UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FINTIV, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No.: IPR2020-00019
`U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125
`
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING MOBILE
`WALLET AND ITS RELATED CREDENTIALS
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING PURSUANT TO
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(b) and (d)
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`FINTIV, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No.: IPR2020-00019
`U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125
`
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING MOBILE
`WALLET AND ITS RELATED CREDENTIALS
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING PURSUANT TO
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(b) and (d)
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`Page
`
`V.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................... 2
`II.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND......................................................................... 2
`III.
`IV. APPLICABLE LAW ...................................................................................... 4
`A.
`Standard of Review .............................................................................. 4
`RATIONALE FOR REHEARING ................................................................ 4
`A.
`The Board Abused its Discretion when it Granted Apple’s
`Request for Leave to File the IPR Supplement Without
`Requiring Apple to File a Motion ........................................................ 4
`The Board’s Decision to Hold a Merit Hearing Regarding
`Apple’s Request to Supplement Overlooked and Violated the
`Administrative Procedures Act and Deprived Fintiv of Due
`Process .................................................................................................. 6
`The Board Overlooked Apple’s Failure to Satisfy the
`Requirements that Information Could Not Have Been Obtained
`Earlier or that the Filing is in the Interest of Justice to be
`Permitted to Supplement ...................................................................... 8
`The Board Misapprehended Patent Owner’s Need for the Full
`Three Months Provided by 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.107(b) and
`42.207(b) to Respond to Apple IPR ..................................................... 9
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 11
`
`D.
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Abbott Labs. v. Cordis Corp.,
`710 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 6
`Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC,
`818 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 7
`Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`Case No. 6:18-CV-372-ADA (W.D. Tex.) ........................................................... 2
`Motor Vehicle Mfs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
`Co.,
`463 U.S. 29, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) ........................................ 10
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC.,
`825 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), rev’d and remanded sub nom. SAS
`Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 200 L. Ed. 2d 695 (2018)............................ 6
`Statutes
`5 U.S.C. § 554(b)(3)............................................................................................... 6, 7
`5 U.S.C. § 554(c) ....................................................................................................... 6
`5 U.S.C. § 556(d) ....................................................................................................... 6
`Administrative Procedures Act .........................................................................passim
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(b) .............................................................................................. 1, 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71 (c) .................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71 (d) ......................................................................................... 1, 2, 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ................................................................................................ 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b) ................................................................................................ 9
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00019
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.207(b) ................................................................................................ 9
`37 CPR. § 42.207(b) ................................................................................................ 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123 ................................................................................................. 5, 8
`37 CPR. § 42.123 ................................................................................................. 5, 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123(c) ......................................................................................... 1, 4, 5
`37 CPR. § 42.123(c) ......................................................................................... 1, 4, 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.223(c) ............................................................................................. 1, 5
`37 CPR. § 42.223(c) ............................................................................................. 1, 5
`
`-iii-
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`Declaration of John W. Downing in Support of
`Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`Email dated 11-20-19 from Travis Jensen to counsel
`for Fintiv re seeking leave to file Markman order
`Email dated 11-22-19 from Travis Jensen to the
`Board requesting a conference call
`Email dated 12-3-19 from Travis Jensen to John
`Downing re Apple intending to rely on Section
`II.B.6 of the July 2019 Trial Practice Guide Update
`Email dated 12-3-19 from Travis Jensen to the
`Board confirming parties met and conferred
`July 2019 Trial Practice Guide
`
`Patent Owner’s Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Fintiv, Inc. (“Fintiv” or “Patent Owner”) respectfully requests, pursuant to 37
`
`CFR §§ 42.71(b) and (d), a panel rehearing of the Board’s decision (Paper 6)
`
`(“Order”) to grant Apple’s request to supplement IPR 2020-00019 (Paper 1) (“Apple
`
`IPR”) prior to a decision on institution. The Order granted Apple’s request to
`
`supplement the Apple IPR and denied Fintiv’s alternative request for additional time
`
`to file a preliminary response.
`
`The Board, however, abused its discretion in holding a hearing and granting
`
`Apple’s request to supplement because Apple did not file a motion pursuant to 37
`
`CFR §§ 42.123(c) and 42.223(c), which is required before the Board can grant
`
`permission to supplement a pre-institution IPR. The Order additionally violated the
`
`Administrative Procedures Act (the “APA”) and Fintiv’s procedural and substantive
`
`due process rights. Specifically, because the Board did not require Apple to submit
`
`a motion pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.123(c) and 42.223(c), Fintiv was forced to
`
`respond to Apple’s arguments (many of which Fintiv heard for the first time during
`
`the hearing) in real-time thus depriving Fintiv of a meaningful opportunity to be
`
`heard and respond to Apple’s request. Finally, the Board abused its discretion when
`
`it failed to grant Fintiv’s alternative request for additional time to file its preliminary
`
`response. For these reasons, Fintiv respectfully requests that the Board grant Fintiv’s
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`request for a panel rehearing and reverse its decision that permitted Apple to submit
`
`a supplemental IPR petition (“IPR Supplement) and strike the same.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.71(b) and (d), a panel rehearing of the Board’s
`
`Order granting Apple’s request to supplement the Apple IPR prior to a decision on
`
`institution.
`
`III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`On November 20, 2019 Apple contacted Fintiv to request leave to file the
`
`Markman order in the district court action Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-
`
`CV-372-ADA (W.D. Tex.) once it was entered in the related District Court action.
`
`(Ex. 2001 (Downing Declaration) at ¶ 3; Ex. 2002 (November 20 email to Fintiv’s
`
`counsel.) Apple also requested permission to file a brief paper and accompanying
`
`exhibits that addressed how Apple contended the prior art satisfied the district
`
`court’s construction of “OTA proxy” because the district court indicated during the
`
`claim construction hearing that it was not adopting either party’s construction of
`
`OTA proxy. Id. Fintiv opposed Apple’s request.
`
`On November 22, 2019 Fintiv emailed the Board requesting a conference call
`
`and seeking permission to file the district court Markman Order once it was entered,
`
`as well as a “5-page paper (and accompanying exhibits) that address how Apple
`
`contends the prior art satisfies one claim construction issued by the district court that
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`was not proposed by either party.” (Ex. 2001 at ¶ 4; Ex. 2003 (November 22 email
`
`to Board).) The parties met and conferred on November 25th and December 3rd.
`
`(Ex. 2001 at ¶¶ 1-2.) During meet and confer discussions, Apple indicated that it
`
`planned to submit an industry standard to support the “OTA proxy” limitation. (Ex.
`
`2001 at ¶ 2.) Apple did not provide specifics on what exactly would be submitted,
`
`would not rule out submitting an expert declaration, and would not provide Fintiv
`
`with the proposed IPR supplement prior to filing. (Ex. 2001 at ¶ 2.) After the meet
`
`and confer, Apple advised that the IPR Supplement request was based on the July
`
`2019 Practice Guide, which states that “as soon as that determination becomes
`
`available … [p]referably, the prior claim construction determination should be
`
`submitted with the petition, preliminary response, or response, along with
`
`explanations.” (Ex. 2001 at ¶ 5; Ex. 2004 (December 3 email regarding Apple’s
`
`grounds for seeking supplement).)
`
`The Board held a teleconference on December 5, 2019 and issued an Order
`
`on December 6, 2019 (Paper 6). Over Fintiv’s objection, the Order granted Apple
`
`permission to submit 1000 additional words to address the district court’s claim
`
`construction. The Board held that timing warrants submission of the Markman order
`
`along with a supplemental brief “so that the district court’s claim construction and
`
`Petitioner’s arguments are on record as soon as possible in this proceeding.” (Order
`
`at 3.) The Board denied Fintiv’s alternate request for additional time to respond to
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`the IPR Supplement finding that “more than ten weeks” was “ample time for Patent
`
`Owner to incorporate into that paper any response to arguments in Petitioner’s
`
`supplemental brief.” (Order at 4.)
`
`IV. APPLICABLE LAW
`A.
`Standard of Review
`The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden
`
`of showing the decision should be modified. (37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).) A request for
`
`rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board
`
`misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously
`
`addressed.” Id. Upon a request for rehearing, the decision on a petition will be
`
`reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. at § 42.71(c).
`
`V.
`
`RATIONALE FOR REHEARING
`
`Patent Owner specifically identifies all matters that it believes the Board
`
`overlooked in rendering its Decision.
`
`A.
`
`The Board Abused its Discretion when it Granted Apple’s
`Request for Leave to File the IPR Supplement Without
`Requiring Apple to File a Motion
`The Board abused its discretion and overlooked Section 42.123(c) when it
`
`held a hearing on Apple’s request to supplement without requiring Apple to file a
`
`motion. Section 42.123(c) is clear that a party seeking to submit supplemental
`
`information must request authorization to file a motion to submit the information:
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`(c) Other supplemental information. A party seeking to submit
`supplemental information not relevant to a claim for which the trial has
`been instituted must request authorization to file a motion to submit
`the information. The motion must show why the supplemental
`information reasonably could not have been obtained earlier, and that
`consideration of the supplemental information would be in the
`interests-of-justice.
`
`(37 C.F.R. §42.123(c) (emphasis added).) Apple did not submit a motion that
`
`explained why the information reasonably could not have been obtained earlier and
`
`that explained why the filing was in the interests-of-justice.1 Although the Order
`
`cites to the PTAB’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide in rationalizing its decision,
`
`the Board overlooked the guide’s unequivocal statement that “a motion to submit
`
`supplemental information must meet the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.123 or
`
`42.223.” (Ex. 2001 at ¶ 7; Ex. 2006 (Trial Practice Guide 2019 Update) at 41.)
`
`Absent a motion, notice, and opportunity for Fintiv to meaningfully respond to
`
`Apple’s request to supplement, the Board had no grounds to grant Apple’s request.
`
`Because the Board overlooked 37 C.F.R. §42.123(c), largely because Apple did not
`
`identify the applicable standard in its correspondence to the Board, the Board abused
`
`its discretion in granting Apple’s motion. Accordingly, Fintiv requests that the
`
`Board grant Fintiv’s motion for a rehearing and strike Apple’s IPR Supplement
`
`1 Apple sought to supplement its IPR petition based on the July 2019 Trial Practice
`Guide Update. (Ex. 2001 at ¶ 5; Ex. 2004.)
`-5-
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`which does not comply with the rules to supplement an IPR petition before
`
`institution.
`
`B.
`
`The Board’s Decision to Hold a Merit Hearing Regarding
`Apple’s Request to Supplement Overlooked and Violated the
`Administrative Procedures Act and Deprived Fintiv of Due
`Process
`The Board’s decision to hold a hearing on Apple’s request to supplement its
`
`IPR petition without providing Fintiv with the opportunity to know and respond to
`
`Apple’s request violated the APA and deprived Fintiv of procedural and substantive
`
`due process. Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard by an
`
`impartial decision-maker. Abbott Labs. v. Cordis Corp., 710 F.3d 1318, 1328 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2013). As formal administrative adjudications, IPRs are subject to the
`
`Administrative Procedures Act (“the APA”). SAS Inst., Inc. v. ComplementSoft,
`
`LLC., 825 F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016), rev'd and remanded sub nom. SAS Inst.,
`
`Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 200 L. Ed. 2d 695 (2018). Under the APA, the Board
`
`must inform the parties of “the matters of fact and law asserted.” (5 U.S.C. §
`
`554(b)(3).) It also must give the parties an opportunity to submit facts and arguments
`
`for consideration. Id. § 554(c). Each party is entitled to present oral and
`
`documentary evidence in support of its case, as well as rebuttal evidence. Id. §
`
`556(d).
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`Here, the Board abused its discretion and overlooked the APA requirements
`
`by holding a hearing that was not authorized under the rules. Although Fintiv
`
`learned general details in the meet-and-confer regarding Apple’s basis for
`
`supplementing
`
`its petition, Apple revealed
`
`little about what
`
`the actual
`
`supplementation would include. (Ex. 2001 at ¶ 1-3.) Apple disclosed only that the
`
`supplement would include five additional pages, a few exhibits regarding the skill
`
`of one in the art, an industry standard, and possibly an expert declaration. Id. Apple
`
`did not provide relevant details regarding what specifically it was submitting or the
`
`amount of material in the proposed supplement. Apple also refused to share the
`
`proposed filing and exhibits with Fintiv in advance of the hearing. Id. Thus, Fintiv
`
`was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to be heard as required by the APA and
`
`due process because Apple was able to hide details regarding the proposed
`
`supplement until the hearing. Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 818 F.3d 1293, 1300-01
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that the Board, in relying on factual assertions the
`
`petitioner introduced for the first time at the oral hearing, violated § 554(b)(3)
`
`because the patent owner did not have a meaningful opportunity to respond).
`
`Therefore, the Board should grant rehearing and strike Apple’s IPR Supplement.
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`The Board Overlooked Apple’s Failure to Satisfy the
`Requirements that Information Could Not Have Been
`Obtained Earlier or that the Filing is in the Interest of Justice
`to be Permitted to Supplement
`The Board further committed an abuse of discretion by authorizing
`
`supplementation of the Apple IPR petition because the district court’s claim
`
`construction order could have been obtained earlier and the filing of the
`
`supplemental petition was not in the interests of justice. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.123 or
`
`42.223. As an initial matter, Patent Owner will submit the district court’s claim
`
`construction order with Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Ex. 2001 at ¶ 7; Ex.
`
`2006 at 47; Order at 3) and the Board will consider a timely submitted claim
`
`construction order from the district court. See 37 C.F.R. 42.100(b). Thus, the
`
`interest of justice does not require Apple’s IPR supplement because there is no
`
`circumstance under which the Board would not have been timely made aware of the
`
`district court’s claim construction order.
`
`Setting this aside, the Board has less prejudicial ways of receiving the district
`
`court’s claim construction. Specifically, Apple’s deadline to file an IPR petition has
`
`not lapsed. Apple could easily dismiss its current petition and refile one that includes
`
`arguments related to the district court’s construction. This is less prejudicial because
`
`it allows Apple to submit a petition within the IPR word limit and provides Fintiv
`
`with the full statutory time to respond. But instead, Apple wants to keep the current
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`schedule, submit a petition over the word limit, introduce multiple new prior art
`
`references without submitting the supplement to Fintiv and the Board to review prior
`
`to a decision on leave to supplement, and reduce Fintiv’s time to respond to the
`
`petition. This result is not in the interest of justice, it instead places the parties on
`
`uneven ground for no reason, except for Apple’s desire to keep the current schedule.
`
`This is simply not an “unanticipated event” that can serve as a basis to add new
`
`material into a petition that has not been instituted.
`
`D.
`
`The Board Misapprehended Patent Owner’s Need for the
`Full Three Months Provided by 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.107(b) and
`42.207(b) to Respond to Apple IPR
`The Board additionally abused its discretion by denying Fintiv’s request for
`
`additional time if Apple was allowed to supplement its petition. The Board’s
`
`decision to deny Fintiv an extension to its deadline to file a preliminary response
`
`also overlooked and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.107(b) and 42.207(b) which provides the Patent
`
`Owner three months, from the notice of the IPR filing date, to submit a preliminary
`
`response. The Order is particularly prejudicial in this case because the volume of
`
`material in Apple’s IPR supplement exceeded 500 pages of prior art. The
`
`voluminous nature of Apple’s IPR supplement was not known to the Board when
`
`the Order was issued. Given the amount of new material to be reviewed, Fintiv is
`
`severely prejudiced by having less than the full time period provided in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§§ 42.107(b) and 42.207(b).
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`However, the prejudice to Fintiv can be mitigated. The 2019 Practice Guide
`
`that the Board relied on to grant Apple’s request to supplement (Order at 3) states
`
`that a final written decision will be entered not more than one year, but “time may
`
`be extended up to six months for good cause.” (Practice Guide at 44.) To the extent
`
`that the Board believed that allowing Apple to supplement its petition on the stated
`
`grounds “was in the interests of justice,” the Board should have also concluded that
`
`good cause exists to extend the schedule in this case to prevent prejudice to the patent
`
`owner. (Emphasis added.) The Board’s determination that two months was “ample”
`
`is conclusory and contrary to the APA; indeed, the Court had no basis to determine
`
`that 10 weeks was sufficient since Apple did not file a motion attaching its proposed
`
`supplement prior to the Order and the precise size and scope of Apple’s IPR
`
`supplement was not known to the Board, and thus could not have been examined
`
`before the Order was issued. See Motor Vehicle Mfs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State
`
`Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983)
`
`(“[T]he agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory
`
`explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found
`
`and the choice made.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons above, Fintiv respectfully requests that a panel rehear and
`
`reverse the Order allowing Apple to supplement its IPR petition because Apple did
`
`not comply with the statutory grounds for requesting supplementation of its IPR.
`
`Date: December 20, 2019
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Jonathan K. Waldrop
`Name: Jonathan K. Waldrop
`Registration No.: 50,334
`Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP
`333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`CERTIFICATE OF PAGE LIMIT
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24, the undersigned certifies that the foregoing
`
`Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(b) and (d)
`
`is below 15 pages excluding a table of contents, a table of authorities, mandatory
`
`notices under § 42.8, a certificate of service or word count, or appendix of exhibits
`
`or claim listing.
`
`Dated: December 20, 2019
`
`/s/ Jonathan K. Waldrop
`Jonathan K. Waldrop, Reg. No. 50,334
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00019
`Patent No.: 8,843,125
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on December 20, 2019, I caused a true and correct copy
`
`of the foregoing Patent Owner’s Request For Rehearing Pursuant To 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.71(b) and (d) to be served via electronic mail upon the following counsel of
`
`record for Petitioner:
`
`Travis Jensen
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
`tjensen@orrick.com
`
`K. Patrick Herman
`Tyler Miller
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`51 West 52nd Street
`New York, NY 10019
`t61ptabdocket@orrick.com
`p52ptabdocket@orrick.com
`tmiller@orrick.com
`pherman@orrick.com
`AppleFintiv_OHS@orrick.com
`
`Dated: December 20, 2019
`
`/s/ Jonathan K. Waldrop
`Jonathan K. Waldrop, Reg. No. 50,334
`
`-13-
`
`
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
