`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.
`Petitioner,
`v.
`CONSTELLATION DESIGNS, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`________________
`
`Case IPR2023-00319
`U.S. Patent 10,693,700
`
`________________
`
`PETITIONER’S SUR-REPLY TO PATENT OWNER SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`DR. CAIRE CONFIRMED THAT CLAIM 5 INVOLVES A COMPARING
`
`OPERATION—WHICH IS NOT DESCRIBED IN THE ’777 PATENT ..... 1
`
`II.
`
`FUENTES AND DR. CAIRE CONFIRM THAT NON-UNIFORM
`
`MULTIDIMENSIONAL SYMBOL CONSTELLATIONS OPTIMIZED IN
`
`2D HAVE DIFFERENT CAPACITY CHARACTERISTICS THAN NON-
`
`UNIFORM MULTIDIMENSIONAL SYMBOL CONSTELLATIONS
`
`OPTIMIZED IN 1D AND ORTHOGONALIZED TO 2D............................. 2
`
`III.
`
`PO HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ’777 PATENT
`
`DESCRIBES THE CLAIMED NON-UNIFORM MULTIDIMENSIONAL
`
`SYMBOL CONSTELLATION FEATURES ................................................. 4
`
`IV. PO’S NEW ARGUMENT ALLEGATIONS ARE WITHOUT MERIT ....... 7
`
`V. DR. CAIRE’S DECLARATION SHOULD BE GIVEN MINIMUM
`
`WEIGHT, IF ANY, BECAUSE HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE DID
`
`NOT REVIEW THE ’777 PATENT, DID NOT UNDERSTAND CLAIM 5,
`
`AND USED A DIFFERENT POSITA STANDARD ..................................... 8
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`LGE1001
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`
`LGE1002
`
`LGE1003
`
`LGE1004
`
`LGE1005
`
`LGE1006
`
`LGE1007
`
`LGE1008
`
`LGE1009
`
`LGE1010
`
`LGE1011
`
`LGE1012
`
`LGE1013
`
`LGE1014
`
`Prosecution History for U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`Ulrich Reimers et al., DVB The Family of International
`Standards for Digital Video Broadcasting, Second Edition,
`2005 (“Ulrich”)
`
`RESERVED
`
`U.S. Provisional application No. 60/933,319 (“’319
`Provisional”)
`
`Declaration of June Munford (ATSC322)
`
`Second Stipulation by Petitioner, LGE, Constellation Designs,
`LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:21-cv-00448
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`RESERVED
`
`De Gaudenzi et al., Turbo-coded APSK modulations design for
`satellite broadband communications, Int. J. Satell. Commun.
`Network. 2006; 24:261–281, Published online 19 May 2006 in
`Wiley InterScience (“DeGaudenzi”)
`
`ii
`
`
`
`LGE1015
`
`LGE1016
`
`LGE1017
`
`LGE1018
`
`LGE1019
`
`LGE1020
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,978,777
`
`RESERVED
`
`RESERVED
`
`Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in
`AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court
`Litigation (USPTO June 21, 2022) (“Interim Procedure”)
`
`Docket Control Order, Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG
`Electronics, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:21-cv-00448 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Complaint, Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc.
`et al, Case No. 2:21-cv-00448 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`LGE1021
`
`RESERVED
`
`LGE1022
`
`LGE1023
`
`LGE1024
`
`LGE1025
`
`LGE1026
`
`LGE1027
`
`LGE1028
`
`ATSC Recommended Practice: Guidelines for the Physical
`Layer Protocol, Document no. A/327:2018
`
`ATSC 3.0 Standard: Physical Layer Protocol, Document no.
`A/322:2018
`
`Loghin, et al., Non-Uniform Constellations for ATSC 3.0, IEEE
`Transactions on Broadcasting, Vol 62, No. 1, March 2016.
`(“Loghin”)
`
`G. Ungerboeck, Channel Coding with Multilevel/Phase Signals,
`IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, Vol. IT-28, No. 1, Jan. 1982, pp.
`55-67 (“Ungerboeck”)
`
`Declaration of June Munford (ATSC327)
`
`Declaration of June Munford (DG)
`
`Declaration of June Munford (Loghin)
`
`iii
`
`
`
`LGE1029
`
`LGE1030
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`Second Declaration of Dr. Bertrand Hochwald
`
`Muela, Manuel Fuentes, Non-Uniform Constellations for Next-
`Generation Digital Terrestrial Broadcast Systems,
`Departamento de Comunicaciones Universitat Politècnica de
`València, June 2017. (“Fuentes”)
`
`LGE1031
`
`Proakis, John G. Digital Communications, Fourth Edition,
`2000. (“Proakis”)
`
`LGE1032
`
`Transcript of the Deposition of Dr. Caire
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`For the reasons noted below, the Board should find that the ’700 Patent lacks
`
`written description support and is not entitled to claim priority from U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,978,777 (the “’777 patent”).
`
`I.
`
`DR. CAIRE CONFIRMED THAT CLAIM 5 INVOLVES A
`COMPARING OPERATION—WHICH IS NOT DESCRIBED IN THE
`’777 PATENT
`LGE’s expert, Dr. Hochwald, had previously explained that one of the reasons
`
`claims 5, 15, and 25 were not supported was because the claims “define[ ] a very
`
`specific relative relationship between two groupings of non-uniform spaced
`
`constellations” and “[n]othing in the ’777 patent provides sufficient written
`
`description support for the comparison of these two groups of constellations.”
`
`LGE1003, ¶[73]; Petition (Pet.), 13-14. During his deposition, Dr. Caire confirmed
`
`that the features in claim 5 would be realized by performing a comparison of the
`
`position of constellation points between different constellations. LGE1032, 163:6-
`
`165:21 (Dr. Caire described comparing a non-uniform constellation in a subset of
`
`constellations to a library of constellations – “How? By comparison. Every
`
`constellation”). Accordingly, LGE and Patent Owner (PO)’s experts have both
`
`indicated that a POSITA would have understood claim 5 to involve a comparison of
`
`constellation points. But the ’777 patent does not describe such a comparing
`
`operation and thus fails to provide support for claims 5, 15, and 25. Notably, PO’s
`
`counsel did not address this argument in its reply, instead choosing to dodge the
`
`1
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`argument under the cover of a purported missing claim construction, which clearly
`
`is not necessary here, as indicated by both experts’ statements. Patent Owner
`
`Response (Paper 12/POR), 41.
`
`II.
`
`FUENTES AND DR. CAIRE CONFIRM THAT NON-UNIFORM
`MULTIDIMENSIONAL SYMBOL CONSTELLATIONS
`OPTIMIZED IN 2D HAVE DIFFERENT CAPACITY
`CHARACTERISTICS THAN NON-UNIFORM
`MULTIDIMENSIONAL SYMBOL CONSTELLATIONS
`OPTIMIZED IN 1D AND ORTHOGONALIZED TO 2D
`PO misunderstood LGE’s remarks in the Petitioner Reply, and, in responding,
`
`further confirmed LGE’s argument that optimizing multidimensional constellations
`
`is not the same as optimizing constellations in 1D and then converting the optimized
`
`1D constellations to 2D constellations.
`
`In particular, PO accuses LGE of having misunderstood Fuentes’ 1D-NUCs
`
`as being one-dimensional and not two-dimensional. Patent Owner Sur-Reply (Paper
`
`14/POSR), 21. PO misunderstands or mischaracterizes LGE’s position.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`A quick look at Fuentes’ FIG. 1.2 makes it apparent that the 1D-64NUC
`
`(center/orange) is a two-dimensional constellation. However, it is referred to as a
`
`1D constellation because it is formed by optimizing a 1D constellation,
`
`orthogonalizing
`
`the 1D constellation, and creating
`
`the resulting 64NUC
`
`constellation which has the same capacity characteristics on a per dimension basis
`
`as a 1D constellation—similar to the orthogonalized 2D constellations described in
`
`the ’777 patent. As confirmed by Dr. Caire, such constellations are often referred
`
`to as one-dimensional (LGE1032, 148:11-149:16) because they retain the 1D
`
`characteristics on a per dimension basis relative to the 1D constellation used to form
`
`them1.
`
`
`
`However, when a multidimensional (e.g., 2D) constellation is optimized in
`
`multiple dimensions, the resulting constellation has different constellation points,
`
`
`
` Consistent with Dr. Caire’s testimony, the Petitioner Reply used the term 1D
`
` 1
`
`constellation or 1D-NUCs in the discussion of Fuentes because the capacity
`
`characteristics of the 1D NUCs are the same as 2D constellations that are formed
`
`by orthogonalizing the 1D NUCs. The “1D” or “2D” thus referred to the
`
`dimensions optimized or for which capacity characteristics were obtained, not
`
`necessarily the actual number of dimensions in the constellation.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`shape, and capacity characteristics as shown in the 2D-64NUC on the right side
`
`(green box) of FIG. 1.2. Claims 5, 15, and 25 are similarly directed to the
`
`characteristics (parallel decoding capacity, SNR) of multidimensional symbol
`
`constellations, not 1D constellations. But the ’777 patent does not describe the
`
`parallel decoding capacity or SNR characteristics of multidimensional symbol
`
`constellations optimized in multiple dimensions, and thus fails to provide support
`
`for the claimed features. Put simply, the ’777 patent provides disclosure directed to
`
`the center figure of Fuentes’ FIG. 1.2, whereas the claims are directed to the right
`
`figure of Fuentes’ FIG. 1.2. Dr. Caire also confirmed that these constellations are
`
`generated as a result of different optimizations. LGE1032, 153:2-8.
`
`III. PO HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ’777 PATENT
`DESCRIBES THE CLAIMED NON-UNIFORM
`MULTIDIMENSIONAL SYMBOL CONSTELLATION FEATURES
`In its sur-reply, PO alleges that LGE reads “optimization” into the claims.
`
`POSR, 12. Such allegations are without merit. Specifically, in its POR, PO points
`
`to the ’777 patent’s disclosure of optimizing constellations as allegedly providing
`
`support for claims 5, 15, and 25. POR, 40-45. Yet, when LGE pointed to
`
`deficiencies in the optimization-related disclosure relied upon by PO, LGE is
`
`accused of reading “optimization” into the claims. Lacking substance, such
`
`accusations merely serve to distract from the clear lack of written description
`
`support of the claimed features in the ’777 patent.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`Importantly, despite having numerous opportunities, to date, PO has failed to
`
`identify adequate written description support for claims 5, 15, and 25. For
`
`instance, with respect to the first approach of optimization, PO argues that because
`
`the ’777 patent includes a general statement mentioning the optimizing of QAMs
`
`over an additional degree of freedom (N-degrees of freedom) and because “[s]uch
`
`constructions constitute embodiments of the invention,” the ’777 patent provides
`
`written description support. LGE1015, 12:38-48.
`
`However, in this short paragraph of the ’777 patent, there is no mention of
`
`SNR, parallel decoding capacity, or non-uniformity of the constellations—features
`
`which are the focus of claims 5, 15, 25. Id. As noted in the Petitioner Reply, the
`
`’777 patent explains that the “complexity of the optimization step grows
`
`exponentially in the number of dimensions as does the complexity of the resulting
`
`receiver de-mapper,” but then provides no further description or even explanation
`
`of which optimization function is used or how optimization would be performed.
`
`When asked during his deposition “why does the complexity of the resulting
`
`receiver demapper increase exponentially,” Dr. Caire stated “[t]hat's very difficult
`
`to explain” and that his explanation will “need a little bit of time” before providing
`
`several pages of explanation—none of which can be found in the ’777 patent.
`
`LGE1032, 143:8-145:11. For instance, Dr. Caire explains why multi-dimensional
`
`constellations involve exponential growth and that “Exponential is very bad.” Id.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Dr. Caire also provided a lengthy explanation for why different demappers may be
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`needed for 1D constellations and 2D constellations. LGE1032, 72:9-76:4. Again,
`
`none of this description can be found in the ’777 patent. Consistent with this lack
`
`of disclosure, PO has captured greater patent coverage than it is entitled. Indeed,
`
`while the claims are directed to “multidimensional” symbol constellations, the ’777
`
`patent even fails to describe constellations that have 3 dimensions (much less N
`
`dimensions) with the claimed characteristics, as acknowledged by Dr. Caire.
`
`LGE1032, 60:11-13.
`
`With respect to the second approach of optimization, PO has not provided
`
`any evidence that describes how forming a 2D constellation from orthogonalized
`
`1D constellations can provide the type of non-uniform multidimensional symbol
`
`constellation parallel decoding capacity and SNR characteristics being claimed in
`
`claims 5, 15, and 25. Nor can it. There is no disclosure in the ’777 patent of
`
`further optimizing multidimensional constellations after forming them from
`
`orthogonalized 1D constellations. Dr. Caire acknowledged that the parallel
`
`decoding capacity can change and is not the same when increasing dimensions
`
`(and particularly when constellations are considered as a whole, not on a per
`
`dimension basis). LGE1032, 122:7-25, 123:1-6, 124:2-11 (“an example in which
`
`the capacity is not the same … would be an example in which the constellation in
`
`two dimensions is not the Cartesian product of two identical one-dimensional
`
`6
`
`
`
`constellations”). Fuentes also explains that BICM capacity gain, and SNR change
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`when the constellation order (dimensions) change. LGE1030, 75-77. Thus, while
`
`claims 5, 15, and 25 are focused on the parallel decoding capacity and SNR of non-
`
`uniform multidimensional symbol constellations, the disclosure in the ’777 patent
`
`is focused on 1D capacity characteristics or per dimension characteristics of 2D
`
`constellations. This is why all the figures that PO points to for support describe
`
`1D-optimized PAM constellations.
`
`IV. PO’S NEW ARGUMENT ALLEGATIONS ARE WITHOUT MERIT
`For several reasons, PO incorrectly argues that the Petitioner Reply includes
`
`new arguments and should therefore be excluded. POSR, 3-10.
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), a petitioner is allowed to “respond to arguments
`
`raised in the corresponding opposition patent owner preliminary response, or patent
`
`owner response.” The Federal Circuit recently affirmed that a Petitioner can expand
`
`on previous arguments in the Petition and can provide responsive arguments in a
`
`Petitioner Reply. Rembrant Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 2021-1796, 10-16 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2023). The Court explained that “the very nature of the reply and sur-reply
`
`briefs are to respond (whether to refute, rebut, explain, discredit, and so on) to prior
`
`raised arguments,” and that when a reply is responsive but still pursues the “same
`
`legal ground,” such arguments are permissible. Id., 12. The Court also “cautioned
`
`the Board not to parse ‘arguments on reply with too fine of a filter.’” Id., 11 (quoting
`
`7
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
`
`Like in Rembrandt, LGE’s arguments in the Petitioner Reply are responsive
`
`in nature and remain directed to the same legal invalidity ground and the same claim
`
`features alleged to be lacking support in the Petition. Specifically, in response to the
`
`Petition, PO relied upon different optimization-related disclosure for support of
`
`claims 5, 15, and 25. POR, 42-45. In the Petitioner Reply, LGE explicitly cited to
`
`the arguments in the POR and provided responsive arguments. See, e.g., Pet. Rep.,
`
`2-4 (“Patent Owner contends that there are two approaches for optimizing
`
`multidimensional QAM constellations. POR, 25-26. … With respect to the first
`
`approach, the ’700 patent is devoid of any details for directly optimizing each degree
`
`of freedom.”) Thus, LGE’s Petitioner Reply arguments are responsive, permissible,
`
`and should not be excluded.
`
`
`
`Case law cited by PO in the sur-reply does not supersede Rembrandt. For
`
`instance, in Wasica, the Petitioner did not make out its obviousness case in its
`
`petition, and switched to a new obviousness theory in its reply. This is not the case
`
`in this proceeding, as LGE still maintains that the ’777 patent lacks written
`
`description support for the exact same claimed features in the ’700 patent and
`
`continues to identify deficiencies in the evidence and arguments provided by PO.
`
`V. DR. CAIRE’S DECLARATION SHOULD BE GIVEN MINIMUM
`WEIGHT, IF ANY, BECAUSE HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE
`
`8
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`DID NOT REVIEW THE ’777 PATENT, DID NOT UNDERSTAND
`CLAIM 5, AND USED A DIFFERENT POSITA STANDARD
`During his deposition, Dr. Caire confirmed that he never reviewed the ’777
`
`patent (EX1015), which is one of the documents being examined for written
`
`description support, when preparing his second declaration (EX2025). LGE1032,
`
`12:18-13:8 (reproduced below). While Petitioner understands that the disclosures
`
`of the ’700 and ’777 patents are similar, EX1015 was cited throughout Dr. Caire’s
`
`declaration (at least 17 times). The extensive citations to a document that he did not
`
`review (and for which the citations are different from the ’700 patent) clearly
`
`indicate that the statements in Dr. Caire’s declaration were not his own or, at a
`
`minimum, were submitted without sufficient diligence to confirm whether his
`
`statements were supported by the evidence he cited to in his declaration.
`
`
`
`During his deposition, Dr. Caire also repeated several times that he did not
`
`understand claim 5, and even engaged in an exercise with LGE’s counsel to rewrite
`
`claim 5. LGE1032, 153:14-156:9 (“I confirm that, in my opinion, it [claim 5] is not
`
`clear”), 168:1-25 (“I do not understand what each of the plurality means”), 169:17-
`
`9
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`173:22. Moreover, in forming his opinions, Dr. Caire applied a definition of a
`
`POSITA that required an education level (PhD and some years of work experience)
`
`that exceeded the level specified by the POSITA definition used by the Board and
`
`the parties. LGE1032, 22:20-23:19 (“I would say probably a person with a Ph.D. in
`
`electrical engineering, specialized with a thesis done in these topics, and possibly
`
`some years of work after Ph.D. … Normal students, in my experience, cannot read
`
`and understand papers like the ones that are in the exhibits”). Taken as a whole, Dr.
`
`Caire’s testimony should be accorded minimum weight, if any, because (1) he
`
`confessed to not understanding the claim(s) at issue, (2) he applied a different
`
`POSITA standard and thereby cannot speak to what a POSITA would have known
`
`or understood, and (3) he did not review the document he repeatedly cited to for
`
`support in his declaration.
`
`Notably, Dr. Caire’s first declaration (EX2001) did not address claims 5, 15,
`
`and 25. Thus, if the Board agrees that Dr. Caire’s second declaration (EX2025)
`
`should be accorded minimal weight for the reasons noted above, the evidentiary
`
`record in this proceeding is lopsided, with LGE providing multiple expert
`
`declarations and corroborating references and PO only providing a single
`
`questionable expert declaration in response.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Usman Khan/
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Jeremy J. Monaldo, Reg. No. 58,680
`Patrick Darno, Reg. No. 69,205
`Usman A. Khan, Reg. No. 70,439
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`T: 202-783-5553
`F: 877-769-7945
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 3, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Proceeding No.: IPR2023-00319
`IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,693,700
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4)(i), the undersigned certifies that on April
`
`3, 2024, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner Sur-Reply and all supporting
`
`exhibits were provided via email to the Patent Owner, by serving the
`
`correspondence address of record as follows:
`
`
`
`William A. Meunier (Reg. No. 41,193)
`Michael T. Renaud (Reg. No. 44,299)
`Kevin C. Amendt (Reg. No. 69,361)
`MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
`WAMeunier@mintz.com
`MTRenaud@mintz.com
`KCAmendt@mintz.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Crena Pacheco/
`Crena Pacheco
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`pacheco@fr.com
`
`
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
