Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Date: January 10, 2024
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC. and
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ZENTIAN LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-01197
`Patent 10,971,140 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
`CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`Granting Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 10
`Date: January 10, 2024
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC. and
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ZENTIAN LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-01197
`Patent 10,971,140 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
`CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`Granting Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01197
`Patent 10,971,140 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Petitioners Amazon Web Services, Inc. and Amazon.com Services
`LLC (“Amazon”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–
`319 requesting inter partes review of claims 1–8 of U.S. Patent No.
`10,971,140 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’140 patent”). Amazon also submits a
`Motion for Joinder (Paper 3, “Mot.”) to Apple Inc. v. Zentian Ltd., IPR2023-
`00036 (“the Apple IPR”), to which the Board instituted inter partes review.
`IPR2023-00036, Paper 10 (PTAB June 12, 2023).
`Patent Owner Zentian Limited (“Zentian”) filed a Preliminary
`Response and Contingent Joinder Opposition (Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”). To
`this, Amazon submitted a preliminary Reply (Paper 8, “Prelim. Reply”), and
`Zentian submitted a preliminary Sur-reply (Paper 9, “Prelim. Sur-reply”).
`Each party alleges that it is the sole real party in interest, and this is
`not contested on the preliminary record. See Pet. 66; Paper 5, 1.
`Under the authority delegated to us under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) by the
`Director of the USPTO, we may institute an inter partes review when “the
`information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a);
`see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (2023). Applying that standard, we institute
`an inter partes review of all the challenged claims of the ’140 patent for the
`reasons explained below. This is a preliminary decision, and we will base
`our final written decision on the full trial record. We also grant Amazon’s
`Motion for Joinder.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the following matters relate to the ’140
`patent: Zentian Ltd v. Apple Inc., 6:22-cv-00122, (W.D.Tex. Feb. 2, 2022);
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01197
`Patent 10,971,140 B2
`Zentian Ltd v. Amazon.com, Inc., 6:22-cv-00123, (W.D.Tex. Feb. 2, 2022);
`Apple Inc. v. Zentian Ltd., Inter Partes Review No. IPR2023-00033; Apple
`Inc. v. Zentian Ltd., Inter Partes Review No. IPR2023-00034; Apple Inc. v.
`Zentian Ltd., Inter Partes Review No. IPR2023-00035; and Apple Inc. v.
`Zentian Ltd., Inter Partes Review No. IPR2023-00036. Paper 5, 1–2; Pet.
`66.
`
`B. The ’140 Patent
`The ’140 patent is related to a speech recognition circuit which uses
`parallel processors for processing the input speech data in parallel.
`Ex. 1001, 1:18–20.
`The patent describes that in speech recognition, there are generally
`two processes: “front end processing to generate processed speech
`parameters such as feature vectors, followed by a search process which
`attempts to find the most likely set of words spoken from a given vocabulary
`(lexicon).” Id. at 1:21–26. According to the ’140 patent, “for large
`vocabulary, speaker independent speech recognition, it is the search process
`that presents the biggest challenge.” Id. at 1:28–30.
`The ’140 describes that in order to speed up the search function,
`parallel processing techniques have been suggested. Id. at 1:45–47. The
`patent further describes that “one algorithm for performing the search is the
`Viterbi algorithm,” which “is a parallel or breadth first search through a
`transition network of states of Hidden Markov Models.” Id. at 1:36–39.
`This search algorithm is computationally intensive, but in one paper cited by
`the ’140 patent, “a multi-threaded implementation of a fast beam search
`algorithm is disclosed.” Id. at 1:47–52. This “multi-threading
`implementation requires a significant amount of communication and
`synchronization among threads,” but in another paper, “the parallel
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01197
`Patent 10,971,140 B2
`processing of input speech parameters is disclosed in which a lexical
`network is split statically among processors.” Id. at 1:52–58.
`To implement parallel processing of the search function, the ’140
`describes a special circuit, in which a “plurality of lexical tree processors are
`connected in parallel to the input port and perform parallel lexical tree
`processing for word recognition by accessing the lexical data in the lexical
`memory arrangement.” Id. at 2:4–8. In addition, a “controller controls the
`lexical tree processors to process lexical trees identified in the results
`memory arrangement by performing parallel processing of a plurality of
`lexical tree data structures.” Id. at 2:12–15.
`Figure 2 is a diagram of the circuit of the ’140 patent, and is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 2, showing a plurality k of lexical tree processors 21, arranged
`in a lexical tree processor cluster 22, with acoustic model memory 23.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01197
`Patent 10,971,140 B2
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Challenged claim 1 of the ’140 patent recites:
`1. [Pre] A speech recognition circuit comprising:
`[a] one or more clusters of processors, each of the one or more
`clusters of processors comprising:
`a plurality of processors; [b] and
`an acoustic model memory storing acoustic model data, [c]
`wherein each of the plurality of processors is
`configured to compute a probability using the
`acoustic model data in the acoustic model memory,
`[d] wherein:
`the speech recognition circuit is configured to
`generate an initial score for an audio sample;
`[e] and
`the initial score is used to determine whether to
`continue processing to determine a final
`score via processing a larger amount of
`model data than that was processed to
`generate the initial score.
`Ex. 1001, 6:13–26; Pet. 66 (showing Amazon’s bracketed claim
`annotations).
`
`D. Evidence
`Amazon relies on the following prior art:
`US Patent No. 6,374,219 B1, issued April 16, 2002 (Ex. 1004,
`“Jiang”);
`US Patent No. 5,428,803, issued June 27, 1995 (Ex. 1005,
`“Chen”);
`US Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2001/0053974 A1, published
`December 20, 2001 (Ex. 1008, “Lucke”);
`US Patent No. 5,983,180, issued November 9, 1999 (Ex. 1009,
`“Robinson”);
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01197
`Patent 10,971,140 B2
`US Patent No. 5,036,539, issued July 30, 1991 (Ex. 1010,
`“Wrench”).
`
`E. Prior Art and Asserted Grounds
`Amazon asserts that claims 1–8 of the ’140 patent are unpatentable on
`the following grounds:
`Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. §
`1–3, 5, 7, 8
`103(a)
`1–3, 5, 7, 8
`103(a)
`4
`103(a)
`4
`103(a)
`6
`103(a)
`6
`103(a)
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Jiang, Chen
`Jiang, Chen, Lucke
`Jiang, Chen, Robinson
`Jiang, Chen, Lucke, Robinson
`Jiang, Chen, Wrench
`Jiang, Chen, Lucke, Wrench
`
`Pet. 7–8.
`Amazon submits a declaration by Dr. Les Atlas. Ex. 1043. Dr. Atlas
`agrees with and adopts as his own the testimony of Christopher Schmandt,
`who submitted a declaration in the Apple IPR (Ex. 1003). See Ex. 1043
`¶ 26. Although Zentian submitted preliminary declaratory testimony in the
`Apple IPR, Zentian has not submitted declaratory testimony at this stage in
`this proceeding.
`II. DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS FOR DENYING INSTITUTION
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of inter partes review is
`discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367
`(Fed. Cir. 2016); see also 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In Amazon Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential), the Board
`set forth six non-exclusive factors for determining “whether efficiency,
`fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01197
`Patent 10,971,140 B2
`in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. at 6. These
`factors are as follows:
`1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one
`may be granted if a proceeding is instituted;
`2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected
`statutory deadline for a final written decision;
`3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the
`parties;
`4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel
`proceeding;
`5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel
`proceeding are the same party; and
`6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of
`discretion, including the merits.
`Id. at 5–6.
`In evaluating these factors, we take a holistic view of whether
`efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or
`instituting review. Id. at 6. The Director has also issued interim guidance to
`the Board on applying the factors. See Katherine K. Vidal, Interim
`Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with
`Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022) 9, https://www.uspto.gov/
`sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretionary_denials_aia_
`parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf (“Interim
`Procedure”).
`Zentian argues that “Fintiv factors 1–5 here warrant non-institution
`and denial of joinder” because in the parallel district court proceedings, (1)
`Amazon has served invalidity contentions presenting “many of the same art
`and arguments raised in its Petition” including reliance on Jiang, Robinson,
`and Wrench; (2) the proceeding has not been stayed; (3) the proceeding “is
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01197
`Patent 10,971,140 B2
`set for trial on September 23, 2024”; (4) “Amazon’s invalidity expert report
`is due by May 2, 2024”; and (5) “Zentian’s rebuttal report is due on May 30,
`2024.” Prelim. Resp. 1–2 & n.1 (citing Ex. 2001, 8–101; Ex. 2002, 3); see
`also Prelim. Sur-reply 1–2.
`Amazon argues that Fintiv factor 2 weighs against discretionary
`denial because trial in the parallel case would be “more than three months
`after the expected date of the final written decision.” Prelim. Reply 1.
`Amazon also contends, as to factor 3, that under the district court’s current
`schedule, major invalidity-related work is not due until after our institution
`decision (e.g., final invalidity contentions are not due until February 22,
`2024 and the parties do not narrow their prior art assertions until March 14,
`2024). Id. Amazon also argues that under Fintiv factor 4, “there is little risk
`of overlap or conflicting decisions because [Amazon] will be subject to
`estoppel well before trial” in the district court case. Id. at 1–2.
`Of the first five Fintiv factors, we consider factor 2 (proximity to trial
`in the parallel case) most significant under these circumstances. According
`to Zentian, trial is scheduled for September 23, 2024. Prelim. Resp. 1.
`However, a final written decision in the instituted Apple IPR (and in the
`combined proceeding after joinder) will be due on June 12, 2024, more than
`three months before the trial date in district court. Thus, factor 2 weighs
`heavily against discretionary denial.
`The other factors do not outweigh the second factor. As to factor 1,
`there is no evidence as to whether there will be a stay in the parallel case, so
`we regard this factor as neutral. As to factor 3, there has been some
`
`1 We note that pages 8–10 of Exhibit 2001 address invalidity contentions
`regarding related U.S. Patent No. 7,979,277, and not the ’140 patent, which
`are discussed on pages 43–47. See Ex. 2001, 1–2.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01197
`Patent 10,971,140 B2
`preliminary activity in the parallel case, but overall, the litigation is in its
`early stages, so we do not regard this factor as weighing substantially in
`favor of discretionary denial. As to factor 4, the district court may
`ultimately consider Jiang, Robinson, and Wrench, but not the other
`references, and not necessarily in the same combinations as asserted in the
`Petition. See Ex. 2001, 45–48. So factor 4 weighs somewhat but not
`heavily in favor of discretionary denial. As to factor 5, the parties in the
`parallel proceeding are not different from the parties here, so we regard this
`factor as neutral.
`Next. we turn to Fintiv factor 6. According to Zentian, this factor
`“warrants non-institution unless the Board requires Amazon to enter the
`same Sotera stipulation to which Apple agreed, and on which the Board
`relied, in underlying proceeding IPR2023-00037, which Amazon seeks to
`join.” Prelim. Resp. 2.
`The Interim Procedure states that, “[c]onsistent with Sotera Wireless,
`Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel
`district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue
`in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have
`reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Interim Procedure 3 (footnote
`omitted) (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019,
`Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). The Interim
`Procedure explains that a Sotera stipulation “mitigates concerns of
`potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district
`court and the PTAB . . . and allows the PTAB to review grounds that the
`parallel district court litigation will not resolve.” Id. at 7–8.
`In the Apple IPR, the Board declined to deny institution under
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because Apple offered a Sotera stipulation that it “will
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01197
`Patent 10,971,140 B2
`not pursue in the parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the
`Petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the
`pending Petition.” IPR2023-00037, Paper 10 at 10 (PTAB June 12, 2023)
`(quoting IPR2023-00037, Paper 9 at 1).
`Unlike Apple, Amazon has not offered a Sotera stipulation. Zentian
`contends that Amazon would be time-barred absent its ability to join the
`Apple IPR and “Amazon effectively seeks to enjoy the benefits of joining
`Apple’s instituted proceeding on the same terms and conditions through
`which Apple obtained institution.” Prelim. Resp. 3. Thus, according to
`Zentian, “it would be unfair and prejudicial to Zentian if Amazon were
`permitted to join without being bound by the same Sotera stipulation to
`which Apple has agreed, and on which the Board’s institution decision
`relied.” Id.; see also Prelim. Sur-reply 2–3 (asserting that factors 1–5 weigh
`in favor of discretionary denial and arguing that by submitting a Sotera
`stipulation, Apple avoided the necessity of showing “compelling merits”
`under factor 6).
`In its Preliminary Reply, Amazon contends that Apple entered its
`Sotera stipulation under different circumstances because “the operative trial
`date in its case was two months before the expected written decision date,”
`but here, the “trial date is three months after the Board is expected to render
`its final written decisions.” Prelim. Reply 2–3 (citing Exs. 1032, 2002).
`Amazon also argues that as a subordinate petitioner in the combined
`proceeding with Apple, Amazon’s estoppel would be evaluated differently
`than Apple’s. Id. at 3 (citing Network-1 Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`981 F.3d 1015, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). Given the different circumstances,
`Amazon argues that it would be unfair to require Amazon to enter the same
`stipulation as Apple. Id. Amazon also argues that under prior Board
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01197
`Patent 10,971,140 B2
`practice, “a Sotera-style stipulation [is not] a prerequisite for institution.”
`Id. at 2 (alteration in original) (quoting Zhuhai Cosmx Battery Co., Ltd. v.
`Maxell, Ltd., IPR2022-00984, Paper 8 at 4 (Sept. 29, 2022)).
`In its Preliminary Sur-reply, Zentian argues that, unlike the petitioner
`in Zhuhai, Amazon would be time-barred absent joinder. Prelim. Sur-reply
`2.
`
`We disagree with Zentian that, under the circumstances, we should
`deny institution in the absence of a Sotera stipulation from Amazon. First,
`we find no unfairness or prejudice in the fact that Apple has submitted a
`Sotera stipulation but Amazon has not. In this proceeding, Fintiv factors 1–
`5, as a whole, weigh heavily against discretionary denial even without
`Amazon offering a Sotera stipulation and without any showing of
`compelling merits. Most significantly, the Board will be deciding the
`patentability issues raised in the Petition well before the scheduled trial date
`in the parallel district court proceeding. Thus, even if Amazon had
`submitted a Sotera stipulation, this would not change our decision to
`institute an inter partes review and join this case to the Apple IPR.
`Although a petitioner has the option to submit a Sotera stipulation, no such
`stipulation is required where the Fintiv factors as a whole do not otherwise
`weigh in favor of discretionary denial.
`For the above reasons, we determine that the efficiency and integrity
`of the patent system are best served by instituting inter partes review, and
`we decline to deny institution discretionarily under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`III. INSTITUTION OF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`We instituted inter partes review in the Apple IPR on all challenged
`claims and all asserted grounds of unpatentability. IPR2023-00037,
`Paper 10. Amazon’s Petition challenges the same claims and asserts the
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01197
`Patent 10,971,140 B2
`same grounds of unpatentability as those on which we instituted the Apple
`IPR, relying on substantially the same testimonial evidence. See Mot. 2
`(“The Instant Petition is intentionally identical in substance to the Apple
`Petition.”); Ex. 1043 ¶ 26 (adopting the opinions set forth in the Declaration
`of Christopher Schmandt (Ex. 1003) that Apple relied on in Apple IPR).
`Because the issues presented in Amazon’s Petition are identical to
`those in the Apple IPR, we determine for the same reasons that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that Amazon would prevail in showing that at least
`one of claims 1–8 is unpatentable under the grounds of the Petition.
`Therefore, we institute inter partes review for the same reasons stated in our
`Decision on Institution in the Apple IPR. See IPR2023-00037, Paper 10.
`IV. MOTION FOR JOINDER
`Under authority delegated to us by the Director, we have the
`discretion, when warranted, to join as a party to an instituted inter partes
`review any other party who properly files a petition, after the patent owner
`has had the opportunity to file a preliminary response. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).
`As the moving party, Amazon bears the burden of proving that it is entitled
`to the requested joinder. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). In deciding whether to
`join a case, we consider (1) the reasons why joinder is appropriate,
`(2) whether the petition raises any new grounds of unpatentability, (3) any
`impact that joinder would have on the cost and trial schedule for the existing
`review, and (4) whether joinder will add to the complexity of briefing or
`discovery. Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4
`(PTAB Apr. 24, 2013); Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Consolidated Trial
`Practice Guide, 76 (Nov. 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
`documents/tpgnov.pdf.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01197
`Patent 10,971,140 B2
`Amazon’s Motion addresses each of these considerations. Mot. 1–6.
`According to Amazon, its “Petition is intentionally identical in substance to
`the Apple Petition.” Mot. 2; see also Mot. 4. Amazon also argues that the
`schedule of the joined cases “would be unaffected, no additional briefing or
`discovery would be required, and no additional burdens would be placed on
`[Zentian].” Mot. 3; see also Mot. 4. Further, Amazon “agree[s] to take an
`‘understudy’ role as long as Apple remains a party to the Apple IPR,” and
`that it “will not make any substantive filings and shall be bound by the
`filings of Apple,” and will not pursue its own arguments, evidence, or
`discovery unless the matter of termination or settlement arises or there are
`issues involving only Amazon. Mot. 5–6. Thus, according to Amazon,
`Zentian would not suffer prejudice if the two proceedings are joined. Mot. 6.
`Apart from its arguments discussed above in the context of
`discretionary denial, Zentian does not dispute the above contentions by
`Amazon and does not point to any particular prejudice relating to joining the
`two proceedings. In light of these considerations, Amazon has shown that
`joinder to the Apple IPR is appropriate in this case. Therefore, we grant
`Amazon’s Motion for Joinder.
`
`V. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review of claims 1–8 of the ’140 patent is instituted with respect to all the
`grounds set forth in the Petition;
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, inter partes review of the ’140 patent commences on the
`entry date of this Order, and the Board hereby gives notice of the institution
`of a trial;
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01197
`Patent 10,971,140 B2
`FURTHER ORDERED that Amazon’s Motion for Joinder is granted
`and Amazon Web Services, Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC are joined
`as parties to IPR2023-00037;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the grounds of unpatentability on which
`the Board instituted trial in IPR2023-00037 are unchanged and remain the
`only grounds on which trial has been instituted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order and any of its
`modifications entered in IPR2023-00037 will govern the schedule of the
`joined proceedings;
`FURTHER ORDERED that any filings by the petitioner parties in
`IPR2023-00037 will be consolidated, and that filings by Amazon, alone, are
`not permitted without the Board’s prior approval;
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision will be entered
`into the record of IPR2023-00037; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2023-00037 will
`be modified in accordance with the attached example to reflect joinder with
`this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01197
`Patent 10,971,140 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`J. Hadden
`Dargaye Churnet
`Saina Shamilov
`dhadden-ptab@fenwick.com
`dchurnet@fenwick.com
`sshamilov-ptab@fenwick.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Peter C. Knops
`NOROOZI P.C.
`peter@noroozipc.com
`
`Katherine Rhoades
`BARTLIT BECK L.L.P.
`katherine.rhoades@bartlitbeck.com
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01197
`Patent 10,971,140 B2
`Example Case Caption for Joined Proceeding
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC., AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., and
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ZENTIAN LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2023-000371
`Patent 10,839,789 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 IPR2023-01197 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`16
`
`
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
