throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00031
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`____________
`
`PETITIONER GOOGLE INC.’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`RESPONSE TO PETITION
`(INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,771,290 B1)
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and LYNNE E.
`PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00031
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Kikinis Discloses a “Program Stored on Said Non-Volatile Data
`Storage Device” ............................................................................................... 1
`
`A. Kikinis’ Browser Accesses Remotely Stored Files ............................... 1
`
`B. All Servers Require Software to Answer Requests .............................. 3
`
`III. Kikinis Discloses a “File Associated with [a] Selected User Link” ............... 6
`
`IV. Kikinis’ Home Page Includes User-Specific Information ............................... 9
`
`V. Kikinis Anticipates Claim 3 of the ’290 Patent ............................................. 11
`
`VI. Mr. Gray’s Testimony is Admissible ............................................................ 11
`
`VII. The PTO’s Rulemaking Authority is Not Before the Board ......................... 11
`
`VIII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases IPR2013-00031
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`STATUTES, RULES AND REGULATIONS
`
`Page(s)
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.68 ....................................................................................................... 11
`
`28 U.S.C. 1746 ......................................................................................................... 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 ........................................................................................................ 12
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 157 .................................................................................................. 2, 12
`
`MPEP § 2111.01 .................................................................................................... 2, 6
`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary ............................................................. 3, 8
`
`In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ........................................................... 2, 6
`
`Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic Ave, Inc., 511 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................... 5
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00031
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`In its Institution Decision of April 9, 2014, the Board determined that there
`
`is a reasonable likelihood that claims 2 and 3 of the ’290 Patent are anticipated
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Kikinis. Paper 9 (“Institution Decision”) at 16. In
`
`response, Patent Owner BE Tech alleges that Kikinis does not disclose (1) “a
`
`program stored on said non-volatile data storage device” that performs the
`
`functions of claim 2; (2) “[a] file associated with [a] selected user link;” and (3) a
`
`“user profile.” Paper 23 (“Response”) at pp. 1-3. BE Tech misinterprets Google
`
`and the Board’s positions, misreads Kikinis, and misstates the scope of the claims
`
`of the ’290 Patent. Accordingly, the Board should cancel claims 2 and 3 of the
`
`’290 Patent.
`
`II. Kikinis Discloses a “Program Stored on Said Non-Volatile Data Storage
`Device”
`BE Tech argues that Kikinis does not disclose a “‘program stored on [a] non-
`
`volatile data storage device’ capable of … accessing a file in responses to selection
`
`of a user-selectable item that is associated with the file” because “Kikinis utilizes
`
`programs stored on servers to perform these functions.” Response at p. 2. BE
`
`Tech’s arguments fail for at least the following reasons.
`
`A. Kikinis’ Browser Accesses Remotely Stored Files
`While BE Tech concedes that the web browser of Kikinis provides access to
`
`the user’s home page, it argues that “[t]he browser does not access the electronic
`
`1
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2013-00031
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`
`document data base without additional software programs stored on remote
`
`servers.” Response at 15. BE Tech’s rationale is that the browser “cannot access
`
`data sets or files in responses to the selection of associated user-selectable items
`
`without initiating additional server-based programs[.]” Id. at 2.
`
`
`
`By making this argument, BE Tech appears to be improperly importing
`
`additional features into the claim. See, e.g., MPEP 2111.01(II); Ir re Zletz, 893
`
`F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). For example, BE Tech appears to be incorporating
`
`“directly access” or “accessing without any intermediate steps whatsoever” into the
`
`feature of “program further being operable … to access[.]”1 In fact, BE Tech’s
`
`expert, Dr. Cory Plock, admitted that his opinion that Kikinis’ browser cannot
`
`correspond to the claimed “program” is because Kikinis’ browser does not
`
`“directly access” the data bases. Ex. 1015 (“Cross-Examination of Plock”) at 24:3-
`
`
`1 Because BE Tech did not file a preliminary response nor set forth any alternative
`
`construction of the claimed features in its response, it cannot later argue or advance
`
`alternative constructions. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. §§ 313, 316(a)(8); 77 Fed. Reg. 157
`
`(August 14, 2012) at 48766 (“The [patent owner] response should identify all the
`
`involved claims that are believed to be patentable and state the basis for that
`
`belief.”)
`
`2
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2013-00031
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`
`23.2 However, BE Tech and Dr. Plock’s readings go against the ordinary meaning
`
`of “access” and against how client-server systems work.
`
`
`
`“Access” is defined by the Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary means
`
`“to get at, [or] permission , liberty, or ability to enter, approach, communication
`
`with, or pass to and from.” Ex. 1016 at p. 3. Kikinis’ browser clearly fits this
`
`definition. Kikinis’ browser is launched to “interpret[] the Web’s hypertext
`
`markup language and provides a graphical on-screen interface including screen
`
`buttons and data-entry and display field.” Paper 1 (“Petition”) at 18; Ex. 1002 at
`
`1:26-32. After the browser is launched, the user can receive his/her home page 73
`
`“having on-screen links to electronic documents reserved for the home page
`
`‘owner’[.]” Ex. 1002 at 7:35-36. The user can select links to view, edit, save,
`
`compose or deliver electronic documents. Ex. 1002, Fig. 4; 8:2-13; 9:11-20.
`
`Accordingly, Kikinis’ browser accesses the document.
`
`B. All Servers Require Software to Answer Requests
`By improperly importing features into the claims, BE Tech is also ignoring
`
`the functions and features of the claimed “server” defined by the ’290 Patent. For
`
`2 “Access” in claim 2 does not include before it any modifiers. Rather, the claim
`
`requires “said program further being operable in response to selection by a user of
`
`one of the user links to access the file associated with the selected user link from
`
`the user library associated with the received user profile.” (Emphasis added).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2013-00031
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`
`example, the ’290 specification states that a “server” is “[a] computer on a network
`
`that stores information and that answers requests for information.” Ex. 1001,
`
`4:63-64 (emphasis added). Because Kikinis’ application program (79, 81, 85, 87)
`
`answers requests for information (i.e., retrieves files from databases), they fall
`
`within the definition of the claimed “server.”
`
`BE Tech’s expert, Dr. Plock, agrees that server software is necessarily
`
`required for client-server systems. For example, when asked if it is true that “there
`
`is no way for a web server to serve a file in response to a request without having
`
`some software that resides on that web server,” Dr. Plock confirmed “Yes, yes. On
`
`a server, software would be required[.]” Ex. 1015 (“Cross-Examination of Plock”)
`
`at 54:13-18.
`
`Kikinis’ server is implemented in a similar way as testified to by Dr. Plock
`
`and also previously discussed by Google’s expert, Mr. Stephen Gray. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1004, ¶¶61-67. Kikinis’ Web server 67 retrieves home pages 73 that are unique to
`
`the users. Ex. 1002 at Fig. 2, reproduced below. Based on the links on the home
`
`page selected by users, Common Gateway Interface modules (77, 78, 80, 82) and
`
`the various programs (79, 81, 85, 87), which together comprise the software,
`
`provide access to the files stored in the database server (69) which maintains the
`
`various databases (89, 91, 93, 95). Id. at Fig. 2; 6:32-7:10. Accordingly, the various
`
`4
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2013-00031
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`
`programs and modules described in Kikinis are server software that is part of the
`
`claimed “server” and are used to answers requests for information.
`
`
`
`
`
`To follow BE Tech’s improper reading of claim 2 would mean that a
`
`“server” would only have hardware components. As discussed, this reading
`
`contradicts the disclosure of the ’290 Patent as well as Google and BE Tech’s
`
`expert testimony. Accordingly, BE Tech’s reading would render a server,
`
`including the one in ’290 Patent’s claim 2, inoperable for its intended purpose. See
`
`Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic Ave, Inc., 511 F.3d 1157, 1174 (Fed. Cir.2008) (stating
`
`that a construction that renders the claimed invention inoperable should be viewed
`
`with extreme skepticism). For at least the above reasons, claim 2 is anticipated by
`
`Kikinis.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2013-00031
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`
`III. Kikinis Discloses a “File Associated with [a] Selected User Link”
`
`
`
`BE Tech asserts that the “’290 patent describes a ‘one-click’ system
`
`whereby a user enjoys a direct link from his or her user profile to the files stored in
`
`his or her user library.” Response at 16. To support its position, BE Tech notes that
`
`the “critical language [of claim 2] is ‘to access the file associated with the selected
`
`user link from user library’”(id. at 17, emphasis in original), and cites to the
`
`specification for additional support. Id. at 17-18. BE Tech is improperly trying to
`
`import specific limitations from the specification because nothing in the claims
`
`requires either a “direct link” or a “one-click” system. See, e.g., MPEP 2111.01(II);
`
`Ir re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`
`
`
`Despite this claim construction problem, which will be addressed below,
`
`Kikinis actually discloses a direct link. For example, Kikinis discloses and Dr.
`
`Plock agrees that Kikinis discloses a “[h]ome page 73 … having on-screen links to
`
`electronic documents reserved for the home page ‘owner’, such as e-mails and
`
`faxes.” Ex. 1002 at 7:34-8:1 (emphasis added); Ex. 1015 (“Cross-Examination of
`
`Plock”) at 66:6-20. This disclosure alone demonstrates by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that Kikinis discloses a “file associated with [a] selected user link” as
`
`required by claim 2 of the ’290 Patent.
`
`In any event, BE Tech’s position that the ’290 specification supports a
`
`“direct link” or a “one-click” system in the context of claim construction is
`
`6
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2013-00031
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`
`rendered inconsequential by the fact that the specification also discloses indirect
`
`links. For example, in the same sentence cited by BE Tech as supporting “direct
`
`link,” the specification also describes that “[t]he user has the ability to subscribe
`
`the channel by making a direct link to a file, or by combining various files under
`
`some category, or by providing a drop down list to a subscriber channel.” Ex.
`
`1001, 15:12-15 (emphasis added). Further, the ’290 Patent also discloses
`
`“bookmark category icons 80” that when selected, provides “a separate application
`
`window containing the related links is opened on the screen. Id. at 14:63-67.
`
`
`
`Figures 5b and 5c, reproduced below, illustrate an example of this indirect
`
`link.
`
`Fig. 5b shows a window “including icons that represents various files and links to
`
`information resources.” Id. at 15:48-50. When the library icon is selected, a display
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2013-00031
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`
`as shown in Fig. 5c is provided so “the user can access any of the files contained in
`
`his or her user library[.]” Id. at 15:54-57.
`
`Going back to the BE Tech’s alleged “critical language” of “to access the
`
`file associated with the selected user link from user library,” the meaning of
`
`“access” as defined by the Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, means “to
`
`get at, [or] permission , liberty, or ability to enter, approach, communication with,
`
`or pass to and from.” (Ex. 1016 at p. 3) has already been discussed and is in
`
`commensurate in scope with the disclosure of Kikinis.
`
`“Associated” also has a broad definition and means “to bring together or into
`
`relationship in any of various intangible ways[.]”Ex. 1016 at p. 4. Similarly in this
`
`definition, there is no requirement of any “one-click” system, “direct link,” or
`
`“one-to-one correspondence”3 to documents.
`
`As already discussed, Kikinis discloses that a user launches a browser,
`
`receives his/her home page, and can select links on the home page via the browser
`
`to view, edit, save, compose or deliver electronic documents. Ex. 1002, Fig. 4;
`
`
`3 During his deposition, Dr. Plock opines that the term “associated” means a “one-
`
`to-one correspondence.” Ex. 1015 (“Cross-Examination of Plock”) at 67:3-5.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2013-00031
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`
`7:34-36; 8:2-13; 9:11-20. As such, Kikinis discloses “access[ing] the file associated
`
`with the selected user link from user library,” as required by claim 2.4
`
`Google notes that BE Tech’s readings have been addressed by the 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103 ground in view of Kikinis as outlined in Google’s Petition. See Petition at
`
`30-33; Ex. 1004, ¶¶ 116-29. To the extent the Board adopts a restricted reading of
`
`the phrase “to access the file associated with the selected user link from user
`
`library,” Google respectfully requests that the Board revive Google’s Section 103
`
`ground. See Petition at 30-33.
`
`IV. Kikinis’ Home Page Includes User-Specific Information
`BE Tech alleges that Kikinis’ individual users’ home pages cannot
`
`correspond to the claimed “user profile” because “there is no mention of any ‘user-
`
`specific information’ found within the home page.” Response at 23. This is
`
`incorrect.
`
`As BE Tech correctly acknowledges, “profile” as defined in the ’290 Patent
`
`and confirmed by the Board means “[u]ser-specific information relating to an
`
`4 Dr. Plock does not appear to disagree that Kikinis discloses at least an “indirect
`
`access” of a home page owner’s files. Dr. Plock opined that in order for a home
`
`page owner’s to access his/her files, he would have to click on one of the buttons
`
`117, 118, 120, 122 on his/her home page. Ex. 1015 (“Cross-Examination of
`
`Plock”) at 71:19-72:13.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2013-00031
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`
`individual using a computer.” Id. at 23; Ex. 1001 at 4:52-53; Institution Decision at
`
`9. Kikinis explicitly discloses that “[a] home page is a graphical interface unique to
`
`an individual user, and [] functions in part as a table of contents.” Ex. 1002 at 2:3-
`
`5. Indeed, Kikinis explains that its home page interface comprises “indicia
`
`identifying the home page owner[.]” Id. at 3:2-4. Accordingly, these unique indicia
`
`corresponds to “user-specific information relating to an individual using a
`
`computer.” Dr. Plock does not disagree with this conclusion but rather makes the
`
`strained argument that Kikinis’ user accessing a home page is not necessarily the
`
`home page’s owner. Ex. 1015 (“Cross-Examination of Plock”) at 41:15-42:1.
`
`However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a home page
`
`owner activating an on-screen window is the same person to whom the on-screen
`
`window was first presented to. See Ex. 1002 at 3:6-11.
`
` BE Tech also takes issue with the links provided on Kikinis’ home page
`
`because these links are not “user-specific” but rather “software links” used by
`
`every user of the Kikinis system. Response at 24. While it is true that Kikinis
`
`discloses the links using CGI to translate HTML into particular data base language
`
`(Ex. 1002 at 7:13-14), these links are still “user-specific” as they contain specific
`
`information unique to a user that allows access to his/her own electronic
`
`documents. Ex. 1002 at 7:34-8:1. That is, the CGI is the translation medium that
`
`translates user-specific requests to data base language.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00031
`
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`For at least the above reasons, Kikinis’ home page corresponds to the
`
`claimed “user-profile.”
`
`V. Kikinis Anticipates Claim 3 of the ’290 Patent
`As discussed in the Petition, Kikinis’ browser is used to access the associated
`
`
`information resource over the network. Petition at 29-30. BE Tech does not
`
`provide additional arguments outside of the ones addressed above. Accordingly,
`
`for the same reasons Kikinis anticipates claim 2, it also anticipates claim 3.
`
`VI. Mr. Gray’s Testimony is Admissible
`While not an issue in this proceeding, BE Tech alleges that Mr. Gray’s
`
`testimony in a related proceeding (IPR2014-00033) is not admissible in because it
`
`does not include an oath or affidavit sufficient under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 or 28 U.S.C.
`
`1746. See IPR2014-00033, Paper 23 (“Response”) at 26. BE Tech fails to
`
`acknowledge that Mr. Gray testified under oath during his depositions that the
`
`opinions contained in his declarations are his own. See Ex. 2003, pp. 89-92, 295-
`
`96, 352-53. Out of an abundance of caution, Mr. Gray has submitted a new
`
`declaration confirming the same. Ex. 1017. Accordingly, Mr. Gray’s testimony is
`
`admissible.
`
`VII. The PTO’s Rulemaking Authority is Not Before the Board
`
`BE Tech concludes its Response by advancing the argument that the PTO
`
`does not have substantive rulemaking authority to adopt the Broadest Reasonable
`
`Interpretation (“BRI”) standard commonly used by the Board. Response at 25-27.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Cases IPR2013-00031
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`
`Yet this issue is not before the Board in this proceeding and acknowledged by BE
`
`Tech as pending before the Federal Circuit. Id. at 25.
`
`
`
`Petitioner notes that BE Tech failed to provide a proposed claim
`
`construction standard that would change the application of Kikinis to the claims of
`
`the ’290 Patent. In fact, BE Tech failed to explicitly provide any claim construction
`
`at all. Accordingly, BE Tech cannot later advance alternative claim constructions
`
`and its BRI argument is irrelevant to this proceeding. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. §
`
`316(a)(8); 77 Fed. Reg. 157 (August 14, 2012) at 48766.
`
`VIII. Conclusion
`
`
`
`For at least the above reasons, the Board should cancel claims 2 and 3 of the
`
`’290 Patent as being anticipated by Kikinis.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 10, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Clinton H. Brannon/
`
`Clinton H. Brannon
`
`Reg. No. 57,887
`
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`
`1999 K Street, NW
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Google Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`
`UPDATED EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Cases IPR2013-00031
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`Exhibit #
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`(NEW)
`1016
`(NEW)
`1017
`(NEW)
`
`Reference Name
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290
`International Publication No. WO 97/09682 to Kikinis
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,214 to Subrahmanyam
`Declaration of Stephen Gray
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290
`Barry M. Leiner et al., Brief History of the Internet, Internet
`Society (Oct. 15, 2012),
`http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/Brief_Histor
`y_of_the_Internet.pdf
`“Hypertext Markup Language,” Network Working Group
`Request for Comments 1866, November 1995
`September 2012 Web Server Survey, Netcraft.com,
`http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2012/09/10/september-
`2012-web-server-survey.html (last visited Sep. 28, 2013)
`“The Common Gateway Interface (CGI) Version 1.1,”
`Network Working Group Request for Comments 3875,
`October 2004
`Application Server Product Vendors, Service-
`Architecture.com, http://www.service-
`architecture.com/products/application_servers.html (last
`visited Sep. 28, 2013)
`“HTTP State Management Mechanism,” Network Working
`Group Request for Comments 2109, February 1997
`“HTTP State Management Mechanism,” Network Working
`Group Request for Comments 6265, April 2011
`“Specification of Internet Transmission Control Program,”
`Network Working Group Request for Comments 675,
`December 1974
`Stephen Gray Curriculum Vitae
`Deposition Transcript of Cory Plock , August 19-20, 2014
`
`Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, selected pages,
`(10th ed. 1996)
`Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Gray
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Cases IPR2013-00031
`Patent 6,771,290 B1
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), I, Clinton Brannon, hereby certify that a
`
`copy of the foregoing PETITIONER GOOGLE INC.’S REPLY TO PATENT
`
`OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION has been served via electronic mail
`
`transmission on the Attorney of Record for related inter partes review petitions of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290 (No. IPR2014-00031) at the following address:
`
`Jason S. Angell
`Robert E. Freitas
`Daniel J. Weinberg
`Jessica N. Leal
`FREITAS ANGELL & WEINBERG LLP
`350 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`jangell@fawlaw.com
`rfreitas@fawlaw.com
`dweinberg@fawlaw.com
`jleal@fawlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 10, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Clinton H. Brannon/
`
`Clinton H. Brannon
`
`Reg. No. 57,887
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`1
`
`

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