throbber
By:
`
`Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
`Matthew L. Fedowitz, Esq.
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`191 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 3800
`Atlanta, GA 30303
`jblake@merchantgould.com
`mfedowitz@merchantgould.com
`Main Telephone: (404) 954-5100
`Main Facsimile: (404) 954-5099
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`
`COALITION FOR AFFORDABLE DRUGS II LLC
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`NPS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00990
`Patent No. 7,056,886
`_____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO MOTION PRESENTING PATENT
`OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS REGARDING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
`ANTHONY PALMIERI, Ph.D.
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Coalition for Affordable Drugs II LLC (“Petitioner”) submits this
`
`Response to the Motion Presenting Patent Owner’s Observations Regarding Cross-
`
`Examination of Anthony Palmieri, Ph.D. (Paper 47, “Observations”). These
`
`responses to observations are timely submitted pursuant to a joint stipulation
`
`between the parties resetting the due date for these responses to May 31, 2016.
`
`On May 27, 2016, a teleconference between the Board and the parties was
`
`held to provide guidance on how Petitioner should respond to Patent Owner’s
`
`improper Observations. During the teleconference, the Board authorized Petitioner
`
`to include an introduction in its Response to Patent Owner’s Observations
`
`explaining Petitioner’s objections and stating the relevant authority for those
`
`objections.
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner’s Observations are an Unauthorized Sur-Reply
`
`The Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 157, 48756-73 (August 14, 2012)
`
`clearly explains the purpose of observations on cross-examination is to draw the
`
`Board’s attention to relevant cross-examination testimony that “occurs after a party
`
`has filed its last substantive paper on an issue.” Chums, Inc. v. Cablz, Inc.
`
`IPR2014-01240, Paper 32, page 2. The Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 157,
`
`48756-73 (August 14, 2012) sets forth requirements for observations on cross-
`
`examination.
`
`1
`
`

`
`An observation should be a concise statement of the relevance of
`
`identified testimony to an identified argument or portion of an exhibit
`
`(including another part of the same testimony)…An observation…is
`
`not an opportunity to raise new issues, re-argue issues, or pursue
`
`objections. Each observation should be in the following form:
`
`In exhibit __, on page __, lines __, the witness testified __. This
`
`testimony is relevant to the __ on page __ of __. The testimony is
`
`relevant because __.
`
`Rather than following the Trial Practice Guide, Patent Owner instead filed
`
`Observations that are in the improper format, excessively long, argumentative, and
`
`attempt to introduce new exhibits into the record. These Observations amount to an
`
`unauthorized sur-reply filed under the veil of Observations. If Patent Owner
`
`wished to respond to arguments in the Petitioner’s reply, the proper mechanism
`
`was to contact the Board and request permission for a sur-reply. Patent Owner
`
`chose not to do so, and it should not be allowed to submit a sur-reply through
`
`improper observations. See Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR2013-00506,
`
`Paper 37.
`
`B. Requirements for Filing Observations
`
`Each of the Observations provided for Dr. Palmieri do not follow the format
`
`required by the Trial Practice Guide as set forth above. See Observations 1-33.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Instead, Patent Owner’s Observations attempt to masquerade as being in the proper
`
`format by using phrases and terms such as “the witness testified” and “relevant.”
`
`However, a cursory review of Dr. Palmieri’s Observations reveal that they do not
`
`follow the Board’s required format. Id.
`
`
`
`The same is true regarding the argumentative nature of Patent Owner’s
`
`Observations, which resemble a brief and are an attempt to introduce new
`
`evidence, re-argue issues and raise new issues. See Observation 3 arguing that Dr.
`
`Palmieri “misstated that Dr. Carpenter agreed that a formulator would not need to
`
`know formulation basics and would consult others for basics”; Observations 24
`
`and 25 arguing that the identified testimony “evidences [Dr. Palmieri’s] lack of
`
`expertise and his use of hindsight”; and Observation 32 raising the new issue that
`
`“Petitioner attempts to raise enablement issues in these IPRs.”
`
`
`
`This is improper as the Board is clear in its requirements that observations
`
`must be a concise statement of the relevance of precisely identified testimony to a
`
`precisely identified argument or portion of an exhibit. Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive,
`
`Inc., IPR2013-00506, Paper 37, p. 2. In addition, the entire observation should not
`
`exceed one short paragraph. Id. Patent Owner’s Observations disregard this
`
`requirement. See Observations 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, and 27.
`
`
`
`Further, each observation should cite to one portion of testimony and not
`
`several pages and this is a basis upon which observations may be
`
`3
`
`

`
`dismissed. Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR2013-00506, Paper 37, pp 3-4.
`
`Patent Owner also did not follow this requirement. For example, Observation 1
`
`provides seventeen citations to Ex. 2171 (333:12-334:19; 487:22-498:1; 337:21-
`
`338:11; 629:15-630:20; 453:18-454:8; 426:13-18; 570:15-25; 602:25-603:4;
`
`603:24-604:6; 622:12-624:5; 624:16-22; 632:22-633:4; 605:12-606:2; 606:13-
`
`607:5; 611:19-613:13; 617:15-618:5; and 692:3-696:7). In fact, many citations are
`
`to extended portions of deposition transcript spanning multiple pages, such as
`
`333:12-334:19, 487:22-498:1, 622:12-624:5, 611:19-613:13, and 692:3-696:7 for
`
`Observation 1 alone. See also Observations 2-9, 12-18, 25, and 33 as additional
`
`examples of improperly providing citations to multiple portions of testimony in a
`
`similar manner as Observation 1.
`
`
`
`The Board may refuse entry of excessively long or argumentative
`
`observations. Trial Practice Guide at p. 48768; and, Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive,
`
`Inc., IPR2013-00506, Paper 37, p. 2. Indeed, the majority of Patent Owner’s
`
`Observations are lengthy. See Observations 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22,
`
`and 27. The Board has precedent for dismissing excessively long observations.
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR2013-00506, Paper 37, page 3.
`
`
`
`Finally, the Board has held that no new exhibits are permitted with
`
`Observations by stating that only testimony from cross-examination should be
`
`present in Observations. Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR2013-00506, Paper
`
`4
`
`

`
`37, page 4, footnote 2. Again, Patent Owner did not follow this requirement. For
`
`example, Observation 10, in the first instance, cites to Dr. Palmieri’s deposition
`
`transcript from December 10, 2015 (citations with pages numbers lower than page
`
`318 are from the Palmieri Deposition transcript dated December 10, 2015). Dr.
`
`Palmieri’s deposition from December 10, 2015 is not the subject of Observations,
`
`rather that testimony was addressed in Patent Owner’s formal Opposition filed on
`
`January 20, 2016.
`
`Given that Patent Owner’s Observations are argumentative, fail to follow the
`
`proper format set forth in the Trial Practice Guide, excessively long, and attempt to
`
`introduce new exhibits into the record, these Observations amount to an
`
`unauthorized sur-reply. Accordingly, Petitioner objects to them.
`
`II.
`
`RESPONSES TO OBSERVATIONS
`
`A. Response to Observations 1-4, 24, and 25
`
`i.
`
`In Ex. 2171, on p. 335, l. 17-p. 336, l. 4, Dr. Palmieri testified
`
`to his expertise in pharmaceutics and his extensive list of publications. This
`
`testimony is relevant to Dr. Palmieri’s expertise and qualifications as set forth in
`
`his Reply Declaration (Ex. 1041, paragraphs 5-7) and Initial Declaration (Ex. 1001,
`
`paragraphs 4-7).
`
`ii.
`
`In Ex. 2171, on p. 359, l. 15-p. 361, line 3, Dr. Palmieri
`
`testified to the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. This testimony is relevant to
`
`5
`
`

`
`paragraph 10 of Dr. Palmieri’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 1041). This testimony is
`
`also relevant to Dr. Palmieri’s expertise and qualifications as set forth in his Reply
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1041, paragraphs 5-7) and Initial Declaration (Ex. 1001,
`
`paragraphs 4-7).
`
`iii.
`
`In Ex. 2171, on p. 361, l. 16-p. 363, line 9, Dr. Palmieri
`
`testified to the level of one of ordinary skill in the art and what that individual
`
`would consider a finite number of excipients to work with in formulating
`
`glucagon-like peptide-2 (GLP-2). This testimony is relevant to paragraph 10 of
`
`Dr. Palmieri’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 1041) and to choosing excipients in
`
`formulating GLP-2. This testimony is also relevant to Dr. Palmieri’s Reply
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1041) where he addresses finite combinations and excipients at
`
`paragraphs 22, 24, 63, and 68-70.
`
`iv.
`
`In Ex. 2171, on p. 509, l. 24-p. 510, l. 2, Dr. Palmieri testified
`
`to his being well-versed in the area of protein/peptide formulation. This testimony
`
`is relevant to Dr. Palmieri’s expertise and qualifications as set forth in his Reply
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1041, paragraphs 5-7) and Initial Declaration (Ex. 1001,
`
`paragraphs 4-7).
`
`v.
`
`In Ex. 2171, on p. 575, l. 13-p. 576, l. 3, Dr. Palmieri testified
`
`to Dr. Carpenter’s admission that a one of ordinary skill in the art could work in a
`
`team in developing a lyophilized formulation. This testimony is relevant to Dr.
`
`6
`
`

`
`Palmieri’s expertise and the credibility of Dr. Carpenter. This testimony is also
`
`relevant to Dr. Palmieri’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 1041) where he addresses
`
`working in a team at paragraphs 32, 33, 36, and 43.
`
`vi.
`
`In Ex. 2171, on p. 426, ll. 20-25, Dr. Palmieri said he
`
`understands “what quality control testing is” and knows “there are different ways
`
`to do quality control testing.” This testimony is relevant to Ex. 2171, 426:13-18
`
`because it demonstrates Dr. Palmieri’s expertise.
`
`B. Response to Observation 5
`
`i.
`
`In Ex. 2171, on p. 378, l. 25-p. 379, l. 15, Dr. Palmieri testified
`
`how he reached the conclusion that the claims at issue are obvious. This testimony
`
`is relevant to the basis of Dr. Palmieri’s conclusions on the issue of obviousness of
`
`the claims at issue as set forth in Dr. Palmieri’s Initial Declaration (Ex. 1001) at
`
`paragraphs 45-216 and his Reply Declaration (Ex. 1041) at paragraphs 9-10 and
`
`53-60.
`
`C. Response to Observations 6 and 32
`
`i.
`
`In Ex. 2171, on p. 349, ll. 5-24, Dr. Palmieri testified to the
`
`disclosure in U.S. Patent No. 7,056,886 (“the ‘886 patent”). This testimony is
`
`relevant to whether or not the complexities Dr. Carpenter describes were even
`
`considered to be complexities based on the disclosure of the ‘886 patent. This
`
`testimony is also relevant to Dr. Palmieri’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 1041) at
`
`7
`
`

`
`paragraphs 11-19 where he describes how the ‘886 patent does not recognize any
`
`of the “complexities” associated with peptide formulation that Dr. Carpenter
`
`discusses.
`
`D. Response to Observations 7-11 and 23
`
`i.
`
`In Ex. 2171, on p. 345, l. 23-p. 346, l. 14, Dr. Palmieri testified
`
`to how the claims at issue do not relate to degradation but rather formulations.
`
`This testimony is relevant to whether the degradation reactions are pertinent to the
`
`obviousness of the claims at issue as well as being relevant to Dr. Palmieri’s Reply
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1041) at paragraphs 11-34 and 77-81.
`
`ii.
`
`In Ex. 2171, on p. 441, l. 14-p. 442, l. 22, Dr. Palmieri testified
`
`to Dr. Carpenter’s admission that degradative reactions can be slowed sufficiently
`
`so that a protein product remains stable for months or years. This testimony is
`
`relevant to the credibility of Dr. Carpenter as well as being relevant to the
`
`testimony provided in Dr. Palmieri’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 1041) at paragraphs
`
`11-34 and 77-81.
`
`iii.
`
`In Ex. 2171, on p. 650, l. 22-p. 652, l. 15, Dr. Palmieri testified
`
`to the disclosure of Ex. 2052 being published after the priority date of the ‘886
`
`patent and that it would not impact his obviousness analysis. This testimony is
`
`relevant to whether Ex. 2052 is relevant and Dr. Palmieri’s Reply Declaration (Ex.
`
`1041) at paragraph 85.
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`E. Response to Observation 12
`
`i.
`
`In Ex. 2171, on p. 414, l. 7-p. 415, l. 19, Dr. Palmieri testified
`
`to the deficiencies in Figure 5 of the ‘886 patent and its related Example. This
`
`testimony is relevant to Dr. Palmieri’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 1041) at paragraphs
`
`121-126 discussing how the Figure does not provide the results Dr. Carpenter
`
`alleges and that the results in Figures 5 and 6 are not surprising and unexpected in
`
`view of Dr. Carpenter’s statement that Kornfelt found mannitol and lactose
`
`equivalent in glucagon formulations, and also Dr. Carpenter’s failure to read
`
`Kornfelt as a whole.
`
`F. Response to Observations 14-16
`
`i.
`
`In Ex. 2171, on p. 371, ll. 9-16, Dr. Palmieri testified that his
`
`opinions on obviousness are independent of Dr. Carpenter’s 1996 and 1997
`
`publications (Exs. 1049 and 1050). This testimony is relevant to paragraph 69 of
`
`Dr. Palmieri’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 1041) and demonstrates that he maintains
`
`that the claims at issue are obvious based on the Grounds set forth in his Initial
`
`Declaration. This testimony is also relevant to the basis of Dr. Palmieri’s
`
`conclusions on the issue of obviousness of the claims at issue as set forth in Dr.
`
`Palmieri’s Initial Declaration (Ex. 1001) at paragraphs 45-216 and his Reply
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1041) at paragraphs 9-10 and 53-60.
`
`9
`
`

`
`ii.
`
`In Ex. 2171, on p. 525, ll. 8-22, Dr. Palmieri testified to
`
`disclosures in Dr. Carpenter’s book chapter (Ex. 1049). This testimony is relevant
`
`to the credibility of Dr. Carpenter. This testimony is also relevant to Dr. Palmieri’s
`
`Reply Declaration (Ex. 1041) at paragraphs 20-43 discussing how Dr. Carpenter’s
`
`previous publications contradict his declaration and support Petitioner’s positions.
`
`G. Response to Observations 16, 24, 29, and 31
`
`i.
`
`In Ex. 2171, on p. 398, l. 22-p. 399, l. 15, Dr. Palmieri testified
`
`that glucagon was similar to glucagon-like peptide-2 (GLP-2). This testimony is
`
`relevant to using what was known in the art for stabilizing glucagon and applying
`
`it to stabilizing glucagon-like peptide-2 using routine experimentation. This
`
`testimony is also relevant to Dr. Palmieri’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 1041)
`
`paragraphs 80-81 discussing how it is logical that a correlation can be drawn
`
`between what occurs during the degradation of glucagon and glucagon-like
`
`peptide-2 and methods to stabilize glucagon could be applied to glucagon-like
`
`peptide-2 or analogs thereof.
`
`ii.
`
`In Ex. 2171, on p. 607, l. 10-p. 608, l. 4, Dr. Palmieri testified
`
`that he believed [Gly2]GLP-2 has a glycine at the two position of GLP-2, but
`
`would want to confirm that this is the sequence by checking a reference. This
`
`testimony is relevant to Ex. 2171, 605:12-606:2, 606:13-607:5, 611:19-613:13, and
`
`617:15-618:5 because it shows Dr. Palmieri understands the sequence of
`
`10
`
`

`
`[Gly2]GLP-2. This testimony is also relevant to Dr. Palmieri’s Reply Declaration
`
`(Ex. 1041) at paragraphs 17, 51, and 124.
`
`H. Response to Observations 13, 17, 30, and 33
`
`i.
`
`In Ex. 2171, on p. 361, l. 16-p. 363, l. 9, Dr. Palmieri testified
`
`to the level of one of ordinary skill in the art and what that individual would
`
`consider a finite number of excipients to work with in formulating GLP-2. This
`
`testimony is relevant to paragraph 10 of Dr. Palmieri’s Reply Declaration (Ex.
`
`1041) and to choosing excipients in formulating GLP-2. This testimony is also
`
`relevant to Dr. Palmieri’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 1041) where he addresses finite
`
`combinations and excipients at paragraphs 22, 24, 63, and 68-70.
`
`ii.
`
`In Ex. 2171, on p. 364, l. 14-p. 365, l. 16, Dr. Palmieri testified
`
`to the choice of routine excipients in lyophilization. This testimony is relevant to
`
`choosing excipients in formulating GLP-2. This testimony is also relevant to
`
`paragraph 10 of Dr. Palmieri’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 1041) and to choosing
`
`excipients in formulating GLP-2. This testimony is also relevant to Dr. Palmieri’s
`
`Reply Declaration (Ex. 1041) where he addresses finite combinations and
`
`excipients at paragraphs 22, 24, 63, and 68-70.
`
`iii.
`
`In Ex. 2171, on p. 368, l. 18-p. 369, l. 17, Dr. Palmieri testified
`
`to the choice of excipients for reducing residual moisture during lyophilization.
`
`This testimony is relevant to common knowledge in choosing excipients for
`
`11
`
`

`
`lyophilization. This testimony is also relevant to paragraph 10 of Dr. Palmieri’s
`
`Reply Declaration (Ex. 1041) and to choosing excipients in formulating GLP-2.
`
`This testimony is also relevant to Dr. Palmieri’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 1041)
`
`where he addresses finite combinations and excipients at paragraphs 22, 24, 63,
`
`and 68-70.
`
`I. Response to Observations 18-22
`
`i.
`
`In Ex. 2171, on p. 528, ll. 8-20, Dr. Palmieri testified to Dr.
`
`Carpenter’s admissions in his publications that sugars prevent denaturation. This
`
`testimony is relevant to Dr. Palmieri’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 1041) at paragraphs
`
`25 and 27 discussing choosing excipients that are useful for stabilizing lyophilized
`
`proteins and maintaining secondary protein/peptide structure. It is also relevant to
`
`the credibility of Dr. Carpenter.
`
`ii.
`
`In Ex. 2171, on p. 533, ll. 10-17, Dr. Palmieri testified to the
`
`earliest use of sucrose to stabilize proteins was in 1935. This testimony is relevant
`
`to Dr. Palmieri’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 1041) at paragraphs 25 and 27 where he
`
`discusses the earliest use of sucrose to stabilize proteins being more than 80 years
`
`ago in 1935 as well as how sucrose has been known to protect proteins during
`
`dehydration/rehydration since at least 1935. It is also relevant to the credibility of
`
`Dr. Carpenter.
`
`12
`
`

`
`iii.
`
`In Ex. 2171, on p. 639, l. 21-p. 640, l. 21, Dr. Palmieri testified
`
`to the native form of glucagon having a helical conformer induced or selected at
`
`the receptor from a population of conformers. This testimony is relevant to
`
`secondary structure and the disclosure in Ex. 2050. This testimony is also relevant
`
`to Dr. Palmieri’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 1041) at paragraph 89 where he discusses
`
`how Blundell (Ex. 2050) supports his position contrary to Dr. Carpenter’s
`
`testimony.
`
`J.
`
`Response to Observations 26-28
`
`i.
`
`In Ex. 2171, on p. 480, ll. 11-19, Dr. Palmieri testified that
`
`optimum pH relates to a compound’s degradation profile and also explained
`
`optimum pH is available through routine experimentation. This testimony is
`
`relevant to Ex. 2171, 453:18-454:8 because it demonstrates that that optimum pH
`
`can be easily ascertained. This testimony is also relevant to Dr. Palmieri’s Reply
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1041) at paragraphs 64-67 where he describes how Dr. Carpenter
`
`ignores Kornfelt’s disclosure of a broad pH range.
`
`III.
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`No fees are required for filing this Response; however, the Commissioner is
`
`authorized to charge any additional fees which may be required, or credit any
`
`overpayment, to Deposit Account No. 13-2725.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`Date: May 31, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Matthew L. Fedowitz
`Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq., Reg. No. 58,886
`Matthew L. Fedowitz, Esq., Reg. No. 61,386
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`191 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 3800
`Atlanta, GA 30303
`jblake@merchantgould.com
`mfedowitz@merchantgould.com
`Main Telephone: (404) 954-5100
`Main Facsimile: (404) 954-5099
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Certification of Service
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R § 42.6, the undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of
`
`this PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO MOTION PRESENTING PATENT
`
`OWNER’S OBSERVATIONS REGARDING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF
`
`ANTHONY PALMIERI, Ph.D. has been served on May 31, 2016 by email on
`
`counsel of record for the Patent Owner as follows:
`
`
`Joseph R. Robinson
`Heather Morehouse Ettinger
`Troutman Sanders LLP
`The Chrysler Building
`405 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10174-0700
`joseph.robinson@troutmansanders.com
`heather.ettinger@troutmansanders.com
`
`Dustin B. Weeks
`Troutman Sanders LLP
`Bank of America Plaza
`600 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 5200
`Atlanta, GA 30308-2231
`dustin.weeks@troutmansanders.com
`
`
`
`Date: May 31, 2016
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Matthew L. Fedowitz
`Matthew L. Fedowitz, Reg. No. 61,386
`MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.
`Attorney for Petitioner CFAD
`
`15

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