UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`——————
`
`AISIN SEIKI CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`——————
`
`Case IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`——————
`
`PETITIONER'S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`——————
`
`AISIN SEIKI CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`——————
`
`Case IPR2016-00366
`Patent 6,012,007
`
`——————
`
`PETITIONER'S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00366 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,077
`
`
`CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1
`
`SCHOUSEK DISCLOSES THE RECITED FIRST THRESHOLD, LOCK
`THRESHOLD AND UNLOCK THRESHOLD OF THE RELATIVE WEIGHT
`PARAMETER .........................................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`Schousek Discloses Three Different Thresholds of a Relative Weight Parameter
`and Setting and Clearing a Lock Flag ..........................................................2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`The Board's Institution Decision Found Schousek's Thresholds Disclose
`the Recited Weight Thresholds ........................................................2
`
`Signal IP, Inc.'s Contention that Schousek's Minimum Weight of an Infant
`Seat Does Not Disclose the First Threshold is Unsupported ...........4
`
`Signal IP, Inc.'s Contention that Schousek's Maximum Weight of an
`Occupied Seat is not Equivalent to the recited First Threshold is Moot
`..........................................................................................................7
`
`Signal IP, Inc.'s Contention that Schousek Fails to Disclose Setting a Lock
`Flag is Unsupported .........................................................................7
`
`Signal IP, Inc.'s Contention that Schousek Fails to Disclose Clearing a
`Lock Flag is Unsupported ................................................................9
`
`Signal IP, Inc.'s Contention that Schousek Does Not Allow Deployment of
`an Airbag When the Relative Weight Parameter is Above the First
`Threshold is Incorrect ....................................................................12
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................12
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00366 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,077
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007
`1002
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007 ("'007 Patent")
`1003
`U.S. Patent 5,474,327 to Schousek ("Schousek")
`1010
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Stephen W. Rouhana
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Case IPR2016-00366 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,077
`
`
`On June 13, 2016, the Board instituted trial on claims 17 and 21 of U.S.
`
`Patent 6,012,007 (“’007 Patent” or “Patent”), finding a “reasonable likelihood” that
`
`Petitioner ("Aisin Seiki" or "Petitioner" will prevail in challenging each of these
`
`claims as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) in view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,474,327 (“Schousek”) Ex. 1003. None of Patent Owner's ("Signal IP" or "Patent
`
`Owner") arguments to the contrary has merit for the reasons explained in the
`
`Petition and herein.
`
`As an initial matter, with the exception of a brief argument on claim
`
`construction regarding the lock flag (Section 3. A.) and a further discussion of the
`
`first threshold (Section 3. B. vi.), the Patent Owner's Response is a nearly verbatim
`
`copy of the Patent Owner's Preliminary Response. As set forth below, Petitioner
`
`finds no new issues based on the new claim construction issue presented by the
`
`Patent Owner and relies on Schousek in the same manner as set forth in the
`
`Petition to rebut these newly raised issues. Therefore, Petitioner request that the
`
`Board maintain their prior position that claims 17 and 21 are anticipated by
`
`Schousek.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00366 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,077
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`SCHOUSEK DISCLOSES THE RECITED FIRST THRESHOLD,
`LOCK THRESHOLD AND UNLOCK THRESHOLD OF THE
`RELATIVE WEIGHT PARAMETER
`
`As the Board found in its Institution Decision (Paper 7), Schousek discloses
`
`a first threshold, a lock threshold and unlock threshold corresponding to the
`
`features recited in claim 17. Additionally, the Board also instituted on the basis
`
`that Schousek discloses setting a lock flag and clearing a lock flag as recited in
`
`claim 17 of the '007 Patent. The Board’s preliminary finding that claims 17 and 21
`
`are anticipated by Schousek should be maintained. It is noted that the Patent
`
`Owner has provided no independent arguments related to the features recited in
`
`claim 21 so this claim stands or falls with the patentability of claim 17.
`
`A.
`
`Schousek Discloses Three Different Thresholds of a Relative
`Weight Parameter and Setting and Clearing a Lock Flag
`
`1.
`
`The Board's Institution Decision Found Schousek's
`Thresholds Disclose the Recited Weight Thresholds
`
`The Board noted that Schousek explains “[i]f the total weight parameter is
`
`greater than the maximum infant seat weight . . . a decision is made to allow
`
`deployment,” and “if the total weight parameter is less than the minimum weight
`
`threshold for an occupied infant seat . . . a decision is made to inhibit
`
`deployment.” Paper 7, p. 8, citing Ex. 1003 at 5:32–39 (emphasis added). The
`
`Board also relied on Schousek to explain "that if the total weight parameter is
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00366 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,077
`
`
`between the minimum and maximum weight thresholds, airbag deployment is
`
`still allowed if the center of weight distribution is not forward of a reference line."
`
`Id. at p. 8, citing Ex. 1003 at 5:42–50 (emphasis added).
`
`Claim 17 requires that three weight thresholds be established:
`
`(1) establish a first threshold of the relative weight parameter,
`
`(2) establish a lock threshold above the first threshold, and
`
`(3) establish an unlock threshold at a level indicative of an empty seat,
`
`These three different thresholds are shown in the annotated figure of FIG.
`
`5A of Schousek, below. As set forth in the figure, the relative weight parameter is
`
`compared to: (1) a maximum weight of an infant seat; and (2) the minimum weight
`
`of an infant seat. As the Board held in the Decision Instituting Inter Partes
`
`Review, the level below the minimum weight of an infant seat corresponds to the
`
`unlock threshold, the level between the minimum weight of an infant seat and the
`
`maximum weight of an infant seat corresponds to the first threshold, and the level
`
`above the maximum weight of an infant seat corresponds to the lock threshold
`
`above the first threshold.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00366 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,077
`
`
`Lock Threshold - Deployment
`Allowed if Above 50 lbs.
`
`Unlock Threshold -
`Deployment Inhibited
`if below 10 lbs.
`
`1st Threshold -
`Deployment
`Allowed if Above 10
`lbs. and below 50
`lbs.
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Signal IP, Inc.'s Contention that Schousek's Minimum
`Weight of an Infant Seat Does Not Disclose the First
`Threshold is Unsupported
`
`Patent Owner in its Response contends that because Schousek discloses one
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00366 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,077
`
`
`condition in which the deployment is inhibited when the total weight of the seat
`
`occupant is greater than the minimum weight of an infant seat, this necessarily
`
`means Schousek fails to disclose the recited "first threshold of the relative weight
`
`parameter." Paper 12, p. 14. This one condition in which deployment is inhibited
`
`occurs when the center of the calculated weight is forward of a calibrated reference
`
`line (rearward facing infant seat detected). Ex. 1003 at 5:44-46. Patent Owner
`
`fails to note, however, that when the seat in Schousek is not determined to be
`
`rearward facing (i.e., detected to be forward facing) - deployment is allowed when
`
`the seat occupant's weight is greater than the minimum weight of an infant seat.
`
`Thus, as described in the Petition and as found by the Board in the Institution
`
`Decision, Schousek discloses the feature "allow deployment when the relative
`
`weight parameter is above the first threshold." Specifically, this condition exists
`
`when the center of the calculated weight is at or behind the calibrated reference
`
`line, and the occupant's weight is greater than the minimum weight of an infant
`
`seat. Ex. 1003 at 5:47-50. Additionally, when the center of weight is detected to
`
`be behind the calibrated reference line (forward facing seat), deployment is
`
`inhibited if the total occupant weight is less than the minimum infant seat
`
`threshold. Ex. 1003 at 5:36-39. Consequently, Schousek teaches that unless the
`
`weight of the occupant is above the minimum infant seat threshold deployment is
`
`inhibited.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00366 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,077
`
`
`The fact that Schousek teaches another condition when a rearward facing
`
`seat is detected, as noted by the Patent Owner, is irrelevant to the anticipation
`
`analysis. This is because anticipation exists so long as one condition described in
`
`the prior art satisfies the claim. The fact that the prior art might disclose additional
`
`conditions does not defeat its use as anticipatory prior art. "A prior art product that
`
`sometimes, but not always, embodies a claimed method nonetheless teaches that
`
`aspect of the invention." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Systems Inc., 67
`
`USPQ2d 1825, 1833 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`It is perhaps worthwhile to note that Signal IP, Inc. made these same
`
`arguments in the Preliminary Patent Owner Response. Paper 6, pp. 12-13.
`
`Because air bag deployment is not allowed if it is determined that the occupant
`
`weight exceeds the minimum infant seat threshold, but that the center of weight is
`
`forward of a calibrated reference line, Patent Owner alleged that Schousek failed to
`
`disclose the recited "first threshold." Patent Owner noted that because claim 17
`
`does not require an evaluation of whether an infant seat is forward or rearward
`
`facing, Schousek somehow fails to disclose these features.
`
`In the Decision Instituting Inter Partes review, the Board addressed this
`
`argument and opined that "Patent Owner's argument is unpersuasive because, as
`
`Patent Owner appears to acknowledge . . . Schousek discloses instances where
`
`airbag deployment is permitted when the total weight parameter is above the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00366 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,077
`
`
`minimum weight threshold." Paper 7, p. 9. The Board's decision was clear, the
`
`argument that claim 17 somehow prohibits further restrictions on airbag
`
`deployment is not supported by the claim language and the Patent Owner failed to
`
`identify anything in the record that imposes such a restriction. Lastly, the recent
`
`Patent Owner Response also fails to identify anything in the record that would
`
`supports limiting claim 17 in this manner.
`
`3.
`
`Signal IP, Inc.'s Contention that Schousek's Maximum
`Weight of an Occupied Seat is not Equivalent to the recited
`First Threshold is Moot
`
`Neither the Petition nor the Institution Decision relied on the maximum
`
`weight of an occupied seat as corresponding to the recited first threshold as recited
`
`in claim 17. Rather, the Petition and the Institution Decision relied on occupant
`
`weight exceeding the minimum infant seat threshold as corresponding to the
`
`recited first threshold. Paper 7, p. 9 and Paper 1, p. 25-26.
`
`4.
`
`Signal IP, Inc.'s Contention that Schousek Fails to Disclose
`Setting a Lock Flag is Unsupported
`
`As an initial matter, Petitioner relies on the fault detection algorithm of FIG.
`
`5B as disclosing the feature "set a lock flag when the relative weight parameter is
`
`above the lock threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given time," as
`
`recited in claim 17. This algorithm seeks to avoid a spurious decision due to
`
`occupant movement and also seeks to provide a fault signal when encountering
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00366 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,077
`
`
`extended instability. Ex. 1003 at 5:2-6.
`
`In operation, the loop including the flowcharts of both FIGS. 5A and 5B is
`
`executed. The flow chart of FIG. 5A provides either a "deploy" or "not deploy"
`
`decision on each iteration based on the occupant weight determinations and
`
`comparisons to certain thresholds. This decision is forwarded to the loop of FIG.
`
`5B and then the process of FIGS. 5A and 5B is repeated. If the decision ("deploy"
`
`or "not deployment") is the same for five consecutive iterations (5 seconds), that
`
`decision is used to determine airbag deployment status and is labelled the
`
`“previous decision.” Id. at 5:58–61, FIG. 5B. The result is that the deployment
`
`status is either set as either "deploy" or "not deploy." This value is sent to the SIR
`
`module 10 to control the airbag deployment.
`
`This value when set as "deploy" is the same as the recited "lock flag"
`
`("deploy" = "set a lock flag"). That is, deployment is allowed when this value is
`
`set as "deploy".
`
`In the Patent Owner's Response, Signal IP, Inc. argues:
`
`Furthermore, in circumstances where the “previous
`decision” of Schousek has been to inhibit air bag
`deployment, when the next five determinations of the
`total weight are such as to permit air bag deployment,
`that decision is forwarded to the air bag deployment
`module without ever consulting the “previous decision.”
`Indeed, according to Schousek, the value of the previous
`deployment is irrelevant and is not consulted when a
`current decision to inhibit or not inhibit air bag
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00366 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,077
`
`
`deployment is sent to the air bag deployment module. Id.
`at Fig. 5B (showing els. 98 and 100 without consulting a
`“previous decision”); Ex. 2001 at 35:21 – 36: 4.
`
`Paper 12, p. 19.
`
`In response, Petitioner notes that claim 17 does not require that a "previous
`
`decision" be consulted before being replaced with a new value (i.e., "deploy" or
`
`"not deploy"). Despite Signal IP, Inc.'s contention here, there is no requirement in
`
`the claim that the previous decision be consulted before sending the value to the
`
`SIR module. In Schousek, whether the previous decision is consulted or not, the
`
`value is set as "deploy" when the occupant weight exceeds the maximum value of
`
`an infant seat for five consecutive decisions (5 seconds), thereby setting a lock flag
`
`as recited in claim 17. Accordingly, Schousek teaches setting a lock flag, as
`
`defined in claim 17.
`
`5.
`
`Signal IP, Inc.'s Contention that Schousek Fails to Disclose
`Clearing a Lock Flag is Unsupported
`
`a.
`
`Petitioner Interprets the Term "the flag" as the Same as
`the "lock flag" of Claim 17
`
`Patent Owner's new claim construction argument for the terms "a lock flag"
`
`and "the flag" are set forth in Section 3. A. of the Patent Owner Response. Paper
`
`12, p. 10. Here, the Patent Owner proffers that one of skill in the art would
`
`understand that the term "the flag" recited in claim 17 is the same "unlock flag"
`
`recited in the step "set a lock flag . . .". Id. at p. 10.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00366 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,077
`
`
`But the term "unlock flag" is not recited in claim 17 or used anywhere in the
`
`specification. Thus, the Patent Owner's reference to the term "unlock flag" appears
`
`to be in error. Petitioner, on the other hand, applies Schousek on the basis that the
`
`term "the flag" refers back to the "lock flag" of claim 17.
`
`b.
`
`Schousek Discloses Clearing a Lock Flag
`
`Further to Petitioner's reliance on FIGS. 5A and 5B above, after receiving
`
`five consistent decisions, either a "deploy" or "not deploy" decision, is sent to the
`
`SIR module. Ex. 1003 at 5:55-59. For example, when the seat is determined to be
`
`forward facing, the decision value sent to the SIR module from FIG. 5B steps <98>
`
`and <100> is "deploy" when the occupant weight exceeds the minimum infant seat
`
`threshold for five iterations. This is the same setting a lock flag as defined in claim
`
`17.
`
`If the total occupant weight drops below the minimum infant seat threshold
`
`for five iterations (5 seconds), the decision value is set as "not deploy", thus
`
`clearing the previously saved "deploy" decision as this value is sent to the SIR
`
`module 10 to control the airbag deployment.
`
`In this scenario, the recited features "clear the flag when the relative weight
`
`parameter is below the unlock threshold for a time," are met as the "deploy" value
`
`is cleared, because the occupant weight is below the minimum infant seat threshold
`
`for 5 iterations (5 seconds).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00366 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,077
`
`
`In the Patent Owner Response, Signal IP, Inc. responds:
`
`Instead, Schousek states that a decision to inhibit
`deployment is sent to the air bag deployment module,
`and also set as a “previous decision,” not when a relative
`weight parameter falls below an unlock threshold for a
`period of time, but rather when the decision to inhibit
`deployment of the airbag remains unchanged over five
`consecutive fault monitoring loops. Ex. 1003 at 5:58-61;
`Ex. 2001 at 35:16-20.
`
`Paper 12, p. 19-20.
`
`But Schousek's teaching on this point is clear, when the occupant weight is
`
`below the minimum infant seat threshold for a period of five iterations of the loop
`
`described in FIGS. 5A and 5B, the resultant decision of "not deploy" will replace a
`
`previous decision of "deploy". Thus, when an occupant weight has previously
`
`exceeded the maximum infant seat threshold such that a deploy decision was
`
`previously sent to the SIR module, the new "not deploy" decision is sent due to the
`
`occupant weight being below the minimum infant seat threshold for a period of
`
`five iterations is effectively clearing the "deploy" decision or lock flag.
`
`In conclusion, Petitioner relies on the iterative loop and 5 similar decisions
`
`of FIG. 5B as providing the result ("deploy" or "not deploy") after a given time (5
`
`seconds) as disclosing the setting of a lock flag when the relative weight parameter
`
`is above the lock threshold and deployment has been allowed for a given time.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Case IPR2016-00366 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,077
`
`
`Signal IP, Inc.'s Contention that Schousek Does Not Allow
`Deployment of an Airbag When the Relative Weight
`Parameter is Above the First Threshold is Incorrect
`
`Patent Owner newly argues that Schousek fails to disclose “allow[ing]
`
`deployment [of the air bag] when the relative weight parameter is above the first
`
`threshold.” Paper 12, p. 22. Petitioner disagrees for the following reasons.
`
`As noted above and repeated here, FIG. 5A of Schousek allows deployment
`
`when an infant seat or a small child is detected based on two requirements. The
`
`first and primary requirement is that the occupant weight exceed the minimum
`
`infant seat threshold. Ex. 1003 at 5:42-50. If the occupant weight exceeds the
`
`minimum infant seat threshold and a rearward facing infant seat is not detected,
`
`then deployment is allowed. Ex. 1003 at 5: 47-50. Thus, Schousek does disclose
`
`allowing deployment when the occupant weight exceeds that first threshold. In
`
`fact, Schousek only allows deployment when the occupant weight exceeds the
`
`minimum infant seat threshold because the other deploy condition is based on
`
`exceeding the maximum infant seat threshold, which is greater than the minimum
`
`infant seat threshold. Thus, this feature of claim 17 is disclosed by Schousek.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For these reasons, Petitioner Aisin Seiki requests that the Board issue a final
`
`written decision confirming the unpatentability of claims 17 and 21 of the ’007
`
`Patent.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00366 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,077
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/William H. Mandir/
`________________
`William H. Mandir
`Registration No. 32,156
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 9, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`
`
`David P. Emery (Reg. No. 55,154)
`John M. Bird (Reg. No. 46,027)
`(demery@sughrue.com)
`(jbird@sughrue.com)
`
`
`
`
`William H. Mandir (Reg. No. 32,156)
`(wmandir@sughrue.com)
`
`
`
`Sughrue Mion PLLC
`2100 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20037
`T: 202-293-7060; F: 202-293-7068
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00366 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,077
`
`
`CERTIFICATION UNDER 37 CFR § 42.24(d)
`
`Under the provisions of 37 CFR §42.24(d), the undersigned hereby certifies
`
`that the word count for the foregoing Petitioner Reply to Patent Owner Response
`
`totals 2,597 which is less than the 5,600 allowed under 37 CFR §42.24(c)(2). The
`
`word count was prepared using Microsoft Word 2010.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 9, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/David P. Emery/
`
`David P. Emery
`Registration No. 55,154
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00366 of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,012,077
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certified that a copy of the attached PETITIONER’S
`
`REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITION was sent via
`
`electronic mail on December 9, 2016 to the following:
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`Holly J. Atkinson
`Jason A. LaBerteaux
`ASCENDA LAW GROUP, PC
`333 W San Carlos St.
`Suite 200
`San Jose, CA 95110
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`holly.atkinson@ascendalaw.com
`jason.laberteaux@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`
`
`Counsel of Record for the Patent Owner in this proceeding
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /David P. Emery/
`David P. Emery
`Registration No. 55,154
`Backup Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 9, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
