IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case CBM2015-00132
`Patent No. 8,336,772 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER GOOGLE INC.’S MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 325(C) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.222 AND REQUEST FOR
`SHORTENED RESPONSE TIME FOR PATENT OWNER’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “Patent Board”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case CBM2015-00132
`Patent No. 8,336,772 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER GOOGLE INC.’S MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 325(C) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.222 AND REQUEST FOR
`SHORTENED RESPONSE TIME FOR PATENT OWNER’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “Patent Board”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.222, Petitioner Google
`
`Inc. (“Google”) respectfully requests joinder of the above-captioned covered
`
`business method review (“Google CBM”) with pending covered business method
`
`reviews Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, CBM2015-00031, and Apple Inc. v.
`
`Smartflash LLC, CBM2015-00032, (together, “Apple CBMs”), which were
`
`instituted on May 28, 2015. Joinder will promote efficient resolution of the
`
`question at issue in all of the related proceedings: whether the challenged claims
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,336,772 (the “’772 patent”) are unpatentable for failing to
`
`claim patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Joinder will not
`
`prejudice any of the participating parties, should not impact the overall time for
`
`resolving the Apple CBMs, and will require, at most, extension of a single deadline
`
`in those proceedings.
`
`In order to facilitate joinder, Google also respectfully requests that the
`
`deadline for Patent Owner’s preliminary response to Google’s petition be
`
`accelerated. Such an accelerated response date will not be unduly prejudicial to
`
`Patent Owner because (i) Patent Owner has already prepared several preliminary
`
`and post-institution responses to Section 101 challenges to claims of the ’772
`
`patent and related patents and (ii) the Board has already instituted Apple’s CBMs
`
`on the same ground as the one asserted in Google’s petition.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`On May 8, 2015, Google petitioned for covered business method
`
`review of claims 1, 5, 9, 10, 14, 21, and 22 of the ’772 patent on the ground that
`
`the subject matter of those claims is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Google
`
`Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, CBM2015-00132, Pap. 7. Google’s petition relies in part
`
`on the declaration of Dr. Justin Douglas Tygar. Id.
`
`2.
`
`Patent Owner’s preliminary response to Google’s petition is currently
`
`due September 4, 2015. Google, CBM2015-00132, Pap. 9 at 1.
`
`3.
`
`On May 28, 2015, the Board instituted covered business method
`
`review of claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 14, 19 and 22 of the ’772 patent in response to Apple’s
`
`petitions, which assert that the subject matter of those claims is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 and which rely in part on the declaration of Mr. Anthony J.
`
`Wechselberger. Apple, CBM2015-00031, Pap. 11 (claims 1, 5, 8, and 10); Apple,
`
`CBM2015-00032, Pap. 11 (claims 14, 19, and 22). The Board’s institution
`
`decisions cover all claims challenged in Google’s petition save claim 9, which
`
`depends on already instituted claim 8, and claim 21, which depends on already
`
`instituted claim 19. Id. Both claims 9 and 21 recite the same additional limitation:
`
`“wherein said data carrier is integrated into the data access terminal, and wherein
`
`said data carrier comprises flash memory.” Google, CBM2015-00132, Ex. 1001.
`
`In its institution decisions, the Board found that (i) the challenged claims “are more
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`likely than not drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea,” (ii) the “potentially
`
`technical additions to the claims” are all “purely conventional,” and (iii) the
`
`challenged claims do not “add an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the
`
`patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the abstract idea
`
`itself.” Apple, CBM2015-00031, Pap. 10 at 12-15; Apple, CBM2015-00032, Pap.
`
`11 at 11-14.
`
`4.
`
`Patent Owner’s responses to Apple’s petitions are currently due July
`
`29, 2015. Apple, CBM2015-00031, Pap. 12 at 6; Apple, CBM2015-00032, Pap. 12
`
`at 6.
`
`
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`“The AIA permits joinder of like review proceedings.” Trulia, Inc. v.
`
`Zillow, Inc., CBM2014-00115, Pap. 8 at 18, 2014 WL 4219513, at *10 (May 1,
`
`2014). Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(c):
`
`If more than 1 petition for a post-grant [or covered business method] review
`
`under this chapter is properly filed against the same patent and the Director
`
`determines that more than 1 of these petitions warrants the institution of a
`
`post-grant [or covered business method] review under section 324, the
`
`Director may consolidate such reviews into a single post-grant [or covered
`
`business method] review.1
`
`
`1 Pursuant to AIA § 18(a)(1), the standards and procedures governing post-
`
`grant review also govern covered business method review. See also Trulia,
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.222(a) (“Where another matter involving the patent is
`
`before the Office, the Board may during the pendency of the post-grant [or covered
`
`business method] review enter any appropriate order regarding the additional
`
`matter including providing for the . . . consolidation . . . of any such matter.”).
`
`The Board determines whether to grant joinder on a case-by-case basis,
`
`“taking into account the particular facts of each case, substantive and procedural
`
`issues, and other considerations.” Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00385, Pap. 17 at 3, 2013 WL 5947712, at *2 (July 29, 2013). The
`
`Board has instructed that a motion for joinder should: “(1) set forth the reasons
`
`why joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability
`
`asserted in the petition; (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the
`
`trial schedule for the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and
`
`discovery may be simplified.” Sony Corp. v. Yissum Research Development Co.,
`
`IPR2013-00219, Pap. 15 at 3, 2013 WL 5970153, at *2 (Sept. 24, 2013) (citing
`
`Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Pap. 15 at 4 (Apr. 24, 2013)).
`
`All of these considerations weigh in favor of joinder.
`
`
`CBM2014-00115, Pap. 8 at 18, 2014 WL 4219513, at *10 (“The statutory
`
`provision governing joinder of covered business method patent review proceedings
`
`is 35 U.S.C. § 325(c).”).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Joinder Is Timely, Appropriate, And Not Prejudicial
`
`This motion for joinder is timely and authorized, because it is being filed
`
`within one month of the May 28, 2015 institution of Apple’s CBMs. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.222(b) (providing that a motion for joinder must be filed within one month of
`
`institution of the review for which joinder is requested); 35 U.S.C. § 21(b); Taiwan
`
`Semiconductor Mfg. Co. v. Zond, LLC, IPR2014-00781, Pap. 5 at 3 (May 29, 2014)
`
`(“As articulated by the Board during the call, prior authorization for filing a motion
`
`for joinder—prior to one month after the institution date of any inter partes review
`
`for which joinder is requested—is not required.”).2
`
`
`2 While the Board has yet to institute Google’s petition as required by 35
`
`U.S.C. § 325(c), the Board has already determined as part of the Apple CBMs that
`
`five of the seven claims challenged by Google (and the independent claims
`
`underlying the remaining two claims) are more likely than not unpatentable on the
`
`same ground on which Google’s petition is based. Apple, CBM2015-00031, Pap.
`
`11 (claims 1, 5, 8, and 10); Apple, CBM2015-00032, Pap. 11 (claims 14, 19, and
`
`22). As discussed in Section IV, infra, Google requests an accelerated schedule for
`
`Patent Owner’s preliminary response (if any)—as the Board has ordered in other
`
`proceedings—in order to facilitate timely joinder. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v.
`
`Smartflash LLC, CBM2015-00117, Pap. 5 at 3 (accelerating the deadline for Patent
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Joinder is appropriate because it will allow the Board to resolve the
`
`arguments raised by both Apple and Google regarding a single question (i.e.,
`
`whether the subject matter of the challenged claims is patent-eligible) in a single,
`
`comprehensive proceeding. The fact that the same patent and the same ground for
`
`finding unpatentability are at issue in both the Google CBM and the Apple CBMs
`
`counsels in favor of joinder. See, e.g., Skimlinks, Inc. et al. v. Linkgine, Inc.,
`
`CBM2015-00087, Pap. 14 at 25, 2015 WL 3799545, at *15 (June 15, 2015); Dell,
`
`IPR2013-00385, Pap. 17 at 7, 2013 WL 5947712, at *4; Ion Geophysical Corp. et
`
`al. v. WesternGeco LLC, IPR2015-00565, Pap. 14 at 5, 2015 WL 1906173, at *3
`
`(Apr. 23, 2015). The Board should have a comprehensive record—including both
`
`Google’s and Apple’s independent analysis and distinct expert evidence—on
`
`which to base its final written decision regarding the question of patent eligibility.
`
`See, e.g., T-Mobile Usa, Inc. et al. v. Mobile Telecommc’ns Techs., LLC, IPR2015-
`
`00018, Pap. 13 at 5, 2015 WL 1594792, at *3 (Apr. 8, 2015) (holding that
`
`addressing “differences in Petitioner’s evidence and arguments regarding claim
`
`construction and the substantive application of the prior art to the claims . . . in a
`
`single proceeding is the most efficient course of action”); Skimlinks, CBM2015-
`
`00087, Pap. 14 at 26, 2015 WL 3799545, at *16 (same); Oxford Nanopore Techs.
`
`
`Owner’s preliminary response by two months to facilitate consideration of
`
`joinder).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Ltd. v. Univ. of Washington, IPR2015-00057, Pap. 10, 2015 WL 1940213, at *16
`
`(Apr. 27, 2015) (joining petition asserting new ground and new evidence with
`
`petition filed six months earlier).
`
`Further, the fact that Google’s petition includes two claims not at issue in the
`
`Apple CBMs does not weigh against joinder. See, e.g., Enzymotec Ltd. et al v.
`
`Neptune Techs. & Bioresources, Inc., IPR2014-00556, Pap. 19 at 5, 2014 WL
`
`3670744 (July 24, 2014) (granting joinder, noting that “[t]here is no language in
`
`either § 311 or § 315(c) requiring us to limit” joinder to “identical issues” across
`
`petitions); Medtronic, Inc.et al. v. Troy R. Norred, M.D., IPR2014-00823, Pap. 12
`
`at 8, 2014 WL 6985725, at *6 (Dec. 8, 2014) (“The joinder provision . . . does not
`
`require the scope of issues raised to be identical to issues in the existing inter
`
`partes review.”); 35 U.S.C. § 325(c) (requiring only that petitions concern the
`
`same patent); 37 C.F.R. § 42.222(a) (same). To the contrary, considering claims 9
`
`and 21, which depend on claims already instituted and at issue in the Apple CBMs,
`
`increases efficiency and allows the Board to address the patentability of all
`
`challenged claims of the ’772 patent at once, as part of a single proceeding.
`
`Joining the Google CBM with the Apple CBMs will not prejudice Patent
`
`Owner. First, the efficiencies associated with consolidating the pending challenges
`
`should benefit Patent Owner, who will be able to offer responses to all of the
`
`petitioners’ arguments at one time rather than at different times in different
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`proceedings. Second, joinder will not result in a de facto tactical advantage for
`
`Google. Google did not have the benefit of the Board’s analysis or decision
`
`regarding Apple’s CBM petitions prior to filing its own petition, and consolidation
`
`will ensure that all parties remain on the same footing in that regard. See T-
`
`Mobile, IPR2015-00018, Pap. 13 at 5, 2015 WL 1594792, at *3 (granting joinder).
`
`And third, as discussed further below, Google’s arguments and evidence can be
`
`considered as part of the Apple CBMs with little modification to the Scheduling
`
`Order and without disrupting the date for oral argument or the default deadline for
`
`the Board’s final written decision.
`
`These considerations all weigh in favor of joinder.
`
`B. No New Grounds of Unpatentability Are Asserted In Google’s
`Petition
`
`Google’s petition does not assert any new grounds of unpatentability. It
`
`involves the same ’772 patent and the same ground for unpatentability at issue in
`
`the Apple CBMs. This consideration also weighs in favor of joinder.
`
`C.
`
`Joinder Will Have Minimal Impact On The Trial Schedule For
`The Existing Review
`
`Joinder will have minimal impact on the trial schedule for the existing
`
`review, because Google’s petition is substantially similar to the petitions in the
`
`Apple CBMs and does not raise any new grounds for unpatentability. At most,
`
`joinder may require additional time for Patent Owner to file its response in the
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`joined proceedings and, if Patent Owner desires, to depose Google’s expert—a
`
`witness that Patent Owner will likely seek to depose in any event in connection
`
`with Google’s other pending Section 101 petitions.3 No discovery beyond an
`
`expert deposition has been permitted in any other instituted proceedings on
`
`Smartflash’s patents under Section 101, and no other discovery will be necessary
`
`here. See, e.g., Samsung, CBM2014-00190, Pap. 13 at 5; Apple, CBM2015-00015,
`
`Pap. 28 at 4.
`
`To the extent Patent Owner requires additional time to depose Google’s
`
`expert and/or to file its response, the deadline for Patent Owner’s response (Due
`
`Date 1) may be extended by a month to August 28, 2015 (for example) to
`
`accommodate Patent Owner without impacting any other deadlines. A proposed
`
`schedule for the consolidated proceeding is set out in Appendix A to this motion.
`
`Google is also amenable, in coordination with the Patent Owner and Apple,
`
`to other arrangements that the Board deems appropriate. To the extent the Board
`
`determines that incorporating Google’s arguments and evidence in the Apple
`
`
`3 Google has petitioned for covered business method review of various
`
`claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,942,317, 8,118,221, and 8,794,516, which are not
`
`challenged by any prior petition filed by any party. Google Inc. v. Smartflash LLC,
`
`CBM2015-00126, Pap. 2; Google Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, CBM2015-00129, Pap.
`
`2; Google Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, CBM2015-00143, Pap. 1.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`CBMs would complicate the schedule, Google requests joinder as to Apple’s
`
`petitions so that Google can, at minimum, ensure that the proceedings on the
`
`challenged claims continue in the event Apple settles or otherwise terminates the
`
`proceedings.
`
`Because joinder will have minimal impact on the trial schedule for the
`
`existing review and no impact on the timing for oral argument or the Board’s final
`
`written decision, this consideration weighs in favor of joinder.
`
`D. The Board May Adopt Procedures To Simplify Briefing And
`Discovery
`
`Because Google and Apple will be addressing the same ground, the Board
`
`may simplify briefing and discovery by adopting procedures similar to those
`
`adopted in, for example, Skimlinks, Inc. et al. v. Linkgine, Inc., CBM2015-00087,
`
`Pap. 14, and Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385, Pap.
`
`17. In those proceedings, the Board ordered that petitioners file consolidated
`
`briefing, with the second petitioner to file a short, supplemental brief addressing
`
`any points of disagreement with the first petitioner. Id. This procedure would
`
`streamline the briefing before the Board, further increasing efficiency, and
`
`minimize any potential complication or delay caused by joinder. See Motorola
`
`Mobility LLC v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00256, Pap. 10 at 9, 2013 WL 6514080, at
`
`*4 (June 20, 2013) (holding that similar approach “should avoid introducing delay
`
`that could arise from lengthy briefing by each party, while providing the parties an
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`opportunity to address all issues that may arise” and that “these limitations on
`
`additional filings by [Petitioners] also avoid placing an undue burden on [Patent
`
`Owner]”). Should joinder be granted, Google will work with Apple to manage all
`
`aspects of the proceedings to avoid redundancy and burden on the Board and
`
`Patent Owner. Skimlinks, CBM2015-00087, Pap. 14 at 26, 2015 WL 3799545, at
`
`*16; Dell, IPR2013-00385, Pap. 17 at 11, 2013 WL 5947712, at *6. Google will
`
`also work to make its expert available to Patent Owner at Patent Owner’s
`
`convenience to facilitate the sole potential area of additional discovery.
`
`These considerations weigh in favor of joinder.
`
`IV. THE BOARD SHOULD ACCELERATE THE DEADLINE FOR
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`In order to facilitate timely joinder, Google respectfully requests that the
`
`Board accelerate the deadline for the Patent Owner’s preliminary response to
`
`Google’s petition by approximately one and a half months, or to July 13, 2015.
`
`See, e.g., Apple, CBM2015-00117, Pap. 5 at 3 (accelerating the deadline for
`
`Preliminary Response by two months to facilitate consideration of joinder). This
`
`will not prejudice or impose undue burden on the Patent Owner.
`
`Patent Owner has already filed preliminary responses to petitions concerning
`
`the same ground for unpatentability for essentially all claims at issue in Google’s
`
`petition. Apple, CBM2015-00031, Pap. 8; Apple, CBM2015-00032, Pap. 8.
`
`Indeed, Patent Owner has already prepared over eleven preliminary responses and
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`eight post-institution responses (reciting largely similar arguments) in connection
`
`with Section 101 challenges to the ’772 patent and related patents. See Samsung,
`
`CBM2014-00190, Pap. 7, Pap. 22; Apple, CBM2015-00018, Pap. 11, Pap. 25;
`
`Samsung, CBM2014-00192, Pap. 5, Pap. 20; Apple, CBM2015-00016, Pap. 19,
`
`Pap. 33; Samsung, CBM2014-00193, Pap. 5, Pap. 20; Apple, CBM2015-00017,
`
`Pap. 18, Pap. 32; Samsung, CBM2014-00194, Pap. 7, Pap. 23; Apple, CBM2015-
`
`00015, Pap. 19, Pap. 33; Apple, CBM2015-00031, Pap. 8; Apple, CBM2015-
`
`00032, Pap. 8; Apple, CBM2015-00033, Pap. 8. Accordingly, accelerating the
`
`deadline for the preliminary response in the Google CBM to facilitate the
`
`streamlining of proceedings through joinder should not place an undue burden on
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`V.
`
` CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Google respectfully requests that the Board join
`
`the Google CBM with the Apple CBMs and that the Board accelerate the deadline
`
`for the Patent Owner’s preliminary response to Google’s petition to facilitate
`
`timely joinder.
`
`Although Google does not believe that any fee is required for this motion,
`
`the Commissioner is authorized to charge any additional fees that may be required
`
`to Deposit Account No. 505708.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Raymond N. Nimrod/
`
`Raymond N. Nimrod (Reg. No. 31,987)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Telephone: 212-849-7000
`Fax: 212-849-7100
`
`Charles K. Verhoeven
`Melissa J. Baily
`Andrew M. Holmes (Reg. No. 64,718)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415-875-6600
`Fax: 415-875-6700
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Google Inc.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Dated: June 29, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Event
`
`Pre-Joinder Schedule
`
`Post-Joinder Schedule
`
`Patent Owner’s
`preliminary response to
`Google’s petition4
`
`September 4, 2015
`
`July 13, 2015
`
`DUE DATE 15
`
`July 29, 2015
`
`August 28, 2015
`
`Patent Owner’s response
`to the petition
`
`Patent Owner’s motion to
`amend the patent
`
`DUE DATE 2
`
`September 29, 2015
`
`September 29, 2015
`
`Petitioner’s reply to
`Patent Owner’s response
`to petition
`
`Petitioner’s opposition to
`motion to amend
`
`
`
`DUE DATE 3
`
`October 29, 2015
`
`October 29, 2015
`
`Patent Owner’s reply to
`Petitioner’s opposition to
`motion to amend
`
`
`4 Google, CBM2015-00132, Pap. 9 at 1.
`
`5 Apple, CBM2015-00031, Pap. 12 at 6; Apple, CBM2015-00032, Pap. 12
`
`at 6-7.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Event
`
`Pre-Joinder Schedule
`
`Post-Joinder Schedule
`
`DUE DATE 4
`
`November 19, 2015
`
`November 19, 2015
`
`Motion for observation
`regarding cross-
`examination of reply
`witness
`
`Motion to exclude
`evidence
`
`Request for oral argument
`
`DUE DATE 5
`
`December 3, 2015
`
`December 3, 2015
`
`Response to observation
`
`Opposition to motion to
`exclude
`
`DUE DATE 6
`
`December 10, 2015
`
`December 10, 2015
`
`Reply to opposition to
`motion to exclude
`
`
`
`DUE DATE 7
`
`January 6, 2016
`
`January 6, 2016
`
`Oral argument (if
`requested)
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on June 29, 2015 I served the foregoing motion by email
`
`to:
`
`mcasey@dbjg.com
`
`SmartFlash-CBM@dbjg.com
`
`for:
`
`Michael R. Casey
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive
`Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`
`/Adam Botzenhart/
`Adam Botzenhart
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 29, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
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
