`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`Google LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`WAG Acquisition, L.L.C.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 3
`II.
`III. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 5
`A.
`Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 Are Inadmissible Hearsay .................. 5
`1.
`No Hearsay Exception Applies for Exhibits 2003, 2004,
`and 2009 ..................................................................................... 8
`2. Mr. Hoarty Should Not Rely on Exhibits 2003, 2004, and
`2009 under FRE 703 ................................................................ 10
`Exhibit 2008 Is Irrelevant ................................................................... 10
`B.
`If Relevant, Exhibit 2008 Should Be Excluded Under FRE 403 ....... 12
`C.
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 12
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`IPR2018-01249, Paper 27, 51-52 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2020) ............................... 6, 7
`Asetek Danmark A/S v. CoolIT Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2020-00825, Paper 50, 43-46 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2021) ................................ 6
`Conoco Inc. v. Dep’t of Energy,
`99 F.3d 387 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................ 9
`GAF Materials, LLC v. Kirsch Rsch. and Dev., LLC,
`IPR2021-00192, Paper 45, 62-65 (P.T.A.B. May 24, 2022) .................. 6, 7, 9, 10
`Neste Oil OYJ v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC,
`IPR2013-00578, Paper 52, 9 (P.T.A.B. March 12, 2015) .................................... 9
`The Data Co. Techs. Inc. v. Bright Data, Ltd.,
`IPR2022-00135, Paper 51, 80-84 (P.T.A.B. May 31, 2023) ............................ 6, 7
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC,
`IPR2018-00599, Paper 50, 51 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 9, 2019) ...................................... 7
`US Endodontics, LLC v. Gold Standard Instruments, LLC,
`PGR2015-00019, Paper 54, 38-42 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016) .............................. 8
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.2 ..................................................................................................................... 5
`§ 42.51(b)(1)(ii) .................................................................................................... 5
`§ 42.53 ................................................................................................................... 5
`§ 42.62(a) .............................................................................................................. 5
`§ 42.64 ................................................................................................................... 1
`§ 42.64(b)(1) ......................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`FRE
`401 ............................................................................................................. 2, 10, 11
`403 ................................................................................................................... 2, 11
`703 ................................................................................................................... 2, 10
`801 ............................................................................................................. 2, 5, 6, 8
`802 ................................................................................................................. 2, 5, 7
`803(1)-(23) ............................................................................................................ 8
`804 ......................................................................................................................... 8
`807 ......................................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. (“PO”) repeatedly turns to partial
`
`testimony from experts in other matters to purportedly support its arguments in its
`
`papers. This testimony is inadmissible hearsay; PO’s exhibits, in their entirety, are
`
`out of court statements from witnesses that Petitioner Google LLC (“Google”) never
`
`had an opportunity to cross-examine. Additionally, PO relies on an out of context
`
`analysis from an ITC proceeding—which Google did not participate in and did not
`
`involve the ʼ636 patent—to bolster an interpretation of a prior art reference that is
`
`inconsistent with the actual evidence in this proceeding. The ITC initial
`
`determination containing this discussion is irrelevant, as it involved fundamentally
`
`different issues and never addressed or analyzed the evidence presented here.
`
`Therefore, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 and the Federal Rules of Evidence,
`
`Google moves to exclude the following of PO’s exhibits:
`
` Exhibit 2003 – The Walt Disney Co. v. WAG Acquisition, L.L.C.,
`
`IPR2022-01228, Ex. 1002 (Declaration of Dr. Henry Houh)
`
` Exhibit 2004 – May 23, 2023 Deposition of Dr. Kevin Jeffay in
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. WAG Acquisition, L.L.C., IPR2022-01430 and
`
`-01433
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`
` Exhibit 2008 – In re Certain Fitness Devices, Streaming Components
`
`Thereof, and System Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1265, Initial
`
`Determination (ITC Sept. 9, 2022) (CALJ Clark S. Cheney)
`
` Exhibit 2009 – In re Certain Fitness Devices, Streaming Components
`
`Thereof, and System Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1265,
`
`Evidentiary Hearing - Volume III (ITC March 14, 2022)
`
`Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 are a declaration, deposition, and hearing
`
`transcript containing testimony of experts not involved in this IPR and from cases
`
`not involving Google. These exhibits are inadmissible hearsay in their entirety and
`
`should be excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) 801 and 802.
`
`Moreover, PO’s expert in this IPR, W. Leo Hoarty, should not be permitted to rely
`
`on these exhibits as the bases of his expert testimony under FRE 703.1
`
`
`1 Google believes it adequately is moving to strike Mr. Hoarty’s reliance on these
`
`exhibits generally, but out of an abundance of caution, Google identifies the
`
`following specific paragraphs in Mr. Hoarty’s Declaration (Exhibit. 2002) where he
`
`cites to the four exhibits Google moves to exclude: ¶ 67 (Exhibit 2003); ¶¶ 65, 66,
`
`67 (Exhibit 2004); ¶ 74 (Exhibit 2008); and ¶¶ 54, 65, 66, 67 (Exhibit 2009).
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2008 is an Initial Determination from the ITC, which should be
`
`excluded under FRE 401 as irrelevant. To the extent Exhibit 2008 is deemed
`
`relevant, it should nonetheless be excluded under FRE 403.
`
`PO improperly relies on these exhibits in its Patent Owner Response (“POR”)
`
`(Paper 10), filed on June 15, 2023 and its Patent Owner Sur-Reply (“PO Sur-Reply”)
`
`(Paper 16), filed October 19, 2023.2 Google timely objected to these exhibits in its
`
`Objections Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) to Evidence Served by Patent Owner
`
`(Paper 11), filed June 23, 2023.
`
`For the reasons detailed below, Exhibits 2003, 2004, 2008, and 2009 should
`
`be excluded.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`Exhibit 2003 is the testimony (in a declaration) of Henry Houh in IPR2022-
`
`01228. Google is not a party to those IPRs.3 Dr. Houh has not offered testimony in
`
`the present IPR—he is not an expert for either Google or PO, or otherwise involved,
`
`
`2 As discussed further below, PO relies on Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 for the
`
`truth of the matter asserted in its POR and PO Sur-Reply.
`
`3 The parties to IPR2022-01227 and -01228 are petitioners The Walt Disney
`
`Company, Disney Streaming Services LLC, Hulu, LLC and Netflix, Inc. and patent
`
`owner WAG Acquisition, L.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`in the present IPR,4 and Google has never had an opportunity to question Dr. Houh
`
`regarding his testimony in those other proceedings.
`
`Exhibit 2004 is the testimony (from deposition) of Kevin Jeffay in IPR2022-
`
`01430 and -01433. Again, Google is not a party to those IPRs,5 and Dr. Jeffay is not
`
`an expert for Google or PO, or otherwise involved, in the present IPR. In other
`
`words, Dr. Jeffay has not offered testimony in the present IPR, and Google has never
`
`had an opportunity to question Dr. Jeffay regarding his testimony in those other
`
`proceedings.
`
`Exhibit 2009 consists of Dr. Jeffay’s testimony from a wholly unrelated
`
`matter—it is a hearing transcript containing Dr. Jeffay’s testimony during an ITC
`
`evidentiary hearing, which did not involve Google, PO, or the ʼ636 patent (or any
`
`related patent). Once again, Google has never had an opportunity to question Dr.
`
`Jeffay regarding his testimony in that other proceeding.
`
`
`4 Google’s expert in this IPR is Nathaniel Polish, and, as noted above, PO’s expert
`
`in this IPR is W. Leo Hoarty.
`
`5 The parties to IPR2022-01430 and -01433 are petitioners Amazon.com, Inc.,
`
`Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Amazon.com Services LLC and patent owner
`
`WAG Acquisition, L.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`
`Finally, Exhibit 2008 is ALJ Cheney’s initial determination in the same ITC
`
`matter in which Dr. Jeffay opined. However, as noted above, neither Google nor PO
`
`were parties to that ITC investigation.6 That ITC investigation also did not involve
`
`the ʼ636 patent or any patent related to the ʼ636 patent.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`A. Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 Are Inadmissible Hearsay
`Statements “the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or
`
`hearing[,]” offered “to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement” are
`
`hearsay. FRE 801(c). Hearsay is inadmissible absent an exception. FRE 802. The
`
`rule against hearsay applies to IPRs. 37 C.F.R. § 42.62(a).
`
`In an IPR, in-court statements are “submitted in the form of an affidavit” or a
`
`compliant declaration. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.53, 42.2. This ensures that an opposing
`
`party can cross-examine the declarant in the IPR. 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii).
`
`Testimony, including testimony from other matters, such as IPRs and ITC
`
`investigations, which is not subject to cross-examination by the opposing party in an
`
`
`6 The parties in the ITC proceeding were complainants DISH DBS Corporation,
`
`DISH Technologies, L.L.C., and Sling TV L.L.C. and respondents iFIT, Inc. f/k/a
`
`ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., FreeMotion Fitness, Inc., NordicTrack, Inc., Peloton
`
`Interactive, Inc., lululemon athletica, inc., and Curiouser Products Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`IPR, is hearsay if offered for the truth of the matter. See GAF Materials, LLC v.
`
`Kirsch Rsch. and Dev., LLC, IPR2021-00192, Paper 45, 62-65 (P.T.A.B. May 24,
`
`2022) (excluding excerpts from expert declaration from district court from IPR as
`
`hearsay); The Data Co. Techs. Inc. v. Bright Data, Ltd., IPR2022-00135, Paper 51,
`
`80-84 (P.T.A.B. May 31, 2023) (excluding transcript excerpts from a trial involving
`
`PO and a third party as hearsay); Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., IPR2018-01249,
`
`Paper 27, 51-52 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2020); Asetek Danmark A/S v. CoolIT Sys., Inc.,
`
`IPR2020-00825, Paper 50, 43-46 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2021) (excluding testimony
`
`from district court proceeding from IPR as hearsay).
`
`Here, Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 are, in their entirety, statements made by
`
`Drs. Jeffay (Exhibits 2004 and 2009) and Houh (Exhibit 2003) outside of this
`
`proceeding and relied upon by PO to prove the truth of the matter asserted in those
`
`exhibits. See FRE 801(c). More specifically, in some instances, PO relies on the
`
`statements in these exhibits as alleged evidence of how a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would understand the Carmel reference (Exhibit 1003) and HTTP.7 See, e.g.,
`
`
`7 To the extent PO argues that it uses these exhibits to show that Dr. Jeffay has taken
`
`inconsistent positions, these exhibits are nonetheless irrelevant because Dr. Jeffay is
`
`not an expert in this IPR, and his credibility is thus not at issue.
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`PO Sur-Reply at 11-13 (citing Exhibit 2009); id. at 11 (PO and its expert “explaining
`
`referenced detailed testimony by Dr. Jeffay (Amazon’s expert)”); id. at 11-12
`
`(discussing how testimony provided from Dr. Jeffay in Exhibit 2009 “obliterates
`
`any ‘inherency assertion’”) (emphasis in original); POR at 33 n.10 (citing “prior
`
`testimony of Dr. Kevin Jeffay”). Critically, Google was not a party to any of the
`
`other proceedings in which any of this expert testimony was provided and has not
`
`had the opportunity to cross-examine Drs. Jeffay and Houh.
`
`The Board has previously excluded expert evidence as hearsay under similar
`
`circumstances. For example, in GAF Materials, the Board excluded, under FRE
`
`802, an expert declaration that patent owner was using to explain how a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would understand two different processes, where the expert
`
`was not a witness in the present IPR. IPR2021-00192, Paper 45 at 62-65; see also
`
`The Data Co., IPR2022-00135, Paper 51 at 82 (“We agree with petitioner that prior
`
`testimony from another case, which is not subject to cross-examination by the
`
`opposing party, is hearsay if offered for the truth of the matter.”); Apple, IPR2018-
`
`01249, Paper 27 at 51-52 (“Thus, this testimony is hearsay because Dr. Alpert does
`
`not offer the testimony while testifying at the current trial or hearing.”); Unified
`
`Patents Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-00599, Paper 50, 51
`
`(P.T.A.B. Sept. 9, 2019) (“We determine that, as set forth by patent owner . . . this
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`Exhibit is hearsay under [FRE] 801. Indeed, the Exhibit is a declaration containing
`
`testimony from a different IPR, offered to prove the truth of the matter, i.e., Acharya
`
`was publicly accessible in July 1999[.]”); US Endodontics, LLC v. Gold Standard
`
`Instruments, LLC, PGR2015-00019, Paper 54, 38-42 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016) (“The
`
`declaration in Exhibit 2034 qualifies as hearsay . . . the statements in that declaration
`
`were not made while testifying in this proceeding. Instead, the declaration was
`
`submitted during ex parte prosecution of another patent application.”).
`
`Additionally, these exhibits do not meet the conditions under FRE 801(d) for
`
`out of court statements that are not considered hearsay. The statements made in
`
`these exhibits were not made by a representative of Google, with authorization from
`
`Google, or by Google’s agent or employee; nor has Google adopted any of the
`
`statements made in these exhibits. FRE 801(d)(2).
`
`Thus, Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 in their entirety are unquestionably
`
`hearsay.
`
`1.
`
`No Hearsay Exception Applies for Exhibits 2003, 2004, and
`2009
`None of the hearsay exceptions provided in FRE 803, 804, or 807 apply.
`
`First, Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 do not satisfy any of the conditions that
`
`are set forth in FRE 803(1)-(23).
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`
`Second, FRE 804’s exceptions too do not apply because they require a witness
`
`to be unavailable. Under FRE 804, a witness is unavailable due to: (1) a testifying
`
`exemption from court rules or privilege; (2) refusing to testify despite a court order;
`
`(3) lack of memory; (4) declarant death or then-existing infirmity, physical illness,
`
`or mental illness; or (5) the declarant’s testimony is not obtainable by process or
`
`other reasonable means. FRE 804. None of these circumstances applies here.
`
`Third, Rule 807 (the residual hearsay exception) does not apply either because
`
`it requires the statement to (1) be supported by sufficient guarantees of
`
`trustworthiness after considering the totality of circumstances under which it was
`
`made and (2) be more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other
`
`evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts. FRE 807. The
`
`Board has held that the exercise of the residual exception “is to be reserved for
`
`‘exceptional cases,’ and is not ‘a broad license on trial judges to admit hearsay
`
`statements that do not fall within one of the other exceptions.’” Neste Oil OYJ v.
`
`REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC, IPR2013-00578, Paper 52, 9 (P.T.A.B. March 12, 2015)
`
`(quoting Conoco Inc. v. Dep’t of Energy, 99 F.3d 387, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). This
`
`is not such an exceptional case. See GAF Materials, IPR2021-00192, Paper 45 at
`
`65 (“We agree with Petitioner that no [hearsay] exception or exclusion applies in
`
`this case.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`
`Thus, Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 should be excluded from this
`
`proceeding.
`
`2. Mr. Hoarty Should Not Rely on Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009
`under FRE 703
`To the extent PO argues that Mr. Hoarty should nonetheless be able to rely on
`
`Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 to form his expert opinions, PO is incorrect. As the
`
`Board found in GAF Materials, “opinions of others offered in litigation are not the
`
`sort of ‘facts or data’ that experts in the field [] would reasonably rely on in forming
`
`their own opinions.” IPR2021-00192, Paper 45 at 65.
`
`B.
`Exhibit 2008 Is Irrelevant
`PO cites Exhibit 2008, which is ALJ Cheney’s initial determination from an
`
`unrelated ITC investigation, in its POR for ALJ Cheney’s purported understanding
`
`of disclosures in the Carmel reference (Exhibit 1003). See, e.g., POR at 33, 35, 51.
`
`However, Exhibit 2008 and ALJ Cheney’s discussion of Carmel are irrelevant under
`
`FRE 401.
`
`The ITC investigation did not involve either PO or Google. And the asserted
`
`patents in the ITC investigation are completely unrelated to the ʼ636 patent and have
`
`different disclosures and purported inventions. Critically, ALJ Cheney’s discussions
`
`of Carmel, which PO cites, are in the context of the limitations of the patents asserted
`
`in the ITC investigation. For example, ALJ Cheney’s discussions of Carmel on
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`pages 175 and 177-78 of the initial determination are in the context of a limitation
`
`reciting, “automatically requesting from the video server subsequent portions of the
`
`video by requesting for each such portion one of the files from one of the copies
`
`dependent upon successive determinations by the media player to shift the playback
`
`quality to a higher or lower quality one of the different copies.” EX2008 at 172-73.
`
`ALJ Cheney’s remarks about Carmel should thus be properly placed in the context
`
`of analyzing whether Carmel anticipated this limitation and are therefore irrelevant
`
`to the determination of whether Google’s grounds involving Carmel invalidate the
`
`ʼ636 patent.
`
`Additionally, while Google asserts Carmel in its grounds in this IPR, and the
`
`respondents in the ITC investigation also relied on Carmel as invalidating prior art,
`
`the testimony provided by the experts in this case differs from the testimony
`
`provided in that case and the relied-upon disclosures from Carmel also differ in many
`
`respects. Accordingly, ALJ Cheney’s understanding of Carmel was informed by
`
`different evidence from different proceedings in which Google had no opportunity
`
`to participate or present arguments. Moreover, ALJ Cheney’s findings, or any
`
`understanding of Carmel’s disclosures, are not controlling of this Board.
`
`For these reasons, Exhibit 2008 should be excluded under FRE 401.
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`
`C.
`If Relevant, Exhibit 2008 Should Be Excluded Under FRE 403
`Even if found to be relevant, Exhibit 2008 should be excluded under FRE 403
`
`because it has very limited probative value for the reasons discussed above, and this
`
`limited value is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the issues,
`
`wasting time, and unfair prejudice. As explained above, the context of ALJ
`
`Cheney’s discussion of Carmel is critical, and the manner in which PO cites ALJ
`
`Cheney’s discussion is confusing and misleading, and it would be a waste of time
`
`for Google to have to explain how the differing contexts impact the analysis.
`
`Moreover, given that Google never had an opportunity to present evidence or
`
`argument in those proceedings, it would be unfairly prejudicial to Google to have to
`
`address the errors in those proceedings. For these reasons, Exhibit 2008 should
`
`nonetheless be excluded.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Based on the foregoing, the Board should exclude Exhibits 2003, 2004, 2008,
`
`and 2009.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01413
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 B2
`
`
`
`Dated: November 30, 2023
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Group
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (202) 842-7885
`Fax: (202) 842-7899
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By:
`/Eamonn Gardner/
`
` Eamonn Gardner
`
` (Reg. No. 63,322)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§42.6(e)(4)(i) et seq., a complete copy of the attached
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`is being served via email on the 30th day of November 2023, upon Patent Owner’s
`appointed attorneys of record:
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Ronald Abramson
`ron.abramson@listonabramson.com
`M. Michael Lewis
`michael.lewis@listonabramson.com
`Ari J. Jaffess
`ari.jaffess@listonabramson.com
`Gina K. Kim
`gina.kim@listonabramson.com
`LISTON ABRAMSON LLP
`405 Lexington Ave, 46th Floor
`New York, NY 10174
`Telephone: (212) 257-1630
`Facsimile: (914) 462-4175
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 30, 2023
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Patent Docketing
`1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`Tel: (202) 842-7885
`Fax: (202) 842-7899
`
`
`
`
`/Eamonn Gardner/
`Eamonn Gardner
`(Reg. No. 63,322)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-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
