throbber
Thomas Engellenner
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`125 High Street
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`Boston, MA 02110
`(617) 204-5100 (telephone)
`(617) 204-5150 (facsimile)
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,
`and
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., and LG
`ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`BLACK HILLS MEDIA, LLC
`Patent Owner
`___________________
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00717
`Case No. IPR2015-00335
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`___________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS
`REGARDING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER’S
`REPLY WITNESS KEVIN C. ALMEROTH, PH.D.
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`Exhibit #
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`Previously filed
`
`UPDATED TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description
`Redacted Rebuttal Witness Statement of Mr. Ivan
`Zatkovich for Investigation No. 337-TA-882 at the
`United States International Trade Commission
`(“Zatkovich Rebuttal Witness Statement”)
`Proposed Discovery Requests
`
`Mobile Application Distribution Agreement
`Complaint in Black Hills Media, LLC v. Samsung
`Elecs. Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2:13-cv-00379 (E.D.
`Tex.).
`Complaint Under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of
`1930, As Amended, & Attached Infringement Chart.
`Select Internet Web pages from en.wikipedia.org.
`Google Inc.’s Motion to Intervene in International
`Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-882
`(ITC Jul. 26, 2013).
`ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-882 Prehearing
`Conference Transcript, Aug. 6, 2013
`Transcript of Proceedings before the Hon. Lucy H.
`Koh for Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No.
`12-cv-00630 (N.D. Ca. June 18, 2014), ECF No. 1926
`(hereinafter “Apple v. Samsung Tr.”).
`Transcript of Deposition of Justin Denison (Plaintiff’s
`Exhibit No. 3001) for Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs.
`Co., Ltd., No. 12-cv-00630 (N.D. Ca. June 16, 2014),
`ECF No. 1920 (hereinafter “Denison Dep. Tr.”).
`Select Internet Web Pages from samsung.com
`Claim Charts Illustrating Infringement of U.S. Patent
`6,618,593 in Black Hills Media, LLC v. Samsung
`Elecs. Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2:13-cv-00379 (E.D.
`Tex.), served on August 22, 2013.
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`UPDATED TABLE OF EXHIBITS (CONTINUED)
`
`Previously filed (continued)
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Declaration of William O. Putnam.
`
`Selected portions of the Microsoft Computer
`Dictionary, 4th Edition, Microsoft Press, 1999.
`
`Selected portions of PC Magazine Encyclopedia
`(http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia), accessed
`February 18, 2015.
`
`“PointCast unveils free news service,” Rose Aguilar,
`CNET News, February 13, 1996,
`http://news.cnet.com/PointCast-unveils-free-news-
`service/2100-1023_3-204658.html (accessed
`February 23, 2015).
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Kevin C. Almeroth,
`Ph.D., dated February 3, 2015.
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`
`
`New
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Kevin C. Almeroth,
`Ph.D., dated June 16, 2015.
`
`Exhibit #
`
`2018
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`As authorized by the Board’s December 18, 2014 Scheduling Order (Paper
`
`28), Black Hills Media, LLC (“Patent Owner”) respectfully submits the following
`
`observations on the June 16, 2015 deposition of Kevin C. Almeroth, Ph.D., and
`
`requests that the Board enter this Motion for Observations Regarding Cross-
`
`Examination of Petitioner’s Reply Witness, Kevin C. Almeroth, Ph.D. Office
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 at 48767–68 (August 14, 2012).1
`
`1. Observation #1
`
`In Exhibit 2018, page 308, lines 1-23, Dr. Almeroth testified that “I don't
`
`think it’s necessarily accurate to say that claim 1 [of the ‘686 Patent] requires a
`
`search because we haven't really defined what ‘search’ is.· We haven't looked at
`
`the question of whether or not there are ways of accomplishing claim 1 that doesn't
`
`require some vague and as yet defined term for what ‘search’ is.· I just don't
`
`think it's a reasonable way to try and characterize what claim 1 is -- [ ] --generally
`
`speaking.” (Emphasis added). This testimony is relevant to ¶21 of Dr. Almeroth’s
`
`second declaration (Ex. 1017), in which he objected to Patent Owner’s expert’s
`
`citation to a definition of the noun “search” instead of “the term ‘search’ as an
`
`adjective.”
`
`1 The Transcript of Deposition of Kevin C. Almeroth, Ph.D., dated June 16, 2015,
`
`is submitted herewith as Exhibit 2018. All exhibits to the deposition have already
`
`been made of record and are not filed again pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(d).
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`2. Observation #2
`
`In Exhibit 2018, page 328, lines 10-22, Dr. Almeroth testified that Patent
`
`Owner’s expert cited to a dictionary definition of the search that “suggests that the
`
`target of the search is a particular file or the location of a file,” and further that
`
`such an interpretation “might exclude every single embodiment in the ‘686 patent.·
`
`I don't recall if the ‘686 patent ever has an embodiment where you’re searching for
`
`a particular file.” This testimony is relevant to ¶22 of Dr. Almeroth’s second
`
`declaration (Ex. 1017), in which he alleges that “Mr. Putnam’s interpretation of
`
`these definitions seems to imply that a particular file has to be the focus of the
`
`search. See, e.g., ‘search (noun)’ and ‘search (verb)’ in Exhibit 2013 ¶ 29,
`
`suggesting that the target of the search is ‘a particular file’ or ‘the location of a
`
`file’,” and to Patent Owner’s expert’s testimony at ¶46 of Ex. 2013 which cites to
`
`the definition of search (noun) as “[t]he process of seeking a particular file or
`
`specific data” and of search (verb) as “[t]o seek specific data within a file or data
`
`structure…”
`
`3. Observation #3
`
`In Exhibit 2018, page 310, line 4 through page 312, line 23, Dr. Almeroth
`
`testified that “I am not sure that I had a specific term in mind other than if you just
`
`look at claim 1 and generally the terms under the broadest reasonable construction”
`
`when asked what term he was construing under the broadest reasonable
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`construction in making the statement that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time would have understood that there is no indication in the plain language of
`
`the claims that requires the use of a “pull-based searching approach,” especially
`
`under the broadest reasonable construction standard. (Id. ¶ 38 (emphasis in
`
`original))” in ¶7 of his second expert declaration (Ex. 2013). This testimony is
`
`relevant to the section in Patent Owner’s Response at pages 39-41 entitled
`
`“Petitioner’s Declarant Did Not Scrutinize The Language Of The Challenged
`
`Claims Or The Application Of Reilly Thereto.”
`
`4. Observation #4
`
`In Exhibit 2018, page 306, line 11 through page 307, line 2, Dr. Almeroth
`
`testified that “I haven’t set out to define what the term ‘search’ would be in the
`
`eyes of a person of skill in the art.· I think I have opined on what a search agent
`
`is, and that’s included in my declaration. And then I’ve provided a variety of
`
`responses to what Mr. Putnam has attempted to do by separately using dictionary
`
`definitions of ‘search’ and then ‘agent’ and then trying to combine those
`
`definitions together, and why both his process is faulty and why his ultimate
`
`conclusion does not meet the broadest reasonable construction standard.” This
`
`testimony is relevant to the section in Patent Owner’s Response at pages 39-41
`
`entitled “Petitioner’s Declarant Did Not Scrutinize The Language Of The
`
`Challenged Claims Or The Application Of Reilly Thereto” and to Patent Owner’s
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`expert’s testimony that “Petitioner’s proposed definition is unreasonably broad in
`
`scope . . . and completely overlooks the distinguishing features of a ‘search’
`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`agent. . . .” (Ex. 2013 at ¶31).
`
`5. Observation #5
`
`In Exhibit 2018, page 311, lines 10-18, Dr. Almeroth testified that “[w]hat
`
`I’m saying is if you apply the broadest reasonable construction standard, then there
`
`aren’t any terms that I can see within the ‘686 patent where you can provide a hook
`
`that says that there’s a pull-based searching approach.” This testimony is relevant
`
`to Patent Owner’s expert’s testimony that “a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand that a search agent is a particular type of program that seeks or
`
`searches for specific information on behalf of a user based on a defined set of
`
`search criteria” (Ex. 2013 at ¶31) and that in the ‘686 Patent “[t]he method of
`
`locating and retrieving the desired information makes use of a search agent – a
`
`computer program configured to locate and retrieve specific information.” (Ex.
`
`2013 at ¶39).
`
`6. Observation #6
`
`In Exhibit 2018, page 344, line 2-5, Dr. Almeroth testified that he had “not
`
`gone through and looked at an OCR PDF to see if the word ‘search’ ever appears
`
`anywhere” in Reilly. This testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s observation in
`
`the Response that “Reilly does not once utilize the word “search” or its
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`derivatives.” (Paper 36 at 24, emphasis added).
`
`7. Observation #7
`
`In Exhibit 2018, page 308, lines 1-23, Dr. Almeroth testified that “I don't
`
`think it’s necessarily accurate to say that claim 1 [of the ‘686 Patent] requires a
`
`search because we haven't really defined what ‘search’ is.· We haven't looked at
`
`the question of whether or not there are ways of accomplishing claim 1 that doesn't
`
`require some vague and as yet defined term for what ‘search’ is.” This passage is
`
`relevant to his testimony in Exhibit 2018, page 343, line 23 through page 344, line
`
`10, in which Dr. Almeroth testified that it wouldn’t surprise him if the word
`
`“search” did not appear in Reilly, and further that “I don’t think it needs to. I don’t
`
`-- I think it can describe what it’s doing without actually using the word ‘search.’”
`
`8. Observation #8
`
`In Exhibit 2018, page 342, line 24 through page 343, line 7, in response to
`
`the question “in Figure 5 [of Ex. 1003, Reilly] where you’ve got the football news,
`
`the ‘include’ and ‘exclude filters’ on the side, do you see that?,” Dr. Almeroth
`
`responded “You've characterized them as filters.· I'm not sure that that's correct.”
`
`This testimony is relevant because it is inconsistent with Dr. Almeroth’s assertion
`
`in his first declaration (Ex. 1005) with regard to the same disclosure in Reilly that
`
`“[t]he data structure can additionally include a filter based on keywords entered
`
`by the user that causes the retrieval of news items in the relevant user-preferred
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`categories that include the keywords entered by the user. Id. at 9:50-58.” (Ex.
`
`1005 at ¶27, emphasis added). Dr. Almeroth’s testimony at page 342, line 24
`
`through page 343, line 7 is similarly inconsistent with Dr. Almeroth’s testimony in
`
`¶29 of Ex. 1005.
`
`9. Observation #9
`
`In Exhibit 2018, page 342, line 24 through page 343, line 7, in response to
`
`the question “in Figure 5 [of Ex. 1003, Reilly] where you’ve got the football news,
`
`the ‘include’ and ‘exclude filters’ on the side, do you see that?,” Dr. Almeroth
`
`responded “You've characterized them as filters.· I'm not sure that that's correct.”
`
`This testimony is relevant to Reilly’s disclosure with reference to the figure in
`
`question that “either an ‘include only’ or an ‘exclude’ filter (but not both) can be
`
`defined where the user types in key words to be used to select (for the include
`
`only) or deselect news items within that subcategory.” (Ex. 1003 at 9:35-62,
`
`emphasis added).
`
`10. Observation #10
`
`In Exhibit 2018, page 342, line 24 through page 343, line 7, in response to
`
`the question “in Figure 5 [of Ex. 1003, Reilly] where you’ve got the football news,
`
`the ‘include’ and ‘exclude filters’ on the side, do you see that?,” Dr. Almeroth
`
`responded “You've characterized them as filters.· I'm not sure that that's correct.”
`
`This testimony is relevant to his previous testimony in ¶¶27,29 of Ex. 1005 in
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`which he first characterized Reilly’s disclosure as a “filter based on keywords,”
`
`which in turn is inconsistent with Dr. Almeroth’s characterization in ¶28 second
`
`declaration (Ex. 1017) of Figure 5 as allegedly disclosing that a “user can . . . enter
`
`search terms (e.g., stories mentioning “49ers, Rams.”).” (Emphasis added).
`
`11. Observation #11
`
`In Exhibit 2018, page 308, lines 1-23, Dr. Almeroth testified that “I don't
`
`think it’s necessarily accurate to say that claim 1 [of the ‘686 Patent] requires a
`
`search because we haven't really defined what ‘search’ is.· We haven't looked at
`
`the question of whether or not there are ways of accomplishing claim 1 that doesn't
`
`require some vague and as yet defined term for what ‘search’ is.” This testimony
`
`is relevant to ¶34 of Dr. Almeroth’s second declaration (Ex. 1017), in which he
`
`alleges that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that filtering is
`
`simply a form of searching.”
`
`12. Observation #12
`
`In Exhibit 2018, page 347, line 24 through page 348, line 10, in response to
`
`a question of whether “retrieve” and “receive” mean the same thing within the
`
`context of the ‘686 Patent, Dr. Almeroth testified that “I haven’t really tried to
`
`answer that question.· Sitting here right now, if you substituted ‘receive’ for
`
`‘retrieve,’ maybe there are instances when it means different things. There’s a
`
`good chance it would change the claim scope.· Maybe it does; maybe it doesn’t.· I
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`would really have to think about that in a fair amount of detail before I could
`
`answer your question.” This testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s Response,
`
`which stated that “users of the clients (102) merely receive content that was
`
`previously received at, edited at, and compiled for download by the information
`
`server (104),” (Paper 36 at 22) and that “in Reilly’s system, no searching is
`
`performed.” (Paper 36 at 22). Dr. Almeroth’s testimony is also relevant to Patent
`
`Owner’s expert’s statement that “[i]n Reilly’s system, no searching is performed.
`
`Instead, news items from various sources on various topics are compiled at the
`
`information server under the control of an administrator and downloaded to client
`
`computers during scheduled periodic connections. The information server
`
`receives information from sources such as news wire services including the AP
`
`news feed, the DOW news feed, and various sports feeds.” (Ex. 2013 at ¶45,
`
`emphasis added).”
`
`13. Observation #13
`
`In Exhibit 2018, page 297, line 23 through page 298, line 7, in response to
`
`the question “So if it's not meaningful to describe something as push versus pull,
`
`why has that nomenclature creeped into these types of systems?,” Dr. Almeroth
`
`responded “Well, I'm not sure it's not meaningful, but often the terms are taken
`
`relative to each other, and in certain instances -- well, I mean, in some instances it
`
`might identify an alternative design philosophy.” (Emphasis added). This
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s expert’s testimony at ¶46 of Ex. 2013 that
`
`the “‘686 Patent describes the use of a search agent and search rules – a distinctly
`
`different approach to information retrieval from the ‘push’ technology described
`
`in the Reilly patent,” (emphasis added) as well as Patent Owner’s statement in the
`
`Response that “[a]s indicated by the contrasting names by which these
`
`technologies are commonly described, ‘push’ and ‘pull’ systems represent two
`
`distinct paradigms in the manner in which access to information is provided to a
`
`user.” (Paper 36 at 20, emphasis added).
`
`14. Observation #14
`
`In Exhibit 2018, page 345, line 18 through page 346, line 10-22, when asked
`
`to identify “an example of a search being push-based,” Dr. Almeroth testified that
`
`“a search for restaurants” is “a kind of push” because “a request for restaurants . . .
`
`isn’t a specific request, and so the server pushes a list of possible options to that
`
`user. So there’s a search, there’s even a request, but it isn’t for specific
`
`information. It’s not for a specific restaurant or the hours. But what’s returned is
`
`not something that was specifically requested, but something that was responsive
`
`to the request.” This testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s expert’s citation in
`
`¶22 of Ex. 2013 to the Microsoft Computer Dictionary (Ex. 2014, p. 364) for
`
`“pull” being “[t]he process of retrieving data from a network server” and to PC
`
`Magazine Encyclopedia (Ex. 2015) for “pull technology” being described as
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`“[s]pecifically requesting information from a particular source.”
`
`15. Observation #15
`
`In Exhibit 2018, page 347, line 24 through page 348, line 10, in response to
`
`a question of whether “retrieve” and “receive” mean the same thing within the
`
`context of the ‘686 Patent, Dr. Almeroth testified that “I haven’t really tried to
`
`answer that question.· Sitting here right now, if you substituted ‘receive’ for
`
`‘retrieve,’ maybe there are instances when it means different things. There’s a
`
`good chance it would change the claim scope.· Maybe it does; maybe it doesn’t.· I
`
`would really have to think about that in a fair amount of detail before I could
`
`answer your question.” This testimony is relevant to Patent Owner’s argument in
`
`the Response that “whereas the methods and systems of the ‘686 Patent utilize a
`
`search agent to identify, locate, and retrieve targeted information from one or
`
`more data sources, Reilly’s system utilizes ‘push’ technology such that users of the
`
`clients (102) merely receive content that was previously received at, edited at,
`
`and compiled for download by the information server (104). (Ex. 2013 at ¶¶39-
`
`40).” (Paper 36 at 22, emphasis added). Dr. Almeroth’s testimony is also relevant
`
`to Patent Owner’s expert’s statement that “[a]nother distinction is that a search
`
`agent searches for and retrieves information, whereas an application using “push”
`
`technology merely receives content compiled and distributed by an information
`
`service provider.” (Ex. 2013 at ¶39, emphasis original).
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`16. Observation #16
`
`In Exhibit 2018, page 311, lines 10-18, Dr. Almeroth testified that “[w]hat
`
`I’m saying is if you apply the broadest reasonable construction standard, then there
`
`aren’t any terms that I can see within the ‘686 patent where you can provide a hook
`
`that says that there’s a pull-based searching approach.” This testimony is relevant
`
`to Patent Owner’s expert’s testimony that “Petitioner’s proposed definition is
`
`unreasonably broad in scope . . . and completely overlooks the distinguishing
`
`features of a ‘search’ agent. . . .” (Ex. 2013 at ¶31).
`
`17. Observation #17
`
`In Exhibit 2018, page 328, lines 2-22, Dr. Almeroth conceded that he
`
`understood that the claims of a patent do not have to cover all embodiments. This
`
`testimony is relevant to ¶¶45-47 of Dr. Almeroth’s second declaration (Ex. 1017),
`
`in which he argues, for example, that Patent Owner’s expert’s testimony regarding
`
`dependent claim 2 is faulty because “Mr. Putnam fails to explain why claim 2
`
`should be read so narrowly and in a manner that excludes [one particular
`
`embodiment].” (Ex. 1017 at ¶46).
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`
`Dated: June 25, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`By: /Thomas Engellenner/
`Thomas Engellenner, Reg. No. 28,711
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`125 High Street
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`Boston, MA 02110
`(617) 204-5100 (telephone)
`(617) 204-5150 (facsimile)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00717
`U.S. Patent 6,108,686
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` I
`
` hereby certify that on June 25, 2015, a true and accurate copy of this paper,
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS REGARDING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PETITIONER’S
`REPLY WITNESS, KEVIN C. ALMEROTH, PH.D. and its exhibit were served on the
`following counsel for Petitioners Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. and
`Petitioners LG Electronics, Inc., et al., via email:
`
`Andrea G. Reister
`Gregory S. Discher
`Covington & Burling LLP
`
`dori.hines@finnegan.com
`
`Dori Johnson Hines, Esq.
`jonathan.stroud@finnegan.com
`
`Jonathan R. Stroud, Esq.
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`
`
`
`
`areister@cov.com
`gdischer@cov.com
`
`
`
`By: /Thomas Engellenner/
`Thomas Engellenner, Reg. No. 28,711
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`125 High Street
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`Boston, MA 02110
`(617) 204-5100 (telephone)
`(617) 204-5150 (facsimile)
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 25, 2015

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