UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ALLERGAN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-011281
`Patent 8,629,111
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER ALLERGAN’S MOTION
`FOR OBSERVATIONS ON THE CROSS-EXAMINATION
`TESTIMONY OF IVAN T. HOFMANN
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2017-00578 and IPR2017-00596 have been joined with this
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ALLERGAN, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-011281
`Patent 8,629,111
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER ALLERGAN’S MOTION
`FOR OBSERVATIONS ON THE CROSS-EXAMINATION
`TESTIMONY OF IVAN T. HOFMANN
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2017-00578 and IPR2017-00596 have been joined with this
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP2
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`EX. 2002
`EX. 2003
`
`EX. 2004
`EX. 2005
`EX. 2006
`EX. 2007
`EX. 2008
`EX. 2009
`
`EX. 2010
`EX. 2011
`
`EX. 2012
`
`EX. 2013
`
`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)
`das Neves et al., “ Mucosal Delivery of Biopharmaceuticals:
`
`EX. 2014
`
`EX. 2015
`
`i
`
`
`
`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
`
`EX. 2030
`EX. 2031
`
`Case IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP2
`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
`FDA Review, “The Drug Development and Approval Process”
`Allergan – NYSE: AGN – Company Profile
`
`ii
`
`
`
`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
`EX. 2046
`EX. 2047
`
`EX. 2048
`
`Case IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP2
`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
`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
`
`iii
`
`
`
`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
`
`EX. 2063
`
`EX. 2064
`
`EX. 2065
`
`Case IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP2
`
`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
`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
`
`iv
`
`
`
`EX. 2066
`
`EX. 2067
`EX. 2068
`
`EX. 2069
`
`EX. 2070
`
`EX. 2071
`
`EX. 2072
`EX. 2073
`EX. 2074
`EX. 2075
`
`EX. 2076
`
`EX. 2077
`
`EX. 2078
`EX. 2079
`
`EX. 2080
`
`Case IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP2
`“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
`Nussenblatt, R. et al. Local Cyclosporine Therapy for Experimental
`Autoimmune Uveitis in Rats. Arch Ophthalmology, Volume 103,
`October 1985.
`Medical Officer’s Review of NDA 21-023
`Correction to Sall article (Ex. 1007), Opthalmology, Vol. 107, No.
`7, July 2000.
`GraphPad Calculation of Bloch Table 2 – 3 mo. B vs A.
`
`v
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP2
`GraphPad Calculation of Bloch Table 2 – 3 mo. C vs A.
`Deposition transcript of Andrew F. Calman, M.D., Ph.D.
`Deposition transcript of Daniel A. Bloch, Ph.D.
`Deposition transcript of Ivan T. Hofmann
`
`EX. 2081
`EX. 2082
`EX. 2083
`EX. 2084
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP2
`Patent Owner Allergan hereby submits observations on the deposition
`
`testimony of Petitioner’s Declarant Mr. Ivan T. Hofmann given on July 14, 2017
`
`(Ex. 2084).
`
`Mr. Hofmann Does Not Dispute That Restasis® is a Commercial Success
`
`
`
`In Ex. 2084 at p. 8, lines 22 to 25, Mr. Hofmann admitted that Restasis® has
`
`experienced significant sales and profits, indicating that it is a commercial success.
`
`Mr. Hofmann’s testimony is relevant to his statement in ¶ 29 of his declaration
`
`(Ex. 1041) where he states that he “ha[s] not seen evidence demonstrating that the
`
`claimed commercial success of Restasis® is attributable to novel features of the
`
`alleged inventions of the Patents-at-Issue.” Mr. Hofmann’s deposition testimony is
`
`relevant because it demonstrates that his dispute with Allergan’s claim of
`
`commercial success is premised solely on establishing the nexus between the
`
`claimed invention and Restasis®, not on whether Restasis® itself was
`
`commercially successful.
`
`Mr. Hofmann Fails to Define a Relevant Market After
`Incorrectly Criticizing Dr. Maness for the Same
`In Ex. 2084 at p. 17 lines 5 to 19, Mr. Hofmann acknowledges that Dr.
`
`Maness provided a definition for a relevant market in his declaration. Mr.
`
`Hofmann also acknowledges that he did not define the relevant market in his
`
`testimony. See Ex. 2084 at p. 18 lines 2-17 (“I haven’t done a definitive definition
`
`of which products would comprise the relevant market.”). Mr. Hofmann’s
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP2
`testimony is relevant to his statement in ¶ 28 of his declaration (Ex. 1041) that
`
`“sales must be considered in light of the relevant market” and in ¶ 42 that “[t]he
`
`Maness Declaration is incomplete and flawed because it fails to provide the
`
`appropriate context to the performance of Restasis® in the relevant market”. The
`
`deposition testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that, by his own standard,
`
`Mr. Hofmann’s analysis is flawed, as he did not analyze the relevant market in
`
`which the sales took place.
`
`Mr. Hofmann Does Not Dispute That Mere Presence of Product
`Marketing Does Not Indicate Lack of Nexus
`In Ex. 2084 at p. 47, line 25 to p. 48 line 6, Mr. Hofmann agrees that the
`
`
`
`mere fact that a product is marketed does not mean there is a lack of nexus
`
`between the commercial performance of a product and the patented invention.
`
`Further, in Ex. 2084 at p. 48 lines 7-12, Mr. Hofmann admits that he did not
`
`quantify how much marketing spend he considers excessive. Mr. Hofmann’s
`
`testimony is relevant to his statement in ¶ 70 of his declaration (Ex. 1041) that “the
`
`fact that Allergan has had to invest so heavily in sales and marketing efforts for
`
`Restasis® undermines the Maness Declaration’s contention that a nexus exists
`
`between the commercial performance of Restasis® and the claims of the Patents-
`
`at-Issue.” The deposition testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that
`
`marketing itself is not conclusive proof of lack of nexus, and that Mr. Hofmann did
`
`not quantify about how much marketing is excessive.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP2
`Mr. Hofmann Fails to Credit Marketing as a Percentage of Sales
`
`
`
`In Ex. 2084 at p. 36 line 11 to p. 37 line 7, Mr. Hofmann testified that he
`
`does not consider marketing as a percentage of sales to be relevant to the role that
`
`marketing plays in driving the commercial success of Restasis®. He does not
`
`argue that Dr. Maness’s calculations are erroneous (see Ex. 2084 at p. 44 lines 9 to
`
`15, where he agrees “the math checks out”), but argues that the metric “diminishes
`
`the marketing intensity,” or in other words, downplays Allergan’s marketing
`
`efforts. Mr. Hofmann’s deposition testimony is relevant to his statements at ¶¶ 63-
`
`64 of his declaration (Ex. 1041) where he discusses the purported effect of
`
`advertising and promotion on the commercial success of Restasis®. Mr.
`
`Hofmann’s testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that he has not taken into
`
`account the marketing expenses in the broader context of Restasis® sales in
`
`assessing the commercial success of Restasis®.
`
`Mr. Hofmann Fails to Compare Expenditures to Other Products
`in the Industry
`
`
`
`In Ex. 2084 at p. 41 line 5 to p. 42 line 2, Mr. Hofmann admits that he does
`
`not compare the sales and marketing expenses of Restasis® compared to other
`
`pharmaceutical products with sales levels similar to Restasis®. See also Ex. 2084
`
`p. 38 line 1 to p. 39 line 5. Mr. Hofmann’s testimony is relevant to ¶¶ 69-70 of his
`
`declaration (Ex. 1041) where he sets forth the total sales and marketing expenses
`
`of Restasis® from launch through 2016, and comments that “if the features of the
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP2
`claims of the Patents-at-Issue were as novel and important as the Maness
`
`Declaration implies, Allergan would not have needed to engage in the degree of
`
`such extensive, prolonged, and continued marketing efforts as described below.”
`
`Mr. Hofmann’s testimony is relevant because, without a comparison of Allergan’s
`
`marketing efforts for Restasis® to the “continued marketing efforts” of other
`
`pharmaceutical products with similar net sales, his assertion that such extensive
`
`marketing would not have been required lacks context and support.
`
`Mr. Hofmann Fails to Conduct an Apportionment Analysis
`After Criticizing Dr. Maness for the Same
`
`
`
`In Ex. 2084 at p. 84 line 17 to p. 85 line 7, Mr. Hofmann criticizes Dr.
`
`Maness for not apportioning the Restasis® sales and revenues across the prior art
`
`patents and across the individual patents-in-suit. Mr. Hofmann acknowledges that
`
`Dr. Maness considered apportionment (see Ex. 1034 at 250:10-251:9, 251:24-
`
`252:21) and determined that it was inappropriate. Ex. 2084 at p. 85 lines 8-23.
`
`Mr. Hofmann further admits that he never performed a quantitative apportionment
`
`analysis, either across the alleged prior art patents (Ex. 2084 at p. 87 line 15 to p.
`
`88 line 21) or across the individual patents-in-suit (Ex. 2084 at p. 85 line 24 to p.
`
`86 line 17). See also Ex. 2084 at p. 89 lines 3 to 10. Mr. Hofmann’s testimony is
`
`relevant to his statement in ¶ 105 of his declaration (Ex. 1041) that “[t]he failure to
`
`apportion the sales and identify nexus to the Patents-at-Issue individually, as well
`
`as other drivers of the performance of Restasis®, such as the ’979 Patent and ’342
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP2
`Patent, is incomplete, flawed and unreliable.” The deposition testimony is relevant
`
`because it demonstrates that again, by his own standard, Mr. Hofmann’s analysis is
`
`flawed.
`
`Mr. Hofmann Is Not Qualified to Interpret Scope of Patent Claims
`
`
`
`In Ex. 2084 at p. 14, lines 5 to 8, Mr. Hofmann admitted that he is not an
`
`expert in interpreting patent claims related to clinical features of pharmaceutical
`
`formulations. Additionally, he testified at p. 99 lines 19 to 23, that “to determine
`
`whether a patent is a blocking patent, you have to determine the scope of the
`
`claims.” Ex. 2084; see also id. at p. 80 line 20 to p. 81 line 6. Mr. Hofmann’s
`
`deposition testimony is relevant to his statements in ¶ 31 of his declaration (Ex.
`
`1041) where he interprets the scope of the Ding ’979 patent to encompass
`
`Restasis®, and is further relevant to his opinions at ¶¶ 30-38 regarding which
`
`patents served as blocking patents, as well as the purported effect these “blocking
`
`patents” had on the competitive market for Restasis®. Mr. Hofmann does not cite
`
`to any of Petitioner’s technical experts for his interpretation of the scope of the
`
`Ding ’979 patent in ¶ 31. See Ex. 1041 at FN 55; Ex. 2084 at p. 66 line 21 to p. 67
`
`line 17. His testimony is relevant because any conclusions Mr. Hofmann draws
`
`about certain patents acting as blocking patents stem from his own interpretation of
`
`the scope of the patent claims, for which he admits he is not qualified to offer an
`
`opinion.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01128
`Attorney Docket No: 13351-0008IP2
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Dorothy P. Whelan/
`Dorothy P. Whelan, Reg. No. 33,814
`Michael J. Kane, Reg. No. 39,722
`Attorneys for Allergan, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date:/July 20, 2017/
`
`
`
`Customer Number 26191
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`Telephone: (612) 337-2509
`Facsimile: (612) 288-9696
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 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 July 20, 2017, a complete and entire copy of this Patent Owner Allergan,
`
`Inc.’s Motion for Observations On the Cross-Examination Testimony of Ivan T.
`
`Hofmann 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
`Wendy L. Devine
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104-7036
`sparmelee@wsgr.com
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`jmills@wsgr.com
`wdevine@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
`sblackston@sughrue.com
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
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
