`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC., AND APPLE INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2021-00144
`Patent 8,095,879
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00144
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners respectfully request rehearing of Ground 2 alone1 pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.71(d), based on the following three arguments:
`
`(1) The Board misapprehended Hirayama307’s (EX1006) teachings
`
`by setting aside FIG. 3A and equating Hirayama307’s telephone icon 41
`
`with window 43;
`
`(2) The Board misapprehended the claim language by relying on
`
`portions of FIG. 3B and FIGs. 4A-B that illustrate actions that occur after
`
`the “gliding” and not “during the gliding,” as required by claim 1; and
`
`(3) At bottom, the Board misapprehended the existence of genuine
`
`disputes of material facts that go to the scope of Hirayama307’s disclosures
`
`and a person of ordinary skill in the art’s (“POSA’s”) understanding of it,
`
`which should have been resolved through an IPR trial.
`
`Ground 2 relied on Hirayama307, as understood by a POSA, either alone or
`
`
`1 Without conceding the merits of the Institution Decision’s preliminary findings
`
`regarding Grounds 1A-1E and 3, Petitioners hereby withdraw Grounds 1A-1E and
`
`3 and stipulate not to pursue these grounds in any proceeding that is instituted from
`
`this rehearing request. In this regard, Petitioners promote narrowed focus on the
`
`merits of Ground 2 only.
`
`1
`
`
`
`alternatively in combination with Ren, to meet claim 1’s requirement “wherein the
`
`representation of the function is not relocated or duplicated during the gliding.”
`
`Petition (“Pet.”) at 60-62; EX1002 (Bederson Declaration), ¶¶ 157-62.2
`
`With respect to Ground 2, the Institution Decision held that “Hirayama307
`
`appears to disclose either relocating or duplicating the icon on the screen’s
`
`display,” and therefore “Petitioner fails to show sufficiently that ‘[i]t would have
`
`been obvious given Hirayama307’s disclosure to implement the user interface such
`
`that’ ‘the representation of the function is not relocated or duplicated during []
`
`gliding,’ as claim 1 requires.” Decision (Paper 24) (“Dec.”), at 18-19.
`
`In the context of the language utilized by Hirayama307, the Board’s
`
`misapprehension is understandable, given Patent Owner’s inaccurate
`
`representations of Hirayama307 in which they conflated Hirayama307’s telephone
`
`icon 41 and the window 43 that is created from the activation thereof. See POPR
`
`(Paper 23), 37-42. Based on guidance from Neonode’s arguments, the Institution
`
`Decision overlooked or misunderstood Petitioners’ demonstration that
`
`Hirayama307’s telephone icon 41 (“the representation of the function”) is “not
`
`relocated or duplicated during the gliding.” Rather, by focusing on window 43
`
`
`2 The Board is free to conclude Hirayama307 discloses all elements of claim 1.
`
`Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`2
`
`
`
`(and not icon 41) and relying on Hirayama307’s disclosures relating to what
`
`happens after the gliding (and not during the gliding), the Institution Decision
`
`reflects clear error—at least as to the Petition’s Ground 2. At bottom, any genuine
`
`dispute of material fact as to the scope of Hirayama307 should be explored through
`
`trial, as there exists no clear evidence refuting Petitioners’ and Dr. Bederson’s
`
`interpretation. Accordingly, Petitioners respectfully request rehearing as to
`
`Ground 2 of this Petition and institution based on the same.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing
`
`without prior authorization from the Board” and “must specifically identify all
`
`matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place
`
`where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a
`
`reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`
`When reconsidering a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision
`
`for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs if
`
`the decision (1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on an
`
`erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact findings; or (4)
`
`involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board could rationally
`
`base its decision.” Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435,
`
`442 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`3
`
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A. The Petition’s Ground 2 Arguments—Hirayama307’s Telephone
`Icon 41 as Shown in FIG. 3A as “the representation of the function
`[that] is not relocated or duplicated during the gliding.”
`
`Claim 1, the only independent claim of the ’879 Patent, recites as follows:
`
`[a] a touch sensitive area in which a representation of a
`function is provided, …
`[c] wherein the function is activated by a multi-step
`operation comprising (i) an object touching the touch sensitive
`area at a location where the representation is provided and then
`(ii) the object gliding along the touch sensitive area away from
`the touched location,
`[d] wherein the representation of the function is not
`relocated or duplicated during the gliding.
`
`The Petition identified Hirayama307’s icon 41, shown in yellow in FIG. 3A
`
`in the Petition, as the claimed “representation of a function.” Pet. at 51-53 (citing
`
`EX1006, 4:57-65, reproducing FIG. 3A as below). The Petition identified no other
`
`item to satisfy this claim element. The Petition also pointed to pen 3 as shown in
`
`FIG. 3A as the “object” that performs the “touching” of the “representation” and
`
`the “gliding . . . away from the touched location.” Pet. at 59. And the Petition
`
`explained that icon 41 “is not relocated or duplicated during the gliding.” Pet. at
`
`60-62. The Petition made no argument or representation as to what occurs to
`
`icon 41 after the gliding.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1006, FIG. 3A (arrow is in original, emphasized in the Petition in red).
`
`Specifically, the Petition explained icon 41 “is not relocated or duplicated
`
`during the gliding” because, while icon 41 is touched, icon 41 itself is not moved
`
`during the dragging movement of pen 3 described in Hirayama307. Pet. at 58, 60.
`
`FIG. 3A illustrates this point—as pen 3 is undergoing the dragging movement
`
`from the location of icon 41 to the display of input tablet 2, a cross-shaped
`
`position designating cursor 42 (not icon 41) is displayed during the gliding
`
`where the pen 3 contacts the display. Pet. at 60-61, citing EX1006, 4:66-5:3, FIG.
`
`3A.
`
`Hirayama307 explains that cross-shaped position designating cursor 42 is
`
`displayed so “the user can visually confirm the exact position of the point of pen 3
`
`. . . .” EX1006, 4:66-5:3; Pet. at 61-62; EX1002, ¶ 158. In addition, Hirayama307
`
`states in reference to FIG. 3A that “the user touches an icon 41 on which a picture
`
`5
`
`
`
`of a telephone is drawn . . . with the point of the pen 3.” EX1006, 4:59-65; Pet. at
`
`58 (citing same). “Then, if the user moves (i.e. drags) the point of the pen 3 to the
`
`display position on the surface of the input tablet 2 without being separated
`
`therefrom after having touched the desired icon 41 with the point of the pen 3, and
`
`takes the point of the pen 3 off from the surface of the input tablet 2, an icon
`
`(hereinafter be [sic] referred to as a window) enlarged in the form of the processing
`
`display mode of the desired icon 41 is automatically displayed on the display
`
`portion 1 as shown in FIG. 3B.” EX1006, 4:61-5:12, FIGs. 3A, 4A; Pet. at 58-60
`
`(citing the same evidence). “[T]he gliding” under the language of the claim is
`
`complete by the time the user “takes the point of the pen 3 off from the surface of
`
`the input tablet 2.” Pet. at 57, 59-60; EX1006, 1:52-55 (“activate . . . a designated
`
`function by the user when the user drags a pen”), 5:3-4, 7:9-10. The remainder of
`
`the disclosure in this sentence, and what is shown in FIG. 3B, describes what
`
`happens after “the gliding,” not “during the gliding.” Pet. at 53, 59 (explaining
`
`that the display of the window 43 with the dialler processing menu is the activation
`
`that occurs after the gliding); EX1006, 1:52-55, 6:3-21.
`
`The Petition further explained that a “POSA would have recognized
`
`Hirayama307 does not describe or show icon 41 (‘representation’) is dragged or
`
`otherwise relocated or duplicated during the movement of pen 3” because through
`
`the cross-shaped position designating cursor 42 “the user can visually confirm the
`
`6
`
`
`
`exact position of the point of pen 3 on the input tablet 2 very clearly.” Pet. at 60;
`
`see also Pet. at 61-62 (same); EX1002, ¶¶ 157-59 (Bederson Declaration
`
`explaining same). Moreover, the Petition explained why there would be no need
`
`for any duplication of icon 41 (e.g., because the cross-shaped cursor 42 informed
`
`the user as to the exact location of the pen during a glide operation), and why a
`
`POSA would have recognized the same. Pet. at 60-62, citing EX1002, ¶¶158-159.
`
`Accordingly, the Petition’s Ground 2 is based, in relevant part, on Hirayama307’s
`
`FIG. 3A and icon 41.
`
`B.
`
`The Decision Misapprehended Hirayama307’s Teachings by
`Setting Aside the Petition’s Arguments Based on FIG. 3A and
`Telephone Icon 41 and Equating Icon 41 With Window 43.
`
`The Institution Decision concluded that “Hirayama307 appears to disclose
`
`either relocating or duplicating the icon on the screen’s display,” and similarly that
`
`“Hirayama307 appears to duplicate or relocate the representation of the function,
`
`i.e., icon, during gliding.” Dec. at 18, 19. Rather than relying on FIG. 3A and
`
`icon 41 as the Petition presented and as discussed above, the Board relied on
`
`FIG. 3B and related disclosures that “an icon (hereinafter be referred to as a
`
`window) enlarged in the form of the processing display mode of the desired
`
`icon 41 is automatically displayed on the display portion 1 as shown in FIG. 3B.”
`
`EX1006, 5:9-11; Dec. at 18.
`
`But the Board misapprehended Hirayama307’s teachings by setting aside
`
`7
`
`
`
`FIG. 3A and equating icon 41 with “enlarged icon” or “large icon” (as depicted in
`
`FIG. 3B), which Hirayama307 throughout the specification refers to as
`
`window 43. Dec. at 18-19; EX1006, 5:64-66, 6:13-14, 6:22-24, 6:46-47. FIG. 3B
`
`is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`EX1006, FIG. 3B. Different from icon 41, Hirayama307 describes window 43 as,
`
`for example: “the large icon, i.e., the window 43,” EX1006, 6:22-23; “Enlarge
`
`icon as a window,” EX1006, 6:22-23, 30; “a position of a window, i.e. a position
`
`of an enlarged icon,” id., 1:61-62; “the processing display form of the icon 41
`
`designated is enlarged as a window 43 shown in FIG. 3B,” id., 5:64-66; “an
`
`enlarged processing display form (i.e. window) is automatically displayed at a
`
`desired position,” id., Abstract; “means for providing an icon processing display
`
`mode window corresponding to said icon,” id., 7:46-47, “dragging the pen means
`
`8
`
`
`
`… to a location at which the icon processing display mode window is to be
`
`displayed,” id., 7:51-53; EX1002, ¶¶ 153, 156. These discussions show icon 41 is
`
`not the same as window 43. Indeed, FIG. 3B maintains the illustration of icon 41
`
`in its original position while the user interacts with window 43. As such, the
`
`Petition’s arguments related to icon 41 demonstrate that Hirayama307 discloses
`
`that the “representation of the function”—i.e., the icon 41—“is not relocated or
`
`duplicated during the gliding” as required by limitation 1[d], and the Board
`
`misapprehended this showing in the Petition.
`
`And for the same reasons above, the Board’s reliance on FIGs. 4A and 4B,
`
`where it described the figures as a “flow chart including the step of enlarging the
`
`icon as a window” and “flow chart including the steps of reducing the icon and
`
`moving the reduced icon,” respectively (Dec. at 19), is a misapprehension because
`
`here too the Board equates icon 41 with window 43. In reference to FIG. 4A,
`
`Hirayama307 explains the “enlarged icon” is “the large display icon, i.e.
`
`window 43 . . . shown in FIG. 3B,” where step S6 in FIG. 4A recites “Enlarge icon
`
`as a window,” and step S8 recites “Move the enlarged icon.” EX1006, 6:7-14
`
`(emphasis added). Thus, the “enlarge[d] icon” in step S6 is window 43, not
`
`icon 41, and there is simply no description in Hirayama307 that “enlarge[ing]
`
`icon” as a window 43 (i.e., step S6) involves relocation or duplication of icon 41.
`
`Indeed, as described above, the static illustration of icon 41 between FIG. 3A and
`
`9
`
`
`
`FIG. 3B demonstrates the opposite.
`
`Accordingly, the Board misapprehended the Petition’s focus on FIG. 3A and
`
`on icon 41 as the “representation of a function” by erroneously relying on FIG. 3B,
`
`equating icon 41 with window 43, and thereby, concluding that window 43
`
`“appears to duplicate or relocate the representation of the function, i.e., icon,
`
`during gliding.” Dec. at 18. To the contrary, the Petition relies solely on
`
`Hirayama307’s icon 41, and window 43 is not the same as icon 41 or a duplication
`
`thereof, as confirmed by FIG. 3B.
`
`To the extent the Board believes some aspect of FIG. 4A’s disclosure of
`
`“Enlarge icon as a window” in step S6 nonetheless suggests a duplication of
`
`icon 41, it is at least not explicit in the reference, and therefore is an issue of fact
`
`that should be explored through institution and trial.
`
`C. The Board Misapprehended The Claim Language by Relying on
`Portions of FIGs. 3B and 4A-B That Illustrate Actions That Occur
`After the Gliding and not During the Gliding as Required by
`Claim 1.
`
`As discussed, claim 1 requires that “the representation of the function is not
`
`relocated or duplicated during the gliding,” where “the gliding” is done by the
`
`“object” going “away from the touched location” on the “touch sensitive area.” In
`
`concluding that “Hirayama307 appears to duplicate or relocate the representation
`
`of the function, i.e., icon, during gliding,” the Board relied on parts of
`
`Hirayama307 discussing what happens after pen 3’s dragging movement away
`
`10
`
`
`
`from the icon 41 is completed, after pen 3 being lifted from the display, and after
`
`the function corresponding to icon 41 has been activated. Dec. at 18-19. In other
`
`words, even if the Board finds that Hirayama307 discloses duplicating or
`
`relocating icon 41 (it does not for the reasons discussed above), the Board’s
`
`finding that Hirayama307’s icon is duplicated and relocated “during the gliding”
`
`was clear error because it relied on parts of Hirayama307 that discuss what
`
`happens after and not during “the gliding.”
`
`Specifically, the Institution Decision relied on discussions corresponding to
`
`FIG. 3B that “[w]hen the user wants to bring the large icon, i.e., window 43
`
`displayed on the display portion 1 . . . back to the original position’ if the user
`
`touches a portion ‘within window 43 with the point of the pen 3 and drags the
`
`point of the pen 3 back to the telephone icon 41 . . . then the icon of large size can
`
`be returned to and stored in that position.” Dec. at 18-19 (quoting EX1006, 6:22-
`
`31) (emphasis added).
`
`But the possibility of dragging window 43 “back to . . . icon 41” as depicted
`
`in FIG. 3B shows that the discussion relates to what happens after what is
`
`illustrated in FIG 3A—after pen 3’s initial touching of icon 41 (“representation of
`
`the function”), after the dragging movement of pen 3 where a cross-shaped
`
`position designating cursor 42 is displayed (“representation of the function is not
`
`relocated or duplicated during the gliding”), and after the function corresponding
`
`11
`
`
`
`to icon 41 has been activated (where the “gliding” is complete and “function is
`
`activated”). See EX1006, 5:3-12 (describing FIG. 3B as depicting after the user
`
`“takes the point of the pen 3 off from the surface of the input tablet . . . ,” which is
`
`after “the gliding”); 6:16-21 (“icon is activated so that various processing menus
`
`with the window 43 can be executed”); 6:1-2 (referring to “menus displayed on the
`
`window 43” after activating the desired icon); Pet. at 53, 57; EX1002, ¶¶ 149, 159.
`
`To the extent the Board relied on FIG. 4B, the same reasons discussed as to FIG.
`
`3B apply to FIG. 4B. See EX1006, 6:35-37 (operation illustrated in FIG. 3B is
`
`“explained more fully with reference to the flow chart forming FIG. 4B.”). Thus,
`
`FIGS. 3B and 4B do not concern what happens “during the gliding.”
`
`Accordingly, by relying on Hirayama307’s disclosures that discuss what
`
`happens after the “gliding,” the Board misapprehended the claim language that
`
`requires icon 41 (the representation) not be duplicated or relocated during “the
`
`gliding.”
`
`D. At Bottom, There are Genuine Disputes of Material Facts as to the
`Scope of Hirayama307 That Should be Resolved Through Trial.
`
`The Bederson Declaration (EX1002) relied on in the Petition provides,
`
`particularly with reference to FIG. 3A, that icon 41 is the “representation of the
`
`function” and that it is “not relocated or duplicated during the gliding” as recited in
`
`claim 1. Pet. at 52-53, 60-62, citing EX1002, ¶¶149, 157-159. The Bederson
`
`Declaration also provides that a POSA would have understood Hirayama307’s
`
`12
`
`
`
`reference to an “enlarged icon” to refer to window 43, not icon 41. Pet. at 52, 56-
`
`57, 60-62, citing EX1002, ¶¶ 149, 153, 157-59. The Bederson Declaration
`
`provides a reasoned basis grounded in the teachings of the reference itself (e.g., the
`
`display of cursor 42 during the dragging) to support these conclusions. Id.
`
`The Institution Decision appears to rely on the reasoning of Patent Owner,
`
`which is based on the Rosenberg Declaration’s opinion that a POSA would have
`
`interpreted Hirayama307 to disclose the icon 41 as “duplicated,” for example,
`
`evidenced by Hirayama307’s reference to an “enlarged icon.” POPR at 37-40,
`
`citing EX2001, ¶¶ 100-3.
`
`In addition, the Institution Decision may have credited Patent Owner’s
`
`inaccurate representations that suggest Hirayama307 discloses a “‘drag and drop’
`
`visual presentation” that was allegedly “commonly used in mobile computing
`
`devices in 2002” relying almost exclusively on the Rosenberg Declaration
`
`regarding how a POSA would interpret Hirayama307. POPR (Paper 23), 37-38,
`
`40, citing EX2001, ¶¶ 99-103 (“A POSA would understand that this shows that the
`
`icon was dragged”). For example, Patent Owner argued Hirayama307 “discloses
`
`that the icons of group 40 in Fig. 3A are dragged during the gliding of the pen and
`
`cursor across the display, . . . because that is how drag and drop operations were
`
`typically performed in computer user interfaces as of 2002.” POPR at 37.
`
`But as discussed above, Hirayama307 does not describe icon 41 as being
`
`13
`
`
`
`“dragged and dropped.” See Pet. at 60-62; EX1002, ¶¶ 157-159. The only
`
`interface element explicitly shown to be dragged is the window 43, the movement
`
`of which is explicitly illustrated in FIG. 3B by an arrow and broken lines, whereas
`
`telephone icon 41 is consistently shown in the same unmoving location in every
`
`figure. EX1006, 6:7-14, FIGs. 3A-B. At bottom, the evidence set forth by
`
`Petitioners in the Bederson Declaration creates genuine disputes of material fact
`
`regarding how a POSA would have understood the scope of Hirayama307. See
`
`Sony Corp. v. Fujifilm Corp, IPR2017-00618, Paper 11, at 6-7 (granting rehearing
`
`where conflicting expert testimony about how a POSA would have understood a
`
`prior art reference “creates a genuine issue of material fact” that the Board “must
`
`view . . . in the light most favorable to Petitioner”). Accordingly, the Board clearly
`
`erred by resolving the dispute in Patent Owner’s favor and thereby denying the
`
`Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (2016).3
`
`Even to the extent that the Board contends that their Decision was not based
`
`
`3 This Petition was filed November 6, 2020, which is before the change to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.108(c) took effect for IPR petitions filed on or after January 8, 2021.
`
`PTAB Rules of Practice for Instituting on All Challenged Patent Claims and All
`
`Grounds and Eliminating the Presumption at Institution Favoring Petitioner as to
`
`Testimonial Evidence, 85 Fed. Reg. 79,120 (Dec. 9, 2020).
`
`14
`
`
`
`on a question of material fact raised by testimonial evidence, it has nevertheless
`
`been shown in this request that no teachings of Hirayama307 demonstrate that the
`
`Petition’s interpretation of it would have been unreasonable to a POSA (indeed,
`
`this request demonstrates that Petitioners’ interpretation is more reasonable). To
`
`conclude that it does on this preliminary record would be to frustrate the very
`
`purpose of holding trials to resolve factual disputes and would thus be inconsistent
`
`with the intent of § 314(a). See Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`
`IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13-15 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (distinguishing between
`
`the institution threshold and the evidentiary standard for proving claims
`
`unpatentable).
`
`IV. RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`For these reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that the Board reconsider
`
`and grant inter partes review of the ’879 Patent based on Hirayama307
`
`(Ground 2), as explained in the Petition and supporting evidence.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: ___July 15, 2021_____
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/W. Karl Renner/
`
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`David L. Holt, Reg. No. 65,161
`Tiffany C. Miller, Reg. 52,032
`James M. Heintz, Reg. No. 41,828
`
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4), the undersigned certifies that on July 15,
`
`2021, a complete and entire copy of this PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR
`
`REHEARING was provided via email, to the Patent Owner by serving the
`
`correspondence address of record as follows:
`
`
`Robert M. Asher, rasher@sunsteinlaw.com
`Bruce D. Sunstein, bsunstein@sunsteinlaw.com
`Timothy M. Murphy, tmurphy@sunsteinlaw.com
`Arne Hans, ahans@sunsteinlaw.com
`Sunstein LLP
`100 High Street
`Boston, MA 02110-2321
`Email: sunsteinip@sunsteinlaw.com
`
`Philip J. Graves, philipg@hbsslaw.com
`Greer N. Shaw, greers@hbsslaw.com
`Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
`301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920
`Pasadena, CA 91101
`
`Mark S. Carlson, markc@hbsslaw.com
`Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
`Seattle, WA 98101
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Crena Pacheco/
`Crena Pacheco
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(858) 678-5667
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
