Inter Partes Review
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`
`Petitioners’ Demonstratives
`Oral Argument, January 8, 2020
`HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., and Apple Inc. v. INVT SPE LLC
`Case Nos. IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-1
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439
`
`Petitioners’ Demonstratives
`Oral Argument, January 8, 2020
`HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., and Apple Inc. v. INVT SPE LLC
`Case Nos. IPR2018-01555 and IPR2018-01581
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-1
`
`
`
`Two Grounds of Challenge
`
`• IPR2018-01555 – Claims 1-7 are obvious over the combination of Li
`(Ex. 1003), Vijayan (Ex. 1004), and Hashem (Ex. 1005).
`• IPR2018-01581 – Claim 8 is obvious over the combination of Li,
`Vijayan, Hashem, and Cioffi (Ex. 1006).
`
`55Pet. at 3; 81Pet. at 3.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-2
`
`
`
`Cellular Communications
`
`Network
`
`Handset
`
`Cell Tower
`and Base Station
`
`Cell Tower
`and Base Station
`
`Handset
`
`55Pet. at 4; Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 32-33.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-3
`
`
`
`OFDM
`
`55Pet. at 4; Ex. 1001, 1:18-33 & FIG. 1; Ex.
`1007, ¶¶ 36-37.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-4
`
`’439 Patent, FIG. 1 (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`Adaptive Modulation and Coding (AMC)
`Good Channel Conditions
`Poor Channel Conditions
`
`55Pet. at 5; Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 38-40.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-5
`
`
`
`Prior-Art Adaptive Modulation and Coding
`
`AMC on Subcarriers
`
`AMC on Subbands
`
`AMC on
`Subcarrier
`1
`
`…………………….
`
`AMC on
`Subcarrier
`n
`
`AMC on
`Subband
`1
`
`…………………
`….
`
`AMC on
`Subband
`n
`
`1
`
`32
`
`4
`
`4…
`
`n-3
`
`n-2
`
`n-1
`
`n
`
`1
`
`2
`
`…
`
`4
`
`n-1 n
`
`ƒ
`
`ƒ
`
`55Pet. at 6; Ex. 1001, 2:2-31, 4:56-60; Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 41, 42.
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-6
`
`
`
`Purported Improvement of the ’439 Patent
`
`AMC on
`Subband Group 1
`Subband
`
`Subcarrier
`
`…………………….
`
`AMC on
`Subband Group n
`
`1
`1
`
`4…
`
`3
`n
`
`ƒ
`ƒ
`
`55Pet. at 6-8; Ex. 1001, 5:35-44, 7:39-43, 10:21-49; Ex.
`1007, ¶¶ 48-54.
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-7
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’439 Patent
`
`• The “parameter deciding section” and the
`“pattern storage section” are the only
`limitations INVT disputes in its papers.
`
`Ex. 1001, claim 1; Patent Owner Response § VII;
`Sur-Reply § II.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-8
`
`
`
`The Li Patent
`
`Ex. 1002, Cover, Abstract.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Li, Abstract (Ex. 1003)
`
`Petitioners’ DX-9
`
`
`
`Li’s Clusters Are ’439 Patent Subbands
`
`Li
`
`’439 Patent
`
`Li, FIG. 1A (Ex. 1003)
`
`55Pet. at 13; Ex. 1001, FIG. 9; Ex. 1003,
`Abstract, 5:18-28, FIG. 1A; Ex. 1007, ¶ 68.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`’439 Patent, FIG. 9 (Ex. 1001)
`Petitioners’ DX-10
`
`
`
`Li’s Cluster Groups Are ’439 Subband Groups
`
`Li, 11:46-52 (Ex. 1003)
`
`55Pet. at 13-15; Ex. 1003, Abstract, 5:18-28,
`11:49-52, FIG. 6; Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 69, 71.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Li, FIG. 6 (Ex. 1003)
`
`Petitioners’ DX-11
`
`
`
`Li Teaches a “Parameter Deciding Section” that
`Decides Modulation and Coding Parameters
`• Li’s block 405 is a per-cluster
`parameter deciding section.
`• Patent Owner’s expert admits
`that Li’s subscriber can decide
`modulation and coding rates.
`
`Vojcic Tr., 18:2-7 (Ex. 1017)
`
`Li, FIG. 4 (Ex. 1003)
`
`Li, 9:43-46 (Ex. 1003)
`
`55Pet. at 30-33; Ex. 1003, 9:43-46, FIGS. 3, 4; Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 113-120;
`Ex. 1016, ¶¶ 108-113; Ex. 1017, 16:18-18:7.
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-12
`
`
`
`Li Teaches a “Pattern Storage Section that
`Stores in Advance …”
`
`Li, FIG. 7 (Ex. 1003)
`
`Li, 12:14-16 (Ex. 1003)
`
`Petitioners’ DX-13
`
`Grouping
`
`Li’s
`
`Li, FIG. 6 (Ex. 1003)
`
`• Only the group index needs to
`be transmitted.
`• Thus, the patterns must be
`stored in advance at the base
`station and the subscriber.
`Ex. 1003, 12:9-23 & FIG. 7; Ex. 1016, ¶¶ 127-128, 133-134; Ex.
`1017, 72:21-73:6, 74:12-75:23; Reply at 11-14.
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`
`
`Vojcic Admits that Li Teaches Pattern Storage
`
`Vojcic Tr. at 74:12-17 (Ex. 1017)
`
`Reply at 11-14; Ex. 1017, 72:21-73:6, 74:12-17.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-14
`
`Vojcic Tr., 72:21-73:6 (Ex. 1017)
`
`
`
`Li Teaches Patterns for Selecting Subbands
`
`• In Figure 6, Li teaches
`selecting every fourth cluster
`on the frequency axis.
`• Li does not suggest that SINR
`measurements determine
`how the cluster groups are
`formed.
`
`Li, FIG. 6 (Ex. 1003)
`
`Reply at 14-19; Ex. 1016, ¶¶ 120-126, 129-31; Ex.
`1017, 85:3-86:9.
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-15
`
`
`
`The Vijayan Patent
`
`55Pet. at 16; Ex. 1004, 1:23-27.
`
`Vijayan, 1:23-27 (Ex. 1004)
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Vijayan, FIG. 1 (Ex. 1004)
`
`Petitioners’ DX-16
`
`
`
`Vijayan Teaches ’439 Patent Subbands
`and ‘439 Patent Subband Groups
`
`3344
`
`1122
`
`Vijayan, 1:30-32 (Ex. 1004)
`
`Vijayan, 8:13-16 (Ex. 1004)
`
`Vijayan, 9:64-66 (Ex. 1004)
`
`55Pet. at 16-17; Ex. 1004, 1:23-27, 1:29-32, 8:13-
`16, 9:64-66, 10:7-13, FIG. 9B; Ex. 1007, ¶ 75.
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Vijayan, FIG. 9B (excerpted/annotated) (Ex. 1004)
`Petitioners’ DX-17
`
`
`
`Vijayan Teaches Joint Modulation and Coding
`
`3344
`
`1122
`
`Vijayan, 4:43-45 (Ex. 1004)
`
`55Pet. at 17-19; Ex. 1004, 4:43-45, 13:12-16,
`13:24-35, 14:40-47, FIG. 9B; Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 75-77.
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Vijayan, 13:24-35 (Ex. 1004)
`
`Vijayan, FIG. 9B (excerpted/annotated) (Ex. 1004)
`Petitioners’ DX-18
`
`
`
`The Hashem Patent
`
`Hashem, 4:11-15 (Ex. 1005)
`
`Hashem, 6:50-53 (Ex. 1005)
`
`Hashem, Abstract (Ex. 1005)
`55Pet. at 19-21, 44; Ex. 1005, Abstract, 4:11-15, 6:50-
`53, 7:1-7; Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 79-80.
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Hashem, 7:1-7 (Ex. 1005)
`Petitioners’ DX-19
`
`
`
`The Combination of Li, Vijayan, and Hashem
`
`Li, FIG. 6 (Ex. 1003)
`
`Li, FIG. 7 (Ex. 1003)
`
`MCP
`
`MCP
`
`Grouping
`
`Li’s
`
`Combination’s
`
`Grouping
`
`55Pet. at 29-41.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-20
`
`
`
`The Combination Discloses the Claimed
`“Parameter Deciding Section”
`• Li’s block 405 is a per-cluster
`parameter deciding section.
`• In the combination, block 405
`would decide modulation and
`coding parameters for an
`entire cluster group.
`• As taught by Li, Vijayan, and
`Hashem, this would reduce
`signaling overhead.
`
`Li, FIG. 4 (Ex. 1003)
`
`55Pet. at 31-32, 37, 41; see also id. at 29-41; Ex.
`1007, ¶¶ 116-17, 126, 134.
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-21
`
`
`
`Improper to Attack the References Individually
`
`INVT argues:
`• Li and Hashem do not teach
`modulation and coding per
`subband group.
`• Vijayan does not teach
`modulation and coding based
`on channel estimation.
`
`Patent Owner Response at 33-40; Reply at 9-10.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-22
`
`Reply at 9
`
`
`
`The Combination Teaches the Claimed
`“Pattern Storage Section”
`• Only the group index needs
`to be transmitted.
`• Thus, the patterns must be
`stored in advance at the base
`station and the subscriber.
`• Otherwise, the group index
`would be meaningless.
`
`MCP
`
`MCP
`
`Li, FIG. 6 (Ex. 1003)
`
`Reply at 11-14; Ex. 1016, ¶¶ 127-28, 133-134.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Li, 12:14-16 (Ex. 1003)
`
`Petitioners’ DX-23
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine Li and Vijayan
`
`• Li and Vijayan both seek to
`reduce signaling overhead.
`
`0
`
`Li, 12:9-23 (Ex. 1003)
`
`Vijayan, 11:22-26 (Ex. 1004)
`
`55Pet. at 21-23; Ex. 1003, 12:9-23; Ex. 1004, 11:22-26;
`Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 84-90.
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-24
`
`
`
`Li’s Expressed Goal to Reduce Overhead
`
`• The only expressed goals in
`Li for “group-based cluster
`allocation” are to reduce
`signaling overhead and
`inter-cell interference.
`• For the group-based cluster
`allocation, Li teaches
`“spaced apart” clusters “[i]n
`one embodiment.” Li,
`11:53-57.
`
`Li, 11:62-66 (Ex. 1003)
`
`Reply at 22-23; Ex. 1003, 11:53-67; Ex. 1016,
`¶¶ 167-70; Ex. 1017, 32:20-33:10.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-25
`
`
`
`Li Does Not Teach Away
`
`• Li does not teach away from
`using joint modulation and
`coding parameters or
`contiguous cluster groups.
`• Diverse groups are “one
`embodiment” of Li’s group-
`based cluster allocation.
`• No criticizing or discrediting
`of contiguous groups.
`
`Reply at 23
`
`55Pet. at 21-23; Ex. 1017, ¶¶ 84-90; Reply at 23-27; Ex. 1016,
`¶¶ 171-85.
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-26
`
`
`
`Li Does Not Discourage Using Joint Parameters
`
`• Li teaches using different
`modulation and coding rates “[i]n
`one embodiment.” Li, 7:10-12 (Ex.
`1003).
`• Not in the group-based cluster
`allocation section. Li, 11:46-12:65.
`• While “different clusters can have
`different modulation/coding rates,”
`Li, 8:3-5, different modulation and
`coding rates are not required in Li.
`
`Li, 7:10-12 (Ex. 1003)
`
`Reply at 22-23; Ex. 1003, 7:10-12, 8:3-
`5; Ex. 1016, ¶¶ 166-170.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX 27
`
`
`
`Joint Parameters Would Reduce Overhead
`
`• Using Vijayan’s joint
`parameters for an entire cluster
`group would reduce the uplink
`and downlink signaling in Li.
`
`0
`
`0
`
`Vojcic Tr. 56:9-16 (Ex. 1017)
`
`Ding Reply Decl. ¶ 165 (Ex. 1016)
`55Pet. at 21-23; Ex. 1003, 12:9-23; Ex. 1004, 11:22-26; Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 84-90; Ex. 1017, 56:9-16;
`Petitioners’ DX-28
`Reply at 22-23; Ex. 1016, ¶¶ 165, 168-170.
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`
`
`Using Joint Parameters Involves a Tradeoff
`
`• Using joint modulation and coding
`means that some clusters are not
`assigned ideal parameters.
`• This is a design tradeoff that a
`POSITA would have understood.
`• “‘[S]imultaneous advantages and
`disadvantages . . . do[] not
`necessarily obviate a motivation to
`combine.’”
`
`Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v.
`Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d
`1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`Reply at 24-29; Ex. 1016, ¶¶ 173, 183-186 (explaining why
`tradeoff is appropriate).
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`0
`
`Ding Reply Decl. ¶ 173 (Ex. 1016)
`
`Petitioners’ DX-29
`
`
`
`Joint Parameters Can Be Set Using an Average
`
`'439 Patent, 9:37-42 (Ex. 1001)
`
`Li, 5:64-66 (Ex. 1003)
`
`Hashem, 2:52-54 (Ex. 1005)
`
`Hashem, 3:15-17 (Ex. 1005)
`Petitioners’ DX-30
`
`0
`
`0 0
`
`0
`
`• INVT fails to appreciate the
`reasonable and known scenario
`of using an average SINR to
`select modulation and coding.
`• No need for a “best match.” Li,
`Hashem, and ’439 Patent explain
`that using an average was both
`known and appropriate.
`• Explained in the Zhi Ding Reply
`Declaration at ¶¶ 177-186.
`Reply at 24-29; Ex. 1001, 9:37-42; Ex. 1003, 5:64-66;
`Ex. 1005, 2:52-3:17; Ex. 1016, ¶¶ 177-186.
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine Li, Vijayan, and
`Hashem
`• Deciding the modulation and
`coding parameters (Link
`Mode) at Li’s subscriber, as
`taught by Hashem, would
`further reduce signaling
`overhead on both the uplink
`and the downlink.
`
`Hashem, 6:50-53 (Ex. 1005)
`
`Hashem, 7:1-7 (Ex. 1005)
`
`55Pet. at 39-41; Ex. 1005, 6:50-53, 7:1-7; Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 130, 132-34; Reply at
`31-32; Ex. 1016, ¶¶ 197-198.
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-31
`
`
`
`INVT Improperly Relies on Bodily Incorporation
`
`• “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
`secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
`structure of the primary reference, but rather whether a
`skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the
`teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed
`invention.” Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis
`Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`• Not necessary to bodily incorporate:
`• Hashem’s creation of subbands comprising acceptable subcarriers.
`• Hashem’s transmission of a bit mask identifying those subcarriers.
`
`Reply at 32-33; Ex. 1016, ¶ 201.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-32
`
`
`
`The Combination Renders Claim 2 Obvious
`
`’439 Patent, claim 2 (Ex. 1001)
`
`Vijayan, FIG. 9B (Ex. 1004)
`
`55Pet. 66-67; Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 196-97.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-33
`
`
`
`The Combination Renders Claim 3 Obvious
`
`’439 Patent, claim 3 (Ex. 1001)
`
`Li, FIG. 6 (Ex. 1003)
`
`55Pet. 67-68; Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 199-204.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-34
`
`
`
`The Combination Renders Claim 4 Obvious
`
`’439 Patent, claim 4 (Ex. 1001)
`
`0
`
`Vijayan, 7:7-13 (Ex. 1004)
`
`55Pet. 69-71; Ex. 1004, 7:7-13, FIG. 5A; Ex.
`1007, ¶¶ 207-10.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Vijayan, FIG. 5A (Ex. 1004)
`Petitioners’ DX-35
`
`
`
`The Combination Renders Claim 5 Obvious
`
`’439 Patent, claim 5 (Ex. 1001)
`
`Li, 7:16-26 (Ex. 1003)
`
`55Pet. 71-75; Ex. 1003, 7:16-26; Ex. 1004, 13:23-35; Ex.
`1007, ¶¶ 211-22.
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Vijayan, 13:23-35 (Ex. 1004)
`Petitioners’ DX-36
`
`
`
`The Combination Renders Claim 6 Obvious
`
`’439 Patent, claim 6 (Ex. 1001)
`
`Vijayan, 9:39-42 (Ex. 1004)
`
`Li, 7:16-26 (Ex. 1003)
`
`Vijayan, 9:35-37 (Ex. 1004)
`55Pet. 76-79; Ex. 1003, 7:16-26; Ex. 1004,
`9:35-42, 13:23-35; Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 223-29.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Vijayan, 13:23-35 (Ex. 1004)
`Petitioners’ DX-37
`
`
`
`The Combination Renders Claim 7 Obvious
`• Li, Vijayan, and Hashem each
`disclose base stations that
`perform adaptive modulation and
`coding.
`• Each reference also discloses a
`modulation and coding section.
`• Li’s base station modulates and
`encodes per parameters received
`from the subscriber.
`• Each reference discloses
`transmitting the modulated and
`encoded data.
`55Pet. 79-83; Ex. 1003, 3:43-47, 6:7-10, 7:9-11, 11:36-43, FIG.
`13; Ex. 1004, 17:63-18:2, 18:14-17, 19:3-6, FIGS. 11, 13; Ex. 1005,
`1:21-23, 4:8-15; FIG. 1; Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 211-22.
`
`’439 Patent, claim 7 (Ex. 1001)
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-38
`
`
`
`The Combination Renders Claim 8 Obvious
`
`• Claim 8 is the same as claim 1, except for
`the weighting limitation.
`
`Ex. 1001, claim 1.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-39
`
`
`
`The Cioffi Patent
`
`Ex. 1006, Cover, Abstract.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-40
`
`Cioffi, Abstract (Ex. 1006)
`
`
`
`The Cioffi Patent
`
`• Cioffi teaches a weighting
`factor to reduce the
`number of information
`bits transmitted in certain
`lower-quality
`subchannels.
`
`Cioffi, 10:53-60 (Ex. 1006)
`
`81Pet. at 26; Ex. 1006, 10:53-60; Ex.
`1007, ¶ 84.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-41
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine Li, Vijayan, Hashem,
`and Cioffi
`• All related to multicarrier systems having dynamic
`modulation and coding based on channel quality.
`• Cioffi states the motivation to use Cioffi’s weighting per
`subchannel for all of the clusters in a cluster group of Li –
`“to take into account factors other than the SNR
`monitored at the receiver.”
`
`81Pet. at 30; Ex. 1007, ¶ 97; Ex. 1006, 10:53-
`60; Reply at 39-40; Ex. 1016, ¶ 211.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-42
`
`
`
`Cioffi Is Analogous Art
`
`• A POSITA would have had experience with both wired and
`wireless multicarrier communications, including ADSL.
`• OFDM was used in both wireless and ADSL networks
`before the ’439 Patent – common principles for both
`technologies that a POSITA would have been familiar with.
`• Cioffi and the ’439 Patent both weight the number of bits
`to address the same problems – minimizing the impact of
`interference and noise in a multicarrier network.
`• Both use weighting for the same purpose – to build in a
`buffer for sources of interference and noise.
`
`Reply at 37-38; Ex. 1016, ¶¶ 205-07.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-43
`
`
`
`The Combination Teaches the Claimed
`Weighting Per Subband Group
`• Li teaches that adaptive modulation and coding that may rely on factors
`other than SNR (different subcarrier channel gains caused by multipath).
`• Vijayan teaches deciding the coding parameters such that the number
`of information bits that are able to be assigned to all of the subbands is
`not exceeded.
`• A POSITA would have applied Cioffi’s weighting technique to the cluster
`groups of Li’s system (as modified by Vijayan and Hashem) by assigning
`the same weight to all the clusters in a group, to account for
`interference from neighboring cells.
`81Pet. at 64-68; Ex. 1007, ¶¶ 252, 254, 256, 259; Ex. 1003, 1:47-48,
`5:62-6:4; Ex. 1004, 9:35-42; Ex. 1006, 10:53-60.
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-44
`
`
`
`Thank You
`
`ThankYou
`
`IPR2018-01555, -01581
`|PR2018—01555, -01581
`
`Petitioners’ DX-45
`
`Petitioners’ DX_45
`
`
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
