UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________
`
`EBAY, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LEXOS MEDIA IP, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________________
`
`Case IPR2024-00337
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,118,449
`
`_______________________
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER TO
`INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2023-01001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________
`
`EBAY, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LEXOS MEDIA IP, LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________________
`
`Case IPR2024-00337
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,118,449
`
`_______________________
`
`MOTION FOR JOINDER TO
`INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2023-01001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED ..................... 1
`I.
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ................................................... 2
`II.
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED ................... 3
`III.
`Legal Standard ............................................................................................ 3
`A.
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is Timely .................................................. 3
`B.
`Each Factor Weighs in Favor of Joinder .................................................... 4
`C.
`Joinder is Appropriate with the Amazon IPR .............................................. 7
`1.
`2. Petitioner Proposes No New Grounds of Unpatentability ........................... 7
`3.
`Joinder Will Not Unduly Burden or Negatively Impact the Amazon IPR
`Trial Schedule ........................................................................................ 8
`4. Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery .......................................... 9
`GENERAL PLASTIC IS INAPPLICABLE AND FAVORS
`IV.
`PETITIONER ........................................................................................................... 11
`V.
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 13
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED
`eBay Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully submits this Motion for Joinder
`
`(“Motion”) together with a Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,118,449 (the “eBay Petition”) filed contemporaneously herewith. Pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), Petitioner requests institution of an inter
`
`partes review and joinder with the inter partes review in Amazon.com, Inc. v. Lexos
`
`Media IP, LLC, IPR2023-01001 (the “Amazon IPR”) in view of the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board’s (the “Board”) decision to institute trial on December 12, 2023.
`
`(Amazon IPR, Paper 9.) Counsel for eBay has conferred with counsel for
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”), and counsel for Amazon does not object to eBay
`
`joining IPR2023-01001.
`
`Petitioner’s request for joinder is timely under 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) as it is
`
`submitted no later than one month after the December 12, 2023 institution date of
`
`the Amazon IPR. The eBay Petition is also narrowly tailored to the same claims,
`
`prior art, and grounds for unpatentability that are the subject of the Amazon IPR. In
`
`addition, Petitioner is willing to streamline discovery and briefing, as well as follow
`
`the Amazon IPR Scheduling Order.
`
`Petitioner submits that joinder is appropriate because it will not unduly burden
`
`or prejudice the parties to the Amazon IPR while efficiently resolving whether three
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`claims (claim 1, 38, 53) of U.S. Patent No. 6,118,449 (the “’449 Patent”) are valid
`
`and in a single proceeding.
`
`II.
`1.
`
` STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`On June 5, 2023, Amazon filed a petition for inter partes review in
`
`IPR2023-01001 requesting cancellation of claims 1, 27, 38 and 53 of the ʼ449 Patent.
`
`2.
`
`On June 22, 2022, Lexos Media IP, LLC (“Lexos” or “Patent Owner”)
`
`filed a civil action against eBay, Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-00648, in the United States
`
`District Court for the Western District of Texas (“the Western District Case”). Patent
`
`Owner filed a second amended complaint in the Western District Case on May 16,
`
`2023.
`
`3.
`
`On December 6, 2023, Judge Albright issued an Order granting
`
`Petitioner eBay’s request to transfer venue from the Western District of Texas to the
`
`Northern District of California. The Northern District of California litigation is
`
`pending, and is stylized Lexos Media IP, LLC v. eBay, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-06314-LJC
`
`(N.D. Cal.) (the “Northern District Litigation”).
`
`4.
`
`On December 12, 2023, the Board instituted Amazon’s petition for
`
`inter partes review in IPR2023-01001, finding that “there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim on one of the grounds
`
`raised in the Petition” and instituted trial on claims 1, 38 and 53. Amazon IPR, Paper
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`9 at 39. The Board further noted that claim 27 was not available for cancellation as
`
`it had already been cancelled. Id. at 8-10.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED
`A. Legal Standard
`The Board has the authority under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) to join a properly filed
`
`inter partes review petition to an instituted inter partes review proceeding. See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(c). A motion for joinder must be filed within one month of the Board
`
`instituting an original inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). In deciding
`
`whether to exercise its discretion and permit joinder, the Board considers several
`
`factors, including: (1) the reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2) whether the new
`
`petition presents any new grounds of unpatentability; (3) what impact, if any, joinder
`
`would have on the trial schedule for the existing review; and (4) how briefing and
`
`discovery may be simplified. See Kyocera Corporation v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-
`
`00004, Paper 15 at 4 (April 24, 2013); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated
`
`Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 76-78.
`
`B. Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is Timely
`This Motion for Joinder is timely because it is filed within one month of the
`
`December 12, 2023 institution decision of the Amazon IPR. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`Further, the one-year bar set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b)
`
`does not apply to the eBay Petition because this Motion for Joinder is filed
`
`concurrently with the eBay Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Each Factor Weighs in Favor of Joinder
`As explained in detail below, each of the four factors considered by the Board
`
`weighs in favor of joinder. Specifically, the eBay Petition does not present any new
`
`grounds of unpatentability; rather it is substantively identical to the Amazon Petition.
`
`Further, joinder will have minimal, if any, impact on the trial schedule, as all issues
`
`are substantively identical, and Petitioner eBay will accept an “understudy” role
`
`unless and until Amazon is terminated from the proceeding. Lastly, the briefing and
`
`discovery will be simplified by resolving all issues in a single proceeding.
`
`Accordingly, joinder is appropriate here.
`
`Petitioner notes that Amazon may be in the late stages of settlement
`
`discussions with Patent Owner, as confirmed by the recent dismissal of Amazon
`
`from the corresponding District Court case (Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Amazon.com,
`
`Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00169 (E.D. Tex.)). However, should Amazon and Patent Owner
`
`settle their dispute and seek to terminate the Amazon IPR, Petitioner’s Motion
`
`should still be granted because it is timely presented, the Petition presents a
`
`compelling case of unpatentability, and resolving this dispute is in the interests of
`
`justice.
`
`Indeed, the present circumstances are similar to those of Code200 v. Bright
`
`Data Ltd., IPR2022-00861 (“the Code200 IPR”). There, several petitioners,
`
`including Code200, sought to join IPR2021-01492 (the ’1492 IPR) in much the same
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`manner as presented here—a petition and motion for joinder were timely filed in the
`
`Code200 IPR and before the ’1492 IPR petitioner and patent owner requested
`
`termination of the ’1492 IPR. The Board originally denied the motion for joinder,
`
`generally relying on General Plastic grounds. Code200 IPR, Paper 17 at 16 (July
`
`25, 2022). In denying institution, the Board stated:
`
`“Although Petitioner has agreed to an ‘understudy’ role, NetNut, the
`petitioner in the 1492 IPR to be joined, has been terminated from that
`proceeding due to a settlement.… Therefore, Petitioner would not be
`acting in the role of an understudy, but would immediately assume the
`leading role if joinder were granted.… Thus, if we granted joinder here,
`‘Petitioner would stand in to continue a proceeding that would
`otherwise be terminated.’” Id. at 8.
`In stark departure from the norm, Director Vidal sua sponte reviewed the
`
`Code200 IPR institution decision, and vacated and remanded it. Code200, Vidal
`
`Remand (Paper 18) (August 23, 2022). On remand, the Board granted the motion
`
`for joinder and instituted trial despite the ’1492 IPR settlement, noting:
`
`“[W]e determine that the merits of this action present a compelling
`unpatentability challenge. Absent joinder, a one-year bar would apply
`to Petitioner, and, again, the merits presented in this challenge would
`not be reached by the Board in a final written decision. Under these
`specific circumstances, we determine joinder is appropriate in the
`interests of justice.” Code200, Paper 19 at 39 (October 19, 2022).
`The panel continued:
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`“Because NetNut has been dismissed from the 1492 IPR, there are no
`longer issues of cooperation and duplication that would have to be
`addressed between petitioners.” Id.
`The Board should follow the guidance of the Code 200 IPR tribunal and grant
`
`Petitioner’s Motion even if Amazon and Lexos request termination of the Amazon
`
`IPR. The Amazon IPR petition presents compelling unpatentability challenges,
`
`resolving the merits of the Amazon petition is in the interest of justice, and joinder
`
`is appropriate in such circumstances. Code200, Paper 19 at 39. Moreover, the
`
`PTAB routinely grants motions for joinder in view of pending litigations involving
`
`the same patent and the same parties. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`
`IPR2020-00224, Paper 10 at 2-7 (PTAB April 6, 2020) (granting motion for joinder
`
`of a copycat petition in view of co-pending lawsuit); Apple Inc. v. INVT SPE LLC,
`
`IPR2019-00958, Paper 9 at 2-13 (PTAB May 30, 2019) (same); Celltrion, Inc. v.
`
`Genentech, Inc., IPR2018-01019, Paper 11 at 2-15 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2018) (same);
`
`Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-02090, Paper 9 at 2-
`
`12 (PTAB March 6, 2018) (same); Pfizer, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., IPR2017-02063,
`
`Paper 25 at 4-8 (PTAB Feb. 21, 2018) (same); General Motors LLC v. Neo Wireless
`
`LLC, IPR2023-00963, Paper 10 at 2-20 (PTAB Dec. 6, 2023) (same); T-Mobile
`
`USA, Inc. v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR2023-00830, Paper 7 at 2-11 (PTAB Oct. 11,
`
`2023) (same); Cooler Master Co., Ltd. v. Asektek Danmark A/S, IPR2023-00667,
`
`Paper 6 at 2-13 (PTAB Aug. 28, 2023) (same).
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Joinder is Appropriate with the Amazon IPR
`Joinder with the Amazon IPR is appropriate because the eBay Petition
`
`involves the same patent, challenges the same claims, relies on the same expert
`
`declaration, and is based on the same grounds and combinations of prior art
`
`submitted in the Amazon Petition. The eBay Petition is substantively identical to the
`
`Amazon Petition, containing only minor differences unrelated to the merits of the
`
`proposed grounds. There are no changes to the facts, citations, evidence, or
`
`arguments presented in the Amazon Petition in relation to the grounds of the
`
`Amazon Petition. Because these proceedings are substantively identical, good cause
`
`exists for joining this proceeding with the Amazon IPR so that the Board can
`
`efficiently resolve all grounds in both the eBay and Amazon Petitions in a single
`
`proceeding. Moreover, as explained previously, the Amazon IPR petition presents
`
`compelling unpatentability challenges, resolving the merits of the Amazon petition
`
`is in the interest of justice, and joinder is appropriate in such circumstances.
`
`Code200, Paper 19 at 39.
`
`2. Petitioner Proposes No New Grounds of Unpatentability
`The eBay Petition does not present any new grounds of unpatentability. The
`
`eBay Petition is substantively identical to the Amazon Petition. The eBay Petition
`
`presents the unpatentability of the same claims of the same patent in the same way
`
`as the Amazon Petition. The Board “routinely grants motions for joinder where the
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`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 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016) (internal quotations and citations omitted)
`
`(emphasis original); see also STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Lone Star Silicon
`
`Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-00436, Paper 7 at 5 (PTAB May 4, 2018) (granting
`
`joinder and reasoning, “[w]e rely in particular, on Petitioner’s representation that its
`
`Petition is ‘substantially identical’…challenges the same claims based on the same
`
`prior art and the same grounds of unpatentability….”).
`
`3. Joinder Will Not Unduly Burden or Negatively Impact the
`Amazon IPR Trial Schedule
`Because the eBay Petition is substantively identical to the Amazon Petition,
`
`with the same grounds applied to the same claims as instituted by the Board, there
`
`are no new issues for Patent Owner to address. Due to the same issues being
`
`presented in the Amazon Petition, Patent Owner will not be required to present any
`
`additional responses or arguments. LG v. Memory Integrity, LLC, IPR2015-01353,
`
`Paper 11, at 6 (Oct. 5, 2015) (granting IPR and motion for joinder where “joinder
`
`should not necessitate any additional briefing or discovery from Patent Owner
`
`beyond that already required in [the original IPR].”); see also id., Paper 4 at 5–7.
`
`The Patent Owner Response will also not be negatively impacted because the
`
`issues presented in the Amazon Petition are identical to the issues presented in the
`
`eBay Petition. Patent Owner will not be required to provide any additional analysis
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`or arguments beyond what it will already provide in responding to the Amazon
`
`Petition. Also, because the eBay Petition relies on the same expert and a
`
`substantively identical declaration, only a single deposition is needed for the
`
`proposed joined proceeding.1
`
`Joinder of this proceeding with the Amazon IPR would not unduly burden or
`
`negatively impact the trial schedule in any meaningful way. Further, even if a small
`
`adjustment of the trial schedule was necessary, this is already provided for in the
`
`rules and is a routine undertaking by parties in IPR proceedings. See 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(c). Thus, a slight adjustment in the trial schedule, should one be needed, is
`
`not enough of a reason to deny joining the present eBay Petition with the Amazon
`
`IPR.
`
`4. Procedures to Simplify Briefing and Discovery
`The Amazon Petition and the eBay Petition present substantively identical
`
`grounds of rejection, including the same art combinations against the same claims.
`
`Additionally, Petitioner explicitly agrees to take an “understudy” role, as described
`
`by the Board:
`
`
`1 Petitioner eBay has engaged Dr. Rosenberg, Amazon’s expert for the Amazon IPR.
`
`Petitioner eBay has submitted Dr. Rosenberg’s declaration from the Amazon IPR
`
`with the eBay IPR petition in unaltered form, except for exhibit labeling.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`“(a) all filings by [Petitioner] in the joined proceeding be consolidated
`with [the filings of the petitioner in the Amazon IPR], unless a filing
`solely concerns issues that do not involve [the petitioner in the Amazon
`IPR]; (b) [Petitioner] shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds
`not already instituted by the Board in the [Amazon IPR], or introduce
`any argument or discovery not already introduced by [the petitioner in
`the Amazon IPR]; (c) [Petitioner] shall be bound by any agreement
`between [Patent Owner] and [the petitioner in the Amazon IPR]
`concerning discovery and/or depositions; and (d) [Petitioner] at
`deposition shall not receive any direct, cross-examination or redirect
`time beyond that permitted for [the petitioner in the Amazon IPR] alone
`under either 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 or any agreement between [Patent
`Owner] and [the petitioner in the Amazon IPR].”
`
`See IPR2014-00550, paper 38 at 5 (Apr. 10, 2015).
`
`Petitioner eBay will assume the primary role only if Amazon ceases to
`
`participate in the Amazon IPR. Counsel for eBay has conferred with counsel for
`
`Amazon, and Amazon does not object to Petitioner eBay joining IPR2023-01001 in
`
`an “understudy” role. By Petitioner accepting an “understudy” role, Patent Owner
`
`and Petitioner eBay can comply with the current trial schedule and avoid any
`
`duplicative efforts by the Board or the Patent Owner. These steps will minimize any
`
`potential complications or delay that may result due to joinder. See, e.g., Garmin
`
`Int’l, Inc. v. Philips North Am. LLC, IPR2020-00910, Paper 8 at 45, 47-50 (PTAB
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Nov. 19, 2020) (granting joinder where petitioners agreed to accept an “understudy”
`
`role); STMicroelectronics, IPR2018-00436, Paper 7 at 5 (similar).
`
`IV. GENERAL PLASTIC IS GENERALLY INAPPLICABLE AND
`FAVORS PETITIONER
`In General Plastic, the Board sets forth a series of factors that may be
`
`analyzed for follow-on petitions to help conserve the finite resources of the Board.
`
`However, Petitioner respectfully submits that the General Plastic analysis is
`
`inapplicable here. In the current motion, eBay merely seeks to join Amazon’s
`
`proceeding in an understudy rule and does not present any new grounds. The PTAB
`
`has previously found that such circumstances “effectively neutralize[]” a General
`
`Plastic analysis. See Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2018-00580, Paper 13 at 10
`
`(PTAB Aug. 21, 2018) (instituting a joinder copycat petition where petitioner agreed
`
`to assume a passive understudy role, and noting such circumstances “effectively
`
`neutraliz[es] the General Plastic factors”); see also Celltrion, Inc. v. Genetech, Inc.,
`
`IPR2019-01019, Paper 11 at 10 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2018) (noting the joinder motion
`
`“effectively obviates any concerns of serial harassment and unnecessary
`
`expenditures of resources”) and Code200, Vidal Remand (Paper 18) (finding road-
`
`mapping and other General Plastic concerns generally inapplicable or of limited
`
`relevance when a motion for joinder presents a copycat petition).
`
`In any event, the General Plastic factors counsel heavily against discretionary
`
`denial, i.e., in favor of instituting the present IPR and joining it with the Amazon
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR. General Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357,
`
`slip op. at 16 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (Paper 19) (precedential as to § II.B.4.i).
`
`The first three General Plastic factors all strongly favor Petitioner. Petitioner
`
`has not previously filed an IPR challenge to the ’449 patent, Petitioner has included
`
`a Sotera stipulation in its Petition, and there are no road-mapping concerns as
`
`Petitioner has simply filed a copycat version of the Amazon Petition. These factors
`
`all counsel against discretionary denial. Code200, Vidal Remand (Paper 18) at 4-6.
`
`The fourth, fifth and seventh General Plastic factors have limited relevance
`
`when a motion for joinder with a copycat petition is presented. Code200, Vidal
`
`Remand (Paper 18) at 6. In any event, those factors favor Petitioner as the instant
`
`Motion is being filed within eight days of institution of the Amazon IPR and there
`
`should be no delay in the Amazon IPR if Petitioner’s Motion is granted.
`
`The sixth factor also favors Petitioner as it is “the Board’s ‘mission to improve
`
`patent quality and restore confidence in the presumption of validity that comes with
`
`issued patents’” which “outweighs the impact on Board resources needed to evaluate
`
`the merits of a petition.” Code200, Vidal Remand (Paper 18) at 6, citing Cuozzo
`
`Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. 261, 272 (2016).
`
`Accordingly, all of the General Plastic factors counsel against discretionary
`
`denial and in favor granting of Petitioner’s Motion. Indeed, any “concerns of
`
`fairness are outweighed by the benefits to the patent system of improving patent
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`quality by reviewing the merits of the challenges raised in the petition[], which have
`
`not been addressed to date.” Code200, Vidal Remand (Paper 18) at 6, citing General
`
`Plastic at 16 (citing H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, at 40 (2011)); see also Samsung
`
`Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Uniloc Lux. S.A., IPR2017-01797, Paper 8 at 33 (P.T.A.B. Feb.
`
`6, 2018) (“Patent Owner’s complaint about the multiple [IPR] petitions filed against
`
`[its] patent is not persuasive when the volume appears to be a direct result of its own
`
`litigation activity.”)
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For all of the foregoing reasons, Petitioner eBay respectfully requests that the
`
`Board grant eBay’s Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,118,449
`
`and grant joinder with the proceeding pending in Amazon.com, Inc. v. Lexos Media
`
`IP, LLC, IPR2023-01001.
`
`Dated: December 20, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`_/Heath Briggs/_____
`Heath J. Briggs, Reg. No. 54,919
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`1144 15th Street, Suite 3300
`Denver, CO 80202
`
`Joshua L. Raskin, Reg. No. 40,135
`Brian J. Prew, Reg. No. 76,717
`Vimal M. Kapadia, Reg. No. 73,310
`Kathryn E. Albanese, Reg. No. 78,153
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`One Vanderbilt Avenue
`New York, NY 10017
`Counsel for Petitioner eBay, Inc.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the Motion for
`
`Joinder has been served on the Patent Owner via United States Postal Service
`
`(USPS) Priority Express Mail, or by means at least as fast and reliable USPS Prioirty
`
`Express Mail, on December 20, 2023, at the following address:
`
`
`
`
`
`WEINGARTEN SCHURGIN GAGNEBIN & HAYES LLP
`TEN POST OFFICE SQUARE
`BOSTON, MA 02109
`
`
`Dated: December 20, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`_/Heath Briggs/_____
`Heath J. Briggs, Reg. No. 54,919
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`1144 15th Street, Suite 3300
`Denver, CO 80202
`
`Joshua L. Raskin, Reg. No. 40,135
`Brian J. Prew, Reg. No. 76,717
`Vimal M. Kapadia, Reg. No. 73,310
`Kathryn E. Albanese, Reg. No. 78,153
`Greenberg Traurig, LLP
`One Vanderbilt Avenue
`New York, NY 10017
`
`Counsel for Petitioner eBay, Inc.
`
`
`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
