UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`ARUBA NETWORKS, INC.,
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, and HP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
`Case IPR2016‐00766 (Patent 5,659,891)
`Case IPR2016‐00768 (Patent 5,659,891)
`___________
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits for Oral Hearing
`
`1
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 1, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`ARUBA NETWORKS, INC.,
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, and HP, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`___________
`
`Case IPR2016‐00766 (Patent 5,659,891)
`Case IPR2016‐00768 (Patent 5,659,891)
`___________
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits for Oral Hearing
`
`1
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 1, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Arguments
`• Petitioner’s expert admits that Petrovic does not disclose a “band
`edge of the mask” at all: “it is not clear where [in Petrovic] the
`band edge of the mask is”
`• Petrovic’s subcarriers do not meet the asymmetric condition of
`claims 1, 3, and 5.
`• Petrovic’s subcarriers do not overlap as required by claims 2 and
`4. The main difference between Patent Owner’s arguments and
`Petitioner’s arguments is:
`• Patent Owner’s arguments are a consistent explanation, backed by
`evidence, of how and why the invention and claims were made
`• Petitioner’s arguments, on the contrary, impermissibly use hindsight to
`make the parameters of the Petrovic fit the claims of the ’891 Patent
`
`2
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 2, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s argument is a consistent story
`• Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Kesan, shows how the purpose of the
`’891 Patent is to increase the message capacity of a channel. Ex.
`2011 at 21.
`• He then shows in great detail how (1) co‐location of transmitters
`eliminates the near‐far problem and allows transmitters to (2)
`overlap under the asymmetric condition to increase message
`capacity. Id.at 32 and 40.
`
`3
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 3, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Asymmetric condition
`• Claims 1, 3, and 5 include the asymmetric condition that the frequency
`difference between the center frequency of the outer most carrier and the band
`edge of the mask defining the channel (hereafter Dm) is more than half the
`frequency difference between each adjacent carrier (hereafter Dc), or Dm> Dc.
`
`4
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 4, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Message capacity increased
`• Decreasing the distance between the outer most
`carrier and the band edge of the mask necessarily
`decreases adjacent carrier spacing, per the asymmetric
`condition in the claims, and increases message
`capacity. Dr. Kakaes agrees: Ex. 2013 at 187:17‐22.
`
`5
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 5, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Nearest band edge minimizes Dm
`• Since the goal of the ’891 Patent is to minimize subcarrier spacing to
`increase message capacity, it follows that the ’891 Patent would look at
`the nearest band edge to the outer most carrier, as opposed to the outer
`most band edge as defined by Dr. Kakaes. This is supported by the spec.:
`Ex. 1001 at 4:30‐34.
`In accordance with this asymmetry, the frequency difference between
`the center frequency of each carrier and the nearest band edge of the
`mask is greater than half the frequency difference between the center
`frequencies of the two carriers.”
`• Dr. Kakaes testified: “if there was an additional drop, the band edge of
`the mask defining the channel would have to be the farthest –the point
`at which the mask has fully developed its limitations.”
`• Dr. Kakaes chooses the “the farthest point” –i.e. the outermost point on the
`mask
`• Directly contrary to specification which references “the center frequency of
`each carrier and the nearest band edge of the mask”
`
`•
`
`6
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 6, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`But cannot minimize Dmtoo much
`• The ’891 Patent, explicitly describes that the modulated
`carriers (of Figure 5A) are to remain within the FCC mask
`limits. Ex. 1001 at 4:61‐62.
`• But this means the mask of Figure 4 is not being used in
`Figure 5A. Dr Kesan agrees.
`
`7
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 7, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Complete story –Minimize Dm while keeping the
`modulated signal inside the mask
`“[A] PHOSITA would conclude that the band edge of the asymmetric
`condition is the edge of the mask that is nearest in frequency to the
`outer most carrier when that carrier is modulated.” Ex. 2011 at 65.
`• Specifically for FSK modulation the band edge can be viewed as the first
`limit of the mask to be exceeded as the frequency deviation of the
`carrier is increased. Id. at 66.
`• A carrier with a center frequency of 4 is spread out between
`frequencies 2 and 6 using FSK modulation with a frequency deviation,
`Δf, of 2.
`
`•
`
`8
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 8, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Based on the story of the ’891 Patent, Petrovic’s
`subcarriers cannot meet the asymmetric condition
`• Dm(1) < Dc(1) and Dm(2) < Dc(1) in Drawing 12
`(annotated Fig. 1 of Petrovic).
`• Thus, Petrovicdoes not teach or suggest the
`asymmetric condition
`
`9
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 9, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Story of overlap
`In the ’891 Patent, overlap is possible due to co‐location and
`explicitly used in the asymmetric condition to increase message
`capacity.
`In other words, the overlap has an effect (increasing message
`capacity in asymmetric condition).
`• Petrovic has no overlap and no purpose for overlap –just noise.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`10
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 10, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Petitioner has no story with regard to the ’891
`Patent or Petrovic
`
`Petitioner simply tries to make Petrovic fit the claim language using impermissible hindsight.
`This is most apparent in the band edge argument.
`Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Kakaes, has stated repeatedly that he cannot definitively determine where the
`band edge of the mask is in Petrovic. Ex. 2012 at 69:11‐16 and 35:22‐25‐36:1‐2.
`
`•
`•
`•
`
`• Yet he somehow finds one that meets the
`asymmetric condition.
`
`11
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 11, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Petrovic is not trying to increase the message
`capacity of an existing channel
`Just the opposite.
`• Petitioner admits Petrovic is doubling the channel. Paper 36 at 17.
`• So Petrovic has none of the constraints of the’891 Patent.
`• This is why Petrovic can place the outermost subcarriers closer to the
`band edges than to each other in violation of the asymmetric condition.
`
`•
`
`12
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 12, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Petrovic is not trying to overlap its carriers
`• Petitioner’s only evidence for overlap is the noise of Fig. 1 of Petrovic shown
`below.
`• Petrovic is completely silent with regard to the overlap of its subcarriers.
`• Petitioner has no explanation for why Petrovic’s subcarriers would be
`overlapped.
`In contrast, as described above, the ’891 Patent explicitly describes allowing for
`overlap to increase message capacity.
`
`•
`
`13
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 13, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s evidence exceeds Petitioner’s
`• Band edge is a good example –preponderance of evidence
`favors Patent Owner.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Petitioner
`
`“nearest band edge of the mask”
`
`“a band edge of the single mask-
`defined, bandlimited channel”
`
`Evidence
`
`Dr. Kakaes opinion
`
`Dr. Kesan’s opinion
`Dr. Min’s opinion
`Intrinsic evidence - The ’891
`Patent explicitly describes the
`band edge as the nearest band
`edge with respect to the
`asymmetric condition
`
`“the frequency difference between the center frequency of each carrier and the nearest
`band edge of the mask is greater than half the frequency difference between the center
`frequencies of the two carriers.” Ex. 1001 at 4:30‐34
`
`•
`
`14
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 14, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s response to specific Reply
`assertions
`• Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner’s construction of
`the band edge is “the band edge that is nearest to the
`center frequency of each outer most carrier at the
`highest power level of each outer most carrier.”
`Paper 36 at 4.
`• Patent Owner submits that its construction is simply
`“nearest band edge of the mask.”
`• Power is one factor in determining this.
`• However, other factors, such as the multiple band
`edges of the mask and the modulation method, are also
`described.
`
`15
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 15, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Multiple band edges
`• Petitioner asserts that “multiple band edges” are extrinsic evidence and
`inconsistent with the specification.
`• Patent Owner submits that Figure 4 and the corrected Figure 4 are
`intrinsic evidence and clearly show “multiple band edges.” Ex. 1012 at
`84.
`
`16
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 16, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Nearest band edges to distinguish left and right
`band edge.
`• Petitioner asserts that the term “nearest” is to
`distinguish the left band edge from the right band edge
`relative to a particular outermost carrier.
`• Petitioner’s cites only the Board’s suggestion that this
`may be a possible interpretation, and the second
`Kakaes declaration that simply reiterates the Board
`• Patent Owner submitted 3 arguments with regard to
`the Board’s suggestion.
`• Not rebutted or even addressed by Petitioner
`• Petitioner has not met its burden of proof
`
`17
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 17, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Minimizing Dmminimizes Dc when Dm> Dc
`• Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner’s description that minimizing Dm
`necessarily minimizes Dc is erroneous and not required by the claims.
`• Patent Owner submits that it is mathematical truth that is not
`erroneous.
`• Also, Patent Owner did not submit that it is required by the claims.
`• Patent Owner submitted that minimizing Dmis the rationale for
`choosing the nearest band edge.
`• Dr. Kakaes agreed that minimizing Dmnecessarily minimizes Dc even
`though Petitioner has tried to change his testimony. Ex. 2013 at 187:17‐
`22.
`
`18
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 18, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Figure 4 on Figure 5
`• Petitioner asserts that Dr. Kesan’s testimony regarding the placement of Figure
`4 on Figure 5 is incorrect. Paper 36 at 9.
`• Petitioner seems to be suggesting that Dr. Kesan’s second figure showing how
`the power can be attenuated below the full power is somehow incorrect.
`• Petitioner also refers to the FCC rules about the unmodulated carrier, which
`Figure 5 does not show.
`
`19
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 19, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Figure 4 on Figure 5 cont’d
`• Petitioner then draws Figure 4 on Figure 5 in a fashion that is
`demonstrably incorrect.
`• Note that Petitioner shifted ‐70 dB and ‐25 dB in a clearly
`incorrect fashion to try to make the mask work.
`
`20
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 20, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Determination of band edge
`Finally, Petitioner asserts that Dr. Kakaes does not need to determine definitively the
`outer bounds of “the band edge of the mask,” as Petrovic discloses the limitation
`regardless of the outer bounds.
`• Patent Owner submits that this is a fantastic claim made only to try and change Dr.
`Kakaes’ clear testimony that he could not determine the band edge. Ex. 2012 at 69:11‐16
`and 35:22‐25‐36:1‐2.
`• The location of the band edge is the most important issue in the case and Dr. Kakaes has
`admitted he does not know what it is.
`
`•
`
`21
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 21, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Conclusion
`• Again, the main arguments are well briefed.
`• Patent Owner’s main arguments in the Response are that:
`• Petrovic’s subcarriers do not meet the asymmetric condition of claims 1,
`3, and 5.
`• Petrovic’s subcarriers do not overlap as required by claims 2 and 4.
`• The main difference between Patent Owner’s arguments and
`Petitioner’s arguments is:
`• Patent Owner’s arguments are a consistent story, backed by evidence, of
`how and why the invention and claims were made.
`• Petitioner’s arguments, on the contrary, are simply an attempt to make
`the parameters of the Petrovic fit the claims of the ’891 Patent and to
`try to poke holes in the Patent Owner’s argument.
`Petitioner has not proved its case by a preponderance of the evidence.
`
`22
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 22, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Opposing expert Dr. Min agrees with Dr. Kesan
`• Regarding the exemplary mask of Fig. 4, both experts
`identify the multiple band edges
`• The patent specification makes clear that the nearest
`band edge is relevant:
`
`23
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 23, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Dr. Min shows multiple band edges
`
`24
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 24, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Dr. Kesan shows multiple band edges
`
`25
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 25, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Petrovic Fig. 1
`
`26
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 26, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Near‐far problem
`
`27
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 27, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Near‐far problem corrected with symmetric
`condition
`
`28
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 28, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Near‐far problem corrected with symmetric
`condition cont’d
`
`29
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 29, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Also no near‐far problem with co‐location
`
`30
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 30, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Co‐location allows asymmetric condition and
`increased message capacity
`
`31
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 31, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Asymmetric condition cont’d
`
`32
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 32, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Subchannels
`
`33
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 33, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Power levels and subchannels
`
`34
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 34, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Multiple band edges
`
`35
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 35, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Exemplary Mask from ’891 File History
`
`36
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 36, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Modulation techniques
`
`37
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 37, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`2‐FSK
`
`
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`Figure 9 of Appendix E
`June 20, 2017
`
`.III» 1
`
`N A‘IIL.
`
`38
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 38, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Figure 4
`
`M O
`
`on OE
`E
`
`3O
`
`5 anm0O
`
`‘4 0
`
`
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`39
`
`frequency (Irom center Irequency) (kHz)
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`FIGURE 4
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 39, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Drawing 10
`
`IPJHBIJFU! 51!
`
`2400 max devintion, 6k bps bit rate, 4590 Hz carrier
`
`-lu+04
`
`i‘n "il'
`Hf,
`Fug":'”
`.?
`11'
`I12“. ,;:IIE_WL‘,G!1l
`I _.
`9.,
`n
`lfih
`w
`VI J ‘$i:‘1".' "’1 ‘li"fi'1' 3'" L1‘31F.i 9 0;}}
`it!” *0“
`IAN [k W
`IIFI‘ I “'H ‘41 H.
`.H‘1'-
`
`€if
`i?!
`
`40
`
`-J.1¢
`
`Drawing 10
`
`Freq- = 10004.9
`
`n-70.0818
`
`Drawing 10
`
`June20,2017
`
`Db
`
`Phat. - 1.96349
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 40, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Drawing 10
`
`Drawing 10
`
`June20,2017
`
`Freq. - 10004.9
`Db
`--70.0018
`June 20, 2017
`ft {WIIFIW Ph‘go - 1.963‘9
`
`e" I
`
`'
`
`2400 max deviation, 6k bps bit rate, 4590 Hz carrier
`
`41
`
`h}
`*
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 41, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`FCC mask
`
`FCC mask
`
`
`
`June 20’ 2017
`
`[In On my mummy remand tram
`Illa mum at [aha mutton-ind mmnm
`by I duping-mm:
`frequbnur ad Ln
`kmlufmmthnn mkfllupmuultn-
`¢Iudlnt 2m pun-n: at :ha luthfil'lflld
`hud'ldth: 1.1. lull: 115 Lam (1:18.11
`decibel: or so pm 111 Lu... [P] or '.'IJ
`dadban. twauur ll
`the leaner u-
`ununian;
`nm (In my mummy "mm-Id from
`June 20, 2017
`H“ cmur nl' tlu mthudud bludildth
`by mu um: :50 percent. of tin untbmr-
`llld hlmhrldth: It [ll-IL Ifl plus II} I.th
`(output your in run) mm» m- In
`Gullah. which“: is than lulu lb-
`
`m For thou muninun um: opu-
`u.- in tho human: huuu 11M no 5110
`MEI. nr fill tn Inn M31.
`(1! On In! mummy "mu-d tram
`m cents: 1:! ch: unharmed bud-Mull
`by I. mum-n: (mum! [I'd Ln
`km}an nmskflsupmmdln-
`alum“ 10 kill: it. Ian: I: ham. UM)
`Mulblfl:
`
`42
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 42, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Drawing 11
`
`Drawing 11
`
`FIGURE 5A
`
`2400 max deviation, 6k bps bit rate, 4590 Hz carrier
`
`June20,2017
`
`=l
`‘
`i
`J
`'- E
`I:
`‘.;
`'
`"3J;Jgj?biilii3Lhfi
`MW 1. mm.
`
`43
`
`4:
`
`‘
`
`h.‘ Freq. - 10004.9
`L
`June 20, 2017
`Db
`=-70.0818
`i;,3L,
`Phase . 1.96349
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 43, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Petrovic annotation
`
`44
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 44, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Drawing 12
`
`Dm(1) Dc(1)
`
`Dc(2)
`
`Dm(2)
`
`p
`
`3:9k
`I
`
`-
`
`u
`
`Drawing 12
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`5r§0d0
`IUdB/
`1
`I
`1
`p------—---— w
`\Mand Edge 2
`
`\
`
`45
`SPL:IUUHH4
`Lnr.930.9mw;
`Hg 1
`spun-1 or a single smol reelletly trans-fitted
`
`BflflUBHa
`
`June 20, 2017
`VBXHH:
`
`Drawing 12
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 45, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Drawing 13
`
`:uuur
`
`ATfiUdB
`
`.
`
`.
`
`l
`June 20, 2017
`'g
`‘.’BI'nH'.:
`
`RBBOUH:
`
`Drawing 13
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`.
`
`_ ._
`
`46
`2.? 4': 2333. EJM‘ 1;
`Fig.
`1
`Spectrum of a sin"! sync! reputedly tuna-ind
`
`Drawing 13
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 46, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s overlap
`
`Petitioner’s overlap
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`-_....---1____..cl
`
`47
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 47, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Petrovic annotation
`
`48
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 48, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Annotated Fig. 1 of Petrovic
`
`49
`
`June 20, 2017
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 49, IPR2016-00768
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`John Kasha, Kasha Law LLC
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`MTel., Exhibit 2016, Aruba v. MTel., Page 50, IPR2016-00768
`
`
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
