UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`IBG LLC,
`INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., and
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00054
`U.S. Patent 7,693,768 B2
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL BURNS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 18
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2170
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`IBG LLC,
`INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC,
`TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., and
`TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case CBM2016-00054
`U.S. Patent 7,693,768 B2
`
`DECLARATION OF MICHAEL BURNS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 18
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2170
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`BACKGROUND IN THE TRADING INDUSTRY ...................................2
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .................................................1
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. HARRIS BRUMFIELD & TRADING TECHNOLOGIES ...................... 4
`
`IV. MD TRADER – INITIAL SALES ..............................................................8
`
`V. MD TRADER AND COMPETITION ...................................................... 13
`
`VI. CONCLUDING STATEMENTS ...............................................................15
`
`Page 2 of 18
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2170
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Michael Burns, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
`
`1. My name is Michael Burns. I am over 18 years of age and I have
`
`personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration and could competently
`
`testify to them if asked to do so.
`
`2.
`
`I am currently self-employed as the founder and owner of Burns
`
`Consulting Services LLC. At Burns Consulting, I provide consulting services and
`
`training relating to trading, associated technologies for electronic trading, including
`
`GUI tools, and the sales of such technologies in the trading industry.
`
`II. BACKGROUND IN THE TRADING INDUSTRY
`
`3.
`
`I obtained as associates degree at Wright Junior College in 1986.
`
`Following my completion of the program at Wright, my first job in the financial
`
`industry was at Griffin Trading, initially as a runner and later as a phone clerk.
`
`Runner and phone clerk were typical administrative support functions for trading at
`
`the exchanges in the open outcry trading industry. These are often the introductory
`
`roles for those interested in trading, and that was the case with me.
`
`4.
`
` After that, beginning around 1987, I was a broker assistant for about
`
`three years for various brokers, while also going to night school at DePaul
`
`University. At DePaul, I was pursuing a degree in business. As a broker assistant,
`
`I was learning trading strategies while assisting a broker (for example, managing
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 3 of 18
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2170
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`
`
`orders, keeping track of positions, and documenting trades), who was trading in the
`
`open outcry trading pits at the Chicago Board of Trade. Around that time, I read
`
`many books and attended seminars to learn more about trading. Just having the
`
`traders around, listening to what they were talking about and hearing what they
`
`were interested in, was a highly educational experience.
`
`5.
`
`After that, I was a broker for about a year and a half, and at times I
`
`also traded on my own account, using my own money. All of this trading activity,
`
`whether as broker or my own account, took place in the open outcry trading pits at
`
`the Chicago Board of Trade (“CBOT”).
`
`6.
`
`Eventually, I stopped brokerage and only traded for myself in the
`
`open outcry pits in Chicago. I traded on my own account from 1992 until 1999.
`
`The strategy I used, called spreading, was to analyze the prices of two products and
`
`look for opportunities to buy or sell if one was too low or too high.
`
`7.
`
`During this period of time that I was trading on my own account, in
`
`addition to trading in the open outcry pits, I eventually also became interested in
`
`and started using various electronic systems for trading as they became available.
`
`For example, the CBOT launched an electronic system for trading treasuries or
`
`Board of Trade products during “off hours” (typically, a period of time after the
`
`open outcry trading pits had closed for the day). The CBOT system that I used was
`
`called “Project A.” In addition, in 1999, I started using a trading tool from RTS,
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 4 of 18
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2170
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`
`
`an independent software vendor (“ISV”) that was a competitor of TT at the time, to
`
`trade on the Eurex exchange. I also used trading software provided by GL Trade
`
`and Eurex in that same time frame. In the industry, we generally called the
`
`software interfaces provided by the exchanges “green screens.” These exchange
`
`and ISV provided screens used a grid format for displaying prices and quantities,
`
`where the inside market never moved in the grid and the numbers (prices and
`
`quantities) changed in the various cells making up the grid, including the fixed
`
`inside market cells, as market updates were received. This type of screen was also
`
`sometimes called a market grid or a dynamic grid. Screens of this sort, where the
`
`inside market was displayed at a designated location, were the prevalent type of
`
`trading screens at the time along with basic order tickets.
`
`8.
`
`During the time that I was using electronic systems for trading, I was
`
`interested in the offerings from the growing number of vendors and the screens
`
`provided by the exchanges that could be used for electronic trading, and I tried to
`
`stay up to date on what was available. The interfaces that I used to input orders
`
`were to me the most important part of these electronic systems—my success or
`
`failure as a trader depended on the functionality offered by these interfaces. In
`
`addition to the interfaces offered by vendors and the exchanges, I knew some
`
`traders that were actually trying to develop their own trading GUI. I shared my
`
`thoughts with them on what was needed in the trading GUI, based on my
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 5 of 18
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2170
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`
`
`experiences with what was available in the market. Despite our collective
`
`knowledge about tools available in the industry and efforts to develop an improved
`
`trading tool, we did not come up with anything like the GUI that Harris Brumfield
`
`developed (discussed below). They eventually moved to Transmarket Group,
`
`which was an FCM and also had a proprietary trading group, to trade and develop
`
`their GUI. I eventually joined them at Transmarket. By this time (around 1999), I
`
`was trading primarily through electronic systems, rather than the open outcry
`
`trading pits. The trading screens that I was seeing at that time were attempting to
`
`build upon, add bells and whistles, to the conventional market grid in which the
`
`inside market was displayed at a fixed location on the screen.
`
`III. HARRIS BRUMFIELD & TRADING TECHNOLOGIES
`
`9.
`
`I knew Harris Brumfield (“Harris”) because I traded against him in
`
`the open outcry trading pits on the floor of the CBOT. He was a successful and
`
`legendary trader, who was well known in the pits for his practice of trading
`
`unusually large volumes. The banks would call down to their phone clerks on the
`
`floor of the exchange and ask if Harris was in, when they had big volume to trade.
`
`They wanted to make sure that he was there so they didn't have to execute in
`
`smaller quantities. With Harris, they knew they could execute full amounts and
`
`that Harris would basically take on the banks. Despite his incredible success in the
`
`open outcry trading pits, Harris quit trading in the pits and switched to trading
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 6 of 18
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2170
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`
`
`using electronic systems. Harris left the pits a couple of years before I did. This
`
`was a huge surprise to everyone, including me, due to his success and huge
`
`presence in the pits.
`
`10. When I started trading electronically full time, I would call Harris and
`
`try and glean insight from him on electronic trading. At one point, around the
`
`Spring of 2000, he called me and said he had developed his own trading GUI. He
`
`offered to show it to me, and I of course accepted the invitation.
`
`11. When I first saw the GUI that Harris had developed, I didn’t even
`
`recognize what I was seeing—it was nothing like anything that I had ever seen
`
`before. It was very different from the trading GUIs that I was used to seeing and I
`
`had to spend some time trying to figure it out, even with Harris there to explain it
`
`and show me how it worked. I recall that Harris had a huge monitor, which he
`
`used for trading, and his trading GUI took up a lot more space on that monitor than
`
`I was used to seeing. The GUI had a column of sequential prices and showed
`
`columns for the bid and ask quantities that corresponded to those prices. The
`
`numbers in the bid and ask columns were changing as market updates were
`
`displayed, but the numbers in the price column were not changing. As a result, I
`
`saw the market going up and down relative to the price column as the updates were
`
`displayed.
`
`12.
`
`I soon realized that there were additional benefits beyond the
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 7 of 18
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2170
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`
`
`knowledge provided by seeing this market movement. Harris invited me to sit
`
`down at his trading setup – it included a big chair placed in front of the huge
`
`monitor. I was looking at Harris’ trading GUI and I picked up Harris’ mouse and
`
`started clicking next to prices, trying to enter orders. Harris explained how to enter
`
`orders, telling me to just click on the blue (bid column) to buy. When I clicked,
`
`the trading GUI displayed my pending order to buy right there in the same
`
`interface, aligning it in a different column with the price associated with the cell
`
`that I had clicked on. Harris showed me how to cancel that pending order by
`
`clicking on it. It was amazing. I realized that I could enter and cancel orders with
`
`a single click, and I never missed my price, or my cancel, because the prices in the
`
`price column did not change. I believed that this was going to be a game changing
`
`benefit for traders. I could quickly move back and forth, among bid, asks, and my
`
`pending orders, which was another significant improvement upon the other trading
`
`applications I was using.
`
`13. As I became more familiar with Harris’ trading GUI, I came to realize
`
`that it was truly phenomenal. The differences between Harris’ trading GUI and the
`
`others that I had seen were drastic and surprisingly resulted in a much better tool. I
`
`was excited to have had the opportunity to see Harris’ trading GUI.
`
`14. Harris explained to me that Trading Technologies was going to turn
`
`his trading GUI into a commercial product. After Harris showed me his trading
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 8 of 18
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2170
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`
`
`GUI, Harris asked me to meet with Gary Kemp (“Gary”), who was the CEO of
`
`Trading Technologies (“TT”) at the time. Harris wanted me to help with sales at
`
`TT because he saw that, unlike others, I understood the benefits of the invention.
`
`Many others at the time were resistant to the invention because it was so different
`
`than the conventional screens being used, it required more screen real estate and it
`
`did not focus on and lock the inside market in a fixed location. While this third
`
`point turned out to be a huge benefit of the invention, initially it appeared to many
`
`to create a problem called “chasing the market” in which if a trader wanted to buy
`
`or sell right away, he could end up missing that because the market moves up or
`
`down and an order gets sent away from the market. In this sense, the invention is
`
`slower and less accurate than the conventional screens and at the time many
`
`focused on this problem and were turned off by the invention. After meeting with
`
`Harris and seeing his trading GUI, I had no hesitation about joining the team.
`
`15.
`
`I started working at TT in July of 2000. I left TT in July of 2015.
`
`16. My positions at TT included Chicago Salesman, Emissary to the CEO,
`
`and Vice President of Research and Development.
`
`17. TT’s commercial version of Harris’ trading GUI is called MD Trader.
`
`Like Harris’ trading GUI, in MD Trader, the bids and offers moved relative to a
`
`column of fixed prices so that the bids and offers moved up and down along the
`
`price column when the market changed. MD Trader permitted a user to preset a
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 9 of 18
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2170
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`
`
`default quantity, and then provided for single click order entry in fixed locations
`
`corresponding to a given price level along the column of fixed prices. This
`
`combination of relative movement of bids and offers against a column of fixed
`
`prices, along with single click order entry, eliminated the risk of orders being sent
`
`in at unintended prices without sacrificing speed. Every version of MD Trader
`
`since its launch in 2000 has included these features.
`
`18. As a salesman for TT, I motivated and educated TT’s sales personnel
`
`about the benefits and advantages of MD Trader. I also helped to sell MD Trader
`
`(part of X_Trader) to Chicago traders. Part of this involved being able to explain
`
`the benefits of MD Trader and to answer the expected skepticism about what many
`
`perceived as the downsides of the invention that I discussed above. I would try to
`
`convince TT’s own employees and potential customers that the overall
`
`combination of benefits outweighed these downsides and that in reality MD Trader
`
`was a game changer that they should try.
`
`19. As emissary of the CEO, I visited various TT sales offices around the
`
`world and helped the sales people understand the value of MD Trader. I also
`
`visited customers with the sales people.
`
`20. As Vice President of Research and Development my job was to
`
`ensure that TT stayed on the cutting edge of technology, especially as it related to
`
`trading and traders and how to help traders make money.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 10 of 18
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2170
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`
`
`21.
`
`In addition to the above positions I have also held the following
`
`positions at TT: Interim Global Head of Sales; Member on TT's Board of
`
`Directors; and Vice President of Exchange Connectivity.
`
`
`
`IV. MD TRADER – INITIAL SALES
`
`22. When I first joined TT, we were gearing up for the launch of MD
`
`Trader, which occurred in late summer or early fall of 2000. My first priority was
`
`to get the TT sales people educated and excited about the tremendous value of MD
`
`Trader. The sales people were reluctant to get behind the product. I learned that
`
`this was because the combination of features I described above in Paragraph 17
`
`was so different from the products that the customers were currently using and
`
`familiar with. We all suspected that the customers would not willingly jump to
`
`something so different from what they were currently using as the primary tool for
`
`their livelihood, particularly when the first thing that users noticed was the large
`
`amount of screen space that MD Trader occupied. Customers placed a lot of value
`
`on conserving space on their trading screens, primarily because there were many
`
`sources, such as news feeds, quote services, charts and analytics etc., competing
`
`for the available space. There were also concerns that the customers would not
`
`like MD Trader because the inside market was constantly moving up and down
`
`relative to the prices in the price column, unlike the existing tools that the
`
`customers were familiar with, where the inside market was always displayed in a
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 11 of 18
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2170
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`
`
`fixed location – causing the “chasing the market” problem I discuss above. In
`
`addition, there was concern because the user could not just look at the same small
`
`area and know exactly what the inside market was. After a period of time that
`
`extended for a while after TT’s launch of MD Trader, the TT sales people came to
`
`understand the huge value of MD Trader.
`
`23. There were a number of factors contributing to the huge value of MD
`
`Trader as a tool for traders. As noted above, the ability of the user to see the
`
`market going up and down relative to the price column as the market updates were
`
`displayed proved to be one such factor. Traders gain a tremendous amount of
`
`information from watching the market in this manner, particularly in comparison to
`
`the existing tools, where the prices in the fixed best bid and ask locations were
`
`constantly changing and need to be carefully monitored and differences calculated.
`
`A trader could also open a number of MD Trader GUIs and watch the relationships
`
`among the products being displayed in those GUIs as market updates caused the
`
`markets to move up and down in the various windows, allowing for an intuitive
`
`comparison of those markets. In MD Trader, the movement of the bids and asks in
`
`relation to the price levels allows the user to see the market movements, not only in
`
`terms of whether the market is moving up or down, but also how fast and for how
`
`long the market is moving in a particular direction. Another factor was that the
`
`trader who was interested in sending orders at a particular price would find MD
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 12 of 18
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2170
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`
`
`Trader to be much more accurate that than the dynamic grids that were in use,
`
`because the prices in the dynamic grids were constantly changing as market
`
`updates were displayed. As noted above, this was a game changer. Over time, we
`
`also found out that MD Trader, because of this improved accuracy and information
`
`gained from market visualization, allowed traders to enter orders with more
`
`confidence, which resulted in traders trading more contracts than they typically
`
`would with the dynamic grid tools. Furthermore, the display of the user’s own
`
`pending orders in relation to the price column, and the ability to interact with those
`
`pending orders in the same window to cancel or modify those pending orders
`
`contributed to the value of MD Trader. The display of this additional information
`
`in MD Trader also contributed to the traders increase in confidence, because the
`
`trader did not have to focus on different windows to see, change or cancel pending
`
`orders.
`
`24. MD Trader was not immediately successful when we started selling it
`
`in the market. As anticipated by the TT sales people, the customers were initially
`
`hesitant to change their primary tool for trading, particularly when MD Trader was
`
`so different from the market grids that the customers were familiar with and the
`
`issues of screen space and “chasing the market” that I discuss above. In addition,
`
`the traders were hesitant to use it because the user could not just look at the same
`
`small area and know exactly what the inside market was. Also, in comparison to
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 13 of 18
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2170
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`
`
`the various types of market grids, MD Trader required the trader to move the
`
`mouse a much greater distance going from one product to another. In the market
`
`grid, which were often condensed to a single row, the trader would only need to
`
`move the mouse by one or a few cells to go to another product. The market grids
`
`also allowed for less eye movement for the same reason—multiple markets within
`
`only a few cells.
`
`25. Eventually, over time, we turned these customers into believers by
`
`physically walking them through the process. We showed them the capabilities of
`
`the product and explained that they would get the price they wanted. We explained
`
`how MD Trader allowed them to visualize the market. We demonstrated how the
`
`user could enter an order by clicking at fixed locations along the price column to
`
`set the price for an order and send it to an electronic exchange. We showed them
`
`how MD Trader displayed the user’s pending orders and allowed for easy
`
`cancellation or modification of those orders. However, that was not the end of our
`
`struggle to get customers to adopt MD Trader. I had to persist and explain it to
`
`them again and again. I made multiple visits and explained it again. I knew that
`
`once they were using it they would benefit significantly. Eventually, when we got
`
`one trader to try it, that helped the sales process because that customer would
`
`confirm all of the benefits I had been trying to explain. Eventually the customers
`
`saw these benefits and the product became successful. Even though the customers
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 14 of 18
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2170
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`
`
`missed out on seeing the price condensed, their actions would be more accurate
`
`and over time they would gain confidence when using MD Trader. Sometimes, we
`
`were only able to get one or two users at a particular customer to try MD Trader.
`
`But once the others saw the success of the ones that were using MD Trader, the
`
`others often eventually followed.
`
`26.
`
`In trading, confidence is critical. A lack of confidence and/or
`
`hesitation can arise from even the slightest question that you're going to click
`
`incorrectly and get the wrong price. A trader will naturally take precautions that
`
`will be figure into his execution. But the more confidence that a trader has, the
`
`faster he/she gets. And in electronic trading, where most matching exchanges
`
`utilize a first-in-first-out matching algorithm, being faster is a significant benefit.
`
`27. As emissary to the CEO, I traveled to the different TT sales offices
`
`around the world and talked with the sales people about the value that MD Trader
`
`offers. Essentially I was selling MD Trader to the sales people, and even then
`
`there was internal resistance to the product. Eventually the sales staff caught on
`
`and starting selling MD Trader in a significant way.
`
`28. After the initial period of hesitation, skepticism and resistance,
`
`customers started widely adopting MD Trader. Traders began to demand the MD
`
`Trader functionality as set forth in paragraph 17 above. Traders demanded the
`
`price column where the price levels did not change, but the bids and asks moved
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 15 of 18
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2170
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`
`
`relative to the price column. Traders also demanded the ability to quickly send
`
`orders to an electronic exchange with a single click in a fixed location along the
`
`price column to set a price and send the order. And many traders also demanded
`
`the MD-Trader-style display of the user’s pending orders. TT’s sales grew at an
`
`unprecedented rate in the years following the launch of MD Trader. This sales
`
`growth was directly attributable to the widespread adoption of and demand for MD
`
`Trader.
`
`V. MD TRADER AND COMPETITION
`
`
`29. After Trading Technologies introduced the MD Trader, other
`
`companies introduced order entry systems with vertical price scales.
`
`30.
`
`Initially these competitors simply took the existing market grid and
`
`rotated it over to form a vertical price column but without fixed prices. As with the
`
`prior market grids, the inside market was always in the middle, or centered, on the
`
`screen. But that solution did not solve the problems that the MD Trader solved.
`
`31.
`
`I know that competitors were told by customers that the competitors
`
`had to have an MD Trader-type solution. If they did not have this solution, it was a
`
`deal breaker for those customers. In other words, over time following the launch
`
`of MD Trader, the customers came to demand the same functionality from TT’s
`
`competitors. Traders demanded the price axis where the prices did not change, but
`
`the bids and asks moved relative to the price column. Traders also demanded the
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 16 of 18
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2170
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`
`
`ability to quickly send orders to an electronic exchange with a single click in fixed
`
`locations along the price axis to set a price and send the order. And many traders
`
`also demanded the MD-Trader-style display of the user’s entered (i.e., working)
`
`orders. And one by one, our competitors released MD Trader knock-offs: order
`
`entry GUI’s with a price column where the prices did not change positions, but the
`
`bids and asks moved relative to the price column. The competitors also
`
`implemented the ability to send orders simply by clicking at a price levels along
`
`the price column. Many competitors also adopted MD Trader’s display of the
`
`user’s own orders at price levels along the price column. The competitors also
`
`adopted MD Trader’s use of a manual recentering command to cause the price
`
`column to be recentered. This action from so many of our competitors negatively
`
`impacted TT greatly. We lost significant sales and opportunities to competitors
`
`who were marketing MD Trader knock-offs.
`
`VI. CONCLUDING STATEMENTS
`
`32.
`In signing this declaration, I understand that the declaration will be
`
`filed as evidence in a contested case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I acknowledge that I may be
`
`subject to cross-examination in this case and that cross-examination will take place
`
`within the United States. If cross-examination is required of me, I will appear for
`
`cross-examination within the United States during the time allotted for cross-
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 17 of 18
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2170
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
`
`
`
`
`
`examination.
`
`33.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my knowledge are true,
`
`and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and
`
`that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements
`
`and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under
`
`Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Dated: January 18, 2017
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 18
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2170
`IBG et al. v. TRADING TECH. - CBM2016-00054
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
