throbber
Volume I
`
`10/22/2013
`
`Telephonic Hearing
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________________________
`
`CBS INTERACTIVE INC., THE NEW
`
`YORK TIMES COMPANY G4 MEDIA,
`
`LLC, BRAVO MEDIA, LLC, AND
`
`PHOENIX NEWSPAPERS, INC.,
`
` Petitioners,
`
`- vs - No. IPR2013-00033 (JYC)
`
`HELFERICH PATENT LICENSING, Patent 7,155,241
`
`LLC AND WIRELESS SCIENCE, LLC,
`
`Exclusive Licensee and
`
` Patent Owner.
`
`______________________________
`
` REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONIC HEARING
`
` October 22, 2013
`
` lipka.com, inc.
`
` 888.lipka.com
`
` info@lipka.com
`
`www.lipka.com
`
`lipka.com, inc.
`
`Page 1
`
`888.lipka.com
`
`WIRELESS SCIENCE 2074
`CBS v. HELFERICH
`Case No. IPR2013-00033
`
`

`
`Volume I
`
`10/22/2013
`
`Telephonic Hearing
`
` TELEPHONIC APPEARANCES
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGES: JAMESON LEE
`
` JONI Y. CHANG
`
` KEVIN F. TURNER
`
`FOR THE PETITIONERS:
`
` COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP.
`
` BY: ANDREA G. REISTER, ESQ.
`
` GREGORY DISCHER, ESQ.
`
` 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`
` Washington, D.C. 20004-2401
`
` 202-662-6000; FAX 202-662-6291
`
` areister@cov.com
`
` gdischer@cov.com
`
`FOR THE PATENT OWNER:
`
` STEVEN G. LISA, LTD.
`
` BY: JON E. KAPPES, ESQ.
`
` 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3210
`
` Chicago, Illinois 60603
`
` 312-752-4357; FAX 312-896-5633
`
` jonkappes@patentit.com
`
` AND
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5 6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.lipka.com
`
`lipka.com, inc.
`
`Page 2
`
`888.lipka.com
`
`

`
`Volume I
`
`10/22/2013
`
`Telephonic Hearing
`
` TELEPHONIC APPEARANCES CONTINUED
`
` PATTERSON THUENTE PEDERSEN, P.A.
`
` BY: BRAD D. PEDERSEN, ESQ.
`
` 4800 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
`
` Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2100
`
` 612-349-5774; FAX 612-349-9266
`
` pedersen@ptslaw.com
`
`1
`
`2 3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.lipka.com
`
`lipka.com, inc.
`
`Page 3
`
`888.lipka.com
`
`

`
`Volume I
`
`10/22/2013
`
`Telephonic Hearing
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` JUDGE LEE: Let me know -- this should be a
`
`conference call for IPR 2013-00033. The case should be
`
`CBS Interactive versus Helferich Patent Licensing.
`
` Is that correct?
`
` MS. REISTER: That is correct, Your Honor.
`
` MR. PEDERSEN: That is correct, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE LEE: Let me know who's representing
`
`petitioner and who's representing the patent owner,
`
`please.
`
` MS. REISTER: Yes, Your Honor. This is Andrea
`
`Reister and Greg Discher for the petitioners.
`
` JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
`
` MR. PEDERSEN: And, Your Honor, this is Brad
`
`Pedersen and Jon Kappes for the patent owner, and we
`
`have a court reporter on the line.
`
` If you'd like to introduce yourself.
`
` THE REPORTER: Hi. This is Lynn Penfield.
`
` JUDGE LEE: That's great. Who's arranged for
`
`the court reporter?
`
` MR. PEDERSEN: Your Honor, the patent owner has
`
`arranged for the court reporter.
`
` JUDGE LEE: Thank you. Wonderful. I think
`
`we're going to need that.
`
` Will you be kind enough to give the Board a
`
`copy of the transcript?
`
`www.lipka.com
`
`lipka.com, inc.
`
`Page 4
`
`888.lipka.com
`
`

`
`Volume I
`
`10/22/2013
`
`Telephonic Hearing
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` MR. PEDERSEN: Absolutely, and we'll try to get
`
`that filed as quickly as we can, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE LEE: And I don't know what you normally
`
`do with the transcript, but the copy that you give us,
`
`can you make sure that is an uncorrected copy that's as
`
`produced by the court reporter with no changes, no
`
`erratas from anybody?
`
` MR. PEDERSEN: Certainly, Your Honor.
`
` JUDGE LEE: Thank you. We appreciate that.
`
` So, we are here today because we have a final
`
`hearing in the case tomorrow, and we received an e-mail
`
`from Mr. Pedersen asking for guidelines about
`
`demonstratives to be used at the final hearing.
`
` It's about 3:00 p.m., so we don't have too much
`
`time, but we're going to give you as much as we can as
`
`far as guidelines goes, and the call will go this way:
`
`We'll give you the guidelines, and then -- we have
`
`reviewed both parties' demonstrative slides -- and then
`
`we will tell you our conclusion based on our review of
`
`each party's slides.
`
` We don't contemplate much going back and forth.
`
`Pretty much we'll say what the guideline is, we'll tell
`
`you our conclusions, and that's pretty much it.
`
` So about demonstratives, the important thing to
`
`note is that there is a big difference between a
`
`www.lipka.com
`
`lipka.com, inc.
`
`Page 5
`
`888.lipka.com
`
`

`
`Volume I
`
`10/22/2013
`
`Telephonic Hearing
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`District Court trial and a trial at the Board. A
`
`District Court trial is conducted in a courtroom before
`
`a judge or a jury, whereas before the Board, the trial
`
`is really all on paper. The trial before the Board is
`
`already done through the papers each party has filed;
`
`for instance, your petition, your exhibits, your expert
`
`testimony which is presented on paper, the patent
`
`owner's response, the reply, the observations, so on and
`
`so forth.
`
` So whatever you wanted to present for whatever
`
`reason should have already been presented in those
`
`papers. It is from that perspective that we read the
`
`prohibition in our Patent Trial Practice Guide against
`
`having new evidence or new arguments in the
`
`demonstratives.
`
` New evidence, I think we all know what's new
`
`evidence.
`
` What is a new argument? If you argued that
`
`something was red in your papers and you now say it is
`
`green, well, that's clearly new argument. I think not
`
`many would disagree.
`
` Or if you now argue that it's pink, from our
`
`perspective, it is still a new argument. What if you
`
`now argued that it's slightly less than red? That is
`
`still a new argument. What if you say the red actually
`
`www.lipka.com
`
`lipka.com, inc.
`
`Page 6
`
`888.lipka.com
`
`

`
`Volume I
`
`10/22/2013
`
`Telephonic Hearing
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`covers many different spectrums? Well, it's new, unless
`
`you already made that contention somewhere in your
`
`papers.
`
` It's just unfair to the other party to spring a
`
`new twist or a new angle onto the scene at the last hour
`
`at the final hearing. These twists and new angles have
`
`different characterizations, different perspectives, and
`
`different summaries, and if the testimony is of record
`
`but not previously developed or explained in your
`
`papers, it shouldn't be developed for the first time,
`
`summarized for the first time, explained for the first
`
`time at final hearing.
`
` By that I'm referring to lengthy declarations
`
`not all of which are discussed in a party's paper. If
`
`you don't discuss it in your pleadings -- say, the
`
`patent owner's response -- there should be no
`
`expectation to be able to develop that testimony at oral
`
`hearing during the final argument.
`
` The practice guide says that the -- it's been
`
`the Board's experience that elaborate replies are more
`
`likely to impede than to help. For demonstrative
`
`slides, they are visual aids to your oral presentation;
`
`for instance, figures and charts and diagrams and large
`
`captions as headings of topics. They are very good and
`
`helpful, but when you have written text setting forth
`
`www.lipka.com
`
`lipka.com, inc.
`
`Page 7
`
`888.lipka.com
`
`

`
`Volume I
`
`10/22/2013
`
`Telephonic Hearing
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`various statements, characterizations, and assertions,
`
`they really are no longer visual aids. They become
`
`debriefing themselves and they become the show, and what
`
`counsel says in oral argument becomes not as important,
`
`especially if we are to keep demonstratives in the
`
`record. We will not allow such extra briefings.
`
` Finally, we want to say that the burden on
`
`showing that a slide does not present something new is
`
`on the party presenting the slide, and it also cannot be
`
`made overly cumbersome to make that determination
`
`whether something is new. By that, we mean if your
`
`alleged basis for a slide is 10 to 15 pages of testimony
`
`or 20 pages in the record, that's too vague and
`
`cumbersome.
`
` The statute wants it -- to finish the trial
`
`within a year, and it says everything in our rules
`
`should be construed from the perspective of an efficient
`
`and expedient, inexpensive point of view. So you cannot
`
`make your slides in such a way that it becomes overly
`
`cumbersome for the Board and for the other party to
`
`determine whether it is presenting something new. You
`
`should be able to point specifically to a sentence, a
`
`line or two or a couple of sentences that includes
`
`whatever you're showing in your slide.
`
` If your alleged basis is multiple pages and you
`
`www.lipka.com
`
`lipka.com, inc.
`
`Page 8
`
`888.lipka.com
`
`

`
`Volume I
`
`10/22/2013
`
`Telephonic Hearing
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`need to perform mental conversion from one idea to
`
`another, then you have something new and you have not
`
`shown that it is the same.
`
` So we have looked at the patent owner's slides,
`
`all 55 pages. We have looked at the petitioner's
`
`slides, all 38 pages, and we find that both parties have
`
`questionable slides under the guidelines I've just
`
`articulated. Some are more egregious than the other,
`
`but both parties have bad slides, and we're not going to
`
`spend a lot of time to go into exactly which one is
`
`which. That's just counterproductive. And we're not
`
`just talking about one or two. In the patent owner's
`
`case, there are just way too many slides to go into on a
`
`one-by-one basis.
`
` So the Board has concluded to disallow all of
`
`the demonstratives from both parties based on the
`
`guidelines I have articulated. I believe -- we believe
`
`that in light of those guidelines, it is readily
`
`apparent why some of the slides from both parties are
`
`noncompliant.
`
` If -- if the parties still want to be able to
`
`bring something from the record, you can bring it in
`
`paper form. We will provide a projector from which you
`
`can project the paper image onto a screen, but those
`
`papers should be copies of your pleadings or copies from
`
`www.lipka.com
`
`lipka.com, inc.
`
`Page 9
`
`888.lipka.com
`
`

`
`Volume I
`
`10/22/2013
`
`Telephonic Hearing
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`your -- the presentations that are already of record.
`
`And if you want to do that, please let us know by the
`
`end of the day today, before 5:00 p.m., so we can make
`
`arrangements for your projector.
`
` I'm going to go on mute for 30 seconds to
`
`confer with my colleagues, and I'll be right back.
`
` (Brief recess taken.)
`
` JUDGE LEE: We're back, and the panel has
`
`conferred, and we don't have anything else to offer.
`
` Unless you have some critical questions about
`
`tomorrow's hearing, I think that's it on the subject of
`
`demonstratives.
`
` MR. PEDERSEN: Your Honor, this is
`
`Mr. Pedersen.
`
` And, you know, obviously for the record we
`
`would, you know, preserve our objection that we find
`
`that -- you know, while the trial practice guidelines
`
`are certainly guidelines, the issue of the fundamental
`
`fairness of the hearing and the opportunity to present a
`
`full and fair case appears to be severely constrained by
`
`the Board's ruling.
`
` Obviously we won't be presenting any of the
`
`demonstratives here, but we do have in particular a
`
`question for which the Board's guidance would be very
`
`helpful.
`
`www.lipka.com
`
`lipka.com, inc.
`
`Page 10
`
`888.lipka.com
`
`

`
`Volume I
`
`10/22/2013
`
`Telephonic Hearing
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` In this particular situation, the patent owner
`
`has submitted a paper attempting to swear behind the
`
`primary and only reference being used to support the two
`
`grounds. As part of that, a declaration was submitted
`
`and then cross-examination of the inventor occurred, and
`
`the question that we would have is whether or not we are
`
`entitled to affirmatively use any of the testimony in
`
`that cross-examination as part of our oral argument.
`
` JUDGE LEE: Obviously, based on the guidelines,
`
`if you have discussed that testimony somewhere in your
`
`papers, then you should be able to.
`
` MR. PEDERSEN: The issue of the swearing behind
`
`was raised in pages 1 through 4 of the patent owner
`
`response; however, the deposition and cross-examination
`
`of the inventor occurred obviously after the patent
`
`owner response was filed, and there has been no
`
`subsequent opportunity for the patent owner to point to
`
`those observations or point to that testimony as part of
`
`an observation because the observation process is
`
`limited only to the party taking the cross-examination,
`
`not the party offering the witness.
`
` JUDGE LEE: I'm going to put you on mute for a
`
`second.
`
` (Recess was taken.)
`
` JUDGE LEE: The panel has conferred and we're
`
`www.lipka.com
`
`lipka.com, inc.
`
`Page 11
`
`888.lipka.com
`
`

`
`Volume I
`
`10/22/2013
`
`Telephonic Hearing
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`not understanding your problem here, because it's your
`
`witness. It seems like you just want to get more
`
`testimony out of your own witness.
`
` You had your opportunity at cross-examination
`
`to redirect so, you know, based on what you just said,
`
`we don't see a basis for you to bring in and talk about
`
`testimony that was never discussed by you in your
`
`previous papers now for the first time in oral argument.
`
` MR. PEDERSEN: Well, Your Honor, if I follow up
`
`with the question --
`
` JUDGE LEE: You know, this is not meant to be a
`
`back-and-forth. You ought to be looking into the merits
`
`of your case. You know, if you insist on talking about
`
`it, you know, it's just not going to do you any good
`
`because when we write up our decision, we're not going
`
`to be looking at the transcript of the oral argument;
`
`we're going to be looking at the testimony that was
`
`properly developed, meaningfully developed, and
`
`presented in your papers. So, you know, any effort to
`
`bring in new discussions of the testimony is actually
`
`going to be fruitless.
`
` MR. PEDERSEN: Well, Your Honor, in your
`
`hypothetical, you said if we had elicited testimony on
`
`redirect. The question I would have for Your Honors is
`
`how and what mechanism would we bring that testimony to
`
`www.lipka.com
`
`lipka.com, inc.
`
`Page 12
`
`888.lipka.com
`
`

`
`Volume I
`
`10/22/2013
`
`Telephonic Hearing
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`the Board once our patent owner response had been filed?
`
` This is testimony that occurred after the
`
`patent owner response was filed.
`
` JUDGE LEE: Okay. I need to confer with my
`
`colleagues. Please be patient with me. I'll put you on
`
`mute.
`
` MR. PEDERSEN: Certainly.
`
` (Brief recess taken.)
`
` JUDGE LEE: The panel is back. I think we
`
`understand your question, but since it is your own
`
`witness, whatever you need from the witness should have
`
`already been presented in the declaration.
`
` Assuming on cross-examination the petitioner
`
`was able to bring out something that's only
`
`extraordinary and totally unpredictable and entirely
`
`surprising to you and they used it in a reply, you
`
`certainly had the opportunity to call the Board at that
`
`time and say, Look, whatever came out at
`
`cross-examination was totally unexpected. I had no
`
`reason to anticipate that. This is really an
`
`extraordinary situation. We'd like an opportunity to
`
`file a sur-reply, if you do have such an extraordinary
`
`situation.
`
` But, absent that, whatever you have from your
`
`own witness should have been presented in your own
`
`www.lipka.com
`
`lipka.com, inc.
`
`Page 13
`
`888.lipka.com
`
`

`
`Volume I
`
`10/22/2013
`
`Telephonic Hearing
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`declaration.
`
` MR. PEDERSEN: So that I'm understanding the
`
`Board correctly, that there really is no opportunity to
`
`use cross-examination or redirect testimony from a
`
`declarant that the patent owner offered to support or
`
`expand the affirmative case without petitioning for a
`
`sur-reply?
`
` JUDGE LEE: I think that's so, because whatever
`
`you want to say should be in your initial declaration.
`
` If you have second thoughts and you want to
`
`expand on it, that's not fair to the other party, you
`
`know, absent extraordinary circumstances.
`
` If you asked me what kind of extraordinary
`
`circumstance, I can't tell you any on the fly, but
`
`absent extraordinary circumstances, you have to make
`
`your case in your petition.
`
` Okay. I think that answers the question.
`
` MS. REISTER: Your Honor, this is petitioners.
`
` I had just one question, if I may, about the --
`
`the exhibits that have already been filed.
`
` Will they be expunged from the record?
`
` JUDGE LEE: Yes, we will. I'm not sure when
`
`that will happen --
`
` MS. REISTER: Okay.
`
` JUDGE LEE: -- but we will expunge both.
`
`www.lipka.com
`
`lipka.com, inc.
`
`Page 14
`
`888.lipka.com
`
`

`
`Volume I
`
`10/22/2013
`
`Telephonic Hearing
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` MS. REISTER: Thank you.
`
` JUDGE LEE: All right.
`
` MR. PEDERSEN: Your Honor, if I could have one
`
`follow-up question on Ms. Reister's question.
`
` For purposes of potential appeal, the
`
`expungement from the record, will that be allowed to be
`
`reintroduced by supplemental evidence in the appeal?
`
` JUDGE LEE: If you're asking do they get into
`
`our official record, no. But I don't -- if you want to
`
`go on appeal and you submit to the Federal Circuit, This
`
`is what we submitted, that's not really something I'm
`
`addressing, but the panel is not allowing those papers
`
`into the record of this case.
`
` MR. PEDERSEN: Understood. Thank you.
`
` JUDGE LEE: Okay. We'll see you tomorrow at
`
`10:00 a.m.
`
` MR. PEDERSEN: This is Mr. Pedersen for the
`
`patent owner, and we would like the projector to project
`
`the paper slides.
`
` JUDGE LEE: All right. A projector will be
`
`made available. Thank you.
`
` MR. PEDERSEN: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
` MS. REISTER: Thank you.
`
` (The Proceedings concluded at 12:20 p.m. PST.)
`
` * * *
`
`www.lipka.com
`
`lipka.com, inc.
`
`Page 15
`
`888.lipka.com
`
`

`
`Volume I
`
`10/22/2013
`
`Telephonic Hearing
`
`I, Lynn Penfield, a Certified Shorthand Reporter
`
`No. 8589, State of California, RPR, CRR, hereby
`
`certify:
`
` That the foregoing proceeding was reported by me
`
`and was thereafter transcribed with Computer-Aided
`
`Transcription; that the foregoing 15 pages is a full,
`
`complete and true record of said proceeding.
`
` I further certify that I am not of counsel or
`
`attorney for either or any of the parties in the
`
`foregoing proceeding and caption named or in any way
`
`interested in the outcome of the cause in said caption
`
` The dismantling, unsealing, or unbinding of the
`
`original transcript will render the reporter's
`
`certificate null and void.
`
` IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
`
`this 22nd day of October, 2013.
`
` (Signed Electronically)
`
` Lynn Penfield, CSR No. 8589, RPR, CRR
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`www.lipka.com
`
`lipka.com, inc.
`
`Page 16
`
`888.lipka.com

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket