throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 16
`
`
` Entered: May 14, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`APLIX IP HOLDINGS CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00230
`Patent 7,463,245 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
`JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00230
`Patent 7,463,245 B2
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner, Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, filed a
`Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,463,245 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’245 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). In response,
`Patent Owner, Aplix Holdings Corporation, filed a Preliminary Response.
`Paper 15 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314,
`which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . .
`the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.”
`For the reasons set forth below, we institute an inter partes review of
`claims 1–20 of the ’245 patent.
`
`A. Related Matter
`
`The ’245 patent is involved in the following lawsuit: Aplix IP
`Holdings Corporation v. Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. et al.,
`No. 1:14-cv-12745 (MLW) (D. Mass.). Pet. 59; Prelim. Resp. 2.
`
`B. The ’245 Patent
`
`The ’245 patent relates to hand-held electronic devices, such as cell
`phones, personal digital assistants (“PDAs”), pocket personal computers,
`smart phones, hand-held game devices, bar-code readers, remote controls
`having a keypad or one or more input elements. Ex. 1001, 1:13–19. The
`hand-held device includes, on one surface, one or more software
`configurable input elements that can be manipulated by a user’s thumb(s) or
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00230
`Patent 7,463,245 B2
`
`
`
`stylus, and on the other surface, one or more software configurable selection
`elements that can be manipulated by a user’s finger(s). Id. at Abstract.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 12 are the only independent
`claims. Claims 2–11 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1 and
`claims 13–20 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 12.
`Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative.
`1. A hand-held device comprising:
`a processor configured to process a selected application
`having two or more functions;
`a first surface including at least a first input element
`mapped to at least a first function of the selected application;
`and
`
`a second surface including at least a second input element
`having a sensor pad comprising a selectively configurable
`sensing surface that provides more than one delineated active
`area based on the selected application, wherein at least a first
`delineated active area is mapped to a second function of the
`selected application and a second delineated active area is
`mapped to a third function of the selected application, further
`wherein the second surface is substantially in opposition to the
`first surface.
`Ex. 1001, 15:28–43.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`
`
`Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references:
`Liebenow
` US 2002/0118175 A1 Aug. 29, 2002
`Andrews
` WO 2000/59594 Oct. 12, 2000
`
`(Ex. 1003)
`(Ex. 1004)
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00230
`Patent 7,463,245 B2
`
`
`
`Hedberg
`Martin
`Griffin
`Pallakoff
`Rekimoto
`
`Apr. 15, 1999
` WO 1999/18495
`Feb. 26, 2008
` US 7,336,260 B2
` US 2003/0020692 A1 Jan. 30, 2003
` US 2002/0163504 A1 Nov. 7, 2002
` US 7,088,342 B2
`Aug. 8, 2006
`
`(Ex. 1005)
`(Ex. 1006)
`(Ex. 1007)
`(Ex. 1008)
`(Ex. 1009)
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`1, 7, 10–12, 17, and 20
`
`§ 102(b) Liebenow
`
`1–5, 7, 10–15, 17 and
`20
`
`§ 103(a) Liebenow and Andrews
`
`1, 7–12, and 17–20
`
`§ 103(a) Liebenow and Hedberg
`
`1, 6, 7, 10, and 11
`
`§ 103(a) Liebenow and Martin
`
`1, 10, 12, 16 and 20
`
`§ 103(a) Griffin and Liebenow
`
`1–5, 10, 12–16, and 20
`
`§ 103(a) Griffin, Liebenow, and Andrews
`
`1, 10, 12, 16, and 20
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Pallakoff and Rekimoto
`
`1–5, 10, 12–16, and 20
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Pallakoff, Rekimoto, and Andrews
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`IPR2015-00230
`Patent 7,463,245 B2
`
`
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
`Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1281–1282 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015)
`(“Congress implicitly adopted the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by
`PTO regulation.”). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard,
`claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for the following claim terms:
`“delineated active area,” (claims 1 and 12) and “the input element and the
`touch sensing input element are communicatively coupled to a host device,”
`(claim 17). Pet. 7–9. Specifically, Petitioner proposes that delineated active
`areas “must at least include areas that are differentiated from each other
`either physically or tactilely to assist the user in locating the position on the
`sensor pad of the active areas.” Id. at 8. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner
`has submitted an unduly narrow construction for “delineated active area.”
`Prelim. Resp. 20–25. For purposes of this decision, we need not construe
`“delineated active area.” Even assuming Petitioner has an unduly narrow
`construction for “delineated active area,” we are persuaded that it has
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00230
`Patent 7,463,245 B2
`
`
`
`accounted for the limitation in the prior art under such construction.
`Petitioner argues that “the input element and the touch sensing input
`element are communicatively coupled to a host device” (claim 17) occurs
`when the handheld device is connected to a host device over a network. At
`this juncture, Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed
`construction of this term. We have reviewed Petitioner’s proposed
`construction and portions of the Specification of the ’245 patent that
`Petitioner relies on for the proposed construction. Based on the record
`before us at this juncture, we determine that Petitioner’s proposed
`construction is consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, and,
`therefore, adopt that construction.
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00230
`Patent 7,463,245 B2
`
`
`
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see also
`Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259. A prima facie case of obviousness is
`established when the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
`claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart,
`531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976).
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001);
`In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich,
`579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`
`C. Obviousness of Claims over Liebenow and Andrews
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–5, 7, 10–15, 17, and 20 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
`Liebenow and Andrews. Pet. 24. To support its contentions, Petitioner
`provides detailed explanations as to how the prior art meets each claim
`limitation. Id. at 11–27. Petitioner also relies upon a Declaration of
`Dr. Gregory F. Welch, who has been retained as an expert witness by
`Petitioner for the instant proceeding. Ex. 1010.
`Liebenow describes an electronic hand-held information appliance
`having a display disposed on a first surface and an input device disposed on
`a second surface opposed to the first surface for inputting information. Ex.
`1003, Abstract. Figure 1 of Liebenow is reproduced below.
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00230
`Patent 7,463,245 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Liebenow, digital information appliance 100
`is sized and shaped to be held by a user in both hands. Housing 102 includes
`front surface 104 and back surface. Id. ¶ 25. One or more function keys
`such as 150, 152, and 154 may be mounted on front surface 104. Display
`116 may be a touch-screen for touch or pen input of information and data.
`Id. ¶¶ 26, 33. Figure 5 of Liebenow is reproduced below.
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00230
`Patent 7,463,245 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 5, back surface may be comprised of one or more
`touch sensitive panels 140. Id. ¶¶ 13, 36. Areas of panel 140 may be
`defined as keys of a keyboard (emulated as an electromechanical keyboard
`seen in Figure 2) so that a user touching the panel within such an area would
`accomplish actuation of a key. Id. In particular, panel 140 may be divided
`into left and right key ranges 142 and 144, such that fingers of a user’s left
`and right hands may be positioned over the touch sensitive panel to be in
`position for typing. Various key configurations may be defined as desired
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00230
`Patent 7,463,245 B2
`
`
`
`by the user or as required by the applications executed by the digital
`information appliance. Id.
`Liebenow further describes, in connection with the hand-held device,
`a processing system 502 that includes a central processing unit such as a
`microprocessor or microcontroller for executing programs, performing data
`manipulations, and controlling tasks of the hand-held device. Id. ¶¶ 21, 56;
`Fig. 13.
`
`Andrews describes a hand-held game system that maps input elements
`to specific game application functions. Ex. 1004, 6:10–14, 9:11–15.
`The present record supports the contention that Liebenow describes a
`hand-held device with a processor for processing a selected application
`having two or more functions. Pet. 11–13; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 25, 33, 56, and 69.
`The present record also supports the contention that Liebenow describes the
`hand-held device to have a first and second surface as claimed in claims 1
`and 12, for example. Pet. 13–19; Ex. 1003 (multiple paragraphs cited in
`petition).
`Petitioner relies on Andrews for its description of a hand-held game
`system that maps input elements to specific game application functions
`depending on the genre of the game. Pet. 24, Ex. 1004 at 6:10–14, 9:11–15.
`Petitioner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`recognized that the hand-held device of Liebenow could have also included
`game applications, like Andrews’ game applications having well-known
`game functions such as weapon fire control, directional control, speed
`control, size and position control. Pet. 25; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 38–41.
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00230
`Patent 7,463,245 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner also accounts for all of the challenged dependent claims.
`Pet. 19–24 and 26–27. Patent Owner argues that, with respect to this
`ground, the Petition does not map any part of Andrews to claims 1, 7, 10–12,
`17, and 20, but rather cites to Liebenow alone for challenging those claims.
`Prelim. Resp. 5. We are not persuaded by this argument.
`We have reviewed the proposed ground of obviousness over
`Liebenow and Andrews against claims 1–5, 7, 10–15, 17, and 20, and we are
`persuaded, at this juncture of the proceeding, that Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claims
`1–5, 7, 10–15, 17, and 20 on this ground. Lastly, we have considered Patent
`Owner’s argument that the Petition improperly incorporates arguments and
`evidence from the Declaration of Dr. Gregory F. Welch into the Petition. Id.
`at 18–20. We agree that, in general, arguments must not be incorporated by
`reference from one document into another document (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.6(a)(3)). Here, however, Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to
`incorporation by reference are conclusory. Patent Owner’s sole example
`with respect to the impropriety of incorporation by reference is with respect
`to the combination of Griffin, Liebenow and Andrews. We do not, however,
`institute review based on the combination of Griffin, Liebenow, and
`Andrews, and, therefore, we are not persuaded by this one example. We
`have reviewed those portions of Dr. Welch’s Declaration, to which we are
`directed, with respect to the grounds upon which we institute, and, have
`determined that there is nothing unusual about his declaration or the way in
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00230
`Patent 7,463,245 B2
`
`
`
`which Petitioner relies on the declaration insofar as improper incorporation
`is concerned.
`
`D. Obviousness of Claims over Liebenow and Hedberg
`
`Petitioner contends that dependent claims 8, 9, and 17–19 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
`Liebenow and Hedberg. Pet. 28. To support its contentions, Petitioner
`provides detailed explanations as to how the prior art meets each claim
`limitation. Id. at 22–23, 28–30. Petitioner also relies upon the Declaration
`of Dr. Gregory F. Welch for support. Ex. 1010.
`Hedberg describes a hand-held display device that includes control
`buttons 3 on the display connected to control circuits and a gyroscope 6
`incorporated in the display device and connected to the control circuits. Ex.
`1005, Abstract. The display device is responsive to movements in the space
`for displaying an image in different magnification and/or in different parts.
`Id. Hedberg describes that an equilibrium of force accelerometer may be
`used in place of the gyroscope. Id. at 3:26–32.
`Each of claims 8 and 9 depends directly from claim 1. Claim 18
`depends directly from independent claim 12 and claim 19 depends directly
`from dependent claim 17, which itself depends directly from claim 12.
`Claim 8 recites that the hand-held device includes an accelerometer. Claim
`9 recites that the hand-held device includes a gyroscope. Each of claims 18
`and 19 recites that the hand-held device includes an accelerometer or
`gyroscope.
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00230
`Patent 7,463,245 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner relies on Hedberg for its description of a gyroscope or
`accelerometer included in a hand-held device. Pet. 28–30. Petitioner
`concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
`addition of a gyroscope and/or an accelerometer would have increased the
`ability to control the Liebenow hand-held device. Pet. 28; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 42–
`43. Patent Owner does not make arguments, at this time, regarding the
`merits of this ground of unpatentability against challenged claims 8, 9, and
`17–19.
`We have reviewed the proposed ground of obviousness over
`Liebenow and Hedberg against claims 8, 9, and 17–19, and we are
`persuaded, at this juncture of the proceeding, that Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claims
`8, 9, and 17–19 on this ground.
`
`E. Obviousness of Claim 6 over Liebenow and Martin
`
`Petitioner contends that dependent claim 6 is unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Liebenow and
`Martin. Pet. 30–32. To support its contentions, Petitioner provides detailed
`explanations as to how the prior art meets each claim limitation of claim 6.
`Id. Petitioner also relies upon the Declaration of Dr. Gregory F. Welch for
`support. Ex. 1010.
`Martin describes a hand-held device with a display, a plurality of
`buttons, and a 5-way directional pad for navigation within the various
`interfaces displayed on the hand-held device. Ex. 1006, 18:43–50.
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00230
`Patent 7,463,245 B2
`
`
`
`Claim 6 depends directly from claim 1 and recites that the second
`surface further includes a directional pad. Petitioner relies on Martin for a
`description of a hand-held display with a directional pad. Pet. 31–32.
`Petitioner concludes it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
`skill in the art to replace Leibenow’s cursor control device on the back
`surface of Liebenow’s hand-held device with a directional pad as described
`by Martin in order to manipulate the cursor up, down, left, and right. Id. at
`31; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 44–47. Patent Owner does not make arguments, at this
`time, regarding the merits of this ground of unpatentability against
`challenged claim 6.
`We have reviewed the proposed ground of obviousness over
`Liebenow and Martin against claim 6, and we are persuaded, at this juncture
`of the proceeding, that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claim 6 on this ground.
`
`F. Obviousness of Claim 16 over Griffin and Liebenow
`
`Petitioner contends that dependent claim 16 is unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Griffin and
`Liebenow. Pet. 32. To support its contentions, Petitioner provides detailed
`explanations as to how the prior art meets each claim limitation of claim 16.
`Id. Petitioner also relies upon the Declaration of Dr. Gregory F. Welch for
`support. Ex. 1010.
`Griffin describes a hand-held electronic device with a display, a
`plurality of buttons, and a thumbwheel on the front surface and function
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00230
`Patent 7,463,245 B2
`
`
`
`keys on the back surface. Ex. 1007 ¶ 30.
`Claim 16 depends directly from claim 1 and recites that the input
`element comprises a rotary sensor or a directional pad. Petitioner relies on
`Griffin for at least its description of a hand-held electronic device with a
`thumbwheel on the front surface. Pet. 32, 40–41. Petitioner concludes it
`would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
`include the touch sensor keys of Leibenow on the device of Griffin, having
`the rotary thumbwheel on front, as a simple substitution of one known
`element for another known element. Id. at 34; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 48–51. Patent
`Owner does not make arguments, at this time, regarding the merits of this
`ground of unpatentability against challenged claim 16.
`We have reviewed the proposed ground of obviousness over the
`combination of Griffin and Liebenow against claim 16, and we are
`persuaded, at this juncture of the proceeding, that Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claim
`16 on this ground.
`
`G. Remaining Grounds Challenging the Claims of the ’245 Patent
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(b), rules for inter partes proceedings
`were promulgated to take into account the “regulation on the economy, the
`integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and
`the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings.” The promulgated
`rules provide that they are to “be construed to secure the just, speedy, and
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). As a
`result, and in determining whether to institute an inter partes review of a
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00230
`Patent 7,463,245 B2
`
`
`
`patent, the Board, in its discretion, may “deny some or all grounds for
`unpatentability for some or all of the challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R. §
`42.108(b).
`We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments that the Petition
`improperly presents vertically and horizontally redundant grounds, and as
`such, the Board only should consider one challenge. Prelim. Resp. 9–18.
`Based on the record before us, Patent Owner’s arguments are moot, as we
`exercise our discretion and decline to institute review based on any of the
`other asserted grounds advanced by Petitioner that are not identified below
`as being part of the trial. See, e.g., Pet. 6–7; 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 1–20 of the ’245 patent.
`At this juncture, we have not made a final determination with respect to the
`patentability of the challenged claims, nor with respect to claim
`construction.
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00230
`Patent 7,463,245 B2
`
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review is hereby instituted for the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`1–5, 7, 10–15, 17 and
`20
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Liebenow and Andrews
`
`8, 9, and 17–19
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Liebenow and Hedberg
`
`6
`
`16
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Liebenow and Martin
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Griffin and Liebenow
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other ground of unpatentability
`asserted in the Petition is authorized for this inter partes review; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial
`will commence on the entry date of this decision.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00230
`Patent 7,463,245 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Eric A. Buresh
`Abran J. Kean
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`Abran.kean@eriseip.com
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Michael Mauriel
`Sherman Kahn
`MAURIEL KAPOUYTIAN WOODS LLP
`mmauriel@mkwllp.com
`skahn@mkwllp.com
`
`Robert Gilbertson
`Sybil Dunlop
`X. Kevin Zhao
`GRENNE ESPEL PLLP
`BGilbertson@GreeneEspel.com
`sdunlop@greeneespel.com
`kzhao@greeneespel.com
`
`
`18

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