`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`IPR2021-00880 (Patent 9,669,069 B2)
`IPR2021-00881 (Patent 9,254,338 B2)
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2021-00880 & IPR2021-00881
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
`I.
`INTRODUCTION. .......................................................................................... 1
`II.
`ARGUMENT. .................................................................................................. 3
`BACKGROUND: INTRINSIC RECORDS OF THE CHALLENGED
`PATENTS. ................................................................................................ 3
`DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER § 325(d) IS NOT WARRANTED. .............. 6
`1.
`Petitioner’s asserted art and arguments are not the same
`or cumulative. (Becton, Dickinson (a), (b), and (d)). ................. 6
`Petitioner presents additional, new art and arguments.
`(Becton, Dickinson (a), (b), (d)). ................................................. 8
`If the Board concludes step one of Advanced Bionics is
`satisfied, the Office erred. (Becton, Dickinson (c), (e),
`(f)). .............................................................................................. 9
`The cases cited in the POPR are not relevant to the facts
`here. ............................................................................................. 9
`III. CONCLUSION. ............................................................................................. 10
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2021-00880 & IPR2021-00881
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`Cases
`ABS Global, Inc. v. Cytonome/ST, LLC,
`IPR2021-00306, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2021) ............................................ 10
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020) ................................... passim
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. M2M Solutions LLC,
`IPR2019-01205, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2020) ............................................ 1
`Amgen, Inc. v. Alexion Pharms., Inc.,
`IPR2019-00739, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2019) ........................................... 1
`Amneal Pharms. LLC v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Ltd.,
`IPR2018-00943, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2018) ............................................... 1
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017) .................................. passim
`Boragen, Inc. v. Syngenta Participations AG,
`IPR2020-00124, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. May 5, 2020) ........................................... 10
`Coolpad Techs., Inc. v. Bell N. Rsch., LLC,
`IPR2019-01319, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2020) ............................................ 4
`Dish Network L.L.C. v. Broadband iTV, Inc.,
`IPR2020-01332, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 2021) ............................................ 7
`Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Utex Indus., Inc.,
`IPR2020-00333, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2020) ........................................... 10
`Guardian Indus. Corp. v. Pilkington Deutschland AG,
`IPR2016-01635, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2017) .............................................. 9
`Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.,
`141 S. Ct. 2298 (2021) .......................................................................................... 2
`NXP USA, Inc. v. Impinj, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00519, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2020) ........................................... 10
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2021-00880 & IPR2021-00881
`
`
`Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`204 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ........................................................................4, 6
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §325(d) ...................................................................................................... 7
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 1.56(a) ..................................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(2) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`As authorized by the Board (Paper 13), Petitioner submits this Reply.
`
`Case Nos. IPR2021-00880 & IPR2021-00881
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION.
`Discretionary denial is not warranted here. “The Board has consistently
`
`declined exercising its discretion under Section 325(d) when the only fact a Patent
`
`Owner can point to is that a reference was disclosed to the Examiner during the
`
`prosecution.” Amgen Inc. v. Alexion Pharms., Inc., IPR2019-00739, Paper 15 at 62
`
`(P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2019) (citing Amneal Pharms. LLC v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland
`
`Ltd., IPR2018-00943, Paper 8 at 40 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2018); Amazon.com, Inc. v.
`
`M2M Solutions LLC, IPR2019-01205, Paper 14 at 16 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2020) (“[A]
`
`reference that ‘was neither applied against the claims nor discussed by the Examiner’
`
`does not weigh in favor of exercising the Board’s discretion under § 325(d) to deny
`
`a petition.”). In neither prosecution did the Examiner consider art or arguments the
`
`same or substantially the same as Petitioner’s. Thus, there was no need for Petitioner
`
`to address Becton, Dickinson factors or allege Examiner error.1
`
`[IPR2021-00880] The ’069 Patent File History Does Not Pass Advanced
`
`Bionics’ Threshold Inquiry. Neither “the same [nor] substantially the same” art or
`
`arguments were “previously . . . presented to the Office” for U.S. 9,669,069 (“the
`
`
`1 PO raised the Chengdu PGR2021-00035, which is inapposite. The ’345 patent
`
`contains eight pages of “References Cited.” PGR2021-00035, Ex.1001, 1-8.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2021-00880 & IPR2021-00881
`
`’069 patent”). Petitioner asserts, among several other references, Dixon (Ex.1006),
`
`as anticipatory art. Patent Owner (“PO”) argues that “Dixon was submitted to the
`
`Office . . . and was marked ‘considered’ by the Examiner.” The intrinsic record
`
`confirms otherwise. First, like in Amazon, Dixon was “neither applied against the
`
`claims nor discussed by the Examiner.” (See also Petition, 32 (“Dixon was not cited
`
`by the Examiner.”)). Second, while a “Dixon” citation appears in an IDS submitted
`
`at the end of prosecution, Dixon—in the form asserted by Petitioner (Ex.1006)—
`
`was in fact neither presented nor considered. Instead, PO intentionally submitted
`
`only the first page of Dixon to the Examiner, misdirecting him from the critical
`
`disclosures that anticipate and invalidate the claims. PO never “‘disclose[d]’ to the
`
`PTO all information [it] kn[ew] ‘to be material to patentability.’” Minerva Surgical,
`
`Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 2298, 2309 n.3 (2021) (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(a)).
`
`The Examiner therefore never considered Dixon—in its entirety, as Petitioner
`
`asserts—or the dosing regimens disclosed therein.
`
`[IPR2021-00881] The ’338 Patent File History Does Not Pass Advanced
`
`Bionics’ Threshold Inquiry. Similarly, neither “the same [nor] substantially the
`
`same” art or arguments were “previously . . . presented to the Office” for U.S.
`
`9,254,338 (“the ’338 patent”). PO distorts the intrinsic record, misrepresenting a
`
`2012 (post-art) paper as a 2008 publication to argue cumulativeness. That argument
`
`fails for its deliberate contradiction of the facts, which confirm the Examiner never
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2021-00880 & IPR2021-00881
`
`
`considered Petitioner’s asserted art or any other VIEW prior art.
`
`In sum, the answer to Advanced Bionics’ first inquiry—whether the same or
`
`substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office—
`
`for both challenged patents is a definitive “no.” Petitioner thus had no reason to
`
`allege Examiner error or provide Becton, Dickinson analysis.
`
`II. ARGUMENT.
` BACKGROUND: INTRINSIC RECORDS OF THE CHALLENGED PATENTS.
` [IPR2021-00880] The ’069 Patent Prosecution. First, Dixon (Ex.1006)
`
`was “neither applied against the claims nor discussed by the [E]xaminer.”
`
`Amazon.com, Paper 14 at 16; (see also Petition, 32).2 The Examiner issued one
`
`office action, asserting OTDP over several prior PO patents, none of which disclosed
`
`CLEAR-IT-23 (Ex.1017, 105-09), and further stating that while the OTDP patents
`
`“do[] not disclose the [claimed] dosing schedules,” the element was “routine
`
`experimentation.” The Examiner did not apply any prior art disclosing the dosing
`
`
`2 PO alleges Regeneron (30-April-2009) is cumulative of Regeneron (20-December-
`
`2010). Not so. The 2010 document is 102(a) art; Regeneron (30-April-2009) is
`
`102(b) art, and, like Dixon, was never asserted or discussed by the Examiner.
`
`Further, Mitchell (ranibizumab) is not cumulative of one-page Dixon (aflibercept).
`
`3 PO notably does not allege Dixon is cumulative of the art or arguments the
`
`Examiner actually asserted (i.e., the OTDP patents) during prosecution.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2021-00880 & IPR2021-00881
`
`regimens in Dixon. In response, PO asserted so-called “improved unexpected
`
`results,” presenting Heier-2012 as support. (Id., 136). PO never directed the
`
`Examiner to Dixon or any other prior art disclosing the dosing regimens in Dixon.
`
`Second, Dixon was, in fact, not presented to the Examiner. The EFS
`
`Acknowledgment Receipt clearly states that the Examiner received only one page:
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`
`
`
`(Ex.1017, 126 (emphasis added)).4 The certified file history confirms PO only
`
`submitted a one-page copy. (Ex.1087 [-880 IPR]). Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(2),
`
`PO thus informed the Examiner that its one-page copy represented the “portion
`
`which caused [Dixon] to be listed,” affirmatively excluding the rest. The submitted
`
`page, however, does not disclose (or even mention) the prior art regimens described
`
`
`4 PO argues the Examiner’s initials signify he “considered” Dixon. (POPR, 10-11).
`
`The initialed IDS shows, at best, that he “considered” the single page—no more.
`
`Coolpad Techs., Inc. v. Bell N. Rsch., LLC, IPR2019-01319, Paper 19 at 9-12
`
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2020) (citing Semiconductor Energy Lab’y Co. v. Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., 204 F.3d 1368, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (initials “extend[] only to
`
`the examiner’s consideration of the brief translated portion”)).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2021-00880 & IPR2021-00881
`
`extensively in the complete Dixon (Ex.1006). (Compare id., with Petition, 32-34).
`
`[IPR2021-00881] The ’338 Patent Prosecution. Petitioner’s anticipatory art
`
`was not considered by the Examiner. (Petition, 27-36). PO contends that art is
`
`cumulative of an IDS-listed document which PO presents to the Board as a
`
`“September 28, 2008, Regeneron Press Release” (hereinafter, the “9/28/08 PR”).
`
`(POPR, 9). This is false and misleading. The paper on which PO hinges its argument
`
`is a 2012 (i.e., post-art)5 printout of a “Thomson Reuters” website (“Reuters-
`
`2012”)—i.e., not the 9/28/08 PR.6 (Ex.2007). The actual 9/28/08 PR (accessible to
`
`PO but withheld from the Examiner7) contains information absent in Reuters-2012.
`
`(Ex.1098 [-881 IPR] (comparison, with text missing from Reuters-2012 in blue)).
`
`Reuters-2012 was also never “applied against the claims []or discussed by the
`
`[E]xaminer”—nor was any VIEW dosing regimen prior art. Amazon.com, Paper 14
`
`at 16. Instead, the Examiner made one round of OTDP rejections (based upon
`
`
`5 The ’338 patent purports a Jan. 2011 priority date. Nothing in the record supports
`
`finding the Examiner accepted Reuters-2012 as prior art or a printed publication.
`
`6 In its POPR, PO short-cites Reuters-2012 (Ex.2007) as “9/28/2008 Press Release,”
`
`repeatedly mispresenting it as a 2008 disclosure. (POPR, 9, 12-14, 58-59).
`
`7 Actual, complete press releases, e.g., 9/28/08 PR, were accessible to PO. (Ex.1012;
`
`Ex.1013; Ex.1028; Ex.1041; Ex.1053; Ex.1054; Ex.1056). None were presented.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2021-00880 & IPR2021-00881
`
`Regeneron’s earlier sequence patents) before allowing the claims. No § 102 or § 103
`
`rejections were lodged by the Examiner. (Ex.1017, 259-69).
`
` DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER § 325(d) IS NOT WARRANTED.
`In light of Advanced Bionics, incorporating the Becton, Dickinson factors, the
`
`Board should not exercise its discretionary denial authority.
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner’s asserted art and arguments are not the same or
`cumulative. (Becton, Dickinson (a), (b), and (d)).
`[IPR2021-00880]. PO classifies Petitioner’s primary references (Exs.1006,
`
`1012, 1020) as cumulative of the one-page “Dixon” the Examiner received at the
`
`end of prosecution.8 As set forth above, neither Dixon (Ex.1006) nor any cumulative
`
`art or substantially the same arguments were presented to or considered by the
`
`Examiner. Indeed, PO’s one-page “Dixon” excludes every invalidating disclosure
`
`of the prior art dosing regimens—all of which are expressly included in Petitioner’s
`
`art. Accordingly, the first Advanced Bionics factor is not, and cannot be, satisfied.9
`
`
`8 As stated above (see n.2 supra), Regeneron (30-April-2009) (Ex.1028) is also not
`
`the same or substantially the same art as Regeneron (20-Dec-2010).
`
`9 Petitioner further submits that the one-page “Dixon” fails to comply with PO’s
`
`Rule 56 duties of candor, good faith, and disclosure. Instead, PO’s “misleadingly
`
`incomplete” one-page copy “misdirect[ed] the examiner’s attention from [Dixon’s]
`
`relevant teaching.” See Semiconductor, 204 F.3d at 1377-78.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2021-00880 & IPR2021-00881
`
`[IPR2021-00881]. It is undisputed that Petitioner’s anticipatory references
`
`were never presented, considered, or asserted during prosecution. Petitioner’s art—
`
`all predating the ’338 patent—also is not substantially the same as Reuters-2012.
`
`First, Reuters-2012 is post-art and thus is not, and cannot be, the “same or
`
`substantially the same prior art.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (emphasis added); Dish
`
`Network L.L.C. v. Broadband iTV, Inc., IPR2020-01332, Paper 14 at 15 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Jan. 27, 2021) (the cited reference “was not ‘prior art,’ as provided in §
`
`325(d) . . . [thus] does not present ‘the same or substantially the same prior art’”)).10
`
`Second, Petitioner’s art contains additional disclosures not in Reuters-2012.
`
`For example, Dixon discusses Lucentis extended dosing regimens and the problems
`
`with monthly intravitreal injections. (Ex.1006, 1574, 1577; Petition, 28-29). Adis
`
`and Dixon disclose that VEGF Trap-Eye is aflibercept. (Ex.1006, 1573; Ex.1007,
`
`261; Petition, 23-24). Regeneron (8-May-2008) includes efficacy endpoints for the
`
`VIEW trials and PO/inventor statements about the claimed regimens. (Ex.1013).11
`
`[Both IPRs] PO concedes Petitioner’s secondary references (’758 patent and
`
`Dix) were not presented to the Examiner. Instead, PO argues the ’234 application is
`
`substantially the same, but, in doing so, PO ignores the additional, non-cumulative
`
`
`10 Reuters-2012 is the only dosing reference PO bases its § 325(d) arguments on.
`
`11 Such disclosures will rebut PO’s efficacy and expectation of success arguments.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2021-00880 & IPR2021-00881
`
`disclosures in Petitioner’s art. For example, the ’758 patent contains Fig. 24, the
`
`aflibercept sequence and domain annotations not found in the ’234 application or the
`
`OTDP references. (Ex.1010, Fig.24A-C; Petition, 36, 63). Dix incorporates Holash,
`
`the original publication detailing the creation and structure of aflibercept. (Ex.1033,
`
`[0005]; Petition, 37, 63). The ’758 patent file history contains an EYLEA® PTE
`
`application with PO admissions confirming Fig. 24A-C is the aflibercept sequence
`
`and tying aflibercept to Holash. (Ex.1024, 2, 6-7; Petition, 36).12
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner presents additional, new art and arguments.
`(Becton, Dickinson (a), (b), (d)).
`[IPR2021-00880]. Beyond the complete version of Dixon and other § 102(b)
`
`references, Petitioner relies on new art and arguments. For example, the Examiner
`
`never rejected claims under §§ 102/103, whereas Petitioner asserts four anticipation
`
`and two obviousness grounds—all involving art the Examiner never considered.
`
`[IPR2021-00881]. As discussed above, Petitioner’s asserted art was neither
`
`presented to the Examiner, nor is it “substantially the same” as Reuters-2012. In
`
`addition, Petitioner presents arguments never considered by the Examiner, who
`
`never rejected claims under §§ 102/103. Plus, there is no evidence the Examiner
`
`considered, evaluated, or asserted prior art based on the VIEW dosing regimen.
`
`
`12 US2005/0163798, not raised in the POPR, also does not include the incorporation
`
`by reference to Holash, or the EYLEA® PTE application disclosures.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2021-00880 & IPR2021-00881
`
`In both IPRs, Petitioner also presents Dr. Albini’s opinions and analyses,
`
`further weighing against § 325(d) denial. See Guardian Indus. Corp. v. Pilkington
`
`Deutschland AG, IPR2016-01635, Paper 9 at 9-10 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2017).
`
`3.
`
`If the Board concludes step one of Advanced Bionics is
`satisfied, the Office erred. (Becton, Dickinson (c), (e), (f)).
`As explained, the records do not reflect that Petitioner’s art or arguments were
`
`presented to, or considered by, the Examiner. Petitioner submits that PO’s
`
`documents (the one-page Dixon; Regeneron (20-December-2010); and Reuters-
`
`2012) are not Rule 56 disclosures of “the same or substantially the same art.” Plus,
`
`the Examiner issued no analogous rejections. Accordingly, Advanced Bionics’ first
`
`factor is not satisfied and Petitioner should not have been required to allege error.
`
`[IPR2021-00880]. In the event the Board disagrees, Petitioner respectfully
`
`submits that the Examiner materially erred in (i) accepting PO’s one-page
`
`submission, (ii) not obtaining a complete copy of Dixon, and (iii) not rejecting the
`
`claims over Dixon and/or any other § 102(b) reference disclosing the PRN regimens
`
`set forth therein. (See Petition, 1 (“These claims should have never issued.”)).
`
`[IPR2021-00881]. Likewise, Petitioner respectfully submits that the
`
`Examiner materially erred in not evaluating whether Reuters-2012 could be tied to
`
`earlier publications, and further erred in not locating and asserting any of the art that
`
`reads directly on the claims, including the VIEW prior art, during prosecution.
`
`4.
`
`The cases cited in the POPR are not relevant to the facts here.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2021-00880 & IPR2021-00881
`
`None of PO’s cases support its attempt to shield the challenged claims from
`
`substantive review. NXP USA, Inc. v. Impinj, Inc. involved a reference that was
`
`prior art; cited as the lone reference in an IDS; with the same authors as the IPR-
`
`asserted art; involving numerous § 103 rejections wherein the Examiner extensively
`
`evaluated and compared the pending claims against art disclosing the same features
`
`as the IDS reference. IPR2020-00519, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2020); (see, e.g.,
`
`Ex.1088 [-880 IPR], 1, 4-18, 22-36, 44-46; Ex.1099 [-881 IPR] (same)).
`
`In ABS Global, Inc. v. Cytonome/ST, LLC, an IDS listed three of the IPR-
`
`asserted references; one was evaluated and asserted by the Examiner during
`
`prosecution; and the petitioner had “multiple failed attempts” asserting the art in
`
`related IPRs and district court. IPR2021-00306, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. June 7, 2021).
`
`In Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Utex Indus., Inc., “nearly identical” disclosures were
`
`“thoroughly considered” “multiple times” in the Examiner’s §§ 102/103 rejections.
`
`IPR2020-00333, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2020). Boragen, Inc. v. Syngenta
`
`Participations AG, involved IPR art “asserted by the Examiner in five separate office
`
`actions.” IPR2020-00124, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. May 5, 2020).
`
`
`
`In short, PO cites no cases that deny institution based upon merely an IDS
`
`listing, where, as here, the claims were never subject to any §§102/103 challenges.
`
`III. CONCLUSION.
`Petitioner respectfully asks the Board reject PO’s request for § 325(d) denial.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Dated: September 29, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2021-00880 & IPR2021-00881
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`RAKOCZY MOLINO MAZZOCHI SIWIK LLP
`
`/Paul J. Molino/
`Paul J. Molino (Reg. No. 45,350)
`6 West Hubbard Street
`Suite 500
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Telephone:
`(312) 222-6300
`Facsimile:
`(312) 222-6320
`paul@rmmslegal.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`was served on September 29, 2021, via electronic mail by agreement of the parties,
`
`to the following counsel for record of Patent Owners:
`
`Deborah E. Fishman (Reg. No. 48,621)
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`Five Palo Alto Square, Suite 500
`Palo Alto, California 94306-3807
`Telephone: 650.319.4519
`Facsimile: 650.319.4573
`Deborah.Fishman@arnoldporter.com
`regeneroneyleaiprs@arnoldporter.com
`
`Matthew M. Wilk
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`250 West 55th Street
`New York, New York 10019-9710
`Telephone: 212.836.8000
`Facsimile: 212.836.8689
`Matthew.Wilk@arnoldporter.com
`
`
`Dated: September 29, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Alice S. Ho (Lim. Rec. No. L1162)
`Victoria Reines
`Rebecca Neubauer
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`601 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
`Washington D.C. 20001
`Tel: 202.942.5000
`Fax: 202.942.5999
`Alice.Ho@arnoldporter.com
`Victoria.Reines@arnoldporter.com
`Rebecca.Neubauer@arnoldporter.com
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`RAKOCZY MOLINO MAZZOCHI SIWIK LLP
`
`/Paul J. Molino/
`Paul J. Molino (Reg. No. 45,350)
`
`
`
`
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
