throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`MAKO SURGICAL CORP.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BLUE BELT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and
`CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY,
`Exclusive Licensee and Patent Owner.
`_____________________
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00630
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,205,411 B1
`
`_____________________
`
`REPLY TO PETIONTER’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`DiGioia is not prior art against proposed substitute claims 18–34. ................ 1
`
`(a) Dr. Jaramaz describes facts establishing that the inventive entities of
`
`DiGioia and of the ’411 Patent are identical. ............................................... 1
`
`(b) Mr. Kischell is not an inventor of the subject matter Pet’r relies
`
`upon from DiGioia. ...................................................................................... 4
`
`III.
`
`Proposed claims 18–34 are patentable over DiGioia II, Chao, Taylor
`and O’Toole. .................................................................................................... 5
`
`(a) DiGioia II does not render obvious the Simulating limitations. .................. 6
`
`(b) Chao does not render obvious the Calculating and the Determining
`
`limitations. .................................................................................................... 9
`
`(c) Taylor does not render obvious proposed claims 18–34. ........................... 10
`
`IV. Conclusion and Relief Requested .................................................................. 12
`
`V.
`
`Exhibit List for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,205,411 ................. 13
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 9
`
`Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
`776 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ............................................................................ 10
`
`Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produckter AB,
`892 F.2d 1547 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V.,
`IPR2013-00052, Paper 88 (PTAB May 1, 2014) ............................................... 10
`
`Geo M. Martin Co. v. Alliance Mach. Sys. Int’l, LLC,
`618 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co.,
`324 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 4
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 6,205,411, provided as Ex. 1001
`E.Y.S. Chao et al., “Simulation and Animation of
`Musculoskeletal Joint System,” Transactions of the
`ASME, Vol. 115, pp. 562-568, Nov. 1993, provided as Ex.
`1007.
`Declaration of Dr. Kevin Cleary, provided as Ex. 2003.
`
`A.M. DiGioia et al., “HipNav: Pre-operative Planning and
`Intraoperative Navigational Guidance for Acetabular
`Implant Placement in Total Hip Replacement Surgery,”
`2nd CAOS Symposium, 1996, provided as Ex. 1005.
`Anthony M. DiGioia III et al., “An Integrated Approach to
`Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery in
`Orthopaedics,” Proc. 1st Int’l Symposium on Medical
`Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, pp. 106-111,
`1995, provided as Ex. 1006.
`Declaration of Robert D. Howe, provided as Ex. 1004.
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Robert Howe, provided as
`Ex. 2006.
`Declaration of Dr. Branislav Jaramaz, provided as Ex.
`2002.
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Branislav Jaramaz – Filed
`Under Seal, provided as Ex. 1011.
`Declaration of Eric R. Kischell, provided as Ex. 1013
`
`Motion to Amend, Paper No. 12 (Nov. 10, 2015).
`Petitioner’s Opposition, Paper No. 25 (Feb. 19, 2016).
`R.V. O’Toole III et al., “Towards More Capable and Less
`Invasive Robotic Surgery in Orthopaedics,” Computer
`
`iii
`
`Shorthand
`’411 Patent
`Chao
`
`Cleary Decl.
`
`DiGioia
`
`DiGioia II
`
`Howe Decl.
`
`Howe Dep.
`
`Jaramaz Decl.
`
`Jaramaz Dep.
`
`Kischell Decl.
`
`MTA
`Opp.
`O’Toole
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Vision, Virtual Reality and Robotics in Medicine Lecture
`Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 905, pp. 123-130, 1995,
`provided as Ex. 1008.
`Petitioner Mako Surgical Corp.
`Patent Owner Carnegie Mellon University and Exclusive
`Licensee Blue Belt Technologies, Inc.
`Russell H. Taylor et al., An Image-Directed Robotic
`System for Precise Orthopaedic Surgery, IEEE
`Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 10, No. 3,
`June 1994, provided as Ex. 1009.
`
`iv
`
`Pet’r
`PO
`
`Taylor
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Pet’r fails to rebut the patentability arguments in the MTA for two main
`
`reasons. First, Dr. Branislav Jaramaz’s undisputed declaration testimony shows
`
`that DiGioia is not prior art because Eric Kischell did not invent the subject matter
`
`from DiGioia Pet’r alleges to invalidate the claims. Second, Pet’r’s arguments that
`
`DiGioia II, Chao, Taylor, and/or O’Toole render proposed claims 18–34 obvious
`
`are unsupported and fail to account for explicitly recited claim limitations.
`
`II. DiGioia is not prior art against proposed substitute claims 18–34.
`Testimony from ’411 Patent inventor Dr. Jaramaz established that DiGioia is
`
`not prior art because the inventive entities of the portions of DiGioia relied upon
`
`by Pet’r and the ’411 Patent are identical. MTA at 7–11. Pet’r attempts to attack
`
`that testimony by mischaracterizing Dr. Jaramaz’s deposition testimony and by
`
`introducing testimony from a DiGioia co-author named Eric Kischell. Opp. at 2–9.
`
`Neither of those arguments have merit.
`
`(a) Dr. Jaramaz describes facts establishing that the inventive entities of
`DiGioia and of the ’411 Patent are identical.
`
`Dr. Jaramaz established that the inventors of the ’411 Patent also “invented”
`
`the subject matter Pet’r relies upon from DiGioia. Jaramaz Decl., ¶¶ 5–17. Pet’r’s
`
`Kischell Declaration fails to dispute Dr. Jaramaz’s testimony.
`
`Pet’r’s argument that Dr. Jaramaz did not have the “factual knowledge”
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`needed to establish that the inventive entities of DiGioia and the ’411 Patent are
`
`identical is not supported by the testimony. Opp. at 3–4 (citing Jaramaz Dep. at
`
`25:14–26:5). While Dr. Jaramaz does not remember who among a group of eight
`
`people decided to omit Dr. Kanade as an author of DiGioia, Dr. Jaramaz explained
`
`all facts relevant to the inquiry: the team decided to omit Dr. Kanade because he
`
`was not, at the time DiGioia was published, involved in day-to-day research.
`
`Jaramaz Decl., ¶ 11. This is a fact, undisputed by Mr. Kischell. And, Pet’r cites
`
`no law that requires pinpointing who made the decision to omit Dr. Kanade.
`
`Pet’r’s argument that Dr. Jaramaz got the publication date of DiGioia wrong
`
`and thus his memory regarding other facts must be disregarded is based on a false
`
`premise. Opp. at 7–8; Jaramaz Decl., ¶ 8. Dr. Jaramaz did not offer incorrect
`
`declaration testimony about the date DiGioia was published. It was published in
`
`1996—not 1995. Indeed, Pet’r listed DiGioia in the Petition as being published in
`
`1996—but now appears to be trying to argue that it was first presented at the First
`
`Computer Aided Orthopedic Surgery (CAOS) Symposium, in November 1995, not
`
`at the Second CAOS Symposium, which occurred in November 1996. See Opp. at
`
`7–8. Pet’r is wrong for at least three reasons.
`
`First, DiGioia includes three citations to materials published after the First
`
`Symposium in 1995. See DiGioia at 7–8 (citations [3], [5], and [6]). Citations [5]
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`and [6] are to a book titled Reconstructive Surgery of Joints, the earliest
`
`publication of which was December 29, 1995. Screenshot of Product Details on
`
`Amazon.com, provided as Ex. 2010; screenshot of Bibliographic Information on
`
`Google Books, provided as Ex. 2011. As Dr. Jaramaz explained, he could not have
`
`cited these materials before they were published. Jaramaz Dep. at 56:25–57:24.
`
`DiGioia must have been published after December 29, 1995.
`
`Second, the title of DiGioia is almost identical to the presentation Dr.
`
`DiGioia gave at the Second Symposium in 1996. Compare DiGioia (title) to Ex.
`
`2009 (presentation by Dr. DiGioia with the title: “HipNav: Navigational guidance
`
`for acetabular implant placement in THR [Total Hip Replacement]”). The title of
`
`Dr. DiGioia’s presentation at the First Symposium is “Computer assisted planners
`
`and execution systems for total hip replacement surgery” (Ex. 1020)—with no
`
`mention of HipNav at all. Dr. Jaramaz thus testified that the DiGioia paper was
`
`presented at the 1996 conference. Jaramaz Dep. at 57:25–60:17.
`
`Third, Mr. Kischell’s testimony indicates that DiGioia was presented at the
`
`Second Symposium. Mr. Kischell lists DiGioia as being published in the
`
`proceedings of the Second CAOS Symposium in November 1996. Kischell Decl.,
`
`¶ 5. Mr. Kischell also testifies that he “began working for Carnegie Mellon
`
`University (‘CMU’) in July of 1995” and that he “reviewed the draft [of DiGioia]
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`and provided further input and revisions before it was published.” Kischell Decl.,
`
`¶¶ 4, 11. Considering that articles must typically be submitted for publication
`
`weeks before a symposium or conference, Mr. Kischell’s testimony is consistent
`
`with DiGioia being published in November 1996.
`
`Pet’r argues that DiGioia was presented at the First Symposium, citing a
`
`“pdf” version of DiGioia marked as having been presented at the First Symposium
`
`(Ex. 1019), a webpage listing Dr. Jaramaz’s publications, which links to the “pdf”
`
`version (Ex. 1018), and a paper that cites to the “pdf” version of DiGioia (Ex.
`
`1021). Opp. at 7. But as Dr. Jaramaz explained in his deposition, he did not write
`
`or otherwise create the “pdf” version, the webpage, or the citation in the paper, and
`
`believes the dates on these documents are erroneous. Jaramaz Dep. at 60:18–
`
`63:12.
`
`(b) Mr. Kischell is not an inventor of the subject matter Pet’r relies
`upon from DiGioia.
`
`Next, Pet’r argues that Mr. Kischell is an inventor on DiGioia that was
`
`omitted from the ’411 Patent. But that conclusion is not supported by Mr.
`
`Kischell’s testimony. The relevant question is whether Mr. Kischell contributed to
`
`and/or invented aspects of DiGioia paper that Pet’r relied on in its invalidity
`
`analysis. Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1356 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2003) (the question in determining whether a prior art publication is by
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`another is “whether the portions of the reference relied on as prior art, and the
`
`subject matter of the claims in question, represent the work of a common inventive
`
`entity.”). Mr. Kischell’s testimony clearly establishes that he did not work on the
`
`features or functions described in DiGioia that Pet’r is now relying on. Instead, he
`
`worked only on (1) “integrat[ing] the intra-operative tracking and guidance system
`
`into a graphical user interface that would allow the surgeon to place the implant in
`
`the optimal location”; and (2) “developing software to perform clean-up of image
`
`contours for 3D object reconstruction.” Kischell Decl., ¶¶ 7, 9. Pet’r does not
`
`even argue that either of these contributions is described in DiGioia—for good
`
`reason as these contributions are absent. Instead Pet’r asserts that Mr. Kischell is
`
`“part of the inventive entity of the system included in DiGioia.” Opp. at 5
`
`(emphasis added). But Pet’r’s prior art arguments are not based on the HipNav
`
`system—they are based on specific passages from the DiGioia reference and Mr.
`
`Kischell’s omission of any claim to have worked on the systems described in the
`
`passages relied on by Pet’r in DiGioia confirms Dr. Jaramaz’s testimony. Mr.
`
`Kischell did not invent any subject matter from DiGioia used in Pet’r’s invalidity
`
`analysis related to the ’411 Patent claims at issue here.
`
`III. Proposed claims 18–34 are patentable over DiGioia II, Chao, Taylor and
`O’Toole.
`
`
`
`
`
`The proposed substitute independent claims are patentable over the art of
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`record because that art does not disclose or render obvious the “Simulating,”
`
`“Calculating,” and “Determining” limitations of proposed claims 18–34 (the full
`
`text of each is provided at MTA pages 15, 18–23). Pet’r contends that DiGioia II,
`
`Chao, and Taylor teach and/or render these limitations obvious without providing
`
`any additional testimony from its expert declarant.1 Pet’r’s arguments are incorrect
`
`because they do not account for explicit limitations of claims 18–34, particularly
`
`the requirement of a “three dimensional geometric model of the hip joint” and a
`
`“three dimensional component model of the artificial implant.”
`
`(a) DiGioia II does not render obvious the Simulating limitations.
`Relying on Figs. 1 and 2—tellingly without the support of its expert Dr.
`
`Howe—Pet’r argues that DiGioia II discloses a “biomechanical system” that
`
`teaches the Simulating limitations. Opp. at 14–15. But DiGioia II does not
`
`disclose the Simulating limitations, and indeed cannot disclose these limitations
`
`because the authors had not yet developed the requisite “three dimensional
`
`
`
` 1 Pet’r also relies on O’Toole to argue that claims 18–34 would have been
`
`obvious, but does not rely on O’Toole for the Simulating, Calculating, or
`
`Determining limitations. See Opp. at 19–23.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`models” of the hip joint or the acetabular cup. Fig. 1 of DiGioia II is a proposal for
`
`an integrated approach, not a “biomechanical system” as Pet’r alleges. Fig. 1 is
`
`described in the section of DiGioia II titled “Proposed Integrated Approach” and
`
`illustrates the component technologies that the authors proposed to be integrated
`
`for “the potential of computer assisted surgery to be fully realized in orthopaedics.”
`
`DiGioia II at 107. Indeed, DiGioia II does not caption Fig. 1 as a “biomechanical
`
`system,” but rather “Component technologies combine to improve surgical
`
`technique.” DiGioia II at 108. Section 4 of DiGioia, titled “Current Work,”
`
`explains progress that the authors had made, stating that the authors “are
`
`developing full three-dimensional models (of both the femur and acetabulum)
`
`based upon CT scan data.” DiGioia II at 110. Thus, the authors had not yet
`
`developed a “three dimensional model geometric model of the hip joint,” as recited
`
`in claims 18, 27, and 34, and thus could not have simulated movement of the hip
`
`joint with the artificial component in a test position “using the geometric model of
`
`the hip joint,” as required by the Simulating limitations.
`
`Pet’r’s reliance on Fig. 2 of DiGioia II is similarly problematic. Fig. 2
`
`shows an “[a]xisymmetric model of the insertion of a cementless acetabular cup
`
`into a prepared acetabular cavity.” DiGioia II at 109. But Pet’r does not establish
`
`that this axisymmetric model is a “three dimensional geometric model,” as
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`required by the Simulating limitations. DiGioia II indicates the opposite as it states
`
`that axisymmetric models “idealize the geometry of the implant and the bone by
`
`assuming symmetry.” DiGioia II at 109. Claims 18, 27, and 34, on the other hand,
`
`require the “three dimensional geometric model of the hip joint” to be generated
`
`based on “skeletal data,” not on ideal, symmetric characteristics of a hip joint.
`
`Pet’r argues that DiGioia II nonetheless renders the Simulating limitations
`
`obvious because inoperative devices still constitute prior art. Opp. at 15. But this
`
`rule does not free Pet’r from having to establish that the prior art teaches or renders
`
`obvious all of the limitations of the claims. The two cases that Pet’r cites in the
`
`Opp. at 15 illustrate this flaw in Pet’r’s argument. In Geo M. Martin Co. v.
`
`Alliance Mach. Sys. Int’l, LLC, the Federal Circuit explained:
`
`To be clear, prior art must teach a person of ordinary skill to
`make an apparatus that works for its intended purpose. Beckman
`Instruments, 892 F.2d at 1551. If the [prior art] machine did not do so
`on its own, [the accused infringer] would have needed to establish that
`a person of ordinary skill would have nonetheless been able to make a
`working apparatus. In this case, however, the record shows that the
`[prior art] machine did work, insofar as it was able to do what the
`[the claim] required . . . . The [prior art] machine simply did not work
`at ‘production speed.’ As discussed, however, the claims do not
`require a threshold throughput or commercial speed.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`618 F.3d 1294, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (emphasis added) (citing Beckman
`
`Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produckter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1989)) .
`
`In contrast, DiGioia II does not disclose what the claims require, i.e., the
`
`Simulating limitations. And in Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., the
`
`Federal Circuit explained that a reference qualifies as prior art “for whatever is
`
`disclosed therein.” 314 F.3d 1313, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003). But DiGioia II does not
`
`disclose the Simulating limitations. Thus, DiGioia II does not teach or render
`
`obvious the Simulating limitations.
`
`(b) Chao does not render obvious the Calculating and the Determining
`limitations.
`
`
`
`Pet’r also incorrectly asserts that a single sentence in Chao’s “Selection and
`
`planning in total joint replacement” section renders obvious the Calculating and
`
`Determining limitations. Opp. at 16 (citing Chao at 5). The sentence only relates
`
`to simulation of joint pressure and motion; it does not teach one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art how to calculate “a range of motion” based on simulation using a “three
`
`dimensional geometric model of the hip joint” and a “three component model of
`
`the artificial implant,” as required by the Calculating limitations. Chao’s
`
`simulation of joint pressure and motion is based on a Rigid Body Spring Model
`
`(RBSM), but Pet’r provides no indication that an RBSM is a “three dimensional
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`geometric model” of the hip joint, nor does Pet’r point to any disclosure in Chao
`
`describing a “three dimensional component model of the artificial implant.”
`
`
`
`Pet’r’s arguments should further be rejected because they lack the rational
`
`underpinning needed to support an obviousness conclusion. Pet’r relies on ¶ 50 of
`
`the Howe Decl. to support its obviousness analysis. Opp. at 17. But ¶ 50 repeats
`
`the Opp.’s conclusory assertions nearly verbatim, and thus should be not be
`
`entitled to any weight. Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., IPR2013-00052, Paper
`
`88 at 21 (PTAB May 1, 2014) (“One’s expertise, even though draped with a
`
`skilled-artisan veil, does not entitle a naked opinion to much weight.”) (citing
`
`Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1985)).
`
`(c) Taylor does not render obvious proposed claims 18–34.
`As explained in the MTA, Taylor does not render proposed claims 18–34
`
`
`
`obvious because it assumes that the surgeon will provide the implant location, and
`
`thus there was no reason to modify Taylor’s system to allow for pre-operative
`
`simulation. MTA at 15–16 (citing Cleary Decl., ¶ 58). Yet Pet’r contends—
`
`tellingly again without the support of its expert Dr. Howe—that such a
`
`modification would have been obvious. Specifically, on page 18 of the Opp., Pet’r
`
`asserts:
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Similarly here, the system in Taylor could be modified to suggest
`several possible locations for implantation, like the semiautonomous
`SpineAssist tool, and that would still leave the surgeon in control
`while satisfying the requirement of the ’411 patent that the pre-
`operative planning system allow for pre-operative simulation.
`
`But Pet’r does not establish that the SpineAssist tool was prior art as of the
`
`
`
`
`
`priority date of the ’411 Patent. Although PO’s expert Dr. Cleary cited the
`
`SpineAssist tool in his Declaration, he did not concede that it was prior art. To the
`
`contrary, Dr. Cleary cited the SpineAssist tool as an example of “commercial pre-
`
`operative planning tools [that] remain semiautonomous to this day.” Cleary Decl.,
`
`¶ 46 (emphasis added). Moreover, Pet’r does not provide any evidence to support
`
`its claim that Taylor could have been modified to “suggest several possible
`
`locations for implantation.” Opp. at 18. Pet’r’s vague allegations do not explain
`
`what components of Taylor would be modified and what, if any, disclosure in
`
`Taylor indicates that those modifications would have been feasible. Accordingly,
`
`proposed substitute claims 18, 27, and 34 would not have been obvious over
`
`Taylor.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`IV. Conclusion and Relief Requested
`For the reasons provided in the MTA as well as those provided above, PO
`
`respectfully requests that the Board grant the Motion to Amend in the event that it
`
`finds claims 1–17 of the ’411 Patent unpatentable.
`
`Dated: February 24, 2016
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Brian M. Buroker/
`
`
`
`Brian M. Buroker (Reg. No. 39,125)
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`V. Exhibit List for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,205,411
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Exhibit #
`
`Robert D. Howe & Yoky Matsuoka, Robotics for Surgery, Annu.
`Rev. Biomed Eng., 212–40, 220 (1999) (“Robotics for Surgery”)
`Declaration of Dr. Branislav Jaramaz (“Jaramaz Decl.”)
`Declaration of Dr. Kevin Cleary (“Cleary Decl.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,880,976 (“the ’976 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,002,859 (“the ’859 Patent”)
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Robert Howe (“Howe Depo.”)
`’411 Patent Original Specification (“the ’411 Original Spec.”)
`’976 Patent Original Specification (“the ’976 Original Spec.”)
`2nd CAOS Symposium Final Program, November 7–9, 1996
`Reconstructive Surgery of the Joints – Amazon Screenshot
`Reconstructive Surgery of the Joints – Google Books Screenshot
`
`
`
`2001
`
`2002
`2003
`2004
`2005
`2006
`2007
`2008
`2009
`2010
`2011
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CERFITICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies service pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) of a copy
`
`of this Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Amend by electronic mail on
`
`February 24, 2016 on the counsel of record of the Petitioner:
`
`Matthew I. Kreeger, mkreeger@mofo.com
`
`Walter Wu, wwu@mofo.com
`
`
`
`Dated: February 24, 2016
`
`By: /Brian M. Buroker/
`
`
`
`Brian M. Buroker (Reg. No. 39,125)
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036-5306
`Telephone: 202.955.8500
`Facsimile: 202.467.0539
`bburoker@gibsondunn.com

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