·1· ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`·2
`· · · · · ·PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`·3
`
`·4· · · · · · · · ·GOOGLE, INC.,
`· · · · · · · · · · Petitioner,
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·v.
`· · · · · · · · · ·SUMMIT 6, LLC,
`·6· · · · · · · · · Patent Owner
`
`·7
`· · · · · · · · ·Case IPR2015-00806
`·8· · · · · · · Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`·9· · Title:· Web-Based Media Submission Tool
`
`10
`· · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`11
`
`12· · · · ·PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`13
`· · · · · ·GOOGLE, INC., HTC CORPORATION,
`14· · · · · · · HTC AMERICA, INC.
`· · · · · · · · · · Petitioner,
`15· · · · · · · · · · · ·v.
`· · · · · · · · · ·SUMMIT 6, LLC,
`16· · · · · · · · · Patent Owner
`
`17
`· · · · · · · · ·Case IPR2015-00807
`18· · · · · · · Patent No. 8,612,515
`
`19· · Title:· Web-Based Media Submission Tool
`
`20· · · TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE
`· · · · BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGES
`21· · · ·KERRY BEGLEY and GEORGIANNA BRADEN
`
`22· · · · · · · · ·April 13, 2016
`· · · · · · ·11:02 a.m. to 11:27 a.m.
`23
`
`24· · · · Yolanda R. Narcisse, CCR-B-2445
`
`25
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 1 of 26
`
`
`
`·2
`· · · · · ·PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`·3
`
`·4· · · · · · · · ·GOOGLE, INC.,
`· · · · · · · · · · Petitioner,
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·v.
`· · · · · · · · · ·SUMMIT 6, LLC,
`·6· · · · · · · · · Patent Owner
`
`·7
`· · · · · · · · ·Case IPR2015-00806
`·8· · · · · · · Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`·9· · Title:· Web-Based Media Submission Tool
`
`10
`· · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`11
`
`12· · · · ·PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`13
`· · · · · ·GOOGLE, INC., HTC CORPORATION,
`14· · · · · · · HTC AMERICA, INC.
`· · · · · · · · · · Petitioner,
`15· · · · · · · · · · · ·v.
`· · · · · · · · · ·SUMMIT 6, LLC,
`16· · · · · · · · · Patent Owner
`
`17
`· · · · · · · · ·Case IPR2015-00807
`18· · · · · · · Patent No. 8,612,515
`
`19· · Title:· Web-Based Media Submission Tool
`
`20· · · TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE
`· · · · BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGES
`21· · · ·KERRY BEGLEY and GEORGIANNA BRADEN
`
`22· · · · · · · · ·April 13, 2016
`· · · · · · ·11:02 a.m. to 11:27 a.m.
`23
`
`24· · · · Yolanda R. Narcisse, CCR-B-2445
`
`25
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 1 of 26
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · ·TELEPHONIC APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
`
`·2
`· · ·On behalf of Petitioner Google, Inc.:
`·3
`· · · · · JOHN C. ALEMANNI, Esq.
`·4· · · · MICHAEL MORLOCK, Esq.
`· · · · · Kilpatrick Townsend & Stock, LLP
`·5· · · · 1001 West Fourth Street
`· · · · · Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 27101
`·6· · · · (336) 607-7391
`· · · · · jalemanni@kilpatricktownsend.com
`·7· · · · mmorlock@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`·8
`· · ·On behalf of Patent Owner:
`·9
`· · · · · PETER AYERS, Esq.
`10· · · · JOHN SHUMAKER, Esq.
`· · · · · Lee & Hayes, PLLC
`11· · · · 11501 Alterra Parkway
`· · · · · Suite 450
`12· · · · Austin, Texas 78758
`· · · · · (512) 505-8162
`13· · · · peter@leehayes.com
`· · · · · jshumaker@leehayes.com
`14
`· · · · · REID JOHNSON, Esq.
`15· · · · Lee & Hayes, PLLC
`· · · · · 601 West Riverside Avenue
`16· · · · Suite 1400
`· · · · · Spokane, Washington 99201
`17· · · · (509) 324-9256
`· · · · · rjohnson@leehayes.com
`18
`
`19· ·On behalf of Samsung Electronics Company, Limited
`· · ·(Joined Action IPR2016-00029)
`20
`· · · · · JAMES HEINTZ, Esq.
`21· · · · DLA Piper, LLP
`· · · · · One Fountain Square
`22· · · · 11911 Freedom Drive
`· · · · · Suite 300
`23· · · · Reston, Virginia 20190
`· · · · · (703) 773-4000
`24· · · · jim.heintz@dlapiper.com
`
`25
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 2 of 26
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · ·P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`·2· · · · · · · JUDGE BEGLEY:· Good morning.· This is a
`
`·3· ·conference call for IPR2015-00806 and IPR2015-00807.
`
`·4· ·This is Judge Begley.· With me on the line is Judge
`
`·5· ·Braden.· Who do we have on the line for Petitioners?
`
`·6· · · · · · · MR. MORLOCK:· Yes, Your Honor, this is
`
`·7· ·Michael Morlock and John Alemanni for Petitioner
`
`·8· ·Google.
`
`·9· · · · · · · JUDGE BEGLEY:· Thank you.· And do we have
`
`10· ·someone on the line for Samsung?
`
`11· · · · · · · MR. HEINTZ:· Yes, Your Honor, James Heintz.
`
`12· · · · · · · JUDGE BEGLEY:· Good morning.· And who is on
`
`13· ·the line for Patent Owner Summit 6?
`
`14· · · · · · · MR. AYERS:· Peter Ayers, Your Honor.
`
`15· · · · · · · JUDGE BEGLEY:· Is there anyone else on the
`
`16· ·line?
`
`17· · · · · · · MR. AYERS:· Yes.· With me is John Shumaker
`
`18· ·and Reid Johnson also of Lee & Hayes.
`
`19· · · · · · · JUDGE BEGLEY:· Thank you.· And I believe we
`
`20· ·have a court reporter on the line.· Which party
`
`21· ·provided the court reporter?
`
`22· · · · · · · MR. MORLOCK:· Your Honor, that was
`
`23· ·Petitioner Google.· We provided the court reporter.
`
`24· · · · · · · JUDGE BEGLEY:· Mr. Morlock, can I have a
`
`25· ·copy of the transcript filed when it becomes
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 3 of 26
`
`
`
`·1· ·available, please.
`
`·2· · · · · · · MR. MORLOCK:· Yes, Your Honor
`
`·3· · · · · · · JUDGE BEGLEY:· Thank you.· We scheduled the
`
`·4· ·call to discuss Petitioner's request to have Patent
`
`·5· ·Owner's motions for observation expunged.· Because
`
`·6· ·Petitioner requested the call and is seeking the
`
`·7· ·relief, we'll start by hearing from Petitioner.
`
`·8· · · · · · · Petitioner, can you begin by explaining
`
`·9· ·your position regarding why the motions should be
`
`10· ·expunged.
`
`11· · · · · · · MR. MORLOCK:· Yes, Your Honor.· This is
`
`12· ·Michael Morlock for Petitioner Google.
`
`13· · · · · · · Our reason that these motions for
`
`14· ·observation should be expunged is that they're not in
`
`15· ·compliance with the Board's guidelines.
`
`16· · · · · · · Outlined in Polaris Wireless v.
`
`17· ·TruePosition, IPR 2013-00323, motions for observation
`
`18· ·should not contain arguments.· They're not an
`
`19· ·opportunity to raise new issues or re-argue issues.
`
`20· ·The explanation of relevance should not be an
`
`21· ·elaborator argumentative.· In most instances, the
`
`22· ·pertinent cross-examination should be reproduced.
`
`23· · · · · · · Here, we think, on its face, these two
`
`24· ·motions for observation are noncompliant.· There is
`
`25· ·repeated arguments throughout, including headings that
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 4 of 26
`
`
`
`·1· ·are argumentative, summaries of relevance that are
`
`·2· ·argumentative, and multiple pages of transcripts that
`
`·3· ·are paraphrased.· And we believe that while that's
`
`·4· ·improper, the paraphrasing also mischaracterizes the
`
`·5· ·testimony which is improper.
`
`·6· · · · · · · Your Honor, I have provided a couple of
`
`·7· ·examples to Patent Owner, and I'm happy to walk
`
`·8· ·through those specific examples if that will be
`
`·9· ·helpful to the Board.
`
`10· · · · · · · JUDGE BEGLEY:· That would be helpful.
`
`11· · · · · · · MR. MORLOCK:· Okay.· The first example is
`
`12· ·paragraph 11 of the motions for observation.· The
`
`13· ·statement of relevance here is, and I quote:· It is
`
`14· ·relevant because Dr. Frazier misinterpreted the
`
`15· ·figures used to form the basis of his opinion
`
`16· ·rendering his opinion illusory.
`
`17· · · · · · · Your Honor, we think that stating that this
`
`18· ·witness misinterpreted figures and that his opinion is
`
`19· ·illusory is, on its face, argumentative.· And that is
`
`20· ·improper under the Board's rule.
`
`21· · · · · · · Further, on paragraph 11, this paragraph
`
`22· ·paraphrases five pages of deposition transcript.
`
`23· ·Those are pages 95, line 5, through page 99, line 4.
`
`24· ·I invite the Board to review those pages of testimony.
`
`25· · · · · · · And what I think you will see is that in
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 5 of 26
`
`
`
`·1· ·those pages there's very little testimony from Dr.
`
`·2· ·Frazier.· There is quite a bit of statements from the
`
`·3· ·taking attorney to which Dr. Frazier responds with
`
`·4· ·something to the effect of, Okay, or, All right.
`
`·5· · · · · · · And while, you know, the relevance of that
`
`·6· ·is up for debate, our position is it's improper to
`
`·7· ·paraphrase that or characterize that as saying that
`
`·8· ·Dr. Frazier confirmed something as the paraphrasing
`
`·9· ·provided in the motions for observation --
`
`10· · · · · · · THE COURT:· ·Well, doesn't this
`
`11· ·observation -- it begins with a cite that's five
`
`12· ·pages, but then it includes a more specific cite for
`
`13· ·the second sentence, which you seem to be objecting
`
`14· ·to.
`
`15· · · · · · · How does the more specific cite not cure
`
`16· ·the deficiencies that you're arguing regarding the
`
`17· ·broad citation?
`
`18· · · · · · · MR. MORLOCK:· Certainly, Your Honor.· I'm
`
`19· ·going to turn to that page in my transcript.· So, Your
`
`20· ·Honor, that's a perfect example of what I just said.
`
`21· · · · · · · What you see is testimony where the taking
`
`22· ·attorney states:· So you can see that they actually
`
`23· ·calculate what they consider their market share?· The
`
`24· ·witness says:· Uh-huh.
`
`25· · · · · · · I mean, there is no question asked.· It is
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 6 of 26
`
`
`
`·1· ·simply a statement followed by an answer, uh-huh.
`
`·2· · · · · · · The next question asked is something very
`
`·3· ·similar.· I mean, that's not, as it's characterized,
`
`·4· ·as -- Admission to market share thus equates to its
`
`·5· ·percentage of the total 1.2 million.
`
`·6· · · · · · · That's not testimony provided by the
`
`·7· ·witness.· That is, at best, a statement provided by
`
`·8· ·the taking attorney.· Further, that's, you know, a
`
`·9· ·very short or relatively short stretch of testimony
`
`10· ·nine lines long that, under a prior precedence, that
`
`11· ·could easily have been pasted into the motions for
`
`12· ·observation.· And we wouldn't need to discuss whether
`
`13· ·or not it was properly characterized or not because
`
`14· ·it's just nine lines.
`
`15· · · · · · · And, you know, in this instance, these
`
`16· ·motions for observation are only nine pages long.· So
`
`17· ·there's six additional pages that could have been used
`
`18· ·to include these four quotes.
`
`19· · · · · · · JUDGE BEGLEY:· Do you have any other
`
`20· ·examples?
`
`21· · · · · · · MR. MORLOCK:· Sure.· Your Honor, if you
`
`22· ·turn to paragraph 2, this is another example of
`
`23· ·mischaracterization.· Early on, there's a citation to
`
`24· ·15 or 16 pages.· It starts on second page of the
`
`25· ·motion.
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 7 of 26
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · There is also a statement that Dr. Frazier
`
`·2· ·testified that:· Based on size, eBay was the leading
`
`·3· ·marketplace for the sale of goods and services.
`
`·4· · · · · · · Dr. Frazier's actual testimony on that
`
`·5· ·point, I can read it for you directly, which is:
`
`·6· ·Based on size, I would likely agree, although, I'd
`
`·7· ·like to have more information on what other online
`
`·8· ·auction services were available; but, yeah, I would
`
`·9· ·not dispute that.
`
`10· · · · · · · I mean, again, that is a
`
`11· ·mischaracterization because he didn't testify that
`
`12· ·eBay was the leading online marketplace.· He testified
`
`13· ·that he would likely agree and he would like to have
`
`14· ·more information but that he would not dispute it.
`
`15· · · · · · · We believe that mischaracterizes his
`
`16· ·testimony.· We also believe that's a very short few
`
`17· ·lines of testimony that could have easily been pasted
`
`18· ·directly into the observation.
`
`19· · · · · · · Similarly, the argument for the statement
`
`20· ·of relevance there is highly argumentative.· The last
`
`21· ·sentence of the paragraph states:· Despite claiming
`
`22· ·that Summit 6 provided no data or information to
`
`23· ·support a long-felt need, neither the petitioner nor
`
`24· ·Dr. Frazier referenced the market research report or
`
`25· ·the evidence in need and efforts to solve that need
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 8 of 26
`
`
`
`·1· ·from the largest online auction in eBay at all.
`
`·2· · · · · · · I mean, that's argumentative on its face,
`
`·3· ·Your Honor, and we don't believe that's proper.
`
`·4· · · · · · · JUDGE BEGLEY:· Okay.· Can you clarify,
`
`·5· ·you've mentioned during the call and in your email to
`
`·6· ·the Board that it's your position that the motion
`
`·7· ·violate our rules.· Can you clarify which rule you're
`
`·8· ·referring to.
`
`·9· · · · · · · MR. MORLOCK:· Your Honor, what we're
`
`10· ·referring to is the decision in IPR 2013-00323, Paper
`
`11· ·43.
`
`12· · · · · · · JUDGE BEGLEY:· Is that -- that's not a
`
`13· ·rule, but is that an informative or representative
`
`14· ·decision?
`
`15· · · · · · · MR. MORLOCK:· Yes, Your Honor.· That's a
`
`16· ·decision early in the proceedings explaining what the
`
`17· ·requirements for a motion for observation are.
`
`18· · · · · · · JUDGE BEGLEY:· But has it been designated
`
`19· · · · informative or representative?
`
`20· · · · · · · MR. MORLOCK:· I'm sorry, Your Honor. I
`
`21· ·missed that.
`
`22· · · · · · · JUDGE BEGLEY:· Has it been designated
`
`23· ·informative or representative or is it just another
`
`24· ·case of how -- of the Board?
`
`25· · · · · · · MR. MORLOCK:· That's another decision from
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 9 of 26
`
`
`
`·1· ·the panel of the Board.· I mean, also, in reviewing
`
`·2· ·the trial practice guide, if you look at the trial
`
`·3· ·practice guide, it's Section L, on observations for
`
`·4· ·cross-examination, it says:· An observation should be
`
`·5· ·a concise statement of the relevance of identified
`
`·6· ·testimony to an identified argument.
`
`·7· · · · · · · So our position is that that decision
`
`·8· ·essentially summarizes what the Board wants from a
`
`·9· ·motion for observation.
`
`10· · · · · · · JUDGE BEGLEY:· Okay.· Can you also explain
`
`11· ·why the deficiencies you're alleging rise to the level
`
`12· ·that they require the motions to be expunged?
`
`13· · · · · · · In other words, why can't the issues be
`
`14· ·addressed -- be handled by having you address them in
`
`15· ·your response?
`
`16· · · · · · · MR. MORLOCK:· Well, Your Honor, as we
`
`17· ·understand, a response to a motion for observation,
`
`18· ·they're also supposed to be nonargumentative.· They're
`
`19· ·supposed to be a simple statement of the witness
`
`20· ·testified this and it is relevant because.
`
`21· · · · · · · We can't do that if we're responding to an
`
`22· ·argument.· We need to respond to an argument with an
`
`23· ·argument.· Which our understanding of what the Board
`
`24· ·wants from a motion for observation and a response in
`
`25· ·a motion for observation is that they not be
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 10 of 26
`
`
`
`·1· ·argumentative, but they, instead, simply identify
`
`·2· ·testimony that will be helpful to the Board.
`
`·3· · · · · · · JUDGE BEGLEY:· And assuming that we were to
`
`·4· ·agree with you and to expunge the motions, do you have
`
`·5· ·a position as to whether Patent Owner should be
`
`·6· ·allowed to refile the motions?
`
`·7· · · · · · · MR. MORLOCK:· Your Honor, we communicated
`
`·8· ·to Patent Owner that if they had a proposal for a
`
`·9· ·slight modification to the schedule that would allow
`
`10· ·them to file updated or replacement nonargumentative
`
`11· ·motions, we'd be happy to consider that -- we provided
`
`12· ·it -- and to give us a reasonable amount of time to
`
`13· ·file our response.
`
`14· · · · · · · JUDGE BEGLEY:· We'll hear from Patent Owner
`
`15· ·now.· Patent Owner, can you respond to Petitioner's
`
`16· ·request that the motions for observation be expunged.
`
`17· · · · · · · MR. AYERS:· Yes, Your Honor.· Peter Ayers
`
`18· ·for Patent Owner.· Let me just first say that, you
`
`19· ·know, we read several decisions about motions for
`
`20· ·observation and relief attempting to reserve guidance
`
`21· ·that the Board has provided not just in the case
`
`22· ·provided by the petitioner, but also from several
`
`23· ·others; CBS Interactive, IPR 2013-0033; Actelion
`
`24· ·versus ICOS, IPR 2015-00561, and kept in mind that,
`
`25· ·really, the purpose of the summaries is to provide
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 11 of 26
`
`
`
`·1· ·some guidance to the Board to --
`
`·2· · · · · · · COURT REPORTER:· I'm sorry, sir.· This is
`
`·3· ·the court reporter and I can barely hear you.
`
`·4· · · · · · · MR. AYERS:· Sure.· I apologize for that.
`
`·5· ·There's someone hammering in the background.· Could
`
`·6· ·that possibly be part of it?
`
`·7· · · · · · · COURT REPORTER:· I have no idea who's
`
`·8· ·hammering, but you're a little choppy and so your
`
`·9· ·words are breaking up.· Maybe it has to do with the
`
`10· ·hammering.· I don't know.· I apologize.· Really,
`
`11· ·profusely, I apologize.
`
`12· · · · · · · MR.· AYERS:· No, well, that's fine.· I'll
`
`13· ·try to speak up.
`
`14· · · · · · · My point was just that, you know, we tried
`
`15· ·to provide guidance to the Board based on the things
`
`16· ·that we've read and directed the Board to the most
`
`17· ·relevant excerpts of the reply testimony.
`
`18· · · · · · · In this case, you know, it should be kept
`
`19· ·in mind that this is really our only opportunity to
`
`20· ·bring this cross-examination testimony to the Board's
`
`21· ·attention.· And those decisions quite clearly permit
`
`22· ·parties to summarize lengthy passages, which is -- in
`
`23· ·this case, there weren't any, you know, Q and As,
`
`24· ·trying to get to a particular point.· And so those
`
`25· ·passages were summarized, as permitted by these
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 12 of 26
`
`
`
`·1· ·various decisions.
`
`·2· · · · · · · And I think it's also worth pointing out
`
`·3· ·that the motion itself is not evidence.· It's just
`
`·4· ·kind of a roadmap for the Board to use.· So I don't
`
`·5· ·know, really, why we're here talking about expunging
`
`·6· ·this motion.· The evidence in question is the
`
`·7· ·testimony itself, which the Board can read for itself.
`
`·8· · · · · · · So Google really raises two issue.· One is,
`
`·9· ·you know, the use of summary versus quotations from
`
`10· ·the actual text.· And I think it's quite clear from
`
`11· ·various decisions that the summaries are permissible
`
`12· ·including the two that I just cited.
`
`13· · · · · · · They also claim that, you know, our
`
`14· ·summaries are too argumentative.· You know, in the
`
`15· ·course of an eight-page summary, sure, there are words
`
`16· ·that are, you know, more argumentive than others, you
`
`17· ·know, admittedly.
`
`18· · · · · · · But we really tried to characterize the
`
`19· ·relevance of those passages.· And it's really
`
`20· ·difficult to do particularly in this context without
`
`21· ·sounding argumentative, but we really tried to, you
`
`22· ·know, stay true to the Board's guidance.
`
`23· · · · · · · And I think it's worth noting in this case,
`
`24· ·this case is a little unusual because the expert that
`
`25· ·Petitioner proffered in this case, Dr. Frazier, is a
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 13 of 26
`
`
`
`·1· ·marketing expert.· And he proffered an opinion in his
`
`·2· ·declaration -- really, he offered four opinions.
`
`·3· ·Three of which were that he had no opinion because
`
`·4· ·Patent Owner didn't provide sufficient data, and so we
`
`·5· ·tried to provide some.
`
`·6· · · · · · · And we didn't -- we hadn't submitted a
`
`·7· ·marketing expert or a business expert, only two
`
`·8· ·witnesses from the patent owner who had firsthand
`
`·9· ·knowledge of commercial activities that relate to the
`
`10· ·patents in question.
`
`11· · · · · · · And so this was really our, you know, only
`
`12· ·opportunity to sort of put Dr. Frazier's testimony in
`
`13· ·some context.· And so we provided headings and we
`
`14· ·tried to provide the Board with a roadmap of his
`
`15· ·testimony of why we felt like the cross-examination of
`
`16· ·him undermine that testimony.
`
`17· · · · · · · Now, were those headings potentially
`
`18· ·argumentative?· Possibly so.· And we offered to remove
`
`19· ·those headings if they were objectionable to alleviate
`
`20· ·the concerns of Petitioner, but that wasn't
`
`21· ·acceptable.
`
`22· · · · · · · They wanted to go through and basically
`
`23· ·rewrite our motion for observation.· Which, you know,
`
`24· ·we didn't feel like, under the Board's decisions, we
`
`25· ·needed to do.· Because most of their objections really
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 14 of 26
`
`
`
`·1· ·go to whether we accurately summarized it, which is
`
`·2· ·why they have the opportunity to respond to those
`
`·3· ·observations.
`
`·4· · · · · · · If they believe that we mischaracterized
`
`·5· ·it, then they can point that out in their observation.
`
`·6· ·That goes to, if you will, the weight of it, not to
`
`·7· ·it's inadmissibility.· And I think this is really
`
`·8· ·just, you know, part of Google's take no prisoners,
`
`·9· ·you know, MO in patent litigation.· They just fight on
`
`10· ·every point just for the sake of fighting.
`
`11· · · · · · · So we don't believe that our motion for
`
`12· ·observation is not in compliance.· You know, we're
`
`13· ·happy to remove the headings if those are
`
`14· ·objectionable, as a way to, you know, compromise on
`
`15· ·this.· But we really don't feel like we even need to
`
`16· ·do that.
`
`17· · · · · · · And with that, I'll yield and answer any
`
`18· ·questions the Board may have.
`
`19· · · · · · · JUDGE BEGLEY:· I'd like to actually hear
`
`20· ·from Petitioner regarding whether -- Patent Owners
`
`21· ·just said it's your position that removing the
`
`22· ·headings alone would not be sufficient.· Can you
`
`23· ·address that.
`
`24· · · · · · · MR. MORLOCK:· Yes, Your Honor.· And as we
`
`25· ·communicated to Patent Owner when they offered to
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 15 of 26
`
`
`
`·1· ·remove the headings, there are additional arguments
`
`·2· ·within these motions for observation including the two
`
`·3· ·paragraphs identified in their conclusions.
`
`·4· · · · · · · I mean, those are arguments.· And our
`
`·5· ·understanding of this is that it's not an opportunity
`
`·6· ·for further briefing.· It's an opportunity to point
`
`·7· ·out a short concise piece of relevant testimony for
`
`·8· ·the Board to consider without including any additional
`
`·9· ·argument.
`
`10· · · · · · · JUDGE BEGLEY:· The Panel will confer
`
`11· ·briefly now.· Please stay on the line.
`
`12· · · · · · · (Off the record from 11:22 a.m. to 11:26
`
`13· · · · a.m.)
`
`14· · · · · · · JUDGE BEGLEY:· The Panel has conferred
`
`15· ·based on the arguments presented during the call and
`
`16· ·our review of the motion.
`
`17· · · · · · · We agree with Patent Owner that his motions
`
`18· ·are consistent with the guidance in our trial practice
`
`19· ·guide and the scheduling order and are not unduly
`
`20· ·argumentative that would require the motions be
`
`21· ·expunged.
`
`22· · · · · · · Petitioner has the opportunity to file a
`
`23· ·response to the motions like we've discussed on the
`
`24· ·call and it can take that opportunity to address the
`
`25· ·merits of the motions and succinctly respond to any of
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 16 of 26
`
`
`
`·1· ·the alleged deficiencies that were raised on today's
`
`·2· ·call.
`
`·3· · · · · · · And, as an example, Petitioner has raised
`
`·4· ·issues regarding long cites to testimony.· But in the
`
`·5· ·Board's review, the patent owner can respond to any
`
`·6· ·potential mischaracterizations of testimony in the
`
`·7· ·response and the Board will review it and is capable
`
`·8· ·of determining whether the characterizations are
`
`·9· ·accurate.
`
`10· · · · · · · So with that, we deny Petitioner's request
`
`11· ·to have Patent Owner's motions for observation
`
`12· ·expunged.
`
`13· · · · · · · Is there anything else that either party
`
`14· ·would like to address before the call is adjourned?
`
`15· · · · · · · MR. MORLOCK:· None for Petitioner, Your
`
`16· ·Honor.
`
`17· · · · · · · MR. AYERS:· Peter Ayers for Patent Owner,
`
`18· ·nothing further, Your Honor.
`
`19· · · · · · · JUDGE BEGLEY:· All right.· Thank you all
`
`20· ·for your time.· This call is adjourned.· Thank you.
`
`21· · · · · · · (Proceedings concluded at 11:27 a.m.)
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 17 of 26
`
`
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · ·C E R T I F I C A T E
`
`·2
`
`·3· ·STATE OF GEORGIA· ·)
`
`·4· ·COUNTY OF ROCKDALE )
`
`·5
`
`·6· · · · · · · I hereby certify that the foregoing
`
`·7· · · · proceedings were taken down, as stated in the
`
`·8· · · · caption, and reduced to typewriting under my
`
`·9· · · · direction, and that the foregoing pages 1
`
`10· · · · through 17 represent a true, complete, and
`
`11· · · · correct transcript of said proceedings.
`
`12· · · · · · · This, the 13th day of April 2016.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · YOLANDA R. NARCISSE,
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · CCR-B-2445
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 18 of 26
`
`
`
`GOOGLE, INC. v. SUMMIT 6 LLC
`Telephone Conference- on 04/13/2016
`
`-Index: 1.2..Begley
`
`1
`
`1.2
`
`7:5
`
`11 5:12,21
`
`11:22
`
`16:12
`
`11:26
`
`16:12
`
`A
`
`Admission
`
`7:4
`
`assuming
`
`11:3
`
`admittedly
`
`attempting
`
`13:17
`
`11:20
`
`agree 8:6,13
`11:4 16:17
`
`attention
`
`12:21
`
`Alemanni
`
`3:7
`
`attorney
`
`11:27
`
`17:21
`
`a.m.
`
`16:12,
`
`13 17:21
`
`alleged 17:1
`
`15
`
`7:24
`
`16
`
`7:24
`
`2
`
`2
`
`7:22
`
`acceptable
`
`14:21
`
`accurate
`
`17:9
`
`accurately
`
`alleging
`
`10:11
`
`alleviate
`
`14:19
`
`allowed 11:6
`
`2013-00323
`
`15:1
`
`amount
`
`11:12
`
`4:17 9:10
`
`Actelion
`
`11:23
`
`apologize
`
`6:3,22 7:8
`
`auction
`
`8:8
`
`9:1
`
`Ayers 3:14,
`17 11:17
`
`12:4,12
`
`17:17
`
`B
`
`2013-0033
`
`11:23
`
`activities
`
`arguing
`
`6:16
`
`12:5
`
`12:4,1o,11
`
`background
`
`2015-00561
`
`14:9
`
`11:24
`
`6 3:13 8:22
`
`argument
`
`barely
`
`12:3
`
`actual
`
`8:4
`
`13:10
`
`additional
`
`8:19 10:6,
`
`22,23 16:9
`
`argumentative
`
`7:17 16:1,
`
`4:21 5:1,
`
`8
`
`address
`
`10:14
`
`15:23
`
`16:24
`
`17:14
`
`addressed
`
`10:14
`
`adjourned
`
`17:14,20
`
`2,19 8:20
`
`9:2 11:1
`
`13:14,21
`
`14:18
`
`16:20
`
`argumentive
`
`13:16
`
`arguments
`
`4:18,25
`
`16:1,4,15
`
`based 8:2,6
`
`12:15
`
`16:15
`
`basically
`
`14:22
`
`basis
`
`5:15
`
`begin
`
`4:8
`
`begins
`
`6:11
`
`Begley 3:2,
`
`4,9,12,15,
`
`19,24 4:3
`
`5:10 7:19
`
`9:4,12,18,
`
`22 10:10
`
`www.huseby.com
`Huseby, Inc.- Regional Centers
`_
`Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco _
`Penhoner—Exmbn1021
`
`800-333-2082
`
`Page19of26
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 19 of 26
`
`
`
`GOOGLE, INC. v. SUMMIT 6 LLC
`Telephone Conference- on 04/13/2016
`
`-Index: bit..difficult
`
`11:3,14
`
`15:19
`
`call 3:3
`
`communicated
`
`cross-
`
`4:4,6 9:5
`
`11:7 15:25
`
`examination
`
`16:10,14
`
`16:15,24
`
`17:2,14,20
`
`compliance
`
`4:15 15:12
`
`17:19
`
`bit
`
`6:2
`
`Board 5:9,24
`
`case
`
`9:24
`
`15:14
`
`capable
`
`17:7
`
`compromise
`
`4:22 10:4
`
`12:20
`
`14:15
`
`cure
`
`6:15
`
`D
`
`9:6,24
`
`11:21
`
`10:1,8,23
`
`12:18,23
`
`11:2,21
`
`13:23,24,
`
`12:1,15,16
`
`25
`
`13:4,7
`
`14:14
`
`15:18 16:8
`
`17:7
`
`Board's
`
`4:15
`
`5:20 12:20
`
`CBS
`
`11:23
`
`characterizati
`
`ons
`
`17:8
`
`characterize
`
`6:7 13:18
`
`13:22
`
`characterized
`
`concerns
`
`14:20
`
`concise
`
`10:5
`
`16:7
`
`concluded
`
`data
`
`8:22
`
`14:4
`
`debate
`
`6:6
`
`17:21
`
`decision
`
`conclusions
`
`16:3
`
`confer
`
`16:10
`
`9:10,14,
`
`16,25 10:7
`
`decisions
`
`11:19
`
`14:24 17:5
`
`7:3,13
`
`Braden
`
`3:5
`
`choppy
`
`12:8
`
`breaking
`
`12:9
`
`briefing
`
`16:6
`
`briefly
`
`16:11
`
`citation
`
`6:17 7:23
`
`cite
`
`6:11,
`
`12,15
`
`cited 13:12
`
`cites
`
`17:4
`
`bring 12:20
`
`claim
`
`13:13
`
`broad
`
`6:17
`
`business
`
`14:7
`
`C
`
`calculate
`
`6:23
`
`claiming
`
`8:21
`
`clarify 9:4,
`7
`
`clear
`
`13:10
`
`conference
`
`3:3
`
`conferred
`
`16:14
`
`12:21
`
`13:1,11
`
`14:24
`
`declaration
`
`confirmed
`
`14:2
`
`6:8
`
`deficiencies
`
`consistent
`
`6:16 10:11
`
`16:18
`
`context
`
`13:20
`
`14:13
`
`copy 3:25
`
`couple
`
`5:6
`
`17:1
`
`deny
`
`17:10
`
`deposition
`
`5:22
`
`designated
`
`9:18,22
`
`court 3:20,
`
`determining
`
`21,23 6:10
`
`17:8
`
`commercial
`
`12:2,3,7
`
`14:9
`
`difficult
`
`13:20
`
`www.huseby.com
`Huseby, Inc.- Regional Centers
`Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco
`Pefifloner—Exmbfi1021
`
`800-333-2082
`
`Page20of26
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 20 of 26
`
`
`
`GOOGLE, INC. v. SUMMIT 6 LLC
`Telephone Conference- on 04/13/2016
`
`-Index: directed..Honor
`
`directed
`
`12:16
`
`directly
`
`8:5,18
`
`examples
`
`5:15,18
`
`5:7,8 7:20
`
`excerpts
`
`12:17
`
`file 11:10,
`
`13 16:22
`
`filed 3:25
`
`H
`
`hammering
`
`discuss
`
`4:4
`
`expert
`
`13:24
`
`fine
`
`12:12
`
`12:5,8,10
`
`7:12
`
`discussed
`
`16:23
`
`14:1,7
`
`explain
`
`10:10
`
`firsthand
`
`14:8
`
`form 5:15
`
`dispute 8:9,
`14
`
`explaining
`
`4:8 9:16
`
`Frazier 5:14
`
`E
`
`explanation
`
`4:20
`
`6:2,3,8
`
`8:1,24
`
`13:25
`
`expunge
`
`11:4
`
`Frazier's
`
`early 7:23
`9:16
`
`easily 7:11
`8:17
`
`handled
`
`10:14
`
`happy 5:7
`11:11
`
`15:13
`
`Hayes
`
`3:18
`
`headings
`
`4:25
`
`14:13,17,
`
`19 15:13,
`
`22 16:1
`
`hear
`
`11:14
`
`expunged
`
`4:5,10,14
`
`10:12
`
`11:16
`
`16:21
`
`8:4 14:12
`
`G
`
`give
`
`11:12
`
`12:3 15:19
`
`ebay 8:2,12
`9:1
`
`effect
`
`6:4
`
`efforts
`
`8:25
`
`eight-page
`
`13:15
`
`elaborator
`
`4:21
`
`
`17:12
`
`expunging
`
`13:5
`
`F
`
`face
`
`4:23
`
`5:19 9:2
`
`feel
`
`14:24
`
`equates
`
`7:4
`
`15:15
`
`13:8
`
`Google's
`
`15:8
`
`guidance
`
`11:20
`
`Good 3:2,12
`
`goods
`
`8:3
`
`hearing
`
`4:7
`
`Heintz
`
`3:11
`
`Google 3:8,
`23 4:12
`
`helpful 5:9,
`10 11:2
`
`highly
`
`8:20
`
`Honor 3:6,
`
`11,14,22
`
`4:2,11
`
`5:6,17
`
`6:18,20
`
`7:21 9:3,
`
`9,15,20
`
`10:16
`
`11:7,17
`
`15:24
`
`17:16,18
`
`essentially
`
`10:8
`
`evidence
`
`8:25 13:3,
`
`6
`
`felt
`
`14:15
`
`fight
`
`15:9
`
`12:1,15
`
`13:22
`
`16:18
`
`fighting
`
`15:10
`
`figures
`
`guide 10:2,3
`16:19
`
`guidelines
`
`www.huseby.com
`Huseby, Inc.- Regional Centers
`Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco
`Pefifloner—Exmbfi1021
`
`800-333-2082
`
`Page21of26
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 21 of 26
`
`
`
`GOOGLE, INC. v. SUMMIT 6 LLC
`Telephone Conference- on 04/13/2016
`
`-Index: ICOS..motion
`
`I
`
`invite
`
`5:24
`
`IPR 4:17
`
`L
`
`mind 11:24
`
`12:19
`
`ICOS
`
`11:24
`
`9:10
`
`11:23,24
`
`IPR2015-00806
`
`3:3
`
`IPR2015-00807
`
`3:3
`
`issue
`
`13:8
`
`issues
`
`4:19
`
`10:13 17:4
`
`idea
`
`12:7
`
`identified
`
`10:5,6
`
`16:3
`
`identify
`
`11:1
`
`illusory
`
`5:16,19
`
`improper
`
`5:4,5,20
`
`6:6
`
`inadmissibilit
`
`y
`
`15:7
`
`largest
`
`9:1
`
`mischaracteriz
`
`ation 7:23
`
`leading 8:2,
`12
`
`8:11
`
`Lee 3:18
`
`lengthy
`
`12:22
`
`mischaracteriz
`
`ations
`
`17:6
`
`mischaracteriz
`
`ed 15:4
`
`level
`
`10:11
`
`mischaracteriz
`
`lines 7:10,
`
`14 8:17
`
`es
`
`5:14 8:15
`
`misinterpreted
`
`5:14,18
`
`J
`
`litigation
`
`15:9
`
`missed
`
`9:21
`
`mmes
`
`3:11
`
`John
`
`3:7,17
`
`long 7:10,
`16 17:4
`
`Mo 15:9
`
`modification
`
`include
`
`7:18
`
`includes
`
`6:12
`
`including
`
`4:25 13:12
`
`16:2,8
`
`information
`
`8:7,14,22
`
`informative
`
`9:13,19,23
`
`instance
`
`7:15
`
`instances
`
`4:21
`
`Interactive
`
`11:23
`
`Johnson
`
`3:18
`
`Judge 3:2,4,
`
`long-felt
`
`8:23
`
`11:9
`
`Morlock 3:6,
`
`9,12,15,
`
`19,24 4:3
`
`5:10 7:19
`
`9:4,12,18,
`
`22 10:10
`
`11:3,14
`
`15:19
`
`16:10,14
`
`17:19
`
`K
`
`7,22,24
`
`4:2,11,12
`
`5:11 6:18
`
`7:21 9:9,
`
`15,20,25
`
`10:16 11:7
`
`15:24
`
`17:15
`
`morning 3:2,
`12
`
`market
`
`6:23
`
`7:4 8:24
`
`marketing
`
`14:1,7
`
`marketplace
`
`8:3,12
`
`mentioned
`
`9:5
`
`motion 7:25
`
`kind 13:4
`
`merits
`
`16:25
`
`knowledge
`
`14:9
`
`Michael
`
`3:7
`
`4:12
`
`million 7:5
`
`9:6,17
`
`10:9,17,
`
`24,25
`
`13:3,6
`
`14:23
`
`15:11
`
`www.huseby.com
`Huseby, Inc.- Regional Centers
`Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco
`Pefifloner—Exmbfi1021
`
`800-333-2082
`
`Page22of26
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 22 of 26
`
`
`
`GOOGLE, INC. v. SUMMIT 6 LLC
`Telephone Conference- on 04/13/2016
`
`-Index: motions..petitioner
`
`16:16
`
`motions 4:5,
`
`9,13,17,24
`
`5:12 6:9
`
`7:11,16
`
`10:12
`
`11:4,6,11,
`
`16,19
`
`16:2,17,
`
`20,23,25
`
`17:11
`
`6:9,11
`
`7:12,16
`
`8:18 9:17
`
`10:4,9,17,
`
`24,25
`
`11:16,20
`
`14:23
`
`15:5,12
`
`16:2 17:11
`
`observations
`
`10:3 15:3
`
`multiple 5:2
`
`offered
`
`N
`
`14:2,18
`
`15:25
`
`needed 14:25
`
`online 8:7,
`
`12 9:1
`
`nonargumentati
`ve
`10:18
`
`opinion
`
`5:15,16,18
`
`17:5,17
`
`passages
`
`Owner's
`
`4:5
`
`17:11
`
`Owners
`
`15:20
`
`P
`
`12:22,25
`
`13:19
`
`pasted 7:11
`8:17
`
`patent 3:13
`4:4 5:7
`
`pages 5:2,
`
`11:5,8,14,
`
`22,23,24
`
`6:1,12
`
`15,18
`
`14:4,8
`
`7:16,17,24
`
`15:9,20,25
`
`panel
`
`10:1
`
`16:10,14
`
`Paper
`
`9:10
`
`paragraph
`
`5:12,21
`
`7:22 8:21
`
`16:17
`
`17:5,11,17
`
`patents
`
`14:10
`
`percentage
`
`7:5
`
`11:10
`
`noncompliant
`
`4:24
`
`noting 13:23
`
`14:1,3
`
`opinions
`
`14:2
`
`paragraphs
`
`16:3
`
`paraphrase
`
`6:7
`
`paraphrased
`
`5:3
`
`opportunity
`
`4:19 12:19
`
`14:12 15:2
`
`16:5,6,22,
`24
`
`paraphrases
`
`5:22
`
`perfect
`
`6:20
`
`permissible
`
`13:11
`
`permit
`
`12:21
`
`permitted
`
`12:25
`
`pertinent
`
`4:22
`
`11:17
`
`17:17
`
`petitioner
`
`3:7,23
`
`4:6,7,8,12
`
`8:23 11:22
`
`13:25
`
`14:20
`
`O
`
`objecting
`
`6:13
`
`objectionable
`
`objections
`
`14:25
`
`observation
`
`4:5,14,17,
`
`24 5:12
`
`order
`
`16:19
`
`paraphrasing
`
`Peter 3:14
`
`14:19
`
`15:14
`
`Outlined
`
`4:16
`
`5:4 6:8
`
`part
`15:8
`
`12:6
`
`owner 3:13
`
`5:7 11:5,
`
`parties
`
`8,14,15,18
`
`12:22
`
`14:4,8
`
`15:25
`
`16:17
`
`party 3:20
`17:13
`
`www.huseby.com
`Huseby, Inc.- Regional Centers
`Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco
`Pefifloner—Exmbfi1021
`
`800-333-2082
`
`Page23of26
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 23 of 26
`
`
`
`15:20
`
`16:22
`
`17:3,15
`
`Petitioner's
`
`4:4 11:15
`
`17:10
`
`Petitioners
`
`3:5
`
`piece
`
`16:7
`
`point
`
`8:5
`
`12:14,24
`
`15:5,10
`
`16:6
`
`pointing
`
`13:2
`
`Polaris
`
`4:16
`
`provide
`
`11:25
`
`GOOGLE, INC. v. SUMMIT 6 LLC
`Telephone Conference- on 04/13/2016
`
`-Index: Petitioner's..require
`
`prior
`
`7:10
`
`15:18
`
`prisoners
`
`quotations
`
`15:8
`
`13:9
`
`proceedings
`
`quote
`
`5:13
`
`9:16 17:21
`
`quotes
`
`7:18
`
`proffered
`
`13:19
`
`relevant
`
`5:14 10:20
`
`12:17 16:7
`
`relief
`
`4:7
`
`11:20
`
`13:25 14:1
`
`R
`
`remove
`
`14:18
`
`profusely
`
`12:11
`
`proper
`
`9:3
`
`properly
`
`7:13
`
`proposal
`
`11:8
`
`15:13 16:1
`
`raise
`
`4:19
`
`raised 17:1,
`
`15:21
`
`removing
`
`3
`
`raises
`
`13:8
`
`re-argue
`
`4:19
`
`read 8:5
`
`11:19
`
`12:16 13:7
`
`rendering
`
`5:16
`
`repeated
`
`4:25
`
`replacement
`
`11:10
`
`position
`
`4:9
`
`6:6 9:6
`
`10:7 11:5
`
`12:15
`
`14:4,5,14
`
`15:21
`
`provided
`
`possibly
`
`12:6 14:18
`
`potential
`
`17:6
`
`3:21,23
`
`5:6 6:9
`
`7:6,7 8:22
`
`11:11,21,
`
`22 14:13
`
`potentially
`
`14:17
`
`purpose
`
`11:25
`
`practice
`
`put
`
`14:12
`
`reason
`
`4:13
`
`reasonable
`
`11:12
`
`record 16:12
`
`referenced
`
`8:24
`
`referring
`
`9:8,10
`
`refile
`
`11:6
`
`Reid 3:18
`
`10:2,3
`
`16:18
`
`precedence
`
`7:10
`
`presented
`
`16:15
`
`Q
`
`relate
`
`14:9
`
`question
`
`6:25 7:2
`
`13:6 14:10
`
`questions
`
`relevance
`
`4:20 5:1,
`
`13 6:5
`
`8:20 210:5
`
`reply
`
`12:17
`
`report
`
`8:24
`
`reporter
`
`3:20,21,23
`
`12:2,3,7
`
`representative
`
`9:13,19,23
`
`reproduced
`
`4:22
`
`4:4
`
`request
`11:16
`
`17:10
`
`requested
`
`4:6
`
`require
`
`10:12
`
`16:20
`
`www.huseby.com
`Huseby, Inc.- Regional Centers
`Charlotte ~ Atlanta ~ Washington, DC ~ New York ~ Houston ~ San Francisco
`Pefifloner—Exmbfi1021
`
`800-333-2082
`
`Page24of26
`
`Petitioner - Exhibit 1021
`Page 24 of 26
`
`
`
`GOOGLE, INC. v. SUMMIT 6 LLC
`Telephone Conference- on 04/13/2016Index: requirements..testimony
`
`requirements
`
`9:17
`
`S
`
`slight
`
`11:9
`
`summarize
`
`solve
`
`8:25
`
`12:22
`
`research
`
`8:24
`
`reserve
`
`11:20
`
`respond
`
`10:22
`
`sake
`
`15:10
`
`sort
`
`14:12
`
`sale
`
`8:3
`
`Samsung 3:10
`
`sounding
`
`13:21
`
`schedule
`
`11:9
`
`speak
`
`12:13
`
`specific
`
`5:8
`
`11:15 15:2
`
`scheduled
`
`6:12,15
`
`16:25 17:5
`
`4:3
`
`start
`
`4:7
`
`responding
`
`10:21
`
`scheduling
`
`starts
`
`7:24
`
`1
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
