By: Christopher Frerking (chris@ntknet.com)
`Reg. No. 42,557
`
` Paper No. 4
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`
`CASE IPR2016-01510
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Tokyo Electron Limited
`EXHIBIT 1017
`IPR Petition for
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`Reg. No. 42,557
`
` Paper No. 4
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`Patent Owner.
`
`CASE IPR2016-01510
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Tokyo Electron Limited
`EXHIBIT 1017
`IPR Petition for
`U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ i
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................ii
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
`
`II. Overview of the ‘264 Patent ................................................................... 2
`
`III. Claim 13 ................................................................................................. 4
`
`A. Selected Thermal Mass ..................................................................... 5
`
`B. Selection of Thermal Mass for Predetermined
`Temperature Change Within a Specific Interval ............................... 6
`
`C. Incropera and Anderson .................................................................... 9
`
`IV. Dependent Claims ................................................................................ 12
`
`V. Conclusion ............................................................................................ 12
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases Page(s)
`
`Beckson Marine, Inc. v. NFM, Inc.,
`292 F.3d 718 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................ 4
`
`Hartness Int’l Inc. v. Simplimatic Eng. Co.,
`819 F.2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 1987)............................................................................ 12
`
`Kimberly Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson,
`745 F.2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1984)............................................................................ 12
`
`Lam Research Corp. v. Daniel L. Flamm,
`IPR2015-01759, Paper 7 (Feb. 24, 2016) .............................................................. 7
`
`Statutes Page(s)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`Daniel L. Flamm, Sc.D., the inventor and sole owner of the U.S. Patent No.
`
`RE40,264 (“the ‘264 patent”), through his counsel, submits this preliminary
`
`response pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 and asks that the Patent Trial and Appeals
`
`Board decline to institute inter partes review on the instant petition because the
`
`petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim is
`
`unpatentable.
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Samsung is not the first party to challenge the validity of the ‘264 patent
`
`through
`
`inter partes review.
`
` Lam Research Corp. sells tools used in
`
`semiconductor manufacturing to entities such as Samsung. Dr. Flamm has
`
`accused Samsung of using the tools it purchased from Lam and others in a manner
`
`that infringes the methods claims in the ‘264 patent.
`
`In addition to commencing an action for declaratory judgment in the United
`
`States District Court for the Northern District of California, Lam asserted seven
`
`petitions for
`
`inter partes review of
`
`the ‘264 patent.
`
` See Case Nos.
`
`IPR2015-01759;
`
`IPR2015-01764;
`
`IPR2015-01766;
`
`IPR2015-01768;
`
`IPR2016-0468; IPR2016-0469; and IPR2016-0470. 1 The Board instituted trial
`
`on only two of those petitions, IPR2015-01764 and IPR2015-01768 and denied to
`
`
`1 A chart summarizing the claims of the ‘264 patent to which Lam’s seven
`petitions were directed is attached hereto as Appendix A.
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`institute on the remaining five.
`
`Independent claim 13 of the ‘264 patent and the claims that depend from it
`
`(i.e., claims 14-26 and 64-65) were the subject of both IPR2015-01759 and
`
`IPR2016-0468. The Board declined to institute on either of those petitions.
`
`Samsung does not assert anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Instead, the
`
`sole contention of invalidity of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is based on a
`
`combination of three references, Okada I, Incropera, and Anderson. Samsung
`
`relies on sixteen additional references (many of which were also cited by Lam) for
`
`the assertion of invalidity of the claims that depend from claim 13.
`
`As demonstrated below, Samsung fails to identify any combination of prior
`
`art that teaches all of the elements of claim 13. For that reason, the Board should
`
`not institute inter partes review with respect to that claim or any claim that
`
`depends from that claim.
`
`II. Overview of the ‘264 Patent
`
`The invention set forth in the ‘264 patent provides a method “for etching a
`
`substrate,” including “a chamber and a substrate holder,” the latter having “a
`
`selected thermal mass to facilitate changing the temperature of the substrate to be
`
`etched.” (Ex. 1001, Abstract.) Such change is “from a first temperature to a
`
`second temperature within a characteristic time period.” (Id.) While methods
`
`involving the use of various temperatures for manufacturing semiconductors were
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`known in the art prior to the ‘264 patent, none of the prior art discloses the
`
`selection of the thermal mass of the substrate holder to provide for a predetermined
`
`temperature change within a specific interval of time during processing.
`
`Claim 13 generally covers a “method of etching a substrate in the
`
`manufacture” of semiconductors where there are two etching steps, each at a
`
`different temperature, and where the “thermal mass of the substrate holder is
`
`selected for a predetermined temperature change within a specific time interval.”
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 20:50-51, 21:1-3.) In essence, the thermal mass of the substrate
`
`holder, which controls the temperature of the substrate, is selected as a function of
`
`the specific time interval between the first and second etching steps and the
`
`temperature differential between the first and second etching steps.
`
`The improvement over the prior art and some of the benefits of the patented
`
`invention are recited in the specification. The invention:
`
`overcomes serious disadvantages of the prior methods in which
`throughput and etching rate were lowered in order to avoid excessive
`device damage to the workpiece . . . [and] utilizes temperature
`changes to achieve high etch rates while simultaneously maintaining
`high etch selectivity between a layer which being pattered or removed
`other material layers [sic].
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 2:11-14, 2:31-34.)
`
`In a nutshell, Moore’s law is accommodated while maintaining high etch
`
`selectivity of the horizontal layers.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`III. Claim 13
`
`Ground 1 is the only ground levied by Samsung against independent claim
`
`13. Samsung, however, fails to identify any prior art that teaches the ultimate
`
`element of claim 13. Accordingly, there is no basis to invalidate that claim or any
`
`claim that depends from it. See Beckson Marine, Inc. v. NFM, Inc., 292 F.3d 718,
`
`727 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that for claimed subject matter to be obvious either
`
`the prior art references must expressly reach each claim element exactly or else the
`
`record must disclose a reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
`
`prior art teachings to obtain the claimed invention).
`
`The first element following the preamble of claim 13 reads: “placing a
`
`substrate having a film thereon on a substrate holder in a chamber, the substrate
`
`holder having a selected thermal mass.” (Ex. 1001 at 20:52-:54.) The ultimate
`
`element of that claim reads:
`
`wherein the thermal mass of the substrate holder is selected for a
`predetermined temperature change within a specific interval of time
`during processing; the predetermined temperature change comprises
`the change from the selected first substrate holder temperature to the
`selected second substrate holder temperature, and the specified time
`interval comprises the time for changing from the selected first
`substrate holder temperature to the selected second substrate holder
`temperature.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 21:1-:10.) To meet these elements, Samsung relies on the
`
`combination of Okada I, Incropera, and Anderson.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`A.
`
`Selected Thermal Mass
`
`“placing a substrate having a film thereon on a substrate holder in a
`chamber, the substrate holder having a selected thermal mass”
`
`Okada I fails to show or suggest any substrate holder having a “selected
`
`thermal mass.” There is no thermal mass taught, shown or implied in Okada I.
`
`At most, Okada I teaches a substrate holder, but does not teach anything about a
`
`substrate holder having the claimed selected thermal mass, as required by claim 13
`
`of the ‘264 patent.
`
`In fact, Okada I teaches away from this limitation of claim 13. Rather than
`
`focusing on the thermal mass of the substrate holder—about which Okada I has
`
`nothing to say—Okada I teaches reliance on its upstream coolant controllers to
`
`enable “excellent temperature control responsiveness in the electrode,” i.e.,
`
`substrate holder. (Ex. 1006 ¶ [0021].) Specifically, in discussing the “plurality of
`
`coolant tanks,” Okada I teaches that:
`
`the
`temperature controlling devices for controlling
`there are
`temperatures of the individual coolant tanks individually, enabling
`excellent temperature control responsiveness in the electrode, making
`it possible to change the temperature of the semiconductor substrate
`efficiently . . . .”
`
`(Id.) In fact, the explicit thrust of Okada I’s invention is the controlling devices
`
`on the cooling tanks for controlling the coolant temperature:
`
`The present invention relates to a semiconductor controlling device,
`and, in particular, relates to a temperature controlling system for
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`controlling the temperature of an electrode on which a semiconductor
`substrate is placed in a dry etching apparatus.
`
`(Id. ¶ [0001].) Okada I confirms this in reciting the object of his invention:
`
`“The object of the present invention is to provide a dry etching apparatus able to
`
`provide adequate responsiveness in temperature control of the electrode.” (Id. ¶
`
`[0007].) As stated, the ultimate object of Okada I is “to provide adequate
`
`responsiveness in temperature control of the electrode,” i.e., the substrate holder,
`
`by using his multiple cooling tanks and controllers. Likewise, one of the ultimate
`
`objects of Flamm is to provide adequate responsiveness in temperature control in
`
`the substrate holder, but employing, inter alia, the selected thermal mass of the
`
`substrate holder.
`
`
`
`A skilled artisan starting with Okada I would not recognize
`
`the
`
`responsiveness
`
`in
`
`temperature control
`
`in
`
`the
`
`substrate holder as a
`
`problem—because that is the very problem that Okada I purports to have solved.
`
`Given that the responsiveness problem was solved, there would be no
`
`motivation for a skilled artisan to combine Okada I with Incropera or any other
`
`prior art relating to responsiveness of temperature control.
`
`B.
`
`for Predetermined
`Selection of Thermal Mass
`Temperature Change Within a Specific Interval
`
`“the thermal mass of the substrate holder is selected for a
`predetermined temperature change within a specific interval of time
`during processing; the predetermined temperature change comprises
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`the change from the selected first substrate holder temperature to the
`selected second substrate holder temperature, and the specified time
`interval comprises the time for changing from the selected first
`substrate holder temperature to the selected second substrate holder
`temperature”
`
`This final limitation of claim 13 expands upon the thermal mass of the
`
`substrate holder, specifying that the thermal mass “is selected for a predetermined
`
`temperature change within a specific interval of time during processing.”
`
`In denying one of Lam’s petitions for inter partes review directed toward
`
`claim 13, the Board, after criticizing Lam for attempting to improperly split the
`
`elements of claim 13 into unreasonably small phrases to justify its patchwork of
`
`prior art references, identified the essence of claim 13:
`
`In particular, we note that claim 13 requires that the thermal mass of
`the substrate holder is selected for a predetermined temperature
`change within a specific interval of time. The claim language
`requires that these phrases are interdependent, and cannot be parsed
`into separate elements met individually. In other words, the thermal
`mass must be selected in order to undergo a predetermined
`temperature change within a specific interval of time (for example, a
`change of 10°C per minute).
`
`IPR2015-01759, Paper 7 p. 17. Just as with Lam’s petition, the prior art relied on
`
`by Samsung, Okada I, fails to teach those interdependent elements.
`
`Despite Samsung’s assertion that Okada I “discloses that during the etch
`
`process, the temperature . . . is changed . . . in ‘between 2 to 10 seconds’” (Pet. p.
`
`26-27), Okada I teaches no such thing. All Okada I teaches is that one of the
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`benefits of using his temperature control system is that “[t]he time required for the
`
`electrode 25 to change from temperature A to B is between 2 and 10 seconds.”
`
`(Ex. 1006 ¶ [0016].) There is no predetermined temperature change within a
`
`specific time interval shown or suggested.
`
`All Okada I teaches is a three coolant tank system that is capable of swift
`
`change of temperature—i.e., between 2 and 10 seconds—but says nothing about
`
`selecting the thermal mass for a predetermined temperature change within a
`
`particular time interval. The whole point of Okada I was to design a system in
`
`which the time to change the temperature was reduced. (See Ex. 1006 ¶¶
`
`[0005]-[0008].)
`
` Okada I solves
`
`the prior art problem of
`
`temperature
`
`“responsiveness.” (Id. ¶ [0007].) Okada I describes the processing time for an
`
`individual substrate under the prior art as “between about 1 and 5 minutes,” which
`
`is described as “poor, and thus has not been reduced to practice.” (Id. ¶ [0006]).
`
`The object of the invention claimed in Okada I was to “provide a dry etching
`
`apparatus able to provide adequate responsiveness in temperature control of the
`
`electrode.” (Id. ¶ [0007].) There is no mention in Okada I of any selection of a
`
`time interval; Okada I only teaches a “faster” process. The 2 to 10 second range
`
`taught in Okada is not “a specific interval of time,” it is mere speculation, not
`
`supported by any data.
`
`Okada I teaches nothing about structure, thermal mass, conductivity, fluid
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`flow, or even heating an electrode. Okada I only concerns cooling, and Okada I
`
`does not teach ways or considerations to select a thermal mass of an electrode for a
`
`predetermined temperature change within a specific time interval.
`
`Adding Incropera does not remedy the problem. At its core, Incropera
`
`simply stands for the rudimentary proposition that lower thermal mass results in
`
`the ability to change temperatures more rapidly than high thermal mass. Neither
`
`Okada I, Incropera, nor both of them combined teaches the selection of the thermal
`
`mass of the substrate holder for a predetermined temperature change within a
`
`specific interval of time.
`
`C.
`
`Incropera and Anderson
`
`In any event, Samsung’s reliance on Incropera is misplaced.
`
`Samsung relies primarily on Incropera’s Equation 5.6. (See Pet. at 27-28.)
`
`That equation, however, does not disclose the heat transfer system and process of
`
`claim 13. Instead, Equation 5.6 describes the change in temperature of a solid
`
`body immersed in a liquid that stays at a temperature T∞, subject to an assumption
`
`that the temperature of the entire body is always uniform, which is equivalent to
`
`assuming that the body has infinite thermal conductivity or that resistance to heat
`
`being transferred into the body <heat transfer coefficient h> is small compared to
`
`the resistance to heat transfer within the body. (See Ex. 1007 p. 227.) That is
`
`why Incropera refers to what the equation describes as the “lumped capacitance
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`method.”
`
`Even if Incropera’s Equation 5.6 was adaptable to describe a heat transfer
`
`device to change the temperature of a substrate holder, as required by claim 13,
`
`Samsung’s argument is deficient because the time for a temperature change
`
`described by Equation 5.6 and Figure 5.2 depends upon and requires on the ratio of
`
`the product of p, c and V to hAs (where hAs is the product of the heat transfer
`
`resistance and heat transfer area at the boundary of the body) and T∞ (the
`
`temperature of a surrounding fluid). For example: dT/dt = exp[RATIO ] x
`
`[RATIO] x [Ti - T∞] where "RATIO" is the quantity in the brackets of Equation
`
`5.6.
`
`It is not possible to define a thermal mass for a rate of temperature change
`
`without predetermining the rate of change that is necessary and defining a value of
`
`hAs. The rate of change of the temperature also depends on T∞. Samsung’s
`
`assertion that “equation 5.6 can be used to select the thermal mass by filling in the
`
`temperature . . . and time” (Pet. at 15) is deficient at least because there is nothing
`
`disclosed to determine a value of hAs and because the necessary value also
`
`depends on T∞.2 The flow rate and temperature of the fluid are crucial because
`
`the fluid temperature can change as it moves in the channels with the substrate
`
`
`2 Although Equation 5.6 does not “fit,” this value is crudely similar to the
`temperature of the fluid in some embodiments.
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`holder structure—i.e., the fluid in the ‘264 patent receives heat and its temperature
`
`changes as it flows through the substrate holder in an embodiment. (See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1001 at 17:24-43.)
`
`In fact, the ‘264 patent discloses, in one embodiment, that fluid flow rate,
`
`coolant-side fluid temperature, etc., “should be designed using conventional means
`
`to permit the heater . . . to predetermined temperatures within specified time
`
`intervals and within specified uniformity limits. (Ex. 1001 at 16:60-67.)
`
`Unlike the infinitely conductive body described by Incropera in Equation 5.6, the
`
`‘264 patent does not require the entire substrate holder to be at a single
`
`temperature. As disclosed by the ‘264 patent, it is the upper surface of the
`
`substrate holder that determines the wafer temperature. (Ex. 1001 at 15: 27-30.)
`
`Anderson, also relied on by Samsung, actually teaches away from focusing
`
`on the thermal mass of the substrate holder. It teaches employment of a “low
`
`thermal mass heater” (see Ex. 1008 at 6:27-:28), but fails to recognize the use of a
`
`low thermal mass for the substrate holder. For that, Anderson’s preferred
`
`embodiment is “stainless steel.” (Id. at 5:41-:42.)
`
`IV. Dependent Claims
`
`The instant Petition is directed toward independent claim 13 and each of its
`
`dependent claims, i.e., claims 14-26, and 64-65. Because, as shown above,
`
`Samsung fails to demonstrate that independent claim 13 is rendered obvious by
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`Okada I in view of Incropera and Anderson, none of the claims that depend from
`
`claim 13 are anticipated or obvious despite any of the additional prior art
`
`references purported to relate to those dependent claims. Hartness Int’l Inc. v.
`
`Simplimatic Eng. Co., 819 F.2d 1100, 1108 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“A fortiori,
`
`dependent claim 3 was nonobvious (and novel) because it contained all of the
`
`limitations of claim 1 plus a further limitation.”); Kimberly Clark Corp. v. Johnson
`
`& Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1448-49 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“We need consider no other
`
`claim because if the invention of claim 1 would not have been obvious the same is
`
`true as to the remaining dependent claims.”).
`
`V. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition should be denied.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /Christopher Frerking, Reg. No. 42,557/
` Christopher Frerking, Reg. No. 42,557
`
`174 Rumford Street
`Concord, New Hampshire 03301
`Telephone: (603) 706-3127
`Email: chris@ntknet.com
`
`Counsel for Daniel L. Flamm
`
`
`
`12
`
`Date: November 25, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R §42.6
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on November 25, 2016, Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 for Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. RE40,264 was served on the following parties at the
`
`indicated addresses via email:
`
`Naveen Modi
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`Joseph E. Palys
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`
`Chetan R. Bansal
`chetanbansal@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Beata Ichou
`
` Beata Ichou, Paralegal
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim #
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`31
`32
`33
`34
`35
`36
`37
`38
`39
`40
`41
`42
`43
`44
`45
`46
`47
`48
`49
`50
`51
`52
`53
`54
`55
`56
`57
`58
`59
`60
`61
`62
`63
`64
`65
`66
`67
`68
`69
`70
`71
`
`Samsung v. Flamm
`Appendix A
`IPR 2016‐0469
`IPR 2016‐0470
`IPR 2016‐0468
`IPR 2015‐01768
`IPR 2015‐01766
`IPR 2015‐01764
`IPR 2015‐01759
`'264 First Petition '264 Second Petition '264Third Petition '264 Fourth Petition '264 Fifth Petition '264 Sixth Petition '264 Seventh Petition
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`Not Instituted
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`
`(cid:23)
`(cid:23)
`
`
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
