throbber
Paper No. __
`Filed July 14, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`APOTEX INC., APOTEX CORP., EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,
`HERITAGE PHARMA LABS INC., HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., USA, GLENMARK HOLDING SA,
`GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD., and MYLAN LABORATORIES
`LIMITED
`
`Petitioners
`
`V.
`
`ELI LILLY & COMPANY
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209
`Filed: July 11, 2007
`Issued: August 10, 2010
`Inventor: Clet Niyikiza
`
`TITLE: ANTIFOLATE COMBINATION THERAPIES
`
`_____________________
`Inter Partes Review No.: IPR2016-01429
`————————————————
`
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR JOINDER
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) AND 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 AND 42.122(b)
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED .......................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ........................................................ 3
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ........................ 4
`
`A.
`
`Reasons Why Joinder Is Appropriate .................................................... 6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Substantively Identical Petitions ................................................. 6
`
`Consolidated Filings and Discovery ........................................... 7
`
`No New Grounds of Unpatentability .................................................... 8
`
`No Impact on IPR Trial Schedule ......................................................... 8
`
`Briefing and Discovery Will Be Simplified .......................................... 9
`
`Joinder Will Not Prejudice Lilly or Neptune ........................................ 9
`
`Expedited Briefing will Assist in Administering this
`Proceeding in a Just, Speedy and Efficient Manner ............................ 11
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`IV. PROPOSED ORDER .................................................................................... 11
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 12
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Amneal Pharma., Inc. v. Yeda Res. and Dev. Co., Ltd.,
`IPR2015-01976 ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00385 ...................................................................................................5, 6
`
`In re Barr Labs., Inc.,
` 930 F.2d 72 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ..............................................................................10
`
`Kyocera Corp. et al. v. Softview LLC,
`IPR2013-00004 ....................................................................................................... 1
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC v. Softview LLC,
`IPR2013-00256 ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., v. Arendi S.A.R.L.,
`IPR2014-01144 .....................................................................................................11
`
`Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC,
`IPR2015-01376 ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ............................................................................................. 1, 4, 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(b) ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) ..............................................................................................6, 11
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) ......................................................................................... 1, 2, 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ............................................................................................... 1, 2, 4
`
`157 CONG. REC. S1376 (DAILY ED. MAR. 8, 2011) ........................................... 7
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Petitioners Apotex
`
`Inc.
`
`and Apotex Corp.
`
`(“Apotex”), Emcure
`
`Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Heritage Pharma Labs Inc. and Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc.
`
`(“Emcure”), Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Inc., USA, Glenmark Holding SA, and
`
`Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. (“Glenmark”), and Mylan Laboratories Limited
`
`(“Mylan”) (the “Petitioners”) filed the present petition for inter partes review
`
`(“Petitioners’ IPR”) and respectfully submit this Motion for Joinder. Under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22, and 42.122(b), Petitioners request institution of an inter
`
`partes review concerning U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (“the ‘209 patent”) and joinder
`
`with the inter partes review concerning the same patent in Sandoz Inc. v. Eli Lilly &
`
`Co., assigned Case No. IPR2016-00318, (the “Sandoz IPR”), and instituted on June
`
`16, 2016. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) has also instituted petitions
`
`for IPR concerning the ’209 Patent IPR2016-00240 and IPR2016-00237 (“Neptune
`
`IPRs”).
`
`In accordance with the Board’s Representative Order identifying matters to be
`
`addressed in a motion for joinder (Kyocera Corp. et al. v. Softview LLC, Paper No. 15,
`
`IPR2013-00004, Apr. 24, 2013), Petitioners submit that: (1) joinder is appropriate
`
`because it will promote efficient determination of the validity of the ‘209 patent
`
`without prejudice to the prior petitioners, Sandoz Inc. (“Sandoz”), or to the owners of
`
`the ‘209 patent, Eli Lilly & Company (“Lilly”); (2) Petitioners’ Petition raises the
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`same ground of unpatentability over the same prior art as those instituted by the Board
`
`in the Sandoz IPR; (3) joinder would not affect the pending schedule in the Sandoz
`
`IPR nor increase the complexity of that proceeding, thereby minimizing costs; (4)
`
`joinder would not affect the schedule in the Neptune IPRs nor increase the complexity
`
`of those proceedings; and (5) Petitioners and Sandoz agree to submit consolidated
`
`filings to minimize the burden and the impact on the schedule. See, e.g., Motorola
`
`Mobility LLC v. Softview LLC, Paper No. 10, IPR2013-00256 (June 20, 2013) and
`
`Amneal Pharm., LLC v. Yeda Res. & Dev. Co., Ltd., Paper No. 9, IPR2015-01976
`
`(Dec. 28, 2015) (granting motions for joinder under similar circumstances). As
`
`explained below, Petitioners have agreed to work with Sandoz and take an
`
`“understudy” role in any joined IPR so long as Sandoz does not settle and dismiss
`
`the Sandoz IPR. See, e.g., Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC, IPR2015-01376,
`
`Paper No. 12, Slip. Op. at 17-18 (Sept. 29, 2015) (“In light of [Petitioner’s] . . .
`
`understudy role . . ., we conclude they have demonstrated that joinder would not
`
`unduly complicate or delay [the earlier IPR].”).
`
`This Motion for Joinder is timely under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b), as it
`
`is submitted within one month of June 16, 2016, the date the Board instituted the
`
`Sandoz IPR. (Paper No. 14).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`
`Lilly served Petitioner Apotex with a complaint asserting
`
`infringement of the ‘209 patent on or about April 18, 2012. Eli Lilly & Co. v.
`
`Apotex Inc., Civ. A. No. 12-cv-499 (S.D. Ind., filed April 17, 2012).
`
`2.
`
`
`Lilly served Petitioner Mylan with a complaint asserting infringement
`
`of the ‘209 patent on or about July 31, 2016. Eli Lilly and Company v. Mylan
`
`Laboratories Limited et al. No. 15-cv-01083 (S.D. Ind., filed July 10,2015).
`
`3.
`
`
`Lilly served Petitioner Glenmark with a complaint asserting
`
`infringement of the ‘209 patent on or about January 23, 2014. Eli Lilly & Co. v.
`
`Glenmark Generics Inc., USA et al., Civ. A. No. 14-cv-00104 (S.D. Ind., filed
`
`January 23, 2014).
`
`4.
`
`
`Lilly served Petitioner Emcure with a complaint asserting
`
`infringement of the ‘209 patent on or about August 7, 2015. Eli Lilly & Co. v.
`
`Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Civ. A. No. 15-cv-1244 (S.D. Ind., filed August 7,
`
`2015).
`
`5.
`
`
`Each of
`
`the above-captioned actions are either stayed or
`
`administratively closed.
`
`6.
`
`
`On June 16, 2016, the Board instituted trial on claims 1-22 of the ‘209
`
`patent in the Sandoz IPR based on the grounds of unpatentability raised by Sandoz.
`
`(Paper No. 14).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`7.
`
`
`Petitioners filed the instant Petition and Motion for Joinder on July 13,
`
`2016, within one month of the June 16, 2016 institution date of the Sandoz IPR.
`
`8.
`
`
`The instant petition for IPR filed by Petitioners challenges the same
`
`patent claims, contains the same instituted ground of unpatentability, and the
`
`ground is the same in all substantive aspects as the Sandoz IPR. Both petitions
`
`contain the same analysis and exhibits, and rely upon the same expert.
`
`9.
`
`
`Sandoz consents to joinder with Petitioners, and Petitioners have
`
`jointly-retained Sandoz’s expert, Dr. Ron D. Schiff, who submits a substantively
`
`identical expert declaration on behalf of Petitioners in support of the instant
`
`Petition as he did in the Sandoz IPR.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`Petitioners respectfully request that the Board exercise its discretion and
`
`grant joinder of the Petitioners’ IPR and the Sandoz IPR pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(c), 37 C.F.R. § 42.22, and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). In support of this motion,
`
`Petitioners propose—and Sandoz has agreed—to consolidated filings and other
`
`procedural accommodations designed to streamline the proceedings. Petitioners
`
`and Sandoz have also agreed to rely on the same expert, and expert declaration, in
`
`support of their Petitions.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) permits joinder of inter partes
`
`review proceedings. The statutory provision governing joinder of inter partes
`
`review proceedings is 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which reads as follows:
`
`(c) JOINDER.—If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the
`Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter
`partes review any person who properly files a petition under section
`311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under
`section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response,
`determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under
`section 314.
`
`In exercising its discretion to grant joinder, the Board considers the impact
`
`of substantive and procedural issues on the proceedings, as well as other
`
`considerations, while being “mindful that patent trial regulations, including the
`
`rules for joinder, must be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`resolution of every proceeding.” See Dell, Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions,
`
`Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper No. 17, Slip Op. at 3 (July 29, 2013). The Board
`
`should consider “the policy preference for joining a party that does not present new
`
`issues that might complicate or delay an existing proceeding.” Id. at 10. Under
`
`this framework, joinder of the Petitioners’ IPR with the Sandoz IPR is appropriate.
`
`“A motion for joinder should: (1) set forth the reasons why joinder is
`
`appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the
`
`petition; (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`for the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and discovery
`
`may be simplified.” Id. at 4. Each of these is addressed fully below.
`
`A. Reasons Why Joinder Is Appropriate
`Joinder is appropriate here because it is the most expedient way to secure the
`
`just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the two related proceedings. See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 316(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). In an intentional effort to avoid
`
`multiplication of issues before the Board, Petitioners’ IPR is substantively identical
`
`with respect to the ground instituted in the Sandoz IPR and is supported by
`
`identical expert testimony. Given the duplicative nature of these petitions, joinder
`
`of the related proceedings is appropriate and conserves Board resources. Further,
`
`Petitioners and Sandoz have agreed to consolidated filings and discovery, and have
`
`agreed to other procedural concessions, so that in this matter Petitioners will be
`
`bound by the schedule set forth in the Sandoz IPR.
`
`Substantively Identical Petitions
`
`1.
`Petitioners’ IPR challenges the same patent claims, contains the same
`
`
`
`instituted ground of unpatentability, and is the same in all substantive aspects as
`
`the Sandoz IPR. Both petitions contain the same analysis and exhibits, and
`
`Petitioners rely upon the same expert and expert declaration. Because the Board
`
`has already instituted trial in the Sandoz IPR (Paper No. 14), Petitioners’
`
`substantively identical IPR will not require additional Board resources to
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`determine that institution on the same ground as in the Sandoz IPR institution
`
`decision is appropriate here. See 157 CONG. REC. S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011)
`
`(statement of Sen. Kyl) (“The Office anticipates that joinder will be allowed as of
`
`right—if an inter partes review is instituted on the basis of a petition, for example,
`
`a party that files an identical petition will be joined to that proceeding, and thus
`
`allowed to file its own briefs and make its own arguments.”)
`
`Consolidated Filings and Discovery
`
`2.
`Because the ground of unpatentability and the prior art relied on in
`
`Petitioners’ IPR and the Sandoz IPR are the same, Petitioners and Sandoz agree to
`
`submit consolidated filings for all substantive papers in the proceeding (e.g., Reply
`
`to the Lilly’s Response, Opposition to Motion to Amend, Motion for Observation
`
`on Cross Examination Testimony of a Reply Witness, Objection to Evidence,
`
`Motion to Exclude Evidence, Opposition Motion to Exclude Evidence and Reply).
`
`For such consolidated filings, Petitioners and Sandoz do not request any increase in
`
`the ordinary one-party limit on length. These agreed-to consolidated filings avoid
`
`lengthy and duplicative briefing.
`
`Consolidated discovery is also appropriate given that Petitioners and Sandoz
`
`will rely on the same expert and expert declaration in the two proceedings.
`
`Petitioners agree to coordinate discovery with Sandoz, such that a single attorney
`
`will conduct cross-examination of any given witness produced by Lilly within the
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`timeframe normally allotted by the rules for one party. Likewise, the redirect of
`
`any given witness produced by Petitioners and Sandoz will be conducted by a
`
`single attorney on behalf of both Sandoz and Petitioners, and within the timeframe
`
`normally allotted by the rules for one party.
`
`The consolidated filings and coordinated discovery described above will
`
`minimize—if not eliminate—any burden from a joined proceeding.
`
`B. No New Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioners’ IPR contains the same ground of unpatentability instituted in the
`
`Sandoz IPR. In fact, the grounds of unpatentability are identical in all substantive
`
`respects. As a result, Petitioners’ IPR raises no new grounds of unpatentability
`
`from those of the Sandoz IPR.
`
`C. No Impact on IPR Trial Schedule
`The difference between the filing date of Petitioners’ IPR and the Sandoz
`
`IPR is without consequence should the proceedings be joined. The trial schedule
`
`for the Sandoz IPR would not need to be delayed to effect joinder based on Lilly’s
`
`preliminary response and Petitioners’ later-filed IPR. Indeed, Petitioners agree to
`
`follow the current schedule in the Sandoz IPR, as modified by Sandoz, Lilly,
`
`and/or the Board. Moreover, given that Petitioners’ IPR asserts the same ground of
`
`unpatentability as instituted in the Sandoz IPR, Lilly should be able to expedite
`
`filing their preliminary response—to the extent they do not choose to waive it
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`entirely. The joint proceeding would allow the Board and parties to focus on the
`
`merits in one consolidated proceeding without unnecessary duplication of effort,
`
`and in a timely manner.
`
`D. Briefing and Discovery Will Be Simplified
`As discussed above, Petitioners agree to consolidated filings and discovery,
`
`which will simplify the briefing and discovery process. Moreover, because
`
`Petitioners and Sandoz rely on the same grounds, expert, and expert declaration,
`
`there need be no delay to the joined proceeding should Sandoz settle and withdraw
`
`the Sandoz IPR. Petitioners will simply continue on Sandoz’s place.1
`
`Joinder Will Not Prejudice Lilly or Neptune
`
`E.
`Permitting joinder will not prejudice Lilly or Sandoz. Sandoz consents to
`
`joinder. And Petitioners raise no issues not already before the Board, so joinder
`
`will not affect the timing of the Sandoz IPR. Moreover, because Petitioners’ and
`
`Sandoz’s petitions and evidence are substantively identical, the content of Lilly’s
`
`filings to-date (and going forward) in the Sandoz IPR apply equally to Petitioners’
`
`
`1 Should Sandoz settle and withdraw the Sandoz IPR, Petitioners agree to work
`
`with the parties to any other IPR joined with the Sandoz IPR and the Board to
`
`agree to similar procedures to avoid duplicative briefing and/or discovery. See,
`
`e.g., Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., IPR2016-01340 (filed July 1, 2016).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR. Therefore no additional expense or delay need be incurred if joinder is
`
`granted.
`
`Furthermore, joinder will not impact the instituted Neptune IPRs, IPR2016-
`
`00240 and IPR2016-00237 because Petitioners would be joining the Sandoz IPR as
`
`an understudy relying on identical grounds for invalidity as those in the Sandoz
`
`IPR. And even if Sandoz settles and/or withdraws the Sandoz IPR, Petitioners can
`
`readily pick up where Sandoz left off given that the grounds for invalidity are
`
`identical and Petitioners have retained and will use the same expert as Sandoz.
`
`In contrast, Petitioners and the public interest may be prejudiced if joinder is
`
`denied. For example, allowing a joined inter partes review would avoid prejudice
`
`to Petitioners in the event that Sandoz and Lilly settle their dispute. 35 U.S.C. §
`
`317(a) provides that an inter partes review “shall be terminated with respect to any
`
`petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and the patent owner” unless the
`
`Board has already reached its decision on the merits. If no petitioner remains after
`
`settlement, “the Office may terminate the review.” Id. Joining Petitioners serves
`
`the public interest by ensuring the validity of the ‘209 patent continues to be tested
`
`in the event of a settlement and—if found wanting—will permit Petitioners’ to
`
`launch generic pemetrexed products. In re Barr Labs., Inc., 930 F.2d 72, 76 (D.C.
`
`Cir. 1991) (Congress enacted Hatch-Waxman precisely “to get generic drugs into
`
`the hands of patients at reasonable prices—fast.”).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`F.
`
`Expedited Briefing will Assist in Administering this Proceeding in
`a Just, Speedy and Efficient Manner
`
`Petitioners respectfully request an expedited briefing schedule, requiring the
`
`patent owner’s preliminary response to be filed within one month. An expedited
`
`briefing schedule will not prejudice the patent owner because the grounds,
`
`references and expert declaration are identical to those in the Sandoz IPR, and
`
`Patent Owner chose not to address the merits of the petition in the Sandoz IPR in
`
`its preliminary response. See IPR2016-00318 Paper 19, at 9. Rather, an expedited
`
`briefing schedule “is not unduly burdensome and will assist in administering this
`
`proceeding in a just, speedy and efficient manner” pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., v. Arendi S.A.R.L., IPR2014-01144, Paper 9, Slip
`
`Op. at 2 (Sept. 5, 2014).
`
`IV. PROPOSED ORDER
`Petitioners propose a joinder order for consideration by the Board as
`
`follows:
`
`• Petitioners’ IPR will be instituted and joined with the Sandoz IPR on
`
`the same grounds as those for which review was instituted in the
`
`Sandoz IPR.
`
`• The scheduling order entered in the Sandoz IPR will apply to the
`
`joined proceeding.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`• Petitioners are bound by the procedural concessions set forth in their
`
`Motion for Joinder to the Sandoz IPR, or as otherwise agreed between
`
`the parties to the joined proceedings or ordered by the Board.
`
`• An expedited briefing schedule, requiring
`
`the patent owner’s
`
`preliminary response to be filed within one month.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully requests that its Petition
`
`for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 be instituted and that the
`
`proceeding be joined with Sandoz Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., IPR2016-00318.
`
`Although no additional fee is believed to be required for this Motion, the
`
`Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any additional fees which may be
`
`required for this Motion to Deposit Acct. No. 503626.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`July 14, 2016
`
`
`
` Thomas J. Parker
` Reg. No. 42,062
` thomas.parker@alston.com
` Alston & Bird LLP
` 90 Park Avenue, 15th Floor
` New York, NY 10016
` T: (212) 210-9529
` F: (212) 210-9444
`
`Counsel for Mylan Laboratories
`Limited
`
`
`
`Paul M. Zagar
`Reg. No. 52,392
`PZagar@BlankRome.com
`Blank Rome LLP
`The Chrysler Building
`405 Lexington Ave.
`New York, NY 10174
`T: 212-885-5290
`F: 917-332-3063
`
`Counsel for Emcure
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Deanne M. Mazzochi/
`Reg. No. 50,158
`dmazzochi@rmmslegal.com
`Rakoczy Molino Mazzochi Siwik LLP
`6 West Hubbard Street, Suite 500,
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`Tel.: 312-222-6305
`
`Lead Counsel and Counsel to Apotex
`Corp. and Apotex Inc.
`
`
`Gerard A. Haddad
`Reg. No. 41,811
`GHaddad@BlankRome.com
`Blank Rome LLP
`
`The Chrysler Building
`405 Lexington Ave.
`New York, NY 10174
`T: 212-885-5135
` F: 917-591-6921
`
`Counsel for Glenmark
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on July 14, 2016, a copy of this Petitioner’s Motion for
`
`Joinder Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b) was
`
`served via U.S.P.S. Priority Mail Express, on Eli Lilly & Company at the
`
`correspondence address of record for the ‘209 patent as evidenced in Public PAIR
`
`on July 14, 2016, namely
`
`Elizabeth A. McGraw
`Eli Lilly and Company
`Patent Division
`P.O. Box 6288
`Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6288
`
`Dov P. Grossman
`Williams & Connolly, LLP
`725 12th St., NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`dgrossman@wc.com
`dkrinsky@wc.com
`leeds_james@lilly.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Eli Lilly & Company
`in the Sandoz IPR
`
`
`
`/Deanne M. Mazzochi/
`Telephone: (312) 222-6305
`Facsimile: (312) 222-6325
`
`
`
`And electronically on:
`
`
`Ralph J. Gabric
`Brinks Gilson & Lione
`Suite 3600 NBC Tower
`455 Cityfront Plaza Drive
`Chicago IL 60611-5599
`rgabric@brinksgilson.com
`llydigsen@brinksgilson.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Sandoz
`in the Sandoz IPR
`
`
`Dated: July 14, 2016
`
`
`
`14

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket