UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________
`
`Case CBM2015-00121
`
`Patent 8,794,516 B2
`
`_________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`_________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________
`
`Case CBM2015-00121
`
`Patent 8,794,516 B2
`
`_________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................... 2
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3
`II.
`III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 4
`A.
`The Challenged Claims Are Patent Eligible Because They Are Similar
`to the Claims in DDR Holdings, Enfish, and BASCOM ........................ 5
`The Challenged Claims Are Patent Eligible Because They Are Similar
`to the Claims in McRO and Amdocs ................................................... 11
`The Challenged Claims Are Similar to the Claims in McRO ... 11
`1.
`The Challenged Claims Are Similar to the Claims in Amdocs . 14
`2.
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 15
`
`B.
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Smartflash LLC files this Request for Rehearing pursuant to
`
`37 CFR § 42.71. The Board’s final written decision (Paper 32) finding claims 1-28
`
`(“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,794,516 (“the ‘516 Patent”) to be
`
`unpatentable misapprehends and overlooks the Supreme Court’s and Federal
`
`Circuit’s guidance on patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the
`
`Federal Circuit’s most recent decisions clarifying patent eligible subject matter,
`
`and Smartflash’s arguments as to the eligibility of the challenged claims.
`
`The Federal Circuit has made clear that while “the analysis [for patent
`
`eligible subject matter] presumably would be based on a generally-accepted and
`
`understood definition of, or test for, what an ‘abstract idea’ encompasses,” “a
`
`search for a single test or definition in the decided cases concerning § 101 from
`
`[the Federal Circuit], and indeed from the Supreme Court, reveals that at present
`
`there is no such single, succinct, usable definition or test.” Amdocs (Israel)
`
`Limited v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 2016 WL 6440387, at *4 (Fed. Cir. November 1,
`
`2016). In the absence of such a generally accepted definition or test, the Federal
`
`Circuit approach is to use the “classic common law methodology” of “examin[ing]
`
`earlier cases in which a similar or parallel descriptive nature can be seen—what
`
`prior cases were about, and which way they were decided.” Id. This is the
`
`approach taken by Smartflash – comparing the challenged claims to, among other
`
`cases, DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`(Paper 17 at 32-48); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) (Paper 29 at 1-3); and BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T
`
`Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Paper 29 at 3-5).
`
`The challenged claims are directed to a novel content delivery system for
`
`distributing digital content over the Internet solving the problem of Internet data
`
`piracy. The Board misapprehended how the challenged claims are subject matter
`
`eligible as: being “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome
`
`a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks” (DDR Holdings,
`
`773 F.3d at 1257); teaching “an improvement to computer functionality itself.”
`
`(Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336); and “representing a ‘software-based invention[ ] that
`
`improve[s] the performance of the computer system itself.’” BASCOM, 827 F.3d at
`
`1351.
`
`Moreover, the Board overlooked recent Federal Circuit decisions in McRO,
`
`Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. September
`
`13, 2016) and Amdocs, where the Federal Circuit found claims similar to the
`
`challenged claims to be patent eligible.
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Patent Owner requests that the Board reverse its original decision (Paper 32,
`
`November 7, 2016) and hold that challenged claims 1-28 of the ‘516 Patent are
`
`patent eligible.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`Distribution of digital content over the Internet “introduces a problem that
`
`does not arise” with content distributed on physical media. DDR Holdings, LLC v.
`
`Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014). By the late 1990s,
`
`improved data compression and increasing bandwidth for Internet access enabled
`
`content providers, for the first time, to offer content data for purchase over the
`
`Internet; at the same time, unprotected data files could be easily pirated and made
`
`available “essentially world-wide.” Ex. 1001, 1:32-52. Conventional operation of
`
`the Internet does not solve the problem of data piracy: on the contrary, the Internet
`
`facilitates the distribution of data without restriction or protection. Id. 1:52-58.
`
`Content providers faced piracy before—a CD can be copied onto another
`
`CD and the pirated copy sold—but the problem presented by distribution of pirated
`
`content over the Internet was unprecedented. There had never before been a way
`
`to make free, identical, and flawless copies of physical media available to millions
`
`of people instantaneously at virtually no incremental cost. See generally Metro-
`
`Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 929-30 (2005). The
`
`Internet gave rise to an urgent need to address data piracy associated with digital
`
`content distribution over the Internet.
`
`The inventor devised a data storage and access system for downloading and
`
`paying for data, described in the specification and claimed in this patent and others,
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`comprising specific elements designed to overcome problems inherent in making
`
`digital content available over the Internet and in accessing that content. Ex. 1001,
`
`at 1 (Abstract). The claims of the ’516 patent are directed to various devices of
`
`that system: a “handheld multimedia terminal” id. at 25:65 (claim 1), a “content
`
`data supply server” id. at 26:58 (claim 5), a “computer system for providing
`
`multimedia data items” id. at 28:38-39 (claim 21); and methods by which that
`
`system operates: a “method of providing an item of multimedia content to a
`
`handheld multimedia terminal” id. at 27:61-62 (claim 14), and a “method of
`
`downloading multimedia content from a content data supply server to a handheld
`
`multimedia terminal.” Id. at 29:9-10 (claim 25).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`The Board should reverse its decision and find the claims directed to
`
`statutory subject matter because, in evaluating whether challenged claims 1-28
`
`comply with § 101, the Board failed to give effect to the actual language of the
`
`claims and their specific limitations. The actual claim language, read in light of
`
`the specification, reflects a specific and concrete technical solution to a novel
`
`problem associated with distribution of digital content over the Internet. Such a
`
`technological advance is patent eligible.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`A. The Challenged Claims Are Patent Eligible Because They Are
`Similar to the Claims in DDR Holdings, Enfish, and BASCOM
`
`The Board found the challenged claims to be patent ineligible. First, the
`
`Board found that the challenged claims “are drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract
`
`idea ... [and] are directed to performing the fundamental economic practice of
`
`conditioning and controlling access to data.” Paper 32 at 9. The Board also found
`
`“that the additional elements . . . are either field of use limitations and/or generic
`
`features of a computer.” Id. 15. In so doing, the Board (at 12-14) rejected
`
`Smartflash’s argument that, like the claims in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
`
`F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the challenged claims were “directed to an
`
`improvement to computer functionality” and thus not directed to an abstract idea.
`
`The Board misapprehends Enfish and Smartflash’s arguments. The claims
`
`of the ‘516 patent are patent eligible because they embody concrete aspects of a
`
`particular solution to the Internet-specific problem of digital piracy – “a specific
`
`improvement to the way computers operate.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. This is not
`
`a patent that simply claims “use of the Internet” or a computer to perform an
`
`established business method. Cf. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709,
`
`716 (Fed. Cir. 2014). This is no digital telephone book. Cf. Paper 32, at 25. On
`
`the contrary, the challenged claim limitations reflect specific technical choices
`
`involving the secure access, transmission, and storage of specific data types.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`For example, by sending payment data responsive to a user selection rather
`
`than requiring the user to enter payment data manually into the data access
`
`terminal with each purchase, the invention improves the function of user devices
`
`over prior systems that required separate submission of payment information or
`
`post-use billing. See Ex. 1001, 4:36-38. By transmitting payment validation data
`
`to the data access terminal and retrieving multimedia content responsive to that
`
`validation data, controlling access to the multimedia data in response to the
`
`validation data, the patent inventively allows the same data carrier to be compatible
`
`with independent and integrated validation systems. See id. at 8:26-30. “[T]he
`
`claimed solution amounts to an inventive concept for resolving this particular
`
`Internet-centric problem.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259.
`
`The claims teach specific technical solutions to a problem associated with
`
`distribution of digital content through specific organization of distinct data types,
`
`implemented on a specific device. There is no risk that the patents monopolize a
`
`“fundamental economic practice,” as the Board held (at 10). The claims are not
`
`directed to every way of paying for and controlling access to data content but to
`
`specific devices and methods involving a novel organization of designated data
`
`types to solve the technological problem of data piracy on the Internet.
`
`Recognizing the patent-eligibility of these claims will not “impede innovation” or
`
`“improperly t[ie] up . . . building blocks of human ingenuity.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`2354. On the contrary, each claim teaches a “specific way” to control access to
`
`stored digital content; the claims do not attempt to “preempt every application of
`
`the idea.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259.
`
`The Board (at 20-21) rejected Patent Owner’s reliance on DDR Holdings on
`
`the grounds that “data piracy exists in contexts other than the Internet,” “the
`
`solution provided by the challenged claim is not rooted in specific computer
`
`technology,” and the “result” does not “override[] the routine and conventional use
`
`of the recited devices and functions.” That is incorrect: the claims discuss specific
`
`computer functions and interactions to perform a specific series of operations.
`
`Indeed, the Board’s own summary of the ‘516 patent (at 3-4) states:
`
`The ‘516 patent describes providing portable data storage together
`with a means for conditioning access to that data upon validated
`payment. . . . This combination of the payment validation means with
`the data storage means allows data owners to make their data
`available over the internet without fear of data pirates.
`
`The specification further explains that the purpose of the invention is to
`
`“make . . . data available . . . over the internet without fear of loss of revenue.” Ex.
`
`1001 at 2:14-19. “The growing prevalence of so-called data pirates” is a problem
`
`that arises by virtue of “increasingly wide use of the internet.” Id. at 1:32-36. The
`
`types of pre-existing data piracy cited by the Board (at 20) are different. Because
`
`the Internet facilitates “essentially world-wide” distribution of flawless, identical
`
`copies of digital content data, the data piracy problems it creates are qualitatively
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`different from the problem of copying of physical media (videotapes, CDs,
`
`software, books), which necessarily takes significant time, imparts imperfections,
`
`and/or imposes incremental costs. See Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. at 929-30.
`
`Rather than generically claiming use of the Internet to perform an abstract
`
`business practice, the claims solve problems faced by digital content providers in
`
`the Internet Era and teach “an improvement to computer functionality itself.”
`
`Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336.
`
`The Board also held (at 22) that the challenged claims contained
`
`limitations—unlike the claims in DDR Holdings—that were “specified at a high
`
`level of generality.” But the challenged claims and the specification discuss a
`
`specific organization of data types to carry out transactions according to a
`
`particular scheme, not mere generalities. “Payment data,” “payment validation
`
`data” and “code responsive to payment validation data to retrieve . . . multimedia
`
`content” and are at least as specific as the claims terms in DDR Holdings. See 773
`
`F.3d at 1249 (reciting “link,” “source page,” “commerce object,” and “visually
`
`perceptible elements”). See also the claim terms of Amdocs discussed infra.
`
`The Board further held (at 18) that the claims could be performed by “a
`
`general purpose computer.” But that is generally true of software inventions, and
`
`“[s]oftware can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as
`
`hardware improvements can.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. These claims teach a
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`specific scheme for validating payment, and storing payment data and content data
`
`governing access on a terminal and using those data types to control access to
`
`content data according to a specific transaction sequence. As the specification
`
`explains, when digital data is sent over the Internet operating in its normal,
`
`expected manner and stored by a recipient, the content owner has no means to
`
`exert further control over access to downloaded content. The claims provide a
`
`specific mechanism to ensure that content, once downloaded, can be accessed only
`
`in accordance with associated access control responsive to payment validation
`
`data. Just as the claims in DDR Holdings “specify how interactions with the
`
`Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result,” 773 F.3d at 1258, the claims
`
`here specify how manipulation of specific data types facilitates convenient and
`
`secure provision of digital content, a result that neither the Internet nor unimproved
`
`computers can produce. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337. The patent “improve[s] the
`
`functioning” and the functionality of handheld multimedia terminals and content
`
`data supply servers, which likewise improves the functioning of data
`
`communications networks used for digital content distribution. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
`
`2359.
`
`The Board (at 23-24) rejected Smartflash’s argument that the challenged
`
`claims were like those in BASCOM because they involve known components
`
`“arranged in a non-conventional and non-generic way,” by requiring “a handheld
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`multimedia terminal to store both payment data and multimedia content data – thus
`
`‘improv[ing] an existing technological process.’” Paper 29 at 5 (citing BASCOM,
`
`827 F.3d at 1351). Instead, the Board found that “[t]he concept of storing two
`
`different types of information in the same place or on the same device is an age old
`
`practice,” so “[a]s a result, the challenged claims do not achieve a result that
`
`overrides the routine and conventional use of the recited devices and functions.
`
`Rather, each of the challenged claims is ‘an abstract-idea-based solution
`
`implemented with generic technical components in a conventional way,’ making it
`
`patent ineligible.” Paper 32 at 24 (citing BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1351). But the
`
`Board misapprehends Smartflash’s argument and “‘oversimplify[ies] the claims’
`
`by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of
`
`the claims,” exactly what the Federal Circuit has “cautioned that courts ‘must be
`
`careful to avoid.’” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313 (citations omitted). The challenged
`
`claims do not simply “store[] two different types of information in the same place
`
`or on the same device,” but rather have other specific requirements relating to the
`
`interaction of the two types of data, such as “code to control access to said at least
`
`one selected item of multimedia content on said terminal responsive to said
`
`payment validation data.” Ex. 1001 at 26:35-37 (claim 1). Contrary to the Board’s
`
`conclusion, the challenged claims do override the routine and conventional use of
`
`the recited devices and functions. Instead of multimedia content data that can be
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`readily copied and easily distributed over the Internet, the Smartflash invention
`
`results in multimedia content available to purchasers over a computer network but
`
`distributed conveniently and securely.
`
`B.
`The Challenged Claims Are Patent Eligible Because They Are
`Similar to the Claims in McRO and Amdocs
`
`In addition to the challenged claims being similar to the patent eligible claims
`
`in DDR Holdings, Enfish, and BASCOM, their patent eligibility is supported by
`
`their similarity to the claims in McRO and Amdocs.
`
`1.
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Similar to the Claims in McRO
`
`In McRO, the invention related to a “method for automatically ... producing
`
`accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated
`
`characters.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1307. The Federal Circuit analyzed as
`
`representative the following claim:
`
`A method for automatically animating lip
`synchronization and facial expression of three-
`dimensional characters comprising:
`obtaining a first set of rules that define output morph
`weight set stream as a function of phoneme sequence and
`time of said phoneme sequence;
`obtaining a timed data file of phonemes having a
`plurality of sub-sequences;
`generating an intermediate stream of output morph
`weight sets and a plurality of transition parameters
`between two adjacent morph weight sets by evaluating
`said plurality of sub-sequences against said first set of
`rules;
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`generating a final stream of output morph weight sets at a
`desired frame rate from said intermediate stream of
`output morph weight sets and said plurality of transition
`parameters; and
`applying said final stream of output morph weight sets to
`a sequence of animated characters to produce lip
`synchronization and facial expression control of said
`animated characters.
`
`Id. at 1307–08. In analyzing this claim, the Court “look[ed] to whether the claims
`
`in these patents focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant
`
`technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea
`
`and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.” Id. at 1314. The Court
`
`noted that “[t]he claimed process uses a combined order of specific rules that
`
`renders information into a specific format that is then used and applied to create
`
`desired results… .” Id. at 1315. The Court concluded that “[w]hen looked at as a
`
`whole, [the claim] is directed to a patentable, technological improvement over the
`
`existing, manual 3–D animation techniques. The claim uses the limited rules in a
`
`process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in
`
`conventional industry practice” and “therefore, is not directed to an abstract idea.”
`
`Id. at 1316.
`
`Here, the challenged claims are directed to a technological improvement
`
`over how then-existing computer systems and media players transferred, stored,
`
`and retrieved for use multimedia content data. The pre-existing technology
`
`allowed multimedia content data to be readily copied and distributed through file
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`sharing programs. As noted above, this was a major problem for the entertainment
`
`industry due to distribution of pirated content over the Internet. The challenged
`
`claims provided a technological improvement over that existing technology by
`
`storing the multimedia content data with payment validation data along with “code
`
`to control access” to the multimedia content “responsive to [the] payment
`
`validation data” so that the multimedia content could not be used or distributed
`
`absent payment validation. See Ex. 1001 at 26:35-37 (claim 1). The ‘516 Patent
`
`method claims have similar specific limitations that limit retrieval and transmittal
`
`of multimedia content based on payment validation, such as requiring steps of
`
`“receiving payment validation data validating a user purchase of an item of
`
`multimedia content” and “responsive to the payment validation data validating the
`
`user purchase, retrieving the purchased item of multimedia content data from a
`
`multimedia content store and transmitting the purchased item of multimedia
`
`content to the handheld multimedia terminal.” Id. at 28:3-9 (claim 14).
`
`Because the challenged claims are a technological improvement over the
`
`then-existing systems and methods, and limit transfer and retrieval of multimedia
`
`content based on payment validation in a process specifically designed to achieve
`
`an improved technological result in conventional industry practice, the challenged
`
`claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The Challenged Claims Are Similar to the Claims in
`Amdocs
`
`In Amdocs, the invention generally was “designed to solve an accounting
`
`and billing problem faced by network service providers” and included “a system,
`
`method, and computer program for merging data in a network-based filtering and
`
`aggregating platform as well as a related apparatus for enhancing networking
`
`accounting data records.” Amdocs, 2016 WL 6440387, at *1. The Federal Circuit
`
`analyzed the following claim as representative of one of the patents:
`
`A computer program product embodied on a computer
`readable storage medium for processing network
`accounting information comprising:
`computer code for receiving from a first source a first
`network accounting record;
`computer code for correlating the first network
`accounting record with accounting information available
`from a second source; and
`computer code for using the accounting information with
`which the first network accounting record is correlated to
`enhance the first network accounting record.
`Id. at *9. The Court found this claim to be patent eligible, even though it “requires
`
`arguably generic components, including network devices and ‘gatherers’ which
`
`‘gather’ information” because it “entails an unconventional technological solution
`
`(enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive
`
`record flows which previously required massive databases).” Id. at *10. Notably,
`
`the Court did not find the “computer code for receiving,” “computer code for
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`correlating,” and “computer code for using” to be “so general that they do no more
`
`than describe a desired function or outcome without providing any limiting detail
`
`that confines the claim to a particular solution to an identified problem” as the
`
`Board did for the challenged claims’ “code to” elements. Paper 32 at 13 (citing
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 2015-2080, slip op. 7 (Fed.
`
`Cir. Sept. 23, 2016)). And yet this patent-eligible Amdocs claim is comprised
`
`exclusively of such “code for” limitations.
`
`Here, the challenged claims of the ‘516 Patent are like the eligible claim in
`
`Amdocs because they solve a problem unique to computer networks, such as the
`
`Internet (how to make multimedia content data available to purchasers over a
`
`computer network conveniently and securely in a realm where identical copies of
`
`content can be easily made for free and widely distributed, unlike any physically
`
`manufactured item) and use an unconventional technological approach (using a
`
`system that combines on the handheld multimedia terminal both the multimedia
`
`content and the payment data and/or access rule data). PO Response, Paper 17 at
`
`47-48.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`The Board should reverse its original decision and hold challenged
`
`claims 1-28 are patent eligible.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 7, 2016
`
`/ Michael R. Casey /
`
`Michael R. Casey
`Registration No. 40,294
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive
`Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Telephone: (571) 765-7705
`Fax: (571) 765-7200
`Email: mcasey@dbjg.com
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that this PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST
`
`FOR REHEARING in CBM2015-00121 was served today by emailing a copy to
`
`counsel for the Petitioners as follows:
`
`J. Steven Baughman (steven.baughman@ropesgray.com)
`Megan Raymond (megan.raymond@ropesgray.com)
`James R. Batchelder (james.batchelder@ropesgray.com)
`ApplePTABService-SmartFlash@ropesgray.com
`Attorneys for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 7, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
` /
`
` Michael R. Casey /
`
`
`Michael R. Casey
`Registration No. 40,294
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive
`Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Telephone: (571) 765-7705
`Fax: (571) 765-7200
`Email: mcasey@dbjg.com
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`17
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
