UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`XILINX, INC.
`Petitioner
`V.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2013—00029
`
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`SECOND DECLARATION OF ROBERT SMITH-GILLESPIE
`
`4832-5056-2070.3
`
`1
`
`IVI LLC EXHIBIT 2015
`XILINX V. IVI LLC
`IPR Case 2013-00029
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`XILINX, INC.
`Petitioner
`V.
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2013—00029
`
`Patent 5,632,545
`
`SECOND DECLARATION OF ROBERT SMITH-GILLESPIE
`
`4832-5056-2070.3
`
`1
`
`IVI LLC EXHIBIT 2015
`XILINX V. IVI LLC
`IPR Case 2013-00029
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an expert in video projection systems by Foley
`
`& Lardner LLP, which represents Intellectual Ventures Management (of which
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC is an affiliate) in this matter.
`
`2.
`
`The documents that I have considered in developing my opinions set
`
`forth in this declaration include: Ex. 1001 (U.S. Patent No. 5,632,545 to Kikinis
`
`(hereinafter “the ‘545 patent”)), Ex. 1002 (U.S. Patent No. 5,108,172 to Flasck),
`
`Ex. 1004 (U.S. Patent No. 5,287,131 to Lee), Ex. 1009 (U.S. Patent No. 5, 692,821
`
`to Rodriguez), Ex. 1010 (U.S. Patent No. 5,313,234 to Edmonson), Ex. 1011 (U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,136,397 to Miyashita), Ex. 2012 (Declaration of Dr. Buckman in
`
`Support of the Opposition), the Patent Owner Motion to Amend (Paper 23), and
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to the Motion to Amend (Paper 26).
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated on a per hour basis for my time spent
`
`working on issues in this case. My compensation does not depend upon the
`
`outcome of this matter or the opinions I express.
`
`4.
`
`Additional information may become available which would further
`
`support or modify the conclusions that I have reached to date. Accordingly, I
`
`reserve the right to modify and/or enlarge this opinion or the bases thereof upon
`
`consideration of any further discovery, testimony, or other evidence, including any
`
`issues raised by any expert or witness of petitioner Xilinx, or based upon
`
`4832-5056-2070.3
`
`
`
`interpretations of any claim term by the Patent Office different than those proposed
`
`in this declaration.
`
`II.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`My curriculum vitae is Ex. 2006. My experience in the display field
`
`dates back to the late l980’s when I worked as the lighting specialist in the Flight
`
`Deck Packaging group at Honeywell’s Commercial Air Transport Division.
`
`Initially my work focused on development of early technology liquid crystal
`
`display (LCD) components for flight control panels on commercial aircraft. I later
`
`participated in the technology development and productization of the active matrix
`
`LCD panels for the Boeing 777 program. In the early phases of this program we
`
`performed trade studies aimed at assessing the appropriate technology for
`
`replacing cathode ray tube (CRT) instruments on the flight deck. Technologies
`
`that I evaluated include rear projection micro-display LCD panels and thin—film
`
`transistor (TFT) LCDs. Following my work at Honeywell, I moved to Three-Five
`
`Systems where I worked again as a technical specialist for displays and lighting.
`
`While there, I interfaced with the liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) projection team
`
`(later to become Brillian Corp.) on light engine design (light sources, thermal
`
`control) and reflective LCOS optical evaluation (radiometric characterization).
`
`While at Rosen Products I again worked as a senior technical specialist in displays
`
`where I was primarily focused on video system integration for automotive and
`
`4832-5056-2070.3
`
`
`
`aviation LCD display platforms. My work there included specifying and
`
`evaluating video controllers, source equipment, and displays for automotive rear
`
`seat entertainment and aircraft cabin entertainment systems.
`
`6.
`
`I am a named inventor on U.S. Patent No. 7,660,040 and European
`
`Patent No. l72462lAl, which are directed to a reflective material for LCD display
`
`backlighting. I also have a pending patent application (U.S. 13/564,045) for a
`
`“Dual Mode LCD Backlight” which employs a novel dichroic filtering design to
`
`create a single rail, night vision compatible backlight.
`
`7.
`
`I have a bachelor’s degree in Physics from the State University of
`
`New York at Plattsburgh and a bachelor of science degree in mechanical
`
`engineering from Arizona State University. I have additionally studied optics at
`
`the graduate level at the University of Oregon and have studied liquid crystal
`
`display technology at Kent State University (professional short courses).
`
`III.
`
`SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT
`
`8.
`
`I have been retained to opine on the patentability of the claims in U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,632,545 (“the ‘545 patent”), and on the claims proposed to be added
`
`to the ‘545 patent.
`
`9.
`
`I have been asked to consider whether Proposed Claims 4 and 5 of the
`
`‘545 patent are patentable over the prior art.
`
`4832-5056-2070. 3
`
`
`
`10.
`
`This declaration, including the exhibits hereto, sets forth my opinion
`
`on this topic.
`
`IV. LEGAL PRINCIPLES USED IN ANALYSIS
`
`11.
`
`I have been advised that, in construing a claim term, one looks
`
`primarily to the “intrinsic” patent evidence, which includes the words of the claims
`
`themselves, the remainder of the patent specification, and the prosecution history.
`
`I have been advised by patent owner’s counsel that “extrinsic” evidence, which is
`
`evidence external to the patent and the prosecution history, may also be useful in
`
`interpreting patent claims. Extrinsic evidence can include dictionaries, treatises,
`
`textbooks, and the like.
`
`12.
`
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I was asked to
`
`consider the patent claims through the eyes of “one of ordinary skill in the art.” I
`
`was told by patent owner’s counsel to consider factors such as the educational level
`
`and years of experience of those working in the pertinent art; the types of problems
`
`encountered in the art; the teachings of the prior art; patents and publications of
`
`other persons or companies; and the sophistication of the technology. I understand
`
`that the person of ordinary skill in the art is not a specific real individual, but rather
`
`a hypothetical individual having the qualities reflected by the factors discussed
`
`above.
`
`4832-5056-2070.3
`
`
`
`13.
`
`In my opinion, based on my experience in research and product
`
`development of Video projection systems, and my evaluation of the skills and
`
`background that graduates of engineering programs should possess, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art of video projection systems is generally one who has a
`
`Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, optical engineering, and/or physics
`
`along with several years of relevant academic research or industry work experience
`
`in the field of video projection systems.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`
`14.
`
`For the purposes of my opinion and declaration, I have reviewed the
`
`proposed claim constructions set forth on page 7 of Xilinx’s Opposition to Motion
`
`to Amend, Paper 26, (hereinafter “Opp.”).
`
`I disagree with several of the claim
`
`constructions proposed by Xilinx for the reasons discussed below.
`
`15.
`
`Page 7 of the Opp. attempts to define the claim phrase “fan in
`
`communication with an outside environment” to be a fan that circulates a fluid
`
`“between two separate spaces.” However, the plain language used in the claim
`
`requires “communication with an outside environment.” Xi1inx’s proposed
`
`definition ignores the term “outside” and reads it out of the claim phrase. Based on
`
`the disclosure set forth in the ‘545 patent, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`interpret the phrase “fan in communication with an outside environment” as a fan
`
`4832-5056-2070.3
`
`
`
`that transmits air from a projector system to an environment outside of the
`
`projector system.
`
`16. Xilinx construes the phrase “heat filter glass” as a “transparent
`
`material that blocks or absorbs ....” (Opp. at 7).
`
`I disagree with this proposed
`
`construction because it reads the term “glass” out of the term “heat filter glass.” I
`
`believe that the phrase “heat filter glass” should be construed as glass that filters
`
`heat by absorption or reflection of infrared radiation emitted by the projection
`
`lamps.
`
`17.
`
`I also disagree with Xilinx’s proposed construction of “second
`
`controller” in the phrase “second controller adapted to control the individual light
`
`sources and the fan.” On page 7 of the Opp., Xilinx asserts that the term “second
`
`controller” should be construed as “one or more control circuits separate from the
`
`video controller.” However, Xilinx provides no support for this overbroad
`
`construction and appears to have come up with the definition in an effort to bolster
`
`its arguments with respect
`
`to the Miyashita reference.
`
`Specifically, Xilinx
`
`provides no support for the assertion that the “second controller” should be
`
`construed as “one or more control circuits.” In addition, Xilinx has omitted the
`
`“adapted to” limitations from its construction of both the “second controller” and
`
`the “control link.” Based on the specification, the broadest reasonable construction
`
`to one of ordinary skill in the art of the phrase “second controller adapted to
`
`4832-5056-2070.3
`
`
`
`control the individual light sources and the fan” is a controller, other than the video
`
`controller, that controls a fan and individual light sources. The construction is
`
`supported by the specification of the ‘545 patent, which states that “[l]ight for the
`
`projector is generated in this embodiment by three High Intensity Discharge (HID)
`
`lamps 132-134, which are controlled by controller 130, which also controls a fan
`
`136 for cooling the light sources.” (Col. 2, lines 52-55). See also Fig.
`
`1 of the
`
`‘545 patent which illustrates “controller 130” as a single controller that is distinct
`
`from the video “controller 122.”
`
`VI. CHALLENGES #5 AND #6: ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OF
`
`PROPOSED CLAIMS 4 AND 5
`
`18.
`
`Both of Challenges #5 and #6 set forth in Xilinx’s Opposition rely on
`
`the combination of U.S. Patent No. 5,287,131 to Lee (hereinafter “Lee”) and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,313,234 to Miyashita (hereinafter “Miyashita”) as allegedly
`
`disclosing a “second controller adapted to control the individual light sources and
`
`the fan” and a “control link adapted to connect the video controller to the second
`
`controller,” as required by Proposed Claims 4 and 5. For the reasons discussed
`
`below, I disagree with Xilinx’s assertion that the combination of Miyashita and
`
`Lee renders the above-referenced claim elements obvious.
`
`19.
`
`Page 11 of the Opp. alleges that “Miyashita teaches a controller
`
`adapted to control a light source and a fan.” Xilinx relies upon col. 5, lines 21-41
`
`of Miyashita, Fig. 3 of Miyashita, and pages 25-26 of Dr. Buckman’s declaration
`
`4832-5056-2070.3
`
`8
`
`
`
`(Ex. 2012) as support for this assertion. (Opp. at 11). At col. 5, lines 21-41,
`
`Miyashita discloses:
`
`FIG. 3 is exemplary microprocessor-based
`
`implementation of LCVP 30. The functions of
`
`control unit 32 are all implemented by a
`
`microprocessor system. Several computer-
`
`implemented processes (programs) are used to
`
`replace the functional units described above. The
`
`important parts of each program are described
`
`below, in detail. The microprocessor system
`
`comprises a central processing unit (CPU) 90, a
`
`read only memory (ROM) 91, a random access
`
`memory (RAM) 92, a timer 94, and an
`
`input/output (I/O) port 93. ROM 91 stores the
`
`program for CPU 90 and RAM 92 stores
`
`temporary data and is used as a work space. Data
`
`from memory 80 is routinely read in by an
`
`initialization program and used to fill parts of
`
`RAM 92 (to improve access times later to such
`
`data). Digital interfaces are made via the I/O port
`
`93 to control input 60, display 62, an alarm 64,
`
`light detector 66, temperature detector, 68, main
`
`power controller 70, projection lamp power
`
`controller 72, signal source selector 74, fan motor
`
`controller 76, fan motor 78, memory 80, lens
`
`controller 82, and DAC 84.
`
`4832-5056-2070.3
`
`
`
`Thus, the relied upon portion of Miyashita lists a number of components of a
`
`“microprocessor system” and a number of controllers, including a “projection lamp
`
`power controller 72” and a “fan motor controller 76.” Fig. 3 of Miyashita, which
`
`is also relied upon by Xilinx and which is reproduced below, illustrates that the
`
`“projection lamp power controller 72” and “fan motor controller 76” are distinct
`
`components.
`
`
`
`5«<E
`
`..-.-........,
`
`8
`
`I%
`
`The relied upon portions of Miyashita do not disclose a “second controller” that is
`
`“adapted to control the individual light sources and the fan,” as required by
`
`4832-5056-2070.3
`
`1 0
`
`gu.m-amu:nn...na»w-« unmwv unuuumxm-n m ..an.....‘
`
`...-.a..mn:am»:
`
`E2‘
`
`.
`
`.
`
`L133?
`V DEIE
`88
`
`
`
`Proposed Claims 4 and 5 (i.e., there is not a controller that controls BOTH the
`
`individual light sources and the fan). Rather, as illustrated in Fig. 3 above,
`
`Miyashita discloses a number of distinct slave controllers that form part of a
`
`microprocessor system, including a “projection lamp power controller 72” and a
`
`“fan motor controller 76.” The “projection lamp power controller 72” of Miyashita
`
`receives an input from the microprocessor control unit 32 and is used to control
`
`power to the projection lamp. For example, Miyashita teaches that “power to a
`
`projection lamp power supply 88 is controlled on/off by projection lamp power
`
`controller 72.” (C01. 6, lines 25-27). Miyashita does not disclose that the
`
`“projection lamp power controller 72” controls a fan in addition to controlling
`
`power to the projection lamp. In his declaration (Ex. 1012 at 29), Dr. Buckman
`
`annotated Fig. 3 of Miyashita by drawing a large box around numerous distinct
`
`elements and labeling the box as a second controller. Miyashita does not disclose
`
`that the elements included in Dr. Buckman’s box correspond to a controller.
`
`Rather, Miyashita merely lists the elements in Dr. Buckman’s box as distinct
`
`elements having distinct fiinctions. (See Miyashita, col. 5, lines 21-41). Dr.
`
`Buckman’s box, which is alleged to correspond to the claimed “second controller,”
`
`includes a “Fan Motor 78.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a
`
`motor for a fan is not a component that is found in a “controller” and that Dr.
`
`Buckman’s box does not correspond to a controller. Similarly, one of ordinary
`
`4832-5056-2070.3
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`skill in the art would understand that a “Light Detector 66,” a “Projection Lamp
`
`Power Supply 88,” a “Main Power Supply 86,” a “Temperature Detector 68,” a
`
`“Display Apparatus 62,” and an “Alarm 64” are not components found in a
`
`controller. 1\/Iiyashita does not disclose a “second controller adapted to control the
`
`individual light sources 1 the fan,” as claimed. (Emphasis added). Lee also
`
`fails to disclose or suggest any controller that is “adapted to control the individual
`
`light sources 1131 the fan,” as claimed. (Emphasis added). Indeed, Xilinx does
`
`not assert that Lee teaches a controller that is “adapted to control the individual
`
`light sources and the fan,” as claimed. (Emphasis added). However, Xilinx does
`
`include the following language on page 5 of its Opposition:
`
`First, when “second controller” and “control link”
`
`are interpreted under the broadest reasonable
`
`construction, Lee does in fact teach these
`
`limitations. (XLNX-1004 at 3: 14-19; XLNX-
`
`1012 at 29-30.) In fact, Patent 0wner’s expert,
`
`Mr. Smith-Gillespie, even agrees that Lee
`
`teaches these limitations. (See Deposition of Mr.
`
`Smith-Gillespie, XLNX-1014 atl 5 7-5 8.)
`
`(Emphasis added). I strongly disagree with the allegation that I “agree[] that Lee
`
`teaches” the claimed “second controller” and “control link.” At no time during my
`
`deposition did I make such a statement. Rather, in response to the question “[s]o
`
`does the Lee reference have a second controller adapted to control the individual
`
`4832-5056-2070.3
`
`1 2
`
`
`
`light sources?”, I responded “Yes. It is item 18, a lamp controlling circuit, lamp
`
`voltage controlling circuit.” (Ex. 1014 at 157-5 8). Also, in response to the
`
`question “does controller 18 provide individualized variable control of each of the
`
`individual light sources?”, I responded “Yes. It shows that it does.” (Ex. 1014 at
`
`158). However, at no time did I state that Lee discloses a “second controller
`
`adapted to control the individual light sources and thefan,” as claimed.
`
`(Emphasis added). Also, at no time did I state that Lee discloses a “control link
`
`adapted to connect the video controller to the second controller,” as claimed. Lee
`
`does not teach such elements. Flasck, Rodriguez, and Edmonson also fail to
`
`disclose or suggest such elements.
`
`20. With respect to the claimed “control link adapted to connect the video
`
`controller to the second controller,” pages 11-12 of the Opposition state:
`
`Miyashita teaches a control link adapted to connect
`
`a video controller to a second controller. (XLNX—
`
`1012 at 27-28.) The video controller in Miyashita
`
`is implemented as a microprocessor system that
`
`uses a data bus to connect the microprocessor
`
`system to additional controller circuits. (Id.) The
`
`additional controller circuits include controls for a
`
`lamp and a fan. (Id.)
`
`4832-5056-2070.3
`
`1 3
`
`
`
`In his declaration, Dr. Buckman asserts that block 32 from Fig. 3 of Miyashita is a
`
`video controller. I disagree that element 32 in Miyashita is a video controller.
`
`With reference to Fig. 2, Miyashita describes element 32 as “a control unit 32
`
`having a control input interface 34, an instruction decoder 36, a power controller
`
`38, a signal source controller 40, a picture controller 42, an audio controller 44, a
`
`lens control interface 46, a fan motor control interface 48, a display controller 50, a
`
`light detector interface 52, a temperature detector interface 54, an alarm controller
`
`56, and a timer 58.” (C01. 4, lines 14-20). With reference to Fig. 3, Miyashita
`
`discloses that “[t]he functions of control unit 32 are all implemented by a
`
`microprocessor system.” (Col. 5, lines 22-23). One of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would not consider Miyashita’s “control unit 32” to be a Video controller. The
`
`control unit in Miyashita does not receive or process a video signal to facilitate the
`
`display of Video, which is what a Video controller does. Rather, the “control unit
`
`32” in Miyashita is a non-Video control unit that controls system power and system
`
`settings based on user input, feedback from sensors and detectors, and setting of an
`
`alarm when certain operation limits are exceeded (i.e., an over-temperature
`
`condition). Miyashita never refers to element 32 as a video controller, and fails to
`
`describe how its Video controller is implemented and fails to include its video
`
`controller in the figures. Indeed, Miyashita does not include the term “video
`
`4832-5056-2070.3
`
`14
`
`
`
`controller” and Dr. Buckman does not provide any support for his assertion that
`
`block 32 of Miyashita is a video controller.
`
`The Opposition does not point to any element or disclosure in Miyashita which is
`
`alleged to correspond to the claimed “control link.” Rather, the Opposition only
`
`relies upon Dr. Buckman’s declaration, Ex. 1012. On page 31 of his declaration,
`
`Dr. Buckman has annotated Fig. 3 of Miyashita to assert that the “I/O port 93” of
`
`Miyashita corresponds to the claimed “control link.” With respect to the I/O port
`
`93, Miyashita discloses that “[d]igital interfaces are made via the I/O port 93 to
`
`control input 60, display 62, an alarm 64, light detector 66, temperature detector,
`
`68, main power controller 70, projection lamp power controller 72, signal source
`
`selector 74, fan motor controller 76, fan motor 78, memory 80, lens controller 82,
`
`and DAC 84.” (C01. 5, lines 36-41). However, Claims 4 and 5 require “a control
`
`link adapted to connect the video controller to the second controller to provide
`
`individualized variable control of each of the individual light sources.” As
`
`discussed above, Miyashita fails to disclose a “second controller,” as claimed. It
`
`follows that Miyashita cannot disclose a “control link adapted to connect the video
`
`controller” to such a “second controller.” As also discussed above, element 32 of
`
`Miyashita is not a “video controller.” Thus, even if element 93 of Miyashita were
`
`a “control link ... to provide individualized variable control of each of the
`
`48326056-2070.3
`
`1 5
`
`
`
`individual light sources” (as discussed below, it is not), element 93 does not
`
`connect a “video controller to the second controller,” as claimed.
`
`21.
`
`Claims 4 and 5 require “a control link adapted to connect the video
`
`controller to the second controller to provide individualized variable control of
`
`each ofthe individual light sources.” (Emphasis added). Xilinx relies upon Lee
`
`as allegedly disclosing “individualized variable control of each of the individual
`
`light sources.” (Opp. at 12). Specifically, the Opposition alleges that “Lee teaches
`
`a control link that connects a controller to three individual light sources” and that
`
`this alleged “control link” “provides individualized variable control of each of
`
`individual light sources.” (Opp. at 12). However, the claimed “control link” of
`
`Proposed Claims 4 and 5 is “adapted to connect the video controller to the second
`
`controller,” not the second controller to the light sources. In addition, Claims 4
`
`and 5 explicitly recite that the “control link” is utilized “to provide individualized
`
`variable control of each of the individual light sources.” Lee and Miyashita fail to
`
`disclose such a “control link” that (i) connects the video controller to the second
`
`controller, and (ii) provides individual variable control of each of the individual
`
`light sources. Xilinx appears to be trying to dissect the claim language in an effort
`
`to allege that Miyashita discloses the “control link” and Lee discloses
`
`“individualized variable control.” However, such dissection of the claim elements
`
`is improper. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claimed
`
`4832-5056-2070.3
`
`1 6
`
`
`
`“control link” is not merely a “link,” but rather a “control link” through which
`
`some control is implemented. This implemented control that is provided through
`
`the “control link” is explicitly identified in the claims as “individualized variable
`
`control of each of the individual light sources.” It is also important to note that the
`
`“control link” is a connection between the “video controller” and the “second
`
`controller.” Based on this connection and the disclosure of the ‘545 patent, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that the “individualized variable control”
`
`implemented Via the “control link” is a direct result of the connection between the
`
`“Video controller” and the “second controller” and that the “individualized Variable
`
`control” occurs as a result of information in a Video signal that is received by the
`
`video controller. Thus, it is improper to dissect the claim as proposed by Xilinx
`
`because the claims clearly require “a control link adapted to connect the video
`
`controller to the second controller to provide individualized variable control of
`
`each ofthe individual light sources.” Alone or in combination, Lee and Miyashita
`
`fail to disclose any such element that “connect[s] the video controller to the second
`
`controller to provide individualized variable control of each of the individual light
`
`sources,” as claimed. Flasck, Rodriguez, and Edmonson also fail to disclose or
`
`suggest such elements.
`
`22. Xilinx has relied upon Rodriguez and Edmonson as allegedly
`
`disclosing the claimed “heat containment system.” However, one of ordinary skill
`
`4832-5056-2070.3
`
`1 7
`
`
`
`in the art would not be motivated to combine Rodriguez or Edmonson with Lee as
`
`proposed by Xilinx. In its system, Lee eliminates the need for a cooling device
`
`and expressly teaches that “a cooling device for cooling the LC panel is not
`
`necessary any more.” (Col. 3:67 — col. 4:7; emphasis added). Thus, Lee teaches
`
`away from Xilinx’s proposed combination of Rodriguez’s alleged heat
`
`containment system with Lee because Rodriguez’s alleged heat containment
`
`includes a “cooling device” (i.e., fan 72) to cool the system. The same is true with
`
`respect to the proposed combination of Edmonson with Lee because Edmonson’s
`
`alleged heat containment system includes a fan 140.
`
`VII. CONCLUSION
`
`23.
`
`In my opinion, Proposed Claims 4 and 5 of the ‘545 patent are
`
`patentable in view of Flasck, Lee, Rodriguez, Edmonson, and Miyashita because
`
`the combination fails to disclose or suggest one or more elements required by
`
`Claims 4 and 5.
`
`24.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
`
`correct. Executed this 15th day of October, 2013.
`
` I oh
`
`
`
`n1ith-(3§iI
`
`4832—5056—2070.3
`
`1 8
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
