304 Patent of the ‘132 Patent.
`
`4.
`
`The claims of the ‘304 Patent and ‘132 Patent are invalid or unenforceable for
`
`failure to comply with one or more provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code, including
`
`without limitation, Sections 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`5.
`
`The claims of the ‘304 Patent and the ‘132 Patent are unenforceable based on the
`
`doctrine of patent misuse.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff has failed to use proper and reasonable efforts to mitigate losses and
`
`damages incurred, the existence of which are denied, and CQG has therefore been released and
`
`discharged from liability.
`
`7.
`
`The damages, if any, that were allegedly sustained by Plaintiff as a result of acts
`
`contained in the Complaint were caused in whole or were contributed to by reason of the acts,
`
`omissions, negligence, and/or intentional misconduct or third parties over which CQG had no
`
`control.
`
`5
`
`0005
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 112 Filed: 12/04/06 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:994
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff is not entitled to any damages for the time period that it was not in
`
`compliance with the marking requirements, as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`9.
`
`CQG acted in good faith and did not willfully infringe or otherwise violate any
`
`right of Plaintiff.
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`For their counterclaims in this action, CQG, Inc. and CQGT, LLC (“collectively CQG”)
`
`allege as follows:
`
`1.
`
`CQG incorporates by reference each of its prior allegations of this Answer and
`
`Counterclaims.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`2.
`
`Counterclaimant CQGT, LLC is a Colorado limited liability company, with its
`
`principal place of business in Denver, Colorado. Counterclaimant CQG, Inc. is a Colorado
`
`corporation, with its principal place of business in Denver, Colorado. Collectively, CQGT, LLC
`
`and CQG, Inc. are known as “CQG.”
`
`3.
`
`Counterdefendant Trading Technologies International, Inc. (“TT”) alleges that it
`
`is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.
`
`4.
`
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this counterclaim pursuant to the
`
`Federal Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. The Court also has
`
`jurisdiction over this counterclaim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338, because this claim
`
`presents a well-pleaded federal question under the Patent Act of 1952 (as amended), 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1, et seq. The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law counterclaim in this
`
`case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c).
`
`6
`
`0006
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 112 Filed: 12/04/06 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:995
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity of the ‘304 and ‘132 Patents
`28 U.S.C. § 2201
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`CQG repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-5 above, as though fully set forth herein.
`
`This is a counterclaim for a Declaratory Judgment that CQG has not infringed any
`
`claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,766,304 (“‘304 Patent”) or U.S. Patent No. 6,722,132 (“‘132 Patent”),
`
`and that each and every one of the claims of said Patents are invalid.
`
`8.
`
`This counterclaim arises from an actual and justiciable controversy between CQG
`
`and TT as to the alleged infringement, validity and enforceability of the ‘304 Patent and ‘132
`
`Patent. TT has brought suit against CQG for infringement of the ‘304 Patent and the ‘132
`
`Patent.
`
`9.
`
`CQG has not infringed or committed contributory infringement of any claims of
`
`the ‘304 Patent or ‘132 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, distributing and/or
`
`importing any product, or by practicing any process.
`
`10.
`
`Upon information and belief, the ‘304 Patent and ‘132 Patent, and each and every
`
`respective claim thereof, are invalid or unenforceable for failure to comply with one or more
`
`provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation, Sections 101, 102,
`
`103, and/or 112.
`
`11.
`
`TT’s charges of infringement of the ‘304 Patent and ‘132 Patent with full
`
`knowledge of the invalidity of the ‘304 Patent and ‘132 Patent makes this an exceptional case
`
`warranting an award of CQG’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`Declaratory Judgment of Unenforceability
`
`12.
`
`CQG repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-11 above, as though fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`7
`
`0007
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 112 Filed: 12/04/06 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:996
`
`13.
`
`This is a counterclaim for a Declaratory Judgment that the ‘304 and ‘132 Patents
`
`are unenforceable because alleged inventors Gary Allen Kemp II, Jens-Uwe Schluetter, and
`
`Harris Brumfield, their agents, and/or their attorneys Foley & Lardner engaged in inequitable
`
`conduct before the PTO during the prosecution of the patents.
`
`14.
`
`This counterclaim arises from an actual and justiciable controversy between CQG
`
`and TT as to the alleged enforceability of the ‘304 Patent and ‘132 Patent. TT has brought suit
`
`against CQG for infringement of the ‘304 Patent and the ‘132 Patent.
`
`15.
`
`Upon information and belief, in connection with the applications that matured into
`
`the ‘304 and ‘132 Patents, the named inventors, including Harris Brumfield, TT and their agents
`
`and/or attorneys, withheld material information, with the intent to deceive the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark office, that was requested by the Patent Examiner or that a reasonable
`
`Examiner reviewing the application would consider important in determining whether to allow
`
`the proposed claims to issue.
`
`16.
`
`Harris Brumfield, TT and their agents and/or attorneys each owed a duty candor
`
`and good faith to the United States Patent and Trademark Office while prosecuting the
`
`applications that matured into the ‘304 and ‘132 Patents pursuant to the laws governing
`
`prosecution of patent applications, including 37 C.F.R. § 1.56.
`
`17.
`
`The law imposes a duty of good faith, candor, and disclosure on everyone
`
`associated with prosecuting a patent application. 37 C.F.R. § 1.56. This duty of
`
`candor/disclosure requires that the application, his or her agents and/or attorneys, and anyone
`
`else substantively involved in prosecuting the application to disclose all information that is
`
`requested by the Examiner, or that a reasonable Examiner reviewing the application would
`
`consider important in determining whether to allow the proposed claims to issue.
`
`8
`
`0008
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 112 Filed: 12/04/06 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:997
`
`18.
`
`Upon information and belief, the named inventors of the ‘304 and ‘132 Patents,
`
`their agents, and/or their attorneys provided materially false information, and/or failed to provide
`
`material information, with an intent to deceive, concerning the state of the prior art during
`
`prosecution of the applications of the ‘304 and ‘132 Patents. These failures render the ‘304 and
`
`‘132 Patents, and all patents claiming priority thereto, unenforceable due to the inequitable
`
`conduct of the inventors, their agents, and/or their attorneys.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`Declaratory Judgment of Patent Misuse
`
`19.
`
`CQG repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-16 above, as though fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`20.
`
`This is a counterclaim for a Declaratory Judgment that TT has impermissibly
`
`broadened the physical scope of the patent grant of the ‘304 and ‘132 Patents with
`
`anticompetitive effect, rendering the ‘304 and ‘132 Patents unenforceable.
`
`21.
`
`This counterclaim arises from an actual and justiciable controversy between CQG
`
`and TT as to the alleged infringement and validity of the ‘304 Patent and ‘132 Patent. TT has
`
`brought suit against CQG for infringement of the ‘304 Patent and the ‘132 Patent.
`
`22.
`
`During discussions regarding TT’s “Settlement Agreement,” representatives of
`
`TT admitted to representatives of CQG that CQG’s products that employ multiple click-based
`
`trading software do not infringe the claims of the ‘304 Patent and ‘132 Patent.
`
`23.
`
`Upon information and belief, TT has contacted CQG’s customers and business
`
`partners, including Futures Commission Merchants (“FCM’s”), private traders, investment
`
`banks. TT has charged that their use of CQG’s software that employs multiple-click order
`
`routing and/or a dynamic price axis does in fact infringe the claims of the ‘304 and ‘132 Patents.
`
`9
`
`0009
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 112 Filed: 12/04/06 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:998
`
`24.
`
`TT’s attempts to assert the claims of the ’304 Patent and ’132 Patent against
`
`CQG’s customers using CQG’s products that do not infringe the claims of the ’304 Patent and
`
`’132 Patent, while knowing that the claims of the ’304 Patent and ’132 Patent do not cover these
`
`products, constitute an attempt to extend TT’s rights beyond the claims of the Patents and
`
`constitutes patent misuse.
`
`25.
`
`TT’s wrongful acts of patent misuse impermissibly broaden the scope of the ’304
`
`Patent and ’132 Patent with anticompetitive effect, and thus render the ’304 Patent and ’132
`
`Patent unenforceable.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendants and Counterclaimants CQG, Inc. and CQGT LLC
`
`respectfully request this Court enter an Order:
`
`A.
`
`Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice, and that Plaintiff take nothing by
`
`way of its Complaint.
`
`B.
`
`Declaring that Plaintiff is without right or authority to threaten or to maintain suit
`
`against CQG, Inc. and CQGT, LLC or their customers for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,766,304 or U.S. Patent No. 6,722,132 and:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`United States Patent No. 6,766,304 is invalid, unenforceable, and not
`
`infringed by CQG, Inc. and CQGT, Inc.; and
`
`United States Patent No. 6,722,132 is invalid, unenforceable, and not
`
`infringed by CQG, Inc. and CQGT, LLC.
`
`C.
`
`Declaring that Plaintiff’s wrongful acts of patent misuse render U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,766,304 or U.S. Patent No. 6,722,132 unenforceable until such time as the misuse has been
`
`purged.
`
`10
`
`00010
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 112 Filed: 12/04/06 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:999
`
`D.
`
`Finding this action to be exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and awarding CQG,
`
`Inc. and CQGT LLC their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees in this action.
`
`E.
`
`Awarding to CQG, Inc. and CQGT LLC such further and additional relief, as this
`
`Court may deem just and proper.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Counterclaimants and Defendants CQG, Inc. and CQGT LLC hereby demand a trial by
`
`jury on all issues so triable.
`
`Dated: June 26, 2006
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`s/ Mark W. Fischer
`Mark W. Fischer (pro hac vice)
`Nina Y. Wang (pro hac vice)
`Jared B. Briant (pro hac vice)
`FAEGRE & BENSON, LLP
`1900 Fifteenth Street
`Boulder, Colorado 80302
`(303) 447-7700
`
`Kara E.F. Cenar
`Heather Boice
`Jeana R. Lervick
`BELL, BOYD & LLOYD LLC
`Three First National Plaza
`70 West Madison Avenue, Suite 1700
`Chicago, Illinois 60602
`(312) 372 -1121
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS CQG, INC.
`AND CQGT LLC.
`
`11
`
`00011
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 112 Filed: 12/04/06 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:1000
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that (1) I am an attorney admitted to appear before this Court and (2) I
`
`caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing FIRST AMENDED ANSWER,
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIMS to be sent to the following
`
`individuals by electronic mail:
`
`Counsel for Trading Technologies
`International, Inc.:
`Paul H. Berghoff
`Leif R. Sigmond, Jr.
`Matthew J. Sampson
`George I. Lee
`Marcus J. Thymian
`S. Richard Carden
`Jennifer M. Kurcz
`McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff
`300 South Wacker Drive
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`Steven F. Borsand
`Trading Technologies International, Inc.
`222 South Riverside, Suite 1100
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`
`Counsel for GL Consultants, Inc.
`GL Trade SA, and Future Path Trading LLC:
`Brian W. Norkett
`James R. Branit
`Bullaro & Carton, PC
`200 North LaSalle St.
`Suite 2500
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`
`Counsel for GL Consultants, Inc., GL
`Trade SA, and FuturePath Trading LLC:
`Lora A. Moffat
`(lmoffatt@salans.com)
`Alison G. Naidech
`(anaidech@salans.com)
`Salans
`Rockefeller Center
`620 Fifth Avenue
`New York, New York 10020-2457
`
`12
`
`00012
`
`

`
`Case: 1:05-cv-04811 Document #: 112 Filed: 12/04/06 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:1001
`
`Counsel for eSpeed, et al.:
`Raymond C. Perkins
`(rperkins@winston.com)
`Andrew Johnstone
`(ajohnstone@winston.com)
`Winston & Strawn LLP
`35 W. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`
`Counsel for Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC:
`Geoffrey A. Baker
`(gabaker@dowellbaker.com)
`Dowell Baker, P.C.
`229 Randolph St.
`Oak Park, Illinois 60302
`
`Stephen Lesavich
`(Stephen.lesavich@lhtlg.com)
`Lesavich High-Tech Law Group, P.C.
`39 South LaSalle, Suite 325
`Chicago, Illinois 60603
`
`Jeffrey Schulman
`(jschulman@wolinlaw.com)
`Wolin & Rosen, Ltd.
`55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3600
`Chicago, Illinois 60603
`
`__/s/ Nina Y. Wang_________________
`Nina Y. Wang
`CQG, Inc. and CQGT, LLC
`
`13
`
`00013

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