UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`NADER ASGHARI-KAMRANI and KAMRAN ASGHARI-KAMRANI,
`
`Patent Owners
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,266,432
`
`Case CBM2016-00064
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RQUEST FOR
`
`REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`NADER ASGHARI-KAMRANI and KAMRAN ASGHARI-KAMRANI,
`
`Patent Owners
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,266,432
`
`Case CBM2016-00064
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RQUEST FOR
`
`REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71, NADER ASGHARI-KAMRANI and
`
`KAMRAN ASGHARI-KAMRANI (“Patent Owner”) hereby respectfully request
`
`rehearing of the September 21, 2016 Decision, granting institution of CBM patent
`
`review of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432 (“the Decision”) (Paper 14). In rendering its
`
`decision, it is respectfully submitted that the Board misapplied the law to the claims
`
`of the ‘432 patent and misapprehended the specification of the ‘432 patent. Thus,
`
`the Board has abused its discretion and Patent Owner requests the Board reconsider
`
`its decision to institute a CBMR and, in view of the arguments below, rule that no
`
`trial be instituted on the ‘432 patent.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71 (d) states:
`
`(d) Rehearing. A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single
`
`request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The
`
`burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party
`
`challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all
`
`matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked,
`
`and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion,
`
`an opposition, or a reply. ….
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`III. MATTERS MISAPPREHENDED OR OVERLOOKED
`
`
`
`A. The Decision was an Abuse of Discretion by the Board’s
`
`Misinterpretation of the Claim Scope and Misapplication of the Case Law.
`
`1. The Board made an erroneous conclusion of law by overlooking
`
`prior decisions that clarify the definition of “covered business method
`
`patent.”
`
`The PTAB has recently issued several decisions that were not considered in
`
`
`
`
`
`this case that clarify the definition of a “covered business method patent.”
`
`According to the decisions, the following factors weigh in favor of concluding that
`
`a patent at issue is not a covered business method patent eligible for review: (1)
`
`claims of general utility with (2) no explicit or inherent finance-related
`
`terminology or limitations. See, e.g., Plaid Technologies Inc. v. Yodlee, Inc., Case
`
`CBM2016-0037, slip op. at 7 (PTAB Aug. 16, 2016) (citations omitted). The
`
`Decision in this case is inconsistent with these recent decisions.
`
`At page 8, the Decision states (with emphasis added), “In short, the claimed
`
`‘electronic transaction between the user and an external-entity’ encompasses sales
`
`of goods or services in e-commerce, and the terms ‘user’ and ‘external-entity,’ as
`
`Patent Owner has expressly defined them in the Specification, show that claim 1
`
`pertains to the offering and consumption, of goods and services via an electronic
`
`transaction between two parties.” (Decision, pg. 8.) However, merely asserting
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`that the claim terms encompass or pertain to sales or goods in e-commerce is not
`
`sufficient to establish that the claim terminology is explicitly or inherently finance-
`
`related. Accordingly, the Board’s institution of a CBMR in this case is erroneous
`
`under the factors currently applied by the PTAB.
`
`Further, Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Decision to institute the
`
`CMBR is in error based on the above-identified factors. As argued previously,
`
`claim 1 is devoid of any finance-related terminology or limitations. (Prelim. Resp.,
`
`pp. 9–21.) The Board does not contend otherwise in the Decision. (Decision, p. 6.)
`
`Nor has the Board identified any such explicit terminology or limitations in claim
`
`1. (Id.) Thus, the terminology of claim 1 is not explicitly finance-related.
`
`Moreover, the terminology of claim 1 does not inherently recite any finance-
`
`related terminology or limitations. Inherency requires that an allegedly inherent
`
`characteristic is necessarily present. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534, 28
`
`USPQ2d 1955, 1957 (Fed. Cir. 1993), Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd.
`
`Pat. App. & Inter. 1990).
`
`In this case, the Board determined that claim 1 is directed to a financial
`
`product based on the interpretation of the limitation “during an electronic
`
`transaction between the user and an external-entity” as a financial product.
`
`(Decision, pp. 7-8.) Patent Owner directs the Board’s attention to the fact that all
`
`of the steps of “receiving,” “generating,” “providing,” “receiving,” and
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`“authenticating” as recited in the order of claim 1 do not include a step of selling or
`
`buying products or services in e-commerce between the user and an external-entity
`
`as contrary to the Board interpretation but all of these steps are performed by the
`
`central-entity for authenticating the user. More specifically, the first “receiving
`
`step” and the “providing” step are performed by the central-entity with the user;
`
`the “generating” step is performed by the central-entity itself; and the second
`
`“receiving” step and the “authenticating step” are performed by the central-entity
`
`with the external-entity. It is evident that the steps performed between the
`
`authenticating central-entity and the user or the external-entity do not pertain to
`
`the electronic transaction between the user and external-entity, but pertains to the
`
`user authentication process, although these steps are performed “during the
`
`[electronic] transaction” between the user and the external-entity.
`
`In the second “receiving” step, it is recited that “which said dynamic code …
`
`was provided to the external-entity by the user during the transaction.” In claim 1,
`
`this is only limitation related to an activity between the user and the external-
`
`entity. However, this activity of providing the dynamic code to the external-entity
`
`by the user does not pertain to any activity of the electronic transaction between the
`
`user and the external entity although it occurs during the electronic transaction like
`
`other claimed steps performed by the central-entity. All of the limitations of claim
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`1 pertain to the user authentication method during the electronic transaction, not
`
`pertaining to any activities of the electronic transaction.
`
`In a sense, claim 1 merely provides what might be a skeleton key to a locked
`
`building independent of the type of transactions happening inside the building.
`
`Access to the building can be for any purpose because claim 1 does not specify the
`
`purpose for the access. Providing a skeleton key for access to the building, it is
`
`respectfully submitted, is not a financial transaction such as sales of goods. After
`
`access, a User in a separate, non-claimed step can use offered online services to
`
`make a purchase or to get access to a restricted web site. Following the claimed
`
`steps of using a skeleton key to gain access, even to a bank, the continued process
`
`of the transaction does not make the skeleton key part of the continued process
`
`related to a financial product or service.
`
`
`
`Further, the Board has identified some implementations in the ‘432 Patent
`
`directed to financial transactions. However, the Board overlooked alternative
`
`implementations lacking any aspects directed to financial transactions. For
`
`example, at column 3, lines 30-38, the ‘432 patent discloses:
`
`This invention also relates to a system and method provided by a
`
`Central-Entity for centralized identification and authentication of
`
`users to allow them access to restricted web sites ….
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`This invention further relates to a system and method provided by a
`
`Central-Entity for centralized identification and authentication of
`
`users to allow them to purchase goods and services from an External-
`
`Entity ….
`
`Additionally, with reference to FIG. 2, col 4, line 62 to col. 5, line 9 of the
`
`‘432 Patent disclose (with emphasis added):
`
`… During the registration phase, the user 10 provides his personal or
`
`financial information to the Central-Entity 30. The user 10 registers at
`
`the Central-Entity 30, 100, 104 and receives his account and login
`
`information such as UserName and Password 108. User 10 can access
`
`his account at any time by accessing the Central-Entity's system using
`
`a communication network 50 and logging into the system.
`
`Next is the transaction phase, where the user 10 attempts to access a
`
`restricted web site or attempts to buy services or products 110, as
`
`illustrated in FIG. 4, through a standard interface provided by the
`
`External-Entity 20, similar to what exists today and selects digital
`
`identity as his identification and authorization or payment option. The
`
`External-Entity 20 displays the access or purchase authorization form
`
`requesting the user 10 to authenticate himself using his UserName and
`
`SecureCode as digital identity. …
`
`As evident above, the ‘432 patent discloses implementations entirely
`
`directed to “centralized identification and authentication of users to allow them
`
`access to restricted web sites” and discloses alternative implementations directed
`
`to “centralized identification and authentication of users to allow them to purchase
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`goods and services from an External-Entity.” Accordingly, the terms of claim 1 are
`
`not necessarily directed to financial transactions. Therefore, claim 1 does not
`
`inherently recite any finance-related terminology or limitations.
`
`
`
`2. The Decision relies on erroneous facts because the Board overlooked
`
`implementations that are not financial-related and, consequently,
`
`imported financially-related implementations into the claims from the
`
`specification.
`
`The Decision states: “In short, the claimed ‘electronic transaction between
`
`
`
`the user and an external-entity’ encompasses sales of goods or services in e-
`
`commerce, and the terms ‘user’ and ‘external-entity,’ as Patent Owner has
`
`expressly defined them in the Specification, show that claim 1 pertains to the
`
`offering and consumption, of goods and services via an electronic transaction
`
`between two parties.” (Decision, pg. 8). Patent Owner respectfully disagrees and
`
`submits that these assertions are incorrect.
`
`As discussed supra, the specification of the ‘432 Patent discloses some
`
`financial-related implementations. However, it also discloses alternative
`
`implementations that are entirely not financially-related, such as providing
`
`personal information to the central entity and accessing a restricted website. (See,
`
`e.g., Exh. 1001, FIG. 2, 3:30-34, and 4:62-50.) Indeed, not all restricted websites
`
`are finance-related. (E.g., providing a username and password by a member of
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Yahoo.com to access a restricted website for a chat room or a personal email
`
`account.) In the Decision the Board conflated the different implementations and
`
`only noted the financially-related aspects. Then, based solely on the financially-
`
`related aspects, concluded that the above-noted claim terminology must be
`
`financially-related. The Board’s conclusion is erroneous because limitations from
`
`the specification cannot be imported into the claims. Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV
`
`Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b), the Board must give a claim its broadest reasonable construction in
`
`light of the specification. And, as detailed below, when the non-financial
`
`implementations are considered, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
`
`terminology is not restricted to financial activities.
`
`Notably, the PTAB has previously held that not all electronic transactions
`
`are financial transactions. See J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. v. Intellectual Ventures II
`
`LLC, CBM2014-00160. In the case, as detailed supra, not all implementations of
`
`electronic transactions disclosed in the ‘432 Patent are financially-related. Rather,
`
`the Specification consistently and repeatedly describes that the claimed method can
`
`be used for authentication of a user in a non-financial context as well. (See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:35-37, 3:30-38, and 4:55-58.) Indeed, because such steps are not
`
`required parts of the claimed authentication method, the ‘432 Patent lacks detailed
`
`description as to steps for buying or selling products (e.g., steps for selecting goods
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`or paying the goods using credit cards). The Specification merely discloses these
`
`general applications (e.g., “to get access to the restricted web sites or electronically
`
`purchase desired goods or services”), as non-limiting and illustrative examples,
`
`available after the claimed method is performed.
`
`
`
`Further as recited in claim 4 (which was disclaimed) and claim 5, the
`
`method of claim 1 can be used during a financial or a non-financial transaction.
`
`Thus, the doctrine of claim differentiation emphasizes that claim 1 is much broader
`
`than during a mere financial transaction.
`
`For all the foregoing reasons, the implementations of the ‘432 patent
`
`directed to financially-related activities are non-limiting examples that the Board
`
`imported into the claims. Such importation is clearly erroneous and fails to give the
`
`claim terminology its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosed
`
`examples that are entirely non-financial implementations. Accordingly, the claim
`
`interpretation set forth in the Decision relies on erroneous facts as to the scope of
`
`the disclosure.
`
`3. The Board misinterpreted the claimed invention as reciting
`
`financially-related activities by misapplying SightSound.
`
`At page 8 of the Decision, the Board concluded that claim 1 “recites a
`
`
`
`method for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice,
`
`administration, or management of a financial service” in view of SightSound
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The claim at
`
`issue in SightSound recites, in part: “selling electronically by the first party to the
`
`second party through telecommunications lines, the desired digital video or digital
`
`audio signals in the first memory; and transferring the desired digital video or
`
`digital audio signals from the first memory of the first party.” (emphasis added).
`
`Thus, the claim in SightSound, explicitly recites the steps of selling and
`
`transferring the desired digital video or digital signals to the buyer pertaining to
`
`sales of goods. However, as set forth supra, claim 1 of ‘432 is devoid of any
`
`explicit recitation of financially-related activities.
`
`4. The Board misinterpreted the claimed invention as lacking general
`
`utility by misapplying Blue Calypso.
`
`At page 9 of the Decision, the Board cited Blue Calypso LLC v. Groupon,
`
`
`
`Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1338–40 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and asserted that that claim 1 lacks
`
`“general utility” because “the Specification of the ‘432 patent consistently
`
`describes its purported invention as directed to a method and system for allowing
`
`secured electronic sales transactions in e-commerce.” However, the Blue Calypso
`
`court states, “[a]s the Board acknowledged, ‘the ‘055 patent repeatedly, and almost
`
`exclusively discloses ‘incentive’ and ‘incentive program’ in a financial context.”
`
`(emphasis added). Blue Calypso LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1339-1340
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016). In Blue Calypso, the Specification exclusively discloses the claim
`
`term “subsidy” in a financial context.
`
`
`
`As set forth supra, in contrast to Blue Calypso, the example implementations
`
`disclosed in the ‘432 patent relate to “centralized identification and authentication
`
`of users to allow them access to restricted web sites” and “centralized
`
`identification and authentication of users to allow them to purchase goods and
`
`services from an External-Entity.” (See, e.g., Exh. 1001, FIG. 2, 3:30-34, and 4:62-
`
`50.) In other words, while some implementations of the disclosed invention are
`
`directed to purchasing goods and services, other implementations are not.
`
`Accordingly, the terms of claim 1 are not exclusively directed to financial
`
`transactions.
`
`
`
`Further, the Blue Calypso court states: “Blue Calypso relies on a handful of
`
`Board decisions declining to institute CBM review on patents unrelated to the Blue
`
`Calypso Patents. See … Sega of Am., Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., CBM2014-00183
`
`… J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, CBM 2014-00160.”
`
`Blue Calypso LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Further, the Blue Calypso court states: “Contrary to Blue Calypso’s argument, each
`
`of these cases properly focuses on the claim language at issue and, finding nothing
`
`explicitly or inherently financial in the construed claim language, declines to
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`institute CBM review.” Id. Thus, the Federal Circuit confirmed that the decisions
`
`made in the Sega and J.P. Morgan Chase CBM proceedings are proper.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner submits that the Board should have applied the “general
`
`utility” test as applied by the J.P. Morgan Chase and other CBM proceedings as
`
`cited by Patent Owner at page 12 of the Preliminary Response and as discussed on
`
`pages 14-21 of the Preliminary Response. Patent Owner asserted that “the claims
`
`of the ‘432 patent are of ‘general utility,’ i.e., they recite a particular novel
`
`technique for authenticating a user during an electronic transaction between the
`
`user and an external-entity without restricting the field of use of the claimed
`
`invention to financial sector or financial activity.” Preliminary Response, pg. 12.
`
`
`
`For all of the forgoing reasons, the Board abused its discretion by
`
`mischaracterized the disclosure of the ‘432 patent, misinterpreting the claims to be
`
`exclusively limited to a financial transaction. Further, the Board misapplied the
`
`case law in SightSound and Blue Calypso. Patent Owner, therefore, respectfully
`
`submits that the Board abused its discretion and requests that the Decision to
`
`institute the CBMR of the ‘432 patent be withdrawn.
`
`B. The Board committed a clear error in concluding that the claims at
`
`issue are unpatentable over the cited art.
`
`
`
`The Board’s determination, at pages 10-13 of the Decision, that the claimed
`
`invention of the ‘432 does not recite a technological feature that is novel and non-
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`obvious over the prior art of record presented by Petitioner is a clear error as a
`
`matter of law.
`
`First of all, a CBMR of claims 1-3, 5-28 and 30-55 was instituted has been
`
`obviousness over Nicholson in view of Brown, not for anticipation. Thus, it is
`
`confirmed by the Board that the claims of the ‘432 patent are novel over
`
`Nicholson.
`
`Additionally, the claims of the ‘432 patent would not have been obvious
`
`over Nicholson because the invention date of the ‘432 patent antedates that of
`
`Nicholson.
`
`35 U.S.C. 103(a) (pre-AIA) states:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically
`
`disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between
`
`the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
`
`was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
`
`matter pertains. (emphasis added).
`
`Since the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) applies to the ‘432 patent, a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art must have been defined at the time the invention
`
`was made. It is undisputable that the claimed invention of the ‘432 patent was
`
`made prior to August 29, 2001 because the disclosure of the ‘926 application (the
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`‘432 patent) is identical to that of the first prior-filed ‘635 application (the ‘837
`
`patent).
`
`Nicholson was filed on July 14, 2006 as US 14/486,880, claiming a benefit
`
`of US provisional application 60/700,506 filed on July 19, 2005. If the claims of
`
`the ‘880 application are supported by the disclosures of the ‘506 provisional
`
`application, Nicholson’s constructive invention date would be July 19, 2005 which
`
`is antedated by the August 29, 2001 invention date of the ‘432 patent.
`
`It is a clear error that the Board preliminarily determined that ‘432 patent
`
`claims do not recite limitations which are non-obvious over Nicholson in view of
`
`Brown because it is well-established that obviousness is a question of law based on
`
`facts determined by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
`
`made. Therefore, contrary to the Board’s determination, the claims of the ‘432
`
`patent would not have been obvious over Nicholson, and the CBMR institution of
`
`claims 1-3, 5-28 and 30-55 as being obvious over Nicholson in view of Brown
`
`should be withdrawn. Further, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the
`
`arguments presented in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, at pages 23-31,
`
`for the second prong of 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b), should be further considered.
`
`C. Petition to Accept an Unintentionally Delayed Benefit Claim granted.
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner advises the Board that the Office granted a Petition to Accept
`
`an Unintentionally Delayed Benefit Claim in the ‘432 Patent. This Petition was
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`granted on September 19, 2016, received by Patent Owner on September 21, 2016,
`
`and submitted to the Board on September 23, 2016 as Exhibit 2006. This benefit
`
`claim establishes a second chain of priority to the filing date of the first prior-filed
`
`application through the third prior-filed application. Patent Owner requests that the
`
`Board exercise its discretion to reconsider the priority date of the claims of the
`
`‘432 patent in view of the third prior-filed application.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner submits that the Board has abused
`
`
`
`its discretion and requests that the Board decline to institute the CBM review of the
`
`‘432 patent.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /Jae Youn Kim /
`Jae Youn Kim
`Reg. No. 69,215
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`October 5, 2016
`NOVICK, KIM & LEE, PLLC
`3251 Old Lee Highway Suite 404
`Fairfax, VA 22030
`
`Tel: 1-703-745-5495
`Fax: 1-703-563-9748
`skim@nkllaw.com;
`hnovick@nkllaw.com;
`slee@nkllaw.com
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.6(e)(1), this is to certify that I caused to be served
`
`a copy of the foregoing “PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING” via
`
`electronic mail on October 5, 2016 to the Petitioner’s counsel of record at the
`
`following email addresses:
`
`W. Karl Renner, Lead Counsel
`
`Thomas Rozylowicz, Back-up Counsel
`
`CBM36137-0007CP2@fr.com
`
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`__/Jae Youn Kim/_______
`Jae Youn Kim
`NOVICK, KIM & LEE, PLLC
`3251 Old Lee Highway Suite 404
`Fairfax, VA 22030
`
`Tel: 1-703-745-5495
`Fax: 1-703-563-9748
`skim@nkllaw.com
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: October 5, 2016
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
