`
` Paper No. ____
`
` Filed: March 23, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________________________________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2015-00857
`PATENT NO. 7,384,177
`
`
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2015-00857
`PATENT NO. 7,384,177
`
`Contents
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ....................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ........................... 4
`
`A.
`
`Joinder is appropriate because it will not impact the Board’s ability
`to complete the review in a timely manner. ................................................... 6
`
`B.
`
`Joinder will promote efficiency and conserve resources. ............................ 8
`
`C. Without joinder, Petitioner may be prejudiced. ............................................ 9
`
`D.
`
`Joinder will not prejudice IDT or LGD. ...................................................... 10
`
`IV. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASE IPR2015-00857
`PATENT NO. 7,384,177
`
` Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ....................................................................................................................... 1, 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................................. 1, 3, 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ....................................................................................................................... 1, 5
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122 ................................................................................................................. 1, 2
`
`Board Authority
`
`Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Security Sols., Inc.,
`IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 (July 29, 2013) ........................................................... 5, 10, 11
`
`Jiawei Technology (HK) Ltd., et al. v. Simon Nicholas Richmond,
`IPR2015-00580, Paper 16 (Feb. 13, 2015) ...................................................................... 8
`
`SAP America Inc. v. Clouding IP, LLC,
`IPR2014-00306, Paper 13 (May 19, 2014) .............................................................. 10, 11
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`CASE IPR2015-00857
`PATENT NO. 7,384,177
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), Toyota Motor Corp.
`
`(“Petitioner”) respectfully requests that it be joined as a party to the following
`
`instituted inter partes review proceeding on the same patent at issue in this case
`
`(IPR2015-00857), U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177 (“the ’177 Patent”): LG Display Co., Ltd.
`
`v. Innovative Display Technologies LLC, IPR2014-01362 (the “LGD IPR”). The Board
`
`instituted inter partes review in the LGD IPR on the following grounds:
`
`Reference
`US 5,054,885 (Melby)
`
`Claims
`1–3, 5–7, 9–10, 13–15, 19, 21,
`23–25, and 27
`1, 2, 6–7, 9–10, 13–15, 19, 21,
`US 5,453,885
`23, 24, and 26
`(Nakamura)
`(IPR2014-01362, Paper 12, at 9, 11 (Mar. 2, 2015)). Petitioner in this case asserts
`
`Grounds
`Sec. 103
`
`Sec. 102
`
`substantially the same grounds to those instituted in the LGD IPR against many of
`
`the same claims (shown in bold below) and one additional dependent claim (shown in
`
`italics below), which Petitioner argues is anticipated by a reference applied against the
`
`corresponding independent claim in the LGD IPR:1
`
`Reference
`US 5,054,885 (Melby)
`US 5,453,885
`(Nakamura)
`
`1 Petitioner filed another IPR petition (IPR2015-00835) on March 5, 2015, which
`
`Claims
`1, 6–7, 9–10, 13–15, and 19
`1, 6–7, 9–10, 13–15, 19, and 22
`
`Grounds
`Sec. 103
`Sec. 102
`
`addressed U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177, based on different grounds. No joinder is being
`
`sought with respect to the IPR2015-00835 petition.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. IDT, IPR2015-00857, Paper 2, at iv (Mar. 9, 2015). That
`
`CASE IPR2015-00857
`PATENT NO. 7,384,177
`
`additional dependent claim, claim 22, Patent Owner IDT asserted against only
`
`Petitioner in litigation.
`
`
`
`This Motion is timely under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b) because it is
`
`being submitted prior to one month after the institution date (March 2, 2015) in the
`
`LGD IPR. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). Petitioner contacted the parties in the LGD IPR
`
`regarding this motion for joinder prior to filing and the petitioner in that proceeding
`
`(LG Display) does not oppose. Patent Owner opposes.
`
`Petitioner respectfully submits that joinder of these proceedings is appropriate.
`
`Joinder will not impact the Board’s ability to complete its review in the statutorily
`
`prescribed timeframe. Indeed, the invalidity grounds raised in this inter partes review
`
`proceeding are substantially the same as the invalidity grounds instituted in the LGD
`
`IPR. The present petition omits several dependent claims and adds one invalidity
`
`ground for one additional dependent claim (claim 22) based on the Nakamura
`
`reference at issue in the LGD IPR. Accordingly, joinder will ensure the Board’s
`
`efficient and consistent resolution of the issues surrounding the invalidity of the ’177
`
`patent based on the instituted grounds. Moreover, joinder would not prejudice the
`
`LGD IPR parties because the scope and timing of the LGD IPR proceeding should
`
`remain the same. Finally, the Board can implement procedures that are designed to
`
`minimize any impact to the schedule of the LGD IPR, by requiring, for example,
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`consolidated filings and coordination among petitioners. For these reasons and the
`
`CASE IPR2015-00857
`PATENT NO. 7,384,177
`
`reasons outlined herein, joinder should be granted.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`On March 10, 2014, Innovative Display Technologies LLC (“IDT” or
`
`“Patent Owner”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
`
`District of Texas accusing Petitioner of infringing several patents, including the ’177
`
`Patent. See Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp. et al., 2:14-cv- 00200-
`
`JRG (E.D. Tex.) (hereinafter, “the Underlying Litigation”).
`
`2.
`
`In its Complaint, IDT purports to be the owner of the ’177 Patent. See
`
`id.
`
`3.
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. (“LGD”) filed a petition for inter partes review of
`
`the ’177 Patent on August 22, 2014 (the “LGD Petition”). See IPR2014-01362,
`
`Paper 2 (Aug. 22, 2014).
`
`4.
`
`IDT has asserted the ’177 Patent against LGD in co-pending litigation in
`
`the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. See id. at 1.
`
`5.
`
`The LGD petition included seven grounds for invalidity, and the Board
`
`instituted IPR based on the following grounds:
`
`a)
`
`Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 13-15, 19, 21, And 23-25, 27 Are
`
`Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) As Being Obvious Over Melby; and
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2015-00857
`PATENT NO. 7,384,177
`
`b)
`
`Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21, 23-24, And 26 Are
`
`Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 As Being Anticipated By Nakamura.
`
`IPR2014-01362, Paper 12 (March 2, 2015).
`
`6.
`
`The two invalidity grounds raised in this inter partes review proceeding are
`
`substantially identical to the two invalidity grounds a and b instituted in the LGD IPR
`
`petition, save for the omission of certain dependent claims and the addition of
`
`dependent claim 22 to ground b:
`
`a) Claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15, And 19 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) As Being Obvious Over Melby; and
`
`b) Claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15, 19, And 22 Are Unpatentable Under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102 As Being Anticipated By Nakamura. See Toyota Motor Corp. v. IDT,
`
`IPR2015-00857, Paper 2 (Mar. 9, 2015) at iv.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`Joinder of inter partes review proceedings is permitted under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c),
`
`which provides:
`
`(c) JOINDER.—If the Director institutes an inter partes
`review, the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a
`party to that inter partes review any person who properly
`files a petition under section 311 that the Director, after
`receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or the
`expiration of the time for filing such a response, determines
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2015-00857
`PATENT NO. 7,384,177
`
`warrants the institution of an inter partes review under
`section 314.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c).
`
`In deciding whether to allow joinder, the Board takes into account “the
`
`particular facts of each case, substantive and procedural issues, and other
`
`considerations,” while remaining “mindful that patent trial regulations, including the
`
`rules for joinder, must be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`resolution of every proceeding.” See Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Security Sols., Inc., IPR2013-
`
`00385, Paper 17, at 3(July 29, 2013). The Board also takes into account “the policy
`
`preference for joining a party that does not present new issues that might complicate
`
`or delay an existing proceeding.” Id. at 10 (citing 157 Cong. Rec. S1376 (daily ed. Mar.
`
`8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (“The Office anticipates that joinder will be allowed
`
`as of right – if an inter partes review is instituted on the basis of a petition, for
`
`example, a party that files an identical petition will be joined to that proceeding, and
`
`thus allowed to file its own briefs and make its own arguments.”)).
`
`“A motion for joinder should: (1) set forth the reasons why joinder is
`
`appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition;
`
`(3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the
`
`existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and discovery may be
`
`simplified.” Id. at 4. An analysis of each of these issues supports joinder.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`CASE IPR2015-00857
`PATENT NO. 7,384,177
`
`Joinder is appropriate because it will not impact the Board’s ability
`to complete the review in a timely manner.
`
`Joinder is appropriate because it will not impact the Board’s ability to complete
`
`its review of the LGD IPR within the statutorily prescribed timeframe. First, this inter
`
`partes review proceeding does not raise any new prior art over what has been asserted
`
`in the LGD IPR. Specifically, Petitioner asserts in this inter partes review proceeding
`
`substantially the same grounds of unpatentability instituted in the LGD IPR, and
`
`Petitioner’s arguments regarding the asserted references are substantially identical to
`
`the arguments LGD raised in the LGD IPR. The three differences that exist between
`
`the grounds raised in this request for inter partes review and the grounds raised in the
`
`LGD IPR will not impact the trial schedule or prejudice any party and the Board
`
`should grant this motion for joinder.
`
`The first difference–the omission of certain dependent claims from the instant
`
`petition–will have no impact on the parties or the trial schedule as Petitioner will not
`
`participate in the trial on those claims. The one additional dependent claim (claim 22)
`
`asserted by Petitioner–the second difference–is based on the same Nakamura
`
`reference on which the Board granted institution against the underlying independent
`
`claim (claim 15). Claim 22 of the ’177 patent recites: “22. The assembly of claim 15
`
`wherein the sheet, film, or substrate is comprised of multiple layers.” Ex. 1001, ’177
`
`patent, col. 10:41-42. The additional anticipation argument with respect to dependent
`
`claim 22 is straightforward, is based on the Nakamura reference already applied to the
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`independent base claim, and would not impact the Board’s ability to complete its
`
`CASE IPR2015-00857
`PATENT NO. 7,384,177
`
`review in a timely manner. Further, the addition of dependent claim 22 will not
`
`prejudice the petitioner in the LGD IPR, who does not oppose joinder, or the patent
`
`owner. Indeed, the joinder of dependent claim 22 into the LGD IPR is significantly
`
`less burdensome on the Patent Owner than a separate inter partes review proceeding
`
`addressing dependent claim 22 (and necessarily independent claim 15).
`
`The third difference–Petitioner submitted a different expert declaration–also
`
`should not affect the trial schedule. Petitioner obtained a separate expert declaration
`
`to address dependent claim 22 (only asserted against Petitioner) and necessarily
`
`independent claim 15. Petitioner’s expert also addressed the other claims asserted in
`
`the present petition so that Petitioner could step in and take over the LGD IPR
`
`should the parties to that proceeding reach a settlement. To minimize any impact on
`
`the trial schedule if joined, if the Board prefers, Petitioner would be willing to rely on
`
`the declaration and testimony of the expert offered in the LGD IPR for all claims
`
`except dependent claim 22. For that dependent claim, Petitioner’s expert will be
`
`available for his deposition on the same day as the expert in the LGD IPR, or on a
`
`day most convenient to the parties in the LGD IPR.
`
`Because the Petitioner raises only one additional uncomplicated issue of
`
`unpatentability, joinder should not affect the Board’s ability to issue its final
`
`determination within one year of institution in the LGD IPR.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2015-00857
`PATENT NO. 7,384,177
`
`Joinder will promote efficiency and conserve resources.
`
`B.
`As discussed above, this inter partes review proceeding presents substantially the
`
`same arguments for unpatentability as the LGD IPR. Given that the LGD IPR and
`
`the instant petition address the same prior art and substantially the same grounds for
`
`rejection of the claims at issue, joining these proceedings allows for joint submissions
`
`and discovery to streamline the proceedings. Indeed, conducting the proceedings in
`
`this manner should promote efficiency and conserve the Board’s and the parties’
`
`resources by streamlining and consolidating all patentability challenges to the ’177
`
`patent based on Nakamura and Melby into a single trial.
`
`Petitioner sees the need for only one minor adjustment to the procedural
`
`schedule. Specifically, the Petitioner suggests that the Board require the Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response solely on dependent claim 22 be due by April 26,
`
`2015, one month before the Patent Owner’s response to the petition in the LGD IPR.
`
`The Board has authority to expedite a preliminary response under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.5(c)(1). See Jiawei Technology (HK) Ltd., et al. v. Simon Nicholas Richmond, IPR2015-
`
`00580, Paper 16, at 2 (Feb. 13, 2015) (expediting Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response where “the new ground involves only four claims and is substantially similar
`
`to the old ground, with the addition of a new reference Patent Owner is familiar
`
`already.”). This minor adjustment will allow the Board to maintain the current
`
`procedural schedule. Thus, joinder is appropriate.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2015-00857
`PATENT NO. 7,384,177
`
`C. Without joinder, Petitioner may be prejudiced.
`Petitioner could be prejudiced if it is not permitted to join and participate in the
`
`LGD IPR, impacting not only this inter partes review proceeding, but also the
`
`Underlying Litigation. Any decision in the LGD IPR will likely simplify, or perhaps
`
`resolve, the issues in LGD’s litigation and Petitioner’s Underlying Litigation.
`
`However, because the LGD IPR does not address claim 22–a claim not asserted
`
`against LGD–Petitioner could be prejudiced in having to continue the Underlying
`
`Litigation on claim 22 even if LGD succeeds in its IPR. Accordingly, joinder is thus
`
`necessary to allow Petitioner an opportunity to protect its interests with respect to
`
`matters that are at issue in both the inter partes review proceedings and the Underlying
`
`Litigation.
`
`As noted above in footnote 1, Petitioner has challenged claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 13-
`
`15, 19, and 22 of the ’177 Patent in a petition for a separate IPR proceeding. See Toyota
`
`Motor Corp. v. IDT, IPR2015-00835, Paper 2 (Mar. 5, 2015). The grounds asserted in
`
`that petition are entirely distinct from the grounds asserted in the instant petition–
`
`there is no overlap between the asserted references and any IPR that is instituted on
`
`that petition will necessarily lag behind the already-instituted LGD IPR. As such,
`
`Petitioner’s interests in prosecuting each separate petition are distinct, because each
`
`petition provides an independent defense against the Patent Owner’s infringement
`
`claims in litigation.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2015-00857
`PATENT NO. 7,384,177
`
`Joinder will not prejudice IDT or LGD.
`
`D.
`Permitting joinder will not prejudice the Patent Owner or LGD. Petitioner’s
`
`proposed grounds for instituting IPR–based on the same Melby and Nakamura
`
`references–are substantially identical to those instituted by the Board in the LGD IPR,
`
`and therefore, joinder will not impact the scope or timing of the LGD IPR. Indeed,
`
`LGD does not oppose joinder.
`
`Moreover, joinder is likely more convenient and efficient for the Patent Owner
`
`because it will provide a single trial on these common grounds. By allowing such
`
`common grounds of invalidity to be addressed in a single proceeding, the interests of
`
`all parties and the Board will be well served.
`
`Further, briefing and discovery can be simplified to minimize any impact on
`
`the participants and to streamline the filings for the Board. For example, upon
`
`granting joinder, the Board can adopt procedures similar to those adopted in Dell,
`
`IPR2013-00385, Paper 17, and SAP America Inc. v. Clouding IP, LLC, IPR2014-00306,
`
`Paper 13 (May 19, 2014). In those proceedings, the Board required that the petitioners
`
`make consolidated filings, for which the first petitioner was responsible, and allowed
`
`the new petitioner to file an additional seven-page paper. Applied here, the Board
`
`could allow Petitioner to file an additional paper addressing claim 22. See Dell,
`
`IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 at 11; SAP, IPR2014-00306, Paper 13 at 5. The Board also
`
`permitted the patent owner to respond to any separate filing, limiting the page limit to
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`that used in the separate filing. See Dell, IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 at 11; SAP,
`
`CASE IPR2015-00857
`PATENT NO. 7,384,177
`
`IPR2014-00306, Paper 13 at 5. Adopting a similar procedure in this case would thus
`
`help to minimize any delay that could arise from lengthy briefing submitted by each
`
`party, while at the same time providing all parties an opportunity to be heard. See Dell,
`
`IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 at 8.
`
`As in these prior cases, LGD and Petitioner can also coordinate their
`
`questioning at depositions to avoid redundancy. See Dell, IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 at
`
`12; SAP, IPR2014-00306, Paper 13 at 6. As noted, Petitioner would be willing to rely
`
`on the declaration and testimony from LGD’s expert for all claims except dependent
`
`claim 22. For that claim, Petitioner’s expert will be provided for deposition on the
`
`same day as LGD’s expert, or on a day most convenient to the parties.
`
`For these reasons, joinder will not prejudice any party, but rather will promote
`
`the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of these proceedings.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that its Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177 (2015IPR-00857) be instituted and that
`
`this proceeding be joined with LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Innovative Display Technologies
`
`LLC, IPR2014-01362.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Although Petitioner believes that no fee is required for this Motion, the
`
`CASE IPR2015-00857
`PATENT NO. 7,384,177
`
`
`
`Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any additional fees that may be required
`
`for this Motion to Deposit Account No. 06-0916.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 23, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2015-00857
`PATENT NO. 7,384,177
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
` /P. Andrew Riley/
`P. Andrew Riley, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 66,290
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON,
`FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel: (202) 408-4266
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`Email: andrew.riley@finnegan.com
`
`Thomas W. Winland, Back-up Counsel
`Reg. No. 27,605
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON,
`FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel: (202) 408-4085
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`Email: tom.winland@finnegan.com
`
`David C. Reese, Back-up Counsel
`Reg. No. 67,942
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON,
`FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel: (202) 408-6098
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`Email: david.reese@finnegan.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Toyota Motor Corporation
`
`13
`
`
`
`CASE IPR2015-00857
`PATENT NO. 7,384,177
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that, on this 23rd day of March, 2015, a true and
`
`
`
`
`
`correct copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR JOINDER PURSUANT TO 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) was served by EXPRESS MAIL on the
`
`attorney of record for the Patent Owner, with a courtesy copy being sent by electronic
`
`mail to the attorneys of record in the co-pending litigation, at the following addresses:
`
`
`
`Donald L. Otto, Esq.
`Renner, Otto, Boisselle & Sklar, LLP
`1621 Euclid Avenue
`19th Floor
`Cleveland, OH 44115
`dotto@rennerotto.com
`
`Justin B. Kimble
`Jeffrey R. Bragalone
`Bragalone Conroy PC
`2200 Ross Avenue
`Suite 4500 - West
`Dallas, TX 75201
`jkimble@bcpc-law.com
`jbragalone@bcpc-law.com
`
`David E. Warden
`Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing PC
`3460 One Houston Center
`1221 McKinney Street
`Houston, TX 77010-2009
`dwarden@azalaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 23, 2015
`
`
`CASE IPR2015-00857
`PATENT NO. 7,384,177
`
`/Ashley F. Cheung/
`Ashley F. Cheung
`Case Manager
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON,
`FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`15
`
`
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
