throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`Paper No. 40
`Filed: March 15, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, DAVID C. MCKONE, and
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter
`partes review of claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10, 11, 13, and 16 of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,434,020 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’020 patent”). Paper 1 (“Petition” or
`“Pet.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we determined that the Petition
`showed a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`the unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10, 11, 13, and 16, and we instituted
`an inter partes review of these claims on certain asserted grounds of
`unpatentability. Paper 7 (“Inst. Dec.”). Patent Owner Core Wireless
`Licensing S.A.R.L. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Patent Owner Response. Paper
`21 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Response.
`Paper 23 (“Reply”). An oral hearing was held on December 14, 2016,
`pursuant to requests by both parties. Paper 39 (“Tr.”); see Papers 27, 28, 32.
`We issue this Final Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons that follow, we determine Petitioner
`has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10,
`11, 13, and 16 of the ’020 patent are unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`I. BACKGROUND
`A. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`According to Petitioner and Patent Owner, the ’020 patent is involved
`in, at least, the following lawsuits: Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v.
`Apple, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-00751 (E.D. Tex.), Core Wireless Licensing
`S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-00752 (E.D. Tex.), and Core Wireless
`Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00911 (E.D. Tex.).
`Pet. 1; Paper 5, 2. Petitioner indicates that the cases involving Apple, Inc.
`are being transferred to the Northern District of California. Pet. 1. The ’020
`patent is also the subject of IPR2015-01898. Paper 5, 2. A related patent,
`U.S. Patent No. 8,713,476, is at issue in IPR2015-01899 and IPR2015-
`01985. Patent Owner also indicates that pending U.S. Application
`No. 13/860,143 is a continuation of the application that issued as the ’020
`patent. Paper 5, 1.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`
`B. THE ’020 PATENT
`The ’020 patent relates to a computing device with an improved user
`interface for applications. Ex. 1001, 1:14–15. The ’020 patent describes a
`“snap-shot” view of an application that brings together, in one summary
`window, a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored
`data. Id. at 2:26–30. Preferably, where the summary window for a given
`application shows data or a function of interest, the user can select that data
`or function directly, which causes the application to open and the user to be
`presented with a screen in which the data or function of interest is
`prominent. Id. at 2:31–35. The ’020 patent explains that this summary
`window functionality saves the user from navigating to the required
`application, opening it up, and then navigating within that application to
`enable the data of interest to be seen or a function of interest to be activated.
`Id. at 2:35–39. Figure 2 of the ’020 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 2 illustrates an implementation of the summary window (at 3) of the
`’020 patent. Ex. 1001, 3:31–32.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`
`C. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
`Claim 1, a device claim, and claim 16, a computer program product
`claim, are the only independent claims of the ’020 patent. The remaining
`challenged claims, claims 2, 5–8, 10, 11, and 13, all depend, directly or
`indirectly, from claim 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter in this
`proceeding, and is reproduced below (formatting added).
`1. A computing device comprising a display
`screen,
`the computing device being configured to display
`on the screen a main menu listing at least a
`first application, and
`additionally being configured to display on the
`screen an application summary window that
`can be reached directly from the main menu,
`wherein the application summary window displays
`a limited list of at least one function offered
`within the first application,
`each function in the list being selectable to launch
`the first application and initiate the selected
`function, and
`is
`wherein
`the application summary window
`displayed while
`the application
`is
`in an
`unlaunched state.
`
`Id. at 5:42–63.
`
`D. INSTITUTED GROUND OF UNPATENTABILITY
`We instituted an inter partes review of the ’020 patent on the ground
`that claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10, 11, 13, and 16 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Blanchard (Ex. 1002, U.S. Patent
`No. 6,415,164 B1, issued July 2, 2002, filed March 17, 1999).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`We interpret claims in an unexpired patent using the “broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`[they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, we presume
`that a claim term carries its “ordinary and customary meaning,” which “is
`the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`in question” at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The presumption may be overcome by
`providing a definition of the term in the specification with reasonable clarity,
`deliberateness, and precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
`(Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to
`be read from the specification into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988
`F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Only those terms which are in
`controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`1. “limited list”
`Neither party proposes a construction for this phrase. However,
`Patent Owner contends that this phrase “requires that any functions shown in
`the ‘limited list’ are fewer than all the functions available in an application.”
`PO Resp. 45. Patent Owner relies on the following testimony of Petitioner’s
`declarant, Dr. Vernon Thomas Rhyne, III, at his first deposition in this
`proceeding:
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 2002, 49:8–15. Dr. Rhyne reiterated this understanding at his second
`deposition. See Ex. 2011, 85:14–22 (“I thought everybody had interpreted
`the limited list of functions to mean that you wouldn’t have all of the
`functions that were available in that one window for some application.”).
`Petitioner accepts this construction in its Reply. See Reply 22–25
`
`(discussing why Blanchard’s application summary window includes fewer
`than all functions).
`
`We agree with the parties that the phrase “limited list” requires that
`any functions shown in the “limited list” are fewer than all the functions
`available in an application. We conclude that this construction is consistent
`with the language of claims 1 and 16. Moreover, it is consistent with the
`Specification. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract (“a limited list of common
`functions and commonly accessed stored data”); 2:66–3:2 (“Once the
`summary window is launched, core data/functionality is displayed . . . .”);
`3:27–30 (“The App Snapshot for any given application is a window which
`includes commonly requested data associated with that application and links
`to common functionality in that application.”); 3:31–35 (“The App Snapshot
`. . . includes the number of new messages (‘0’) and links to the two most
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`common functions (as defined by the system designer, or selected by the
`user, or learned by the device) . . . .”).
`
`Thus, we construe “limited list” as requiring that any functions shown
`in the “limited list” are fewer than all the functions available in an
`application.
`
`2. Remaining Terms
`We determine that no construction is necessary for any other term at
`
`this time.
`
`
`B. OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 5–8, 10, 11, 13, AND 16 OVER
`BLANCHARD
`
`
`
`The sole instituted ground alleges that claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10, 11, 13,
`and 16 of the ’020 patent are unpatentable as obvious over Blanchard.
`Pet. 14–23; Inst. Dec. 7–15.
`1. Blanchard (Ex. 1002)
`Blanchard, titled “Arrangement for Dynamic Allocation of Space on a
`Small Display of a Telephone Terminal,” discloses a telephone terminal
`configurable for accessing features available on the terminal through an
`interactive display arrangement. Ex. 1002, 1:11–14. In particular,
`Blanchard describes a user-interface for a mobile telephone, which is based
`on a “parent menu,” and has a window with selectable sub-level menu
`choices for each of the five options in the “parent menu.” Id. at 3:54–63.
`Figure 3 of Blanchard provides a display screen flow diagram and is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 3 illustrates the various display screens of one embodiment of
`Blanchard.
`
`The top row of Figure 3 illustrates the top level of the menu in five
`parent screens 210, 320, 330, 340, and 350. Id. at 5:39–41. Each of the five
`screens corresponds to one of the five options in the “parent menu,” which is
`the row of icons containing “[t]he Icon Home symbol 213, the Icon Phone
`Book symbol 214, the Icon Mailbox symbol 215, the Icon Lock symbol
`216[,] and the Icon Tools symbol.” Id. at 3:54–63. The user presses the
`“Left” or “Right” arrow keys to cycle through these screens. Id. at 5:39–46.
`In the leftmost screen, which is displayed when the “Home” symbol is
`selected in the parent menu, the window below that menu provides the name
`of the cellular service provider, the time and date, and two “selectable menu
`choices”: “Last Number” and “View Own Number.” Id. at 6:47–64.
`Similarly, in the middle screen, which is displayed when the “Mailbox”
`symbol is selected in the parent menu, the window provides three selectable
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`menu choices, which are used to access “voice messages, text messages, and
`call logs,” respectively. Id. at 3:67–4:3. In each screen, “the Up and Down
`arrow keys 222 and 224 can be used to move the darkened elliptical cursor.”
`Id. at 6:7–15. The darkened elliptical cursor identifies the function in the
`sub-level menu that will be activated if the user presses “Select.” Id. at
`6:42–44.
`
`2. Analysis
`Petitioner identifies Figure 3 of Blanchard as disclosing the “main
`menu” and “application summary window that can be reached directly from
`the main menu,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 14–15. For the “main menu,”
`Petitioner relies on “parent menu” of Blanchard, which includes icons for
`what Petitioner characterizes as “applications.” Id. at 14. The icons that
`Petitioner specifically identifies as “applications” include “Home,” “Phone
`Book,” “Mailbox,” “Security,” and “Tools.” Id. As for the “application
`summary window,” Petitioner identifies the “window with selectable sub-
`level choices” for each application icon in the main menu, e.g., Windows
`210, 211 for “Home” and Windows 320–324 for “Phone Book.” Id. at 15
`(citing Ex. 1002, 4:17–34).
`Independent claim 1 further recites “wherein the application summary
`window displays a limited list of at least one function offered within the first
`application, each function in the list being selectable to launch the first
`application and initiate the selected function.” Ex. 1001, 5:38–41. Claim 16
`has a similar limitation. Id. at 6:27–30. In the Petition, Petitioner submitted
`that “[e]ach ‘window with selectable sub-level menu choices’ in Blanchard
`displays a limited list of functions offered within the application
`corresponding to the highlighted main menu icon, and each listed function is
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`selectable to launch the application and initiate the selected function.”
`Pet. 15–16. In particular, Petitioner asserts that “when the ‘Home’ icon . . .
`is highlighted, the functions ‘Last Number’ and ‘View Own Number’ are
`displayed.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1002, 6:36–42). Petitioner also identifies
`the “Mailbox” and “Phone Book” windows as showing such a list. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1002, 6:15–18, 3:67–4:3, 6:7–15).
`Patent Owner argues, however, that none of this discussion in the
`Petition identifies or explains how Blanchard discloses a “limited list” of the
`functions available within each application. PO Resp. 44–48. Patent Owner
`submits, and Petitioner’s expert agreed, that the term “limited list” requires
`that any functions shown in the “limited list” are fewer than all the functions
`available in an application. Id. at 45 (quoting Ex. 2002, 49:8–15). Patent
`Owner asserts that Petitioner has failed to make an adequate showing on this
`element because there is no evidence of functions beyond the sub-menus
`shown in Figure 3 of Blanchard. Id. Patent Owner contends that
`Dr. Rhyne’s declaration contains only conclusory assertions that this
`limitation is accounted for by Blanchard, but has no analysis or evidence to
`support this contention. Id. at 46–47. Instead, Patent Owner submits, the
`weight of the evidence supports a conclusion that Figure 3 of Blanchard
`does not show a limited list of functions, but rather shows all of the features.
`Id. at 48.
`We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show that
`Blanchard accounts for the requirement that the application summary
`window (or summary window of claim 16) display “a limited list of at least
`one function offered within the first application.” As we explained above in
`Section II.A.1, this phrase requires that the list of functions displayed in the
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`application summary window be fewer than all of the functions offered
`within each respective application. We agree with Patent Owner that
`Petitioner has provided no evidence that the applications shown in the menu
`of Figure 3 of Blanchard, which Petitioner relies on as disclosing the
`“application summary window,” offer any functions other than the functions
`shown. Petitioner’s arguments to the contrary do not persuade us otherwise.
`To begin with, the Petition and Dr. Rhyne’s declaration only contain
`conclusory assertions that Blanchard accounts for the “limited list.” See
`Pet. 15–16; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 43–45. There is no explanation in either the
`Petition or Dr. Rhyne’s declaration why the functions “Last Number” and
`“View Own Number” under the “Home” icon or the functions listed under
`the “Mailbox” or “Phone Book” icons are a limited list. See id. Indeed, the
`Petition and Dr. Rhyne’s declaration are completely silent about what other
`functions are offered by the applications corresponding to the “Home” icon,
`the “Mailbox” icon, or the “Phone Book” icon Moreover, the Petition’s
`passing assertion that the “Home” icon is the “telephone application” has no
`support in the cited portion of Blanchard. See Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002,
`6:36–42). Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Rhyne provides any other explanation
`or support for this assertion that “Home” icon is the “telephone application.”
`Thus, we decline to infer from Petitioner’s attempt to rename the “Home”
`screen that the application corresponding to the “Home” icon has any other
`functions associated with it.
`In the Reply, Petitioner offers several theories for why Blanchard
`accounts for this limitation. Reply 22–24. None of them are persuasive.
`First, Petitioner argues that “the phone in Blanchard does have functions that
`are not listed in the menus in Fig. 3.” Reply 23. Petitioner contends that
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`Patent Owner’s expert, Scott A. Denning, admitted that a person of ordinary
`skill would have understood that the phone described in Blanchard included
`the ability to make a call and send a text message. Id. (citing Ex. 1016,
`15:3–19, 14:4–7, 13:11–15). However, this contention ignores the claim
`language. It is not enough that the device offer other functions. The
`“limited list” must be of functions “offered within the first application.”
`Petitioner provides no evidence or argument tying the allegedly missing
`functions to any particular application or any particular application summary
`window. The testimony cited of Mr. Denning does nothing to remedy this
`failure. Instead, this testimony, at best, suggests that there may be some
`functions offered by the telephone terminal of Blanchard that are not
`accessed through the menu shown in Figure 3. But this testimony does not
`establish that these functions are “offered within” any of the applications
`identified within the Petition. Petitioner’s argument simply asks us to
`speculate about what Blanchard does and where those functions are offered.
`But speculation cannot carry Petitioner’s burden of proof. See In re
`Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1533 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (Board’s language that
`limitation was “probably satisfied” by prior art “is speculative and therefore
`does not establish a prima facie case of unpatentability.”).
`Second, Petitioner argues that several of the applications identified in
`Figure 3 “have more selectable options than can fit [into] a single summary
`window.” Reply 23. Petitioner submits that “screen 320 [of Figure 3 of
`Blanchard] shows three options in the application summary window for
`Phone Book, and screen 323 shows two different options.” Id. Petitioner
`contends that “[t]his shows that the ‘limited list’ limitation is satisfied: the
`two options shown in screen 323 are not displayed in the application
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`summary window shown in screen 320.” Id. Petitioner asserts that Patent
`Owner’s understanding of screens 320 and 323 as a single application
`summary window requires an “unnatural reading of ‘window.’” Id. (citing
`Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 55–57). Patent Owner and its expert contend that screens 320–
`324 together constitute a single summary window for the Phone Book
`application because there is no logical separation in the window. PO
`Resp. 47; Ex. 2001 ¶ 54.
`Here, Petitioner has not shown that the screens 320–324 of “Phone
`Book” are separate “windows” or that the screens of “Security” are separate
`“windows.” As an initial matter, this theory was never articulated in the
`Petition and appears to be inconsistent with the Petition’s treatment of
`screens 320–324 as one application summary window. See Pet. 16
`(discussing the “selection of menu choices in the ‘Phone Book’ window”)
`(citing Ex. 1002, 6:7–15 (“Up and Down arrow keys 222 and 224 can be
`used to move the darkened elliptical cursor to any of the Phone Book
`features as shown in screens 320 through 323 . . . .”)). Indeed, the Petition
`does not even identify the “Security” screens as showing the limited list.
`See id.
`Moreover, the only evidence provided to support Petitioner’s Reply
`interpretation is Dr. Rhyne’s second declaration. Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 55–59. His
`testimony merely states his opinion that these screens 320 and 323 are not
`the same window. Id. ¶ 59. But he offers no reasoning for this conclusion
`besides the fact that the screens display different content and, thus, we give
`his testimony little weight on this point. However, Mr. Denning has offered
`an opinion that screens 320 and 323 are the same window, reasoning that
`“[w]hile some of the screens of Blanchard are too small to display the
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`complete list of selectable options, this is due to the relative size of the list
`and the display.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 54. We find Mr. Denning’s testimony to be
`reasoned and persuasive. It is consistent with Blanchard description of
`screens 320 to 324 as a single list of features that can be accessed using Up
`and Down arrow keys 222 and 224 to move the darkened elliptical cursor to
`any of the of the Phone Book features shown in screens 320 through 323.
`Ex. 1002, 6:11–14 Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that this theory of
`multiple screens being different summary windows is not persuasive and,
`accordingly, that Petitioner has not shown this limitation.
`Finally, Petitioner submits that Patent Owner “mischaracterizes
`Blanchard by asserting that ‘the features of Blanchard’s Fig. 3’ are ‘all of the
`features of the telephone terminal’ and citing to ‘Blanchard at 3:21–25.’”
`Reply 24 (quoting PO Resp. 48). Petitioner argues that “Blanchard never
`states that the menus of Fig. 3 represent ‘all of the features’ of the phone.”
`Id. Petitioner asserts that, instead, “Blanchard expressly describes features
`of the phone that are not listed in Figure 3, such as making or ending a call.”
`Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 3:39–43).
`Acceptance of this argument would result in misallocation of the
`burden in this proceeding. Patent Owner does not have to prove
`affirmatively that Blanchard has no other functions. Rather, the burden is on
`Petitioner to show that Blanchard accounts for the application summary
`window of the claim. As we explained above, we determine that Petitioner
`has failed to make that showing. Thus, even if Patent Owner
`mischaracterized this one passage of Blanchard, it is not evidence that can
`make up for Petitioner’s failure to meet its required showing. Thus, we find
`that Petitioner has failed to show that Blanchard accounts for the “limited
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`list” requirement of claims 1 and 16. Because this limitation is present in all
`of the claims, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to prove by a
`preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable as
`obvious over Blanchard.
`
`
`III. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`We have reviewed Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 31),
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to the Motion (Paper 33), and Patent Owner’s Reply
`in Support of the Motion (Paper 35). Patent Owner moves to exclude certain
`exhibits and testimony from Dr. Rhyne’s Rebuttal Declaration. In particular,
`Patent Owner seeks to exclude Exhibits 1010–1013 and ¶¶ 13–18 of
`Dr. Rhyne’s Rebuttal Declaration (Exhibit 1015). Paper 31. We did not rely
`on either the testimony to which Patent Owner objects or any of the exhibits
`identified in Patent Owner’s motion. Accordingly, for this reason, we
`dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as moot.
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons given, based on the arguments and evidence of record,
`
`Petitioner has not met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10, 11, and 16 of the ’020 patent are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Blanchard. See 35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(e).
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`
`V. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDERED that claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10, 11, 13, and 16 of the ’020 patent
`
`have not been proven unpatentable;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motion to exclude is
`dismissed as moot; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
`any party to the proceeding seeking judicial review of this Decision must
`comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2015-01984
`Patent 8,434,020 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Herbert Finn
`Richard Harris
`Ashkon Cyrus
`Eric Maiers
`Kevin Kudlac
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`LG-CoreWireless-IPR@
`harrrisr@gtlaw.com
`cyrusa@gtlaw.com
`maierse@gtlaw.com
`kudlack@gtlaw.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Wayne M. Helge
`Walter D. Davis
`Alan A. Wright
`DAVIDSON, BERQUIST, JACKSON & GOWDEY, LLP
`whelge@dbjg.com
`wdavis@dbjg.com
`awright@dbjg.com
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

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