throbber
Filed on behalf of: VirnetX Inc.
`By:
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 551-1996
`Facsimile: (202) 551-0496
`E-mail: josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No.
`Filed: July 15, 2016
`
`Naveen Modi
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 551-1990
`Facsimile: (202) 551-0490
`E-mail: naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD. and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VIRNETX INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-010461
`Patent 6,502,135
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`1 Apple Inc., who filed a petition in IPR2016-00062, has been joined as a Petitioner
`in the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Petitioners’ Improper New Arguments Fail to Remedy the Petitioners’
`Original Analysis ............................................................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Petitioners’ New Position 1 ................................................................... 2
`
`Petitioners’ New Positions 2–3 ............................................................. 4
`
`Petitioners’ New Position 4 ................................................................... 9
`
`Petitioners’ New Position 5 .................................................................10
`
`III. Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Separate Reply Omits Telling Facts.........................11
`
`IV. Conclusion .....................................................................................................12
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 1
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) .................................................................................................. 1
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`In an Order dated July 7, 2016, the Board authorized Patent Owner to file a
`
`sur-reply “limited to issues enumerated by Patent Owner in Patent Owner’s
`
`Identification of Improper Arguments in Petitioners’ Consolidated Reply Brief and
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Separate Reply Filing).” Paper No. 66 at 2. As discussed
`
`below, Petitioners’ new positions (see Paper No. 55 at 1–3) are flawed and fail to
`
`remedy the deficiencies of Petitioners’ original positions. As such, to the extent
`
`the Board considers the substance of Petitioners’ improper new arguments,2 the
`
`Board should enter judgment against Petitioners, confirm the patentability of the
`
`claims, and terminate this proceeding.
`
`
`2 Patent Owner continues to maintain that Petitioners’ new arguments should not
`
`be considered at this late stage. See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina
`
`Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Unlike district court
`
`litigation—where parties have greater freedom to revise and develop their
`
`arguments over time and in response to newly discovered material—the expedited
`
`nature of IPRs bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their
`
`petition to institute.”) (emphasis added); see also 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.23(b); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug.
`
`14, 2012).
`
` 1
`
`
`
`

`
`
`II.
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`Petitioners’ Improper New Arguments Fail to Remedy the Petitioners’
`Original Analysis
`
`In its Patent Owner’s Response (Paper No. 44, “Patent Owner Resp.”),
`
`VirnetX set forth a multitude of reasons why Petitioners’ asserted grounds of
`
`unpatentability must fail. In response, Petitioners’ Consolidated Reply Brief
`
`(Paper No. 50, “Consol. Rep.”) shifts Petitioners’ positions in at leave five ways.
`
`Paper No. 55 at 1–3 (identifying Petitioners’ New Positions 1–5). But these new
`
`positions are unsupported attorney arguments and do not actually remedy the
`
`problems with Petitioners’ anticipation and obviousness allegations. Each of
`
`Petitioners’ new arguments should be rejected.
`
`Petitioners’ New Position 1
`
`A.
`Petitioners’ Consolidated Reply Brief asserts that Kiuchi discloses the
`
`claimed “Domain Name Service (DNS) request,” relying on three different alleged
`
`requests sent by Kiuchi’s client-side proxy. Consol. Rep. at 10. In particular,
`
`Petitioners point to (a) “a ‘C-HTTP name service request’ sent to the name server,”
`
`which as discussed in Patent Owner’s Response (at 20–23) does not read on the
`
`claimed DNS request, along with two new requests: (b) “‘a request for connection
`
`to the server-side proxy’” and (c) “‘C-HTTP requests’ to the server-side proxy.”
`
`Consol. Rep. at 10; see also Paper No. 55 at 1–2 (identifying Petitioners’ new
`
`position). Like Petitioners’ original mapping, these latter two new mappings fail to
`
`support Petitioners’ anticipation positions.
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`For one, neither request comports with the claimed DNS features. To the
`
`contrary, Kiuchi repeatedly differentiates its C-HTTP features from DNS. Ex.
`
`2043 at ¶ 44; see also Patent Owner Resp. at 20–22 (explaining why Kiuchi’s C-
`
`HTTP features do not comport with DNS). Moreover, neither request “requests an
`
`IP address corresponding to a domain name associated with the target computer,”
`
`as claimed.
`
`As to the request for connection to the server-side proxy, Kiuchi explains
`
`that “[w]hen a server-side proxy accepts a request for connection from a client-side
`
`proxy, it asks the C-HTTP name server whether the client-side proxy is an
`
`appropriate member of the closed network.” Ex. 1002 at 8-9, § 2.3(4); see also Ex.
`
`2043 at ¶ 40. If it is, the name server returns the IP address of the client-side
`
`proxy. Ex. 1002 at 9, § 2.3(4); Ex. 2043 at ¶ 40. But Petitioners do not (and
`
`cannot) allege that the client-side proxy corresponds to the claimed “target,” and so
`
`Kiuchi’s request for connection to the server-side proxy cannot read on the claimed
`
`DNS request “that requests an IP address corresponding to a domain name
`
`associated with the target computer.” And in any event, in this scenario, the
`
`server-side proxy sends the request that causes the client-side proxy’s IP address to
`
`be returned, which is a different request than that pointed to by Petitioners. Ex.
`
`1002 at 9, § 2.3(4); Ex. 2043 at ¶ 40.
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`The C-HTTP requests referred to by Petitioners also fail to “request[] an IP
`
`address corresponding to a domain name associated with the target computer,” as
`
`claimed. To the contrary, these requests are sent after the C-HTTP connection (the
`
`alleged “VPN,” see Consol. Rep. at 11–16) is even established. Ex. 2043 at ¶¶ 41,
`
`42; Ex. 1002 at 9, § 2.3(6). The C-HTTP requests in Kiuchi simply do not request
`
`any IP address whatsoever. See Ex. 2043 at ¶ 40.3
`
`Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, in addition to the reasons
`
`discussed in Patent Owner’s Response, Kiuchi fails to disclose a “a Domain Name
`
`Service (DNS) request,” as recited in claim 1. Petitioners rely on their analysis of
`
`the claimed DNS request to address the DNS features of claim 10. See Consol.
`
`Rep. at 17. As such, for the reasons discussed above and in Patent Owner’s
`
`Response, Kiuchi likewise fails to disclose the DNS features of claim 10.
`
`Petitioners’ New Positions 2–3
`
`B.
`Petitioners and their expert originally admitted that the hostname in a URL
`
`“corresponds to an origin server” that is only “associated with a server-side proxy.”
`
`See Paper No. 5 at 22; see also Ex. 1003 at ¶ 23. Based on this then-undisputed
`
`operation of Kiuchi, Patent Owner showed how Kiuchi’s requests do not “request[]
`
`3 Petitioners in fact now appear to change tack yet again and suggest that they are
`
`not relying on either of the two new requests for the claimed DNS request. See
`
`Paper No. 51 at 1; but see Consol. Rep. at 10.
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`an IP address corresponding to a domain name associated with the target
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`computer,” as recited in claim 1. See Patent Owner Resp. at 22–23. In response,
`
`Petitioners now shift gears and contend that “the hostname in a URL [in Kiuchi]
`
`corresponds to an institution’s server-side proxy,” relying on Kiuchi’s appendices.
`
`Consol. Rep. at 7; see also Paper No. 55 at 2 (identifying Petitioners’ new
`
`position).4 Petitioners’ new interpretation of Kiuchi is wrong—worse still,
`
`Petitioners’ Consolidated Reply Brief fails to even mention evidence (that at least
`
`Apple was aware of) showing Petitioners’ new interpretation of Kiuchi is wrong.
`
`In characterizing the hostname as corresponding to a server-side proxy,
`
`Petitioner’s point to a “Server-Side-Proxy-Name” field in Kiuchi’s appendices that
`
`is allegedly “[u]sed for specifying the hostname of a server side proxy.” Consol.
`
`Rep. at 7; Ex. 1002 at Appendix 1. But this field actually refers to the URL of the
`
`4 Petitioners argue that this is not a new argument because Dr. Guerin relied on
`
`Kiuchi’s appendices, and that they in turn generally cited to Dr. Guerin’s
`
`declaration. Paper No. 56 at 1–2 (citing Ex. 1003 at ¶ 32). However, Petitioners
`
`never originally cite to paragraph 32 of Dr. Guerin’s declaration, the only
`
`paragraph of his declaration that even mentions the appendices. Moreover, Dr.
`
`Guerin’s citation to Kiuchi’s appendices has nothing whatsoever to do with
`
`whether the hostname in a URL corresponds to an origin server or server-side
`
`proxy.
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`resource on the origin server being requested; it does not refer to the domain name
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`of the server-side proxy.
`
`Kiuchi
`
`explains
`
`that
`
`the
`
`URL
`
`“http://server.in.current.connection/sample.html=@=6zdDfldfcZLj8V!i” represents
`
`a “resource name,” and that when the URL is clicked, “the client-side proxy takes
`
`off the connection ID (i.e., “6zdDfldfcZLj8V”) and forwards, the stripped, original
`
`resource name to the server . . . .” Ex. 1002 at 8–9, Figs. (b), (c) (reproduced
`
`below) (emphases added); Ex. 2043 at ¶ 47.
`
`
`
`
`
`Thus, the Kiuchi’s URL belongs to the resource on the origin server. Interpreting
`
`the “Server-Side-Proxy-Name” field as referring to the domain name of the server-
`
`side proxy would be inconsistent with Kiuchi’s main text
`
`In fact, in raising its new argument, Petitioners did not inform the Board
`
`(even though at least Apple was aware) that a 1996 slide presentation
`
`accompanying Kiuchi, presented to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`Engineers (“IEEE”) by Dr. Kiuchi (the author of the Kiuchi reference), confirms
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`this understanding on C-HTTP—a presentation that was discussed at length at trial
`
`between VirnetX and Apple nearly four years ago.5 See Kiuchi Slide Presentation,
`
`Ex. 2063; see also Transcript of Trial, Morning Session, VirnetX, Inc. v. Apple,
`
`Inc., Case No. 6:10-CV-417 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2012), Ex. 2048 at 68:13–69:14;
`
`Transcript of Trial, Afternoon Session, VirnetX, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 6:10-
`
`CV-417 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2012), Ex. 2064 at 39:20–41:20, 104:24–106:17.6 For
`
`example, slide 9 of the presentation explains that the C-HTTP name server “keeps”
`
`“resource names.” Ex. 2063 at 9. Additionally, slide 17 illustrates that a C-HTTP
`
`name request includes a “RESOURCE-NAME,” (id. at 17), while slide 20 shows
`
`that the C-HTTP name response that follows includes a “SERVER-SIDE-PROXY-
`
`IP [address],” (id. at 20). Indeed, expert testimony at trial confirmed that the
`
`Kiuchi system would not work if the URL did not refer to the resource on the
`
`origin server. See, e.g., Ex. 2064 at 40:15–20 (“Q. Would the Kiuchi system work
`
`if the client-side proxy requested a domain name for the server-side proxy from
`
`5 This discussion and the presentation was part of the record before the Federal
`
`Circuit, which found Kiuchi not to anticipate the claims of the ’135 patent.
`
`VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Sys., 767 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`6 Patent Owner submits Exhibits 2063 and 2064 with this paper, each of which is
`
`being relied upon because of Petitioners’ new arguments.
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`C-HTTP? A. No. The way Kiuchi has to work is that what’s being requested is
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`the resource that’s on the origin server. That’s where the data is.”).
`
`Relatedly, Petitioners asserted for the first time in their Consolidated Reply
`
`Brief that RFC 1945 “defin[es] HTTP/1.0 used in Kiuchi” and that RFC 1945
`
`“explains the ‘host’ is the domain name component of an HTTP URL.” Consol.
`
`Rep. at 6–7; see also Paper No. 55 at 2 (identifying Petitioners’ new position).7
`
`Petitioners are incorrect. For one, there is no evidence—only attorney argument—
`
`that RFC 1945 “defin[es] HTTP/1.0 used in Kiuchi.” In any event, RFC 1945 does
`
`not support Petitioners’ suggestion that only a domain name from a URL (e.g.,
`
`server.in.connection) will be sent to the C-HTTP name server. To the contrary, as
`
`discussed above, Kiuchi’s URL that is provided to the C-HTTP name server
`
`belongs to the resource on the origin server. See also Ex. 2043 at ¶¶ 47-48.
`
`Therefore, because the hostname in a URL corresponds to an origin server,
`
`Kiuchi’s requests do not “request[] an IP address corresponding to a domain name
`
`7 Petitioners argue that this is not a new argument, referencing paragraph 19 of Dr.
`
`Guerin’s declaration. Paper No. 56 at 2. But paragraph 19 of Dr. Guerin’s
`
`declaration only refers to RFC 1945 as “describing proxy as an ‘intermediary
`
`program which acts as both a server and a client for the purpose of making requests
`
`on behalf of other clients,’” which has nothing to do with Petitioners’ new position.
`
`See Ex. 1003 at ¶ 19.
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`associated with the target computer,” as previously discussed. See Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`Resp. at 22–23.
`
`Petitioners’ New Position 4
`
`C.
`For the first time in their Consolidated Reply Brief, Petitioners rely on the
`
`“collective[]” actions of the client-side proxy and C-HTTP name server for the
`
`claimed “determining.” Compare Consol. Rep. at 4, with Paper No. 5 at 28; see
`
`also Paper No. 55 at 2 (identifying Petitioners’ new position).8 According to
`
`Petitioners, this somehow suggests that Kiuchi also teaches “DNS request[s],” as
`
`claimed. Consol Br. at 4–5. But regardless of whether the client-side proxy and
`
`C-HTTP name server “collectively” determine whether “access to a secure web
`
`site” has been requested, Petitioners have provided no explanation as to how such a
`
`determination is a determination whether a “DNS request” transmitting from the
`
`claimed client computer is requesting access to a secure web site, as recited in the
`
`claims, especially where Kiuchi states its C-HTTP processes do not use DNS. Ex.
`
`1002 at 7.
`
`
`8 Petitioners argue that this is not a new argument, but its own citations suggest the
`
`opposite. See Paper No. 56 at 2 (“C-HTTP name server and client-side proxy each
`
`determine whether the user agent is requesting to connect to a secure destination”)
`
`(quoting Paper No. 5 at 28) (emphasis added)
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`Petitioners’ New Position 5
`
`D.
`In addressing claim 10, the Consolidated Reply Brief asserts that “Patent
`
`Owner nowhere explains how returning the IP address to the client-side proxy
`
`(another ‘client computer’) does not” disclose “the DNS proxy server returns the
`
`IP address for the requested domain name if it is determined that access to a non-
`
`secure web site has been requested,” as claimed. Consol. Rep. at 18 (emphasis
`
`removed). But the Consolidated Reply Brief represents the first time that
`
`Petitioners point to the client-side proxy as mapping to the “client computer” for
`
`claim 10—the Petitioners originally relied only on Kiuchi’s user agent. See, e.g.,
`
`Paper No. 5 at 34; see also Paper No. 55 at 3 (identifying Petitioners’ new
`
`position).9
`
`Petitioners’ new mapping is improper. To allegedly address the claimed
`
`“DNS proxy,” Petitioners rely on “Kiuchi’s client-side proxy and C-HTTP name
`
`server . . . work[ing] together as part of a system of computers with a conventional
`
`9 Petitioners assert that this is not a new argument because they allegedly mapped
`
`the client-side proxy to the “client computer” of claim 1. Paper No. 56 at 3.
`
`Whether or not Petitioners relied on the client-side proxy for the “client computer”
`
`of claim 1, claim 10 stands on its own. Petitioners originally only relied on
`
`Kiuchi’s user agent as allegedly mapping to the “client computer” of claim 10.
`
`See, e.g., Paper No. 5 at 34.
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`name server.” Consol. Rep. at 17. Thus, Petitioners now rely on the client-side
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`proxy as being part of the claimed “DNS proxy server” that returns an IP address,
`
`while also being the “client computer” to which an IP address is returned. That is,
`
`under this new mapping, Petitioners do not explain how or why Kiuchi’s client-
`
`side proxy (the alleged “client computer”) “returns the IP address for the requested
`
`domain name if it is determined that access to a non-secure web site has been
`
`requested,” as recited in claim 10. Nowhere does Kiuchi disclose that the client
`
`side proxy acts a DNS proxy server and returns any non-secure web site address,
`
`much less to itself. Moreover, even if such a mapping was proper, Kiuchi’s client-
`
`side proxy is not a “client computer,” as claimed. See Patent Owner Resp. at 24–
`
`28 (explaining why Kiuchi’s client-side proxy is not a “client computer”).
`
` Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Separate Reply Omits Telling Facts III.
`
`
`Apple tries to make much of certain administrative petitions filed by
`
`VirnetX in pending inter partes reexamination Control Nos. 95/001,682 (“the
`
`1,682 proceeding”) and 95/001,697 (“the 1,697 proceeding”), accusing VirnetX of
`
`“paralyz[ing]” those proceedings. See Paper No. 53 at 3–5. VirnetX has not
`
`delayed resolution of those reexaminations in any way.
`
`In the 1,682 proceeding, Apple filed an approximately 400-page request for
`
`reexamination (containing over 200 pages of analysis, accompanied by an
`
`additional over 200 pages of claim charts). Similarly, in the 1,697 proceeding,
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`Apple filed an approximately 400-page request for reexamination (containing just
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`under 200 pages of analysis, accompanied by an additional over 200 pages of
`
`claim charts). Given the extreme size of Apple’s requests—which would have
`
`been impermissible in today’s inter partes review practice—VirnetX has
`
`occasionally requested modest extensions of time and increased page limits to try
`
`to level the playing field. In fact, Apple fails to mention that the Office has largely
`
`agreed with VirnetX’s positions in the petitions that Apple now complains of. On
`
`the other hand, when Apple sought to preclude VirnetX from making use of these
`
`procedural safeguards, the Office rejected Apple’s request as one that “could
`
`prejudice [VirnetX] and place unwarranted administrative burden on the Office.”
`
`See, e.g., Decision Dismissing Petition to Align Schedules, Ex. 2065 at 10.10
`
`Apple’s discussion of the 1,682 and 1,697 proceedings is a red herring that
`
`should have no impact on the proceeding at hand.
`
` Conclusion IV.
`
`
`In sum, the Petitioners’ new, improper arguments do nothing to correct the
`
`defects in their original analysis. As such, for the reasons discussed above and in
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, Petitioners have failed to establish that any of the
`
`challenged claims are unpatentable. Therefore, for at least these reasons, the Board
`
`10 Patent Owner submits Exhibit 2065 with this paper, which is being relied upon
`
`because of Petitioner Apple Inc.’s new argument.
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`should confirm the claims and enter judgment against the Petitioners.
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Registration No. 46,508
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 15, 2016
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that I caused to be served on the
`
`counsel for Petitioners a true and correct copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Sur-Reply by electronic means on the date below at the following address of
`
`record:
`
`Abraham Kasdan (akasdan@wiggin.com)
`Wiggin and Dana LLP
`450 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10017
`IP@wiggin.com
`
`James T. Bailey (jtb@jtbaileylaw.com)
`504 W. 136th St. #1B
`New York, NY 10031
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Scott Border
`Thomas A. Broughan III
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`iprnotices@sidley.com
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 15, 2016

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