Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THALES VISIONIX, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`Cases IPR2022-01304, IPR2022-01305, IPR2022-01308
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DR. ULRICH NEUMANN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S.
`PATENT NOS. 6,922,632 AND 7,725,253
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`META 1038
`IPR2022-01305
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THALES VISIONIX, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632
`U.S. Patent No. 7,725,253
`
`Cases IPR2022-01304, IPR2022-01305, IPR2022-01308
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF DR. ULRICH NEUMANN
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S.
`PATENT NOS. 6,922,632 AND 7,725,253
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`META 1038
`IPR2022-01305
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`IPR2022-01304, IPR2022-01305, IPR2022-01308
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`Background .................................................................................................... 2
`
`A. Qualifications ........................................................................................ 2
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Prior Testimony ..................................................................................... 3
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill In The Art ....................................................... 4
`
`III. Supplemental Opinions ................................................................................. 4
`
`A. Welch-2001 In Combination With Welch-1997 “Enumerat[es],”
`Or Obviously Would Have “Enumerat[ed],” The Sensing
`Elements Available To It ....................................................................... 4
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Horton Performs “Computations” ......................................................... 8
`
`Horton “Enumerat[es],” Or Obviously Would Have
`“Enumerat[ed],” The Sensing Elements Available To It ....................12
`
`IV. Conclusion ....................................................................................................14
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`META 1038
`IPR2022-01305
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`IPR2022-01304, IPR2022-01305, IPR2022-01308
`I, Dr. Ulrich Neumann, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Ulrich Neumann. I am a Professor of Computer Science at
`
`the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, California. I was previously
`
`retained on behalf of Petitioner Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Petitioner”) to provide my
`
`opinions regarding whether claims 1-9, 11-36, 44-45, 47-55, 57-61, and 66-69 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,922,632 (“the ’632 patent”) and claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,725,253 (“the ’253 patent”) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art as of August 9, 2002. I previously provided declarations containing my
`
`opinions, which I understand from counsel were filed as EX1005 (the “Original
`
`Declarations”) in IPR2022-01304, IPR2022-01305, and IPR2022-01308 related to
`
`the ’632 patent and the ’253 patent.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked by Petitioner to provide my opinion about certain
`
`issues that I understand from counsel relate to arguments presented in Patent
`
`Owner’s Responses (IPR2022-01304, Paper 30; IPR2022-01305, Paper 30;
`
`IPR2022-01308, Paper 29) and the accompanying opinions in the Declaration of
`
`Yohan Baillot (filed as EX2007 in each of those proceedings). My opinion regarding
`
`those certain issues is reflected in this supplemental declaration. I was not asked by
`
`Petitioner to provide my opinion about every argument, contention, opinion, or piece
`
`of evidence in the aforementioned Patent Owner’s Responses or Declaration of
`
`1
`
`META 1038
`IPR2022-01305
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`IPR2022-01304, IPR2022-01305, IPR2022-01308
`Yohan Baillot; rather, I was only asked by Petitioner to provide my opinion
`
`regarding certain limited issues, as explained in more detail below. Accordingly, I
`
`have not formed an opinion about any of the arguments, contentions, opinions, or
`
`pieces of evidence in the aforementioned Patent Owner’s Responses or Declaration
`
`of Yohan Baillot except as expressly addressed below (and except to the extent a
`
`relevant opinion may be found in my Original Declarations, which I offered before
`
`Patent Owner’s Responses or the Declaration of Yohan Baillot were filed).
`
`3.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this declaration, I have relied on
`
`my academic and professional experience, as well as all of the evidence expressly
`
`cited herein. I considered the viewpoint of a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`as of the time of alleged invention of the ’632 and ’253 patents (August 9, 2002).
`
`4.
`
`For time spent in connection with this matter, I will be compensated at
`
`my standard billing rate of $775 per hour. I am being separately reimbursed for any
`
`out-of-pocket expenses. My compensation does not depend on the content of my
`
`opinions or the outcome of these proceedings.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`I previously provided my relevant qualifications for these proceedings
`
`in Section II.A-C of my Original Declarations. I incorporate herein those sections
`
`of my Original Declarations.
`
`
`
`2
`
`META 1038
`IPR2022-01305
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`IPR2022-01304, IPR2022-01305, IPR2022-01308
`I previously provided my curriculum vitae (“CV”) for these
`
`6.
`
`proceedings, which I understand was filed as EX1006 in these proceedings. I
`
`incorporate herein my previously filed CV.
`
`B.
`
`7.
`
`PRIOR TESTIMONY
`
`The cases in which I have testified as an expert at trial or by deposition
`
`within the preceding five years are as follows:
`
` Science Applications International Corp. v. United States (for defendant);
`
` Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Thales Visionix, Inc., Case IPR2022-01294 (for
`petitioner);
`
` Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Thales Visionix, Inc., Case IPR2022-01298 (for
`petitioner);
`
` Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Thales Visionix, Inc., Case IPR2022-01301 (for
`petitioner);
`
` Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Thales Visionix, Inc., Case IPR2022-01302 (for
`petitioner);
`
` Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Thales Visionix, Inc., Case IPR2022-01303 (for
`petitioner);
`
` Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Thales Visionix, Inc., Case IPR2022-01304 (for
`petitioner);
`
` Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Thales Visionix, Inc., Case IPR2022-01305 (for
`petitioner); and
`
` Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Thales Visionix, Inc., Case IPR2022-01308 (for
`petitioner).
`
`
`
`3
`
`META 1038
`IPR2022-01305
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`IPR2022-01304, IPR2022-01305, IPR2022-01308
`C. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`8.
`
`I previously opined that, in my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time at the time of the alleged invention (August 9, 2002) described in the
`
`’632 patent and the ’253 patent would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Computer
`
`Science, or an equivalent field, and three to five years of experience working with
`
`computer implemented tracking systems, virtual reality systems, and/or augmented
`
`reality systems. Additional education might compensate for less experience, and vice
`
`versa.
`
`9.
`
`I understand from counsel that Patent Owner and its expert, Mr. Baillot,
`
`adopted my opinion regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, my
`
`supplemental opinions reflected in this declaration apply that same level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. However, my supplemental opinions would not change if a somewhat
`
`higher or lower level of ordinary skill in the art is ultimately adopted.
`
`III. SUPPLEMENTAL OPINIONS
`
`A. WELCH-2001 IN COMBINATION WITH WELCH-1997
`“ENUMERAT[ES],” OR OBVIOUSLY WOULD HAVE “ENUMERAT[ED],”
`THE SENSING ELEMENTS AVAILABLE TO IT
`
`10.
`
`I understand from counsel that Patent Owner’s expert (Mr. Baillot)
`
`provided his opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`“enumerating a set of sensing elements available to a tracking system” to mean
`
`“specifying or listing each of the sensing elements available to a tracking system.”
`
`EX2007, ¶72.
`
`
`
`4
`
`META 1038
`IPR2022-01305
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`IPR2022-01304, IPR2022-01305, IPR2022-01308
`I have been asked by Petitioner whether, in my opinion, Welch-2001
`
`11.
`
`(EX1007) in combination with Welch-1997 (EX1008) “enumerates,” or would
`
`obviously have “enumerated,” the sensing elements available to its tracking system
`
`under Mr. Baillot’s construction of “enumerating” discussed above. In my opinion,
`
`the Welch-2001+Welch-1997 combination does “enumerate” the sensing elements
`
`available to its tracking system, or at least would obviously have done so.
`
`12. As background, Welch-2001’s Figure 6 embodiment shows only two
`
`HiBall units in the system, but Welch-2001 teaches that its system can accommodate
`
`up to four HiBall units. See EX1007, 9. Thus, a POSITA would understand that
`
`Welch-2001’s system can accommodate a varying number of sensing elements in its
`
`system.
`
`13. Welch-2001 teaches that “[a]fter each Hiball is assembled, we perform
`
`an offline calibration procedure to determine the correspondence between image-
`
`plan coordinates and rays in space,” as part of Welch-2001’s “Bench-Top (Offline)
`
`Hiball Calibration.” EX1007, 9. Welch-2001 further teaches a process “used to
`
`subtract out DC bias, low-frequency noise, and background light from the LED
`
`signal” as part of its “Online” calibration procedure. EX1007, 10.
`
`14. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that each HiBall
`
`unit would undergo this calibration process. Welch-1997 (which is combined with
`
`Welch-2001) related teaches that “each [] sensor [is] to be calibrated” (EX1008 §§
`
`
`
`5
`
`META 1038
`IPR2022-01305
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`IPR2022-01304, IPR2022-01305, IPR2022-01308
`3.2, 3.2.1), which was standard for tracking systems at the time because, as a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have known, each sensor is slightly different in the
`
`real world as a consequence of natural variance in the manufacturing process.
`
`15. Since “each” HiBall unit needs to be calibrated, and different
`
`embodiments of Welch-2001’s system have different numbers of HiBall units
`
`attached to it, something must specify to the PC (which performs Welch-2001’s
`
`tracking calculations) how many sensing elements are available to it, so that the
`
`system knows how many calibration procedures to perform.
`
`16.
`
`In practice, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
`
`that this specifying process would be reflected in code as the instantiation of a
`
`module associated with each sensor. Even if each HiBall unit were instantiated with
`
`the same underlying code module (because they all use the same number and type
`
`of LEPD sensors), each code module would have to carry the calibration parameters
`
`associated with its respective HiBall unit resulting from the calibration process
`
`described above. In other words, a POSITA would recognize that, for example, a
`
`code module associated with HiBall #1 would have some calibration parameters
`
`associated with it, and the system would have to have specified a separate code
`
`module associated with HiBall #2 because that HiBall #2 would have different
`
`calibration parameters associated with it (although some or all of those calibration
`
`
`
`6
`
`META 1038
`IPR2022-01305
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`IPR2022-01304, IPR2022-01305, IPR2022-01308
`parameters might ultimately take the same value as the calibration parameters
`
`associated with HiBall #1).
`
`17. To the extent Welch-2001 in combination with Welch-1997 is not
`
`understood to have “enumerated” the sensing elements, in my opinion it would have
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill for Welch-2001 in combination with
`
`Welch-1997 to have specified or listed the sensing elements available to the tracking
`
`system. As discussed above, Welch-2001 contemplates a varying number of HiBall
`
`units in its system, and Welch-2001 and Welch-1997 both teach that “each” sensing
`
`element in the HiBall units needs to be calibrated. See EX1007, 9; EX1008 § 3.2.
`
`A person of ordinary skill would recognize that Welch-2001 would reasonably list
`
`the sensing elements available to it for a number of reasons, including: (i) keeping
`
`track of which HiBall units had been calibrated and which had not yet been
`
`calibrated; (ii) keeping track of the calibration parameters for each HiBall unit that
`
`has been calibrated, as such parameters can be different for each HiBall in the
`
`system; and (iii) keeping track of which HiBall units have provided measurement
`
`information at any given time, versus which HiBall units the system is still waiting
`
`to receive measurements from.
`
`18.
`
`In all of my experience, I have never worked with a tracking system
`
`that did not, in some form or another, specify or list the sensing elements available
`
`to it. That is because, as a person of ordinary skill would have recognized, the
`
`
`
`7
`
`META 1038
`IPR2022-01305
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`IPR2022-01304, IPR2022-01305, IPR2022-01308
`tracking system needs to know how many and what types of sensors are available to
`
`it in order to properly use the collected data. Without such knowledge, the system
`
`might not collect data from all the sensors available to it, might not know how to use
`
`the data it receives, and might not know how to correct the received data based on
`
`calibration. All of those issues are easily avoidable by specifying or listing the
`
`sensing elements available to the tracking system, which a person of ordinary skill
`
`thus would obviously have done (if they did not always already do that, which in my
`
`experience, they do).
`
`B. HORTON PERFORMS “COMPUTATIONS”
`
`19. Horton’s (EX1010) Figure 1 shows a number of linear accelerometer
`
`elements that pass information to corresponding low-pass filters, which in turn pass
`
`information to a multiplexor, which in turn passes information to an A/D (analog-
`
`to-digital) converter, which in turn passes “acceleration data” on to the tracking
`
`processor:
`
`
`
`8
`
`META 1038
`IPR2022-01305
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`IPR2022-01304, IPR2022-01305, IPR2022-01308
`
`
`
`See also EX1010, 3:63-4:46 (Horton’s discussion of these components of the
`
`accelerometer package).
`
`20.
`
`I have been asked by Petitioner whether these low-pass filters,
`
`multiplexor, and A/D converter perform, or would obviously have performed,
`
`computations. In my opinion, they do perform computations.
`
`21. For example, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known
`
`that the the multiplexer (such as an ADG508A, as taught by Horton, EX1010 at 4:11-
`
`13) is controlled by a digital value that selects one of the six inputs to be passed to
`
`the output. This selection process is a sequence whose timing needs to be
`
`synchronized to the A/D converter. The selection has to be made and held for a
`
`
`
`9
`
`META 1038
`IPR2022-01305
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`IPR2022-01304, IPR2022-01305, IPR2022-01308
`period of time sufficient for the A/D conversion process to complete for a given
`
`input. Then the selection is changed and the A/D process is repeated. Thus, this
`
`selection and timing process is part of a computation that computes time intervals
`
`and performs functions to advance the selection process. A person of ordinary skill
`
`would recognize that this was how a multiplexor and A/D converter worked
`
`together.
`
`22. A person of ordinary skill would also have recognized that the A/D
`
`converter is itself a small computing system because A/D conversion requires a
`
`sequence of computing steps. In an A/D converter, there is a D/A (digital-to-analog)
`
`converter that takes an internally generated digital value and converts it to an analog
`
`voltage. That voltage is compared to the input voltage (in this case, from the
`
`multiplexer) and a decision is made depending on which is the greater voltage.
`
`Ultimately, the D/A voltage is found that best matches the input voltage, and the
`
`digital value that creates that D/A voltage is the output of the A/D converter. Various
`
`computational algorithms may be used to find the digital value quickly, and that
`
`algorithm is embedded in the A/D converter and controls its operation.
`
`23. Once the A/D conversion is complete, the digital value that was
`
`computed for each accelerometer is stored in memory (via computing functions that
`
`store data) as acceleration data (35) so that it can be communicated to and/or
`
`accessed by the tracking processor (40) over some interface. That process also
`
`
`
`10
`
`META 1038
`IPR2022-01305
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`IPR2022-01304, IPR2022-01305, IPR2022-01308
`requires computing the proper timing and control so that the A/D output is written
`
`to memory when the output value is available from the A/D converter.
`
`24. As a person of ordinary skill would have recognized, all of these steps
`
`and processes are orchestrated and timed carefully so that the values in memory are
`
`the filtered and digitized accelerometer data. In my opinion, that orchestration is a
`
`form of programming that involves performing computations, including because the
`
`designer of these devices would program the sequence of steps into some computing
`
`engine such as a sequential state machine or a small dedicated computing element.
`
`As a person of ordinary skill would have recognized, the sequence of steps and their
`
`timing are usually expressed as a program that is stored in a read-only memory, as
`
`many other computer programs are.
`
`25. All of these computations by the multiplexor and A/D converter are a
`
`result of their underlying design, and are independent of how Horton’s tracking
`
`processor is implemented or uses these values. In other words, regardless of whether
`
`Horton’s tracking system used a Kalman filter or some other type of algorithm to
`
`track objects, regardless of whether Horton would correct the values based on
`
`calibration parameters or not, regardless of whether Horton’s tracking system used
`
`other sensors beyond the six linear accelerometer sensing elements shown in Figure
`
`1, and regardless of other options available to the system designer for implementing
`
`Horton’s tracking system, the computations performed by the multiplexor and A/D
`
`
`
`11
`
`META 1038
`IPR2022-01305
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`IPR2022-01304, IPR2022-01305, IPR2022-01308
`converter would still be the same computations they are designed to perform and
`
`they would be performed in the same way and the results of any particular
`
`computation would still be the same (given the same input).
`
`C. HORTON “ENUMERAT[ES],” OR OBVIOUSLY WOULD HAVE
`“ENUMERAT[ED],” THE SENSING ELEMENTS AVAILABLE TO IT
`
`26.
`
`I have been asked by Petitioner whether, in my opinion, Horton
`
`(EX1010) “enumerates,” or would obviously have “enumerated,” the sensing
`
`elements available to its tracking system under Mr. Baillot’s construction of
`
`“enumerating” discussed above. In my opinion, Horton does “enumerate” the
`
`sensing elements available to its tracking system, or at least would obviously have
`
`done so.
`
`27. Horton teaches setting a value “i” in its Table 1 code, which determines
`
`the number of accelerometers available to the system. See EX1010, 11:16-17. For
`
`example, Horton specifies that in one embodiment there are six accelerometers. See
`
`EX1010, Fig. 1, 3:41. Horton also specifies the make and model of each
`
`accelerometer in that embodiment. See EX1010, 3:64 (“ADXL-2 manufactured by
`
`Analog Devices Corp.”).
`
`28. Horton goes on teach that the system then initializes each of the six
`
`accelerometers in that embodiment. See EX1010, 5:64-6:3. A person of ordinary
`
`skill would understand that, as a result of specifying each of the six accelerometers
`
`available to the system during the process of initialization, Horton’s main loop 41 is
`
`
`
`12
`
`META 1038
`IPR2022-01305
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`IPR2022-01304, IPR2022-01305, IPR2022-01308
`able to go through and read data from each accelerometer 1 through 6, because it
`
`knows that there are six accelerometers, and further knows that each accelerometer
`
`is an accelerometer (as opposed to another type of sensor taught by Horton, such as
`
`a magnetic sensor (see EX1010, claim 8)), and further knows what the proper
`
`correction calibration factors are for each accelerometer based on their pre-specified
`
`bias (EX1010, 5:64-67). See EX1010, 12:44-56.
`
`29. A person of ordinary skill would therefore have understood that, for any
`
`particular embodiment of Horton, the system would need to specify all the sensors
`
`available to it, at least once during initialization, so that Horton’s system knows how
`
`many sensing elements to collect data from, what kind of data those sensing elements
`
`generate, and what their correction factors are. Failure to do so would mean that the
`
`system would not necessarily know how to use the data available to it such that the
`
`tracking system would not be expected to calculate an accurate tracking estimate (if
`
`it was capable of calculating anything at all).
`
`30. To the extent that Horton is not understood to have “enumerated” the
`
`sensing elements, in my opinion it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
`
`skill for Horton to have specified or listed the sensing elements available to the
`
`tracking system. Horton teaches that many different types and numbers of sensing
`
`elements can be used (see EX1010, e.g., 14:44-49, 3:44-52), and the estimation
`
`subsystem needs to know what kind of and how much data it will be receiving.
`
`
`
`13
`
`META 1038
`IPR2022-01305
`META V. THALES
`
`
`
`
`
`Again, as I noted above, I have never worked with a tracking system that did not
`
`Declaration of Ulrich Neumann, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01304, IPR2022-01305, IPR2022-01308
`
`
`
`specify or list the sensing elements available to it in some capacity. That is because,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`as a person of ordinary skill would recognize, the tracking system needs to know
`
`
`
`
`
`how many and what types of sensors are available to it in order to properly use the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`collected data. Without such knowledge, the system might not collect data from all
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the sensors available to it, might not know how to use the data it receives, and might
`
`
`
`
`
`All of those
`not know how to correct the received data based on prior calibration.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`issues are easily avoidable by specifying or listing the sensing elements available to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the tracking system, which a person of ordinary skill thus would obviously have
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`done (if they did not always already do that, which in my experience, they do).
`
`IV.CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`31.I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that all statements made
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of my own knowledge are true, and that all statements made on information and
`
`
`
`
`
`are that willful false statements belief are believed to be true. I understand
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: September 20, 2023
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Dr. Ulrich Neumann
`
`14
`
`META 1038
`IPR2022-01305
`META V. THALES
`
`
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
