IPR2021-00921
`Patent No. 8,878,949
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`APPLE, INC., LG ELECTRONICS, INC., and
`LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`v.
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2021-009211
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY IN THE
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,878,949
`
`Filed on behalf of Patent Owner by:
`
`Todd E. Landis (Reg. No. 44,200)
`2633 McKinney Ave., Suite 130
`Dallas, TX 75204
`
`John Wittenzellner (Reg. No. 61,662)
`1735 Market Street, Suite A #453
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`
`
`1IPR2022-00092 (LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.) has been
`joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,878,949
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`APPLE, INC., LG ELECTRONICS, INC., and
`LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`v.
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2021-009211
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY IN THE
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,878,949
`
`Filed on behalf of Patent Owner by:
`
`Todd E. Landis (Reg. No. 44,200)
`2633 McKinney Ave., Suite 130
`Dallas, TX 75204
`
`John Wittenzellner (Reg. No. 61,662)
`1735 Market Street, Suite A #453
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`
`
`1IPR2022-00092 (LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.) has been
`joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Patent No. 8,878,949
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`GROUND 1: NUMAZAKI AND NONAKA DO NOT RENDER
`CLAIMS 1-18 OBVIOUS. .............................................................................. 1
`A.
`Numazaki’s “reflected light extraction unit” is not the claimed
`“electro-optical sensor.” ........................................................................ 1
`Petitioner cannot disregard the Petition to re-write its faulty
`obviousness combination. ..................................................................... 2
`Petitioner’s proposed combination of the prior art remains flawed. ..... 4
`1. Petitioner’s new details expose additional flaws in the
`proposed combination. .................................................................... 4
`2. Petitioner is again choosing to ignore parts of its own Petition...... 6
`3. Petitioner’s attempt to merge disparate embodiments in
`Numazaki remains flawed. .............................................................. 6
`Patent Owner’s critiques of Petitioner’s motivation to combine
`Numazaki and Nonaka are valid. ........................................................... 8
`Numazaki fails to teach the “reflected light extraction unit 102” is
`fixed in relation to “visible light photo-detection array 351.” ............10
`III. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................12
`
`
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Patent No. 8,878,949
`
`
`Cases
`Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp.,
` 554 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ....................................................................... 6, 7, 8
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Patent No. 8,878,949
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“Patent Owner”) respectfully submits this
`
`
`I.
`
`Sur-Reply to Petitioner’s Reply (“Reply”) in Inter Partes Review No. IPR2021-
`
`00921 of U.S. Patent No. 8,878,949 (the “’949 Patent”).
`
`II. GROUND 1: NUMAZAKI AND NONAKA DO NOT RENDER
`CLAIMS 1-18 OBVIOUS.
`
`
`
`A. Numazaki’s “reflected light extraction unit” is not the claimed
`“electro-optical sensor.”
`
`
`
`The Petition unambiguously states that “the ‘reflected light extraction unit
`
`102’ is an ‘electro-optical sensor’ unit.’” Paper 1, p. 28 (emphasis added). This is
`
`not correct. It is undisputed that Numazaki’s “reflected light extraction unit 102”
`
`has a “difference calculation unit 111” and two photo-detection units (“photo-
`
`detection unit 109” and “photo-detection unit 110”) with specific timing and lighting
`
`requirements. See Ex. 1004, Fig. 2; Paper 1, p. 12. But a POSITA would not have
`
`understood the claimed “electro-optical sensor” as having a “difference calculation
`
`unit.” See Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 44-45. Similarly, a POSITA would not have understood the
`
`claimed “electro-optical sensor” as having photo-detection units with different
`
`timing and lighting requirements. See id. Accordingly, a POSITA would not have
`
`understood the “reflected light extraction unit” as being the claimed “electro-optical
`
`sensor.” See id.; Paper 13, pp. 6-8.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Patent No. 8,878,949
`
`Neither Petitioner nor Petitioner’s expert attempts to rebut this argument.
`
`Instead, Petitioner fixates on language in the Preliminary Response and argues that
`
`Patent Owner’s Response “presents shorter, but substantively identical arguments.”
`
`Reply at 4. But this is not correct. Patent Owner raised this argument in response
`
`to the institution decision. See Paper 13, pp. 6-8. As noted by Petitioner, the Board
`
`found “claim 1 does [not] preclude determining that a gesture has been performed
`
`based on the output of more than one electro-optical sensor. Nor does claim 1
`
`preclude additional hardware such as a lighting unit, image-subtraction circuitry, and
`
`timing circuitry.” Reply at 3-4 (citing Paper 8, p. 17). But this finding does not
`
`address how a POSITA would have understood the claimed “electro-optical sensor.”
`
`Petitioner and Petitioner’s expert have not explained why a POSITA would
`
`understand Numazaki’s “reflected light extract unit 102” to be an “electro-optical
`
`sensor,” as required by claim element [1(a)] and claim element [8(a)]. Nonaka does
`
`not cure the deficiencies of Numazaki. Thus, Numazaki and Nonaka fail to render
`
`independent claims 1 and 8 obvious.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner cannot disregard the Petition to re-write its faulty
`obviousness combination.
`
`Petitioner seeks to change its position regarding the fifth and eighth
`
`embodiments disclosed in Numazaki, ostensibly in response to the shortcomings
`
`thereof identified in the Patent Owner Response. See Reply at 4-6. Petitioner
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Patent No. 8,878,949
`
`accuses Patent Owner of misrepresenting its position in the Petition. According to
`
`Petitioner, “[t]he Petition did not suggest, nor does it depend on, Numazaki expressly
`
`teaching that the eighth embodiment’s laptop includes the fifth embodiment’s
`
`components.” Reply at 5. Petitioner’s own words say the opposite:
`
`
`
`Paper 1, p. 23 (emphasis added). Petitioner acknowledges Patent Owner’s argument
`
`that Numazaki does not expressly teach incorporating the fifth embodiment
`
`components in the eighth embodiment laptop, but fails to rebut them. See Reply at
`
`4-5. Accordingly, any argument to the contrary is waived.
`
`Petitioner notes that the Patent Owner Response argued that “‘reflected light
`
`extraction unit 102’ in Fig. 74 is or includes one or more of the ‘reflected light
`
`extraction unit 102’ and ‘visible light photo-detection array 351.’” Reply at 4 (citing
`
`Paper 10, p. 8) (emphasis added). Because “reflected light extraction unit 102”
`
`incorrectly appears twice, Patent Owner believes this misquote to be a typographical
`
`error by Petitioner. To the extent it is not a typographical error, Patent Owner never
`
`argued that Numazaki’s Figure 74 includes the “reflected light extraction unit 102.”
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Patent No. 8,878,949
`
`And Patent Owner never argued that “reflected light extraction unit 102” is or
`
`includes one or more of the “reflected light extraction unit 102” and “visible light
`
`photo-detection array 351.” In fact, Numazaki always discloses “visible light photo-
`
`detection array 351” as being external to the “reflected light extraction unit 102.”
`
`See Ex. 1004, Figs. 46, 49, 50, 52.
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner’s proposed combination of the prior art remains
`flawed.
`
`1. Petitioner’s new details expose additional flaws in the proposed
`combination.
`
`
`In the Reply, Petitioner explains for the first time the details of its proposed
`
`combination of Numazaki and Nonaka, stating:
`
` [T]he proposed combination utilizes the gesture detecting processing
`of the third embodiment and the videoconference processing of the fifth
`embodiment separately and sequentially . . . the output of reflected light
`extraction unit 102 would be processed by the third embodiment’s
`gesture detecting block until an image capture gesture is detected and
`would then be processed by the fifth embodiment’s videoconferencing
`block . . . the output of reflected light extraction unit 102 would not be
`processed by both the third embodiment and the fifth embodiment
`blocks at the same time.
`
`
`Reply at 9 (emphasis added). As mentioned, the Reply is the first time Petitioner
`
`has attempted to fully explain the details of its combination of Numazaki and
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Patent No. 8,878,949
`
`Nonaka. See Reply at 7-9. Petitioner’s improper attempt to correct a deficiency in
`
`its petition should be disregarded. Petitioner argues that the Petition “set[] forth
`
`precisely the timing relationship that Patent Owner demands.” Reply at 8. This is
`
`incorrect. The Petition merely stated “a PHOSITA would have been motivated to
`
`implement this gesture recognition as a means of allowing the user to initiate (or turn
`
`on) the fifth embodiment’s videoconferencing functionality.” Paper 1, p. 31. But
`
`turning off the third embodiment’s gesture detecting block such that “the output of
`
`reflected light extraction unit 102 would not be processed by both the third
`
`embodiment and the fifth embodiment blocks at the same time” was not set forth in
`
`the Petition. It also was not set forth in the first declaration by Petitioner’s expert.
`
`See Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 48-49. Again, Petitioner’s improper attempt to correct a deficiency
`
`in its petition should be disregarded.
`
`Further, Petitioner’s clarifications in the Reply expose an additional flaw in
`
`the combination of Numazaki and Nonaka. Petitioner’s combination requires a
`
`single gesture that both triggers image capture (i.e., Numazaki’s fifth embodiment)
`
`and terminates gesture recognition (i.e., Numazaki’s third embodiment). Nonaka
`
`allegedly contemplates an “image capture command gesture” for a camera. Paper 1,
`
`p. 21. But Nonaka does not disclose that the same predetermined gesture also causes
`
`termination of gesture recognition, as required by Petitioner’s combination.
`
`Numazaki fares no better and Petitioner even admits that Numazaki does not disclose
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Patent No. 8,878,949
`
`a “gesture command” that “causes video capture to initiate.” Paper 1, pp. 20-21.
`
`Thus, neither Numazaki nor Nonaka discloses the specialized gesture required by
`
`Petitioner’s combination. Accordingly, the combination of Numazaki and Nonaka
`
`fails to render the independent claims obvious.
`
`2. Petitioner is again choosing to ignore parts of its own Petition.
`
`
`In this section, Petitioner repeats the argument that “the Petition did not
`
`suggest, nor does it depend on, Numazaki expressly teaching that the eighth
`
`embodiment’s laptop includes the fifth embodiment’s components.” Reply at 10
`
`(emphasis added). But as discussed above, under the “Motivation to Combine
`
`Numazaki and Nonaka” section in the petition, Petitioner argues “a PHOSITA would
`
`have anticipated success in implementing Numazaki in this manner given that
`
`Numazaki . . . expressly contemplates incorporating . . . embodiments [1-7] in the
`
`eighth embodiment portable devices.” Paper 1, p. 23 (emphasis added). Thus,
`
`contrary to Petitioner’s contentions, the Petition at least suggests “Numazaki
`
`expressly teaching that the eighth embodiment’s laptop includes the fifth
`
`embodiment’s components.” Reply at 10.
`
`3. Petitioner’s attempt to merge disparate embodiments in Numazaki
`remains flawed.
`
`
`To justify its combination of Numazaki’s disparate embodiments, Petitioner
`
`cites to Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2009). But
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Patent No. 8,878,949
`
`Boston Sci. is easily distinguishable from the present case. First, the two prior art
`
`embodiments in Boston Sci. were “pictured side by side in the [prior art] patent . . .
`
`Figure 3B [] is located directly below figure 4 in the patent.” Boston Sci. at 991
`
`(emphasis added). The proximity of the two embodiments formed the basis for
`
`obviousness: “Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a
`
`prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Id. (emphasis added). In
`
`contrast, Numazaki’s third embodiment and fifth embodiment “feature data
`
`generation units” are separated by more than 22 figures. Compare Ex. 1004, Fig. 23
`
`with Ex. 1004, Fig. 46.
`
`Second, one of the prior art embodiments in Boston Sci. disclosed a “metal
`
`stent,” while the other prior art embodiment disclosed a “polymer stent.” Boston
`
`Sci. at 991. The main difference between the two embodiments was an extra coating
`
`layer (i.e., two coating layers instead of one). Id. The court found one of ordinary
`
`skill would have been motivated to add the second coating layer to the embodiment
`
`that only had one coating layer. “Just as the stent in figure 3B benefits from the two
`
`layers . . . so would the stent in figure 4 benefit from the same two coating layers.”
`
`Id. In contrast, Petitioner’s proposed combination requires, at least (1) adding the
`
`“feature data generation unit” from Nuamazaki’s third embodiment into Numazaki’s
`
`fifth embodiment, which already has a “feature data generation unit,” (2) splicing
`
`the output of the “reflected light extraction unit” to feed both “feature data generation
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Patent No. 8,878,949
`
`units,” (3) adding some sequential timing requirements for the two “feature data
`
`generation units,” and (4) adding this combination of the third and fifth embodiments
`
`with the two “feature data generation units” into Numazaki’s eighth embodiment
`
`laptop. See Paper 1, pp. 20-21; Reply at 8-9. This is more complex than the extra
`
`“coating layer” scenario in Boston Sci. Accordingly, Petitioner’s reliance on Boston
`
`Sci. is misplaced. There is no motivation for a POSITA to combine Numazaki’s
`
`third and fifth embodiments. Ex. 2002, ¶¶ 58-59.
`
`D.
`
`Patent Owner’s critiques of Petitioner’s motivation to combine
`Numazaki and Nonaka are valid.
`
`
`In the Reply, Petitioner complains “Mr. Occhiogrosso does not explain why a
`
`user would necessarily stay within reach of
`
`the
`
`laptop for
`
`the entire
`
`videoconference.” Reply at 12. It is strange that Petitioner is concerned what
`
`happens after the videoconference has started. Indeed, Petitioner’s proposed
`
`combination uses “gesture recognition from Numazaki’s third embodiment as a
`
`means to initiate a videoconference functionality as described in Numazaki’s fifth
`
`embodiment.” Reply at 6 (emphasis added). Regardless, Petitioner has now
`
`admitted that once videoconference functionality has been initiated (i.e., the
`
`videoconference has started), gesture recognition functionality is terminated. See
`
`Reply at 9 (“the proposed combination utilizes the gesture detecting processing of
`
`the third embodiment and the videoconference processing of the fifth embodiment
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Patent No. 8,878,949
`
`separately and sequentially.”). With gesture commands no longer being accepted,
`
`the user would need to stay in physical contact with the laptop to input commands.
`
`Petitioner and Petitioner’s expert identify various scenarios in which the user
`
`would allegedly not be able to “initiate image capture through physical control.”
`
`Reply at 12. These include “a lecture in which the lecturer is standing, rather than
`
`seated, and a tutorial in which the speaker is demonstrating the use of a product that
`
`requires a broader field of view than remaining seated before the camera.” Id. at 12-
`
`13 (citing Ex. 1018, ¶¶ 10-11). Petitioner and Petitioner’s expert also assert “the
`
`person illustrated in [Numazaki’s] Fig. 48 is not seated before the camera and would
`
`not be close enough to physically control the camera.” Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1018, ¶
`
`11). But for all of these edge case examples, Petitioner fails to explain why
`
`Numazaki’s laptop in Figure 74 would be used for the videoconference instead of a
`
`more suitable device. For example, Numazaki is completely silent about a laptop
`
`being used for the scenario depicted in Figure 48. Ex. 1004, 40:29-40, Fig. 48.
`
`Nonaka is also completely silent regarding the use of a laptop for image capture.
`
`In the Reply, Petitioner argues “Nonaka’s gesture-based initiation allows the
`
`user to take all the time necessary to get in position and permits initiating image
`
`capture as soon as the user is ready, avoiding the frustrating waiting period
`
`associated with timers.” Reply at 16. Petitioner’s expert alleges “[u]sing a self-
`
`timer mechanism strips some level of control from the user, forcing the user to
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Patent No. 8,878,949
`
`predict the amount of time requires to get positioned and creating downsides for
`
`predicting imprecisely.” Ex. 1018, ¶ 12. But neither Petition nor Petitioner’s expert
`
`explains why this “waiting period associated with timers” is more frustrating than
`
`the need to learn, remember, and execute an additional gesture, which would be
`
`required with Petitioner’s proposed combination.
`
`In the Reply, Petitioner alleges “neither Patent Owner nor its expert explain
`
`why gestures used to turn appliances on/off are materially different from gestures
`
`used to initiate a process such as Numazaki’s videoconference functionality.
`
`Accordingly, this argument should be accorded no weight.” Reply at 18. But it is
`
`Petitioner’s burden to explain why gestures that merely provide power to a device
`
`are no different from gestures that trigger specific functions in a device (e.g., cause
`
`an already powered camera to start capturing images). Petitioner has failed to do
`
`this.
`
`Accordingly, there is no motivation to combine Numazaki and Nonaka to
`
`render the independent claims obvious.
`
`E. Numazaki fails to teach the “reflected light extraction unit 102” is
`fixed in relation to “visible light photo-detection array 351.”
`
`
`Claim 4 recites “wherein the electro-optical sensor is fixed in relation to the
`
`digital camera.” In the Reply, Petitioner argues “Patent Owner and its expert focus
`
`on the ‘arranged in parallel’ teaching, ignoring entirely the Petition’s argument that
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Patent No. 8,878,949
`
`unit 102 and camera 351 have ‘overlapping fields of view’ . . . But the fact that these
`
`optical sensors have (and must retain) overlapping fields of view is key to
`
`concluding that they are fixed in relation to each other.” Reply at 19 (emphasis
`
`added). But “overlapping fields of view” does not necessarily mean component 102
`
`is fixed in relation to component 351.
`
`Numazaki never discloses the “reflected light extraction unit 102” and the
`
`“visible light photo-detection array 351” have or require identical fields of view. See
`
`Ex. 1004, 39:20-60. Further, Mr. Occhiogrosso testified that only a “partial overlap”
`
`in the fields of view is needed to accomplish the goal of Numazaki’s fifth
`
`embodiment. Ex. 1019, 24:16-24. Petitioner fails to explain how any movement of
`
`these two components (102, 351) relative to each other necessarily results in zero
`
`overlap (i.e., non-overlapping fields of view). Mr. Occhiogrosso confirmed that
`
`movement of these two components (102, 351) relative to each other does not
`
`necessarily result in non-overlapping fields of view.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Patent No. 8,878,949
`
`Ex. 1019, 24:10-15. Accordingly, Petitioner’s alleged “overlapping fields of view”
`
`requirement is not a barrier to movement of these two components (102, 351)
`
`relative to each other. Thus, Petitioner has failed to show how Numazaki teaches or
`
`suggests “wherein the electro-optical sensor is fixed in relation to the digital
`
`camera,” as required by claim 4. Claims 11 and 18 recite similar limitations.
`
`Nonaka does not cure the deficiencies of Numazaki. Accordingly, the combination
`
`of Numazaki and Nonaka fails to render claims 4, 11, and 18 obvious.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s asserted grounds do not render any of
`
`the Challenged Claims unpatentable.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Patent No. 8,878,949
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d), I hereby certify that the foregoing Patent
`
`Owner’s Sur-Reply contains 2,495 words as measured by the word processing
`
`software used to prepare the document, excluding the cover page, signature block,
`
`and portions exempted under 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a) or (b).
`
`
`
`DATED:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`By: /Todd E. Landis/
`Todd E. Landis
`Registration No. 44,200
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`July 12, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`IPR2021-00921
`Patent No. 8,878,949
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, the undersigned certifies that on July 12,
`
`2022, the foregoing document was served on counsel of record for Petitioner by
`
`filing this document through the End-to-End System, as well as via electronic mail
`
`to counsel of record for Petitioner (and jointed Petitioners) at the following
`
`addresses:
`
`Adam P. Seitz (Adam.Seitz@eriseip.com)
`
`Paul R. Hart (Paul.Hart@eriseip.com)
`
`Matthew D. Satchwell (Matthew.satchwell@dlapiper.com)
`
`Gianni Minutoli (gianni.minutoli@dlapiper.com)
`
`Paul R. Steadman (Paul.steadman@dlapiper.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`By: /Todd E. Landis/
`Todd E. Landis
`Registration No. 44,200
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`14
`
`
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
