throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`C. A. No. 2:17-09105 (SRC-CLW)
`
`SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, SANOFI-
`AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, and
`SANOFI WINTHROP INDUSTRIE,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`MYLAN GMBH, BIOCON LTD., BIOCON
`RESEARCH LTD., BIOCON SDN. BHD.,
`and BIOCON S.A.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ PRELIMINARY CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS AND PRELIMINARY
`IDENTIFICATION OF SUPPORTING INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 4.2 and the Court’s Order (D.I. 23 and D.I. 78), and as
`
`agreed by the parties1, Plaintiffs Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH,
`
`and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “Sanofi”) hereby provide to
`
`Defendant Mylan GmbH ( “Mylan”) and Defendants Biocon Ltd., Biocon Research Ltd., Biocon
`
`Sdn. Bhd., and Biocon S.A. (collectively, “Biocon”) (collectively, “Defendants”) in the attached
`
`Exhibits A-C Plaintiffs’ preliminary claim constructions and preliminary identification of
`
`supporting intrinsic and extrinsic evidence.
`
`These disclosures are based upon information reasonably available to Plaintiffs at this
`
`time and are made without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ right to amend and/or supplement these
`
`disclosures in the future as necessary and appropriate, including as a result of the discovery or
`
`investigation of further information, including Defendants’ supplementation of its non-
`
`1 September 5, 2018 e-mail from E. Steiner to R. Vlasis.
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 1 of 34
`
`

`

`infringement contentions and/or invalidity contentions. Plaintiffs may also rely on expert
`
`testimony regarding the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the
`
`invention to explain the ordinary meaning of any term as it would have been understood by a
`
`POSITA or to describe or elucidate any of these terms, including by presenting a technical
`
`tutorial to the Court. Finally, Plaintiffs reserve the right to offer further intrinsic evidence and
`
`expert testimony and other extrinsic evidence to rebut Defendants’ proposed constructions,
`
`intrinsic evidence, expert testimony, or other extrinsic evidence, if any, offered by Defendants in
`
`
`
`
`s/ Liza M. Walsh
`Liza M. Walsh
`Christine I. Gannon
`Katelyn O’Reilly
`Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga LLP
`One Riverfront Plaza
`1037 Raymond Blvd, Suite 600
`Newark, NJ 07102
`(973) 757-1101
`lwalsh@walsh.law
`cgannon@walsh.law
`koreilly@walsh.law
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC,
`Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, and Sanofi
`Winthrop Industrie
`
`
`support it their claim constructions.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 5, 2018
`
`Of Counsel:
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`
`Elizabeth S. Weiswasser
`Anish Desai
`Aaron Pereira
`Anna Dwyer
`Andrew Gesior
`Kathryn Kantha
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, New York 10153
`(212) 310-8000
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 2 of 34
`
`

`

`elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com
`anish.desai@weil.com
`aaron.pereira@weil.com
`anna.dwyer@weil.com
`andrew.gesior@weil.com
`kathryn.kantha@weil.com
`
`Robert T. Vlasis III
`Sutton Ansley
`Christopher Pepe
`Matthew Sieger
`2001 M Street NW, Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20036
`(202) 682-7000
`robert.vlasis@weil.com
`sutton.ansley@weil.com
`christopher.pepe@weil.com
`matthew.sieger@weil.com
`
`
`
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 3 of 34
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on September 5, 2018, I caused a copy of PLAINTIFFS’
`PRELIMINARY CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS AND PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF
`SUPPORTING INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE to be served via email on counsel
`for Defendant.
`
`Dated: September 5, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: s/Anna E. Dwyer
`Anna E. Dwyer
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, New York 10153
`(212) 310-8000
`anna.dwyer@weil.com
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 4 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`“at least one
`chemical entity
`chosen from”
`
`ʼ652 patent, claim 1,
`7, 24
`
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning, which a
`POSITA would understand to be “at least
`one chemical compound chosen from.”
`No construction necessary.
`
`Exhibit A
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Preliminary Claim Construction s and Supporting Evidence – U.S. Patent No. 7,476,652
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`’652 Patent:
`Abstract, 1:11-15,
`2:23-27; 2:38-41;
`3:41-45; 3:50-56;
`4:7-27, claims 1, 2,
`7, 8, 17-19, 23, 24.
`
`U.S. App. No.
`11/089,777 File
`History: March 25,
`2005 Transmittal of
`New Application
`claims and
`specification at 1, 3,
`5-7; March 21, 2007
`claims and Remarks
`at 6-10; April 25,
`2007 Final Office
`Action at 2-3; July
`25, 2007 claims and
`Remarks at 7-8;
`August 8, 2007 Non-
`Final Office Action
`at 2-3; November 8,
`2007 Remarks at 2-
`7; March 19, 2008
`claims and Remarks
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`Memorandum
`Opinion at 4-5,
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Eli Lilly and Co.,
`C.A. No. 14-113-
`RGA-MPT (D.
`Del.) (January 20,
`2015, Dkt. 192)
`
`Memorandum
`Opinion at 3-6,
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Merck Sharp &
`Dohme Corp.,
`C.A. No. 16-812-
`RGA (D. Del.)
`(January 12, 2018,
`Dkt. 192)
`
`Sanofi may rely on
`expert testimony
`that a POSITA
`during the relevant
`time period would
`have understood
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 5 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`“chemical entity”
`
`ʼ652 patent, claim 1,
`2, 7, 17, 18, 19, 23,
`24
`
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning, which a
`POSITA would understand to be
`“chemical compound.” No construction
`necessary.
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`at 8-9; April 15,
`2008 Non-Final
`Office Action at 2-4;
`July 15, 2008 claims
`
`’652 Patent:
`Abstract, 1:11-15,
`2:23-27; 2:38-41;
`3:41-45; 3:50-56;
`4:7-27, claims 1, 2,
`7, 8, 17-19, 23, 24.
`
`U.S. App.
`No.11/089,777 File
`History: March 25,
`2005 Transmittal of
`New Application
`claims and
`specification at 1, 3,
`5-7; March 21, 2007
`claims and Remarks
`at 6-10; April 25,
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`this term to have
`the meaning
`assigned to it by
`Sanofi’s proposed
`construction. This
`testimony may be
`provided by one of
`the following
`individuals:
`
`Ralph Tarantino
`George Gokel
`Lee Kirsch
`Bernhardt Trout
`Memorandum
`Opinion at 4-5,
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Eli Lilly and Co.,
`C.A. No. 14-113-
`RGA-MPT (D.
`Del.) (January 20,
`2015, Dkt. 192)
`
`Memorandum
`Opinion at 3-6,
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Merck Sharp &
`Dohme Corp.,
`C.A. No. 16-812-
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 6 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`2007Final Office
`Action at 2-3; July
`25, 2007 claims and
`Remarks at 7-8;
`August 8, 2007 Non-
`Final Office Action
`at 2-3; November 8,
`2007 Remarks at 2-
`7; March 19, 2008
`claims and Remarks
`at 8-9; April 15,
`2008 Non-Final
`Office Action at 2-4;
`July 15, 2008
`claims.
`
`“polysorbate”
`
`ʼ652 patent, claim 7,
`24
`
`Partial fatty acid esters of sorbitol and its
`anhydrides copolymerized with
`approximately 20, 5, or 4 moles of
`ethylene oxide for each mole of sorbitol
`and its anhydrides.
`
`’652 Patent: 3:52-
`55; 4:20-25; claims
`7, 24
`
`U.S. App. No.
`11/089,777 File
`History, March
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`RGA (D. Del.)
`(January 12, 2018,
`Dkt. 192)
`
`Sanofi may rely on
`expert testimony
`that a POSITA
`during the relevant
`time period would
`have understood
`this term to have
`the meaning
`assigned to it by
`Sanofi’s proposed
`construction. This
`testimony may be
`provided by one of
`the following
`individuals:
`
`Ralph Tarantino
`George Gokel
`Lee Kirsch
`Bernhardt Trout
`Memorandum
`Opinion at 2-3,
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Eli Lilly and Co.,
`C.A. No. 14-113-
`RGA-MPT (D.
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 7 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`21, 2007
`Amendment, at 5
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`Del.) (April 27,
`2015, Dkt. 236)
`
`“polysorbates”
`Handbook of
`Pharmaceutical
`Excipients 417
`(Arthur H. Kibbe
`ed., 3d ed. 2000)
`
`Remington: The
`Science and
`Practice of
`Pharmacy
`(Gennaro ed.,
`20th ed. 2000)
`
`THE MERCK
`INDEX
`(Maryadele J.
`O’Neil et al. eds.,
`13th ed. 1996)
`
`Sanofi may rely on
`expert testimony
`that a POSITA
`during the relevant
`time period would
`have understood
`this term to have
`the meaning
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 8 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`
`“polysorbate 20”
`
`ʼ652 patent, claim 1,
`2, 8, 23
`
`A laurate ester of sorbitol and its
`anhydrides copolymerized with
`approximately 20 moles of ethylene oxide
`for each mole of sorbitol and sorbitol
`anhydrides.
`
`’652 Patent: 3:52-
`55; 5:60-62;
`Examples 1-3,
`claims 1, 8
`
`U.S. App. No.
`11/089,777 File
`History, March 21,
`2007 Amendment at
`5.
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`assigned to it by
`Sanofi’s proposed
`construction. This
`testimony may be
`provided by one of
`the following
`individuals:
`
`Ralph Tarantino
`George Gokel
`Lee Kirsch
`Bernhardt Trout
`Memorandum
`Opinion at 4,
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Eli Lilly and Co.,
`C.A. No. 14- 113-
`RGA-MPT (D.
`Del.) (April 27,
`2015, Dkt. 236)
`
`“Polysorbate 20“
`The United States
`Pharmacopeia –
`The National
`Formulary (2002)
`
`Remington: The
`Science and
`Practice of
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 9 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`
`“polysorbate 80”
`
`ʼ652 patent, claim 1 An oleate ester of sorbitol and its
`
`’652 Patent: 3:52-
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`Pharmacy
`(Gennaro ed.,
`20th ed. 2000)
`
`Handbook of
`Pharmaceutical
`Excipients 417
`(Arthur H. Kibbe
`ed., 3d ed. 2000)
`
`Sanofi may rely on
`expert testimony
`that a POSITA
`during the relevant
`time period would
`have understood
`this term to have
`the meaning
`assigned to it by
`Sanofi’s proposed
`construction. This
`testimony may be
`provided by one of
`the following
`individuals:
`
`Ralph Tarantino
`George Gokel
`Lee Kirsch
`Bernhardt Trout
`Memorandum
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 10 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`anhydrides copolymerized with
`approximately 20 moles of ethylene oxide
`for each mole of sorbitol and sorbitol
`anhydrides.
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`55; claim 1
`
`U.S. App. No.
`11/089,777 File
`History, March 21,
`2007 Amendment at
`5
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`Opinion at 4,
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Eli Lilly and Co.,
`C.A. No. 14- 113-
`RGA-MPT
`(D.Del.) (April 27,
`2015, Dkt. 236)
`
`“Polysorbate 80”
`The United States
`Pharmacopeia –
`The National
`Formulary (2002)
`
`Remington: The
`Science and
`Practice of
`Pharmacy
`(Gennaro ed.,
`20th ed. 2000)
`
`Handbook of
`Pharmaceutical
`Excipients 417
`(Arthur H. Kibbe
`ed., 3d ed. 2000)
`
`THE MERCK
`INDEX
`(Maryadele J.
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 11 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`
`ʼ652 patent, claim 8
`
`“the polysorbate is
`present in an
`effective amount
`to prevent
`turbidity”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning, which a
`POSITA would understand to be “the
`polysorbate 20 is present in an effective
`amount to prevent cloudiness.” No
`construction necessary.
`
`’652 Patent: 3:26-
`31; 5:17-10:67;
`claim 8
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`O’Neil et al. eds.,
`13th ed. 1996)
`
`Sanofi may rely on
`expert testimony
`that a POSITA
`during the relevant
`time period would
`have understood
`this term to have
`the meaning
`assigned to it by
`Sanofi’s proposed
`construction. This
`testimony may be
`provided by one of
`the following
`individuals:
`
`Ralph Tarantino
`George Gokel
`Lee Kirsch
`Bernhardt Trout
`Memorandum
`Opinion at 4,
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Eli Lilly and Co.,
`C.A. No. 14- 113-
`RGA-MPT
`(D.Del.) (April 27,
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 12 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`2015, Dkt. 236)
`
`Sanofi may rely on
`expert testimony
`that a POSITA
`during the relevant
`time period would
`have understood
`this term to have
`the meaning
`assigned to it by
`Sanofi’s proposed
`construction. This
`testimony may be
`provided by one of
`the following
`individuals:
`
`Ralph Tarantino
`George Gokel
`Lee Kirsch
`Bernhardt Trout
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 13 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`“at least one
`chemical entity
`chosen from”
`
`ʼ930 patent, claim 1
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning, which a
`POSITA would understand to be “at least
`one chemical compound chosen from.”
`No construction necessary.
`
`Exhibit B
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Preliminary Claim Construction s and Supporting Evidence – U.S. Patent No. 7,713,930
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`’930 patent:
`Abstract, 1:15-26;
`2:27-31, 2:43-46;
`3:45-49; 3:54-60;
`4:12-33; claims 1,
`14-16
`
`U.S. App. No.
`11/089,777 File
`History: March 25,
`2005 Transmittal of
`New Application
`claims and
`specification at 1, 3,
`5-7; March 21, 2007
`claims and Remarks
`at 6-10; April 25,
`2007 Final Office
`Action at 2-3; July
`25, 2007 claims and
`Remarks at 7-8;
`August 8, 2007 Non-
`Final Office Action
`at 2-3; November 8,
`2007 Remarks at 2-
`7; March 19, 2008
`claims and Remarks
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`Memorandum
`Opinion at 4-5,
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Eli Lilly and Co.,
`C.A. No. 14-113-
`RGA-MPT
`(D.Del.) (January
`20, 2015, Dkt.
`192)
`
`Memorandum
`Opinion at 3-6,
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Merck Sharp &
`Dohme Corp.,
`C.A. No. 16-812-
`RGA (D. Del.)
`(January 12, 2018,
`Dkt. 192)
`
`Sanofi may rely on
`expert testimony
`that a POSITA
`during the relevant
`time period would
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 14 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`“chemical entity”
`
`ʼ930 patent, claim 1,
`14, 15, 16
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning, which a
`POSITA would understand to be
`“chemical compound.” No construction
`necessary.
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`at 8-9; April 15,
`2008 Non-Final
`Office Action at 2-4;
`July 15, 2008 claims
`
`U.S. App. No.
`12/328,208 File
`History: December
`4, 2008 Transmittal
`of New Application
`claims; June 17,
`2009 Non-Final
`Office Action at 2-4;
`September 16, 2009
`Response at 2
`’930 patent :
`Abstract, 1:15-26;
`2:27-31, 2:43-46;
`3:45-49; 3:54-60;
`4:12-33; claims 1,
`14-16
`
`U.S. App. No.
`11/089,777 File
`History: March 25,
`2005 Transmittal of
`New Application
`claims and
`specification at 1, 3,
`5-7; March 21, 2007
`claims and Remarks
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`have understood
`this term to have
`the meaning
`assigned to it by
`Sanofi’s proposed
`construction. This
`testimony may be
`provided by one of
`the following
`individuals:
`
`Ralph Tarantino
`George Gokel
`Lee Kirsch
`Bernhardt Trout
`Memorandum
`Opinion at 4-5,
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Eli Lilly and Co.,
`C.A. No. 14-113-
`RGA-MPT (D.
`Del.) (January 20,
`2015, Dkt. 192)
`
`Memorandum
`Opinion at 3-6,
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Merck Sharp &
`Dohme Corp.,
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 15 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`“esters and ethers
`of polyhdric
`alcohols”
`
`ʼ930 patent, claim 1 Chemical compounds in which one or
`more of the hydroxyl groups of a
`polyhydric alcohol instead of being a
`hydroxyl group is an ester (RCOO-X) or
`ether (RC-O-X) group.
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`at 6-10; April 25,
`2007 Final Office
`Action at 2-3; July
`25, 2007 claims and
`Remarks at 7-8;
`August 8, 2007 Non-
`Final Office Action
`at 2-3; November 8,
`2007 Remarks at 2-
`7; March 19, 2008
`claims and Remarks
`at 8-9; April 15,
`2008 Non-Final
`Office Action at 2-4;
`July 15, 2008 claims
`
`U.S. App. No.
`12/328,208 File
`History: December
`4, 2008 Transmittal
`of New Application
`claims; June 17,
`2009 Non-Final
`Office Action at 2-4;
`September 16, 2009
`Response at 2
`’930 patent: 3:55-60;
`4:23-32; claim 1
`
`U.S. App. No.
`11/089,777 File
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`C.A. No. 16-812-
`RGA (D. Del.)
`(January 12, 2018,
`Dkt. 192)
`
`Sanofi may rely on
`expert testimony
`that a POSITA
`during the relevant
`time period would
`have understood
`this term to have
`the meaning
`assigned to it by
`Sanofi’s proposed
`construction. This
`testimony may be
`provided by one of
`the following
`individuals:
`
`Ralph Tarantino
`George Gokel
`Lee Kirsch
`Bernhardt Trout
`
`Memorandum
`Opinion at 5-6,
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Eli Lilly and Co.,
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 16 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`History, July 25,
`2007 Amendment
`After Final, at 8;
`November 8, 2007
`Reply to Office
`Action, at 2-3
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`C.A. No. 14-113-
`RGA-MPT (D.
`Del.) (January 20,
`2015, Dkt. 192)
`
`Frey et al., U.S.
`Patent No.
`8,158,816.
`
`JOHN
`MCMURRAY &
`ROBERT C. FAY,
`CHEMISTRY
`942-79 (Paul F.
`Corey et al. eds.,
`2d ed. 1998)
`
`David Klein,
`ORGANIC
`CHEMISTRY,
`John Wiley &
`Sons (2012), pp.
`622-625, 979-983.
`
`Sanofi may rely on
`expert testimony
`that a POSITA
`during the relevant
`time period would
`have understood
`this term to have
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 17 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`the meaning
`assigned to it by
`Sanofi’s proposed
`construction. This
`testimony may be
`provided by one of
`the following
`individuals:
`
`Ralph Tarantino
`George Gokel
`Lee Kirsch
`Bernhardt Trout
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 18 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`“drive sleeve”
`
`Exhibit C
`
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed Preliminary Claim Construction s and Supporting Evidence –
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,603,044; 8,679,069; 8,992,486; 9,526,844; 9,604,008
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`’069 patent, claim 1
`
`’044 patent, claim 11
`
`’008 patent, claim 1
`
`An essentially tubular component of
`essentially circular cross-section
`releasably connected to the dose dial
`sleeve that drives the piston during dose
`dispensing.
`
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`’069 Patent: 1:51-
`54, 3:51-62; 6:6-34;
`claim 1
`
`’044 Patent: 1:62-
`65, 4:4-14; 6:27-
`6:55; claims 1, 3,
`11, 13
`
`’008 Patent:
`Abstract; 4:1-5;
`10:15-44; 13:30-67;
`16:25-60; claims 1,
`12
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`Memorandum
`Opinion at 10-11,
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Eli Lilly and Co.,
`C.A. No. 14-113-
`RGA-MPT
`(D.Del.) (January
`20, 2015, Dkt.
`192)
`
`Memorandum
`Opinion at 1, 14-
`16, Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Merck Sharp &
`Dohme Corp., C.A.
`No. 16-812-RGA
`(D. Del.) (January
`12, 2018, Dkt.
`192);
`
`Sanofi may rely
`on expert
`testimony that a
`POSITA during
`the relevant time
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 19 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`
`“said housing
`
`The main housing.
`
`’486 patent, claims 1,
`36
`
`’069 patent, claim 1
`
`’044 patent, claim 11
`
`’486 Patent: 5:3-16;
`claims 1, 27
`
`’069 Patent: 4:49-
`62; claim 1
`
`’044 Patent: 5:3-16;
`claims 1, 9, 11, 19
`
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`period would have
`understood this
`term to have the
`meaning assigned
`to it by Sanofi’s
`proposed
`construction. This
`testimony may be
`provided by one of
`the following
`individuals:
`
`Alexander Slocum
`Jonathan Posner
`Charles Reinholtz
`Robert Veasey
`Memorandum
`Opinion at 16-17,
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Eli Lilly and Co.,
`C.A. No. 14-113-
`RGA-MPT (D.
`Del.) (January 20,
`2015, Dkt. 192)
`
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Merck Sharp &
`Dohme Corp.,
`C.A. No. 16-812-
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 20 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`
`“main housing”
`
`’486 patent, claims 1,
`3, 4, 26, 27, 28, 38, 39
`
`’069 patent, claim 1
`
`’044 patent, claims 11,
`
`An exterior unitary or multipart
`component configured to house, fix,
`protect, guide, and/or engage with one or
`more inner components
`
`’486 patent:
`Abstract,
`1:42-2:3, 3:27-33,
`3:49-55, 4:17-26,
`5:7-32, 5:61-6:3;
`Figs. 1, 2; claims 1,
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`RGA (D. Del.)
`(January 29, 2018,
`Dkt. 205)
`
`Sanofi may rely
`on expert
`testimony that a
`POSITA during
`the relevant time
`period would have
`understood this
`term to have the
`meaning assigned
`to it by Sanofi’s
`proposed
`construction. This
`testimony may be
`provided by one of
`the following
`individuals:
`
`Alexander Slocum
`Jonathan Posner
`Charles Reinholtz
`Robert Veasey
`Memorandum
`Opinion at 7-9,
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Merck Sharp &
`Dohme Corp.,
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 21 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`18, 19
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`3, 4, 26, 27, 28, 31,
`35, 38, 39
`
`’069 patent:
`Abstract, 1:34-2:2,
`3:8-14, 3:29-35,
`3:63-4:5, 4:53-67,
`5:1-11, 5:40-49;
`Figs. 1, 2; claims 1,
`2
`
`’044 patent:
`Abstract, 1:44-2:3,
`3:27-33, 3:49-55,
`4:17-26, 5:7-32,
`5:61-6:3; Figs. 1, 2;
`claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 9,
`10, 11, 20
`
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`C.A. No. 16-812-
`RGA (D. Del.)
`(January 12, 2018,
`Dkt. 192)
`
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Merck Sharp &
`Dohme Corp.,
`C.A. No. 16-812-
`RGA (D. Del.)
`(January 29, 2018,
`Dkt. 205)
`
`Sanofi may rely
`on expert
`testimony that a
`POSITA during
`the relevant time
`period would have
`understood this
`term to have the
`meaning assigned
`to it by Sanofi’s
`proposed
`construction. This
`testimony may be
`provided by one of
`the following
`individuals:
`
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 22 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`
`“tubular clutch”
`
`’486 patent, claims 1,
`2, 6, 26
`
`’069 patent, claim 1
`
`’044 patent, claims 11,
`18
`
`A tubular structure that couples and
`decouples a moveable component from
`another component.
`
`’486 Patent: 4:33-
`35; 4:49-5:6; 5:50-
`53; 6:27-44; claims
`1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 19,
`21, 26, 34
`
`’069 Patent: 4:12-
`14; 4:28-41; 4:49-
`52; 5:29-32; 6:6-22;
`claims 1, 3
`
`’044 Patent: 4:33-
`35; 4:49-5:6; 5:50-
`53; 6:27-43; claims
`1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 12, 16,
`18
`
`’008 Patent: 1:60-
`2:7
`
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`Alexander Slocum
`Jonathan Posner
`Charles Reinholtz
`Robert Veasey
`Memorandum
`Opinion at 12-13,
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Eli Lilly and Co.,
`C.A. No. 14-113-
`RGA-MPT (D.
`Del.) (January 20,
`2015, Dkt. 192);
`
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Merck Sharp &
`Dohme Corp.,
`C.A. No. 16-812-
`RGA (D. Del.)
`(January 29, 2018,
`Dkt. 205)
`
`Sanofi may rely
`on expert
`testimony that a
`POSITA during
`the relevant time
`period would have
`understood this
`term to have the
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 23 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`
`“clutch”
`
`’486 patent, claims 51,
`52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57
`
`’008 patent, claim 1
`
`’844 patent, claims 23,
`24, 25, 26, 28
`
`A structure that couples and decouples a
`moveable component from another
`component
`
`’486 Patent:4:33-35;
`4:49-5:6; 5:50-53;
`6:27-43; claims 51,
`52, 53, 54, 55, 56,
`57
`
`’008 Patent: 1:60-
`2:7, 4:14-18; 4:62-
`5:20; 8:34-8:52;
`9:36-10:31; 11:57-
`12:4; 12:48-67;
`13:30-41; claims 1,
`10
`
`’844 Patent: 4:42-
`5:9; 5:54-6:54;
`claims 23-26, 28
`
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`meaning assigned
`to it by Sanofi’s
`proposed
`construction. This
`testimony may be
`provided by one of
`the following
`individuals:
`
`Alexander Slocum
`Jonathan Posner
`Charles Reinholtz
`Robert Veasey
`Memorandum
`Opinion at 12-13,
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Eli Lilly and Co.,
`C.A. No. 14-113-
`RGA-MPT (D.
`Del.) (January 20,
`2015, Dkt. 192)
`
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Merck Sharp &
`Dohme Corp.,
`C.A. No. 16-812-
`RGA (D. Del.)
`(January 29, 2018,
`Dkt. 205)
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 24 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`“driver”
`
`’486 patent, claims 1,
`5, 12, 13
`
`A component releasably connected to the
`dose dial sleeve that drives the piston
`during dose dispensing
`
`
`
`’486 Patent:
`Abstract, 1:50-52;
`4:4-14; 6:28-56;
`claims 1, 5, 9, 12,
`13, 42, 43, 49
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`
`
`Sanofi may rely
`on expert
`testimony that a
`POSITA during
`the relevant time
`period would have
`understood this
`term to have the
`meaning assigned
`to it by Sanofi’s
`proposed
`construction. This
`testimony may be
`provided by one of
`the following
`individuals:
`
`Alexander Slocum
`Jonathan Posner
`Charles Reinholtz
`Robert Veasey
`Memorandum
`Opinion at 10-11,
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Eli Lilly and Co.,
`C.A. No. 14-113-
`RGA-MPT
`(D.Del.) (January
`20, 2015, Dkt.
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 25 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`192)
`
`Memorandum
`Opinion at 1, 14-
`16, Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Merck Sharp &
`Dohme Corp., C.A.
`No. 16-812-RGA
`(D. Del.) (January
`12, 2018, Dkt.
`192);
`
`Sanofi may rely
`on expert
`testimony that a
`POSITA during
`the relevant time
`period would have
`understood this
`term to have the
`meaning assigned
`to it by Sanofi’s
`proposed
`construction. This
`testimony may be
`provided by one of
`the following
`individuals:
`
`Alexander Slocum
`Jonathan Posner
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 26 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`’844 patent, claim 21
`
`“the piston rod and
`the driving member
`are configured to
`rotate relative to one
`another during dose
`dispensing”
`
`Plain and Ordinary Meaning, which a
`POSITA would understand to be “during
`dose dispensing, the piston rod rotates
`while the driving member does not rotate,
`the driving member rotates while the
`piston rod does not rotate, or both rotate at
`different rates and/or directions.”
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`
`’844 Patent: 6:38-
`67; Figure 11;
`Claim 21
`
`“piston rod”
`
`’486 patent, claims 1,
`23, 40
`
`’069 patent, claim 1
`
`’044 patent, claim 11
`
`’008 patent, claims 1,
`
`A rod that engages with the drive
`sleeve/driver/driving member to advance
`the piston during dose dispensing
`
`’486 Patent:
`Abstract; 1:46;
`1:62-65; 3:56-4:14;
`6:28-56; claims 1, 9,
`23, 35, 40
`
`’069 Patent:
`Abstract; 1:36;
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`Charles Reinholtz
`Robert Veasey
`Sanofi may rely
`on expert
`testimony that a
`POSITA during
`the relevant time
`period would have
`understood this
`term to have the
`meaning assigned
`to it by Sanofi’s
`proposed
`construction. This
`testimony may be
`provided by one of
`the following
`individuals:
`
`Alexander Slocum
`Jonathan Posner
`Charles Reinholtz
`Robert Veasey
`Memorandum
`Opinion at 16,
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Eli Lilly and Co.,
`C.A. No. 14-113-
`RGA-MPT (D.
`Del.) (January 20,
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 27 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`8, 17
`
`’844 patent, claims 21,
`22
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`1:51-54; 3:36-60;
`6:6-34; claims 1, 2
`
`’044 Patent:
`Abstract; 1:46;
`1:50-52; 1:62-65;
`4:4-4:14; 6:27-55;
`claims 1, 3, 11, 13
`
`’008 Patent: 1:32-
`36; 4:1-5; 4:19-46;
`7:40-65; 10:15-44;
`13:30-67; claim 1,
`12
`
`’844 Patent:
`Abstract; 1:52; 2:1-
`4; 4:13-23; 6:38-67;
`claims 21, 22
`
`
`“driving member”
`
`’844 patent, claims 21,
`28
`
`A component releasably connected to the
`dose dial sleeve that drives the piston
`during dose dispensing
`
`
`’844 Patent: 1:56-
`58; 4:13-23; 6:38-
`67; claims 1, 21
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`2015, Dkt. 192)
`
`Sanofi may rely
`on expert
`testimony that a
`POSITA during
`the relevant time
`period would have
`understood this
`term to have the
`meaning assigned
`to it by Sanofi’s
`proposed
`construction. This
`testimony may be
`provided by one of
`the following
`individuals:
`
`Alexander Slocum
`Jonathan Posner
`Charles Reinholtz
`Robert Veasey
`Memorandum
`Opinion at 10-11,
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Eli Lilly and Co.,
`C.A. No. 14-113-
`RGA-MPT (D.
`Del.) (January 20,
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 28 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`2015, Dkt. 192)
`
`Memorandum
`Opinion at 1, 14-
`16, Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Merck Sharp &
`Dohme Corp., C.A.
`No. 16-812-RGA
`(D. Del.) (January
`12, 2018, Dkt.
`192);
`
`Sanofi may rely
`on expert
`testimony that a
`POSITA during
`the relevant time
`period would have
`understood this
`term to have the
`meaning assigned
`to it by Sanofi’s
`proposed
`construction. This
`testimony may be
`provided by one of
`the following
`individuals:
`
`Alexander Slocum
`Jonathan Posner
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 29 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`A rib or groove on a first structure that
`engages a corresponding groove or rib on
`a second structure
`
`
`“thread”/“threaded”/
`”threading”
`
`’044 patent, claim 11
`
`’069 patent, claim 1
`
`’486 patent, claim 1
`
`’844 patent, claim 21
`
`’008 patent, claim 1,
`7, 8, 11, 17
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`
`’044 Patent:
`Abstract; 1:44-2:3,
`2:7-16, 3:49-55,
`3:56-4:3, 4:4-14,
`4:17-26, 5:3-16,
`5:61-6:3, 6:27-34;
`claims 1, 7, 9-11,
`17, 19, 20
`
`’069 Patent:
`Abstract; 1:34-59,
`1;63-2:4, 3:29-47,
`3:51-60, 4:49-62,
`5:40-49, 5:50-56,
`6:6-13; claim 1
`
`’486 patent:
`Abstract, 1:41-2:3,
`4:3-16, 5:7-21,
`5:61-6:11, 6:27-35,
`6:63-65, 7:4-10;
`claims 1, 24, 25, 31,
`43
`
`’844 patent:
`Abstract, 1:53-65,
`3:58-64, 3:65-4:9,
`4:13-23, 4:26-35,
`6:4-13, 6:14-21;
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`Charles Reinholtz
`Robert Veasey
`Memorandum
`Opinion at 9-10,
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S. LLC et al. v.
`Eli Lilly and Co.,
`C.A. No. 14-113-
`RGA-MPT (D.
`Del.) (January 20,
`2015, Dkt. 192)
`
`Excerpt from The
`Mechanical
`Engineer, dated
`January 5, 1917;
`
`Excerpt from
`Uicker, Matrix
`Methods in the
`Design Analysis
`of Mechanisms
`and Multibody
`Systems,
`Cambridge Univ.
`Press, 2013;
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`8,257,319;
`
`Sanofi may rely
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 30 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`“clicker”
`
`’044 patent, claim 14,
`15
`
`’486 patent, claims
`14-18, 20
`
`’844 patent, claim 29
`
`A structure that provides audible and/or
`tactile feedback when the dose knob is
`rotated
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`claim 21
`
`’008 patent:
`Abstract, 2:11-31,
`2:37-44, 2:66-3:27,
`3:28-36, 3:43-67,
`4:6-11, 4:30-37,
`4:40-46, 7:40-65,
`8:1-11; claims 1, 6-
`8, 11, 14-18
`
`’044 Patent: 4:33-
`5:16; 5:50-50;
`claims 14, 15
`
`’486 Patent: 4:33-
`5:16; 5:50-60;
`claims 14, 15, 16,
`17, 18, 19, 20
`
`’844 Patent: 4:42-
`5:26; 5:60-6:3;
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`on expert
`testimony that a
`POSITA during
`the relevant time
`period would have
`understood this
`term to have the
`meaning assigned
`to it by Sanofi’s
`proposed
`construction. This
`testimony may be
`provided by one of
`the following
`individuals:
`
`Alexander Slocum
`Jonathan Posner
`Charles Reinholtz
`Robert Veasey
`Sanofi-Aventis
`U.S., LLC, et al. v.
`Mylan GMBH et
`al., C.A. No. 17-
`cv-09105-SRC-
`CLW, Mylan
`Invalidity
`Contentions,
`Cover Document
`at 202-204, 268,
`415-417, 438-440;
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 31 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`claims 12, 29
`
`“insert”
`
`’486 patent, claims
`38-40
`
`’008 patent, claims 1,
`3
`
`
`Plain and Ordinary Meaning, which a
`POSITA would understand to be “an
`internal structure” as defined in each of
`the claims in which it appears.
`
`E.g.,
`
`’486 patent, claim 38 (“provided at a
`distal end of the main housing”; “secured
`
`’486 Patent: 1:57-
`59; 3:49-55; claims
`38, 39, 40; Fig 1, 3-
`5
`
`’008 Patent: 7:33-
`39; 10:59-67; claims
`1, 3
`
`
`EXTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`
`
`Sanofi may rely
`on expert
`testimony that a
`POSITA during
`the relevant time
`period would have
`understood this
`term to have the
`meaning assigned
`to it by Sanofi’s
`proposed
`construction. This
`testimony may be
`provided by one of
`the following
`individuals:
`
`Alexander Slocum
`Jonathan Posner
`Charles Reinholtz
`Robert Veasey
`Sanofi may rely
`on expert
`testimony that a
`POSITA during
`the relevant time
`period would have
`understood this
`term to have the
`meaning assigned
`
`PFIZER, INC. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
`
`Ex. 1019, p. 32 of 34
`
`

`

`TERM
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`CONSTRUCTION
`
`INTRINSIC
`EVIDENCE
`
`against rotation”), claim 39 (“provided at
`a distal end of the main housing”;
`“secured against longitudinal motion”),
`claim 40 (“an opening extending
`therethrough, such that said piston rod is
`configured to extend through said
`opening”);
`
`’008 patent, claim 1 (“provided in the
`housing, where t

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