throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________________
`IPR2018-01594 (Patent 6,434,687 B1)
`IPR2018-01599 (Patent 6,076,152)
`IPR2018-01600 (Patent 6,247,110 B1)
`IPR2018-01601 (Patent 7,225,324 B2)
`IPR2018-01602 (Patent 7,225,324 B2)
`IPR2018-01603 (Patent 7,225,324 B2)
`IPR2018-01604 (Patent 7,421,524 B2)
`IPR2018-01605 (Patent 7,620,800 B2)
`IPR2018-01606 (Patent 7,620,800 B2)
`IPR2018-01607 (Patent 7,620,800 B2)
`__________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE’S MOTION TO
`EXTEND ITS PRELIMINARY RESPONSE DEADLINE UNTIL AFTER
`THE RESOLUTION OF ITS PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`CONCERNING WHETHER SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY MAY BE
`ASSERTED IN INTER PARTES REVIEWS
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE MOTION ..................................................................... 1
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY ............................................................................ 2
`A. The Tribe’s forthcoming petition for writ of certiorari may be
`dispositive of these proceedings because it will determine whether
`sovereign immunity may be asserted in inter partes review. ..................... 2
`B. The District Court litigation has been stayed pending the Board’s
`decision whether to institute these proceedings. ........................................ 4
`III. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITY .............................................................. 5
`A. The Tribe possesses immunity from suit so this proceeding should
`be stayed until the Supreme Court has finally determined whether
`sovereign immunity may be asserted in inter partes reviews. ................... 5
`B. The Federal Circuit’s denial of the Tribe’s motion to stay the
`mandate in the Mylan case does not control here. ...................................... 8
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 9
`V.
`LIST OF EXHIBITS...................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES:
`Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Vaughn,
`509 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2007) ..................................................................................... 5
`
`
`Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty.,
`134 S. Ct. 2024, (2014) ............................................................................................ 1, 7
`
`
`Osage Tribal Council ex rel. Osage Tribe of Indians v. U.S. Dept. of Labor,
`187 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 1999) ............................................................................... 5, 6
`
`
`P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.,
`506 U.S. 139 (1993) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`S. Park Indep. Sch. Dist. v. United States,
`453 U.S. 1301 (1981) .................................................................................................. 9
`
`
`Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharm. Inc.,
`896 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................... 1, 8
`
`
`Tamiami Partners By & Through Tamiami Dev. Corp. v. Miccosukee Tribe of
`Indians of Fla.,
`63 F.3d 1030 (11th Cir. 1995) ..................................................................................... 6
`STATUTES:
`35 U.S.C. § 313 ................................................................................................................ 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ................................................................................................................ 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 ................................................................................................................ 6
`RULES:
`Fed. R. App. P. 41 ............................................................................................................ 9
`REGULATIONS:
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5 ................................................................................................... 2, 6, 7, 9
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`I. SUMMARY OF THE MOTION
`Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (“Tribe”) is a federally recognized, American Indian
`
`Tribe and owner of all the patents that are the subject of the proceedings listed in
`
`the caption. The Tribe, as a sovereign government, is not amenable to suit unless it
`
`expressly consents or Congress abrogates its immunity. See, e.g., Michigan v. Bay
`
`Mills Indian Cmty., 134 S. Ct. 2024, 2030, (2014). In Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v.
`
`Mylan Pharm. Inc., 896 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Mylan”) the Federal Circuit
`
`held that sovereign immunity cannot be asserted in an IPR because an “IPR is
`
`more like an agency enforcement action than a civil suit brought by a private
`
`party.” Id. at 1327.
`
`The Tribe believes that case was wrongly decided and intends to file a petition
`
`for writ of certiorari that asks the Supreme Court to decide whether sovereign
`
`immunity may be asserted in inter partes reviews before the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board. On average, it takes about six weeks for the Supreme Court to act
`
`once a petition has been filed.
`
`As authorized in the Board’s Order on the Conduct of Proceedings entered on
`
`November 23, 2018, the Tribe respectfully requests that the Board extend the
`
`Tribe’s Preliminary Response deadlines in all of these proceedings until March 1,
`
`2019 to see if the Supreme Court grants certiorari.
`
`The deadline for a Patent Owner’s preliminary response has no effect on any
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`statutory pendency goal so the Board may grant an extension upon a showing of
`
`good cause. 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(2). Good cause exists because the Tribe’s
`
`sovereign immunity is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to
`
`liability. So the Tribe would be irreparably harmed if the Board were to deny this
`
`motion because its immunity would be lost if these IPRs were to proceed. By
`
`contrast, Microsoft would not be harmed in any way because the co-pending
`
`District Court litigation was stayed pending the Board’s decisions on Microsoft’s
`
`10 IPR petitions.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should grant this motion and extend the Tribe’s
`
`Preliminary Response deadline until March 1, 2019.
`
`II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`A. The Tribe’s forthcoming petition for writ of certiorari may be dispositive
`of these proceedings because it will determine whether sovereign immunity
`may be asserted in inter partes review.
`Last year, the Tribe moved to terminate IPR2016-01127 based on its Tribal
`
`Sovereign Immunity. EX. 2001. After copious briefing, the Board denied the
`
`Tribe’s motion and held that sovereign immunity does not apply to IPR
`
`proceedings. EX. 2002 at 11-18 (all EX pin citations refer to the EX pagination).
`
`The Tribe immediately appealed under the collateral order doctrine and sought
`
`an emergency stay of the IPR proceeding from the Federal Circuit. EX. 2003; EX.
`
`2004. The Federal Circuit granted the Tribe’s motion to stay and held that “the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`appeals divested the Board of jurisdiction … and that exclusive jurisdiction to
`
`resolve the threshold issue of whether these proceedings must be terminated vests
`
`in this court.” EX. 2005 at 2.
`
`On July 20, 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision and held
`
`that “tribal sovereign immunity cannot be asserted in IPRs” because “IPR is more
`
`like an agency enforcement action than a civil suit brought by a private party.” EX.
`
`2006 at 1, 7, 8, 11.
`
`The Tribe then filed a petition for rehearing en banc. EX. 2007. The States of
`
`Indiana, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas, Utah, and Virginia jointly filed an
`
`Amicus Brief supporting the Tribe’s petition because they believe that sovereign
`
`immunity should apply to IPRs. EX. 2010. The Tribe has also received amicus
`
`support from the Regents of the University of Minnesota, STC.UNM, and William
`
`Eskridge, Jr. EX. 2009; EX. 2011.
`
`In October, the Federal Circuit issued a per curiam denial of the Tribe’s petition
`
`for rehearing. EX. 2021. The Tribe then moved to stay the mandate pending the
`
`filing and disposition of its petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States
`
`Supreme Court but this was also denied per curiam. EX. 2022.
`
`The Tribe will file a petition for writ of certiorari that asks the Supreme Court
`
`to decide whether sovereign immunity may be asserted in inter partes reviews
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.1 Under Supreme Court Rule 15, the
`
`respondent has 30 days to file an opposition brief (which is optional). The Clerk
`
`will distribute the petition to the Supreme Court for consideration either 14 days
`
`after an opposition brief is filed or immediately upon receiving an express waiver
`
`to file a brief in opposition. On average, it takes about six weeks for the Supreme
`
`Court to act on petitions for writ of certiorari. EX. 2012 at 19. If taken up and
`
`reversed by the Supreme Court this issue would be dispositive of these
`
`proceedings.
`
`B. The District Court litigation has been stayed pending the Board’s decision
`whether to institute these proceedings.
`The Tribe and SRC Labs, LLC filed a patent infringement suit against
`
`Microsoft in the Eastern District of Virginia on October 18, 2017. The case was set
`
`for a final pre-trial conference on May 11, 2018 with a trial setting that summer.
`
`EX. 2008. Microsoft moved to transfer the case from Alexandria to Seattle based
`
`on convenience, which was granted.
`
`The Western District of Washington then entered a scheduling order setting the
`
`claim construction hearing for December 20, 2018 and the Pretrial Conference on
`
`October 21, 2019. EX. 2018 at 2. The parties simultaneously filed opening claim
`
`
`1 The deadline for the Tribe to file its petition for a writ of certiorari is January 20,
`
`2019 but it intends to file the petition in mid-December if possible.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`construction briefs on November 5, 2018 and responsive claim construction briefs
`
`on November 20, 2018.
`
`Microsoft also filed a motion to stay the case pending the outcome of these
`
`IPRs and argued:
`
`Plaintiffs theorize that the patents are immune from
`challenge in IPR proceedings based on SRMT’s status as
`a sovereign tribe, such that Microsoft’s petitions cannot
`succeed. But the Federal Circuit has already rejected that
`theory, as applied to SRMT itself. Although the Federal
`Circuit may yet hear that issue en banc, or SRMT may
`pursue it further in the Supreme Court, that only counsels
`in favor of a stay at least until that threshold issue is
`resolved.
`EX. 2019 at 5 (emphasis added). That motion was granted and the case was stayed
`
`pending “the PTO’s decisions on Microsoft’s 10 IPR petitions.” EX. 2020 at 15-
`
`16.
`
`III. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITY
`A. The Tribe possesses immunity from suit so this proceeding should be
`stayed until the Supreme Court has finally determined whether sovereign
`immunity may be asserted in inter partes reviews.
`The Tribe’s sovereign immunity is a threshold issue that must be addressed
`
`before the IPR may proceed because tribal sovereign immunity is not merely a
`
`liability defense, it is an “immunity from suit” that “is effectively lost if a case is
`
`erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Vaughn,
`
`509 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir. 2007). So sovereign immunity “is for the most part
`
`lost as litigation proceeds past motion practice.” P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v.
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 145 (1993); see also Osage Tribal Council ex
`
`rel. Osage Tribe of Indians v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 187 F.3d 1174, 1180 (10th Cir.
`
`1999) (“Were this case erroneously permitted to proceed further, the [tribal
`
`council’s] absolute entitlement to immunity from suit would still be effectively
`
`lost.”); Tamiami Partners By & Through Tamiami Dev. Corp. v. Miccosukee Tribe
`
`of Indians of Fla., 63 F.3d 1030, 1050 (11th Cir. 1995) (“Tribal sovereign
`
`immunity would be rendered meaningless if a suit against a tribe asserting its
`
`immunity were allowed to proceed to trial.”). Thus, a stay will preserve the status
`
`quo while this important issue is decided.
`
`The Board has the authority to extend the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`deadline. E.g., 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) (permitting the Board to “determine a proper
`
`course of conduct in a proceeding for any situation not specifically covered”). The
`
`Board may modify by order any deadline that is set by rule so long as “any
`
`applicable statutory pendency goal [is taken] into account.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(1).
`
`There are no applicable statutory pendency goals to account for before the
`
`institution of an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (requiring
`
`determination of “whether to institute an inter partes review” within three months
`
`of either the filing of a patent owner’s preliminary response or expiration of the
`
`time for the patent owner to file preliminary response); 35 U.S.C. § 313 (setting no
`
`specific statutory time limit for the filing of Patent Owner’s preliminary response);
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) (requiring implementing regulations to require final
`
`determinations in inter partes reviews generally within one year of institution). So
`
`the deadline for a Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response may be extended upon a
`
`showing of good cause. 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(2).
`
`Good cause is present here because the Tribe would be irreparably harmed if its
`
`Preliminary Response Deadline is not extended because, as noted above, sovereign
`
`immunity is immunity from suit, not a defense to liability. See Bay Mills, 134 S.
`
`Ct. at 2030 (2014). And if the Supreme Court grants certiorari and reverses the
`
`Federal Circuit, this issue would be dispositive of these proceedings.
`
`In recognition of this, the Board has extended the Patent Owner Preliminary
`
`Response deadline in every proceeding where sovereign immunity was raised. EX.
`
`2013 (IPR2017-01186, Paper 13); EX. 2014 (IPR2017-00572, Paper 22); EX. 2015
`
`(IPR2017-01338, Paper 7); EX. 2017 (IPR2018-00286, Paper 6).
`
`In fact, the Board sua sponte suspended The Board of Regents of the University
`
`of Texas System’s (“Texas”) Preliminary Response deadline in IPR2018-00948
`
`until after the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Mylan. EX. 2016 at 2. And after
`
`the Federal Circuit’s opinion was issued in Mylan, the Board still authorized Texas
`
`to file a motion to dismiss based on its sovereign immunity and extended the
`
`Preliminary Response deadline to “30 days after our decision on Patent Owner’s
`
`motion to dismiss.” Id. at 3.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`On the other side of the ledger, the requested extension will not prejudice
`
`Microsoft. Microsoft successfully argued to the District Court that the Tribe’s
`
`petition for writ of certiorari “counsels in favor of a stay” and was previously
`
`“willing to enter into a mutual stay of the IPRs pending [the sovereign immunity
`
`appeal] if SRC and [Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe] are willing to stay all district court
`
`proceedings on the patents that are the subject of those IPR.” EX. 2019 at 5; EX.
`
`2023. And Microsoft could have already challenged the validity of all these patents
`
`at trial in the Eastern District of Virginia but instead chose to transfer and stay the
`
`case. Clearly this is not a time sensitive issue for Microsoft.
`
`Therefore, the Tribe believes that good cause exists to extend its Preliminary
`
`Response Deadline until after the Supreme Court has acted on its petition for writ
`
`of certiorari that will determine if sovereign immunity applies to IPRs.
`
`B. The Federal Circuit’s denial of the Tribe’s motion to stay the mandate in
`the Mylan case does not control here.
`In Mylan, the Federal Circuit held that tribal sovereign immunity cannot be
`
`asserted in IPR. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., 896 F.3d 1322,
`
`1329 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Federal Circuit then denied, without opinion, the
`
`Tribe’s motion to stay issuance of the Federal Circuit’s mandate pending the
`
`Tribe’s forthcoming petition for writ of certiorari. EX. 2022. But this denial does
`
`not control here because the standard to stay a mandate and the standard to extend
`
`the deadline for a Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are not the same.
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`In Mylan, the Tribe sought a stay of the Federal Circuit’s mandate under
`
`Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d)(2)(A), which requires a showing “that
`
`the certiorari petition would present a substantial question and that there is good
`
`cause for a stay.” This is a high bar that required the Tribe to show that “a
`
`reasonable probability that four members of the Court would consider the
`
`underlying issue sufficiently meritorious for the grant of certiorari or the notation
`
`of probable jurisdiction; there must be a significant possibility of reversal of the
`
`lower court's decision; and there must be a likelihood that irreparable harm will
`
`result if that decision is not stayed.” S. Park Indep. Sch. Dist. v. United States, 453
`
`U.S. 1301, 1303 (1981).
`
`By contrast, here the Tribe only needs to demonstrate good cause to extend the
`
`deadline for a patent owner’s preliminary response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(2).
`
`Accordingly, the Federal Circuit’s denial of the Tribe’s motion to stay its mandate
`
`does not dictate the outcome here.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`A stay is a practical and legal necessity. Sovereign immunity is a core part of
`
`the Tribe’s identity as a Nation. Absent a stay, the Tribe will suffer irreparable
`
`harm because sovereign immunity is an immunity from suit, not a defense to
`
`liability. Thus, the Board should extend the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`deadline until March 1, 2019.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Alfonso Chan /
`Alfonso Chan
`Reg. No. 45,964
`achan@shorechan.com
`Michael Shore*
`mshore@shorechan.com
`Christopher Evans*
`cevans@shorechan.com
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, TX 75202
`Tel: (214) 593-9110
`Fax: (214) 593-9111
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: November 30, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`V. LIST OF EXHIBITS
`Exhibit No. Descriptions
`2001
`Mylan Pharmas. Inc., et al v. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, et al,
`IPR2016-01127, Paper 78 (PTAB Sept. 22, 2017)
`Mylan Pharmas. Inc., et al v. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, et al,
`IPR2016-01127, Paper 129 (PTAB Feb. 23, 2018)
`Mylan Pharmas. Inc., et al v. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, et al,
`IPR2016-01127, Paper 133 (PTAB Feb. 28, 2018)
`Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe et al v. Mylan Pharmas., Inc., et al, No.
`18-1638, Dkt. 10-1 (Fed. Cir. March 19, 2018)
`Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe et al v. Mylan Pharmas., Inc., et al, No.
`18-1638, Dkt. 42 (Fed. Cir. March 28, 2018)
`Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe et al v. Mylan Pharmas., Inc., et al, No.
`18-1638, Dkt. 136-1 (Fed. Cir. July 20, 2018)
`Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe et al v. Mylan Pharmas., Inc., et al, No.
`18-1638, Dkt. 137 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 20, 2018)
`SRC Labs, LLC, et al v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:17cv-01172-LO-
`JFA, Dkt. 27 (E.D. Va. Dec. 22, 2017)
`Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe et al v. Mylan Pharmas., Inc., et al, No.
`18-1638, Dkt. 156 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 6, 2018)
`Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe et al v. Mylan Pharmas., Inc., et al, No.
`18-1638, Dkt. 162 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 7, 2018)
`Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe et al v. Mylan Pharmas., Inc., et al, No.
`18-1638, Dkt. 163 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 7, 2018)
`A Reporter’s Guide to Applications Pending Before The Supreme
`Court of the United States
`Ericsson Inc., et al v. Regents of the Univ. of Minn., IPR2017-
`01186, Paper 13 (PTAB Aug. 15, 2017)
`Reactive Surfaces Ltd., LLP, v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2017-
`00572, Paper 22, (PTAB Feb. 21, 2017)
`St. Jude Medical, LLC v. The Regents of the Univ. of California,
`IPR2017-01338, IPR2017-01339, Paper 7 (PTAB July 20, 2017)
`Baylor College of Medicine v. The Board of Regents of the Univ. of
`Texas Sys. et al, IPR2018-00948, IPR2018-00949, Paper 8 (PTAB
`Aug. 7, 2018)
`Apple, Inc. v. MEC Resources, Inc., IPR2018-00286, Paper 6
`(PTAB Jan. 30, 2018)
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SRC Labs, LLC et al v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:18-cv-00321-JLR,
`Dkt. 94 (W.D. WA May 22, 2018)
`SRC Labs, LLC et al v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:18-cv-00321-JLR,
`Dkt. 117 (W.D. WA Oct. 11, 2018)
`Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe et al v. Mylan Pharmas., Inc., et al, No.
`18-1638, Dkt. 136-1 (Fed. Cir. July 20, 2018)
`Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe et al v. Mylan Pharmas., Inc., et al, No.
`18-1638, Dkt. 170 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 22, 2018)
`Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe et al v. Mylan Pharmas., Inc., et al, No.
`18-1638, Dkt. 174 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2018)
`Email from Scott Border to Christopher Evans re: stay of IPR
`proceeding pending Sovereign Immunity Appeal
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.25(b), the undersigned certifies that
`
`on November 30, 2018, a complete copy of Motion by Patent Owner Saint Regis
`
`Mohawk Tribe For a Stay Pending the Resolution of Whether Sovereign Immunity
`
`May be Asserted in Inter Partes Reviews was filed electronically through the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board’s PTABE2E System and provided, via electronic service, to
`
`the Petitioner by serving the correspondence address of record as follows:
`
`
`Joseph A. Micallef
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`Scott M. Border
`sborder@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Jason P. Greenhut
`jgreenhut@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1 South Dearborn
`Chicago, IL 60603
`
`
`/Alfonso Chan/
`Alfonso Chan
`Reg. No. 45,964
`Phone: 214-593-9118
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 30, 2018
`
`
`
`13
`
`

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