throbber
No. 19-1434, 19-1459
`
`In the
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`UNITED STATES of AMERICA,
`
`v.
`ARTHREX, INC., et al.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`Respondents.
`
`PoLARIS INNoVATIoNS LIMITED,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`KINGSToN TECHNoLoGY CoMPANY, INC., et al.
`Respondents.
`
`On PetitiOns fOr a Writ Of CertiOrari tO the United
`states COUrt Of aPPeals fOr the federal CirCUit
`
`AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE NEW YORK
`INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ASSOCIATION
`IN SUPPORT OF THE UNITED STATES’ PETITION
`FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`ColMan raGan
`President
`New York Intellectual
`Property Law Association
`2125 Center Avenue,
`Suite 406
`fort Lee, NJ 07024
`
`MelvIn C. Garner
`Counsel of Record
`robert M. IsaCkson
`President Elect and Board
`Liaison, Amicus Briefs
`Committee
`leason ellIs llP
`one Barker Avenue
`White Plains, NY 10601
`(914) 288-0022
`garner@leasonellis.com
`Counsel for Amicus Curiae
`(Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover)
`July 29, 2020
`
`297460
`
`

`

`ksenIa takhIstova
`Seven Ellison Avenue
`East Brunswick, NJ 08816
`
`robert J. rando
`Second Vice President and
`Board Liaison, PTAB
`Committee
`the rando law FIrM P.C.
`6800 Jericho Turnpike,
`Suite 120W
`Syosset, NY 11791
`(516) 799-9800
`
`Charles e. MIller
`leIChtMan law PllC
`228 East 45th Street, Suite 605
`New York, NY 10017
`(212) 419-5210
`
`Counsel for Amicus Curiae
`
`

`

`i
`
`TABLE of CoNTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
`
`TABLE of CITED AUTHoRITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
`
`INTEREST of AMICUS CURIAE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
`
`II. SUMMARY of THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . .2
`
`III. ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
`
`A. The Issues Raised by the United States
`Are the Subject of Substantial Debate and
`Should be Addressed by This Court. . . . . . .5
`
`
`
`B. The Important Issues Raised by This Case
`
`Require Prompt Resolution by this Court. .9
`
`IV. CoNCLUSIoN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`

`

`ii
`
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`
`953 f.3d 760 (fed. Cir. 2020) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
`
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`941 f.3d 1320 (fed. Cir. 2019). . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
`
`
`Customedia Techs., LLC. v. DISH Network Corp.,
` No. 19-1001 (fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
`
`Edmond v. United States,
`
`520 U.S. 651 (1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3, 5, 6, 7
`
`Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting
`Oversight Bd.,
`561 U.S. 477 (2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
`
`
`
`Freytag v. Commissioner,
`
`501 U.S. 868 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
`
`In re Hennen,
`
`38 U.S. 230 (1839). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
`
`Intercollegiate Broad. Sys. v. Copyright
`Royalty Bd.,
`684 f.3d 1332 (D.C. Cir. 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
`
`
`
`Lucia v. SEC,
`
`138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
`
`Morrison v. Olson,
`
`487 U.S. 654 (1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
`
`TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`

`

`iii
`
`Myers v. United States,
`
`272 U.S. 51 (1926) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Tech. Co.,
`
`792 fed. Appx. 820 (fed. Cir. 2020). . . . . . . . . . .3, 7, 8
`
`Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Nestle USA, Inc.,
` No. 20-1082 (fed. Cir. Dec. 18, 2019). . . . . . . . . . . . .10
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
` No. 18-2251 (fed. Cir. oct. 31, 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
`
`Virtnetx Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
` No. 19-1671 (fed. Cir. Dec. 18, 2019) . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
`
`Statutes
`
`5 U.S.C. §7513(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
`
`Constitution
`
`U.S. Const., Art. II, § 2, cl. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2, 4
`
`Rules
`
`Sup. Ct. R. 30.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
`
`Sup. Ct. R. 37.2(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
`
`Sup. Ct. R. 37.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
`
`Cited Authorities
`
`Page
`
`

`

`iv
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Trial Statistics: IPR, PGR, CBM, UnIted states
`Patent and tradeMark oFFICe, at 3 (Nov.
`2019), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/
`files/documents/fy20_nov_trial_ stats.pdf
`(last visited July 23, 2020). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4, 9
`
`
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
`Circuit: Appeals Filed , By Categor y,
`UnIted states CoUrt oF aPPeals For the
`Federal CIrCUIt (2019), http://www.cafc.
`uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/the-court/
`statistics/ Y TD-Activity-June-2020.pdf
`(last visited July 23, 2020). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
`
`
`
`Cited Authorities
`
`Page
`
`

`

`1
`
`I. INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
`
`The New York Intellectual Property Law Association
`(“NYIPLA”) respectfully submits this amicus curiae
`brief in support of the petition for certiorari filed by the
`United States.1 The arguments set forth herein were
`approved on July 17, 2020 by an absolute majority of the
`officers and members of the Board of Directors of the
`NYIPLA (including any officers or directors who did
`not vote for any reason, including recusal), but do not
`necessarily reflect the views of a majority of the members
`of the NYIPLA, or of the law or corporate firms with
`which those members are associated.
`
`After reasonable investigation, the NYIPLA believes
`that no officer or director or member of the Committee on
`Amicus Briefs who voted in favor of filing this brief, nor
`any attorney associated with any such officer, director
`or committee member in any law or corporate firm,
`represents a party in this litigation.
`
`The NYIPLA is a ninety-eight-year-old professional
`association with hundreds of attorneys whose interests and
`practices lie in the area of patent, copyright, trademark,
`
`1. Pursuant to Sup. Ct. R. 37.6, NYIPLA states that no
`counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and
`no counsel or party made a monetary contribution intended to
`fund the preparation or submission of this brief. No person other
`than NYIPLA, its members, or its counsel made a monetary
`contribution to its preparation or submission. Pursuant to Sup. Ct.
`R. 37.2(a) NYIPLA states that all of the parties have consented in
`writing to the filing of the brief. Further, the counsel of record for
`all parties receive noticed of NYIPLA’s intention to file an amicus
`curiae brief at least 10 days prior to the due date for the amicus
`curiae brief as extended by Sup. Ct. R. 30.1
`
`

`

`2
`
`data privacy and other intellectual property (“IP”) law.
`It is one of the largest regional IP bar associations in the
`United States. The NYIPLA’s members include a diverse
`array of attorneys specializing in patent law, including
`in-house counsel for businesses that own, enforce, and
`challenge patents, as well as attorneys in private practice
`who prosecute patents and represent entities in various
`proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`(“PTo”).
`
`Many of the NYIPLA’s member attorneys actively
`participate in patent litigation, representing both patent
`owners and accused infringers, as well as in inter partes
`review (“IPR”) and other post-issuance proceedings
`before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), and
`their appeals to the federal Circuit Court of Appeals and
`even to this Court. The NYIPLA thus brings an informed
`perspective of stakeholders to the issues presented. The
`NYIPLA, its members, and their respective clients share
`a strong interest in the issues presented in this case.
`
`II. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`A federal Circuit panel in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith &
`Nephew, Inc., 941 f.3d 1320 (fed. Cir. 2019) addressed
`whether administrative patent judges (“APJs”) serving
`on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the
`U.S. Patent Office were appointed in violation of the
`Appointments Clause, U.S. Const., Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. The
`panel held that APJs are “principal officers” under the
`Patent Act (Title 35) as it has been enacted and structured.
`Id. at 1327. As such, the appointment of APJs by the
`Secretary of Commerce was held to be a constitutional
`violation. Id.
`
`

`

`3
`
`In Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Tech. Co.,
`792 fed. Appx. 820 (fed. Cir. 2020) the same issue was
`raised, and another panel of the federal Circuit issued
`a per curiam order remanding the case to the PTAB for
`proceedings consistent with Arthrex.
`
`Consistent with the concurring opinion in Polaris
`by Judge Hughes, in which Judge Wallach joined, the
`NYIPLA believes that the federal Circuit erred in
`Arthrex and that, “viewed in light of the Director’s
`significant control over the activities of the Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board and its Administrative Patent Judges
`(APJs), APJs are inferior officers already properly
`appointed by the Secretary of Commerce.” Id. at 821.
`
`The Arthrex panel properly relied upon Edmond v.
`United States, 520 U.S. 651 (1997) for guidance in reaching
`its decision. Edmond holds that “there is no exclusive
`criterion for distinguishing between principal and inferior
`officers.” Id. at 662–63. However, the Arthrex panel found
`that Edmond emphasized three factors: “(1) whether an
`appointed official has the power to review and reverse
`the officers’ decisions; (2) the level of supervision and
`oversight an appointed official has over the officers; and
`(3) the appointed official’s power to remove the officers.”
`Arthrex, 941 f.3d at 1329. By reducing the broad and
`flexible guidance in Edmond to these three criteria and
`basing its decision on a numerical counting of the pro and
`con factors, the Arthrex panel failed to follow the broad
`concepts in Edmond and committed error.
`
`Not only was the Arthrex decision in error, but the
`opinion also raised broad and critically important issues
`at the heart of practice before the PTAB. It has the
`
`

`

`4
`
`potential to affect numerous PTAB decisions and the
`federal Circuit’s determinations of appeals therefrom.
`As of November 2019, over 10,000 trials in post-grant
`proceedings had been held by the PTAB.2 The outcomes of
`all of these PTAB trials are put in jeopardy by the Arthrex
`decision. Thus, prompt, efficient resolution of the issues
`presented by the Government’s petition is warranted and
`requires an analysis by this Court—since no other court
`of appeals would have jurisdiction, and the federal Circuit
`has denied rehearing en banc in Arthrex. 953 f.3d 760
`(fed. Cir. 2020).
`
`Significantly, all parties to this action seek review by
`this Court in three separate petitions.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`The NYIPLA believes that the Court should grant
`certiorari in this case and adopt the formulation of the
`first issue presented by the United States in its Petition,
`namely:
`
`1. Whether, for purposes of the Appointments Clause,
`U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl. 2, administrative
`patent judges of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`office are principal officers who must be
`appointed by the President with the Senate’s
`advice and consent, or “inferior officers” whose
`appointment Congress has permissibly vested in
`a department head.
`
`2. Trial Statistics: IPR, PGR, CBM, UnIted states Patent
`and tradeMark oFFICe, at 3 (Nov. 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/
`sites/default/files/documents/fy20_nov_trial_stats.pdf.
`
`

`

`5
`
`United States Pet. for a Writ of Certiorari, Arthrex, Inc.
`v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
`
`The NYIPLA submits this amicus curiae brief in
`support of the Court accepting the United States’ petition.
`The NYIPLA takes no position on which party should
`ultimately prevail on the merits of the underlying dispute.
`
`A. The Issues Raised by the United States Are the
`Subject of Substantial Debate and Should be
`Addressed by This Court
`
`The issues raised by the United States in its Petition
`are the subject of substantial and ongoing debate, which
`has to be resolved by the Court. There is no dispute
`that APJs are “officers of the United States” because
`they “exercise significant authority.” Arthrex at 1328.
`However, whether they are principal officers, requiring
`appointment by the President with the advice and consent
`of the Senate, or inferior officers who may be appointed
`by the Secretary of Commerce in accordance with the
`America Invents Act (“AIA”), a law passed by Congress,
`is subject to significant debate.
`
`Basing its analysis on Edmond v. United States, 520
`U.S. 651 (1997), the Arthrex panel noted that, as clearly
`stated in Edmond, there is no “exclusive criterion for
`distinguishing between principal and inferior officers for
`Appointments Clause purposes.” Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith
`& Nephew, Inc., 941 f.3d 1320, 1328–29. However, the
`panel went on to hold that Edmond emphasized three
`factors: “(1) whether an appointed official has the power
`to review and reverse the officers’ decisions; (2) the level
`of supervision and oversight an appointed official has
`
`

`

`6
`
`over the officers; and (3) the appointed official’s power to
`remove the officers.” Id. at 1329. The panel determined
`that factors (1) and (3) weighed in favor of APJs being
`found principal officers, and factor (2) weighed in favor
`of APJs being found inferior officers. Id. on this basis
`it determined that APJs are principal officers. In doing
`so, the Arthrex court ignored the statement in Edmond
`that “we think it evident that ‘inferior officers’ are officers
`whose work is directed and supervised at some level by
`others who were appointed by Presidential nomination
`with the advice and consent of the Senate,” which
`corresponds only to factor (2). Edmond, 520 U.S. at 663.
`
`The Arthrex panel relied heavily on factor (3), i.e., “the
`appointed official’s power to remove the officers.” 941 F.3d
`at 1329. It noted that the “only actual removal authority
`the Director or Secretary have over APJs is subject to
`limitations by Title 5. Title 35 [§3(c)] does not provide
`statutory authority for removal of the APJs.” Id. at 1333.
`Title 5 permits removal of agency employees “only for
`such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service.”
`5 U.S.C. §7513(a). Therefore, the Arthrex court held that
`the perceived constitutional infirmity could be overcome
`by “partial invalidation of the statutory limitations on the
`removal of APJs.” Id.at 1338. on the issue of the power
`to remove APJs, the government disagreed, arguing that
`“the Director can remove an APJ based on the authority
`to designate which members of the Board will sit on
`any given panel, … exclude any APJ from a case who he
`expects would approach the case in a way inconsistent with
`his views, … potentially remove all judicial function of an
`APJ by refusing to assign the APJ to any panel, … [and]
`remove an APJ from an inter partes review mid-case if
`he does not want that particular APJ to continue on the
`
`

`

`7
`
`case.” Id. at 1332. Also, Judge Hughes, in his concurrence
`in Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Tech. Co., 792
`fed. Appx. 820 (fed. Cir. 2020) opined that removal under
`the “efficiency of service” standard is sufficient, together
`with the Director’s supervision, to make the APJs inferior
`officers. Id. at 827. Thus, the Arthrex panels weighing of
`factor (3) in favor of finding the APJs “principal officers”
`turns on the degree to which an APJ can be removed, not
`the absence of removal power per se. As a consequence,
`the status of APJs is currently disputed.
`
`The Arthrex panel’s decision that APJs are “principal
`officers” of the United States relies upon several cases
`from this Court that could be characterized as having
`analogous statutory frameworks. However, in every single
`one of those cases, this Court concluded that the officers in
`question were “inferior officers” under the Appointments
`Clause, to wit:
`
`• Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018) (SEC
`Administrative Law Judges are inferior officers);
`
`• Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight
`Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010) (Public Company Accounting
`Oversight Board members are inferior officers);
`
`• Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651 (judges
`of the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeal are
`inferior officers);
`
`• Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991)
`(Special Trial Judges for the Tax Court are inferior
`officers);
`
`

`

`8
`
`• Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) (independent
`counsel created by provisions of the Ethics of
`Government Act of 1978 are inferior officers);
`
`• Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 51 (1926) (post-
`master first class is an inferior officer); and
`
`• In re Hennen, 38 U.S. 230 (1839) (clerks of district
`courts are inferior officers).
`
`furthermore, a decision by a three-judge panel of
`the D.C. Circuit, holding that Copyright Royalty Judges
`are principal officers, is the sole authority relied upon
`by the Arthrex panel to support its conclusion that APJs
`are principal officers. See Intercollegiate Broad. Sys. v.
`Copyright Royalty Bd., 684 f.3d 1332, 1340 (D.C. Cir.
`2012).
`
`The existence of a split of opinion in the federal
`Circuit is demonstrated by the present cases: three
`federal Circuit judges have held one way in Arthrex,
`and two others have suggested in Polaris that they would
`reach the opposite conclusion.3
`
`Thus, respectfully, in view of the dearth of on-point
`supporting authority from this Court, and the unlikely
`event the issue will be considered by a lower court, the
`issue should be addressed by this Court now.
`
`3. Judges Moore, Reyna and Chen in Arthrex, and Judges
`Hughes and Wallach in Polaris.
`
`

`

`9
`
`B. The Important Issues Raised by This Case
`Require Prompt Resolution by this Court
`
`The issues raised in the petitions here exist in many
`cases pending before the federal Circuit and will impact
`more cases going forward. As of November 2019, over
`10,000 trials had been held by the PTAB.4 The outcomes
`of all of these PTAB trials are put in jeopardy by the
`decision in Arthrex.
`
`Also, forty-three percent of the federal Circuit’s
`caseload (over 600 appeals) in 2019 were appeals from
`the PTo.5 In addition to the three petitions filed here,
`the Federal Circuit is seeing analogous petitions filed in
`other cases, including:
`
`• Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 18-2251
`(fed. Cir. oct. 31, 2019) (petition for rehearing and
`rehearing en banc filed on December 2, 2019 and
`currently pending);
`
`• Customedia Techs., LLC. v. DISH Network Corp.,
`No. 19-1001 (fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2019) (per curiam)
`(denying petition for rehearing and rehearing en
`banc) (Newman, J., dissenting).
`
`4. Trial Statistics: IPR, PGR, CBM, UnIted states Patent
`and tradeMark oFFICe, at 3 (Nov. 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/
`sites/default/files/documents/fy20_nov_trial_stats.pdf (last visited
`July 23, 2020).
`
`5. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:
`Appeals Filed, By Category, UnIted states CoUrt oF aPPeals
`For the Federal CIrCUIt (2019), http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/
`sites/default/files/the-court/statistics/YTD-Activity-June-2020.
`pdf (last visited July 23, 2020).
`
`

`

`10
`
`Importantly, the government has not only intervened
`in this case, but also in numerous other cases where these
`issues are being raised, opposing appellants’ motions to
`vacate and remand pending resolution of this petition. See,
`e.g., Intervenor’s opp’n to Appellant’s Mot. to Remand,
`Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Nestle USA, Inc., No. 20-1082 (fed.
`Cir. Dec. 18, 2019); Intervenor’s Opp’n to Appellant’s Mot.
`to Remand, Virnetx Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 19-1671
`(fed. Cir. Dec. 18, 2019).
`
`These proceedings, and proceedings in other pending
`cases, indicate the existence of significant uncertainty
`and debate amongst the stakeholders as to the panel’s
`decision in Arthrex, buttressing the importance of review
`by this Court.
`
`The Arthrex panel itself stated that:
`
`The issue presented today has a wide-ranging
`effect on property rights and the nation’s
`economy. Timely resolution is critical to
`providing certainty to rights holders and
`competitors alike who rely upon the inter
`partes review scheme to resolve concerns over
`patent rights. … This is an issue of exceptional
`importance.”
`
`Id. at 1327.
`
`The damage caused by continuing uncertainty cannot
`be overstated. Respectfully, this Court needs to act
`quickly and decisively.
`
`

`

`11
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`for the foregoing reasons, the NYIPLA respectfully
`urges the Court to grant the United States’ petition for
`a writ of certiorari.
`
`MelvIn C. Garner
`Counsel of Record
`robert M. IsaCkson
`President Elect and Board
`Liaison, Amicus Briefs
`Committee
`leason ellIs llP
`one Barker Avenue
`White Plains, NY 10601
`(914) 288-0022
`garner@leasonellis.com
`
`ksenIa takhIstova
`Seven Ellison Avenue
`East Brunswick, NJ 08816
`
`Dated: July 29, 2020
`
`ColMan raGan
`President
`New York Intellectual
`Property Law Association
`2125 Center Avenue,
`Suite 406
`fort Lee, NJ 07024
`
`robert J. rando
`Second Vice President and
`Board Liaison, PTAB
`Committee
`the rando law FIrM P.C.
`6800 Jericho Turnpike,
`Suite 120W
`Syosset, NY 11791
`(516) 799-9800
`
`Charles e. MIller
`leIChtMan law PllC
`228 East 45th Street,
`Suite 605
`New York, NY 10017
`(212) 419-5210
`
`Counsel for Amicus Curiae
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket