PTAB Consolidated Oral Arguments
`
`November 2, 2021
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`
`November 2, 2021
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`
`Introduction
`
`Summary of Petitioner’s Grounds
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Introduction: Key Issues
`
`• Obviousness only: novelty is undisputed
`• Petitioner tenders no less than 11 combinations of 5 references
`• No reference shows metal foil output conductors resting flat
`• They do show true teaching away
`− Criticizing, discrediting and discouraging the proposed combination – need direct connection
`to terminal without conductor or insulator
`• And no motivation to combine because of basic incompatibility
`− Kaun teaches short axial high amperage current paths with direct connection of electrode to
`housing - no current collectors, no insulator between winding and housing
`− Kobayashi teaches integrating spiral micro-amperage electrode into conductor and insulator
`plates
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`Introduction: Undisputed Items
`
`• Reliance on “knowledge of POSA” to fill critical gaps
`• Hindsight to reconstruct the claimed inventions
`• Unrebutted Secondary Considerations
`• Commercial success of patented CoinPower® cells
`• Creation of new consumer devices
`• Industry Praise
`• Copying - Petitioner is a latecomer
`• Motions to Amend - Petitioner did not explain why substitute dependent claims
`are unpatentable
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`
`
`Introduction: VARTA’s Patented Technology
`
`Ex. 2045 [Miehlich Decl.], ¶ 56
`
`Ex. 2045 [Miehlich Decl.] ,¶ 57
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`
`
`Introduction: Burden of Proof
`
`“In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is
`on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a
`preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e),
`and that burden never shifts to the patentee.”
`Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`BACKGROUND
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`
`
`VARTA’s Patented Technology
`
`Dr. Lindner
`
`Ex. 2046 [Lindner Decl.], ¶ 14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`
`
`VARTA’s Patented Technology
`’835, ’581, and ’913 Patents
`
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1214 (’913)], Abstract
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`
`
`VARTA’s Patented Technology
`
`An assembly of electrodes and separators . . . is
`contained as a spiral winding 404 . . . The separator
`layers 405 and 406 as well as the electrodes 407 and
`408 of opposite polarity can also be seen well here.
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1212 (’835)], 11:4-9
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1211 (’581)], 11:14-20
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1214 (‘913)], 12:7-12
`
`[T]he electrode 407 is connected via the output conductor 410
`[red] to the top part 402, while the electrode 408 is connected
`via the output conductor 409 to the cup part 402. The output
`conductor 410 is preferably welded to the top part 402.
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1212 (’835)], 11:9-13
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1211 (’581)], 11:21-25
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1214 (‘913)], 12:13-16
`
`The insulating means 411 and 412 [blue] are
`arranged between the end faces of the winding
`and the cup part 401 and the top part 402.
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1212 (’835)], 11:17-19
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1211 (’581)], 11:28-31
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1214 (‘913)], 12:20-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`
`
`VARTA’s Patented Technology
`
`The assembly comprising the electrodes 508 and 509
`as well as the separators 507 is in this case in the form
`of a winding, whose end faces face in the direction of
`the flat bottom area 503 and of the flat top area 504.
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1212 (’835)], 11:43-46
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1211 (’581)], 11:55-58
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1214 (‘913)], 12:47-50
`
`[T]he edge of the cell cup 501 is not beaded over
`the edge 511 of the cell top 502, and the preferred
`example described above for a button cell 500 is
`therefore a button cell which is not beaded over.
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1212 (’835)], 11:36-39
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1211 (’581)], 11:48-51
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1214 (‘913)], 12:40-43
`
`The output conductor 505 is composed of aluminum,
`and the output conductor 506 is composed of nickel (or
`alternatively of copper). Both output conductors are
`thin films, which rest flat between the end faces of the
`winding and the flat top and bottom areas 503 and 504.
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1212 (’835)], 11:57-62
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1211 (’581)], 12:3-8
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1214 (‘913)], 12:62-67
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`
`
`VARTA’s Patented Technology
`
`’858 Patent
`
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1213 (’858)], Abstract
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`
`
`VARTA’s Patented Technology
`
`An assembly 108 of strip-shaped electrodes and strip-shaped
`separators is . . . provided in the form of a spiral-shaped winding,
`the end sides of which face in the direction of the plane bottom
`region 104 and the plane top region 105 parallel thereto.
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1213 (’858)], 6:66-7:4
`
`Welding of the metal foils 110 and 111, acting
`as conductors, to the respective housing half,
`which is preferably done by the schematically
`represented laser 114 . . . Creates a weld bead
`115 which passes fully through the housing of
`the button cell 100 from outside inward.
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1213 (’858)], 7:19-29
`
`Metal foils 110 and 111, which act as conductors and are
`connected to the electrodes, bear flat on these regions.
`These conductors are shielded from the end sides of the
`winding by the insulating elements 112 and 113.
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1213 (’858)], 7:10-14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`
`
`VARTA’s Patented Technology
`
`The insulating elements 305 and 306 [blue] . . .
`prevent direct electrical contact between the
`conductors 301 and 302 [red] and the end sides
`303 and 304 of the electrode winding.
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1213 (’858)], 7:65-8:2
`
`The conductor 301 . . . and the conductor 302 . . .
`are themselves aligned axially at a 90° angle to the
`winding direction and . . . bear flat on the end sides
`303 and 304 of the electrode winding.
`
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1213 (’858)], 7:59-65
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`
`
`VARTA’s Patented Technology
`
`Welding of the metal foils 110 and 111
`[red] . . . creates a weld bead 115
`which passes fully through the housing
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1213 (’858)], 7:19-26
`
`Metal foils 110 and 111 [red], which
`act as conductors and are connected
`to the electrodes, bear flat.
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1213 (’858)], 7:10-12
`
`These conductors are shielded from the
`end sides of the winding by the
`insulating elements 112 and 113 [blue].
`Ex. 1001 [IPR’1213 (’858)], 7:12-14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 6-10, Paper 29 (POSR) 1-2; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15 (POR) 7-14,
`Paper 28 (POSR) 1-6; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 7-9, Paper 29 (POSR) 1-2; IPR’1214 (’913)
`Paper 14 (POR) 9-12, Paper 28 (POSR) 1-3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: Button Cell
`
`“Button Cell” has well-known meaning
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 6-8, Paper 29 (POSR) 1-2; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15 (POR) 8-10,
`Paper 28 (POSR) 1-2; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 7-9, Paper 29 (POSR) 1-2; IPR’1214 (’913)
`Paper 14 (POR) 9-10, Paper 28 (POSR) 1-2.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`Ex. 2026 [Wikipedia], p. 1
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: Button Cell
`
`Dr. Peckerar
`
`Dr. Lindner
`
`Ex. 2046 [Lindner Decl.]
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 6-8, Paper 29 (POSR) 1-2; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15 (POR) 8-10,
`Paper 28 (POSR) 1-2; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 7-9, Paper 29 (POSR) 1-2; IPR’1214 (’913)
`Paper 14 (POR) 9-10, Paper 28 (POSR) 1-2.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`Ex. 2043 [Peckerar Decl.]
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: Button Cell
`“Button Cell” provides antecedent basis for body of claim
`
`“When the limitations in the body of the
`claim ‘rely upon and derive antecedent
`basis from the preamble, then the
`preamble may act as a necessary
`component of the claimed invention.”
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 952
`(Fed. Cir. 2006)
`
`‘835 Patent Claim 1
`
`‘858 Patent Claim 1
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 6-8, Paper 29 (POSR) 1-2; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15 (POR) 8-10,
`Paper 28 (POSR) 1-2; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 7-9, Paper 29 (POSR) 1-2; IPR’1214 (’913)
`Paper 14 (POR) 9-10, Paper 28 (POSR) 1-2.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: Button Cell
`
`“Button Cell” used over 100 times in specification
`
`preamble limiting where the “specification is replete with
`references to [the preamble] underscoring the importance
`of the feature to the claimed invention.”
`
`Rotatable Tech. v. Motorola, 567 F.App’x 941, 943 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`“the specification repeatedly discloses that the claimed
`invention is a retrofit kit for existing conventional
`shotguns. ... If the preamble was not limiting, these
`disclosures would be rendered meaningless.”
`
`Lemoine v. Mossberg, No. 2020-2140, 2021 WL 4199934, at *2
`(Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2021)
`
`See, e.g. Ex. 1001 [‘853 Patent], Title, 1:14-16; 2:38-43; 3:5-12
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 6-8, Paper 29 (POSR) 1-2; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15 (POR) 8-10,
`Paper 28 (POSR) 1-2; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 7-9, Paper 29 (POSR) 1-2; IPR’1214 (’913)
`Paper 14 (POR) 9-10, Paper 28 (POSR) 1-2.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: Button Cell
`“Button Cell” argued as limiting during prosecution
`
`Preamble limiting where the prosecution history shows
`“clear reliance on the preamble” to distinguish the
`claimed invention from the prior art.”
`
`Rotatable Tech. v. Motorola, 567 F.App’x 941, 943 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 6-8, Paper 29 (POSR) 1-2; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15 (POR) 8-10,
`Paper 28 (POSR) 1-2; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 7-9, Paper 29 (POSR) 1-2; IPR’1214 (’913)
`Paper 14 (POR) 9-10, Paper 28 (POSR) 1-2.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`Ex. 1002 [‘858 Patent Prosecution History], p. 270-71
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: Closed Without Being Beaded Over
`Patent Owner’s construction supported by specification
`
`’835 Patent
`
`Dr. Peckerar
`
`IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15 (POR) 11-13, Paper 28 (POSR) 4-5.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`Ex. 1001 [‘835 Patent], 7:10-49.
`
`Ex. 2043 [Peckerar], ¶ 101
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: Closed Without Being Beaded Over
`Mr. Gardner
`
`Petitioner’s construction is unsupported by intrinsic record
`
`Ex. 1003 [Gardner],
`¶ 95
`
`Ex. 2043
`
`Dr. Peckerar
`Ex. 2043 [Peckerar],
`¶ 113
`
`Ex. 1001 [‘835 Patent], p. 1
`IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15 (POR) 11-13, Paper 28 (POSR) 4-5.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: Terms Not Requiring Construction
`
`“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy,
`and only to the extent necessary to resolve controversy.”
`Institution Decision at 25-26 citing Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.,
`868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`Neither party raised issue that requires construction of:
`(i) “insulating means” or
`(ii) “connected to one another by at least one flat separator.”
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 8-10, Paper 29 (POSR) 2; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15 (POR) 10-11,
`14, Paper 28 (POSR) 3-4, 5-6; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 11-12, Paper 28 (POSR) 2-3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: Insulating Means
`If construed, should provide for multiple layers: layer(s) composed of plastic, plastic disc(s) or structural equivalents
`
`Ex. 1001 [‘913 Patent], 12:4-23
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 8-9, Paper 29 (POSR) 2; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15 (POR) 10-11,
`Paper 28 (POSR) 3-4; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 11, Paper 28 (POSR) 2-3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: Connected Together By … Flat Separator
`Petitioner’s construction would impermissibly limit the claims to a preferred embodiment
`
`“it is improper to read limitations from a preferred
`embodiment described in the specification—even if it is
`the only embodiment—into the claims absent a clear
`indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee
`intended the claims to be so limited.”
`
`EPOS Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd., 766 F.3d 1338, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`Ex. 1001 [‘835 Patent], 3:22-29
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 9-10, Paper 29 (POSR) 2; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15 (POR) 14, Paper
`28 (POSR) 5-6; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 11-12, Paper 28 (POSR) 3.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`
`
`PATENTABILITY
`
`Kaun Modified by Kobayashi
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`
`
`Kaun Modified by Kobayashi
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`
`
`Kaun Modified by Kobayashi
`• Kaun and Kobayashi teach away from their combination
`− Contrary to Kaun’s teaching to avoid output conductors (current collectors)
`• No motivation to modify Kaun with Kobayashi
`− Petitioner’s alleged motivation (separator problem) non-existent & contradicts Kaun
`− Destroy Kaun’s short current path solution to heat, resistance and low power
`− Fundamentally alter Kaun’s principle of operation: direct electrode connection to housing
`− Petitioner’s alleged solution would have made Kaun worse
`• No reasonable expectation of success
`− No evidence that a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in gutting
`Kaun’s cell and rebuilding it with Kobayashi
`• Kaun modified by Kobayashi does not meet all claim elements
`− No insulator/insulating means
`− No button cell
`− Not closed without being beaded over (‘835 patent)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`
`
`Kaun’s Solution
`Short current paths (red arrows) via direct & continuous connection between electrode
`ends and housing to reduce resistance and heat, and to increase power
`
`Ex. 1005 [Kaun], FIG. 11
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 14-18; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15 (POR) 19-23;
`IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 16-21; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 18-23.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`Ex. 1005 [Kaun], ¶¶ [0125], [0128]
`
`
`
`Kobayashi’s Solution
`Winding axis core incorporated into electrode assembly; direct connection of electrodes to housing not possible
`
`Kobayashi, FIG. 1
`
`Kobayashi, FIG. 8
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 11-13; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15 (POR) 16-19;
`IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 11-14; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 15-18.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`Ex. 1006 [Kobayashi], ¶¶ [0015], [0047], FIG. 1, FIG. 8
`
`
`
`Kaun and Kobayashi are Fundamentally Different
`
`Ex. 1005 [Kaun], FIG. 14
`
`Ex. 1005 [Kaun], FIG. 10C
`
`Kaun discharge current:
`40A pulses
`
`Kobayashi discharge current:
`0.00025-0.015 A
`
`IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15 (POR) 33, 35.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1006 [Kobayashi], ¶ 41
`
`33
`
`Ex. 1006 [Kobayashi], FIG. 1
`
`
`
`Kaun and Kobayashi Teach
`Against Their Combination
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`
`
`Kaun + Kobayashi: Kaun Teaches Away From Kobayashi
`
`“[W]hen the prior art teaches away from combining certain
`known elements, discovery of a successful means of
`combining them is more likely to be nonobvious.”
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007)
`
`“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of
`ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be
`discouraged from following the path set out in the reference,
`or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that
`was taken by the applicant.”
`
`DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, 567 F.3d 1314, 1327
`(Fed. Cir. 2009)
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 52-55, Paper 29 (POSR) 17; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15
`(POR) 29-32, Paper 28 (POSR) 8-10; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 45-47, Paper 29
`(POSR) 11-13; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 47-50, Paper 28 (POSR) 13-15.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`
`
`Kaun Teaches Away From Output Conductors
`Kaun discourages the use of output conductors
`
`Kaun Discussion of Prior Art
`
`Kaun Solution = No Output Conductor
`
`Ex. 1005 [Kaun], ¶ [0018]
`
`Ex. 1005 [Kaun], ¶ [0128]
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 52-55, Paper 29 (POSR) 11-13, 17; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15 (POR)
`29-32, Paper 28 (POSR) 8-10; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 45-47, Paper 29 (POSR) 11-13;
`IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 47-50, Paper 28 (POSR) 13-15.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`
`
`Kaun + Kobayashi: Kaun Teaches Away From Kobayashi
`Dr. Peckerar
`
`Kobayashi requires output conductor
`
`Kobayashi, FIG. 1
`
`Kobayashi
`Output
`Conductors
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 52-55, Paper 29 (POSR) 17; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15
`(POR) 29-32, Paper 28 (POSR) 8-10; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 45-47, Paper 29
`(POSR) 11-13; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 47-50, Paper 28 (POSR) 13-15.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`Ex. 2043 [Peckerar], ¶¶ 217-218,
`422-423, 523-524
`
`Ex. 1006 [Kobayashi], FIG. 1
`
`
`
`Kaun + Kobayashi: Kaun Teaches Away From Kobayashi
`Petitioner’s late attempt to dismiss Kaun’s core teaching away
`contradicted by its own evidence, i.e., Kannou
`
`Dr. Peckerar
`
`Mr. Gardner
`
`Ex. 1041 [Gardner Supp. Decl.], ¶ 19
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 29 (POSR) 17; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 28 (POSR) 8-
`10; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 29 (POSR) 11-13; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 28
`(POSR) 13-15.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`Ex. 2050 [Peckerar Supp. Decl.], ¶¶ 17-18
`
`
`
`Kaun + Kobayashi: Kaun Teaches Away From Kobayashi
`Kannou’s button cell solution is consistent with Kaun
`no output conductor to increase discharge current
`
`Kannou, FIG. 1
`
`Ex. 1039 [Kannou], [0008], [0006]
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 29 (POSR) 11-13, 17; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 28
`(POSR) 8-10; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 29 (POSR) 11-13; IPR’1214 (’913)
`Paper 28 (POSR) 13-15.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1039 [Kannou], FIG. 1
`
`39
`
`
`
`No Motivation to Modify
`Kaun with Kobayashi
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`
`
`Kaun + Kobayashi: No Motivation to Combine
`Petitioner’s flawed reason to modify Kaun with Kobayashi’s electrode assembly
`
`Mr. Gardner
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 47-52, Paper 29 (POSR) 14-16; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15
`(POR) 24-29, Paper 28 (POSR) 6-8; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 40-45, Paper 29 (POSR)
`8-11; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 42-47, Paper 28 (POSR) 11-13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`Ex. 1003 [Gardner], ¶ 137
`
`
`
`Kaun + Kobayashi: No Motivation to Combine
`
`Kaun solves the problem of overlapping/thick separator
`without modification
`
`“To the extent that Petitioner contends that emissions
`reduction through catalysis provides a reason to modify
`Kobayashi, we do not find this reason persuasive because
`Petitioner does not explain adequately why that would
`be so, particularly where, as unmodified, Kobayashi
`already uses the lean air-fuel mix to reduce emissions.”
`
`Ford Motor Co. v. Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., IPR2019-01401,
`2021 WL 531704 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2021)
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 47-52, Paper 29 (POSR) 14-16; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15
`(POR) 24-29, Paper 28 (POSR) 6-8; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 40-45, Paper 29 (POSR)
`8-11; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 42-47, Paper 28 (POSR) 11-13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`
`
`Kaun + Kobayashi: No Motivation to Combine
`
`Petitioner’s motivation relies on non-
`existent defect in Kaun, which:
`(i) does not require separator edges
`that overlap and
`(ii) provides a solution that allows for
`a very thin separator
`Ex. 2043 [Peckerar], ¶¶ 194-202, 400-408, 500-508
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 47-52, Paper 29 (POSR) 14-16; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15
`(POR) 24-29, Paper 28 (POSR) 6-8; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 40-45, Paper 29 (POSR)
`8-11; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 42-47, Paper 28 (POSR) 11-13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`Ex. 1005 [Kaun], ¶¶ [0108], [0116], [0128]
`
`
`
`Kaun + Kobayashi: No Motivation to Combine
`
`Even if Kaun’s z-shaped separator were deficient,
`Kaun describes alternatives. A POSA would not
`have been motivated to turn to Kobayashi.
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 45-52, Paper 29 (POSR) 14-16; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15
`(POR) 24-29, 38-39, Paper 28 (POSR) 6-8; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 39-45, Paper 29
`(POSR) 8-11; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 41-47, Paper 28 (POSR) 11-13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`Ex. 1005 [Kaun], ¶ [0107]
`
`
`
`Kaun + Kobayashi: No Motivation to Combine
`
`“[N]o motivation to modify the prior art where doing so
`‘would destroy the basic objective’ of the prior art’”
`
`Chemours Co. FC, LLC v. Daikin Indus. Ltd., 4 F.4th 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2021)
`
`“[C]ombinations that change the basic principles under
`which the [prior art] was designed to operate,’ or that render
`the prior art ‘inoperable for its intended purpose,’ may fail to
`support a conclusion of obviousness.’”
`
`Plas-Pak Indus., Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG, 600 F. App’x 755, 758 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 47-52, Paper 29 (POSR) 14-16; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15
`(POR) 24-29, Paper 28 (POSR) 6-8; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 40-45, Paper 29 (POSR)
`8-11; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 42-47, Paper 28 (POSR) 11-13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`
`
`Kaun + Kobayashi: No Motivation to Combine
`
`Kaun modified by Kobayashi would change Kaun’s principles of operation
`
`Dr. Peckerar
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 47-52, Paper 29 (POSR) 14-16; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15
`(POR) 24-29, Paper 28 (POSR) 6-8; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 40-45, Paper 29 (POSR)
`8-11; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 42-47, Paper 28 (POSR) 11-13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`Ex. 2043 [Peckerar], ¶¶ 218, 423, 524
`
`
`
`Kaun + Kobayashi: No Motivation to Combine
`Kaun’s objective is to reduce resistance and heat and to increase power using short current paths
`via direct and continuous connection between ends of the electrodes to housing
`
`Ex. 1005 [Kaun], FIG. 11
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 47-55, Paper 29 (POSR) 14-17; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15
`(POR) 24-32, Paper 28 (POSR) 6-10; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 40-47, Paper 29
`(POSR) 8-13; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 42-50, Paper 28 (POSR) 11-15.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`Ex. 1005 [Kaun], ¶¶ [0125], [0128]
`
`
`
`Kaun + Kobayashi: No Motivation to Combine
`
`Kobayashi’s design requires long current paths that would destroy Kaun’s objective
`
`Kobayashi, FIG. 1
`
`Dr. Peckerar
`
`Ex. 1006 [Kobayashi], FIG. 1
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 47-55, Paper 29 (POSR) 14-17; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15
`(POR) 24-32, Paper 28 (POSR) 6-10; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 40-47, Paper 29
`(POSR) 8-13; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 42-50, Paper 28 (POSR) 11-15.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`Ex. 2043 [Peckerar], ¶¶ 217, 422, 523
`
`
`
`Kaun + Kobayashi: No Motivation to Combine
`
`Petitioner’s “solution” would decrease space for active material
`
`Dr. Peckerar (unrebutted)
`
`Ex. 2043 [Peckerar], p. 83, 162, 200
`
`Ex. 2043 [Peckerar], ¶¶ 206-07, 412-13, 512-13
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 47-52, Paper 29 (POSR) 14-16; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15
`(POR) 24-29, Paper 28 (POSR) 6-8; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 40-45, Paper 29 (POSR)
`8-11; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 42-47, Paper 28 (POSR) 11-13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`
`
`Kaun + Kobayashi: No Motivation to Combine
`
`Petitioner’s evidence is deficient
`
`Mr. Gardner
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 47-52, Paper 29 (POSR) 14-16; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15
`(POR) 24-29, Paper 28 (POSR) 6-8; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 40-45, Paper 29 (POSR)
`8-11; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 42-47, Paper 28 (POSR) 11-13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`50
`
`Ex. 2030 [Gardner Tr.], 218:4-10
`
`
`
`No Expectation of Success in
`Proposed Modification of
`Kaun with Kobayashi
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`
`
`Kaun + Kobayashi: No Reasonable Expectation of Success
`
`“The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to the likelihood of success in
`combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention. ‘[F]ailure to consider
`the appropriate scope of the ... patent’s claimed invention in evaluating the reasonable
`expectation of success ... constitutes a legal error .’”
`
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d
`1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`Combination of references improper “where it would require a substantial reconstruction
`and redesign of the elements shown in [the primary reference] as well as a change in the
`basic principle under which the [primary reference] construction was designed to operate.”
`
`In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (C.C.P.A. 1959)
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 55-57, Paper 29 (POSR) 17-20; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15
`(POR) 33-35, Paper 28 (POSR) 11-14; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 48-50, Paper 29 (POSR)
`15-18; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 50-52, Paper 28 (POSR) 15-18.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`
`
`Kaun + Kobayashi: No Reasonable Expectation of Success
`A POSA would not have attempted to rebuild Kaun’s cell
`Dr. Peckerar
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 55-57, Paper 29 (POSR) 17-20; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15
`(POR) 33-35, Paper 28 (POSR) 11-14; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 48-50, Paper 29 (POSR)
`15-18; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 50-52, Paper 28 (POSR) 15-18.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`53
`
`Ex. 2043 [Peckerar], ¶¶ 221-223,
`426-428, 527-529
`
`Ex. 1005 [Kaun], ¶¶ [0125], [0128]
`
`
`
`Kaun + Kobayashi: No Reasonable Expectation of Success
`
`Dr. Peckerar
`
`Ex. 2043 [Peckerar], ¶¶ 224-225, 429-430, 530-531
`
`Ex. 1005 [Kaun], ¶¶ [0023], [0086], [0088]
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 55-57, Paper 29 (POSR) 17-20; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15
`(POR) 33-35, Paper 28 (POSR) 11-14; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 48-50, Paper 29 (POSR)
`15-18; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 50-52, Paper 28 (POSR) 15-18.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`54
`
`
`
`Kaun + Kobayashi: No Reasonable Expectation of Success
`Kobayashi teaches that size reduction of larger cells [Kaun] would be difficult
`
`Dr. Peckerar
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 41-42 and 55-57, Paper 29 (POSR) 17-20; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15
`(POR) 33-36, Paper 28 (POSR) 11-14; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 36 and 48-50, Paper 29
`(POSR) 15-18; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 38 and 50-52, Paper 28 (POSR) 15-18.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`55
`
`Ex. 2043 [Peckerar], ¶¶ 232, 359,
`383, 480
`
`
`
`Kaun + Kobayashi: No Reasonable Expectation of Success
`
`Petitioner’s expert’s opinion is pure speculation
`
`Mr. Gardner
`
`Ex. 1003 [Gardner], ¶ 145
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 55-57, Paper 29 (POSR) 17-20; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15
`(POR) 33-35, Paper 28 (POSR) 11-14; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 48-50, Paper 29 (POSR)
`15-18; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 50-52, Paper 28 (POSR) 15-18.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`
`
`Kaun + Kobayashi: No Reasonable Expectation of Success
`
`Petitioner’s expert agrees Kaun requires a center fastener
`
`Mr. Gardner
`
`Ex. 2030 [Gardner Tr.], 114:25-115:2
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 55-57, Paper 29 (POSR) 17-20; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15
`(POR) 33-35, Paper 28 (POSR) 11-14; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 48-50, Paper 29 (POSR)
`15-18; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 50-52, Paper 28 (POSR) 15-18.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`57
`
`
`
`Kaun + Kobayashi: No Reasonable Expectation of Success
`
`Petitioner’s late attempt to account for center fastener
`
`Dr. Peckerar
`
`Mr. Gardner
`
`Ex. 1041 [Gardner Supp. Decl.], p. 12
`
`Ex. 2050 [Peckerar Supp. Decl.], ¶¶ 30-31
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 55-57, Paper 29 (POSR) 17-20; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15
`(POR) 33-35, Paper 28 (POSR) 11-14; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 48-50, Paper 29 (POSR)
`15-18; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 50-52, Paper 28 (POSR) 15-18.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`58
`
`
`
`The Proposed Kaun Modification
`with Kobayashi Does Not Result in
`Claimed Combination
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`59
`
`
`
`Kaun + Kobayashi: No Insulator/Insulating Means
`Dr. Peckerar
`
`Petitioner provided no reason to use Kobayashi’s
`insulating plates with Kaun in its Petition.
`
`Dr. Peckerar explained why a POSA would not
`have done so.
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 44-46, Paper 29 (POSR) 21; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15
`(POR) 36-39, Paper 28 (POSR) 15; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 38-40, Paper 29 (POSR)
`14-15, 18; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 39-42, Paper 28 (POSR) 20.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`60
`
`Ex. 2043 [Peckerar], ¶¶ 392-393,
`492-493, 288-290, 235-241
`
`
`
`Kaun + Kobayashi: No Insulator/Insulating means
`
`Petitioner’s belated motivation should be
`disregarded as untimely.
`
`Petitioner’s belated reason is insufficient in
`any event.
`
`Petitioner ‘581 Patent Reply, p. 21
`
`Patent Owner ‘581 Patent Sur-Reply, p. 21
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 44-46, Paper 29 (POSR) 21; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15
`(POR) 36-39, Paper 28 (POSR) 15; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 38-40, Paper 29 (POSR)
`14-15; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 39-42, Paper 28 (POSR) 20.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`61
`
`
`
`Kaun + Kobayashi: No Button Cell
`Kaun’s housing combined with Kobayashi’s electrode configuration would not
`be a button cell because Kaun is not a button cell
`Dr. Peckerar
`
`Ex. 2043 [Peckerar], ¶¶ 228-29, 355-56, 379-80, 476-77
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 41-42, Paper 29 (POSR) 21; IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15
`(POR) 35-36, Paper 28 (POSR) 14; IPR’1213 (‘858) Paper 15 (POR) 36, Paper 29 (POSR)
`13-14; IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 38, Paper 28 (POSR) 19.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`62
`
`
`
`’835: Kaun + Kobayashi – Not Closed Without Being Beaded Over
`
`Kaun modified by Kobayshi would not be closed
`
`Dr. Peckerar
`
`Ex. 2043 [Peckerar], ¶¶ 245, 355-56, 379-80, 476-77
`
`Ex. 1005 [Kaun], ¶¶ [0023], [0091]
`
`Ex. 1005 [Kaun], ¶ [0130]
`
`IPR’1212 (’835) Paper 15 (POR) 39, Paper 28 (POSR) 14-15.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`63
`
`
`
`PATENTABILITY
`
`Kobayashi Modified by POSA Knowledge
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`64
`
`
`
`Kobayashi Modified by POSA Knowledge
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`65
`
`
`
`Kobayashi Modified by POSA Knowledge
`
`• No motivation to replace Kobayashi’s plates with foils
`− Plates are essential to Kobayashi’s basic objective
`− Proposed modification would eviscerate Kobayashi
`− Modifying Kobayashi would change principle of operation
`• No reasonable expectation of success
`− Replacing plates would require substantial reconstruction of other components
`− Proposed modification would require complete redesign of Kobayashi
`• Kobayashi modified by POSA would not meet all claim elements
`− No metal foil output conductor resting flat
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`66
`
`
`
`No Motivation to Modify
`Kobayashi by POSA
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`67
`
`
`
`Kobayashi + POSA Knowledge: No Motivation to Combine
`
`Petitioner’s flawed reason to modify Kaun with Kobayashi’s electrode assembly
`
`Mr. Gardner
`
`Ex. 1003 [Gardner], ¶ 323
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 22-30, 47-52, Paper 29 (POSR) 7, 14-16;
`IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 24, 42-47, Paper 28 (POSR) 9, 11-13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`68
`
`
`
`Kobayashi + POSA Knowledge: No Motivation to Combine
`
`Common sense or general knowledge should not be
`used “as a wholesale substitute for reasoned
`analysis and evidentiary support, especially when
`dealing with a limitation missing from the prior art
`references specified.”
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`“[N]o motivation to modify the prior art where doing so
`‘would destroy the basic objective’ of the prior art’”
`
`Chemours Co. FC, LLC v. Daikin Indus. Ltd., 4 F. 4th 1370, 1376
`(Fed. Cir. July 22, 2021)
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 22-30, 47-52, Paper 29 (POSR) 7, 14-16;
`IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 27-34, 42-47, Paper 28 (POSR) 9, 11-13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`69
`
`
`
`Kobayashi + POSA Knowledge: No Motivation to Combine
`Terminal plates are essential to Kobayashi’s basic objective
`
`Dr. Peckerar
`
`Ex. 2043 [Peckerar], ¶¶ 331, 559
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 22-30, 47-52, Paper 29 (POSR) 7, 14-16;
`IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 27-34, 42-47, Paper 28 (POSR) 9, 11-13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`70
`
`Ex. 1006 [Kobayashi], Fig. 8
`
`
`
`Kobayashi + POSA Knowledge: No Motivation to Combine
`
`Terminal plates are essential to Kobayashi’s basic objective
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 22-30, 47-52, Paper 29 (POSR) 7, 14-16;
`IPR’1214 (’913) Paper 14 (POR) 27-34, 42-47, Paper 28 (POSR) 9, 11-13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`71
`
`Ex. 1006 [Kobayashi], FIGS. 1, 8
`
`Ex. 1006 [Kobayashi], ¶¶ [0015], [0017]
`
`
`
`Kobayashi + POSA Knowledge: No Motivation to Combine
`Metal plates stabilize winding core assembly
`
`Dr. Peckerar
`
`Ex. 1006 [Kobayashi], Fig. 8
`
`Ex. 2043 [Peckerar], ¶¶ 333, 561
`
`IPR’1211 (’581) Paper 16 (POR) 22-30, 47-52, Paper 29 (POSR) 7, 14-16;
`IPR’1214 (
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
