Filed on behalf of: Ford Motor Company
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered: March 28, 2023
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________________
`Case Unassigned
`U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512
`______________________
`
`
`CONDITIONAL MOTION FOR JOINDER
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c),
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22, AND 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered: March 28, 2023
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________________
`Case Unassigned
`U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512
`______________________
`
`
`CONDITIONAL MOTION FOR JOINDER
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 315(c),
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22, AND 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ................................... 1
`BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS ................................... 3
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED ............... 4
`A.
`Legal Standards and Applicable Rules ................................................. 4
`B.
`Joinder with the Volkswagen and/or Mercedes IPR is
`Appropriate ............................................................................................ 5
`Joinder Will Not Add Any New Grounds or Issues .............................. 7
`C.
`Joinder Will Not Impact the Trial Schedule ......................................... 8
`D.
`Briefing and Discovery Will Be Simplified .......................................... 9
`E.
`Further Preconditions .......................................................................... 10
`F.
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 11
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) submits this Conditional Motion for Joinder
`
`(“Motion”) concurrently with a “copycat” petition for inter partes review (IPR)
`
`(“Petition”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 (“the ’512 patent”) (Ex. 1001), under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.122(b).
`
`At present, and not including Ford’s Petition submitted concurrently with
`
`this Motion, two IPRs have been filed challenging the ’512 patent: IPR2022-
`
`01539, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Neo Wireless, Inc., filed September
`
`15, 2022 (the “Volkswagen IPR”) and IPR2023-00079, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC.
`
`v. Neo Wireless LLC, filed October 19, 2022 (the “Mercedes IPR”).
`
`Ford’s IPR was filed after the Volkswagen and Mercedes IPRs. Accordingly,
`
`Ford respectfully requests that the Board hold Ford’s Motion in abeyance until those
`
`two IPRs have been instituted and/or terminated, i.e., (1) the Board has decided
`
`whether to institute the Volkswagen IPR or it has been terminated, and (2) the Board
`
`has decided whether to institute the Mercedes IPR or it has been terminated.
`
`Ford seeks party joinder to the Volkswagen IPR, if the Volkswagen IPR has
`
`been instituted and is still pending when the Board reaches this Motion. If the
`
`Volkswagen IPR is not pending when the Board reaches this Motion, Ford seeks
`
`party joinder to the Mercedes IPR in the alternative. As will be discussed below,
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512
`
`Ford will remain in the understudy role until neither of Volkswagen and Mercedes
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`remain as parties in the proceeding.
`
`If neither of the Volkswagen and Mercedes IPRs are pending when the Board
`
`reaches Ford’s Motion and Petition, this Motion is moot and Ford asks the Board to
`
`consider the Petition on its merits.
`
`Joinder will efficiently resolve the challenges presented in the Petition and the
`
`Volkswagen IPR and will not prejudice the patent owner, first-petitioner
`
`Volkswagen, or second-petitioner Mercedes. Both the Petition and the Mercedes IPR
`
`are typical “copycat” petitions. The grounds presented in the Petition are identical
`
`to those in the Volkswagen IPR and therefore are also identical to the grounds
`
`presented in the Mercedes IPR. Ford’s Petition is substantively identical to the
`
`Volkswagen Petition—in fact, it is a verbatim copy of Volkswagen’s Petition, with
`
`the exception of administrative portions (e.g., mandatory notices) and the discussion
`
`of Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 11, 2020), and is
`
`therefore also substantively identical to Mercedes’s Petition.
`
`Moreover, if the Board grants this Motion, Petitioner agrees to act as an
`
`“understudy,” following the common PTAB practice by allowing Volkswagen or
`
`Mercedes (whichever is in the proceeding) to lead the joined proceedings absent
`
`settlement or termination for any reason.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`Lead petitioner Volkswagen and second-petitioner Mercedes have stated to
`
`Petitioner that they do not oppose joinder.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`The ’512 patent is assigned on its face to Neo Wireless LLC (“Patent Owner”).
`
`Patent Owner has asserted the ’512 patent against Petitioner and numerous other
`
`parties. The ’512 patent is the subject of the following civil actions: Neo Wireless,
`
`LLC v. Ford Motor Company, No. 4:22-cv-00210 (W.D. Mo.), filed March 29, 2022;
`
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. Nissan North America Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00220 (M.D. Tenn.),
`
`filed March 29, 2022; Neo Wireless, LLC v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No.
`
`2:22-cv-01824 (S.D. Ohio), filed March 29, 2022; Neo Wireless LLC v. Tesla, Inc.,
`
`No. 2:22-cv-00095 (E.D. Tex.), filed March 29, 2022; Neo Wireless LLC v. General
`
`Motors Company, No. 2:22-cv-00094 (E.D. Tex.), filed March 29, 2022; Neo
`
`Wireless LLC v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00093 (E.D. Tex.),
`
`filed March 29, 2022; Neo Wireless, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
`
`(TV2), No. 1:22-cv-00076 (E.D. Tenn.), filed March 29, 2022; Neo Wireless, LLC v.
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-11404 (E.D. Mich.), filed June 28,
`
`2022; Neo Wireless LLC v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-11406
`
`(E.D. Mich.), filed June 28, 2022; Neo Wireless LLC v. General Motors Company,
`
`No. 2:22-cv-11407 (E.D. Mich.), filed June 28, 2022; Neo Wireless LLC v. Tesla,
`
`Inc., No. 2:22-cv-11408 (E.D. Mich.), filed June 28, 2022; Neo Wireless, LLC v.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512
`
`Nissan North America Inc., No. 2:22-cv-11405 (E.D. Mich.), filed June 29, 2022;
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 2:22-cv-11403 (E.D.
`
`Mich.), filed June 27, 2022; Neo Wireless, LLC v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:22-
`
`cv-11402 (E.D. Mich.), filed June 27, 2022; In re Neo Wireless, LLC Patent
`
`Litigation, No. 2:22-md-03034 (E.D. Mich.), filed June 23, 2022; Neo Wireless, LLC
`
`v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 3:22-cv-00780 (M.D. Fla.), filed July 15, 2022;
`
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 2:22-cv-11769 (E.D. Mich.),
`
`filed August 2, 2022; Neo Wireless, LLC v. FCA US LLC, No. 3:22-cv-01252 (N.D.
`
`Ohio), filed July 15, 2022; and Neo Wireless, LLC v. FCA US LLC, No. 2:22-cv-
`
`11770 (E.D. Mich.), filed August 2, 2022.
`
`In addition, the Volkswagen and Mercedes IPRs (also challenging the ’512
`
`patent) are currently in the pre-institution phase.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Legal Standards and Applicable Rules
`The Board has discretion to join a properly filed IPR petition to an existing
`
`IPR proceeding. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b); see also Sony
`
`Mobile Commc’ns AB v. Ancora Techs., Inc., IPR2021-00663, Paper 17 at 29-33
`
`(June 10, 2021); Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Sec. Sols., Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 at
`
`4-6 (July 29, 2013); Sony Corp. v. Yissum Res. & Dev. Co. of the Hebrew Univ. of
`
`Jerusalem, IPR2013-00326, Paper 15 at 3-7 (Sept. 24, 2013); Microsoft Corp. v.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512
`
`Proxyconn, Inc., IPR2013-00109, Paper 15 at 3-5 (Feb. 25, 2013).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`“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. A motion for
`
`joinder should:
`
`(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.
`
`Id. at 4 (citing Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (Apr. 24,
`2013)).
`
`
`B.
`Joinder with the Volkswagen and/or Mercedes IPR 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. v. Raytheon Co., IPR2016-00962, Paper 12 at 9
`
`(Aug. 24, 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, joinder is appropriate
`
`because there are no substantive differences between the Petition and the
`
`Volkswagen and Mercedes IPRs. All three petitions have identical unpatentability
`
`arguments, grounds and supporting evidence, and challenge the same claims.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`When, as here, the petitions are identical, joinder should be granted as a matter
`
`of right. See 157 Cong. Rec. S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl)
`
`(“The Office anticipates that joinder will be allowed as of right—if an inter partes
`
`review is instituted on the basis of a petition, for example, a party that files an
`
`identical petition will be joined to that proceeding, and thus allowed to file its own
`
`briefs and make its own arguments.”)
`
`Further, Ford may be prejudiced if it is not permitted to join the IPR. Patent
`
`Owner has asserted the ’512 patent against Ford in pending litigation. See supra
`
`Related Proceedings. Ford should be permitted to join the IPR(s) to participate in
`
`proceedings affecting a patent asserted against it, and thereby allowed to continue
`
`the proceedings should the other parties settle under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74 before a final
`
`written decision is issued. See Lowes Cos. Inc. v. Nichia Corp., IPR2017-02011,
`
`Paper 13 at 19 (Mar. 12, 2018) (“[d]enial of the Petition in part would prejudice the
`
`Petitioner in this proceeding should the Vizio Petitions be resolved by settlement”).
`
`In addition, permitting Ford to join these proceedings helps ensure that the
`
`patentability of the challenged claims will ultimately be decided by the Board,
`
`efficiently protecting the public and providing the patent owner with predictable and
`
`reliable expectations regarding its patent rights.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512
`
`
`Thus, this factor favors joinder.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`C.
`Joinder Will Not Add Any New Grounds or Issues
`The Petition does not include any new grounds of unpatentability. In fact, the
`
`Petition and its accompanying expert declaration are substantively identical to the
`
`Volkswagen and Mercedes IPRs and their accompanying expert declarations.2 See
`
`
`1 The factors outlined by General Plastic Industries Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (Sept. 6, 2017), are not particularly relevant here “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 (Oct. 30, 2018); Pfizer, Inc. v Genentech, Inc., IPR2017-02063,
`
`Paper 25 at 7-8 (Feb. 21, 2018).
`
`2 Ford submitted two expert declarations with its Petition. The first declaration (Ex.
`
`1003) is a copy of Volkswagen’s expert declaration. Although Volkswagen did not
`
`object to Ford copying and joining its IPR, Volkswagen refused to allow Ford to
`
`retain Volkswagen’s expert solely for the purpose of this “copycat” IPR.
`
`Accordingly, Ford retained its own expert, who has reviewed and adopted the
`
`Volkswagen technical expert’s testimony as his own. Ford’s expert declaration is a
`
`verbatim copy of Volkswagen’s with the exception of the expert’s qualifications and
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512
`
`Everlight Elecs. Co. v. Document Sec. Sys., Inc., IPR2018- 01260, Paper 12 at 6-7
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Nov. 14, 2018) (granting motion for joinder where petitioner submitted separate but
`
`substantially identical expert declaration); see also Celltrion, IPR2018-01019, Paper
`
`11 at 14 (same); Sun Pharm. Indus. Ltd. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., IPR2020-
`
`01072, Paper 12 at 7 (Sept. 1, 2020) (same). Therefore, this factor weighs in favor
`
`of joinder.
`
`D.
`Joinder Will Not Impact the Trial Schedule
`Joinder will not impact the trial schedule because Ford does not seek to
`
`introduce any new grounds or challenge any new claims. Moreover, Patent Owner
`
`will not require any discovery beyond what it will need in the previously filed IPRs.
`
`Because Ford fully adopted Volkswagen’s (and Mercedes’s) patentability
`
`arguments, art, and evidence, and because Ford will remain in the understudy role
`
`so long as Volkswagen or Mercedes remain in the proceeding, joining Ford will not
`
`affect the trial schedule.
`
`Accordingly, this factor also favors joinder.
`
`
`personal information. Ford will rely on its own expert’s declaration only if
`
`Volkswagen and Mercedes are not parties to this IPR, i.e., if Ford must shed its
`
`understudy role.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`E.
`Briefing and Discovery Will Be Simplified
`Joining Ford should not require any additional briefing or discovery. Ford’s
`
`Petition adds no new issues whatsoever. Further, Ford agrees to take an understudy
`
`role, which will simplify briefing and discovery. Volkswagen’s lead counsel will
`
`act as the lead counsel so long as Volkswagen remains in the proceeding, and if
`
`Mercedes is in the proceeding (and Volkswagen is not), Mercedes’ counsel will act
`
`as lead counsel so long as Mercedes remains in the proceeding. Likewise
`
`Volkswagen’s counsel will submit all briefs, and take and defend all depositions,
`
`take the lead for petitioners on any conference calls, and will argue the case before
`
`the Board, so long as Volkswagen remains in the proceeding. Likewise, if
`
`Volkswagen is not in the proceeding, Mercedes counsel will assume Volkswagen’s
`
`lead role. So long as Volkswagen and/or Mercedes remain in the proceeding, Ford’s
`
`counsel will be present only to observe and to answer any questions pertaining
`
`specifically to Ford as the joining party, should any such questions arise.
`
`By Petitioner accepting an “understudy” role, the parties can comply with the
`
`trial schedule assigned to the Volkswagen IPR without any duplicative efforts by
`
`the Board or the Patent Owner. See Sony Corp. v. Memory Integrity, LLC, IPR2015-
`
`01353, Paper 11 at 6-9 (Oct. 5, 2015) (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
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512
`
`petitioners agreed to an understudy role). Petitioner is further willing to agree to any
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`other reasonable conditions the Board deems necessary. Therefore, this final factor
`
`also weighs in favor of joinder.
`
`F.
`Further Preconditions
`In opposing a similar joinder motion filed by Mercedes, Patent Owner argues
`
`that several preconditions should be met prior to joinder. See Mercedes-Benz USA,
`
`LLC, IPR2023-00079, Paper 7 at 2 (Jan. 20, 2023). Patent Owner argues that
`
`Mercedes be denied any right to participate in the joined proceeding without
`
`authorization from the Board, that Mercedes’ exhibits, including its expert
`
`declaration, be excluded from the record, and that Volkswagen be shown to have
`
`accepted Mercedes’ understudy role in the joined proceeding. Id. If Patent Owner
`
`makes the same arguments here, Ford agrees with them only to the extent the Board
`
`deems them necessary for joinder.
`
`Ford has agreed to assume and remain in the understudy role unless
`
`Volkswagen and Mercedes are not participating in the joined proceedings. And as
`
`explained earlier, Ford will rely on the testimony of its expert declarant (Dr.
`
`Cooklev) if, and only if, Ford is thrust from its position as an understudy because
`
`Volkswagen and Mercedes are not participating in the joined proceedings and no
`
`petitioner expert has yet been deposed and the time to depose the expert has not
`
`expired.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`To be sure, the Board regularly permits joinder of petitioners who rely on
`
`different declarants when, as is the case here, the joining petitioner’s expert presents
`
`the same opinions as in the earlier-filed IPR. See, e.g., Everlight Elecs. Co. v.
`
`Document Sec. Sys., Inc., IPR2018-01225, Paper 14 at 5-9 (Sept. 27, 2018); see also
`
`Pfizer Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, IPR2019-00981, Paper 12 at 4-7
`
`(Aug. 15, 2019); Microsoft Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., IPR2017-01754, Paper
`
`16 at 6, 13-16 (Nov. 29, 2017).
`
`Consistent with such cases, Ford agrees to rely entirely on, and be bound by,
`
`the declaration and deposition of Volkswagen’s (or Mercedes’s) expert declarant in
`
`the joined IPR, so long as Volkswagen (or Mercedes) remains a party until its expert
`
`is deposed. See Everlight Elecs., IPR2018-01225, Paper 14 at 6. And if Volkswagen
`
`and Mercedes are not parties in the IPR, Petitioner will rely on Dr. Cooklev’s
`
`substantively identical declaration and the Patent Owner can depose Dr. Cooklev.
`
`Joinder accordingly presents no risk of duplicative declarations, depositions, or other
`
`evidence.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests institution of IPR
`
`proceedings based on its Petition and joinder with any proceeding instituted based
`
`on the Volkswagen or Mercedes IPR.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512
`
`
`Dated: March 28, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: / Jonathan M. Strang /
`
`Jonathan M. Strang (Reg. No. 61,724)
`jonathan.strang@lw.com
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
`Telephone: 202.637.2200
`Fax: 202.637.2201
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Ford Motor Company
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Joinder
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a true and complete copy of Conditional
`Motion For Joinder Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22, and
`42.122(b) was served on the official correspondence address for the patent
`shown in Patent Center:
`
`Anthony Volpe
`C. Koenig
`VOLPE KOENIG
`30 SOUTH 17TH STREET, 18TH FLOOR
`PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
`
`via FEDERAL EXPRESS next business day delivery, on March 28, 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: / Jonathan M. Strang /
`
`Jonathan M. Strang (Reg. No. 61,724)
`jonathan.strang@lw.com
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, NW, Ste. 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
`Telephone: 1.202.637.2200
`Fax: 202.637.2201
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Ford Motor Company
`
`
`
`
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
