`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
`USA, INC., and AKORN INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ALLERGAN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-011281
`Patent 8,629,111
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER ALLERGAN, INC.’S
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2017-00578 and IPR2017-00596 have been joined with this
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No.: 13351-0008IP2
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
`I.
`II. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 2
`III. LEGAL STANDARD ....................................................................................... 4
`IV. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................... 5
`A. The Motion Fails To Show The Requested Discovery Will Uncover
`Anything Useful ............................................................................................... 5
`B. Petitioner’s Reliance On Corning Is Misplaced ......................................... 6
`V. CONCULSION ................................................................................................. 7
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No.: 13351-0008IP2
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`EX. 2002
`EX. 2003
`
`EX. 2004
`EX. 2005
`EX. 2006
`EX. 2007
`EX. 2008
`EX. 2009
`
`EX. 2010
`EX. 2011
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`EX. 2001
`NDA 21-023 Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion 0.05%, Original
`NDA Filing, Vol. 1 (Feb. 24, 1999)
`U.S. Pat. No. 4,839,342
`Said et al., Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, vol. 48,
`No. 11 (Nov. 2007):5000-5006
`Alba et al., Folia Ophthalmol. Jpn. 40:902-908 (1989)
`Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, definition of therapeutic
`Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, definition of therapeutic
`Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, definition of palliative
`RESTASIS® label
`Murphy, R., “The Once and Future Treatment of Dry Eye,” Review
`of Optometry, pp. 73-75 (Feb. 15, 2000)
`RESERVED
`Agarwal, Priyanka and Ilva D. Rupenthal, “Modern Approaches to
`the Ocular Delivery of Cyclosporine A,” Drug Discovery Today,
`vol. 21, no. 6 (June 2016)
`Damato et al., “Senile Atrophy of the Human Lacrimal Gland: The
`Contribution of Chronic Inflammatory Disease,” British Journal of
`Ophthalmology (1984)
`Higuchi, “Physical Chemical Analysis of Percutaneous Absorption
`Process From Creams and Ointments,” Seminar, New York City
`(1959)
`Lallemand et al., “Cyclosporine a Delivery to the Eye: A
`Pharmaceutical Challenge,” European Journal of Pharmaceutics
`and Biopharmaceutics (2003)
`
`EX. 2012
`
`EX. 2013
`
`EX. 2014
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`EX. 2015
`
`EX. 2016
`
`EX. 2017
`EX. 2018
`
`EX. 2019
`
`EX. 2020
`
`EX. 2021
`
`EX. 2022
`
`EX. 2023
`EX. 2024
`EX. 2025
`EX. 2026
`EX. 2027
`EX. 2028
`EX. 2029
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No.: 13351-0008IP2
`
`
`das Neves et al., “ Mucosal Delivery of Biopharmaceuticals:
`Biology, Challenges and Strategies,” Springer Science (2014)
`Power et al., “Effect of Topical Cyclosporin A on Conjunctival T
`Cells in Patients with Secondary Sjögren’s Syndrome,” Cornea
`12(6): 507-511 (1993)
`Schaefer et al., “Skin Permeability,” Springer-Verlag (1982)
`Stern et al., “The Pathology of Dry Eye: The Interaction Between
`the Ocular Surface and Lacrimal Glands,” Cornea 17(6): 584-589
`(1998)
`Wepierre, Jacques and Jean-Paul Marty, “Percutaneous Absorption
`of Drugs,” Elsvier/North-Holland Biomedical Press (1970)
`Williamson et al., “Histology f the Lacrimal Gland in
`Keratoconjunctivitis Sicca,” Brit. F. Ophthal /91973)
`“Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence
`Evaluations,” U.S. Department of Health and Huma Services, 37th
`Edition (2017)
`Lemp, Michael A., “ Report of the National Eye Institute/Industry
`Workshop on Clinical Trials in Dry Eyes,” CLAO Journal, vol. 21,
`no. 4 (October 1995)
`Deposition transcript of Mansoor Amiji, Ph.D
`Declaration of John D. Sheppard, M.D., M.M.Sc.
`Declaration of Dr. Thorsteinn Loftsson, Ph.D.
`Declaration of Eric Rubinson
`Allergan PK-98-074 Report
`Declaration of Robert S. Maness, Ph.D.
`DiMasi, “Risks in New Drug Development: Approval Success
`Rates for Investigational Drugs,” Clinical Pharmacology and
`Therapeutics, May 2001
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No.: 13351-0008IP2
`
`
`FDA Review, “The Drug Development and Approval Process”
`Allergan – NYSE: AGN – Company Profile
`Drugs@FDA: FDA Approved Drug Products,
`http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=ov
`erview.process&ApplNo=021023
`Drugs@FDA: FDA Approved Drug Products, Restasis Approved,
`http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2003/21-
`023_Restasis_Approv.PDF
`Drugs@FDA: FDA Approved Drug Products,
`http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=ov
`erview.process&ApplNo=050790
`Facts About Dry Eye, https://nei.nih.gov/health/dryeye/dryeye
`Christopher Glenn, “New Thinking Spurs New Products,” Review
`of Ophthalmology, February 15, 2003
`Mark B. Abelson, MD and Jason Casavant, “Give Dry Eye a One-
`two Punch,” Review of Ophthalmology, March 15, 2003
`Deposition of David LeCause, February 17, 2017
`Joan-Marie Stiglich ELS, “Restasis: the road to approval,” Ocular
`Surgery News, March 1, 2003
`Lynda Charters, “Increased Tear Production,” Ophthalmology
`Times, February 1, 2003
`RESERVED
`Jonathan R. Pirnazar, MD, “Taking a Custom Approach to Dry Eye
`Treatment,” Ophthalmology Management, February 1, 2004
`RESERVED
`FDA label for Xiidra®
`RESERVED
`
`EX. 2030
`EX. 2031
`EX. 2032
`
`EX. 2033
`
`EX. 2034
`
`EX. 2035
`EX. 2036
`
`EX. 2037
`
`EX. 2038
`EX. 2039
`
`EX. 2040
`
`EX. 2041
`EX. 2042
`
`EX. 2043
`EX. 2044
`EX. 2045
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No.: 13351-0008IP2
`
`
`Restasis Strategic Plan Forecast 2009-2013
`Allergan Inc., Credit Suisse First Boston Equity Research Report,
`Jan 30, 2003
`Allergan Inc., Buckingham Research Group Equity Research
`Report, Feb 5, 2003
`Allergan Inc., SalomonSmithBarney Equity Research Report, Feb
`12, 2003
`Allergan Inc., Morgan Stanley Equity Research Report, Jan 30,
`2003
`Restasis P&L (US Only excl. Canada and Puerto Rico)
`Allergan Inc., Morgan Stanley Equity Research Report, Apr 30,
`2004
`Allergan Inc., JP Morgan Equity Research Report, Nov 1, 2005
`RESERVED
`“commercial Restasis Formulary June 2006.xls”
`“NOVEMBER 2006 input MHC Report Restasis Playbook
`data.ppt”
`Restasis® 2013 Managed Markets Tactics & Preliminary Budget,
`August 8, 2012
`RESERVED
`RESERVED
`“Allergan Inc. (AGN) - Q4 2002 Financial Release Conference Call
`Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:00 am” Fair Disclosure Financial
`Network
`Restasis Launch Marketing Plan, dated February 12-13, 2003
`Allergan Dry Eye, “Dry Eye Franchise 2014 Business Plan,” 2014
`U.S. Eye Care Sales & Marketing Plan, September 9, 2013
`
`EX. 2046
`EX. 2047
`
`EX. 2048
`
`EX. 2049
`
`EX. 2050
`
`EX. 2051
`EX. 2052
`
`EX. 2053
`EX. 2054
`EX. 2055
`EX. 2056
`
`EX. 2057
`
`EX. 2058
`EX. 2059
`EX. 2060
`
`EX. 2061
`EX. 2062
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No.: 13351-0008IP2
`
`
`Allergan Eye Care, “US Dry Eye Strat Plan Narrative: Summary
`Version,” April 16, 2011
`Kline, Kate, “Restasis Professional Critical Issues,” Allergan Dry
`Eye, 2010
`Allergan Dry Eye, “Restasis Business Update,” August 16, 2010
`“Sales-Units_2011-2016_AllData_NSP_Feb-19-
`2017_RESTASIS.xlsx”
`RESERVED
`Iazuka and Jin, “The Effect of Prescription Drug Advertising on
`Doctor Visits,” Journal of Economics and Management Strategy,
`2007
`Bradford, Kleit, Nietert, et al, “How Direct-to-Consumer Television
`Advertising for Osteoarthritis Drugs Affect Physicians’ Prescribing
`Behavior,” Health Affairs, 2006
`Calfee, Winston, and Stempski, “Direct-to-Consumer Advertising
`and the Demand for Cholesterol Reducing Drugs,” Journal of Law
`and Economics, 2002
`Bradford, Kleit, Nietert, et al, “Effects of Direct-to-Consumer
`Advertising of Hydroxymethylglutaryl Coenzyme A Reductase
`Inhibitors or Attainment of LDL-C Goals,” Clinical Therapeutics,
`2006
`Restasis NPA Monthly
`Restasis Projects, Global R&D Cost
`Refresh Endura Lubricant Eye Drops (Allergan), Theodora
`Declaration of Jonathan Singer in support of Petitioner’s Motion for
`Pro Hac Vice Admission
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, Allergan, Inc. v. Teva
`Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-1455-WCB
`
`EX. 2063
`
`EX. 2064
`
`EX. 2065
`EX. 2066
`
`EX. 2067
`EX. 2068
`
`EX. 2069
`
`EX. 2070
`
`EX. 2071
`
`EX. 2072
`EX. 2073
`EX. 2074
`EX. 2075
`
`EX. 2076
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No.: 13351-0008IP2
`
`
`The Board should deny Petitioner’s request for additional discovery because
`
`the Petitioner has failed to satisfy the Garmin factors. At best, Petitioner is
`
`speculating that something useful regarding its contentions might be uncovered.
`
`Notably absent from the motion is any articulation of what useful information the
`
`production is expected to uncover. Instead, the motion only argues that the
`
`discovery is necessary to allow a “complete evaluation,” whatever that means.
`
`Petitioner’s motion appears to be a prelude for new arguments that are
`
`inconsistent with the petitions and declarations upon which review was instituted.
`
`The petitions relied upon the Sall (Ex. 1007) and Stevenson (Ex. 1015), peer-
`
`reviewed publications that describe the efficacy data of Allergan’s Phase II and
`
`Phase III studies, and stated that these publications contain the necessary
`
`information to answer the question of whether the efficacy results are significant.
`
`Allergan and its declarants (Drs. Sheppard and Loftsson) showed—contrary to
`
`Petitioner’s arguments—that the tear production efficacy data reported in Sall
`
`supported the unexpected results and criticality of the claimed formulation.
`
`Because Sall and Stevenson contradict, rather than support its position, Petitioner
`
`now asks for additional discovery presumably to undercut Sall and Stevenson.
`
`This is a new argument, and prohibited by the Board’s rules.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Moreover, this is not minor, targeted discovery for particular identified
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No.: 13351-0008IP2
`
`
`documents. Given the statutory time limits and necessarily streamlined IPR
`
`process (as compared to district court litigation), the Board must be conservative in
`
`ordering additional discovery. See 154 Cong. Rec. S9988-89 (daily ed. Sept. 27,
`
`2008). This request deals with complex and voluminous Phase II and Phase III
`
`clinical trials, which were submitted to FDA for approval of RESTASIS®. The
`
`requested discovery would involve the production of more than 60,000 pages of
`
`documents. The request is not tailored to meet a real need and should be denied.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`During prosecution, Allergan submitted the declarations of Drs. Schiffman
`
`and Attar. The Examiner stated that the declarations showed the claimed
`
`formulation “is surprisingly critical for the therapeutic effectiveness in the
`
`treatment of dry eye or keratoconjunctivitis sicca” and “provide clear and
`
`convincing objective evidence that establishes the claimed formulations, including
`
`0.05% by weight cyclosporine A and 1.25% by weight castor oil, demonstrate
`
`surprising and unexpected results.” Ex. 1004, pp. 276-77. Petitioner
`
`acknowledges that “much of the same data relied upon as demonstrating
`
`unexpected equivalent efficacy of the 0.05% CsA emulsion and the 0.10% CsA
`
`emulsion [in the declarations] appear identical to graphs published more than one
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`year before the alleged priority date” in Sall. Petition at 48 (all citations to
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No.: 13351-0008IP2
`
`
`IPR2016-01127).
`
`
`
`Petitioner argued the declarations do not demonstrate unexpected results
`
`because they “failed to provide the necessary parameters for scientific
`
`interpretation, including raw data values and error rates.” Petition at 47-48. In
`
`contrast, Petitioner’s expert Dr. Amiji stated that Sall includes the necessary
`
`information “and can therefore answer the question of whether the results reported
`
`therein are significant.” Amiji at ¶ 131. Petitioner then argues that Sall and
`
`Stevenson do not support a conclusion of unexpected results. Petition at 50-51.
`
`
`
`The declarations also refer to PK studies conducted by Allergan.2 These
`
`studies show that less CsA reaches the relevant tissue for tear production—the
`
`lacrimal gland, conjunctiva, and cornea—with the 0.05% emulsion in comparison
`
`to the 0.10% emulsion. Ex. 1004, pp. 190-242. Petitioner and Dr. Amiji, do not
`
`
`2 Allergan previously produced the PK study comparing the two formulations in
`
`the Phase III study, which are also the formulations described in the specifications
`
`of the patents at issue in these IPRs, as Ex. 2026, because its experts relied on the
`
`study. Allergan has now produced the second PK study referenced in the
`
`declarations, which relates to the formulations in the Phase II trials.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`argue these results are inaccurate but, rather, that because the declarations report
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No.: 13351-0008IP2
`
`
`“no raw values for CsA measured in the eye tissue, it entirely possible that all
`
`emulsions satisfy the concentration threshold for therapeutic efficacy, and that any
`
`increased delivery is immaterial.” See, e.g, Petition at 54; Amiji at ¶ 145.
`
`Petitioner’s argument goes to the conclusion drawn rather than the data itself.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`The Board applies an “interest of justice” standard when deciding whether to
`
`grant additional discovery. 35 U.S.C. §316(a)(5). As outlined in the Garmin case,
`
`the Board typically weigh five factors when considering additional discovery. The
`
`first Garmin factor, most important here, is “more than a possibility and mere
`
`allegation:”
`
`The mere possibility of finding something useful, and mere allegation
`that something useful will be found are insufficient. Thus, the party
`requesting discovery already should be in possession of a threshold
`amount of evidence or reasoning tending to show beyond speculation that
`something useful will be uncovered. “Useful” does not mean merely
`“relevant” or “admissible,” but rather means favorable in substantive
`value to a contention of the party moving for discovery.
`AIA Blog, September 30, 2014, Message from Administrative Patent Judges
`
`Jacqueline Bonilla and Sheridan Snedden: Routine and Additional Discovery in
`
`AIA Trial Proceedings: What is the Difference?
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No.: 13351-0008IP2
`
`
`A. The Requested Discovery Will Not Uncover Anything Useful
`Petitioner has failed to articulate anything “more than a possibility and mere
`
`allegation” that the requested additional discovery will uncover anything useful.
`
`The petitions do not challenge the results of the conclusion that less CsA makes its
`
`way to the relevant ocular tissues when using the claimed 0.05% emulsion as
`
`compared to the 0.1% emulsion. Nonetheless, Allergan has produced both
`
`pharmacokinetic studies referenced in the declarations. Petitioner requests the
`
`underlying data, but has not shown that the studies are insufficient for its argument.
`
`With respect to the efficacy data, the motion makes only a conclusory
`
`argument. For example, “the absence of the underlying data for the Sall figures
`
`and PK studies precludes a complete evaluation of whether the data support
`
`Allergan’s contentions.” Motion at 6. No specifics of what is to be uncovered is
`
`provided.3 And, as noted above, this argument is inconsistent with arguments
`
`
`3 During the telephone conference with the Board, Petitioner referenced a court
`
`order to wrongly suggest that the court agreed with its position here. Circuit Judge
`
`Bryson, sitting by designation, denied the motion stating: “the fact that Dr.
`
`Schiffman drew his data from the Phase 3 Study and may have obtained several of
`
`his figures from the Sall Article does not necessarily establish that the Sall Article
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`made in the petitions, which explicitly argued that Sall includes the necessary
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No.: 13351-0008IP2
`
`
`information to answer whether the reported results are significant.
`
`This change in tactic is apparently in response to the Patent Owner Response
`
`proving that the claimed emulsion is more effective at increasing tear production
`
`than the prior art formulations. Patent Owner Response at 28-30. The reported
`
`Schirmer results show that the claimed 0.05% emulsion was statically significant
`
`better than placebo at three months while the 0.10% emulsion was not. At all times
`
`the claimed emulsion was numerically superior to the 0.10% emulsion. Based on
`
`thermodynamic principles and the PK data, this result was completely unexpected.
`
`Id. The Board should not allow additional discovery to support the injection of a
`
`new and improper argument into the IPRs.
`
`B. Petitioner’s Reliance On Corning Is Misplaced
`
`In Corning, the petitioner relied upon expert declarations concerning
`
`samples of the prior art compositions prepared for the IPR and tested the samples
`
`for the properties recited in the claims. IPR2013-0043, Paper 27 at 1-2. The
`
`request related to compositions synthesized for the case and explained that the
`
`
`anticipates (or renders obvious) the formulation that is recited in many of the
`
`claims of the patent in suit.” Ex. 2076 at 14.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`declarations were missing information required to confirm that the compositions
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No.: 13351-0008IP2
`
`
`were those in the alleged prior art and to evaluate the reliability of the tests
`
`performed. Id. On those facts, the Board ordered production of the lab notebooks.
`
`Id. Here, the requested information was not generated by Allergan for this case.
`
`
`
`Even if this request was similar to the request in Corning—which it is not,
`
`because the requested information was not generated by Allergan for this case—
`
`this request is more like the request for samples. But the Board denied that request
`
`because the moving party argued only that samples “are important and useful for
`
`DSM to independently evaluate” and did not explain why cross-examination and
`
`review of documents was insufficient. Id. Here, Petitioner similarly has made
`
`only conclusory arguments that the documents are needed to allow a “complete
`
`evaluation,” does not explain why all of the technical experts in these IPRs—Drs.
`
`Amiji, Sheppard, and Loftsson—were all able to offer opinions without reviewing
`
`the underlying data, and has not explained why it cannot obtain the information it
`
`seeks through cross-examination using the declarations, PK study reports, and the
`
`Phase II and III results reported in Sall and Stevenson.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`For all of these reasons, the Board should deny Petitioner’s motion for
`
`additional discovery.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: May 23, 2017
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No.: 13351-0008IP2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/ Dorothy P. Whelan/
`Dorothy P. Whelan, Reg. No. 33,814
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`P.O. Box 1022
`Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022
`T: 612-337-2509
`F: 612-288-9696
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No.: 13351-0008IP2
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.205(b), the undersigned certifies
`
`that on May 23, 2017, a complete and entire copy of this Patent Owner Allergan,
`
`Inc.’s Opposition to Motion For Discovery was provided via electronic service, to
`
`the Petitioner by serving the correspondence address of record as follows:
`
`
`
`Steven W. Parmelee
`Michael T. Rosato
`Jad A. Mills
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104-7036
`sparmelee@wsgr.com
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`jmills@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`Michael R. Dzwonczyk
`Azy S. Kokabi
`Travis B. Ribar
`Sughrue Mion, PLLC
`2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20037
`
`mdzwonczyk@sughrue.com
`akokabi@sughrue.com
`tribar@sughrue.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No.: 13351-0008IP2
`
`
`
`Gary J. Speier
`Mark D. Schuman
`Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh, Lindquist & Schuman, P.A.
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`
`gspeier@carlsoncaspers.com
`mschuman@carlsoncaspers.com
`IPRCyclosporine@carlsoncaspers.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Jessica K. Detko/
`
`Jessica K. Detko
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(612) 337-2516
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
