UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`
`
`CARL ZEISS SMT GMBH
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NIKON CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00362
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION REGARDING
`SECOND CROSS EXAMINATION OF RICHARD C. JUERGENS
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop "PATENT BOARD"
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`
`
`CARL ZEISS SMT GMBH
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NIKON CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00362
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION REGARDING
`SECOND CROSS EXAMINATION OF RICHARD C. JUERGENS
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop "PATENT BOARD"
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner, Nikon Corporation, hereby moves for observation of certain
`
`NIKON CORPORATION
`Case IPR2013-00362
`
`
`
`portions of the second cross examination of the Patent Owner’s expert witnesses
`
`Mr. Juergens. Nikon requests that the Board enter the instant motion and consider
`
`the observations below.
`
`A. Testimony Demonstrating that the Optical Software, CODE V
`Version 10.6, Used by Mr. Juergens to Optimize Terasawa for
`Immersion Was Not Available in 2003
`
`1.
`
`In Ex. 2041, on page 27, lines 13-17, Mr. Juergens testified that
`
`he could not confirm that the source code for the functions and features that he
`
`used in version 10.6 of CODE V was the same as the source code in the 2003
`
`version of the software, version 9.2. This testimony is relevant to page 12 of
`
`Petitioner’s Reply (Paper No. 22) where Petitioner states that Mr. Juergens used
`
`optical design software CODE V which was available to a POSITA in 2003. This
`
`testimony is additionally relevant to paragraph 17 on page 11 of Mr. Juergens’
`
`supplemental declaration (Ex. 1036), where Mr. Juergens testifies that he was
`
`careful to use only those functions and features of the CODE V program that were
`
`available in the 2003 version. This testimony is relevant because it shows that
`
`neither Mr. Juergens nor Petitioner have any way of confirming the “functions and
`
`features” that Mr. Juergens used in the latest 10.6 version of CODE V would have
`
`been available to a POSITA in 2003.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`In Ex. 2041, on page 30, line 16 to page 46, line 16, Mr.
`
`NIKON CORPORATION
`Case IPR2013-00362
`
`Juergens testified as to improvements in version 9.8, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5,
`
`and 10.6 versions of the CODE V software. (See Exhibits 2029-2035,
`
`respectively). This testimony is relevant to page 12 of Petitioner’s Reply (Paper
`
`No. 22) where Petitioner states that Mr. Juergens used optical design software
`
`CODE V which was available to a POSITA in 2003. This testimony is
`
`additionally relevant to paragraph 17 on page 11 of Mr. Juergens’ supplemental
`
`declaration (Ex. 1036), where Mr. Juergens testifies that he was careful to use only
`
`those functions and features of the CODE V program that were available in the
`
`2003 version. This testimony is relevant because it shows that neither Mr.
`
`Juergens nor Petitioner have any way of confirming the “functions and features”
`
`that Mr. Juergens used in the latest 10.6 version of CODE V would have been
`
`available to a POSITA in 2003
`
`B.
`
`Testimony Demonstrating that Mr. Juergens’ Experiments Fail to
`Show That the Prior Art Would Have Enabled a POSITA to
`Make the Claimed Invention
`
`1.
`
`In Ex. 2041, on page 17, line 14 to page 18, line 6, Mr.
`
`Juergens testified that for a projection optical system, the RMS wavefront error
`
`needs to be satisfied across the entire field of view (i.e., field width) and that an
`
`image that is formed having an RMS wavefront error of greater than 0.07 waves
`
`would not be useful for microlithography. This testimony is relevant to Mr.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Juergens’ later testimony on page 109, lines 20-23; page 115, lines 2-4; and page
`
`NIKON CORPORATION
`Case IPR2013-00362
`
`124, lines 10-15 of Ex. 2041 that the peak RMS wavefront errors for Experiments
`
`II-IV where 5.5, 120, and 4.5, respectively. This testimony is relevant because it
`
`shows that Mr. Juergens’ Experiments I-IV fail to produce an immersed projection
`
`optical system that forms an image, as recited in independent claim 1.
`
`2.
`
`In Ex. 2041, on page 13, line 21 to page 14, line 7, Mr.
`
`Juergens testified that for a projection optical system to achieve good image
`
`quality, the RMS wavefront error values should less than 0.07 waves, and for
`
`lithography, often times the RMS wavefront error value is less than that. This
`
`testimony is relevant to the Mr. Juergens’ later testimony on page 109, lines 20-23;
`
`page 115, lines 2-4; and page 124, lines 10-15 of Ex. 2041 that the peak RMS
`
`wavefront errors for Experiments II-IV where 5.5, 120, and 4.5, respectively. This
`
`testimony is relevant because it shows that Mr. Juergens’ Experiments I-IV fail to
`
`produce an immersed projection optical system that forms an image, as recited in
`
`independent claim 1.
`
`3.
`
`In Ex. 2041, on page 110, lines 8-15, with reference to page 1
`
`of Exhibit 2037 showing the RMS wavefront error corresponding to Mr. Juergens’
`
`Experiment II, Mr. Juergens testified that the projection lens design corresponding
`
`to Experiment II is not diffraction-limited over the entire field width, and that the
`
`design is badly aberrated over the field width, as the peak of the wavefront error is
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`approximately 5.5 waves RMS. This testimony is relevant to Mr. Juergens’
`
`NIKON CORPORATION
`Case IPR2013-00362
`
`assertion at paragraph 20 on page 20 of his Supplemental Declaration (Zeiss 1036)
`
`that the RMS wavefront error for the Experiment II design is 0.021 waves. This
`
`testimony is relevant because it shows that Mr. Juergens failed to design an
`
`immersed projection optical system having a low enough RMS wavefront error to
`
`form an image, as recited in independent claim 1.
`
`4.
`
`In Ex. 2041, on page 110, line 16 to page 111, line 21, referring
`
`to page 2 of Exhibit 2037 showing a distortion plot error corresponding to Mr.
`
`Juergens’ Experiment II, Mr. Juergens testified that the distortion plot shows
`
`distortion levels that are approximately 1/3 of a percent, and that a projection
`
`optical system with such levels of aberration could not be used in photolithography
`
`because the distortion levels are larger than what would be useful, and that the
`
`resulting image quality would not be very good. This testimony is relevant to the
`
`Petitioner’s assertion on page 13 of its Reply (Paper No. 22) that a POSITA could
`
`have used CODE V software to redesign the optical prescription for FIG. 5 in
`
`Terasawa by adding an immersion fluid between the last lens surface and the wafer
`
`and re-optimizing to obtain an imaging performance as good as, or better than, the
`
`original dry design of Terasawa. This testimony is relevant because, contrary to
`
`Petitioner’s assertion, it shows the resulting image quality of Mr. Juergens’
`
`Experiment II is unusable.
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`In Ex. 2041, on page 113, line 21 to page 116, line 16, with
`
`NIKON CORPORATION
`Case IPR2013-00362
`
`reference to Exhibit 2038 showing the RMS wavefront error plot of Mr. Juergens’
`
`Experiment III, Mr. Juergens testified that he was surprised that his design
`
`corresponding to the CODE V lens layout of Exhibit 1047 produced the plot shown
`
`in Fig. 1, because the RMS wavefront error in between the two end field points is
`
`so large, in that it grows to a peak of 125 waves RMS. Mr. Juergens further
`
`testified that the design corresponding to Experiment III is not diffraction-limited
`
`over the entire field, but is instead is badly aberrated since the peak wavefront error
`
`is about 125 waves RMS. This testimony is relevant to Mr. Juergens’ assertion at
`
`paragraph 29 on page 42 of his Supplemental Declaration (Zeiss 1036) that the
`
`RMS wavefront error for the Experiment III design is 0.041 waves. This testimony
`
`is relevant because it shows that Mr. Juergens failed to design an immersed
`
`projection optical system having a low enough RMS wavefront error to form an
`
`image, as recited in independent claim 1.
`
`6.
`
`In Ex. 2041, on page 116, line 17 to page 117, line 14, with
`
`reference to page 2 of Exhibit 2038 showing a distortion plot corresponding to Mr.
`
`Juergens’ Experiment III, Mr. Juergens testified that the plot shows his Experiment
`
`III has a distortion level of approximately 2.8%, and that a projection optical
`
`system with such level of aberration could not be used in a lithographic system.
`
`This testimony is relevant to the Petitioner’s assertion on page 13 of its Reply
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`(Paper No. 22) that a POSITA could have used CODE V software to redesign the
`
`NIKON CORPORATION
`Case IPR2013-00362
`
`optical prescription for FIG. 5 in Terasawa by adding an immersion fluid between
`
`the last lens surface and the wafer and re-optimizing to obtain an imaging
`
`performance as good as, or better than, the original dry design of Terasawa. This
`
`testimony is relevant because, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, it shows the
`
`resulting image quality of Mr. Juergens’ Experiment III is unusable.
`
`7.
`
`In Ex. 2041, on page 123, line 14 to page 125, line 1, with
`
`reference to page 1 of Exhibit 2039 showing the RMS wavefront error
`
`corresponding to Mr. Juergens’ Experiment IV, Mr. Juergens testified that he was
`
`moderately surprised by the plot of the RMS wavefront error that is shown as very
`
`low at the two field points he had selected, but rises to a peak of about 4.5 waves
`
`RMS over the rest of the field width. Further, Mr. Juergens testified that he would
`
`not consider such a design as diffraction-limited, and that the design is badly
`
`aberrated over the field width. This testimony is relevant to Mr. Juergens’
`
`assertion at paragraph 47 on page 33 of his Supplemental Declaration (Zeiss 1036)
`
`that the RMS wavefront error for the Experiment IV design is 0.021 waves. This
`
`testimony is relevant because it shows that Mr. Juergen failed to design an
`
`immersed projection optical system having a low enough RMS wavefront error to
`
`form an image, as recited in independent claim 1.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`In Ex. 2041, on page 125, line 2-19, with reference to page 2 of
`
`NIKON CORPORATION
`Case IPR2013-00362
`
`Exhibit 2039 showing a distortion plot of Mr. Juergens’ Experiment IV, Mr.
`
`Juergens testified that the distortion plot shows distortion levels of approximately
`
`¼ of a percent and that a projection lens system with such levels of aberration
`
`could not be used in a lithographic system. This testimony is relevant to the
`
`Petitioner’s assertion on page 13 of its Reply (Paper No. 22) that a POSITA could
`
`have used CODE V software to redesign the optical prescription for FIG. 5 in
`
`Terasawa by adding an immersion fluid between the last lens surface and the wafer
`
`and re-optimizing to obtain an imaging performance as good as, or better than, the
`
`original dry design of Terasawa. This testimony is relevant because, contrary to
`
`Petitioner’s assertion, it shows the resulting image quality of Mr. Juergens’
`
`Experiment IV is unusable.
`
`9.
`
`In Ex. 2041, on page 128, lines 18-22, Mr. Juergens testified
`
`that there is no reason why a POSITA would design a projection optical system
`
`optimized only for two field points. This testimony is relevant to the Petitioner’s
`
`assertion on page 12-13 of its Reply (Paper No. 22) that Mr. Juergens’ showed that
`
`a POSITA could have used CODE V software to redesign the optical prescription
`
`for FIG. 5 in Terasawa by adding an immersion fluid between the last lens surface
`
`and the wafer to obtain an imaging performance as good as, or better than, the
`
`original dry design of Terasawa. This testimony is relevant because, contrary to
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s assertion, it shows that a POSITA would not use only two field points
`
`NIKON CORPORATION
`Case IPR2013-00362
`
`to design a projection optical system, as Mr. Juergen did in each of his
`
`Experiments I-IV.
`
`10.
`
`In Ex. 2041, on page 130, lines 18-22, Mr. Juergens testified
`
`that the lens designs in his Experiments I-IV are not equivalent in resolution and
`
`distortion over the entire field of view to the Terasawa design. This testimony is
`
`relevant to the Petitioner’s assertion on page 13 of its Reply (Paper No. 22) that a
`
`POSITA could have used CODE V software to redesign the optical prescription for
`
`FIG. 5 in Terasawa by adding an immersion fluid between the last lens surface and
`
`the wafer and re-optimizing to obtain an imaging performance as good as, or better
`
`than, the original dry design of Terasawa. This testimony is relevant because,
`
`contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, it shows the resulting image quality of Mr.
`
`Juergens’ Experiments I-IV are not as good as, or better than, the original dry
`
`design of Terasawa.
`
`11.
`
`In Ex. 2041, on page 131, lines 4-19, Mr. Juergens testified that
`
`even though example 2 of Terasawa’s intended use was microlithography, he did
`
`not believe that a POSITA would use any of his designs for microlithography,
`
`because they are not useful for microlithography because of the high RMS
`
`wavefront error across the entire field width. This testimony is relevant to the
`
`Petitioner’s assertion on page 13 of its Reply (Paper No. 22) that a POSITA could
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`have used CODE V software to redesign the optical prescription for FIG. 5 in
`
`NIKON CORPORATION
`Case IPR2013-00362
`
`Terasawa by adding an immersion fluid between the last lens surface and the wafer
`
`and re-optimizing to obtain an imaging performance as good as, or better than, the
`
`original dry design of Terasawa. This testimony is relevant because it contradicts
`
`Petitioner’s claim that the imaging performance of Mr. Juergens’ Experiment I-IV
`
`is as good as, or better than, the original dry design of Terasawa.
`
`C. Testimony Demonstrating that Mr. Juergens’ Experiments Suffer
`From Beam Overlap
`
`1.
`
`In Ex. 2041, on page 88, line 14 to page 89, line 11, Mr.
`
`Juergens testified that a POSITA would design a projection optical system that did
`
`not include beam overlap. This testimony is relevant to the Mr. Juergens’
`
`testimony at paragraph 48 on page 35 of his supplemental declaration, where he
`
`testifies that his four design experiments show that a POSITA would have been
`
`able to use software to modify the lens design shown in Fig. 5 of Terasawa to
`
`include immersion. This testimony is relevant because it contradicts Mr. Juergens
`
`testimony, in that at least Experiment III suffers from beam overlap.
`
`2.
`
`In Ex. 2041, on page 118, lines 15-19, Mr. Juergens testified
`
`that he was told to ignore all other design characteristics, such as beam separation,
`
`when pushing the numerical aperture to a desired numerical value. This testimony
`
`is relevant to the Mr. Juergens’ testimony at paragraph 48 on page 35 of his
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`supplemental declaration, where he testifies that his four design experiments show
`
`NIKON CORPORATION
`Case IPR2013-00362
`
`that a POSITA would have been able to use software to modify the lens design
`
`shown in Fig. 5 of Terasawa to include immersion. This testimony is relevant
`
`because it shows that Mr. Juergens was instructed to completely disregard serious
`
`design considerations that a POSITA would have had to contend with in designing
`
`such projection optical system.
`
`3.
`
`In Ex. 2041, on page 118, line 20 to page 119, line 1, Mr.
`
`Juergens testified that a person of ordinary skill in the art designing a projection
`
`optical system would have considered other design characteristics, such as
`
`obscuration or beam separation in designing a projection optical system. This
`
`testimony is relevant to the Mr. Juergens’ testimony at paragraph 48 on page 35 of
`
`his supplemental declaration, where he testifies that his four design experiments
`
`show that a POSITA would have been able to use software to modify the lens
`
`design shown in Fig. 5 of Terasawa to include immersion. This testimony is
`
`relevant because it shows that Mr. Juergens disregarded serious design
`
`considerations that a POSITA would have had to contend with in designing such
`
`projection optical system. Again, at least Mr. Juergens’ Experiment III suffers
`
`from beam overlap.
`
`4.
`
`In Ex. 2041, on page 119, line 2 to page 120, line 17, with
`
`reference to page 3 of Exhibit 2038 showing lack of beam separation with Mr.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Juergens’ Experiment III, Mr. Juergens testified that his Experiment III appears to
`
`NIKON CORPORATION
`Case IPR2013-00362
`
`suffer from beam obscuration in that the second mirror in the projection optical
`
`system would block some portion of the incoming beams and produce a partially
`
`obscured pupil. This testimony is relevant to his earlier testimony on page 85, line
`
`12 to page 87, line 10 of Ex. 2041, where Mr. Juergens testified that beam
`
`separation is a consideration that he took into account while performing his
`
`experiments, and that if a projection optical system does not separate beams then it
`
`can negatively affect image quality by increasing an amount of RMS wavefront
`
`error, limiting the amount of light ultimately projected through an optical system,
`
`and preventing an entire image from passing through the projection optical system.
`
`This testimony is relevant because it shows that Mr. Juergens failed to design a
`
`projection optical system that forms an image, as recited in independent claim 1.
`
`5.
`
`In Ex. 2041, on page 121, lines 4-8, Mr. Juergens testified that
`
`he only performed beam separation calculations for the two field points in his
`
`experiments, and thus did not perform any calculations for the other field points in
`
`the entire field of view. This testimony is relevant to the Mr. Juergens’ testimony
`
`at paragraph 48 on page 35 of his supplemental declaration, where he testifies that
`
`his four design experiments show that a POSITA would have been able to use
`
`software to modify the lens design shown in Fig. 5 of Terasawa to include
`
`immersion. This testimony is relevant because it shows Mr. Juergen took short-
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`cuts in his designs that a POSITA designing a projection optical system would not
`
`NIKON CORPORATION
`Case IPR2013-00362
`
`have taken. As a result, at least Experiment III suffers from beam overlap.
`
`D. Testimony Demonstrating that Terasawa’s Projection Optical
`System Forms a High Quality Image Over the Entire Field Width
`
`1.
`
`In Ex. 2041, on page 73, line 16 to page 74, line 9, Mr.
`
`Juergens testified that in Example 2 of Terasawa the aberration, including RMS
`
`wavefront error, is corrected for the entire image height (i.e., field width) of 10 to
`
`16 mm. This testimony is relevant to the Petitioner’s assertion on page 13 of its
`
`Reply (Paper No. 22) that a POSITA could have used CODE V software to
`
`redesign the optical prescription for FIG. 5 in Terasawa by adding an immersion
`
`fluid between the last lens surface and the wafer and re-optimizing to obtain an
`
`imaging performance as good as, or better than, the original dry design of
`
`Terasawa. This testimony is relevant because it shows that Mr. Juergens
`
`Experiments I-V are not as good as or better than, the original dry design of
`
`Terasawa, because Mr. Juergens’ Experiments are only corrected for the two field
`
`points, not the entire field width.
`
`2.
`
`In Ex. 2041, on page 74, line 10 to page 78, line 9, Mr.
`
`Juergens testified that he understands the plots on page 1 and 2 of Exhibit 2036
`
`which show the RMS wavefront error for Example 2 in Terasawa and the
`
`distortion corresponding to Example 2 in Terasawa. Mr. Juergens acknowledges
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`that the RMS wavefront error for the entire ring field width is less than about 0.04
`
`NIKON CORPORATION
`Case IPR2013-00362
`
`waves RMS, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand produces
`
`a high quality image. This testimony is relevant to the Petitioner’s assertion on
`
`page 13 of its Reply (Paper No. 22) that a POSITA could have used CODE V
`
`software to redesign the optical prescription for FIG. 5 in Terasawa by adding an
`
`immersion fluid between the last lens surface and the wafer and re-optimizing to
`
`obtain an imaging performance as good as, or better than, the original dry design of
`
`Terasawa. This testimony is relevant because it shows that Mr. Juergens
`
`Experiments I-V are not as good as or better than the original dry design of
`
`Terasawa, because Mr. Juergens Experiments are only corrected for the two field
`
`points, not the entire field width, and the RMS wavefront error in all of the
`
`Experiments far exceeds 0.04 waves RMS.
`
`3.
`
`In Ex. 2041, on page 79, line 10 to page 80, line 10, Mr.
`
`Juergens testified that Ulrich teaches a lithographic system where the performance
`
`is diffraction-limited, as the RMS wavefront error shown in Figs. 8, 10, 16, and 17
`
`are all below 0.07 waves RMS over the whole field of view (i.e., field width). This
`
`testimony is relevant to the Petitioner’s assertion on page 13 of its Reply (Paper No.
`
`22) that a POSITA could have used CODE V software to redesign the optical
`
`prescription for FIG. 5 in Terasawa by adding an immersion fluid between the last
`
`lens surface and the wafer and re-optimizing to obtain an imaging performance as
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`good as, or better than, the original dry design of Terasawa. This testimony is
`
`NIKON CORPORATION
`Case IPR2013-00362
`
`relevant because it provides further evidence that Mr. Juergens Experiments I-V
`
`are not as good as or better than the original dry design of Terasawa, because Mr.
`
`Juergens Experiments are only corrected for the two field points, not the entire
`
`field width, and the RMS wavefront error in all of the Experiments far exceeds
`
`0.07 waves RMS.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: July 9, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`/John S. Kern/
`John S. Kern (Reg. No. 42,719)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
` Nikon Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NIKON CORPORATION
`Case IPR2013-00362
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S
`
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATION REGARDING SECOND CROSS
`
`EXAMINATION OF RICHARD C. JUERGENS along with PATENT OWNER’S
`
`EXHIBITS 2029-2040 were served via email (IPR24984-0056IP1@fr.com) on July
`
`9, 2014, in its entirety, on the following:
`
`Marc M. Wefers
`Chris C. Bowley
`Lawrence K. Kolodney
`Kurt L. Glitzenstein
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth St.
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`/John S. Kern/
`John S. Kern (Reg. No. 42,719)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
` Nikon Corporation
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
