UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`(Alleged) Patent Owner
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,880,721
`
`Case IPR2022-01393
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`____________________________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`(Alleged) Patent Owner
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,880,721
`
`Case IPR2022-01393
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), Petitioner moves
`
`for joinder with any Inter Partes Review instituted in Meta Platforms, Inc. v. VoIP-
`
`Pal, Inc., IPR2022-01235 (“the 1235 proceeding”), filed on June 30, 2022, for U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,880,721 (“the ’721 patent”). See IPR2022-01235, Paper 3. This
`
`motion is timely because it is being filed before institution of the 1235 proceeding.
`
`Petitioner requests that action on this motion be held in abeyance until, and the
`
`motion be granted only if, an IPR is instituted in the 1235 proceeding. See Central
`
`Security Group-Nationwide, Inc. v. Ubiquitous Connectivity, LP, IPR2019-01610,
`
`Paper 12, at 8-9 (PTAB Feb. 26, 2020) (approving pre-institution joinder motion that
`
`asked that motion be held in abeyance until after institution). Petitioner has consulted
`
`with counsel for the petitioner in the 1235 proceeding (hereinafter “Meta”), and
`
`Meta does not oppose Petitioner’s request for joinder.
`
`Petitioner requests institution of the Petition for Inter Partes Review being
`
`filed concurrently herewith (“Petition”). The Petition is materially the same as the
`
`petition filed in the 1235 proceeding (“Meta’s Petition”). The Petition and the Meta
`
`Petition challenge the same claims, on the same grounds, and rely on the same prior
`
`art and evidence, including an identical declaration from the same expert.1
`
`______________________________
`
`1 The declaration is a duplicate of the declaration filed in IPR2022-01235.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`Petitioner agrees to proceed solely on the grounds, evidence, and arguments
`
`advanced, or that will be advanced, in the 1235 proceeding as instituted. Thus, the
`
`Petition warrants institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314, and 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) permits
`
`Petitioner’s joinder to any IPR instituted in the 1235 proceeding.
`
`Further, upon joining the 1235 proceeding, Petitioner will act as “understudy”
`
`and will not assume an active role unless Meta ceases to participate in the 1235
`
`proceeding. Meta will maintain the lead role in the proceeding so long as it is a party
`
`to the proceeding. These limitations will avoid lengthy and duplicative briefing.
`
`Also, Petitioner will not seek additional depositions or deposition time. Petitioner
`
`agrees to the foregoing conditions even in the event that other IPRs filed by other,
`
`third-party petitioners are joined with the 1235 proceeding. Accordingly, the
`
`proposed joinder will neither unduly complicate the 1235 proceeding nor delay its
`
`schedule.
`
`In fact, joinder will help efficiently resolve the disputes among the parties. By
`
`joinder, a single Board decision may dispose of the issues raised in the 1235
`
`proceeding for all interested parties. Further, joinder will narrow the issues in the co-
`
`pending district court actions. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Finally, joinder would not
`
`complicate or delay the 1235 proceeding and would not adversely affect any
`
`schedule set in that proceeding. In sum, joinder would promote efficient adjudication
`
`in multiple forums.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`Joinder will not unduly prejudice any party. Because joinder will not add any
`
`new substantive issues, delay the schedule, burden deponents, or increase needless
`
`filings, any additional costs on the Patent Owner would be minimal. On the other
`
`hand, denial of joinder would prejudice Petitioner. Petitioner’s interests may not be
`
`adequately protected in the 1235 proceeding, particularly if Meta settles with the
`
`Patent Owner. Petitioner should be allowed to join in a proceeding affecting a patent
`
`asserted against it.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) is the owner of the ’721 patent.
`
`Petitioner is concurrently filing two petitions in Case Nos. IPR2022-01392 and
`
`IPR2022-01393 that challenge non-overlapping sets of claims of the ’721 patent.
`
`These petitions are substantively the same as the petitions filed on June 30, 2022 in
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. v. VoIP- Pal, Inc., IPR2022-01234 and Meta Platforms, Inc. v.
`
`VoIP- Pal, Inc., IPR2022-01235 (collectively, “the Meta IPRs”). As its basis for
`
`filing multiple petitions challenging claims of the ’721 patent Petitioner adopts the
`
`reasoning as set forth in the Notice Regarding Multiple Petitions filed with the Meta
`
`IPRs. See Meta Platforms, Inc. v. VoIP- Pal, Inc., IPR2022-01234 at Paper 2.
`
`Additionally, the ’721 patent is the subject of the following district court litigation:
`
`Case No.
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v.
`Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Jurisdiction
`Western District of
`Texas
`
`Status
`Litigation is pending.
`Originally filed in error
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No.
`Ltd., et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-
`01246
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Meta
`Platforms, Inc., et al., Case
`No. 3:22-cv-03202
`
`Northern District of
`California
`
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Google,
`LLC f/k/a Google Inc., Case
`No. 3:22-cv-03199
`
`Northern District of
`California
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`Status
`in the Austin division as
`Case No. 1:21-cv-01084
`(W.D. Tex.).
`Litigation is pending.
`Transferred from the
`Western District of
`Texas, Case No. 6:21-
`cv-00665.
`Litigation is pending.
`Transferred from the
`Western District of
`Texas, formerly Case
`No. 6:21-cv-00667.
`Litigation was
`terminated.
`
`Western District of
`Texas
`
`Northern District of
`California
`
`Litigation was
`terminated.
`
`Western District of
`Texas
`
`Litigation is pending.
`
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple
`Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-
`00670
`
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. AT&T
`Corp., et al., Case No. 6:21-
`cv-00671
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v.
`Verizon Communications
`Inc., et al., Case No. 6:21-
`cv-00672
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v.
`Huawei Technologies Co.,
`Ltd., et al., Case No. 6:21-
`cv-01247
`
`Western District of
`Texas
`
`Litigation is pending.
`Transferred from Austin
`division to Waco
`division, formerly Case
`No. 1:21-cv-01085
`(W.D. Tex.).
`Litigation is pending.
`
`Litigation is pending.
`
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al.,
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00668
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. T-
`Mobile USA, Inc., Case No.
`6:21-cv-00674
`
`Western District of
`Texas
`
`Western District of
`Texas
`
`4
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`Case No.
`AT&T Corp., et al. v. VoIP-
`Pal.com, Inc., Case No.
`3:21- cv-05078
`Apple Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com,
`Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-
`05110
`Cellco Partnership d/b/a
`Verizon Wireless Inc., et al.
`v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case
`No. 3:21-cv-05275
`Twitter, Inc. v. VoIP-
`Pal.com, Inc., Case No.
`3:21-cv-09773
`
`Jurisdiction
`Northern District of
`California
`
`Status
`Litigation was
`terminated.
`
`Northern District of
`California
`
`Litigation was
`terminated.
`
`Northern District of
`California
`
`Litigation is pending.
`
`Northern District of
`California
`
`Litigation is pending.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standards and Applicable Rules
`
`The Board has discretion to join a properly filed IPR petition to an IPR
`
`proceeding. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b); see also Dell Inc. v. Network-
`
`1 Sec. Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper 17, at 4-6 (PTAB July 29, 2013); Sony
`
`Corp. v. Yissum Res. & Dev. Co. of the Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem, IPR2013-00326,
`
`Paper 15, at 3-4 (PTAB Sept. 24, 2013); Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00109, Paper 15, at 3-4 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2013). “The Board will determine
`
`whether to grant joinder on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the particular
`
`facts of each case, substantive and procedural issues, and other considerations.” Dell,
`
`IPR2013-00385, Paper 17, at 3. The movants bear the burden of proof in establishing
`
`5
`
`
`
`entitlement to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.122(b). A motion for
`
`joinder should:
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`(1) set forth the reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any
`
`new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; (3) explain
`
`what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the
`
`existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and
`
`discovery may be simplified.
`
`Dell, IPR2013-00385, Paper 17, at 4.
`
`B.
`
`Joinder with the 1235 Proceeding Is Appropriate
`
`The Board “routinely grants motions for joinder where the party seeking
`
`joinder introduces identical arguments and the same grounds raised in the existing
`
`proceeding.” Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Raytheon Co., IPR2016-00962, Paper 12,
`
`at 9 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Here, joinder
`
`with the 1235 proceeding is appropriate because the present Petition introduces
`
`identical arguments and the same grounds raised in the existing 1235 proceeding
`
`(i.e., they contain the same grounds, based on the same prior art combinations and
`
`supporting evidence, against the same claims). Indeed, there are no changes to the
`
`facts, evidence, or arguments used by Meta’s Petition in the 1235 proceeding in
`
`demonstrating satisfaction of the implicated claims by the applied prior art. Because
`
`these proceedings introduce identical arguments and the same grounds, good cause
`
`6
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`exists for joining this proceeding with the 1235 proceeding so that the Board,
`
`consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b), can efficiently “secure the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution” of the present and 1235 proceeding.
`
`C.
`
`Joinder Will Not Add Any New Grounds of Unpatentability or Have an
`
`Impact on the Trial Schedule
`
`The Petition is based on the same grounds and combinations of prior art in
`
`Meta’s Petition in the 1235 proceeding. For simplicity and efficiency, Petitioner has
`
`copied the substance of Meta’s Petition and have relied on the same accompanying
`
`declaration. Petitioner does not seek to introduce grounds or claims that are not
`
`in the 1235 proceeding and seeks only to join the proceeding as instituted. Petitioner
`
`is using the same expert and have submitted an identical declaration as in the 1235
`
`proceeding. The Patent Owner should not require any discovery beyond that which
`
`it may need in the 1235 proceeding—nor should the Board permit any. The present
`
`Petition introduces no new substantive issues relative to the 1235 proceeding and
`
`does not seek to broaden the scope of the 1235 proceeding.
`
`Joinder will not impact the 1235 proceeding trial schedule because the present
`
`Petition presents no new issues or grounds of unpatentability. See LG, IPR2015-
`
`01353, Paper 11, at 6 (granting IPR and motion for joinder where “joinder should
`
`not necessitate any additional briefing or discovery from Patent Owner beyond that
`
`already required in [the original IPR]”). Further, Petitioner explicitly consents to any
`
`7
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`trial schedule adopted in the 1235 proceeding. There are no new issues for the Board
`
`to address, and Patent Owner will not be required to present any additional responses
`
`or arguments.
`
`The Patent Owner’s Response will also not be negatively impacted because
`
`the issues presented in the present Petition are identical to the issues presented in the
`
`1235 proceeding. Patent Owner will not be required to provide any additional
`
`analysis or arguments beyond what it will already provide in responding to Meta’s
`
`Petition in the 1235 proceeding. Also, because the present Petition relies on the same
`
`expert and the same declaration, only a single deposition is needed for the proposed
`
`joined proceeding.
`
`Accordingly, joinder with the 1235 proceeding does not unduly burden or
`
`negatively impact the trial schedule.
`
`D.
`
`Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery
`
`Petitioner explicitly agrees to take an “understudy” role, which will simplify
`
`briefing and discovery. Specifically, Petitioner explicitly agrees, upon joining the
`
`1235 proceeding, that the following conditions, as previously approved by the Board
`
`in similar circumstances, shall apply so long as Meta remains an active party:
`
`a) all filings by Petitioner in the joined proceeding will be
`
`consolidated with the filings of Meta, unless a filing concerns
`
`issues solely involving Petitioner;
`
`8
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`b) Petitioner shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds not
`
`already instituted by the Board in the 1072 proceeding, or
`
`introduce any argument or discovery not already introduced by
`
`Meta;
`
`c) Petitioner shall be bound by any agreement between Patent Owner
`
`and Meta concerning discovery and/or depositions; and
`
`d) Petitioner shall not receive any direct, cross examination, or
`
`redirect time at deposition beyond that permitted under either 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.53 or any agreement between Patent Owner and Meta.
`
`See Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Novartis AG, IPR2014-00550, Paper 38, at 5
`
`(PTAB Apr. 10, 2015). Unless and until Meta ceases to participate, Petitioner will
`
`not assume an active role therein.
`
`Thus, by Petitioner accepting an “understudy” role, the parties can comply
`
`with the trial schedule assigned to the 1235 proceeding without needing any
`
`duplicative efforts by the Board or the Patent Owner. These steps minimize the
`
`possibility of any complication or delay from joinder. See LG, IPR2015-01353,
`
`Paper 11, at 6-7 (granting IPR and motion for joinder because “joinder would
`
`increase efficiency by eliminating duplicative filings and discovery, and would
`
`reduce costs and burdens on the parties as well as the Board” where petitioners
`
`9
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`agreed to an “understudy” role). Petitioner is further willing to agree to any other
`
`reasonable conditions the Board deems necessary.
`
`IV. GENERAL PLASTIC IS INAPPLICABLE
`
`Petitioner notes that the Board has indicated that the factors outlined by
`
`General Plastic are not relevant “where a different petitioner files a ‘me-too’ or
`
`‘copycat’ petition in conjunction with a timely motion to join.” See, e.g., Celltrion,
`
`Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2018-01019, Paper 11, at 9-11 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2018);
`
`Pfizer, Inc. v Genentech, Inc., IPR2017-02063, Paper 25, at 7-8 (PTAB Feb. 21,
`
`2018). Through this motion to join and corresponding Petition, Petitioner has not
`
`modified the positions advanced in the 1235 proceeding. See, e.g., Celltrion,
`
`IPR2018-01019, Paper 11, at 10-11 (finding petitioner’s “copycat” petition and
`
`motion to join an instituted IPR to “effectively obviate[] any concerns of serial
`
`harassment and unnecessary expenditure of resources,” even though petitioner
`
`“previously filed two petitions directed to the same claims of the same patent.”).
`
`Rather, through grant of this joinder, Petitioner merely seeks to ensure that the 1235
`
`proceeding is not prematurely terminated based on opportunistic settlement by
`
`Patent Owner with fewer than all parties against which it has asserted the subject
`
`patent. As such, Petitioner respectfully submits that General Plastic does not apply
`
`in this circumstance.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`In the event the Board does analyze the General Plastic factors, those factors
`
`heavily weigh in favor of instituting the present IPR. General Plastic Indus. Co.,
`
`Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19, at 16 (PTAB Sept. 6,
`
`2017) (precedential as to § II.B.4.i).
`
`The first factor is whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition
`
`directed to the same claims of the same patent. Petitioner has not previously filed a
`
`petition against the ’721 patent (Petitioner is concurrently filing a second petition on
`
`the ’721 patent following Meta’s own division of the challenged claims across two
`
`separate petitions, which is necessary in view of the number of claims asserted by
`
`Patent Owner). Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of institution.
`
`The second factor is whether at the time of filing the first petition the petitioner
`
`knew or should have known of the prior art asserted in the second petition. This
`
`factor is neutral, if not inapplicable, in the General Plastic analysis. Here, Meta’s
`
`Petition and Petitioner’s Petition share the same prior art because Petitioner’s
`
`Petition is a “copy” of Meta’s petition. Because Petitioner is merely seeking to join
`
`in an understudy role, the factor is neutral, at best, in determining whether to
`
`institute.
`
`The third factor is whether at the time of filing of the second petition the
`
`petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response to the first
`
`petition or received the Board’s decision on whether to institute review in the first
`
`11
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`petition. Here, neither has the patent owner’s preliminary responses been received
`
`nor has the Board entered a decision to institute review on the 1235 proceeding. In
`
`addition, because the present Petition is essentially a copy of the prior Meta Petition
`
`and submitted with a motion for joinder stating that Petitioner will serve in an
`
`understudy role, the Petition is not an attempt to harass the Patent Owner or
`
`otherwise engage in serial, tactical filings. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of
`
`joinder.
`
`The fourth factor is the length of time elapsed between the time the petitioner
`
`learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and filing of the second
`
`petition, and the fifth factor is whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation
`
`for the time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed to the same
`
`claims of the same patent. Petitioner filed its Petition and this joinder motion within
`
`weeks of Meta’s Petition and well within the time period allowed under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). In the context of a joinder motion where Petitioner
`
`will be taking an understudy role, the fourth and fifth factors are therefore
`
`inapplicable.
`
`The sixth factor is the finite resources of the Board. Allowing Petitioner’s
`
`joinder motion where Petitioner will serve in an understudy role will not impact the
`
`Board’s resources beyond those resources the Board dedicates to the instant joinder
`
`motion.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`The seventh factor is the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a
`
`final determination not later than one year after the date on which the Director
`
`notices institution of review. As noted above, joining Petitioner should not impact
`
`the schedule, particularly because this motion is filed prior to institution of the 1235
`
`proceeding. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of institution.
`
`An eighth factor identified by the Board in Shenzhen is the extent to which
`
`the petitioner and any prior petitioner(s) were similarly situated defendants or
`
`otherwise realized a similar-in-time hazard regarding the challenged patent.
`
`Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Tech. Co., Ltd. v. iRobot Corp., IPR2018-00898,
`
`Paper 9, at 7, 13-14 (PTAB Oct. 1, 2018) (noting “the purpose of proposed Factor 8
`
`is to discourage tactical filing of petitions over time by parties that faced the same
`
`threat at the same time” such that earlier petitions are filed as “test case(s)” to gain
`
`“tactical advantage”). Because the Petition does not introduce any new grounds of
`
`unpatentability, was filed within weeks of Meta’s Petition and well before institution
`
`of the 1235 proceeding, and will effectively merge into a single proceeding with the
`
`1235 proceeding, no such tactical advantage is gained here.
`
`Thus, none of the General Plastic factors weighs against institution and
`
`joinder in this situation.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`Joinder will not affect the substance, procedure, or scheduling of the 1235
`
`proceeding. Petitioner files this motion under the statutory joinder provisions as
`
`contemplated by the AIA. Joinder will simplify the issues and promote efficiency,
`
`justice, and speed.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests inter partes review
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721 and joinder with Meta Platforms, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal,
`
`Inc., IPR2022-01235.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`
`Date: August 23, 2022
`
`/s/ Eliot D. Williams
`Eliot D. Williams (Reg. No. 50,822)
`Lead Attorney for Petitioner
`
`14
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. §§42.6(e) and 42.105, the undersigned certifies
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`that on the 23rd day of August, 2022, a complete and entire copy of the PETITION
`
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW (“petition”), Petitioner’s power of attorney, and
`
`related Exhibits were served on Patent Owner at the correspondence address of record
`
`for the subject patent,
`
`Thorpe North & Western, LLP
`8180 South 700 East
`Suite 350
`Sandy, Utah 84070
`via Express Mail or by means at least as fast and reliable as Express Mail, and a
`
`courtesy copy is also being forwarded to Patent Owner’s Litigation Counsel via
`
`electronic mail to:
`
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-03202
`(N.D. Cal.)
`
`Lewis E. Hudnell, III
`lewis@hudnelllaw.com
`Nicolas S. Gikkas
`nick@hudnelllaw.com
`HUDNELL LAW GROUP P.C.
`800 W. El Camino Real Suite 180
`Mountain View, California 94040
`
`Sean Franklin Parmenter
`sean@parmenterip.com
`Parmenter Intellectual Property Law, PLLC
`8980 N Pine Hollow Dr
`Cedar Hills, UT 84062
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Date: August 23, 2022
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`
`/s/ Eliot D. Williams
`Eliot D. Williams (Reg. No. 50,822)
`Lead Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
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
