UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNM RAINFOREST INNOVATIONS,
`
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR2021-00375
`
`Patent No. 8,265,096 B2
`_____________________
`
`PETITIONER’S BRIEF ON THE ISSUES OF PATENT OWNERSHIP
`AND STANDING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNM RAINFOREST INNOVATIONS,
`
`Patent Owner.
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR2021-00375
`
`Patent No. 8,265,096 B2
`_____________________
`
`PETITIONER’S BRIEF ON THE ISSUES OF PATENT OWNERSHIP
`AND STANDING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00375
`Patent No. 8,265,096
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`
`II. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`A. As the current assignee of record, UNM has presumptive standing to
`participate in this IPR as the patent owner ............................................................ 2
`
`B. There is no evidence in this IPR rebutting the presumption that UNM is the
`assignee of the ’096 patent ..................................................................................... 4
`
`1. The existence of other litigations involving patent ownership does not
`rebut the presumption ........................................................................................ 4
`
`2. There is no other evidence in this IPR that rebuts UNM’s presumptive
`standing .............................................................................................................. 7
`
`C. Qualcomm discharged its service/notice obligations, and no other
`considerations impact UNM’s standing ................................................................. 8
`
`III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Updated Exhibit List
`
`IPR2021-00375
`Patent No. 8,265,096
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e), Petitioner submits its updated exhibit list:
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001
`Ex. 1002
`Ex. 1003
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`Ex. 1010
`Ex. 1011
`
`Ex. 1012
`Ex. 1013
`
`Ex. 1016
`Ex. 1017
`Ex. 1018
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,265,096 (“the ’096 patent”)
`Declaration of Dr. Sumit Roy (“Roy”)
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group-Trucking
`LLC, Paper 24, IPR2019-01393 (PTAB June 16, 2020)
`Eleventh Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under
`Exigent Circumstances Created by the Covid 19 Pandemic (W.D.
`Tex. Dec. 10, 2020)
`Excerpts from JEFFREY G. ANDREWS ET AL., FUNDAMENTALS OF
`WIMAX (2007)
`Five Criteria Statement for P802.16m PAR Proposal, IEEE 802.16-
`06/055r3 (Nov. 15, 2006)
`IEEE 802.16m System Requirements, IEEE 802.16m-07/002r4
`(Oct. 19, 2007)
`Listing of Challenged ’096 Patent Claims
`U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/929,798
`Excerpts from ’096 Patent File History
`Claim Construction Order in STC.UNM v. Apple Inc., No. 1-20-cv-
`00351 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2020), ECF No. 69 (“Markman Order”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0067377 A1 (“Talukdar”)
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/956,031
`Provisional”)
`Canadian Patent Application No. 2 581 166 A1 (“Wang”)
`Ex. 1014
`Industrial Property
`Information and
`Ex. 1015 WIPO Handbook on
`Documentation, “Examples and Kinds of Patent Documents” (May
`2016)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0155387 A1 (“Li”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0104174 A1 (“Nystrom”)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0095195 (“Ahmadi”)
`
`(“Talukdar
`
` -iii-
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00375
`Patent No. 8,265,096
`
`
`of
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1019
`
`Ex. 1020
`Ex. 1021
`Ex. 1022
`
`Ex. 1024
`Ex. 1025
`
`Ex. 1026
`Ex. 1027
`
`Ex. 1028
`Ex. 1029
`
`Ex. 1030
`
`Ex. 1031
`
`Description
`Excerpts from William Stallings, WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS AND
`NETWORKS (2D ED. 2005)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,460,466 B2 (“Lee”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,462,611 B2 (“Ma”)
`Fixed, nomadic, portable and mobile applications for 802.16-2004
`and 802.16e WiMAX networks (November 2005)
`Ex. 1023 Mohammad Azizul Hasan, Performance Evaluation
`WiMAX/IEEE 802.16 OFDM Physical Layer (June 2007)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,710,910 B2 (“Ode”)
`IEEE 802.16m System Requirements, IEEE 802.16m-07/002r4 (Jan.
`12, 2007)
`U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0037215 A1 (“Hwang”)
`Yasamin Mostofi, ICI Mitigation for Pilot-Aided OFDM Mobile
`Systems (IEEE, Vol. 4, No. 2, Mar. 2005)
`Declaration of Dr. Robert Akl
`Scott McKeown, District Court Trial Dates Tend to Slip After PTAB
`Discretionary Denials, Patents Post Grant (available at:
`https://www.patentspostgrant.com/district-court-trial-dates-tend-to-
`slip-after-ptab-discretionary-denials/)
`Declaration of Jonah D. Mitchell in Support of Petitioners’ Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`Declaration of Christine M. Morgan in Support of Petitioners’
`Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`ITRI’s Recorded Assignment, Reel/Frame No. 045200/0980
`Sino Matrix’s Recorded Assignment, Reel/Frame No. 021275/0468
`UNM’s Recorded Assignment, Reel/Frame No. 046854/0173
`June 22, 2021 hearing transcript before Judge Albright in UNM’s
`litigations against Dell and ASUSTek.
`Printout from Public PAIR showing the correspondence address of
`record for the ’096 patent
`Excerpt of ’096 file history showing ITRI’s prosecution counsel
`
`Ex. 1032
`Ex. 1033
`Ex. 1034
`Ex. 1035
`
`Ex. 1036
`
`Ex. 1037
`
`
`
` -iv-
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`At the Board’s request (Paper 19 at 4), Qualcomm submits this brief to
`
`IPR2021-00375
`Patent No. 8,265,096
`
`
`I.
`
`address patent ownership and standing. UNM has consistently identified itself as
`
`the patent owner here, in the parallel litigation, and in other proceedings. Indeed, it
`
`only introduced the specter of an ownership dispute here – after the Board
`
`instituted review – as a gambit to halt review, but its position on its status as the
`
`patent owner elsewhere has never wavered. UNM is the assignee of record based
`
`on the face of the publicly-recorded assignments, which are presumed valid in this
`
`proceeding. When the Board has considered attempts by record patent owners, like
`
`UNM, to leverage ownership disputes in other forums to interrupt PTAB
`
`proceedings, it has rejected them. The same should follow here. Proffering no
`
`evidence to rebut the presumption flowing from the recorded assignments, UNM
`
`has standing to participate as the patent owner.
`
`Moreover, no other considerations warrant deviating from the orderly
`
`completion of this IPR. Indeed, by serving the correspondent address of record for
`
`the ’096 patent, Qualcomm met all service obligations necessary to proceed.
`
`Moreover, to the extent there are any concerns regarding Industrial Technology
`
`Research Institute (“ITRI”), here, the correspondent address of record for the ’096
`
`patent is actually ITRI’s prosecution counsel. And, ITRI also is on notice of the
`
`IPR through the parallel litigation. That it has chosen not to participate is of no
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`concern. This IPR should proceed without further delay and conclude by the
`
`IPR2021-00375
`Patent No. 8,265,096
`
`
`statutory final determination deadline.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A. As the current assignee of record, UNM has presumptive standing
`
`to participate in this IPR as the patent owner
`
`An assignee may establish standing in an IPR “by showing a chain of title
`
`from the original owner to the assignee … by reference to documents recorded in
`
`the USPTO.” FedEx Corp. v. Human Sciences HC Ltd., IPR2017-01830, Paper 29
`
`at 8-9 (PTAB Aug. 13, 2018) (citing 37 C.F.R. §§ 3.73(c)(1)(i)–(ii).)
`
`Although recording an assignment in the USPTO “is not a determination by
`
`the Office of the validity of the document or the effect that document has on the
`
`title to … a patent” (37 C.F.R. § 3.54), “[t]he recording of an assignment with
`
`the PTO … creates a presumption of validity as to the assignment and places
`
`the burden to rebut such a showing on one challenging the assignment.”). SIRF
`
`Tech., Inc. v. ITC, 601 F.3d 1319, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (emphasis added).
`
`Accordingly, “[i]n inter partes review proceedings, the Board generally accepts a
`
`party’s identification of itself as patent owner.” FedEx Corp., IPR2017-01830,
`
`Paper 29 at 9.
`
`Here, the publicly-recorded assignment documents identify UNM as the
`
`current assignee of record. The ’096 patent was filed as U.S. Application No.
`
` -2-
`
`
`
`12/168,855 (“the ’855 application”). Ex. 1001 at 1. USPTO assignment records
`
`IPR2021-00375
`Patent No. 8,265,096
`
`
`show: (1) the ’855 application assigned by the named inventors to ITRI, executed
`
`on July 3, 2008 and recorded at the Patent Office on July 22, 2008 (Ex. 1032 at 1-
`
`4); (2) the ’096 patent assigned by ITRI to Sino Matrix Technology, Inc. (“Sino
`
`Matrix”), executed on March 7, 2018 and recorded at the Patent Office on March
`
`14, 2018 (Ex. 1033 at 1-2); and (3) the ’096 patent assigned by Sino Matrix to
`
`UNM, executed on August 21, 2018 and recorded at the Patent Office on
`
`September 12, 2018 (Ex. 1034 at 1-4).
`
`Accordingly, the recordation of these assignment records “creates a
`
`presumption” of their validity and “places the burden to rebut such a showing on
`
`one challenging the assignment.” SIRF Tech., 601 F.3d at 1327–28. However, in
`
`this IPR, neither UNM nor Qualcomm has challenged the validity of these
`
`assignments. Indeed, commencing with its mandatory notices, UNM has
`
`consistently identified itself as the patent owner in this proceeding, just as it has
`
`done in its enforcement campaign, where it has referenced the assignments to
`
`establish its ownership. See UNM Rainforest Innovations v. ZyXEL Commc’ns
`
`Corp., No. 6:20cv00522-ADA, Dkt. 30 at 1-2; FedEx, Paper 29 at 9 (“[T]he Board
`
`generally accepts a party’s identification of itself as patent owner”). Thus, for
`
`purposes of this proceeding, UNM is the presumptive assignee of the ’096 patent
`
`and has standing.
`
` -3-
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00375
`Patent No. 8,265,096
`
`There is no evidence in this IPR rebutting the presumption that
`
`B.
`
`UNM is the assignee of the ’096 patent
`
`In support of its request to file a motion to stay this IPR, UNM relied
`
`exclusively on the existence of outside proceedings in which ownership of the ’096
`
`patent is being litigated.1 Paper 19 at 2. Under PTAB precedent, however, outside
`
`proceedings do not impact UNM’s presumptive standing and the timely
`
`completion of this IPR. Nor is there any other evidence in this IPR that rebuts
`
`UNM’s presumptive standing.
`
`1.
`
`The existence of other litigations involving patent ownership
`
`does not rebut the presumption
`
`At least two Board decisions have addressed whether litigation in another
`
`forum concerning ownership of a challenged patent impacts the patent owner’s
`
`presumptive standing in a PTAB proceeding. Both involved the possibility that a
`
`
`1 UNM cited the lawsuit it filed in New Mexico state court against ITRI to quiet title
`
`to the ’096 patent. See UNM Rainforest Innovations v. Industrial Technology
`
`Research Institute, No. D-202-CV-2021-02803 (N.M. 2d. Judicial District Court
`
`May 4, 2021). It also referenced a proceeding ITRI initiated in Taiwan concerning
`
`ownership. Ex. 1035 at 15:24-16:4. Because the Board denied UNM’s request to file
`
`a motion to stay (Paper 19 at 3), Qualcomm does not address the stay issue further.
`
` -4-
`
`
`
`different entity could be declared the patent owner, and neither found any impact
`
`IPR2021-00375
`Patent No. 8,265,096
`
`
`on the patent owner’s presumptive standing to participate in PTAB proceedings.
`
`In The Jewelry Channel, Inc. USA d/b/a Liquidation Channel v. Americas
`
`Collectibles Network, Inc., CBM2014-00119, Paper 10 (PTAB Oct. 20, 2014), the
`
`Board addressed whether a separate district court litigation in which a different
`
`entity had claimed to be the patent owner had any impact on institution. Id. at 3-4.
`
`In the district court case, that entity (Gemstone) moved for summary judgment that
`
`it was the actual owner of the patent. Id. at 3. Like UNM here, the patent owner
`
`(ACN) resisted a stay of the district court case pending resolution of the ownership
`
`dispute, and argued the Board should decline to institute a CBM because of the
`
`possibility that the actual owner would not be a party to the CBM if the district
`
`court determined Gemstone was the actual owner of the patent. Id. at 3-4.
`
`The Board rejected this argument and instituted the CBM, id., reasoning that
`
`the participating patent owner was the assignee of record in the publicly-recorded
`
`assignment documents. Id. at 4. The Board also observed that the participating
`
`patent owner was engaged in an enforcement campaign and had sued the
`
`petitioner, and the Board criticized its attempt to leverage the ownership dispute in
`
`the CBM, while taking a different position in the district court case. Id.
`
`All of the circumstances present in Jewelry Channel are present here. Most
`
`importantly, like the participating patent owner in Jewelry Channel, UNM is the
`
` -5-
`
`
`
`presumptive assignee based on the recorded assignments. In addition, like the
`
`IPR2021-00375
`Patent No. 8,265,096
`
`
`participating patent owner in Jewelry Channel, UNM is engaged in an enforcement
`
`campaign (Petition at 2-3), including a lawsuit against Qualcomm’s RPI Dell. As
`
`in Jewelry Channel, UNM should not be able to claim it is the patent owner in its
`
`enforcement campaign while at the same time use the ownership dispute it initiated
`
`as a shield to interrupt this IPR.
`
`Likewise, in Pixart Imaging Inc. v. Syncpoint Imaging, LLC, IPR2015-
`
`01347, Paper 18 (PTAB Mar. 9, 2016), the Board rejected a patent owner’s request
`
`to file a motion to stay in view of an ownership dispute arising out of a bankruptcy
`
`proceeding involving the challenged patent. Id. at 3-4. As the patent owner had
`
`been “assigned ownership of the [challenged] patent,” it was the presumptive
`
`assignee, but the bankruptcy trustee claimed the assignment was improper. Id. at 4.
`
`In denying the stay request, the Board was “not persuaded” that “the bankruptcy
`
`proceeding will be resolved prior to our statutory deadline” or that it “justifies
`
`staying this proceeding, much less qualifies as an extraordinary circumstance that
`
`would waive the one year requirement to issue a final determination.” Id. The
`
`Board, thus, implicitly found the assignee of record participating as patent owner
`
`had standing to proceed. Id.
`
`Just as in Pixart and Jewelry Channel, the facts here involve an outside
`
`proceeding where patent ownership is being litigated and where a party other than
`
` -6-
`
`
`
`the record patent owner participating in the IPR could be found to be the patent
`
`IPR2021-00375
`Patent No. 8,265,096
`
`
`owner. And, just as in those decisions, the Board should not disrupt the timely
`
`completion of this IPR, not least because the presumptive assignee is already
`
`participating as the patent owner.2
`
`2.
`
`There is no other evidence in this IPR that rebuts UNM’s
`
`presumptive standing
`
`UNM has relied on FedEx Corp. v. Human Sciences HC Ltd., IPR2017-
`
`01830, Paper 23 (PTAB Apr. 10, 2018), to argue the Board can decide issues of
`
`patent ownership and standing. Paper 19 at 2. However, FedEx is distinguishable
`
`on its facts. There, the ownership issue was raised by the petitioner. Specifically,
`
`the petitioner sought to dismiss its own IPR based on extensive evidence that the
`
`entity attempting to participate as the patent owner lacked standing. FedEx Corp. v.
`
`Human Sciences HC Ltd., IPR2017-01830, Paper 29 at 6-7 (PTAB Aug. 13, 2018).
`
`For instance, the petitioner presented evidence that individuals who authorized a
`
`“Consent Resolution” permitting one of the recorded assignments were not
`
`
`2 The untimeliness of UNM’s attempt to introduce the ownership dispute here – only
`
`after the Board instituted review and months after initiating its New Mexico
`
`litigation against ITRI concerning ownership – further warrants rejecting it as a
`
`means to interrupt this IPR.
`
` -7-
`
`
`
`authorized to do so based on an analysis of the entities’ “certificate of
`
`IPR2021-00375
`Patent No. 8,265,096
`
`
`incorporation and bylaws.” Id. The petitioner also presented evidence of state and
`
`federal criminal and civil securities fraud proceedings against the individuals who
`
`had allegedly authorized the Consent Resolution. Id at 7. The Board then found
`
`that the petitioner had overcome the presumption of the recorded assignments’
`
`validity. Id. at 10-15.
`
`Unlike the FedEx petitioner, here, Qualcomm does not contest in this IPR
`
`UNM’s presumptive standing, nor does Qualcomm seek to dismiss the IPR on that
`
`basis. Moreover, no evidence of record in this IPR rebuts the presumptive validity
`
`of the recorded assignments. Accordingly, as none of the relevant facts relied upon
`
`in FedEx are present here, Pixart and Jewelry Channel govern.
`
`C. Qualcomm discharged its service/notice obligations, and no other
`
`considerations impact UNM’s standing
`
`37 C.F.R § 42.105(a) provides that “[t]he petition and supporting evidence
`
`must be served on the patent owner at the correspondence address of record for the
`
`subject patent.” Id. There are no other service obligations for a petitioner, and it is
`
`the patent owner’s responsibility to ensure that the correspondence address is
`
`current. M.P.E.P. § 2542. The correspondence address of record for the ’096 patent
`
`is the Charlotte office of the law firm Alston & Bird LLP. Ex. 1036. Qualcomm
`
` -8-
`
`
`
`discharged its service obligations by serving the petition and supporting evidence
`
`IPR2021-00375
`Patent No. 8,265,096
`
`
`to this address.3 Paper 4 at 3.
`
`Qualcomm’s fulfillment of its service obligations to the correspondence
`
`address of record alone should end any notice inquiry. To the extent there are any
`
`concerns whether ITRI is on notice, however, the record confirms it is. Indeed,
`
`here, the correspondent of record (the Charlotte office of Alston & Bird) is actually
`
`ITRI’s prosecution counsel. See Ex. 1037 at 1; Ex. 1001 at 1; Paper 4 at 3. In
`
`addition, ITRI participated in a June 2021 hearing in the Dell litigation where
`
`UNM argued extensively regarding the IPRs.4 Ex. 1035 at 21:15-16 (“This is Li
`
`Chen. I'm the counsel for ITRI.”); id. at 26:13-25 (discussing IPRs). In short, ITRI
`
`has long had notice of this IPR proceeding and an opportunity to participate. Its
`
`choice not to participate therefore raises no concern. See Henderson v. United
`
`States, 517 U.S. 654, 672 (1996) (“[T]he core function of service is to supply
`
`notice of the pendency of a legal action, in a manner and at a time that affords the
`
`defendant a fair opportunity to answer … and present defenses and objections.”).
`
`
`3 As a courtesy, Petitioner also served UNM’s litigation counsel. Paper 4 at 3.
`
`4 Even if ITRI did not have notice of the IPR (which it does, as explained above) but
`
`an interest in defending the validity of the patent, UNM’s participation adequately
`
`protects that interest.
`
` -9-
`
`
`
`UNM is the presumptive assignee and is participating as the patent owner.
`
`IPR2021-00375
`Patent No. 8,265,096
`
`
`No other entity has sought to participate. Further, this proceeding must be
`
`completed within one year of institution, absent good cause. 35 U.S.C. §
`
`316(a)(11). And “patent trial statutes and regulations … must be construed to
`
`secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” Pixart,
`
`Paper 18 at 3 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).) Accordingly, Qualcomm is entitled to a
`
`timely determination.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`permit this IPR to proceed, with UNM participating as the patent owner.
`
`Dated: October 18, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/Jonathan I. Detrixhe/
`Lead Counsel
`Jonathan I. Detrixhe (Reg. No. 68,556)
`Reed Smith LLP
`101 Second Street
`Suite 1800
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Tel: 415.543.8700
`Fax: 415.391.8269
`jdetrixhe@reedsmith.com
`
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Jonah D. Mitchell (pro hac vice
`admission pending)
`
` -10-
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00375
`Patent No. 8,265,096
`
`
`Christine M. Morgan (pro hac vice
`admission pending)
`Reed Smith LLP
`101 Second Street
`Suite 1800
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Tel: 415.543.8700
`Fax: 415.391.8269
`jmitchell@reedsmith.com
`cmorgan@reedsmith.com
`
`Peter J. Chassman (Reg. No. 38,841)
`Reed Smith LLP
`811 Main Street
`Suite 1700
`Houston, TX 77002
`Tel: 713.469.3800
`Fax: 713.469.3899
`pchassman@reedsmith.com
`
`
`
`Attorneys for QUALCOMM
`Incorporated
`
`
`
` -11-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00375
`Patent No. 8,265,096
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.25(b), the undersigned certifies
`
`that on October 18, 2021, a complete copy of Petitioners’ brief on the issues of patent
`
`ownership and standing was filed electronically through the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board’s PTABE2E System and provided, via electronic service, to the Patent Owner
`
`by serving the correspondence address of record.
`
`Dated: October 18, 2021
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/ Jonathan I. Detrixhe /
`Jonathan I. Detrixhe (Reg. No. 68,556)
`Reed Smith LLP
`101 Second Street
`Suite 1800
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Tel: 415.543.8700
`Fax: 415.391.8269
`jdetrixhe@reedsmith.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
` -12-
`
`
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
