Filed: December 9, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`PROLLENIUM US INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALLERGAN INDUSTRIE, SAS,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`IPR2019-01505 (Patent 8,450,475)
`IPR2019-01506 (Patent 8,357,795)
`IPR2019-01508 (Patent 9,238,013)
`IPR2019-01509 (Patent 9,358,322)
`IPR2019-01617 (Patent 8,822,676)
`IPR2019-01632 (Patent 8,357,795)
`IPR2020-00084 (Patent 9,089,519)
`
`_________________
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)1
`
`
`1 Authorization for the use of a joint caption page was received on April 27, 2020.
`Neither party opposes the use of a joint caption page. An identical paper has been
`filed in each case recited in the consolidated caption.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`PROLLENIUM US INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALLERGAN INDUSTRIE, SAS,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________
`
`IPR2019-01505 (Patent 8,450,475)
`IPR2019-01506 (Patent 8,357,795)
`IPR2019-01508 (Patent 9,238,013)
`IPR2019-01509 (Patent 9,358,322)
`IPR2019-01617 (Patent 8,822,676)
`IPR2019-01632 (Patent 8,357,795)
`IPR2020-00084 (Patent 9,089,519)
`
`_________________
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)1
`
`
`1 Authorization for the use of a joint caption page was received on April 27, 2020.
`Neither party opposes the use of a joint caption page. An identical paper has been
`filed in each case recited in the consolidated caption.
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01505, IPR2019-01506, IPR2019-01508, IPR2019-01509,
`IPR2019-01617, IPR2019-01632, IPR2020-00084
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 1
`A. Exhibits 2083 and 2084 are inadmissible hearsay .......................................... 1
`B. Multiple exhibits are irrelevant as non-prior art used to argue no expectation
`of success at the time of the priority date ....................................................... 4
`C. Portions of Dr. Prestwich’s deposition testimony are inadmissible because
`Allergan’s questions strayed far beyond the scope of the direct testimony for
`which Prollenium presented him .................................................................... 6
`1. Dr. Prestwich did not offer opinions related to specific grounds in his
`direct testimony .......................................................................................... 8
`2. Dr. Prestwich did not offer opinions regarding the priority date of claims
`in the challenged patents ............................................................................ 9
`3. Dr. Prestwich did not offer testimony regarding the public availability of
`documents submitted to FDA ................................................................... 11
`III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01505, IPR2019-01506, IPR2019-01508, IPR2019-01509,
`IPR2019-01617, IPR2019-01632, IPR2020-00084
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Abbreviation
`BDDE
`Challenged
`Patents
`HA
`POSITA
`1505 Sur-Reply
`0084 Sur-Reply
`Sur-Replies
`
`1505 Response
`
`
`
`
`
`Term
`butanediol diglycidyl ether
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,450,475; 8,357,795; 9,238,013;
`9,358,322; 8,822,676; and 9,089,519, collectively
`hyaluronic acid
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`IPR2019-01505, Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply, Paper 52
`IPR2020-00084, Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply, Paper 48
`IPR2019-01505, Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply, Paper 52;
`IPR2019-01506, Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply, Paper 54;
`IPR2019-01508, Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply, Paper 55;
`IPR2019-01509, Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply, Paper 53;
`IPR2019-01617, Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply, Paper 53;
`IPR2019-01632, Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply, Paper 54; and
`IPR2020-00084, Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply, Paper 48,
`collectively
`IPR2019-01505, Patent Owner Response, Paper 41 (cited as
`exemplary of citations for the remaining proceedings)
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01505, IPR2019-01506, IPR2019-01508, IPR2019-01509,
`IPR2019-01617, IPR2019-01632, IPR2020-00084
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c), Petitioner Prollenium US Inc. (“Prollenium”)
`
`moves to exclude certain evidence, submissions, and information presented by
`
`Patent Owner Allergan Industrie, SAS (“Allergan”) in the IPRs of the Challenged
`
`Patents. A single, combined motion to exclude is filed in each proceeding in the
`
`joint caption above, given the overlap in evidence and issues.2
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`As described below, certain of Petitioner’s evidence should be excluded and
`
`not considered by the Board under applicable rules of the Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence (“FRE”) or rules of the Board. Petitioner timely objected to this evidence
`
`in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 (whether by filing or on the record during a
`
`deposition). See, e.g., Petitioner’s Objections, IPR2019-01505, Paper 42 (filed in
`
`each proceeding).
`
`A. Exhibits 2083 and 2084 are inadmissible hearsay
`
`Statements by a declarant not made in this proceeding offered to prove the
`
`truth of the matter asserted in the statement are inadmissible as hearsay. FRE
`
`801(c). Allergan’s Exhibits 2083 and 2084 are inadmissible as hearsay without an
`
`exception.
`
`
`2 The Board authorized this combined motion by email on December 8, 2020.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01505, IPR2019-01506, IPR2019-01508, IPR2019-01509,
`IPR2019-01617, IPR2019-01632, IPR2020-00084
`
`
`These two exhibits contain lab reports submitted by a third-party, Vivacy
`
`Laboratories, during its opposition proceedings of European Patent EP2349203
`
`(the “Vivacy Reports”). EX2083, 1; EX2084, 1; see also EX2050 ¶¶ 7-8.3 The
`
`Vivacy Reports purportedly provide the results of two sets of testing on rheological
`
`properties of the HA gels with lidocaine and polyols claimed in those patents,
`
`before and after sterilization. Id. The documents are signed by three individuals
`
`collectively (some of whose identities cannot even be determined), in 2010 and
`
`2014. EX2083, 3; EX2084, 6 (noting “illegible” signatures on original French
`
`document at page 12). None of those declarants, whoever they are, have offered
`
`testimony in these IPRs.
`
`Both Allergan and its declarant Dr. Berkland rely on these declarants’
`
`statements—testing supposedly performed by the individuals identified within the
`
`documents, as well as those individuals’ conclusions about the testing, contained
`
`within the documents—for their truth. Allergan offers the Vivacy Reports to allege
`
`“surprise” or “disbelief” at the ability to sterilize an HA filler with lidocaine due to
`
`supposed concerns with lidocaine degradation. E.g., 1505 Response 34-35. Dr.
`
`Berkland similarly cites the Vivacy Reports because they “showed” that lidocaine
`
`
`3 The opposed patent is the European counterpart of Allergan’s Molliard exhibit.
`
`See EX2067, 1(30); see also 1505 Sur-Reply 11.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01505, IPR2019-01506, IPR2019-01508, IPR2019-01509,
`IPR2019-01617, IPR2019-01632, IPR2020-00084
`
`had “deleterious effects” and “degraded” the tested gels. EX2013 ¶ 182.
`
`Specifically, the truth they point to is that lidocaine compositions degrade with
`
`heat sterilization; indeed, the testing and results described in the documents can
`
`only corroborate Allergan’s arguments if they are true. E.g., 1505 Response 35.
`
`This is the epitome of hearsay. See, e.g., US Endodontics, LLC v. Gold Std.
`
`Instruments, LLC, No. PGR2015-00019, 2016 WL 7985423, at *16 (P.T.A.B. Dec.
`
`28, 2016) (excluding test reports relied upon for the truth of their results as
`
`hearsay). Nor can Dr. Berkland rely on these hearsay statements made in service of
`
`an adversarial proceeding by another party challenging an unrelated patent; the
`
`statements were made long after the priority date for expectation of success (in
`
`2010 and 2014, respectively) and offered to show “influence of lidocaine in the
`
`presence of mannitol.” EX2084, 2 (emphasis added).4
`
`Thus, Exhibits 2083-2084 and Dr. Berkland’s testimony relying on them
`
`(EX2013 ¶ 182) should be excluded.
`
`
`4 Prollenium also objected and now moves to exclude under FRE 402 on this basis
`
`and for the same reasons as the inadmissible exhibits discussed in Section II.B.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01505, IPR2019-01506, IPR2019-01508, IPR2019-01509,
`IPR2019-01617, IPR2019-01632, IPR2020-00084
`
`
`B. Multiple exhibits are irrelevant as non-prior art used to argue no
`expectation of success at the time of the priority date
`
`Exhibits 2059-2060 are not admissible as irrelevant because they are non-
`
`prior art improperly relied upon by Allergan to allege a lack of a reasonable
`
`expectation of success. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible. FRE 402. Evidence is
`
`relevant if “it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would
`
`be without the evidence” and “the fact is of consequence in determining the
`
`action.” FRE 401. Reasonable expectation of success is evaluated at or around the
`
`priority date, not based on privately conducted, litigation-driven testing years later.
`
`See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 752 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2014); cf. NantKwest, Inc. v. Lee, 686 Fed. App’x 864, 868 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`(finding that the post-filing failure of clinical trials was irrelevant to the question of
`
`whether there was an expectation of success at the time of the priority date).5
`
`Here, Allergan cites Exhibits 2059-2060 as evidence of an alleged lack of
`
`expectation of success—however, all these exhibits long post-date the August 2008
`
`priority date of the Challenged Patents.
`
`
`5 While non-prior art may be used for some purposes, showing a reasonable
`
`expectation of success is not among them. See Yeda Research v. Mylan Pharms.
`
`Inc., 906 F.3d 1031, 1041-42 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01505, IPR2019-01506, IPR2019-01508, IPR2019-01509,
`IPR2019-01617, IPR2019-01632, IPR2020-00084
`
`
`Exhibit 2059 is an article published in 2016 that analyzes the properties of
`
`seven different HA gels with lidocaine that used various crosslinking technologies
`
`(NASHA, CPM, 3D Matrix, IPN-Like, RHA, Vycross, and OBT). EX2059, 600.
`
`Allergan cites Exhibit 2059 to argue that, among products that use BDDE as the
`
`crosslinker, different crosslinking processes result in “vastly different final
`
`products.” E.g., 1505 Response 10. However, the analysis detailed in Exhibit 2059
`
`was not completed before the priority date—in fact, at least three of the HA gels
`
`were not even tested until 2014. EX2059, 602.
`
`Exhibit 2060 is an article published in 2018 that examines the rheological
`
`properties of several gels with and without lidocaine and concludes that adding
`
`lidocaine appeared to “modify their rheological properties … to a variable extent.”
`
`EX2060, Abstract, 954. Allergan relies on both Exhibits 2059 and 2060 to argue
`
`that the addition of lidocaine to the HA gels tested in Exhibits 2059-2060 modifies
`
`the rheological properties of the HA gel. E.g., 1505 Response 15. Again, the 2018
`
`information was not available to a POSITA anywhere near the priority date. In fact,
`
`the author suggests it was new in that he notes Allergan had “presented” its then-
`
`new lidocaine product as “similar to its predecessor … with lidocaine ‘simply’
`
`added to the product, associated with strictly the same injectability for both
`
`products,” but that he had a “different impression” based on his own clinical
`
`experience with the product. EX2060, 952-54; see also id. at 954 (noting his
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01505, IPR2019-01506, IPR2019-01508, IPR2019-01509,
`IPR2019-01617, IPR2019-01632, IPR2020-00084
`
`rheological testing showed Juvéderm Ultra 3 product values were “fairly close” to
`
`those of the non-lidocaine predecessor). Thus, the reference itself indicates
`
`whatever teachings it imparts was not necessarily known closer to the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`While non-prior art may be relevant to expectation of success if the non-
`
`prior art indicates what was expected by a POSITA at the time of the priority date,
`
`Allergan has not utilized the evidence in this way. In fact, Allergan explicitly relies
`
`on Exhibits 2059 and 2060 to allege expectation of success “several years after the
`
`priority date.” E.g., 1505 Response 15. Thus, Allergan cites these exhibits to show
`
`a POSITA’s expectation of success at an immaterial point in time. Because non-
`
`prior art is irrelevant to the issue of expectation of success, Exhibits 2059-2060
`
`should be excluded under FRE 401/402.
`
`C.
`
`Portions of Dr. Prestwich’s deposition testimony are inadmissible
`because Allergan’s questions strayed far beyond the scope of the
`direct testimony for which Prollenium presented him
`
`Dr. Prestwich’s direct testimony (EX1105) was narrowly focused on
`
`responding to certain factual issues—primarily related to motivation to combine
`
`and the reasonable expectation of success—subsidiary to the ultimate conclusion
`
`of obviousness for two groups of Grounds in Prollenium’s IPRs. Prollenium did
`
`not present direct testimony or opinions from Dr. Prestwich with respect to all
`
`instituted Grounds (or even opinions related to all of the references cited in the
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01505, IPR2019-01506, IPR2019-01508, IPR2019-01509,
`IPR2019-01617, IPR2019-01632, IPR2020-00084
`
`petitions). Rather, as Dr. Prestwich noted during cross-examination, his direct
`
`testimony was provided in “response to the declaration of Dr. Berkland” and thus
`
`was limited to “necessary information” relevant to evaluating Dr. Berkland’s
`
`opinions. EX2200, 81:23-24; 466:17-21. That “necessary information” included
`
`the bases for his opinions, including “the technology and concepts relating to
`
`properties of [HA] dermal fillers” and “clarifications” or “corrections of matters
`
`represented incompletely or inaccurately by Dr. Berkland.” EX1105 ¶¶ 2-4. A
`
`cursory review of even the Table of Contents for his declaration shows the vast
`
`majority of his testimony focuses on these technical issues, and even more
`
`specifically on the factual question of expectation of success, in response to the
`
`similar focus by Allergan and Dr. Berkland on those issues. See, e.g., EX1105, 2-3
`
`(Sections VII, IX.A.1, and IX.B.1 addressing motivations comprising 3 pages,
`
`while Sections VIII, IX.A.2, and IX.B.2 addressing issues about expectation of
`
`success comprising at least 40 pages).
`
`During Prestwich’s cross-examination, however, Allergan posed several
`
`lines of questions that were outside the scope of his narrow, direct testimony.
`
`Prollenium objected on the record, pursuant to 37 C.F.R § 42.64(a), and Prollenium
`
`now moves to exclude the improper cross-examination testimony cited in the Sur-
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01505, IPR2019-01506, IPR2019-01508, IPR2019-01509,
`IPR2019-01617, IPR2019-01632, IPR2020-00084
`
`Replies that is unrelated to the issues for which Dr. Prestwich was offered. See
`
`FRE 611(b) and 37 CFR § 42.53(d)(5)(ii).6
`
`In particular, the following cross-examination testimony (EX2200) upon
`
`which Allergan relies in its Sur-Replies should be excluded: 429:10 to 432:13,
`
`432:15 to 433:25, 434:2-20, 434:22 to 436:15, 437:4-16, and 445:13 to 450:2.
`
`1.
`
`Dr. Prestwich did not offer opinions related to specific
`grounds in his direct testimony
`Allergan’s Sur-Replies criticize Dr. Prestwich’s testimony as “incomplete”
`
`because he “did not opine on all references in the grounds,” 1505 Sur-Reply 6-7,
`
`citing to Dr. Prestwich’s cross-examination testimony at EX2200, 429:10 to
`
`432:13.
`
`In the cited passage, Allergan asked numerous questions regarding the
`
`composition of the Grounds, including whether Piron 2008 (EX1210), Monheit
`
`
`6 Prollenium similarly objected to several other portions of the deposition
`
`testimony that Allergan has not cited it in its merits briefing, so there is no cause to
`
`move to exclude it at this time. To the extent that Allergan cites any new,
`
`previously uncited testimony of Dr. Prestwich (or Dr. DeVore, for that matter) in
`
`further papers, Prollenium will address its inadmissibility, if needed, at that time.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01505, IPR2019-01506, IPR2019-01508, IPR2019-01509,
`IPR2019-01617, IPR2019-01632, IPR2020-00084
`
`(EX1022), and Smith (EX1009) were included in any of the instituted Grounds.7
`
`These questions were outside the scope of his direct testimony and pertain to legal
`
`conclusions about the structure and selection of Prollenium’s Grounds in the
`
`Petition. Cf. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018) (“[T]he
`
`petitioner is master of its complaint ….”). Prollenium objected to the line of
`
`questions based on scope and form of the question on that basis. In fact, Dr.
`
`Prestwich noted that the particular Grounds were a “legal point” that he was “not
`
`clear on” at the time of his testimony. EX2200, 431:9-10. The Board should
`
`exclude the cross-examination testimony at 429:10 to 432:13 (cited at, e.g., 1505
`
`Sur-Reply 7).
`
`2.
`
`Dr. Prestwich did not offer opinions regarding the priority
`date of claims in the challenged patents
`Allergan’s Sur-Reply cites Prestwich’s cross-examination testimony at
`
`EX2200, 432:15-433:25, 434:2-20, 434:22-436:15, and 437:4-16 to support the
`
`contention that Dr. Prestwich “never opined that any of the claims lack priority.”
`
`
`7 E.g., “Are you aware of Smith being a ground of the petition?” and “Do you
`
`understand that there is a distinction between what is in the grounds and what other
`
`exhibits are being offered?”
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01505, IPR2019-01506, IPR2019-01508, IPR2019-01509,
`IPR2019-01617, IPR2019-01632, IPR2020-00084
`
`0084 Sur-Reply 24.8 Allergan is free argue in its brief—correctly—that Dr.
`
`Prestwich offered no testimony related to the lack-of-priority arguments raised in
`
`the IPR challenging the ’519 patent. Prollenium’s Reply does not rely on any reply
`
`declarant for that issue. See IPR00084, Reply 39-41.
`
`So it is improper to question and cite Dr. Prestwich’s testimony on an issue
`
`Allergan concedes was not part of his direct testimony. In these passages,
`
`Allergan’s counsel asked questions about the priority applications to which the
`
`Challenged Patents claim priority as well as about the Weinkle, Juvéderm Ultra
`
`Plus XC PMA Memo, and the 2010 Lebreton ’438 publications (EX1070, EX1060,
`
`and EX1072) that are only used in the anticipation Grounds 1-3 of the petition
`
`challenging the ’519 patent. Allergan then cites five pages of deposition testimony
`
`for the simple, indisputable proposition that Prestwich never opined on priority.
`
`Thus, this testimony is outside of the scope of Dr. Prestwich’s direct testimony and
`
`relates to legal conclusions, as Prollenium objected on the record. The testimony at
`
`EX2200, 432:15-433:25, 434:2-20, 434:22-436:15, and 437:4-16 (cited at 0084
`
`Sur-Reply 24) should be excluded.
`
`
`8 While denominated as four separate citations, in reality, these citations encompass
`
`all but about 11 lines of the testimony between 432:15 to 437:16—five pages
`
`worth of testimony.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01505, IPR2019-01506, IPR2019-01508, IPR2019-01509,
`IPR2019-01617, IPR2019-01632, IPR2020-00084
`
`
`3.
`
`Dr. Prestwich did not offer testimony regarding the public
`availability of documents submitted to FDA
`In its Sur-Replies, Allergan contends that Elevess required modifications
`
`(the details of which were not publicly available) to address shelf-life issues. E.g.,
`
`1505 Sur-Reply 18. Allergan seeks to support this allegation by citing Dr.
`
`Prestwich’s Cross-Examination Testimony at EX2200, 445:13-450:2. Id.
`
`In this portion of testimony, Allergan asked numerous questions regarding a
`
`PMA supplement (EX2123). Allergan then cites five pages of deposition testimony
`
`to support the contention that the manufacturing modifications underlying a PMA
`
`supplement were not publicly available. Allergan’s citation is a transparent attempt
`
`to bolster its positions using improper cross-examination outside the scope of Dr.
`
`Prestwich’s direct. But both Allergan’s own witness and DeVore had previously
`
`testified a POSITA would not have had access to the underlying details associated
`
`with such a submission. See, e.g., EX1200, 333:25-334:23; EX2100, 248:10-19.
`
`Whatever modifications Anika may have chosen to make after Elevess was
`
`approved by FDA in 2006 are separate from Dr. Prestwich’s limited testimony
`
`regarding Elevess—that a POSITA would have known that Elevess was approved
`
`by FDA for use as a dermal filler and stable. EX1105 ¶ 162. Thus, the cited cross-
`
`examination testimony is outside of the scope of Dr. Prestwich’s direct testimony.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01505, IPR2019-01506, IPR2019-01508, IPR2019-01509,
`IPR2019-01617, IPR2019-01632, IPR2020-00084
`
`Therefore, the Board should exclude the cross-examination testimony at EX2200,
`
`445:13-450:2 (cited at, e.g., 1505 Sur-Reply 18).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the challenged evidence does not meet the
`
`threshold for admissibility and should be excluded from the record.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Warren Thomas/
`Warren J. Thomas
`Reg. No. 70,581
`Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC
`999 Peachtree St. NE
`Suite 1300
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01505, IPR2019-01506, IPR2019-01508, IPR2019-01509,
`IPR2019-01617, IPR2019-01632, IPR2020-00084
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4) and consent of the Patent Owner, I certify
`that on December 9, 2020, a copy of Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude under 37
`C.F.R. § 42.64(c) was served on the counsel of record by email to:
`aminsogna@jonesday.com
`tweisser@jonesday.com
`cplatt@jonesday.com
`sgeers@jonesday.com
`jhartjes@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`
`
`/Laura Heidt/
`Laura Heidt
`Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC
`999 Peachtree St. NE
`Suite 1300
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`
`
`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
