UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case IPR2015-01116
`Patent 6,012,007
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case IPR2015-01116
`Patent 6,012,007
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ................................................................................ 1
`
`Independent claims ..................................................................... 8
`
`Claims 1, 17, and 19-21 are patentable over Cashler and
`
`Summary of the ’007 Patent and Prosecution History ............... 1!
`A.! Overview .................................................................................... 1!
`Computed weight parameters and thresholds ............................. 4!
`B.!
`C.!
`Decision algorithms .................................................................... 4!
`D.!
`Argument .................................................................................. 10!
`A.!
`Schousek. .................................................................................. 10!
`1.!
`Summary of Cashler and Schousek ............................... 10!
`2.!
`Conclusion ................................................................................ 17!
`
`Neither Cashler nor Schousek suggest a lock threshold or
`lock flag. ......................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`I.!
`I.!
`
`! I
`
`II.!
`
`! I
`
`V.!
`
`! I
`
`
`
`!
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ...... 10, 17
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`!
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1, 17, and 19-21 of
`
`
`
`I.!
`
`U.S. Patent 6,012,007 (“the ’007 patent”). The Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board should not institute inter partes review of the ’007 patent because
`
`Petitioner has not met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood that any
`
`challenged claim of the ’007 patent is unpatentable.
`
`
`
`II.!
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ’007 PATENT AND PROSECUTION
`HISTORY
`A.! Overview
`The ’007 patent relates to “discriminat[ing] in a SIR [supplemental
`
`inflatable restraint] system between large and small seat occupants for a
`
`determination of whether an airbag deployment should be permitted” and
`
`“maintain[ing] reliable operation in spite of dynamic variations in sensed
`
`pressures.” Ex. 1001 at 1:52-57. The ’007 patent is a continuation-in-part of
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,732,375 (“Cashler”, Ex. 1003). Id. at 1:4-7. The background
`
`section of the ’007 patent notes that Cashler and U.S. Pat. No. 5,474,327
`
`(“Schousek”, Ex. 1004), “form a foundation for the present invention and
`
`are incorporated herein by reference,” but “[i]t is desirable, however to
`
`provide a system which is particularly suited for discriminating between
`
`heavy and light occupants and for robust operation under dynamic
`
`!
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`conditions such as occupant shifting or bouncing due to rough roads.” Id. at
`
`1:43-49.
`
`The ’007 patent describes systems and approaches for accomplishing
`
`such a goal—e.g., a method of controlling airbag deployment using pressure
`
`sensors to allow or inhibit airbag deployment based on passenger weight. Id.
`
`at Abstract. According to the specification, the system aims to “inhibit air
`
`bag deployment when a seat is empty or occupied by a small child, while
`
`allowing deployment when the occupant is large.” Id. at 2:55-58.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’007 patent (below) shows a typical airbag/SIR system
`
`that incorporates a seat occupant detector:
`
`Id. at 1:15-16; 2:18-19. In the SIR module, an accelerometer (15) senses an
`
`impending crash and a microprocessor (16) receives signals from the
`
`
`
`accelerometer and determines whether to deploy an air bag. Id. at 2:46-49. In
`
`!
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`the seat occupant detector module, seat occupant sensors (26, 28)
`
`communicate with a separate microprocessor (22), which determines
`
`whether airbag deployment should be inhibited. Id. at 3:4-7. The occupant
`
`sensors are a series of voltage dividers made of resistors (26) in series with a
`
`pressure sensor or variable resistor (28). Id. at 2:64-3:2. The seat occupant
`
`detector microprocessor (22) analyzes seat occupant sensor voltage in order
`
`to derive passenger weight information. Id. at 2:61-3:7.
`
`Figure 4 of the ’007 patent, which
`
`is reproduced at right, is a flowchart
`
`overview of the operation of the system.
`
`Id. at 3:36. The seat occupant detector
`
`microprocessor (22) reads the sensor
`
`values (46). Id. at 3:37-38. The readings
`
`are then bias corrected—a bias calibrated
`
`for each sensor is subtracted from each sensor reading (48). Id. at 3:37-41.
`
`Then, decision measures are computed (50) and decision algorithms are run
`
`(52) to produce an output, wherein the output (54) represents a decision
`
`(with an accompanying signal) to either inhibit (56) or allow (58) air bag
`
`deployment. Id. at 3:41-46.
`
`!
`
`3
`
`
`
`B.! Computed weight parameters and thresholds
`The computed decision measures (50) correspond to the “relative
`
`
`
`weight parameters” recited in the claims, and may include the total force (the
`
`sum of the sensor outputs), id. at 6:3-5, a long term average of all sensor
`
`outputs, id. at 6:6-12, a load rating, id. at 6:13-20, measures representing
`
`groups of sensors positioned in different regions of the seat, id. at 3:49-55,
`
`and a fuzzy measure of sensor readings. Id. These weight parameters are
`
`calculated along with corresponding thresholds. Id. at 3:49-66. The
`
`thresholds may vary and may increase and decrease over time. Id.; see also
`
`Fig. 6.
`
`
`
`C.! Decision algorithms
`After calculating the weight
`
`parameters and thresholds, the system
`
`may follow a main decision algorithm 42
`
`(see Fig. 9 at right). Id. at 4:58-61.
`
`If the adult lock flag is set, or
`
`certain weight parameters are higher than
`
`any of a set of thresholds (e.g., a “first
`
`threshold”), the main decision algorithm
`
`!
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`provides an “allow” decision. Id. at Fig. 9. If certain other weight parameters
`
`are below any of certain other thresholds (e.g., a “second threshold” as
`
`recited in claim 20), the algorithm provides an “inhibit” decision. Id.
`
`The “Adult Lock
`
`Flag” is processed in the first
`
`step of the main decision
`
`algorithm as shown in Figure
`
`8 of the ’007 patent (at
`
`right). Id. at 4:36-37. Here,
`
`the term “adult” is used to
`
`distinguish between an
`
`occupant of a certain weight
`
`and a “child.” Id. at 4:37-40. A lock threshold and an unlock threshold are
`
`used to determine whether an “adult,” or occupant above a threshold mass, is
`
`in the seat—for example, “[t]he algorithm uses a lock threshold which is
`
`above the total force threshold range and an unlock threshold which
`
`represents an empty seat.” Id. at 4:36-44. A lock timer measures the time
`
`after the vehicle ignition is turned on, and a lock delay on the order of one to
`
`five minutes is used. Id. at 4:42-44. In the “adult lock” algorithm shown in
`
`Figure 8, a flag value is incremented and decremented according to various
`
`!
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`tests against thresholds—consequently, if a low force is measured by the
`
`seat sensors, there will be some delay before the “adult lock flag” can be
`
`cleared, which may allow the system to correctly identify when an adult has
`
`moved off of the seat as opposed to simply adjusting position.
`
`A final decision algorithm for whether to deploy an airbag is shown in
`
`Figure 10 of the ’007
`
`patent, functioning as
`
`the decision filter (54)
`
`of Figure 4. Id. at 5:8-
`
`9. Figure 10 is
`
`reproduced at right. At decision 42, the “allow” or “inhibit” decision from
`
`the main algorithm in Figure 9 is used to increment or decrement a counter.
`
`Id. at Fig. 10. A counter tabulates from zero to 255, and is incremented if an
`
`allow decision is made and decremented if an inhibit decision is made. Id. at
`
`5:9-13. Final consent to deploy is granted when the count exceeds 133. Id. at
`
`5:13-14. If consent is granted, a count over 123 is needed to maintain the
`
`state, and if the count falls below 123, the consent is revoked and
`
`deployment is inhibited. Id. at 5:9-18. Thus hysteresis is built into the
`
`system, permitting tuning of state changes between allowing and inhibiting
`
`readiness for deployment of an airbag in response to different categories of
`
`!
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`seat sensor input: “Rapid detection of large adults is enabled by the total
`
`force and load rating measures, while dynamic sensor outputs caused by
`
`frequent occupant movement are managed by the long term average
`
`measure.” Id. at 5:29-33.
`
`As noted by Petitioner, during prosecution, the Patentee distinguished
`
`Cashler by pointing out certain enhancements related to “discriminating
`
`between heavy and light occupants under dynamic conditions” that were
`
`neither shown nor suggested in Cashler:
`
`Independent method claims 1 and 16 both recite
`the steps of (1) establishing a lock threshold above
`the normal allow threshold, (2) setting a lock flag
`when the total force or relative weight parameter is
`above the lock threshold AND deployment has
`been allowed for a given time, (3) clearing the lock
`flag when the total force or relative weight
`parameter is below an empty seat threshold for a
`time, and (4) allowing deployment while the lock
`flag is set. Independent apparatus Claim 17
`includes nearly identical recitations . . . .
`
`Pet. at 5-6. Although Cashler and Schousek may have been patents from the
`
`same research group that are “foundational” to the ’007 patent as stated in
`
`the specification, in fact the ’007 patent is directed to significantly more than
`
`!
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`merely the combination of these references, as described in detail in the
`
`arguments below.
`
`
`
`D.!
`
`Independent claims
`
`The challenged independent claims of the ’007 patent are reproduced
`
`here for reference:
`
`1. In a vehicle restraint system having a controller for
`deploying air bags and means for selectively allowing
`deployment according to the outputs of seat sensors
`responding to the weight of an occupant, a method of
`allowing deployment according to sensor response
`including the steps of:
`determining measures represented by individual
`sensor outputs and calculating from the sensor outputs a
`relative weight parameter;
`establishing a first threshold of the relative weight
`parameter;
`allowing deployment when the relative weight
`parameter is above the first threshold;
`establishing a lock threshold above the first threshold;
`setting a lock flag when the relative weight parameter
`is above the lock threshold and deployment has been
`allowed for a given time;
`establishing an unlock threshold at a level indicative
`of an empty seat;
`
`8
`
`!
`
`
`
`clearing the flag when the relative weight parameter is
`below the unlock threshold for a time; and
`allowing deployment while the lock flag is set.
`
`
`17. In a vehicle restraint system having a controller for
`deploying air bags, means for inhibiting and allowing
`deployment according to whether a seat is occupied by a
`person of at least a minimum weight comprising:
`seat sensors responding to the weight of an occupant
`to produce sensor outputs;
`a microprocessor coupled to the sensor outputs and
`programmed to inhibit and allow deployment according
`to sensor response and particularly programmed to
`determine measures represented by individual
`sensor outputs and calculate from the sensor outputs a
`relative weight parameter,
`establish a first threshold of the relative weight
`parameter,
`allow deployment when the relative weight
`parameter is above the first threshold,
`establish a lock threshold above the first threshold,
`set a lock flag when the relative weight parameter
`is above the lock threshold and deployment has been
`allowed for a given time,
`establish an unlock threshold at a level indicative
`of an empty seat,
`clear the flag when the relative weight parameter is
`
`9
`
`
`
`!
`
`
`
`below the unlock threshold for a time, and
`allow deployment while the lock flag is set.
`
`
`
`
`
`III.! ARGUMENT
`A.! Claims 1, 17, and 19-21 are patentable over Cashler and
`Schousek.
`
`Petitioner contends that the combination of Cashler (Ex. 1003) and
`
`Schousek (Ex. 1004) renders obvious each of independent claims 1 and 17.
`
`Pet. at 10-55. Yet Petitioner’s arguments fail to establish that together,
`
`Cashler and Schousek disclose or suggest at least the lock threshold and lock
`
`flag recited in claims 1 and 17. Obviousness requires a suggestion of all
`
`limitations in a claim. CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333,
`
`1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974).
`
`As neither Cashler nor Schousek discloses or suggests these claim elements,
`
`claims 1 and 17 and their dependent claims are patentable over these
`
`references.
`
`
`
`Summary of Cashler and Schousek
`
`1.!
`Cashler is directed to a system for using pressure sensors on a vehicle
`
`passenger seat to determine whether to allow or inhibit deployment of an
`
`airbag. Ex. 1003 at Abstract. It uses a microprocessor to determine whether
`
`to allow deployment “based on the sensor load forces and the pattern of
`
`!
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`loading”, by which the system can identify an infant seat and its orientation.
`
`Id.
`
`Cashler describes an overall approach with respect to its Figure 3:
`
`sensor data is obtained representing weight readings at various locations in
`
`the seat, decision measures are computed from the filtered sensor data,
`
`decision algorithms are run, and a final decision is made to inhibit or allow
`
`deployment of the airbag. Id. at 3:33-47; Fig 3. Cashler also describes
`
`calculating weight parameters including the total force detected by the
`
`sensors, load ratings from fuzzy measures for the sensor readings, and
`
`localized areas of weight. Id. at 3:48-4:47; Fig. 4. However, in the main
`
`decision algorithm shown in Figure 8, there is no suggestion of
`
`incorporating hysteresis to account for transient movements or the use of any
`
`“lock flag” to tune a delay for giving effect to a change in the identification
`
`of a particular category of passenger. Id. at 4:64-5:30.
`
`Schousek represents even earlier work from the group, and was filed
`
`about a year before Cashler.1 Schousek is directed to an air bag restraint
`
`system that uses seat sensors to discriminate between an occupied infant
`
`!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
`!
`
`1 Schousek was filed on January 10, 1995, and Cashler was filed on
`
`December 1, 1995. See Ex. 1004 at first page and Ex. 1003 at first page.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`seat, an adult, and no occupant, as well as between forward and rear-facing
`
`infant seats. Ex. 1004 at Abstract.
`
`In Schousek, the occupant determination procedure runs once per
`
`second. Id. at 5:24-27. Each time the procedure runs, the seat sensors are
`
`sampled, and two weight parameters are calculated: the total weight on the
`
`seat, as well as center of the weight distribution. Id. at 5:27-50. The total
`
`weight is compared to a maximum and minimum infant seat thresholds to
`
`identify the occupant and provide an output decision: if an adult is present
`
`(deploy), the seat is empty (not deploy), or an infant seat or small child is
`
`detected. Id. at 5:27-50; Fig. 5A. If an intermediate weight is detected (i.e.,
`
`infant seat or small child), the center of the weight is compared to a
`
`reference line to identify a rearward facing infant seat (not deploy). Id. at
`
`5:27-50; Fig. 5A.
`
`Each decision (deploy, not deploy) is stored in an array. Id. at 5:51-
`
`6:12; Fig. 5B. Once five decisions have been stored, the system will
`
`determine if all five decisions are the same. Id. If all five are the same, the
`
`decision (deploy, not deploy) is sent to the SIR/airbag module
`
`microprocessor. Id.; Fig. 1. If there is a discrepancy, the previous decision is
`
`sent to the SIR/airbag module, and a counter representing unstable readings
`
`is incremented. If the counter for unstable readings hits a threshold, a “fault”
`
`!
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`is sent to the SIR module. Id. at 5:51-6:12; Fig. 5B. Thus Schousek suggests
`
`a simple approach for handling transient movements or instability: “With
`
`this program, the decision to allow deployment is updated every five
`
`seconds, and an occasional spurious decision, which may be due to occupant
`
`movement or other instability, is filtered out.” Id. at 6:2-5.
`
`Schousek does not, however, suggest the use of any “lock flag” to
`
`tune a delay for giving effect to a change in the identification of a particular
`
`category of passenger, or suggest using multiple levels of thresholds in
`
`conjunction with a lock flag, so that instability associated with different
`
`categories of passenger can be handled differently.
`
`
`
`2.!
`
`Neither Cashler nor Schousek suggest a lock
`threshold or lock flag.
`
`Claims 1 and 17 of the ’007 patent both recite the following steps,
`
`with numbering and emphasis added to facilitate references to each step:
`
`[1] establish[ing] a first threshold of the relative
`weight parameter;
`[2] allow[ing] deployment when the relative
`weight parameter is above the first threshold;
`[3] establish[ing] a lock threshold above the first
`threshold;
`
`!
`
`13
`
`
`
`[4] set[ting] a lock flag when the relative weight
`parameter is above the lock threshold and
`deployment has been allowed for a given time;
`[5] establish[ing] an unlock threshold at a level
`indicative of an empty seat;
`[6] clear[ing] the flag when the relative weight
`parameter is below the unlock threshold for a
`time; and
`[7] allow[ing] deployment while the lock flag is
`set.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner claims that Cashler teaches the first two steps of [1]
`
`“establishing a first threshold . . .” and [2] “allowing deployment when the
`
`relative weight parameter is above the first threshold”, such that the first
`
`threshold is, for example, Cashler’s “low” and “high” weight thresholds for
`
`the total force. Pet. at 20, citing Ex. 1003 at 3:65-67 and 5:12-15. According
`
`to Cashler, if the total force “is above the high threshold deployment is
`
`allowed and if below the low threshold the deployment is inhibited.” Ex.
`
`1003 at 5:12-15. Thus Petitioner equates the “first threshold” with Casher’s
`
`high weight threshold.
`
`Petitioner next cites Schousek as disclosing the following five steps
`
`[3] – [7]. Pet. at 20; 36-41 (claim chart). Petitioner contends that Schousek
`
`teaches [3] “establishing a lock threshold above the first threshold” because
`
`!
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`it teaches “a ‘maximum infant seat weight’ threshold (i.e., a ‘lock
`
`threshold’) that is above the ‘minimum weight threshold.’ For example,
`
`Schousek teaches that the minimum weight threshold may be, e.g., 10
`
`pounds and the maximum weight of an infant seat may be, e.g., 50 pounds.”
`
`Pet. at 20-21. But Schousek’s “minimum weight threshold”—the alleged
`
`“first threshold” of the claims—cannot correspond to Cashler’s “high weight
`
`threshold”; it simply would not be used in the same way. Notably, in the
`
`context of claims 1 and 17 of the ’007 patent, [3] deployment is allowed
`
`“when the relative weight parameter is above the first threshold.” But
`
`Schousek states that “if the total weight parameter is less than the minimum
`
`weight threshold for an occupied infant seat <76> it is determined that the
`
`seat is empty and a decision is made to inhibit deployment <78>.” Ex. 1004
`
`at 5:35-39.
`
`Thus for at least this reason, Schousek does not teach a “lock
`
`threshold,” as recited in claims 1 and 17, and consequently cannot teach a
`
`“lock flag” based upon the “lock threshold.”
`
`Moreover, not only does the combination of Cashler and Schousek
`
`fail to teach or suggest each individual step of claims 1 and 17, the
`
`combination of references fails to suggest the inventive concepts delineated
`
`by these claims. As mentioned above, Cashler does not address
`
`!
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`incorporating hysteresis into the approach for using passenger seat weight
`
`sensors to determine whether or not airbag deployment should be allowed.
`
`Schousek recognizes that it is undesirable to permit transient movement by a
`
`passenger to erroneously cause the deployment decision to flicker between
`
`“allow” and “inhibit” states, but uses a very simple approach of requiring
`
`five identical deployment decisions, regardless of type, before a “firm”
`
`decision is allowed to update the airbag deployment readiness state. Ex.
`
`1004 at 6:2-5.
`
`In contrast, the ’007 patent describes and claims a new, nonobvious
`
`approach for determining when to update the airbag deployment state—e.g.,
`
`by distinguishing between at least two categories of “allow”-related
`
`parameters and their thresholds (e.g., the first threshold and the lock
`
`threshold), the delay, or smoothing of deployment readiness state changes
`
`can be tuned for different categories of sensor input. For example, “Rapid
`
`detection of large adults is enabled by the total force and load rating
`
`measures, while dynamic sensor outputs caused by frequent occupant
`
`movement are managed by the long term average measure.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`5:29-33.
`
`Thus, as Casher and Schousek do not disclose or suggest a “lock
`
`threshold,” much less the entirety of claims 1 and 17, these claims are
`
`!
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`patentable over Cashler and Schousek. See CFMT, Inc., 349 F.3d at 1342.
`
`Claims 19-21 depend on claim 17, and thus they are patentable for at least
`
`the same reasons as for claim 17.
`
`
`
`IV.! CONCLUSION
`For at least the foregoing reasons, no inter partes review should be
`
`instituted on the identified grounds. Further, as this is Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response, it is not a comprehensive rebuttal to all arguments
`
`raised by the Petition. If a trial is instituted, Patent Owner reserves the right
`
`to contest the Petition on all grounds permitted under the applicable rules.
`
`Moreover, nothing herein should be construed as a concession or admission
`
`by Patent Owner as to any fact or argument proffered in the Petition.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`Reg. No. 41,402
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 1, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ascenda Law Group, PC
`333 W San Carlos St., Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`Tel: 866-877-4883
`Email: tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`!
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`was served on August 1, 2015, by filing this document though the Patent
`Review Processing System as well as by delivering a copy via email directed
`to the attorneys of record for the Petitioner at the following address:
`Michael J. Lennon
`Clifford A. Ulrich
`Michelle Carniaux
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`One Broadway
`New York NY 10004
`
`ptab@kenyon.com
`
`
`The parties have agreed to electronic service in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Tarek N. Fahmi/
`Dated: August 1, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reg. No. 41,402
`Ascenda Law Group, PC
`333 W San Carlos St., Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`Tel: 866-877-4883
`Email: patents@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`!
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
