throbber
Paper 11
`Filed: August 29, 2014
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`—————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`—————
`
`WEBASTO ROOF SYSTEMS, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`—————
`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`Patent 7,579,802
`
`—————
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b)
`
`Attorney Docket: 130163.231151
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`
`Page
`Introduction and Statement of Requested Relief ............................................. 1 
`Statement of Material Facts ............................................................................. 3 
`Statement of Reasons for Requested Relief .................................................... 5 
`A. 
`Legal Standard ....................................................................................... 5 
`B. 
`Argument ............................................................................................... 6 
`1. 
`Partial Consolidation is Appropriate ........................................... 6 
`2.  WRSI’s Joinder Request Only Raises Limited New
`Grounds of Unpatentability ......................................................... 9 
`Joinder Would Have No Impact or Minimal Impact on
`the Trial Schedule for the Existing Review .............................. 10 
`Joinder Would Simplify Briefing and Discovery ..................... 11 
`4. 
`IV.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 13 
`
`
`3. 
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`I.
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Petitioner Webasto Roof Systems, Inc. (“WRSI”) hereby requests joinder in
`
`Brose North America, Inc. and Brose Fahrzeugteile GmbH & Co. Kg, Hallstadt v.
`
`UUSI, LLC, Case IPR2014-00417 (“the 417 IPR”). See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b). Both WRSI’s IPR2014-00650 (“the 650 IPR”) and
`
`Brose North America, Inc. and Brose Fahrzeugteile GmbH & Co. KG, Hallstadt’s
`
`(collectively, “Brose’s”) 417 IPR involve the same patent: US 7,579,802 (“the
`
`’802 patent”). WRSI’s petition in the present 650 IPR involves some overlap in
`
`invalidity positions and prior art with Brose’s 417 IPR, which was instituted on
`
`August 1, 2014.
`
`Brose’s 417 IPR was instituted against claims 1, 6-9, and 14 on multiple
`
`grounds involving Itoh (US 4,870,333), Kinzl (US 4,468,596), or both, including
`
`obviousness based on Itoh and Kinzl. See IPR2014-00417, Paper 11 at 5, 26.
`
`WRSI’s 650 IPR petition asserts obviousness of claims 1, 6-9, and 15-16 based on
`
`Itoh and Kinzl. See IPR2014-00650, Paper 4 at 10-25. WRSI also asserts
`
`obviousness of claim 11 based on Itoh, Kinzl, and Jones (US 4,831,509). See id. at
`
`25-27. The remaining grounds in WRSI’s petition involve either Itoh or Kinzl:
`
`obviousness of claims 1, 6-9, and 15-16 based on Lamm (DE 4000730A1) and
`
`Itoh; obviousness of claim 11 based on Lamm, Itoh and Duhame (US 5,218,282);
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`and obviousness of claims 1, 6-9, 11 and 15-16 based on Duhame and Kinzl. See
`
`id. at 28-60.
`
`WRSI requests that its assertion of obviousness of claims 1 and 6-9 based on
`
`Itoh and Kinzl be consolidated with Brose’s 417 IPR, which has already been
`
`instituted on the same grounds against the same claims. For efficiency, WRSI also
`
`requests that (a) obviousness of claims 15-16 based on Itoh and Kinzl and (b)
`
`obviousness of claim 11 based on Itoh, Kinzl, and Jones be consolidated with
`
`Brose’s 417 IPR. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c)-(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122. This partial
`
`consolidation would permit all claims asserted to be obvious based on
`
`combinations involving Itoh and Kinzl as primary references to be addressed in
`
`one proceeding.
`
`Although WRSI would not oppose consolidation of the remaining grounds
`
`of its 650 IPR petition with Brose’s 417 IPR, WRSI believes that this would not
`
`provide as much efficiency because the other grounds involve additional primary
`
`references. WRSI is also concerned that full consolidation would result in an
`
`excessively large proceeding and lead to scheduling difficulties. WRSI therefore
`
`respectfully proposes that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) find that it
`
`would not be reasonable to permit those other grounds to be raised in Brose’s 417
`
`IPR, and instead address those grounds in WRSI’s 650 IPR petition independently.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`WRSI has consulted Brose and Patent Owner. Brose has not taken a
`
`position on this motion at this time. Patent Owner may oppose some aspects of the
`
`proposed partial consolidation.
`
`II.
`
`1.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`UUSI filed suit against Brose North America alleging infringement of the
`
`’802 patent and served the complaint on February 7, 2013. See IPR2014-00417,
`
`Paper 4 at 1.
`
`2.
`
`A little over two months later, UUSI filed suit against WRSI alleging
`
`infringement of the ’802 patent and served the complaint on April 16, 2013. See
`
`UUSI, LLC v. Webasto Roof Sys., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-11704 (E.D. Mich.).
`
`3.
`
`On February 7, 2014, Brose filed its original 417 IPR petition. See
`
`IPR2014-00417, Paper 2.
`
`4.
`
`On April 16, 2014, WRSI filed its petition in the present 650 IPR. See
`
`IPR2014-00650, Paper 2. A chart of the invalidity grounds set forth in WRSI’s
`
`650 IPR petition is provided below.
`
`Claims
`Grounds
`
`1, 6-9, and 15-16
`A Itoh and Kinzl
`11
`B Itoh, Kinzl, and Jones
`1, 6-9, and 15-16
`C Lamm and Itoh
`D Lamm, Itoh, and Duhame 11
`E Duhame and Kinzl
`1, 6-9, 11, and 15-16
`
`See id., Paper 4 at 10-60.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`5.
`On July 24, 2014, Patent Owner filed its preliminary response to WRSI’s
`
`650 IPR petition. See id., Paper 9.
`
`6.
`
`On August 1, 2014, the Board instituted Brose’s 417 IPR. A chart of the
`
`grounds instituted by the Board is provided below.
`
`Grounds
`
`Itoh (anticipation)
`A
`Itoh (obviousness)
`B
`C Kinzl (anticipation)
`D Kinzl (obviousness)
`E
`Itoh and Kinzl
`F
`Itoh and Zuckerman
`G
`Itoh, Kinzl, and Zuckerman
`
`Claims
`1, 7-9, and 14
`1, 6-9, and 14
`7, 9, and 14
`7, 9, and 14
`1, 6-9, and 14
`7-9 and 14
`7-9 and 14
`
`See IPR2014-00417, Paper 11 at 26.
`
`7.
`
`Both WRSI’s 650 IPR petition and Brose’s instituted 417 IPR raise
`
`obviousness of claims 1 and 6-9 based on Itoh and Kinzl. See IPR2014-00417,
`
`Paper 11 at 26; IPR2014-00650, Paper 4 at 10-25.
`
`8. WRSI’s 650 IPR petition additionally raises obviousness of claims 15-16
`
`(which are not currently at issue in Brose’s 417 IPR) based on Itoh and Kinzl. See
`
`IPR2014-00650, Paper 4, at 10-25. WRSI’s invalidity arguments against
`
`independent claim 15 are very similar to those against independent claim 7. See id.
`
`at 23-25 (referring to the elements of claim 7 for all but one element of claim 15).
`
`Claim 16 is dependent on claim 15.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`9.
`In Patent Owner’s preliminary response, Patent Owner argued against
`
`combining Itoh and Kinzl but raised no argument specific to claim 15 or 16. See
`
`IPR2014-00650, Paper 9 at 4-5.
`
`10. WRSI’s 650 IPR petition also asserts obviousness of claim 11 (which is not
`
`currently at issue in Brose’s 417 IPR) in view of Itoh, Kinzl, and Jones. See
`
`IPR2014-00650, Paper 4, at 25-27. Claim 11 is dependent on claim 7. WRSI
`
`relies on Itoh and Kinzl for all elements of claim 7. See IPR2014-00650, Paper 4
`
`at 17-22. WRSI relies on Jones only for the additional features recited by claim
`
`11. See id. at 25-27.
`
`11. The remaining grounds in WRSI’s 650 IPR petition involve either Itoh or
`
`Kinzl in combination with other primary references. See IPR2014-00650, Paper 4,
`
`at 28-60.
`
`12. This motion is timely because it is submitted within one month of the
`
`August 1, 2014 institution date of the Brose’s 417 IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`A. Legal Standard
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) authorizes joinder of a petitioner to an IPR after the
`
`patent owner has filed a preliminary response:
`
`If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his
`or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any
`person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`Director, after receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or
`the expiration of the time for filing such a response, determines
`warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314.
`
`The Board has discretion to determine how handle multiple proceedings, including
`
`transfer or consolidation of proceedings. See id. § 315(d); see also 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.122(a). The Board construes its rules “to secure the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b); see also
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., IPR2013-00109, Paper 15 at 4 (Feb. 25, 2013).
`
`In determining whether to exercise its discretion to order joinder, the Board
`
`considers a number of factors, including (1) why joinder is appropriate; (2) any
`
`new ground of unpatentability; (3) the impact, if any, joinder would have on the
`
`trial schedule for the existing review; and (4) how briefing and discovery may be
`
`simplified. See Kyocera Corp. v. SoftView LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4
`
`(Apr. 24, 2013).
`
`B. Argument
`1.
`Partial Consolidation is Appropriate
`The Board is authorized to join WRSI as a party in the 417 IPR because the
`
`417 IPR has been instituted and Patent Owner has filed its preliminary response to
`
`WRSI’s 650 IPR petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). Partial consolidation is
`
`appropriate “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of” the 417 and
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`650 IPR proceedings. 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b); see also Microsoft, IPR2013-00109,
`
`Paper 15 at 4.
`
`First, WRSI’s ground of invalidity based on Itoh and Kinzl against claims 1
`
`and 6-9 should be consolidated with the same ground already instituted against the
`
`same claims in the 417 IPR. It would be more efficient and inexpensive to address
`
`the invalidity of those claims one time in the 417 IPR based on this combination,
`
`rather than address the same claims based on the same combination in two separate
`
`proceedings. See, e.g., Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00629, Paper 18 at 2 (June 30, 2014) (“This joinder involves two
`
`proceedings that address the same claims of the same patent using the same
`
`grounds.”).
`
`Second, WRSI’s ground of invalidity based on Itoh and Kinzl against claims
`
`15-16 should be consolidated with the 417 IPR. It would be more efficient and
`
`inexpensive to address these two additional claims in the 417 IPR, rather than have
`
`different proceedings for different claims based on the same combination of prior
`
`art. See Enzymotec Ltd. v. Neptune Technologies and Bioresources, Inc., IPR2014-
`
`00556, Paper 72 at 5 (July 24, 2014) (granting joinder, explaining, “Enzymotec’s
`
`assertion that claims 2 and 25, as well as claims 3 and 26, are unpatentable as
`
`anticipated is based on the prior art already of record in IPR2014-00003. Thus, we
`
`are persuaded that the impact of joinder on the previous proceeding will be
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`minimal from both a procedural and substantive view point.”). Moreover, WRSI’s
`
`invalidity arguments against independent claim 15 are very similar to those against
`
`independent claim 7. See IPR2014-00650, Paper 4 at 23-25 (referring to the
`
`elements of claim 7 for all but one element of claim 15). Patent Owner only raised
`
`general arguments against invalidity based on Itoh and Kinzl, not any arguments
`
`specific to claims 15-16. See id., Paper 9 at 4-5. Therefore, there is no reason to
`
`expect that claims 15-16 will present any significant new issues.
`
`Third, WRSI’s ground of invalidity based on Itoh, Kinzl, and Jones against
`
`claim 11 should be consolidated with the 417 IPR. Claim 11 is dependent on claim
`
`7, and WRSI relies on Itoh and Kinzl for all elements of claim 7. See IPR2014-
`
`00650, Paper 4 at 17-22. WRSI relies on Jones only for the additional features
`
`recited by claim 11. See id. at 25-27. It would be more efficient and inexpensive
`
`to address the invalidity of dependent claim 11 in the 417 IPR than to address this
`
`dependent claim in a separate proceeding, given that the same combination of prior
`
`art is asserted against the base independent claim in the 417 IPR. See Wintek Corp.
`
`v. TPK Touch Solutions, Inc., IPR2014-00541, Paper 14 at 3 (June 17, 2014)
`
`(granting joinder, explaining, “The ’902 patent is involved in each of IPR2014-
`
`00541 and IPR2014-00567, as noted above, and there is overlap in the cited prior
`
`art in the two proceedings.”).
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`WRSI does not request further consolidation, although WRSI would not
`
`oppose any reasonable approach that the Board believes would simplify the
`
`proceedings. WRSI respectfully suggests that the Board should deny full
`
`consolidation of the 650 IPR petition with the 417 IPR. WRSI’s remaining
`
`grounds of invalidity in the 650 IPR petition involve primary prior art references
`
`that are not at issue in the 417 IPR. WRSI does not believe that consolidating
`
`those grounds in the 417 IPR would provide comparable efficiency benefits.
`
`Furthermore, WRSI is concerned that full consolidation would complicate, rather
`
`than simplify, the proceedings by creating an excessively large IPR proceeding and
`
`attendant scheduling challenges.
`
`Consequently, WRSI respectfully proposes that the Board decide that WRSI
`
`cannot raise those remaining grounds in the 417 IPR, and independently address
`
`those grounds in its Decision on Institution of WRSI’s 650 IPR petition.
`
`2. WRSI’s Joinder Request Only Raises Limited New
`Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`As to claims 1 and 6-9, WRSI’s proposed consolidation raises no new
`
`grounds of unpatentability. The only new grounds of unpatentability which WRSI
`
`proposes should be addressed in the 417 IPR are (1) invalidity of claims 15-16
`
`based on Itoh and Kinzl and (2) invalidity of claim 11 based on Itoh, Kinzl, and
`
`Jones. WRSI submits that it would be more efficient and economical to address
`
`these few additional claims in the 417 IPR than in a separate proceeding for the
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`reasons stated above. See Enzymotec, IPR2014-00556, Paper 72 at 5-6; Wintek,
`
`IPR2014-00541, Paper 14 at 3.
`
`3.
`
`Joinder Would Have No Impact or Minimal Impact on the
`Trial Schedule for the Existing Review
`
`WRSI does not request any extension of the trial schedule which has already
`
`been proposed for the 417 IPR, and would coordinate with Brose and Patent
`
`Owner regarding any scheduling adjustments. WRSI further believes that the
`
`partial consolidation WRSI has proposed above should have little, if any, impact
`
`on the trial schedule for the 417 IPR.
`
`The Board has already decided to institute a trial as to claims 1 and 6-9
`
`based on the combination of Itoh and Kinzl in the 417 IPR. Since Patent Owner
`
`has filed its preliminary response in the 650 IPR, the Board is free to institute as to
`
`other claims and to consolidate those claims into the 417 IPR. See 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(c)-(d); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a). The Board would only need to
`
`institute on claims 15-16 based on Itoh and Kinzl and on claim 11 based on Itoh,
`
`Kinzl, and Jones. Independent claim 15 is very similar to independent claim 7, as
`
`to which the Board has already instituted a trial based on Itoh and Kinzl. Claims
`
`11 and 16 are short dependent claims that only add specific features. The Board
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`can institute on these claims on these specific grounds in WRSI’s 650 petition,
`
`while addressing the remainder of WRSI’s 650 petition at a later date.1
`
`Moreover, there is ample room in the schedule to move back initial
`
`deadlines by a month or more, if necessary, to permit the partial consolidation.
`
`The ’802 patent will expire in November 2014 and therefore Patent Owner will not
`
`be able to seek amendment of the claims. In the Board’s proposed schedule, there
`
`are twelve weeks between the close of briefing on the petition and the date for oral
`
`argument. These twelve weeks primarily are used to accommodate: reply briefing
`
`on a motion to amend, a deposition of a reply witness on the motion to amend,
`
`observations on the cross-examination of the reply witness, and responses to the
`
`observations. Since the Board will not need to decide any motion to amend, there
`
`is no time needed for any of those activities. DUE DATES 1-2 could be moved
`
`back at least a month without any impact on the remainder of the schedule.
`
`Joinder Would Simplify Briefing and Discovery
`
`4.
`The partial consolidation WRSI proposes would simply briefing and
`
`discovery because invalidity grounds based on Itoh and Kinzl as primary
`
`references would not need to be briefed twice, in separate proceedings.
`
`1 The deadline for the Board’s decision on institution of WRSI’s 650 petition is
`
`October 24, 2014, because Patent Owner filed its preliminary response on July 24,
`
`2014. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b).
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`To simply the proceedings, WRSI is willing to withdraw the portions of the
`
`declaration of its expert, Dr. Hamid A. Toliyat, see IPR2014-650, Exhibit 1003,
`
`that relate to the grounds already addressed by Brose’s expert, Dr. C. Arthur
`
`MacCarley, see IPR2014-417, Exhibit 1001. See, e.g., SAP America Inc. v.
`
`Clouding IP, LLC, IPR2014-00306, Paper 13 at 4 (May 19, 2014) (“SAP has stated
`
`that it will withdraw the declaration of Dr. Grimshaw, which was submitted in
`
`support of SAP’s Petition in IPR2014-00306, and instead rely on the declaration of
`
`Dr. Hutchinson, which was submitted in support of Unified’s Petition in IPR2013-
`
`00586.”).
`
`Accordingly, Dr. MacCarley would address the grounds already instituted in
`
`the 417 IPR, and Dr. Toliyat would only address the additional grounds raised by
`
`WRSI’s petition with respect to claim 11 and 15-16. If the Board adopts this
`
`approach and also separately institutes the remaining grounds raised by WRSI’s
`
`petition in a separate proceeding, WRSI proposes that the parties can coordinate to
`
`make Dr. Toliyat available for a single deposition for both proceedings within the
`
`ordinary time limits.
`
`WRSI also proposes that WRSI and Brose can coordinate to file
`
`consolidated papers with respect to the consolidated grounds. See, e.g.,
`
`Enzymotec, IPR2014-00556, Paper 72 at 8 (“Aker and Enzymotec will file papers,
`
`except for motions that do not involve the other party, as consolidated filings.”).
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`WRSI is willing to allow Brose to take the lead with respect to these consolidated
`
`papers, and to only file separate papers, limited to 7 pages, to express any separate
`
`views and the few additional claims. See, e.g., id. (“Aker will identify each such
`
`filing as a consolidated filing and will be responsible for completing all
`
`consolidated filings. Enzymotec may file an additional paper, not to exceed seven
`
`pages ….”). If WRSI were to file such a separate paper, Patent Owner could be
`
`permitted a corresponding number of pages to respond to the separate paper. See,
`
`e.g., id. (“Neptune may respond separately to any separate Enzymotec filing. Any
`
`such response by Neptune to an Enzymotec filing may not exceed the number of
`
`pages in the Enzymotec filing and is limited to issues raised in the Enzymotec
`
`filing….”). Similarly, WRSI is willing to allow Brose to take the lead at the
`
`hearing and to only make separate arguments on points where WRSI has separate
`
`views, if any, and to address the few additional claims.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, WRSI respectfully requests that the Board:
`
`(1) institute WRSI’s 650 IPR petition as to claims 1, 6-9, and 15-16 based on
`
`Itoh and Kinzl and claim 11 based on Itoh, Kinzl and Jones;
`
`(2) consolidate those grounds of invalidity against those claims with the 417
`
`IPR;
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`(3) join WRSI to the 417 IPR for the purpose of participating as to those
`
`grounds;
`
`(4) deny full consolidation of WRSI’s 650 IPR petition with the 417 IPR;
`
`and
`
`(5) render a decision on institution of the remainder of WRSI’s 650 IPR
`
`petition in due course.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 29, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Charles H. Sanders
`Charles H. Sanders
`Reg. No. 47,053
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case IPR2014-00650
`U.S. Patent 7,579,802
`
`Atty. Docket: 130163.231151
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on August 29, 2014, (1) a copy of the
`
`foregoing Motion for Joinder was served by email directed to the attorneys of
`
`record for Patent Owner in the 650 IPR at the following addresses:
`
`Monte L. Falcoff (mlfalcoff@hdp.com)
`Hemant M. Keskar (hkeskar@hdp.com)
`HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
`
`and (2) a courtesy copy was provided by email directed to the attorneys of record
`
`in the 417 IPR at the following addresses:
`
`Monte L. Falcoff (mlfalcoff@hdp.com)
`Michael R. Nye (mnye@hdp.com)
`Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C.
`Attorneys for Patent Owner UUSI, LLC
`
`Craig D. Leavell (craig.leavell@kirkland.com)
`Alyse Wu (alyse.wu@kirkland.com)
`Kirkland & Ellis LLP
`Attorneys for Petitioners Brose North America, Inc.
`and Brose Fahrzeugteile GmbH & Co KG, Hallstadt
`
`
`
`Dated: August 29, 2014
`
`
`
`/s/ Charles H. Sanders
`Charles H. Sanders
`Reg. No. 47,053

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