UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`UMICORE AG & CO. KG
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BASF CORPORATION
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015-01124
`U.S. Patent 8,404,203
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`UMICORE AG & CO. KG
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BASF CORPORATION
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015-01124
`U.S. Patent 8,404,203
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, Petitioner Umicore AG & CO. KG
`
`(“Umicore”) hereby respectfully moves to exclude the following evidence offered
`
`by Patent Owner BASF Corp. (“BASF”): (1) Paragraphs 28, 48, 54-55, 62-71, 79,
`
`147-150, and 168-177 of the Declaration of Dr. Michael Tsapatsis (Ex. 2018); (2)
`
`Paragraph 11 of the February 12, 2016 Declaration of Dr. Ahmad Moini (Ex.
`
`2019); and (3) Paragraph 7 of the Declaration of Olivia Schmidt (Ex. 2034).
`
`Umicore filed and served a paper setting forth the grounds for its objections to
`
`these paragraphs on February 19, 2016. (See Paper 28.) BASF did not serve any
`
`supplemental evidence or otherwise respond to the objections.
`
`Much like BASF’s response, the Tsapatsis, Moini, and Schmidt declarations
`
`focus on unclaimed features, ignore key facts, and fail to include necessary
`
`foundational evidence. Further, each of the witnesses avoid expressing certain
`
`opinions themselves and instead improperly rely on uncross-examined statements
`
`of others in violation of the hearsay rules. For the reasons set forth below,
`
`exclusion of the above identified paragraphs is appropriate under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 402, 602, 702, 703, or 802.
`
`I.
`
`Paragraphs 28, 48, 54-55, 62-71, 79, 147-150, and 168-177 of the
`Tsapatsis Declaration (Ex. 2018)
`
`BASF has submitted an expert declaration of Dr. Tsapatsis (Ex. 2018) in
`
`response to Umicore’s showing of prima facie obviousness of the ’203 patent.
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires an expert’s opinions to be “based on
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`sufficient facts or data.” While Rule 703 provides that an expert may rely on
`
`otherwise inadmissible materials, he may do so only “[i]f experts in the particular
`
`field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion.”
`
`Paragraphs 28, 48, 54-55, 62-71, 79, 147-150, and 168-177 of the Tsapatsis
`
`declaration violate these Rules and should be excluded.
`
`A. Dr. Tsapatsis’ Reliance on Irrelevant and Untrustworthy Hearsay
`
`The Tsapatsis declaration cites to declarations submitted during
`
`reexamination of the ’662 patent (the parent of the ’203 patent). This includes two
`
`declarations signed by Dr. Ahmad Moini (Exs. 2003 and 2011), a declaration
`
`signed by Pramod Ravindran (Ex. 2004), a declaration signed by Stacey Zones
`
`(Ex. 2009), and a declaration signed by Stanley Roth (Ex. 2001). These
`
`declarations are not the type of evidence that can be reasonably relied on to support
`
`expert opinions. Paragraphs 28, 48, 79, 170, and 174 of the Tsapatsis declaration
`
`should all be excluded under Rules 702 and 703.
`
`1.
`
`Opinions Based on the Moini Declarations
`
`In paragraph 28, Dr. Tsapatsis cites to a passage in a February 9, 2011 Moini
`
`declaration stating that the inventors of the ’662 and ’203 patents purportedly
`
`“screen[ed] over 900 zeolite materials including over twelve different structure
`
`types.” (Ex. 2003, Moini declaration at ¶ 4; see also Ex. 2018, Tsapatsis
`
`declaration at ¶ 28.) According to Dr. Tsapatsis, this shows that the patent’s
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`subject matter did not entail “routine optimization that was predictable based on
`
`prior art teachings.” (Id.)
`
`First, Dr. Tsapatsis opinion relating to the Moini declaration is irrelevant
`
`under Rule 402. Whether or not the inventors of the ’662 and ’203 patents
`
`themselves engaged in a large amount of work when developing BASF’s
`
`commercial catalyst product has no bearing on obviousness. See generally KSR
`
`Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 406-407 (2007); see also Life Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Clontech Labs., Inc., 224 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[T]he path that leads
`
`an inventor to the invention is expressly made irrelevant to patentability by
`
`statute.”). Instead, the relevant question is whether one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have considered the broadly claimed subject matter of the ’203 patent to be
`
`a predictable variation of known prior art catalysts. Further, there is no evidence in
`
`the record indicating that the testing of “900 zeolite materials” and “twelve
`
`different structure types” was directed to any problem solved by the claims of the
`
`’203 patent, as opposed to work directed generally to zeolite development. There
`
`is also no evidence in the record that any work leading to the claimed invention
`
`constituted a large amount of work (as opposed to just a routine volume of
`
`laboratory screening conducted by catalyst companies like BASF). Second, such a
`
`statement in an uncross-examined declaration submitted by an advocate during
`
`patent prosecution is not the type of material experts in the field would rely on in
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`forming opinions on obviousness. Moreover, Dr. Tsapatsis never discussed this
`
`issue with Dr. Moini. Paragraph 28 of the Tsapatsis declaration should be
`
`excluded under Rules 402 and 702.
`
`In paragraph 174, Dr. Tsapatsis also cites another declaration signed by Dr.
`
`Moini and dated December 18, 2011 (Ex. 2011) to support arguments regarding
`
`unexpected results. (See, e.g., Ex. 2018, Tsapatsis Declaration at ¶ 174.) This
`
`declaration discussed the purported experimental testing of “two examples from
`
`Dedecek.” (Ex. 2011, Moini Declaration at ¶¶ 4-12.) But, Dr. Moini was “not able
`
`to obtain natural chabazite samples” identical to those discussed in Dedecek, and
`
`instead employed substitute materials with different percentages of silica and
`
`alumina (and thus a different SAR). (See id. at ¶ 5.) In other words, Dr. Moini did
`
`not test Dedecek’s examples. He tested something different.
`
`Later in this same December 2011 declaration, Dr. Moini attempts to
`
`compare the prior art samples he tested with “additional Examples representative
`
`of the ‘662 invention.” (Id. at ¶ 25.) But, rather than discussing examples he
`
`himself prepared and tested, Dr. Moini discusses only “data from a colleague.”
`
`(Id.) Dr. Moini provides no indication of who this “colleague” might be, whether
`
`this “colleague” was qualified to synthesize catalysts or perform the described
`
`tests, and how the data he reports was collected and maintained. Thus, all of Dr.
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Moini’s discussion of the “additional Examples representative of the ‘662
`
`invention” is inadmissible hearsay.
`
`Since Dr. Moini did not actually test the prior art and provides only hearsay
`
`accounts of the testing of the ’662 patent’s (or ’203 patent’s) materials, it was
`
`improper for Dr. Tsapatsis to rely on this testimony in concluding that “the
`
`hydrothermal stability of the claimed CuCHA catalyst is unexpected.” Paragraph
`
`174 should be excluded under Rules 702 and 703.
`
`2.
`
`Opinions Based on the Ravindran Declaration
`
`In paragraph 48, Dr. Tsapatsis cites the Ravindran declaration to argue that a
`
`2008 paper authored by employees of Ford is actually discussing a BASF catalyst
`
`product. (See Ex. 2018, Tsapatsis Declaration at ¶ 48.) According to BASF, the
`
`paper shows that BASF’s catalyst has “remarkable high temperature hydrothermal
`
`stability.” (Id.) The Ford paper does not mention BASF. Instead, it merely
`
`references “Cu/zeolites” without providing any indication of their source or
`
`composition. (See Ex. 2002 at 001-003.)
`
`The Ravindran declaration discusses the preparation and labeling of various
`
`BASF catalyst samples alleged to be provided to Ford under “a secrecy
`
`agreement.” (Ex. 2004, Ravindran Declaration at ¶¶ 4-7.) There is no discussion
`
`of what Ford did with the samples once it received them. The declaration states
`
`that Mr. Ravindran received an “e-mail” from Ford that “confirmed that the sample
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`referred to in the Ford SAE publication” was a BASF sample. (Id. at ¶ 8.) But,
`
`Mr. Ravindran does not attach the referenced email to his declaration, or identify
`
`the sender. Thus, Dr. Tsapatsis is using the out of court statements of an unnamed
`
`Ford witness in an attempt to prove the truth of the matter asserted: that the Ford
`
`paper discusses BASF’s CuCHA catalyst product. This is hearsay. And, BASF
`
`has made no attempt to show that any of the hearsay exceptions apply.
`
`Compounding this issue, Dr. Tsapatsis has not had a discussion with Mr.
`
`Ravindran or anyone at Ford. (See Ex. 1119, Tsapatsis Depo. at 34:8-21.) Thus,
`
`he had no way to properly assess the reliability of the hearsay. Paragraph 48 of Dr.
`
`Tsapatsis’ declaration should be excluded under Rules 702 and 703.
`
`3.
`
`Opinions Based on the Zones Declaration
`
`In paragraph 79, Dr. Tsapatsis cites a reexamination declaration signed by
`
`Stacey Zones in support of an argument that one of Umicore’s prior art
`
`references—US 6,709,644 to Zones—directs one of ordinary skill in the art to use
`
`the reference’s materials for other catalytic reactions besides ammonia SCR. (Ex.
`
`2018, Tsapatsis Declaration at ¶ 79.) This is entirely irrelevant. Dr. Zones’ own
`
`after-the-fact characterization of what he meant by certain statements in his prior
`
`art patent cannot serve to change the express disclosure of that patent to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., See, e.g., Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512
`
`F.3d 1363, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (affirming exclusion of technical testimony by
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`prior art inventor). The Zones declaration is also inadmissible hearsay. Dr. Zones
`
`is not associated with BASF and was not made available for deposition. Thus,
`
`paragraph 79 of the Tsapatsis declaration should be excluded under Rules 702 and
`
`703.
`
`4.
`
`Opinions Based on the Roth Declaration
`
`In paragraph 170, Dr. Tsapatsis cites a declaration signed by Dr. Stanley
`
`Roth (Ex. 2001) and argues that it shows that there was “skepticism” regarding the
`
`“commercial viability of Cu-zeolites.” (Ex. 2018, Tsapatsis Declaration at ¶ 170.)
`
`The Roth declaration, however, is replete with inadmissible hearsay. Dr. Roth’s
`
`declaration references a 2005 email chain between a university professor and a
`
`DOE researcher that purportedly represents “the view of … those skilled in the art
`
`that Cu-Zeolites could not be used as catalysts for the SCR of NOx because of the
`
`inability to maintain NOx conversion upon exposure to hydrothermal conditions.”
`
`(Ex. 2001 at 003.) But, neither the university professor nor the DOE researcher are
`
`identified. And, neither of these individuals has submitted a declaration in this
`
`IPR. Further, Dr. Roth himself contradicts the views expressed by both the
`
`professor and researcher when he notes that “[i]n the zeolite literature there are
`
`probably many examples of structures with hydrothermal durability to the 700-800
`
`oC range. The big issue appears to be your DOE reviewers that have experience
`
`limited to the Cu-ZSM5 HC-SCR example, where catalytic performance quickly
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`died after modest hydrothermal aging.” (Id. at 007.) In view of this, it was
`
`inappropriate for Dr. Tsapatsis to rely on such inadmissible and internally
`
`contradicted statements in the Roth declaration to support his own conclusions
`
`regarding alleged “skepticism.” Paragraph 170 should be excluded under Rules
`
`702 and 703.
`
`B. Reliance on Irrelevant Unclaimed Features
`
`The Tsapatsis declaration focuses repeatedly on irrelevant and unclaimed
`
`catalyst features. For instance, in paragraphs 54-55 Dr. Tsapatsis argues that the
`
`claims of the ’662 patent (which is related to the ’203 patent) should be construed
`
`to require “the properties that are described in the specification.” (Ex. 2018,
`
`Tsapatsis Dec. at ¶¶ 54-55.) Dr. Tsapatsis goes on to argue in paragraphs 62-71
`
`that the materials of the ’662 and ’203 patents are different from the prior art
`
`identified by Umicore because they “solve[]” a problem with prior art materials by
`
`providing “low temperature SCR activity and/or improved hydrothermal
`
`durability.” (Id. at ¶¶ 62-71.) And, in paragraphs 168-177, Dr. Tsapatsis argues
`
`that the “hydrothermal stability” of the ’662 and ’203 patents’ materials overcame
`
`skepticism, produced unexpected results, and gave rise to commercial success. (Id.
`
`at ¶¶ 168-177.)
`
`As explained in Umicore’s reply brief, none of the ’203 patent claims at
`
`issue in this IPR require either “low temperature SCR activity” or “improved
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`hydrothermal durability.” (See Umicore’s Reply, Paper 36 at 3-10.) The ’203
`
`patent’s specification also includes examples that have the CHA crystal structure,
`
`along with SARs and Cu/Al ratios within the claimed ranges—and thus fall within
`
`the scope of the ’203 patent’s broadest claims—but admittedly do “not show
`
`enhanced resistance to thermal aging.” (Ex. 1101, ’203 patent at 11:21-26.)
`
`Moreover, the ’203 patent repeatedly states that it is the presence of “free
`
`copper”—also not required by the claims—that purportedly results in improved
`
`hydrothermal stability. (See id. at 2:31-35; 2:65-3:3; 5:33-39; 5:51-54; see also
`
`11:35-37; 11:55-58; 12:4-8.)
`
`An unclaimed feature or property “is immaterial to obviousness of [a]
`
`composition … in light of the prior art showing general efficacy for the same use.”
`
`Tyco Healthcare Grp. v. Mut. Pharm. Co., 642 F.3d 1370, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`Here, Umicore’s prior art discloses catalysts with the CHA crystal structure and
`
`Cu/Al ratios and SARs overlapping the claimed ranges. This same prior art also
`
`explains that these catalysts can be used as SCR catalysts to reduce nitrogen oxides
`
`in diesel engine exhaust. (See generally Umicore Petition, Paper 1.) This is all the
`
`’203 patent’s claims require. Thus, Dr. Tsapatsis’ repeated references to
`
`unclaimed performance features in paragraphs 54-55, 62-71, and 168-177—
`
`including improved hydrothermal stability and low temperature SCR activity—are
`
`irrelevant to the obviousness question and should be excluded under Rule 402.
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`C. Utilization of Unreliable Principles to Assess Dr. Schuetze’s Data
`
`Paragraphs 147-150 of the Tsapatsis declaration discuss certain of the
`
`experimental testing performed by Dr. Schuetze in support of Umicore’s IPR
`
`petition. (See Ex. 2018, Tsapatsis declaration at ¶¶ 147-150.) According to Dr.
`
`Tsapatsis, Dr. Schuetze’s data shows that “there is an improvement in performance
`
`between” a Cu/Al ratio of “0.15 and 0.245.” (Id. at ¶ 148.) Dr. Tsapatsis then
`
`concludes that this means that “the 0.25 Cu/Al ratio has significance.” (Id.) But,
`
`Dr. Tsapatsis does not consider the data collected by Dr. Schuetze in its entirety.
`
`The totality of the data actually shows that while performance does increase
`
`between a Cu/Al ratio of 0.15 and 0.245, it does so in a steady fashion with no
`
`unexpected or large jump in performance when the lower bound of the ’203
`
`patent’s claimed Cu/Al ratio range is crossed. (See Ex. 1108, Lercher declaration
`
`at ¶¶ 381-394.) Dr. Tsapatsis’ testimony, which is based on isolated testing points,
`
`is not “the product of reliable principles and methods” and thus should be excluded
`
`under Rule 702. Further, the mere fact that there is an “increase” in performance
`
`does not mean that the claimed ranges are “critical.” See In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746,
`
`751 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also Golderma Lab., LP v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731,
`
`739 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Dr. Tsapatsis’ failure to address whether the claimed ranges
`
`of Cu/Al ratios and SARs produce results that are different in some meaningful
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`way than those achieved by the prior art (as opposed to just being marginally
`
`better) render his opinions irrelevant under Rule 402.
`
`II.
`
`Paragraph 11 of the Moini Declaration
`
`Paragraph 11 of the Moini declaration (Ex. 2019) is inadmissible and must
`
`be excluded under Rules 402, 602, 702, and 802. BASF cites to the Moini
`
`declaration in an effort to show that “excellent activity over a wide temperature
`
`range and excellent hydrothermal stability” give rise to the purported commercial
`
`success of BASF’s CuCHA catalyst products. (See BASF Response Brief, Paper
`
`26 at 43-44.) However, Dr. Moini’s declaration discusses the “product
`
`specification for the commercially available CuCHA catalyst sold by BASF,” and
`
`not the actual performance of the products as sold. (Ex. 2019 at ¶¶ 4-10.) Dr.
`
`Moini also states—without any explanation or supporting context—that
`
`“customers who purchase the CuCHA catalyst product do so because of the
`
`excellent properties of CuCHA material coated on the substrate.” (Id. at ¶ 11.) Dr.
`
`Moini’s unsupported, speculative testimony regarding why customers purchase
`
`BASF’s products is inadmissible and should be excluded.
`
`Dr. Moini is “employed by BASF as a scientist.” (Id. at ¶ 1; see also Ex.
`
`2003 at ¶¶ 1-2; Ex. 2011 at ¶¶ 1-2.) While this technical background could make
`
`Dr. Moini knowledgeable about the composition of BASF’s catalysts and its
`
`research efforts, there is no indication in the record that he has any involvement
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`with the marketing of BASF’s products. Likewise, BASF has presented no
`
`evidence or other testimony showing that Dr. Moini interacts (directly or
`
`indirectly) with BASF’s customers. Rule 602 provides that a fact witness’s
`
`testimony must be based on his own personal knowledge. Rule 702 provides that
`
`an expert must have technical, scientific or specialized knowledge that will help
`
`the trier of fact to understand the evidence. An expert’s opinions must also be
`
`based on sufficient facts or data. Here, BASF has presented no evidence showing
`
`that Dr. Moini is sufficiently knowledgeable or qualified to offer either fact or
`
`opinion testimony regarding why BASF’s customers purchase its products. Absent
`
`this necessary foundational evidence, Dr. Moini’s unsupported statements in
`
`paragraph 11 must be excluded.
`
` Next, while there is no indication that this is the case, even if paragraph 11
`
`of Dr. Moini’s declaration is simply meant to relay statements made by BASF’s
`
`customers to Dr. Moini, it would still be inadmissible. No BASF customers who
`
`have made comments similar to that in paragraph 11 of the Moini declaration have
`
`been identified. And, no documents have been produced by BASF reflecting
`
`customer comments. Thus, Dr. Moini and BASF would be improperly attempting
`
`to rely on the alleged out of court statements of BASF’s customers to prove why
`
`those customers are buying BASF’s products. This is hearsay. Exclusion under
`
`Rule 802 is appropriate.
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Last, Dr. Moini’s testimony is irrelevant under Rule 402. As noted above,
`
`BASF points to this testimony in an effort to show that its CuCHA product is
`
`commercially successful because of its “excellent activity over a wide temperature
`
`range and excellent hydrothermal stability.” But, none of the ’203 patent’s claims
`
`require catalysts with these properties. Instead, the claims embrace any catalyst
`
`with a SAR and Cu/Al ratio falling within the claimed ranges that is “effective to
`
`promote the reaction of ammonia with nitrogen oxides to form nitrogen and H2O
`
`selectively.” Dr. Moini’s testimony relates to unclaimed features and lacks the
`
`nexus with the claimed subject matter that is required to render it relevant to the
`
`obviousness analysis.
`
`III. Paragraph 7 of the Schmidt Declaration
`
`Paragraph 7 of the Schmidt declaration (Ex. 2034) is inadmissible and
`
`should be excluded under Rules 402 and 802. BASF cites to this particular
`
`paragraph in an effort to show the share of the SCR catalyst market satisfied by its
`
`own CuCHA catalyst product. (See BASF Response Brief, Paper 26 at 44-45.)
`
`In this paragraph, Ms. Schmidt references “internal data” of BASF relating
`
`to the “sales of CuCHA catalysts” and “estimates regarding the sales by BASF
`
`licensees.” (Ex. 2034 at ¶ 7.) BASF is relying on the data to establish the truth of
`
`the matter asserted: BASF’s level of sales. This is hearsay.
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`BASF has also not established that any of the hearsay exceptions apply.
`
`While Ms. Schmidt states that the “numbers” in her declaration are “maintain[ed]
`
`in the ordinary course of business” (see Ex. 2034 at ¶ 8), no other information is
`
`provided. None of this data was attached to Ms. Schmidt’s declaration or
`
`otherwise made available by BASF. And, there is no explanation regarding how
`
`the “internal data” of BASF’s sales and “estimates” of BASF’s licensees’ sales are
`
`generated. Ms. Schmidt also does not explain who collects this data, or when it is
`
`recorded by BASF. When Umicore attempted to obtain further details regarding
`
`the data during deposition, BASF blocked questioning. (See, e.g., Ex. 1120, April
`
`29, 2016 Schmidt Depo. at 22:1-6.) This information was required to properly
`
`assess whether any of the exceptions Rule 803 apply. Absent this, paragraph 7 of
`
`Ms. Schmidt’s declaration must be excluded.
`
`Paragraph 7 of Ms. Schmidt’s declaration is also irrelevant. The market
`
`share data in this paragraph includes the sales of both “BASF CuCHA catalysts”
`
`and the catalysts of “BASF licensees.” (Ex. 2034 at ¶ 7; see also Ex. 1120,
`
`4/29/16 Depo. of Olivia Schmidt at 14:17-15:6, 16:14-20; 21:20-25.) But, BASF
`
`has not provided any information at all about its licensees’ products, let alone
`
`information sufficient to determine if those products fall within the scope of the
`
`’203 patent’s claims. BASF has also refused to identify what portion of the market
`
`share data reported by Ms. Schmidt is accounted for by BASF’s CuCHA catalyst
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`(the only product that BASF compares to the claims). (See id. at 22:1-24:16.)
`
`These evidentiary deficiencies render the market share number reported by Ms.
`
`Schmidt meaningless. As a result, paragraph 7 is irrelevant by BASF’s own
`
`making and should be excluded.
`
`Date: 6/20/2016
`
`/ Elizabeth Gardner /
`Elizabeth Gardner (Reg. No. 36,519)
`Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe LLP
`51 West 52nd Street
`New York, NY 10019
`Tel: 212-506-5000
`Fax. 212-506-5151
`Email: egardner@orrick.com
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby confirms that the foregoing PETITIONER’S
`
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE was served on June 20, 2016 via e-mail upon the
`
`following counsel of record for Patent Owner:
`
`Brian E. Ferguson (brian.ferguson@weil.com)
`Anish R. Desai (anish.desai@weil.com)
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street, NW Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`/ Elizabeth Gardner /
`Elizabeth Gardner (Reg. No. 36,519)
`Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe LLP
`51 West 52nd Street
`New York, NY 10019
`Tel: 212-506-5000
`Fax. 212-506-5151
`Email: egardner@orrick.com
`
`-16-
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
