Intel Corporation
`v.
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`IPR2019-00047
`IPR2019-00048
`IPR2019-00049
`U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`1
`
`
`v.
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`IPR2019-00047
`IPR2019-00048
`IPR2019-00049
`U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`1
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356
`
`2
`
`Intel 1001, Fig. 6A*
`* All Citations are to IPR2019-00047, unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`IPR2019-00047
`Ground I:
`Ground II:
`Ground III:
`Ground IV:
`Ground V:
`Ground VI:
`IPR2019-00048
`Ground I:
`Ground II:
`Ground III:
`Ground IV:
`IPR2019-00049
`Ground I:
`Ground II:
`
`Claims 1, 11, 17 and 18 as Anticipated by Uehara
`Claims 7 and 8 as Obvious over Uehara and Perumana
`Claim 10 as Obvious over Uehara and Youssef
`Claims 1, 11, 17 and 18 as Obvious over Uehara and Feasibility Study
`Claims 7 and 8 as Obvious over Uehara, Feasibility Study, and Permuna
`Claim 10 as Obvious over Uehara, Feasibility Study, and Youssef
`
`Claims 1, 17, and 18 as Obvious over Jeon and Xiong
`Claims 9 and 10 as Obvious over Jeon, Xiong, and Youssef
`Claims 1, 17, and 18 as Obvious over Jeon, Xiong, and Feasibility Study
`Claims 9 and 10 as Obvious over Jeon, Xiong, Youssef, and Feasibility Study
`
`Claims 2–8, and 11 as Obvious over Jeon and Xiong
`Claims 2–8, and 11 as Obvious over Jeon, Xiong, and Feasibility Study
`
`3
`
`IPR2019-00047, Institution Decision, p. 35–36
`IPR2019-00048, Institution Decision, p. 20
`IPR2019-00049, Institution Decision, p. 19
`
`
`
`Patentability
`
`1)
`
`“Independently Enabled or Disabled” Amplifier Stages
`a) Uehara Fails to Anticipate
`b)
`Jeon and Xiong Fail to Render Obvious
`2) The Petition Relies on an Overly Broad Interpretation of
`“Carrier Aggregation”
`Petitioner Fails to Establish that Uehara and Jeon/Xiong
`Disclose “Carrier Aggregation”
`Petitioner Fails to Sufficiently Articulate a Motivation to
`Combine Uehara or Jeon and Xiong with the Feasibility Study
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patentability
`
`1)
`
`“Independently Enabled or Disabled” Amplifier Stages
`a) Uehara Fails to Anticipate
`b)
`Jeon and Xiong Fail to Render Obvious
`2) The Petition Relies on an Overly Broad Interpretation of
`“Carrier Aggregation”
`Petitioner Fails to Establish that Uehara and Jeon/Xiong
`Disclose “Carrier Aggregation”
`Petitioner Fails to Sufficiently Articulate a Motivation to
`Combine Uehara or Jeon and Xiong with the Feasibility Study
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`5
`
`Patent Owner Response, pp. 39-46.
`
`
`
`“Independently Enabled or Disabled”
`1. An apparatus comprising:
`a first amplifier stage configured to be independently
`enabled or disabled, the first amplifier stage further
`configured to receive and amplify an input radio
`frequency (RF) signal and provide a first output RF
`signal to a first load circuit when the first amplifier
`stage is enabled, the input RF signal employing carrier
`aggregation comprising transmissions sent on multiple
`carriers at different frequencies to a wireless device, the
`first output RF signal including at least a first carrier of
`the multiple carriers; and
`a second amplifier stage configured to be independently
`enabled or disabled, the second amplifier stage further
`configured to receive and amplify the input RF signal
`and provide a second output RF signal to a second load
`circuit when the second amplifier stage is enabled, the
`second output RF signal including at least a second
`carrier of the multiple carriers different than the first
`carrier.
`
`6
`
`Intel 1001, 20:43-61, Fig. 6
`
`
`
`“Independently Enabled or Disabled”
`
`7
`
`Ex. 2014 (Fay Depo), 32:8-23
`Intel 1001, 20:43-61, Fig. 6
`
`
`
`Uehara’s Two Stages Are Not Independent
`
`8
`
`Ex. 1003 (Uehara), Fig. 1, ¶¶ [0031-32];
`
`
`
`Uehara’s Two Stages Are Not Independent
`
`9
`
`Petition, p. 54
`Ex. 1003 (Uehara), ¶ 0039-40.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s New Argument Modifying Uehara
`
`Petitioner Reply, pp. 14, 16
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, pp. 18-22
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s New Argument Modifying Uehara
`
`Petitioner Reply, p. 14
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, pp. 18-22
`Ex. 2024 (Decl. of Dr. Foty), ¶ 168
`
`11
`
`
`
`Patentability
`
`1)
`
`“Independently Enabled or Disabled” Amplifier Stages
`a) Uehara Fails to Anticipate
`b)
`Jeon and Xiong Fail to Render Obvious
`2) The Petition Relies on an Overly Broad Interpretation of
`“Carrier Aggregation”
`Petitioner Fails to Establish that Uehara and Jeon/Xiong
`Disclose “Carrier Aggregation”
`Petitioner Fails to Sufficiently Articulate a Motivation to
`Combine Uehara or Jeon and Xiong with the Feasibility Study
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`12
`
`IPR2019-00048, Patent Owner Response, pp. 37-48.
`
`
`
`Jeon Fails To Disclose
`“Independently Enabled Or Disabled”
`
`13
`
`IPR2019-00048, Ex. 1105 (Jeon), Fig. 6;
`IPR2019-00048, Patent Owner Resp., p. 38.
`
`
`
`Xiong Fails To Disclose
`“Independently Enabled Or Disabled”
`
`14
`
`IPR2019-00048, Ex. 1106 (Xiong), ¶[0029], Fig. 3;
`IPR2019-00048, Patent Owner Resp., p. 41.
`
`
`
`Xiong Also Fails To Disclose
`A First And Second “Amplifier Stage”
`
`IPR2019-00048, Ex. 1106 (Xiong), Fig. 3.
`
`IPR2019-00048, Ex. 1101 (’356 Patent), Fig. 6A.
`
`15
`
`IPR2019-00048, Ex. 2024 (Decl. of Dr. Foty), ¶ 161
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Alleged Motivation to Combine
`Jeon and Xiong is Pure Speculation
`
`IPR2019-00048, Petition, pp. 47-48
`
`16
`
`Ex. 1105 (Jeon), p. 2660
`
`
`
`Patentability
`
`1)
`
`“Independently Enabled or Disabled” Amplifier Stages
`a) Uehara Fails to Anticipate
`b)
`Jeon and Xiong Fail to Render Obvious
`2) The Petition Relies on an Overly Broad Interpretation of
`“Carrier Aggregation”
`Petitioner Fails to Establish that Uehara and Jeon/Xiong
`Disclose “Carrier Aggregation”
`Petitioner Fails to Sufficiently Articulate a Motivation to
`Combine Uehara or Jeon and Xiong with the Feasibility Study
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`17
`
`Patent Owner Response, pp. 39-46.
`
`
`
`Claim Construction – “Carrier Aggregation”
`1. An apparatus comprising:
`a first amplifier stage configured to be independently
`enabled or disabled, the first amplifier stage further
`configured to receive and amplify an input radio
`frequency (RF) signal and provide a first output RF
`signal to a first load circuit when the first amplifier
`stage is enabled, the input RF signal employing carrier
`aggregation comprising transmissions sent on multiple
`carriers at different frequencies to a wireless device, the
`first output RF signal including at least a first carrier of
`the multiple carriers; and
`a second amplifier stage configured to be independently
`enabled or disabled, the second amplifier stage further
`configured to receive and amplify the input RF signal
`and provide a second output RF signal to a second load
`circuit when the second amplifier stage is enabled, the
`second output RF signal including at least a second
`carrier of the multiple carriers different than the first
`carrier.
`
`18
`
`Intel 1001, 20:43-61, Fig. 6
`
`
`
`Claim Construction – “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`19
`
`Patent Owner Response, pp. 11-12
`
`
`
`Claim Construction – “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`• Petitioner’s Construction Reads “Carrier Aggregation”
`Out of the Claims
`• Petitioner’s Construction Contradicts the Written
`Description
`• Petitioner’s Construction Violates the Doctrine of
`Prosecution History Disclaimer
`• Patent Owner Did Not Redefine “Carrier Aggregation”
`•
`“Carrier Aggregation” Has a Well Understood Meaning
`
`20
`
`Patent Owner Response, pp. 30-31;
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, pp. 15-16
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Construction Reads “Carrier
`Aggregation” Out of the Claims
`
`1. An apparatus comprising:
`a first amplifier stage configured to be independently enabled or
`disabled, the first amplifier stage further configured to receive and
`amplify an input radio frequency (RF) signal and provide a first output
`RF signal to a first load circuit when the first amplifier stage is
`enabled, the input RF signal employing carrier aggregation
`[simultaneous operation on multiple carriers] comprising
`transmissions sent on multiple carriers at different frequencies to a
`wireless device, the first output RF signal including at least a first
`carrier of the multiple carriers; and
`
`21
`
`Patent Owner Response, p. 30
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Construction Reads “Carrier
`Aggregation” Out of the Claims
`
`22
`
`Intel Ex. 1015 (Amendment) at 2;
`Patent Owner Response, p. 26.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Construction Reads “Carrier
`Aggregation” Out of the Claims
`
`Ex. 2025, p. 4;
`Patent Owner Response, p. 30.
`
`23
`
`
`
`Claim Construction – “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`• Petitioner’s Construction Reads “Carrier Aggregation”
`Out of the Claims
`• Petitioner’s Construction Contradicts the Written
`Description
`• Petitioner’s Construction Violates the Doctrine of
`Prosecution History Disclaimer
`• Patent Owner Did Not Redefine “Carrier Aggregation”
`•
`“Carrier Aggregation” Has a Well Understood Meaning
`
`24
`
`Patent Owner Response, pp. 13-15, 30.
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Construction Contradicts
`the Written Description
`
`25
`
`Intel Ex. 1001, 3:39-49;
`Patent Owner Response, pp. 30-31.
`
`
`
`Claim Construction – “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`• Petitioner’s Construction Reads “Carrier Aggregation”
`Out of the Claims
`• Petitioner’s Construction Contradicts the Written
`Description
`• Petitioner’s Construction Violates the Doctrine of
`Prosecution History Disclaimer
`• Patent Owner Did Not Redefine “Carrier Aggregation”
`•
`“Carrier Aggregation” Has a Well Understood Meaning
`
`26
`
`Patent Owner Response, pp. 25-28;
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, pp. 11-14.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Narrowed Claims to Overcome Hirose
`
`Intel Ex. 1015 (Amendment) at 2;
`Patent Owner Response, p. 26.
`
`Intel Ex. 1014 (Office Action) at 4;
`Patent Owner Response, pp. 25-26.
`
`27
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Narrowed Claims to Overcome Hirose
`
`Intel Ex. 1015 (Amendment) at 8;
`Patent Owner Response, p. 27.
`
`28
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Construction Reads on Hirose
`
`Petitioner Construction
`“carrier aggregation” means
`“simultaneous operation on
`multiple carriers”
`
`Intel 1025 (Hirose), 1: 26-42, Fig. 2
`Intel Ex. 1015 (Amendment) at 8;
`Patent Owner Response, p. 25.
`
`29
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Construction Violates the Doctrine of
`Prosecution History Disclaimer
`
`“[C]laims that have been narrowed in order to obtain
`the issuance of a patent by distinguishing the prior art
`cannot be sustained to cover that which was previously
`by limitation eliminated from the patent.” Graham v.
`John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 33 (1966)
`
`“[A]n amendment that clearly narrows the scope of a
`claim, such as by the addition of a new claim limitation,
`constitutes a disclaimer of any claim interpretation that
`would effectively eliminate the limitation or that would
`otherwise recapture the claim’s original scope.”
`Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Otis Elevator Co., 593 F.3d
`1275, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`30
`
`Patent Owner Response, p. 25;
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, p. 12.
`
`
`
`Claim Construction – “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`• Petitioner’s Construction Reads “Carrier Aggregation”
`Out of the Claims
`• Petitioner’s Construction Contradicts the Written
`Description
`• Petitioner’s Construction Violates the Doctrine of
`Prosecution History Disclaimer
`• Patent Owner Did Not Redefine “Carrier Aggregation”
`•
`“Carrier Aggregation” Has a Well Understood Meaning
`
`31
`
`Patent Owner Response, pp. 12-23;
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, pp. 2-6, 16-17.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Did Not Redefine “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`“[A] claim term is only given a special definition different from
`the term’s plain and ordinary meaning if the ‘patentee…
`clearly set[s] forth a definition of the disputed claim term other
`than its plain and ordinary meaning.” Akamai Techs., Inc. v.
`Limelight Networks, Inc., 805 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`“When a patent acts as his own lexicographer in redefining the
`meaning of particular claim terms away from their ordinary
`meaning, he must clearly express that intent in the written
`description. We have repeatedly emphasized that the statement in
`the specification must have sufficient clarity to put one reasonably
`skilled in the art on notice that the inventor intended to redefine
`the claim term.” Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 395
`F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`32
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, p. 3.
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Did Not Redefine “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`Intel 1001,1:32-40; 2:53-67.
`
`33
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Employed a Distinctive
`Format for Defining Terms
`
`Intel 1001,2:9-11;
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, p. 4.
`
`34
`
`
`
`Claim Construction – “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`• Petitioner’s Construction Reads “Carrier Aggregation”
`Out of the Claims
`• Petitioner’s Construction Contradicts the Written
`Description
`• Petitioner’s Construction Violates the Doctrine of
`Prosecution History Disclaimer
`• Patent Owner Did Not Redefine “Carrier Aggregation”
`•
`“Carrier Aggregation” Has A Well Understood Meaning
`
`35
`
`Patent Owner Response, pp. 15-23, 28-31;
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, pp. 6-11.
`
`
`
`“Carrier Aggregation” Has a Well Understood Meaning
`
` Supported by the Intrinsic Record
`• The Specification Supports the Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`• The File History Supports the Patent Owner’s
`Construction
` Supported by Extrinsic Evidence
`•
`Intel Patents Support Patent Owner’s Construction
`• The Feasibility Study Supports Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`Industry Publications Support Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`
`•
`
`36
`
`Patent Owner Response, pp. 12-23, 28-31.
`
`
`
`“Carrier Aggregation” Has a Well Understood Meaning
`
` Supported by the Intrinsic Record
`• The Specification Supports the Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`• The File History Supports the Patent Owner’s
`Construction
` Supported by Extrinsic Evidence
`•
`Intel Patents Support Patent Owner’s Construction
`• The Feasibility Study Supports Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`Industry Publications Support Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`
`•
`
`37
`
`Patent Owner Response, pp. 12-23, 28-31.
`
`
`
`The Specification Supports Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`Intel Ex. 1001, 1:32-40, 2:53-67
`Patent Owner Response, pp. 12-15.
`
`38
`
`
`
`The Specification Supports Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`39
`
`Intel Ex. 1001, 2:53-67;
`Ex. 2026 (“3GPP TS 36.101”), p. 14;
`Patent Owner Response, pp. 13-15.
`
`
`
`The File History Supports Patent Owner’s Construction
`
`40
`
`Patent Owner Response, pp. 15-16;
`Intel Ex. 1015 at 7.
`
`
`
`The File History Supports Patent Owner’s Construction
`
` Kaukovuori was relied
`on by the Examiner of
`the ‘356 Patent.
`
`Patent Owner Response, pp. 16-17;
`Intel Ex. 1025 at 1:19-35.
`
`41
`
`
`
`“Carrier Aggregation” Has a Well Understood Meaning
`
` Supported by the Intrinsic Record
`• The Specification Supports the Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`• The File History Supports the Patent Owner’s
`Construction
` Supported by Extrinsic Evidence
`•
`Intel Patents Support Patent Owner’s Construction
`• The Feasibility Study Supports Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`Industry Publications Support Patent Owner’s
`Construction
`
`•
`
`42
`
`Patent Owner Response, pp. 12-23, 28-31.
`
`
`
`“Carrier Aggregation” Has a Well Understood Meaning
`
`Patent Owner Response, p. 18-19;
`Ex. 2013, 3:19-28, 45-53.
`
`43
`
`
`
`“Carrier Aggregation” Has a Well Understood Meaning
`
`Patent Owner Response, p. 19;
`Ex. 2018, 3:27-41.
`
`44
`
`
`
`“Carrier Aggregation” Has a Well Understood Meaning
`
`45
`
`Patent Owner Response, p. 20-21;
`Ex. 1004 (“Feasibility Study”), ¶ 5.1.
`
`
`
`“Carrier Aggregation” Has a Well Understood Meaning
`
`Patent Owner Response, p. 20;
`Ex. 2019, p. 6.
`
`46
`
`
`
`“Carrier Aggregation” Has a Well Understood Meaning
`
`Patent Owner Response, p. 20;
`Ex. 2020, ¶ [0003].
`
`47
`
`
`
`“Carrier Aggregation” Has a Well Understood Meaning
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, p. 6.
`
`48
`
`
`
`Patentability
`
`1)
`
`“Independently Enabled or Disabled” Amplifier Stages
`a) Uehara Fails to Anticipate
`b)
`Jeon and Xiong Fail to Render Obvious
`2) The Petition Relies on an Overly Broad Interpretation of
`“Carrier Aggregation”
`Petitioner Fails to Establish that Uehara and Jeon/Xiong
`Disclose “Carrier Aggregation”
`Petitioner Fails to Sufficiently Articulate a Motivation to
`Combine Uehara or Jeon and Xiong with the Feasibility Study
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`49
`
`IPR2019-00047, Patent Owner Response, pp. 46-48.
`IPR2019-00048, Patent Owner Response, pp. 48-50.
`
`
`
`Uehara Discloses A “Dual Or Multi-Carrier” Signal,
`Not A Carrier Aggregated Signal
`
`50
`
`Ex. 1003 (Uehara), Fig. 3, ¶ [0047],
`cited by Petition, p. 51
`
`
`
`The Examiner Considered Uehara During Prosecution
`
`51
`
`Ex. 2004 (IDS), p. 9;
`Patent Owner Response, p.34.
`
`
`
`Jeon Discloses A “Dual Band” Signal,
`Not A Carrier Aggregated Signal
`
`IPR2019-00048, Petition, p. 51.
`
`52
`
`
`
`Patentability
`
`1)
`
`“Independently Enabled or Disabled” Amplifier Stages
`a) Uehara Fails to Anticipate
`b)
`Jeon and Xiong Fail to Render Obvious
`2) The Petition Relies on an Overly Broad Interpretation of
`“Carrier Aggregation”
`Petitioner Fails to Establish that Uehara and Jeon/Xiong
`Disclose “Carrier Aggregation”
`Petitioner Fails to Sufficiently Articulate a Motivation to
`Combine Uehara or Jeon and Xiong with the Feasibility Study
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`53
`
`Patent Owner Response, pp. 39-46.
`
`
`
`The Feasibility Study
`
`54
`
`Patent Owner Response, p. 38-39
`Intel Ex. 1304, ¶¶ 1, 5.1
`
`
`
`Petitioner Has Provided No Reasoned
`Motivation to Combine
`
`55
`
`IPR2019-00047, Petition, p. 78;
`see also IPR2019-00048, Petition, p. 73.
`
`
`
`Petitioner Has Provided No Reasoned
`Motivation to Combine
`
`56
`
`IPR2019-00047, Petition, p. 79;
`see also IPR2019-00048, Petition, p. 74.
`
`
`
`The Feasibility Study Does Not Even Disclose An
`Amplifier Circuit
`
`Patent Owner Response, pp. 55-56.
`Intel Ex. 1004, p. 26.
`
`57
`
`
`
`The Feasibility Study is Non-Analogous Art
`
`Patent Owner Response, pp. 52-53;
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply, p. 24-26;
`Intel Ex. 1001, 1:16-17.
`
`58
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2019-00047, -00048, -00049
`
`Patent No. 9,154,356
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on March 27,
`
`
`
`
`
`2020, a complete and entire copy of PATENT OWNER'S
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS have been served in their entirety by e-mail on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the following addresses of record for Petitioner:
`
`
`
`
`
`Backup Counsel:
`Lead Counsel:
`John V. Hobgood
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Reg. No. 36,476
`Reg. No. 61,540
`
`
`
`David. Cavanaugh@wilmerhale. c John.Hobgood@wilmerhale.com
`om
`
`
`Benjamin S. Fernandez
`Postal and Hand-Delivery
`
`Reg. No. 55,172
`Address:
`Ben.F ernandez@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
`andDorrLLP
`Gregory T. Lantier
`
`
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`Gregory.Lantier@wilmerhale.com
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`Telephone: (202) 663-6000
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`
`
`Fax: (202) 663-6363
`
`
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`Telephone: (202) 663-6000
`Fax: (202) 663-6363
`
`
`
`Dated: March 27, 2020
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Thomas W Ritchie/
`
`
`
`Thomas W. Ritchie (Reg. No. 65,505)
`Jones Day
`77 W. Wacker Drive
`
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312)782-3939
`
`twritchie@j onesday. com
`
`59
`
`
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
