`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCEFOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND
`DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`DATE:
`
`June 21, 2022
`
`MEMORANDUM
`
`TO:
`
`FROM:
`
`KatherineK.Vidal odin hu Vida
`
`Membersof the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`UnderSecretary of Commercefor Intelleetyal|Property and
`ark Office (USPTO orthe Office)
`Director of the United States Patent and Trad
`
`
`SUBJECT:|INTERIM PROCEDURE FOR DISCRETIONARY DENIALS IN AJA POST-
`GRANT PROCEEDINGS WITH PARALLEL DISTRICT COURT
`LITIGATION
`
`Introduction
`
`Congress designed the America Invents Act (AIA) post-grant proceedings “to establish a
`
`moreefficient and streamlined patent system that will improve patent quality and limit
`
`unnecessary and counterproductivelitigation costs.” H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, at 40 (2011),
`
`2011 U.S.C.C.A.N. 67, 69; see S. Rep. No. 110-259, at 20 (2008). Parallel district court and
`
`AIA proceedings involving the same parties and invalidity challenges can increase, rather than
`
`limit, litigation costs. Based on the USPTO’s experience with administering the AIA, the agency
`
`has recognized the potential for inefficiency and gamesmanship in AIA proceedings, given the
`
`existence ofparallel proceedings between the Office and district courts. To minimizepotential
`
`conflict between the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)anddistrict court proceedings, the
`
`Office designated as precedential Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.'! This precedential decision articulates
`
`' See Apple Inc. y. Fintiv, Inc., PR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (designated
`precedential May 5, 2020).
`
`P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 - www.usPTO.Gov
`
`1
`
`MS-1012
`
`1
`
`MS-1012
`
`

`

`the following set of nonexclusive factors (the Fintiv factors) that the PTAB considers on a case-
`
`specific basis in determining whetherto institute an AIA post-grant proceeding where thereis
`
`parallel district court litigation:
`
`1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be grantedif a
`proceedingis 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 andthe parties;
`
`4. overlap betweenissuesraisedin the petition and in the parallel proceeding;
`5. whether the petitioner and the defendantin the parallel proceeding are the same
`party; and
`
`6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the
`merits.
`
`The Office issued a Request for Comments (RFC)* on the PTAB’s current approachesto
`
`exercising discretion on whetherto institute an AIA proceeding, including situations involving
`
`parallel district court litigation. The Office received 822 comments from a wide range of
`
`stakeholders. In light of the feedback received, the Office is planning to soon explore potential
`
`rulemaking on proposed approaches through an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. In
`
`the meantime, I have determined that severalclarifications need to be made to the PTAB’s
`
`current application of Fintiv to discretionary institution wherethere is parallellitigation.
`
`Asexplained below,to benefit the patent system and the public good, the PTAB will not
`
`rely on the Fintiv factors to discretionarily deny institution in view ofparallel district court
`
`litigation where a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability. This memorandum
`
`also confirmsthat the precedential import of Fintiv is limited to facts of that case. Namely,
`
`Fintiv involved institution of an AIA proceeding with a parallel district court litigation. The
`
`* Discretionto Institute Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 85 FR 66502 (Oct. 20,
`2020); Discretion to Institute Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; Extension of
`CommentPeriod, 85 FR 73437 (Nov. 18, 2020).
`
`2
`
`

`

`  ÿ
`

ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿÿ !"#$%&ÿ'(ÿ)*+,-./0ÿ/ 12ÿ3456789:;ÿ<=>ÿ? @AÿB Cÿ<DEFGÿH ÿ
`IJKLMÿNOPQÿRSTUVWXYZ [7\ÿ]^_`ÿa(bcdef(gÿhijklÿDm(nocgpqÿrsÿtuvÿiwxÿyz#{ÿ<|}~(€Gÿ(ÿ
`‚ƒ„<…†&‡ˆ‰ÿŠÿE‹Œ"=ÿŽ=&ÿUÿ‘’“”•ÿ–—˜7™š›œžÿŸ ¡¢£¤¥ÿ7¦ÿ§ ¨ÿ©ª§«¬§­ÿ(§ÿ®~ÿ¯°#vÿ ±ÿ gÿ›s±²/³ÿ
`´µ¶·¸¹ÿº»g¼½s¾¿ÀÁÿÂÃÄÅÿÆÇÈÉÊËÿÌÍÎÏÐÑÒÓÔÿÕÖ×ØÙÚÿ'ÛÜÿÝÞßàÿá.âãÿä»tÿ?åæçèéêëìBíîïðÿ&ñòóÿô§õHö÷øùú(gÿ
`ûÿüýþÿÿ:ÿ M ñ ÿo/ ÿ#
`

ÿy4‡:=ÿÿ"ÿ7ÿ"ÿE" 8!ÿ‡ÿ"#$%&F'#( §ÿ) Cÿ ÿ&*¥ ÿ
`+,ÿÿ-<. ñ ÿ/Ÿ01vo2=ÿ34ÿ56ÿ789:«;ÿµ<ÿ=>?ÿ@AµBB›ÿCu7Dÿ#(&E?ÿ~<FGÿ-rHì=7IJKÿLMU=ÿN7OõvPÿ
`QRSTñÿUVÿWXYZ[ÿ\]^_c(û7Mïó`ÿÿuþaÿ#bgcde"fgûÿhivÿjk:lmncoðÿ(pÿh~"ÿ›qr,st#uÿvwx2yzÿ{|‡}ÿ›‹~‰ÿ
` ÿVñÿ€ÿ‚ƒ§ÿ„…éÿ†‡ÿˆàÿ‰§7Šÿ‹ŒŽÿ`

‘cµgÿ’yyÿ“¿ÿ›”þ•ÿ–—ÿ˜™ÿšZÿÂy›ÿ/(B>"!ÿC~"ÿn%&œ‹>ÿ
`ž6ÿŸ 6ÿ ¡¢£­ÿ¤0ÿ¥¦§I ¥¨~© §ÿ ªÿ«¬­ÿ®¯°±²ÿ³´µ¶ÿ·¸ÿ®uÿ›+¥¹±º#Uÿ»§ÿ¼uc½uÿ¾uÿ%7±7¿y"yÿEchÀzĂ(äÿ
`ÁÂÃÄÅUzÆÿÇÿÉ~ÊËÿnUÌìÍÎ=& ÏÿпÑÒÓÔÕÖÿ×Ø ÙMÿIŸÚÛÜÝþÞßÿ
`àáâÿÌ"ãµä<=åæ6ÿçÿÊzèé"]ÿæê?|ÿ#uëÿìíîïÚð ñòóÿ‹&Yôìõö÷øÿ¤ìÿùzúûñÿ©ü§ýþ§ÿ6v=óÿ
`ÿ <= ÿ(ÿ "ÿ u"ÿ
`\

ÿnFÌ<{œÿìÿzÿ7}&ìKÿ%|ì ¥! §¥"ÿ#$%æ&œ§­ÿ
`'(!#)f(=*ÿ+,r-^g6ÿ.»‹ÿ/u 0ñÿr14æ2(±3ÿD(45(=ÿÿ6yÿ7D 67ÿ«8ÿó‹9:F;ÿ<#=ÿ><t{Õ?§@ÿABCDÿBEFGHÿ
`IJÿKLMNOPÿQR7SRTUVWXYÿZ™\[ÿ\]^€<_›ÿ`aztb=ÿcd(/"ef"ÿgh`Ziÿjÿklÿmnopÿ
`\ä7Fqrsÿ
`tuvwxyz{|}ÿ~€‚ƒÿ
`„§ÿ~ÿ…†‡ˆÿ‰ §Šñ‹sÿñŒ<Žúu¿«ÿ‘’“”•Œ:–ÿE—(/þ¿˜û™šÿ5›®œ&¥cgÿi˜žÿ˜Ÿšÿ<=åÿ
`  

¡›ÿ¢û£¤ûñ¥¦ÿ§¨©(&ÿª‰Z«¬ÿ­® ¯°v›±²¥ÿ³ ÿ´6/(µÿ§eÿñû¶ ·ÿj–g¸ÿ¹ 7ŠúºÿQóÿ» ü›=ÿ
`¼¹ ½{ÿ‡¾?ÿ ¿ÀÁÂñÃÄÅÆÿÑFÇÈ<ÉÊËÌÿ'(ÿÍÎÏÐÑÒÓµ$Ôÿ՟ÿÖV7×ØvÙÚÛ§ÿ©¥Ü&Pÿ7ÝÞ§H¥ßÿàáâNÿ­»ãÿä:åÿ
`æçèéêëìÿí0îÿïðÿzñÿòëóÿôõöÿ÷øùúÿûNÿâ"Eüÿý(þÿmÿ  ÿ€ÿÿ "
`F7S*=ÿ

<ÿ'~ÿE r³ÁCÿšv‚
`ÿÿÉ !ÿ"#$%ÿ&%ÿ'()*+ÿ,-./01ÿ23456789:m;<ÿ=<"!ÿmTÿ>c?@AÿBM#Cÿ;DÿEFG:Hÿ
`IJK։LStö‹}ÿ'MÿNµOÿPQRSTUÿ
`VÿHHsWXX‚‚‚¹øs/ ø±Hs¹ üXsH7HsH/sé± ±HsX7§7Eóssé± ±HsX›±7Eé/ ø±Hé¶7§7¶§HésH7HsH/sÿ
`Yÿ
`
`3
`
`

`

`system .. . will give third parties a quick, inexpensive, andreliable alternative to district court
`
`litigation to resolve questions of patent validity”). Congress granted the Office “significant
`
`powerto revisit and revise earlier patent grants” as a mechanism “to improve patent quality and
`
`restore confidence in the presumption of validity that comes with issued patents.” Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs., LLC y, Lee, 579 U.S. 261, 272 (2016) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, at 45, 48).
`
`Given those objectives, compelling, meritorious challenges will be allowed to proceed at the
`
`PTABeven wheredistrict court litigation is proceeding in parallel. Compelling, meritorious
`
`challenges are those in which the evidence, if unrebuttedin trial, would plainly lead to a
`
`conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. That
`
`said, the PTABretains discretion to deny institution for proceedings where abuse has been
`
`demonstrated.
`
`Fintiv factorsix reflects that the PTAB considers the merits of a petitioner’s challenge
`
`when determining whetherto institute a post-grant proceeding in view ofparallel district court
`
`litigation. Where the information presented at the institution stage is merely sufficient to meet
`
`the statutory institution threshold,° the PTAB has the authority, where warranted, to exercise
`
`discretion to deny institution in view of the other Fintiv factors. In contrast, where the PTAB
`
`determines that the information presented at the institution stage presents a compelling
`
`* Institution of an IPR is authorized by statute only when “the information presentedin the
`petition... and any response... showsthat there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in thepetition.” 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a) (2018). Similarly, institution of a PGR, including a CBM,is authorized only when “the
`information presented in the petition... , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate
`that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is
`unpatentable” Jd. § 324(a).
`
`4
`
`

`

`unpatentability challenge, that determination alone demonstrates that the PTAB should not
`
`discretionarily deny institution underFintiv.®
`
`This clarification strikes a balance among the competing concernsof avoiding potentially
`
`conflicting outcomes, avoiding overburdening patent owners, and strengthening the patent
`
`system by eliminating patents that are not robust and reliable. Consistent with Congress’s giving
`
`the Office the authority to revisit issued patents, the PTAB will not deny institution based on
`
`Fintiv if there is compelling evidence of unpatentability. This approach “allows the proceeding
`
`to continue in the event that the parallel proceeding settles or fails to resolve the patentability
`
`question presented in the PTAB proceeding.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 15. The patent system and the
`
`public good benefit from instituting compelling unpatentability challenges.
`
`ITC and Fintiv
`
`In 2018, the PTABissued a decision in NHK Spring.’ There, the PTAB held that the
`
`advancedstate of a parallel district court litigation involving similar validity disputes could be a
`
`factor weighing in favor of denying institution of an IPR because of concerns overthe inefficient
`
`
`
`° The compelling evidencetest affirms the PTAB’s current approach of declining to deny
`institution under Fintiv where the evidence of record so farin the case wouldplainly lead to a
`conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable. See, e.g., I/unina Inc. v. Trs. ofColumbia
`Univ., IPR2020-00988, Paper 20 (PTAB Dec.8, 2020) (declining to deny under Finfivin light of
`strong evidence on the merits even though four factors weighed in favor of denial and remaining
`factor was neutral); Synthego Corp. v. Agilent Techs., Inc., IPR2022-00402, Paper 11 (May 31,
`2022) (granting institution as efficiency and integrity of the system would not be served by
`denyinginstitution of petition with particularly strong evidence on the merits); Samsung Elecs.
`Co. v. Scramoge Tech., Lid. , {PR2022-00241, Paper 10 (June 13, 2022) (Fintiv analysis
`concludes that “very strong” evidence on the merits outweigh concurrentlitigation involving
`earlier scheduledtrial date and significant overlap in proceedings).
`
`’ NHKSpringCo. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018)
`(precedential), This decision also based the denial of institution on Directordiscretion under 35
`U.S.C, § 325(d).
`
`5
`
`

`

`use of PTAB’s resources. NHK Spring, Paper8 at 19-20. Later, in 2020, the PTAB announced
`
`the Fintiv factors, which the PTAB considers when a patent ownerraises an argumentfor
`
`discretionary denial under NHK Spring dueto an earliertrial date. Fintiv, Paper 11 at S-6. The
`
`Fintiv factors focus on the interplay between IPRs anddistrict court litigation. Through that
`
`focus, the Fintiv factors seek to avoid duplicative efforts between the PTAB andfederaldistrict
`
`courts. For example, Fintiv factor one asks whetherthe “court” has granted a stay or if one may
`
`be granted. Similarly, Fintiv factor two looks at the proximity of the “court”trial date.
`
`Likewise, Fintiv factor three concerns the amount of investmentin the parallel proceeding by the
`
`“court” and the parties. Fintiv factors five and six refer to the same parallel proceeding
`
`describedin factorthree.
`
`Although the Fintiv factors are directed to district courtlitigation and not ITC
`
`proceedings,® the PTABhas,in the past, denied AIA reviews based on parallel ITC
`
`investigations.’ Important differences, however, distinguish ITC investigations from patent
`
`invalidity trials in federal district courts. Unlike district courts, the ITC lacks authority to
`
`invalidate a patent and its invalidity rulings are not binding on eitherthe Office ora district
`
`court. See Tandon Corp. v. U.SL.T.C., 831 F.2d 1017, 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Therefore, an ITC
`
`determination cannot conclusively resolve an assertion of patent invalidity, which instead
`requires either district court litigation ora PTAB proceeding to obtain patent cancellation. Thus,
`
`denying institution because ofa parallel ITC investigation will not necessarily minimize
`
`8 Fintiy refers to ITC proceedings in discussing factor one. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 8-9. Addressing
`the situation where district court litigation is stayed pending an ITC investigation, Finfiv states in
`dicta that “it is difficult to maintain a district court proceeding on patent claims determined to be
`invalid at the ITC.” Jd. at 9.
`° See, e.g., Philip Morris Prods. S.A. v. Rai Strategic Holdings, Inc., IPR2020-00919, Paper 9
`(PTAB Nov.16, 2020).
`
`6
`
`

`

`potential conflicts between PTAB proceedings and district court litigation. For the foregoing
`
`reasons, the PTAB nolongerdiscretionarily denies petitions based on applying Fintiv to a
`
`parallel ITC proceeding. This memorandum memorializes that practice. The PTAB will not
`
`discretionarily deny petitions based on applying Fintiv to a parallel ITC proceeding.
`
`Sotera Stipulations
`
`Fintiv factor four looks at the overlap between the issues raised in the IPR petition and in
`
`the parallel proceeding in order to evaluate “concernsofinefficiency and the possibility of
`
`conflicting decisions.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 12. Ifthe petition includes the same or substantially
`
`the same claims, grounds, arguments, and evidence as presented in the parallel proceeding, this
`
`fact has favored denial. Jd. at 12. Conversely, if the petition includes materially different
`
`grounds, arguments, and/or evidence than those presented in the district court, this fact has
`
`tended to weigh against exercising discretion to deny institution. Jd. at 12-13.
`
`Whena petitionerstipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same
`
`groundsas in thepetition or any grounds that could have reasonably beenraised in the petition,it
`
`mitigates concernsof potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts betweenthe district
`
`court and the PTAB. See Sotera, Paper 12 at 18-19. With suchastipulation, if an IPR or PGR
`
`is instituted, the grounds the PTAB resolves will differ from those present in the parallel district
`
`court litigation. For these reasons, the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR
`
`or PGR in view ofparallel district court litigation wherea petitionerstipulates not to pursue ina
`
`parallel district court proceeding the same groundsas in the petition or any grounds that could
`
`have reasonably beenraised in the petition. This clarification avoids inconsistent outcomes
`
`7
`
`

`

`between the PTABandthedistrict court and allows the PTABto review groundsthatthe parallel
`
`district court litigation will not resolve.
`
`Trial Date
`
`Fintiv factor two considers the proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected
`
`statutory deadline for a final written decision. When applying this factor, the PTAB has taken
`
`the “courts’ trial schedules at face value absent somestrong evidenceto the contrary.”!° Thus,
`
`the PTAB has generally weighedthis factor in favor of exercising discretion to denyinstitution if
`
`the trial date is scheduled before the projected statutory deadline for a final written decision.
`
`In response to the RFC, a numberof commenters expressed concern with the useoftrial
`
`dates as a factor.'' Stakeholders correctly noted that scheduled trial dates are unreliable and
`
`often change. A court’s scheduledtrial date, therefore, is not by itself a good indicator of
`
`whetherthe district court trial will occur before the statutory deadline for a final written decision.
`
`Accordingly, when analyzing the proximity ofthe court’s trial date underfactor two of
`
`Fintiv, when otherrelevant factors weigh against exercising discretion to deny institution or are
`
`neutral, the proximity to trial should not alone outweighall of those other factors. See In re
`
`Genentech, Inc,, 566 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed Cir. 2009). Parties may present evidence regarding
`
`the most recent statistics on median time-to-trial for civil actions in the district court in which the
`
`'0 Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., JPR2020-00019, Paper 15 at 13 (May 13, 2020) (informative)
`(applying the Fintivfactors articulated in the precedential Fintiv decision),
`'l See USPTO Executive Summary ofPublic Views on Discretionary Institution ofAIA
`Proceedings (Jan. 2021) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
`USPTOExecutiveSummaryofPublicViewsonDiscretionaryInstitutiononAIAProceedingsJanuary2
`021.pdf).
`
`8
`
`

`

`  ÿ
`

` ÿÿÿÿÿ ! "! #ÿ$%ÿ%ÿ &'ÿ()ÿ *ÿ+,-.+/01 (ÿ
`234!+!567ÿ89ÿ:;ÿ<=ÿ>?@(ÿA( ÿBCDEÿ FD'GHI (ÿJKLL MN1OÿPQ ÿ6RSÿ TÿU9VÿW-XYÿZÿ5 ÿ
`X[ÿ\9ÿ]Rÿ,ÿ09ÿ^ _ `ÿabcdeAfgÿ DÿSÿhiÿ ÿ j k X1bc)ÿ lÿ mÿ nÿF
`oLg
`c
` pÿ
`qrrÿtuvÿwxÿyzÿ{|}~€ÿ‚ƒÿ„ …ÿ†‡ˆ‰Š‰‹Œÿˆ‡†Žÿÿ‘†’ˆˆ“”ÿ•–ÿ—˜ÿ™šF›ÿœ1žÿ†Ÿ† ¡¢ÿ
`œ£¤ÿ
`¥¦ÿW§¨A©ªÿ 9ÿ«¬ÿ­,®®ÿ ÿF¯)ÿ°+!W+bÿ±ÿ²ÿ³´ÿ Eÿµ¶ÿW*Dÿ·¸¹º¸»ÿ™1½ÿ¾¿ÿ ÿ
`ÀÁ
`ÂdÃÿLÄÅÆÿÇÈÉ(ÊËÌOÿÍÎDÿÏÿW* Ð*Ñ XÒkÓ)ÔÿÕÖ×Øÿ>9ÿAÿÙÚRÛÿÜÿD, ÿW¯Fÿ
`ݹÞß»ÿdoÿàAáFÿ ÿ•ÿâ &AãÊäÿ³œÿL 5!*åÿ ÿæççèéÿ>êÿAÿ
`

`ÿëâR(•ÿ +ÿÁ ÿRRÿ1¦ÿ
` ÿì í îïÿð!ñòóÁÿ ôõÿö÷gQFC*ÿø%ÿù -ÿúûRüÿ ÿ
`ÿýmÿþf!ÿ
` ÿ_ÿAÿ&gW*ÿ+ê cÿ Wÿ
`9 ÿÙ²  XÿXÿ äFÿÿø9äÿþcUë ÿ
`

  )ÿ>ÿ9ÿ:
`ÿ1nÿ(),*ÿ·¹»ÿ
`gÿ­ÿ9ÿÿÿ ÿ !1FV"ÿ#$ÿnLäFÿ%&c'ÿ­9()ÿ+9ÿ*+,!5-ÿ./ÿÿ§•)ÿQ0ÿ

ÿU1 ÿ
` DÿXÿ2 3ÿêÿ:4ÿ5ÿ6ÿ>1mÿ"m
`ÿ7

gÿAA
`ÌÛÿ8Ù °!ÿD
` 9
` ¦ÿ ÿFÿ
`ÖfëÂR:;ÿ<=ÿ>?@ABÿè±ÿÐêÿ0ð, CÿD1¨E FG
`Hÿ
`Iÿ  W*ðÿJÉÿK -ÿ+,-ÿ ÿ Lÿ09ÿMN 9ÿ
`OPAfRcÙ©ÿFQ R(:ÿSÿT9ÿU¬VÿW ÿ>Ù1f ÿðQ1
` XÿYê Zÿ [ð\ÿ *ÿ,]ÿSÿÿFÿ

ÿ
`)ÿ
`

^_^g`ÿRDaEÿbc¹de»fÿg+ÿh , ÿi9ÿÙ!jkÿÂÿð)ÿ
`

b RlmBÿnÿ 9oÿ• *ÿp*ÿ˜qÿ
`rstuv¢ÿwxÿyz{™•½|ÿ}†{™•¡~ÿ ÌDÿ˜ˆq€‚ÿƒ ÿ„ …L†‡ˆÿ9mÿ‰Š5ÿ‹²)ÿF)ÿŒÌcW
` ÿ,ZÿSÿ
`LŽ+
`ÿ
`£  Vÿ•&ÿì\ÿW‘ÿ ÿ XW’ÿ ±ÿ ÿ“)ÿAÿL
`

`g”V•–ÿ
`—˜ÿó- §ÿW™š›œÿ a ÿø ÿ žÿL DŸ¦ ÿL!¦ÿX[ÿf¡Äÿ¢£¤¥ÿ‘'ÿŒÌ\°§ÿ
`úRbF 5ÿ1ÿ0
`ÿ
`ÿL VÿR;0:ÿ¦§¨©ÿ* Ð 3ÿêÿª«ÿ¬L0oÿ­ ÿ®LAQÿÐ
`ÿ:; V¯°±ÿ
`W² *5ÿ­³´µÿW(ÿ ¶ÿ·kÿS ÿQ¸À¹ðÿº… (ÿ»W㧠¼,½e3ÿ
`¾ÿÀSÿ0 ÿ*Dÿ g8!ÿ ÿ•Í ! àÿ ÁÁÿ øÃÄÅÆÇ6ÈÉÊËÌKÍÎÏÐÑÒÓÔ ÕÎÖ×ØÙÚÛXÜ* ÝÞÍßà.
`5£+.- e- +áâ ãä6åæçèé‡êëì‡}íîïð ñÿòÿ
`
`9
`
`