throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR PHE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`ROY-G-BIV Corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`Fanuc Ltd., Fanuc Robotics America, Inc., GE
`Fanuc Automation Americas, Inc., and GE
`Fanuc Intelligent Platforms, Inc.,
`
`Defendanis,
`
`NewNeeneeeneeeweewan”weteranNea”eee”
`
`CASE NO, 2:07-cvy-00418-DE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF ROY-G-BIV CORP.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS AND
`
`Plaintiff ROY-G-BIVCorporation CROY-G-BIV’) hereby provides its second
`
`supplementary responses to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories.
`
`OBJECTIONS
`
`ROY-G-BIVincorporates by reference its objections set forth in its February 28, 2008,
`
`answers and objections to Defendants’ interrogatories.
`
`ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES
`
`INTERROGATORYNO. I:
`
`For cach Accused Product, describe the circumstances leading up to the allegation that
`Detendants allegedly infringe the patents-in-suit, including the date on which Plamtifffirst
`became aware of the Defendants’ Accused Products (and identify all documents relating to such
`awareness and all persons with knowledge of such awareness); the date on which Plaintifffirst
`considered the Defendants’ accused products to be an alleged infringement of the patents-in-sult
`(and identify all documents relating to such consideration and all persons with knowledge of
`such consideration}; and all actions taken by or on behalf of Plaintuf to investigate or pursue its
`behets of alleged infringement Gncluding documents reflecting or reporting anytests or analyses
`performed on Defendants’ Accused Products prior to filmg the complaint for purposes of
`determining whether those Accused Products allegedly infringe the patents-in-suit).
`
`Specific Objections:
`
`1
`
`ABB - EXHIBIT 1137
`
`ABB v ROY-G-BIV
`TRIAL IPR2013-00062
`TRIAL IPR2013-00282
`
`

`

`Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as secking information that is protected underthe
`
`attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine.
`
`In particular, the details relating to when
`
`Plaintiff first “considered the Defendants’ accused products to be an alleged infringement of the
`
`patents-in-suit” and the identification of “ail actions taken by or on behalf of Plaintiff to
`
`investigate or pursuc its belicts of alleged infringement” calls for information protected under the
`
`attorney-chent privilege and work-product doctrine. Plaintiffalso objects to the mterrogatoryas
`
`vague and ambiguous. For example, it is unclear what the “circumstances leading up to the
`
`allogation that Defendants allegedly infringe the patents-in-suit” encompass. Plaimtiff objects to
`
`this interragatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it requests the
`
`identification of “all” documents and persons,
`
`Answer:
`
`Subject to the foregoing General and Specific objections, Plaintuf is in the process of
`
`evaluating which products are accused of mfringement. Further, even arnong accused software
`
`products, tt is difficult at this time to determine whether older versions of the soflware are
`
`the answerto this interrogatory focuses, in some instance, on the current versions of the
`
`sottware, Plaintiff also has attenmpted to answer with respect to prior versions of the software.
`
`Finally, Plaintiif’s awareness of the existence of a particular product should not be construed as
`
`reflecting an awareness ofthe features, characteristics or capabilities of such a product.
`
`One product accused of infringement is the FOCAS software, along with applications
`
`that incorporate and use FOCAS. Plaintiff docs not knowthe exact date on which it first became
`
`aware of FOCAS. With respect to the current version of FOCASI for Ethernet, released in 2003,
`
`Plaintiffs best guess is that it knewof this soflware soon after its release date. The earliest
`
`

`

`Plaimtiff likely knewabout any version of FOCAS| likely was in October 2001, when it likely
`
`learned of FOCAS] for HSSB. Plamtiff probablyfirst learned of FOCAS] for Ethernet around
`
`May 2002. With respect to FOCAS2, Plaintiff likely knewof it in early 2004 — possibly tn
`
`January of 2004. With respect to Proficy HMI/SCADA — CIMPLICITY RMI for CNC, Plaintiff
`
`does not recall an exact date when ut first becarne aware of the product. But Plamtiff believes
`
`that it became aware of the product within two years of the filmmg date of the complaint —
`
`probably im 2006.
`
`Defendant has yet to identify which of its other software is used with POCAS. But to the
`
`extent other versions of CIMPLICITYor software products therein are used, Plaintiff does not
`
`recall whenit first became aware of the other CIMPLICITY software. It likely became aware of
`
`the current version of the software just prior to filing the complaint. Plaintiff may have known
`
`that GE Fanuc offered CIMPLICITYfor HMI products in late 1999,
`
`It is possible that Plaintiff
`
`first became aware that GE Fanue offered a product with the name CIMPLICITYin the 1996-
`
`1998, time period.
`
`Plaintiffbelieves it first became aware of the existence of the PROFICY MACHINE
`
`EDITIONsoftware on or around June 24, 2004.
`
`Some of the claimsrecite features directed at motion hardware and workstations.
`
`Plaintiff was generally aware of various GE FANUCand FANUC motion control hardware im
`
`the late 1990s. It also believes it knewof the alpha and beta servos around 1996. Plaintiff
`
`believes that it became aware of various other hardware and workstations in the 2001-2003 time
`
`frame. Plaintiff, however, dees not know when it became aware ofall ofthese products. Ht
`
`believes that it may have become aware of the series 151, 161, 181, 211, and 1601 products around
`
`October 2061. Plamtiff believes it may have become aware ofthe Paneli in early 2002 —
`
`

`

`possibly in January 2002. Plaintiff was aware that GE FANUC and FANUCoffered various
`
`other controls at least as of early 2003 (possibly January 2003), such as the Senes 150, 1501, 160,
`
`180, 210, 1801, 2161, G1, Power Mate 14, 0, 15, 16, 18, and 21.
`
`Plaintiff does not knowthe date on which it “first considered the Defendants’ accused
`
`products to be an alleged infringement of the patents-in-suit.” H likely consideredthere to be an
`
`infringement — as best it could without having access to confidential mformation sach as source
`
`code - within a year-and-a-half of the filing of the complaint in September 2007. Plaintiff began
`
`investigating the possibility of infringement mn the 2006 time frame. Plaintiff worked withits
`
`counsel in iis unvestigation of the inffmgement. The details regarding this investigation are
`
`protected by the work product and attorney-client privilege doctrines.
`
`INPERROGATORY NOQ, 3:
`
`Separately for cach asserted claim of the patents-in-suit, identify all allogeddates of
`conception, any subsequent diligence until reduction to practice, any dates of actual reduction to
`practice of the claimed invention, the date offirst constructive reduction to practice of the
`claimed subject matter defined bythe claim, all persons who were involved in connection with
`such conception, diligence, or reduction to practice, and the earliest effective filing date Plaintiff
`will assert for each suchclaim, stating in detail all factual bases supporting Plamtilf’s
`identification of each such date, and identifying all persons, documents, and tangible things
`corroborating each such date.
`
`specific Objections:
`
`Plaintiff objects to this interrogatoryas overly broad and unduly burdensome to the
`
`extent it requests “all factual” bases.
`
`Answer
`
`Subject to the foregoing General and Specific Objections, the claims were conceived at
`
`loast as carly as April i994, The claims were first reduced to practice after the filing of the ‘897
`
`patent — probablyaround latce-1996 or carly-1997. The carliest effective filmg date for asserted
`
`

`

`claims of the patents-in-suit is May 30, 1995, The docurnents in support of this effective filing
`
`date are U.S. Patent No. 5,691,897, along with the original application for this patent. This
`
`original disclosure, filled on May 30, 1995, supports the claims of the patents-in-suit pursuant to
`
`35 ULS.C. § 120, and is a constructive reduction to practice of the invention. The inventors
`
`dihgently workedon theideas, including after their conception date. They worked diligentlyat
`
`least through the reductionto practice dates, particularly considering that they were working on
`
`other projects and at starting up their business. Persons involved in the conception, diligence,
`
`and reduction to practice were Dave Brown and Jay Clark. Their prosecution counsel were
`
`involvedin the constructive reduction to practice — ie., the May 30, 1995 filme date of the ‘897
`
`patent. Persons with knowledge ofthe diligence inchide Richard Black, Robert Hughes, and
`
`Michael Schacht. Plaintiff contimues to investigate other potential persons with knowledge.
`
`Documents in support of these contentions (e.g., corroborating the inventors’ diligent
`
`work on the invention as well as on other technical and business projects), may include:
`
`RGBOQ000 1249 ~ 1257; RGBOQO0004075 - 4086;RGBOG004087 - 4092; RGBOGO04095;
`
`RGB00G07322 - 7342; RGBO0007467 - 7469; RGBO0026444 - 26445: RGBD0028786 - 28788;
`
`RGBO003 1400 - 31522; RGBO003 1739 - 31753; RGBOO05 1260 - 51265; RGBOO05 1279 -
`
`$1299; RGBOUOSI311 - 51318: RGROOGOS 1319 ~ $1320; RGBOOUS1321 - $1326; RGBOOOS 1329
`
`~ 51334; RGBO005 1460 - 51461; RGBO005 1462 - 51466; RGBOOOS 1467 - 51468;
`
`RGBO0OS 1469 - 51471; RGBO005 1472 - $1476; RGBO0005 1477 ~ 51481; RGBOOOS 1482 -
`
`51489; RGBO00S 1490 - 51501; RGBOOOS 1502 - 51514; RGBOOGSIS15 - 51527; RGBOGGS1528
`
`~ 51537; RGBOO0S 1549 ~ 51574; RGBO00S 1602 - 51613; RGBOUOS 1614 - 51636;
`
`RGBO00S 1652 ~ 51674; RGBOO0S1787 - $1788; RGBOOOS 1802 - 51804; RGBOOOS 1806 -
`
`31817; RGBOOOS 1833 - 31856; RGBOOOS 1857 - 31876; RGBOOGS 1877 - 31890; RGBOOGS 189]
`
`hi
`
`

`

`~ 51916; RGBO005 1917 - 51938; RGBO0052086 - 52088; RGBOQOS2089 - 52161;
`
`RGBO0052 106 - 32119; RGB00052120 - 32143; ROBON00S2 144 - 32163; RGBO00S2 164 -
`
`52177; RGBOODS2178 - 52203; RGBOO0S2204 - 52226; RGBOOOS28 18 - 52837; RGBOODS 2882
`
`~ 52924, RGBON0052925 - 52927, RGBOOOS3G12 - 53035; RGBO0053057 - 53078;
`
`RGB00053079 - 53204; RGBOOOS3265 - 53236; RGBOQ0S3237 - 33249; RGBON054846-
`
`$4857; RGBOOOS4858 - 54867; RGBOOOS4868 ~ 54870; RGBOQOOS4871 ~ S4885; RGBOOS 4886
`
`~ 54900; RGBOOO54901 ~ 54921; RGBO0054922 - 54969; RGB00054976 - 55014;
`
`RGBOOOSSGIS - 55017; RGBO0055020 - 55035; RGBO0055036 - 55060; RGBOOO55 112 -
`
`55128; RGBOUOSS 129 - $5143; RGROOOSS 144 - 55171; RGBOOUSS172 - 55199; RGRYOESS200
`
`~ $5214; RGBOOOSS2Z15 ~ $5239; RGBO0055240 ~ $5257; RGBOO0SS258 - 55311;
`
`RGBO00055312 - 55329; RGBO0055330 -~ 55337; RGBODOSS3S1 ~ 55421; RGBO00S5307 -
`
`55514; RGBOUGSS519 - 55533; RGBOUGSS534 - 55537; RGBOOESS540 - 55549; RGBOOUSSS50
`
`~ 55551; RGBOGOS54552 - 35559; RGBOGOS54560 ~- $5561; RGBOUOSS562 - 35573;
`
`RGBOO0SS621 - $5632; RGBOO00S5638 - 55646; RGBOO0S S644 ~ 55639; RGBOBOS5660-
`
`35692; RGOBO0GSS693 - 55698; RGOBO000S 5699 - 55701; RGBOOOSS756 - 55759; ROBOO0SS766
`
`- 55768; RGBOGOS5769 - 55772; RGBOGOS5773 - 55777; RGBOUGSS8O3 - 55819;
`
`RGBO00S5820 - 55823; RGBOUGGS5824 - $5834; RGBOUOSS847 - 558351; RGBOUOGSS842 -
`
`35880; RGOBOOOS SSSI - 55895; RGOBON00S S896 - 35949; RGBO00SS967 - 35974; RGBOOOSS97S
`
`- 55980; RGBOOOSS9S TI - 55987; RGBOOOSS9SS - 56060; RGBOCGS6DG! - 36082;
`
`RGBUGGS6567 - 56570; RGBOGGS6575 - 56576; RGBOUGS6577 - 56578; RGBUOGS6579 -
`
`$6584; RGBOO0056585 - 56590; RGBO0056591 - 56593; RGBOG056594 - 56596; RGBO0056597
`
`- 56598; RGBO00S6599 - 56607; RGBOGOS6608 - 56612; RGOBOCOS6613 - 56617;
`
`RGBOOOSEGIS - 56619; RGBOGOS6620 - 56622; RIGBOGGS6623 - 36624; ROBOOOS6625 -
`
`6
`
`

`

`56626; RGBOUOS6627 - 36629; RGROOVOS6630 - 56631; RGBROOUS6632 - 56635; RGROOUS6636
`
`~ $6638; RGBO0056639 ~ 56642; RGBO0056643 - $6645; RGBO00S6646 - 56630;
`
`RGBO0005665 1 - 56655; RGBO0056656 ~ 56057; RGBOD0S660S8 - 56661; RGBO00S6662 -
`
`56664; RGBOUGS6665 - 36667; RGBOUGS 6668 - 56670; RGBO00S667 1 - 56674; RGBOOUS6675
`
`~ 56678; RGBOGO56679 - 56680; RGBOGOS668 1 - 56687; RGBOUOSG68S - 36717;
`
`RGBOO056718 - $6719; RGBOO0056720 - 56723; RGBOQO0S6724 ~ 56726; RGBOO0S6727 -
`
`36738; RGOBO0056739 - 36748; RGOBOQ0056749 - 56751; RGBO00S6752 - 56757; RGBOOOS6758
`
`- 56769; RGBOGO56770 - 56772; RGBOGOS6773 - 56774; RGBOUGS6775 - 36776;
`
`RGBO000S6777 - 56779; RGBOUGS4780 - 56783; RGBOGOS4G784 - 36785; RGBUUGS6786 -
`
`36795; RGBO0056796 ~ 36797; ROBN0036798 - 56799; RGBON00S6822; RGOBO0OS6824 -
`
`$6829; RGBOOOS6830 - 56836; RGBO0056837 - 56841; RGBOO0S6842 - 56843; RGBO00S6844
`
`~ 56831; RGBO0056852 - 56853; RGBOO0056854 - 56857; RGBON0S6858 - 56870;
`
`RGBO0056871 - 56875; RGBO0056876 - 56877; RGBOQ056878 - 36879; RGBONOS 6880 -
`
`56883; RGBOOOSGRS4 - 56887; RGROQOOSG8SS - 56892; RGBOQ00S6893 - S6894: RGBOCOS6895
`
`~ 56898; RGBO0056899 ~ 56900; RGBOOO5 6901 - 56902; RGBO0056903 - 56908;
`
`RGB00056909 - 56914, RGBODOS69 15 - 56917; RGBO0056918 - 56920, RGBONDS 6921 -
`
`56922; RGBOUOS6923 - 36924; RGROGOVOS6925 - 56933; RGROOUS6934 - 56938; RGRVOES6939
`
`~ $6943; RGBO0056944 ~ $6945; RGBO0056946 ~ $6948; RGBO00S6949 - 56930;
`
`RGBODOS695 1 - 56952; RGBO0056953 - 56955; RGB00056956 - 56957, RGBOD056958 -
`
`56961; RGBOUGS6962 - 36964; RGBOUGS6965 - 56968; RGBO00S6969 - 56971; RGBOOUS6972
`
`- 56976; RGBOG056977 - 56981; RGBOGOS6982 - 56983; RGBOUOSGSS4 - 56987;
`
`RGBOO0S 6988 - 56990, RGBO005699 1 - 56993; RGBOQ00S6994 ~ 56996; RGBO0056997 -
`
`37000; RGBOO0S7001 - 37004; RGBOO0S7005 - 37006; RGBO0GS7007 - 37013; RGBO0057014
`
`~~
`
`

`

`~ 37043; RGBO0057044 - 57045; RGBO005 7046 - 57049; RGBOQOS7050 - 37052;
`
`RGBO005 7053 - 37064; RGBOGOS7065 - 57074; RGBOGOS7075 - 37076; ROBO0057077 -
`
`$7082; RGBOODS 7083 - 57094; RGBOODS 7095 - 57102; RGBOOOS7103 - 37104; RGBO00S7105
`
`~ 57106; RGBO0057 107 - 57109; RGBO0057110 - 57113; RGBOOOS7114 - S7LIS;
`
`RGBO00057116 - 57125; RGBO0057 126 - 57127; RGBOOQ0S7 128 - 37129; RGB00057 130 -
`
`$7132; RGBOOOS7135 - 57140; RGBOOOS7141 - $7144: RGBOO0S7133; RGBOO0S7217 -
`
`37228; RGBO0057229 - 37249; RGBO00S7572 - 37577; RGBOOGS7578 - 37579; RGBOOGS73580
`
`- 37586; RGBOGOS 7606 - 57607; RGBOGOS7608 - 537610; RGBOUGS7611 - 37613;
`
`RGBOO0S7614 - 57616; RGBOUGGS7620 - $7621; RGBOGOS7622 - 37623; RGBOUOGS7635 -
`
`37637; RGBO0057638 ~ 37639; ROBN0057640 - 37641; RGBO00S 7642 - 37644; RGBO00S7649
`
`- 37650; RGBOOOS765 1 - 57652; RGBO00S7664 - 57666; RIGBO0GS7683 - 37684;
`
`RGBOUGGS7685 - 57686; RGBOGGS7735 - 37738; RGBOUGS7741 - 37744; RGBUOGS7817 -
`
`$7823; RGBO0057824 - 37829; RGBOO05 7836 - 57836; RGBO0057837 - 37841; RGBOO0S 7842
`
`57844; RGBOGOS7845 - 57850; RGBOGOS7S8S1 - 37858; ROBOGOS78S9 - 57862;
`
`RGBOG0S7863 - 37865; RGBOGOS7866 - 37869; RIGBOGGS9S IS - 59523; RGOBO0062154 -
`
`62173; RGHO0062478 - 62461; RGBO0062494 - 62495; RGBO0062646 - 62641; RGBG0063239
`
`~ 63248; RGBO0063249 - 63251; RGBO0063252 - 63252; RGBO0063259 - 63260;
`
`RGB00063263 - 63265; RGBN0063266 - 63267; RGBO0063268 - 63269; ROB00063373 -
`
`63376; RGBO0063377 - 63378; RGBO0063414 - 63438: RGBO0063953 - 63953; RGBOODG4 164
`
`~ 64191; RGBO0070462 - 70467, RGBO0076402 - 76406; RGB00076413 - 76418;
`
`RGB00076436- 76440; RGBO007644 1 - 76448; RGBO0076449 - 76454; RGB00076459 -
`
`76313; RGBOQOO77 184 - 77243; RGBOOO77244 ~ 77287,
`
`Plaintiffcontinues to investigate this interrogatoryand will, if required, timely
`
`

`

`supplement this interrogatory.
`
`INTERROGATORYNO.S:
`
`With respect to cach of the patents-in-suit, identify all facts and documents, and all
`persons competent to testify with respect thereto, upon which Plaintiffrelies for proof of
`secondary considerations under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for cach patent.
`
`SpecificObjections:
`
`Plaintiffobjects to this interrogatoryas a premature contention interrogatory. Plaintiff
`
`further objects imsofar as this interrogatoryis predicated on legal terms or conclusions of law
`
`including the term “secondary considerations.” Plaintiff further objects to the extent that this
`
`interrogatory calls for informationthat is properly the subject of expert discovery.
`
`Answer:
`
`Subject to the foregoing General and Specific objections, Plaintufstates as follows:
`
`Discovery has only recently begun in this case and Plaintiff will timely supplernent. Plamtiff’s
`
`invention solved a long-standing problemin the motion control industry. Specifically, the
`
`motion controller market consisted primarily of hardware-oriented companies. These companies
`
`provided low-level software that worked directly with thew hardware cornponents. The software
`
`from each company, however, was specific to that company’s hardware products. As a result, a
`
`consumer wishing to iraplement high-level software, sach as factory automation applications,
`
`could do so only ifall of its hardware used the same low-level software. Low-level software
`
`varied from manufacturer to manufacturer, but also could vary within a single manufacturer's
`
`hardware offermgs, Due to the lack of mteroperability, a consumer wishing to implementa
`
`factory automation application was limited not only to hardware from a single manufacturer, bat
`
`also to specific hardware offerings from that manufacturer. Although Plaintiff does not recall
`
`any particular persons who expressed skepticism about its idea, it does genorallyrecall that, on
`
`

`

`occasion, others expressed skepticism about the ability of its invention to work. Nevertheless,
`
`Plamtif’s hard work and ingenuity fed to a solution to the problem. Others, such as defendants,
`
`have enjoyed great commercial success fromthe use of Plaintiif’s invention. Persons who could
`
`testify about these facts include the inventors of the patents-in-suit, Dave Brown and Jay Clark.
`
`Other potential persons include persons currently and formerly associated with defendants, and
`
`the parties’ experts.
`
`

`

`Dated: April 25, 2008
`
`As to the Objections,
`
`
`
`
`
`Lance Latel
`Lead Attorney
`Texas State Bar No. 12651125
`John M. Black
`Texas State Bar No. 24006850
`HEARD, ROBINS, CLOUD & LUBELLLP
`3800 Buffalo Speedway, 5" Floor
`Houston, Texas 77098
`Telephone: (713) 650-1200
`Fax: (713) 650-1400
`
`E-mail
`fhibelfahe
`E-mail
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`William A. Isaacson
`D. Michael Underhill
`Erie F. Maurer
`Aaron J. Snow
`BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
`S301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20015
`Telephone: 202.237.272
`Fax: 202.237.6131
`E-mail
`5
`E-mail
`E-mail:
`
`E-mail: a
`
`Atiorneys for Plaintiff ROY-G-BIV
`Corporation
`
`Kip Glasscock
`Texas State Bar No. 08011000
`KIP GLASSCOCK,PC.
`550 Fannin, Suite 1350
`Beaumont, Texas 77701
`Telephone: (409) 833-8822
`Fax: (409) 838-4666
`ke
`E-mail:
`king!
`
`Russell A. Chorush
`Texas State Bar No. 24631948
`HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, L.L.P.
`JP Morgan Chase Tower
`600 Travis Street, Suite 6710
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Telephone: (713) 221-2006
`Fax: (713) 221-202)
`i
`E-mail
`re
`
`

`

`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on April 25, 2008, counsel of record for the parties are being served
`
`a copy of the foregoing document via E-mail, with a confirmation copyto be sent via First Class
`
`Math
`
`ViaE-Mail:
`
`T. John Ward, Jr.
`Texas State Bar No. 00794818
`WARD & SMITH LAWFIRM
`1Li West Tyler Street
`Longview, TX 75601
`Telephone: 903.757.6400
`Facsimile: 903,.757,2323
`NYra
`E-Maik pw
`
`ViaFirstClassMail:
`
`Daniel T, Shvodian
`California State Bar No. 184576
`HOWREYLLP
`1950 University Avenue, 4th Floor
`East Palo Alta, CA 94303
`Telephone: 656.798.3500
`Facsimile: 650.798.3600
`a
`E-maik §
`
`Henry C. Bunsow
`California State Bar No. 60707
`James F. Valentine
`California State Bar No. 149269
`Daniel T. Shvedian
`California State Bar No. 184576
`HOWREY LLP
`1956 University Avenue, 4th Floor
`East Pala Alto, CA 94303
`Telephone: 650.798.3506
`Facsimile: 650.798.3600
`
`
`
`
` E-mail: Shvod
`
`
`
`Eric J. Meurer
`
`

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