Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`Filed on behalf of Petitioner
`By:
`Joseph J. Richetti
`Kevin E. Paganini
`Bryan Cave LLP
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`Tel: (212) 541-2000
`Fax: (212) 541-4630
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PROOFPOINT, INC. AND
`ARMORIZE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case: To Be Assigned
`U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER
`35 U.S.C. 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b)
`TO INTER PARTES REVIEW OF IPR2015-01979
`
`
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`Filed on behalf of Petitioner
`By:
`Joseph J. Richetti
`Kevin E. Paganini
`Bryan Cave LLP
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`Tel: (212) 541-2000
`Fax: (212) 541-4630
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`PROOFPOINT, INC. AND
`ARMORIZE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FINJAN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`Case: To Be Assigned
`U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER UNDER
`35 U.S.C. 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b)
`TO INTER PARTES REVIEW OF IPR2015-01979
`
`
`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .............................1
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS....................................................3
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED..................4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Legal Standard.......................................................................................4
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is Timely.............................................5
`
`Each Factor Weighs in Favor of Joinder...............................................5
`
`Joinder is Appropriate and Petitioner Presents No New Grounds........6
`
`Joinder Will Not Negatively Impact the PAN IPR Trial Schedule .....7
`
`Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery ...................................8
`
`D. Without Joinder, Petitioner is prejudiced............................................10
`
`E.
`
`Joinder Will Not Prejudice the Parties to the PAN IPR......................10
`
`IV. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................11
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Technologies, Inc (“Petitioner”) respectfully
`
`submits this Motion for Joinder, together with a petition (the “Proofpoint Petition”)
`
`for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 (the “‘154 patent”) filed con-
`
`temporaneously herewith. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.122(b), Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and joinder with
`
`the inter partes review filed by Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“PAN”) in Palo Alto
`
`Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2015-01979 (the “PAN IPR”), which was insti-
`
`tuted on March 21, 2016 and concerns the same ‘154 patent. Petitioner timely
`
`filed the Proofpoint Petition and this motion within one month of the institution of
`
`the PAN IPR. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`Joinder will efficiently resolve the challenges to the ‘154 patent in the PAN
`
`IPR, and will neither impact the substantive issues or schedule in that proceeding,
`
`nor prejudice the parties in the PAN IPR. The Proofpoint Petition raises the same
`
`grounds of unpatentability for which the PAN IPR was instituted, challenges the
`
`same claims, and relies on the same prior art, arguments and evidence1 presented in
`
`1 Petitioner is also submitting the declaration of Sylvia Hall-Ellis and correspond-
`
`ing exhibits as filed in IPR2015-01547 as additional evidence that the Sirer refer-
`
`ence on which the Board instituted review in the PAN IPR is a prior art printed
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`PAN’s petition for inter partes review. Indeed, in an effort to avoid multiplication
`
`of issues before the Board, the Proofpoint Petition duplicates the challenges pre-
`
`sented on the instituted grounds in the PAN IPR and it relies on the same support-
`
`ing expert declaration of Dr. Aviel Rubin submitted by PAN in support of its peti-
`
`tion. In addition, Petitioner explicitly agrees to consolidated discovery and brief-
`
`ing as described below, and is willing to accept a limited role with PAN’s counsel
`
`acting as the lead counsel as long as PAN remains in the proceeding. 2 According-
`
`ly, Petitioner submits that joinder is appropriate because it will not prejudice the
`
`parties or impact the substantive issues and schedule in the PAN IPR, while effi-
`
`ciently resolving in a single proceeding the question of the ‘154 patent’s validity
`
`based on the instituted grounds of the PAN IPR.
`
`publication. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2015-01979, paper 8 at
`
`15.
`
`2 Petitioner notes that on April 19, 2016, Symantec Corp. also filed a motion re-
`
`questing joinder to the PAN IPR (IPR2016-00919). In the event that Symantec’s
`
`motion for joinder is granted, Petitioner agrees to the same procedures for simpli-
`
`fied briefing and discovery discussed herein and, in the event that PAN settles with
`
`Patent Owner, Petitioner agrees to work with Symantec to determine which coun-
`
`sel will replace PAN’s counsel as the lead counsel in the proceedings.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1. The ‘154 patent is entitled “System and method for inspecting dynam-
`
`ically generated executable code” and lists David Gruzman and Yuval Ben-Itzhak
`
`as inventors. The ‘154 patent issued on March 20, 2012. Finjan, Inc. (the “Patent
`
`Owner”) is believed to have all rights, title, and interest in ‘154 patent.
`
`2. On December 16, 2013, Patent Owner filed a civil action asserting the
`
`‘154 patent, along with other patents, against Proofpoint, Inc. and Armorize Tech-
`
`nologies, Inc. in Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-05808. On April 12, 2016 the district
`
`court granted Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment as to non-infringement of
`
`the ‘154 patent. A jury trial on the remaining patents is currently scheduled for
`
`June 13, 2016.
`
`3. On November 4, 2014, Patent Owner filed a civil action asserting the
`
`‘154 patent, along with other patents, against PAN in Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-
`
`04908.
`
`4. On September 25, 2015, PAN filed a petition for inter partes review
`
`requesting cancellation of claims 1-8, 10, and 11 of the ‘154 patent (the “PAN Pe-
`
`tition”), which was subsequently assigned Case No. IPR2015-01979.
`
`5. On March 21, 2016, the Board instituted inter partes review in Case
`
`No. IPR2015-01979, finding that a reasonable likelihood existed that the PAN Pe-
`
`tition would prevail in showing the unpatentability of claims 1-8, 10, and 11 of the
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`‘154 patent.
`
`6. On April 5, 2016, Patent Owner filed a Request for Rehearing claim-
`
`ing that the Board misapprehended or overlooked arguments, and requesting that
`
`the Board reverse its decision to institute trial as to claims 1-8, 10, and 11 of the
`
`‘154 patent.
`
`7. On April 19, 2016, the Board denied Patent Owner’s Request for Re-
`
`hearing.
`
`8. Also on April 19, 2016, Symantec Corp. (“Symantec”) filed a petition
`
`and motion to join IPR2015-01979. Symantec’s petition has been assigned Case
`
`No. IPR2016-00919 (the “Symantec IPR”). Like Petitioner, Symantec submits that
`
`its petition “relies on the exact same grounds as those instituted by the Board in the
`
`PAN IPR.” Symantec Corp. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-00919, paper 2 at 1-2 (PTAB
`
`April 19, 2016). No decision has been rendered in the Symantec IPR.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`The Board has the authority under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) to join a properly filed
`
`inter partes review petition to an instituted inter partes review proceeding. See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c). Any request for joinder must be filed no later than one month af-
`
`ter the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`In deciding whether to exercise its discretion, the
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`Board considers factors including: (1) the reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2)
`
`whether the new petition presents any new grounds of unpatentability; (3) what
`
`impact, if any, joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review; and
`
`(4) how briefing and discovery may be simplified. See Macronix Int’l Co. v. Span-
`
`sion, IPR2014-00898, paper 13, at 4 (PTAB Aug. 13, 2014) (citing Kyocera Cor-
`
`poration v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB April 24, 2013));
`
`Perfect World Entertainment, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., et al., IPR2015-01026, pa-
`
`per 10 at 4 (PTAB Aug. 3, 2015); Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novartis AG, et
`
`al., IPR2015-00265, paper 17 at 4 (PTAB April 10, 2015); Ciena Corp., et al. v.
`
`Capella Photonics, Inc., IPR2015-01958, paper 11 (PTAB April 1, 2016).
`
`B. Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is Timely
`
`This Motion for Joinder is timely because it is filed within one month of the
`
`March 21, 2016 institution decision in the PAN IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`The one-year bar set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) does not apply when a petition
`
`is filed concurrently with a motion for joinder, as is currently the case here with the
`
`Proofpoint Petition. Id.
`
`C. Each Factor Weighs in Favor of Joinder
`
`Each of the four factors to be considered by the Board in ruling on this mo-
`
`tion weighs in favor of joinder. As explained in further detail below, joinder is
`
`proper because the Proofpoint Petition does not present any new grounds of un-
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`patentability, is substantively identical to the PAN Petition, will have minimal im-
`
`pact, if any, on the trial schedule, briefing and discovery in the PAN IPR, and al-
`
`lows all issues to be resolved in a single proceeding before the Board. Petitioner
`
`further agrees to take on a limited role in the proceeding.
`
`1. Joinder is Appropriate and Petitioner Presents No New
`Grounds
`
`Joinder with the PAN IPR is appropriate because the Proofpoint Petition in-
`
`volves the same patent, challenges the same claims, and relies on the same prior
`
`art, arguments and expert declaration of Dr. Aviel Rubin presented in the PAN
`
`IPR.3 Importantly, the Proofpoint Petition does not raise any new grounds of un-
`
`patentability. Further, the Proofpoint Petition relies on the same grounds from the
`
`PAN Petition on which the Board instituted review on March 21, 2016, and is sub-
`
`stantively identical to the PAN Petition.
`
`Indeed, the substantive challenges pre-
`
`sented in the Proofpoint Petition are copied verbatim from the PAN Petition and
`
`rely on the same supporting expert declaration. The primary differences between
`
`the Proofpoint Petition and the PAN Petition relate to Petitioner’s additional evi-
`
`dence directed to establishing the Sirer reference as a prior art printed publication,
`
`3 The Proofpoint Petition is submitted with the same Exhibits as those submitted
`
`with the PAN IPR. As referenced above in fn. 1, Proofpoint also submits additional
`
`evidence limited to Sirer’s status as a prior art printed publication.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`removal of certain portions of the introduction in the PAN petition, minor formali-
`
`ties associated with the parties involved with filing the petitions, and references to
`
`related proceedings. The Proofpoint Petition presents the same arguments, expert
`
`declaration of Dr. Aviel Rubin, and prior art presented in the PAN Petition; it does
`
`not add to or alter any argument that has already been considered by the Board, nor
`
`does it seek to expand the grounds of unpatentability that the Board has already in-
`
`stituted. Accordingly, because these proceedings are substantively identical, join-
`
`ing this proceeding with the PAN IPR is appropriate and allows the Board to effi-
`
`ciently resolve the instituted grounds in a single proceeding.
`
`2. Joinder Will Not Negatively Impact the PAN IPR Trial
`Schedule
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) provides that “the final determination in an inter
`
`partes review be issued not later than one year after the date on which the Director
`
`notices the institution of a review.” See also 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). Joinder in this
`
`case will not impact this mandate and will not even require modification of the ex-
`
`isting scheduling order. See, IPR2015-01979, Paper 9. As explained above, the
`
`PAN Petition is substantively identical with respect to the instituted grounds con-
`
`tained in the PAN Petition. Thus, the Preliminary Response and Request for Re-
`
`hearing already filed by Patent Owner in the PAN IPR address any and all issues in
`
`the Proofpoint Petition. See IPR2015-01979, papers 6 and 11. There are no new
`
`issues for the Patent Owner to address that would require a modification of the
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`PAN IPR trial schedule. Joining Petitioner to this proceeding will not require any
`
`additional analysis by Patent Owner in its response beyond what they will already
`
`undertake to respond to the PAN Petition. Consequently, the Patent Owner Re-
`
`sponse will not be impacted. Also, since the Proofpoint Petition relies on the same
`
`expert declaration of Dr. Aviel Rubin, only a single deposition is needed for the
`
`proposed joined proceeding in connection with both the PAN Petition and the
`
`Proofpoint Petition. For efficiency’s sake, if joined, Petitioner further agrees to
`
`consolidated discovery with PAN’s counsel acting as the lead counsel so long as
`
`PAN remains in the proceeding.4
`
`For at least the reasons set forth above, there is no reason to delay or alter
`
`the schedule already present in the PAN IPR, and Petitioner explicitly consents to
`
`this schedule. Accordingly, joinder of these proceedings will not negatively im-
`
`pact the PAN IPR trial schedule.
`
`3. Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery
`
`As discussed above, Petitioner offers no new grounds for invalidity and Peti-
`
`tioner does not anticipate that
`
`their presence will
`
`introduce any additional
`
`arguments, briefing or need for discovery. As long as PAN remains an active
`
`4 As referenced in fn. 2 , in the event that Symantec is joined and PAN settles with
`
`Patent Owner, Petitioner agrees to work with Symantec to determine which coun-
`
`sel will replace PAN’s counsel as the lead counsel in the proceedings.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`participant in the IPR, Petitioner is willing to accept a limited role and agree to: (1)
`
`consolidate filings with PAN; (2) refrain from raising any new grounds not already
`
`instituted by the Board in the PAN IPR; (3) be bound by any agreement between
`
`Patent Owner and PAN concerning discovery and/or depositions; (4) limit any di-
`
`rect, cross-examination or redirect time beyond that permitted for PAN alone under
`
`either 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 or any agreement between PAN and the Patent Owner,
`
`such that Petitioner’s participation in the PAN IPR does not result in any additional
`
`time being required for any deposition; and (5) limit any presentation at oral hear-
`
`ing to unused time previously allocated to PAN.5 By accepting this limited role,
`
`both the Board and parties will be able to comply with the existing schedule in the
`
`PAN IPR and avoid any duplication of efforts. The Board has consistently granted
`
`joinder motions allowing Petitioners to take a similar role as that proposed by Peti-
`
`tioner in this proceeding.6 Accordingly, Petitioner requests that the Board grant
`
`5 In the event that Symantec’s motion for joinder is also granted, Petitioner agrees
`
`to the same procedures for simplified briefing and discovery or other reasonable
`
`conditions for the conduct of the combined, joined proceedings that are deemed
`
`appropriate by the Board.
`
`6 See, e.g., Ciena Corp., et al. v. Capella Photonics, Inc., IPR2015-01958, paper 11
`
`(PTAB April 1, 2016); Sony Corp., et al. v. Memory Integrity, LLC, IPR2015-
`
`01376, paper 12 at 16-20 (PTAB Sept. 29, 2015); Ciena Corp., et al. v. Capella
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`Petitioner’s motion for joinder, particularly in light of the foregoing procedural
`
`safeguards and limited role that Petitioner is willing to accept in this proceeding.
`
`D. Without Joinder, Petitioner is prejudiced
`
`Petitioner will be prejudiced if it is not permitted to join in the PAN IPR. Pa-
`
`tent Owner has asserted the ‘154 patent against Petitioner in a pending litigation
`
`and the one-year statutory bar for filing an IPR by Petitioner has been exhausted.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner should be permitted to join the pending IPR to participate
`
`in proceedings affecting the claims of a patent asserted against it, and thereby al-
`
`lowed to continue the proceedings should PAN and Patent Owner settle under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.74 before a final written decision is issued.
`
`E.
`
`Joinder Will Not Prejudice the Parties to the PAN IPR
`
`Permitting joinder will not prejudice PAN or Patent Owner. It is Petitioner’s
`
`understanding that PAN does not intend to oppose this joinder motion. Also, Patent
`
`Owner is not prejudiced as all of the issues raised by Petitioner are already known
`
`to Patent Owner. Further, Patent Owner is not expected to incur any additional
`
`burden as a result of this joinder. This is particularly true in light of the limited
`
`role that Petitioner proposes to undertake in the joined proceedings. Joinder will
`
`Photonics, Inc., IPR2015-00894, paper 12 (PTAB Sept. 22, 2015); Dell Inc. v.
`
`Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385, paper 17 (PTAB July 29,
`
`2013).
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`allow the Board to address the same patent validity questions in a single
`
`proceeding within a statutory deadline without adding costs or burdens on any of
`
`the parties.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Based on the factors outlined above, Petitioner requests the Board grant the
`
`Proofpoint Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 and grant
`
`joinder with the Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2015-01979 proceed-
`
`ing.
`
`Date: April 21, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph J. Richetti, Reg. No. 47024/
`Joseph J. Richetti (Reg. No. 47,024)
`Kevin Paganini (Reg. No. 66,286)
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`General Tel: (212) 541-2000
`Fax: (212) 541-4630
`Email: joe.richetti@bryancave.com
`kevin.paganini@bryancave.com
`IPR2016-00937@bryancave.com
`PTAB-NY@bryancave.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner – Proofpoint, Inc. and
`Armorize Technologies, Inc
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), 42.105(a))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned “MOTION FOR
`
`JOINDER UNDER 35 U.S.C. 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b)
`
`TO INTER PARTES REVIEW OF IPR2015-01979” was served in its entirety on
`
`April 21, 2016, upon the following parties via FedEx:
`
`Attorney of Record for U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154:
`
`Dawn-Marie Bey
`Marc Berger
`Christopher Cotropia
`Sang Kim
`Julie Mar-Spinola
`BEY & COTROPIA PLLC
`213 Bayly Court
`Richmond, VA 23229
`
`A Courtesy copy was also served via FedEx on the Patent Owner at the fol-
`lowing address:
`Paul J. Andre
`Counsel for Finjan
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS &
`FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`
`Benu C. Wells
`Counsel for Finjan
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS &
`FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned “POWER OF
`ATTORNEY”, was served on April 21, 2016, upon the following parties via Fed-
`Ex:
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner in IPR2015-1979
`
`James Hannah
`Paul J. Andre
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`
`Jeffrey H. Price
`Benu C. Wells
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`jprice@kramerlevin.com
`
`Michael Kim
`Finjan Inc.
`2000 University Ave., Ste. 600
`E. Palo Alto, CA 9430
`mkim@finjan.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioners in IPR2015-01979:
`
`Orion Armon
`Brian Eutermoser
`COOLEY LLP
`380 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 900
`Broomfield, Colorado 80021
`oarmon@cooley.com
`beutermoser@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`
`Christopher Max Colice
`COOLEY LLP
`500 Boylston Street, 14th Floor
`Boston, Massachusetts 02116-3736
`mcolice@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`
`Jennifer Volk-Fortier
`COOLEY LLP
`One Freedom Square
`Reston Town Center
`11951 Freedom Drive
`Reston, Virginia 2019
`jvolkfortier@cooley.com
`zpatdcdocketing@cooley.com
`
`Orion Armon
`Christopher Max Colice
`Jennifer Volk-Fortier
`Brian Eutermoser
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`zPaloAltoNetworksIPR@cooley.com
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case To Be Assigned
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154
`
`Date: April 21, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph J. Richetti, Reg. No. 47024/
`Joseph J. Richetti (Reg. No. 47,024)
`Lead Attorney for Petitioner
`BRYAN CAVE LLP
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`Direct Tel: (212) 541-1092
`Email: joe.richetti@bryancave.com
`IPR2016-00937@bryancave.com
`PTAB-NY@bryancave.com
`
`Attorney for Petitioner – Proofpoint, Inc.
`and Armorize Technologies, Inc.
`
`14
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
