ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1348344
`
`Filing date:
`
`03/25/2024
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`92081334
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Plaintiff
`Edge Games, Inc.
`
`TIM LANGDELL
`EDGE GAMES INC
`35 NORTH LAKE AVENUE
`SUITE 710
`PASADENA, CA 91101
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: edgegames@gmail.com
`626-824-0097
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Other Motions/Submissions
`
`Tim Langdell
`
`edgegames@gmail.com
`
`/Tim Langdell/
`
`03/25/2024
`
`Attachments
`
`Motion to Deem the RFAs Admitted.pdf(1692553 bytes )
`
`
`
`ESTTA1348344
`
`Filing date:
`
`03/25/2024
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`92081334
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Plaintiff
`Edge Games, Inc.
`
`TIM LANGDELL
`EDGE GAMES INC
`35 NORTH LAKE AVENUE
`SUITE 710
`PASADENA, CA 91101
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: edgegames@gmail.com
`626-824-0097
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Other Motions/Submissions
`
`Tim Langdell
`
`edgegames@gmail.com
`
`/Tim Langdell/
`
`03/25/2024
`
`Attachments
`
`Motion to Deem the RFAs Admitted.pdf(1692553 bytes )
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Cancellation No. 92081334
`
`
`
`In the Matter of Registration No. 5,766,386
`For the Trademark BLEEDING EDGE
`Issued June 4, 2019
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`EDGE GAMES, INC.
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Registrant
`
`
`
`__________________________________________)
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1451
`
`
`
`MOTION THAT PETITIONER’S REQUESTS FOR
`ADMISSION BE DEEMED ADMITTED FOR LACK
`OF TIMELY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`EDGE Games, Inc. (“Petitioner”) hereby moves that Microsoft Corporation (“Respondent”)
`
`be deemed to have admitted the Requests for Admission served on it on January 23, 2024 on the
`
`grounds that no timely response was received from Respondent answering or objecting to the
`
`admission requests.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Petitioner served on Respondent its First Set of Requests for Admission (“RFAs”; see Exhibit
`
`A hereto) on January 23, 2024. Respondent’s responses to these RFAs were due in no more than
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`30-days by February 22, 2024. However, on February 20, 2024 Respondent requested an
`
`extension of time in which to respond to March 22, 2024 (see Exhibit B). Petitioner granted this
`
`requested extension to Respondent. However, no response was received by Petitioner either by
`
`the deadline of March 22, 2024, or at all.
`
`LEGAL ARGUMENT
`
`FRCP 36(a)(3) provides that “[a] matter is admitted” unless the responding party serves a
`
`written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney within
`
`30-days of service of the RFAs on the party. It is thus a simple undeniable fact that all of the
`
`requests for admission in Petitioner’s January 23, 2024, RFA are now deemed to have been
`
`automatically admitted by Respondent.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`As can be seen in Exhibit B hereto, Respondent asked for an extension of time to respond
`
`until March 22, 2024. It is thus undeniable that Respondent’s time to respond to the RFAs
`
`expired without their responding in a timely manner. Even if Respondent argues that it meant to
`
`ask for a 30-day extension of time from February 22, 2024, or that Petitioner granted it a 30-day
`
`extension from February 22, 2024, that would still have made Respondent’s responses to
`
`Petitioner’s RFAs due by March 23, 2024. In either case, Respondent clearly did not respond in a
`
`time manner and thus per FRC_P 36(a)(3) Respondent is seemed to have automatically admitted
`
`the requests for admission in question.
`
`As can be seen from the requests for admission served on Respondent (Exhibit A), these
`
`requests, now considered admitted by Respondent, include among several others:
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21:
`
`
`
`Admit that the total sales of the game titled BLEEDING EDGE is barely token and
`
`insufficient to have built up any goodwill for Respondent in Respondent’s Mark.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24:
`
`
`
`Admit that Your game titled BLEEDING EDGE that forms the basis of your claim to
`
`Respondent’s Mark has been described as “a flop.”
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25:
`
`
`
`Admit that your game BLEEDING EDGE essentially stopped having any meaningful
`
`sales in the United States in or about May 2021.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26:
`
`
`
`Admit that Ninja Theory Limited’s game BLEEDING EDGE having “flopped” thus
`
`tarnished the EDGE brand that Petitioner had built up over the past 40 years in US commerce.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31:
`
`
`
`Admit that Petitioner’s mark EDGE having been used in US commerce consistently in
`
`respect to computer games for around 40 years has likely attained fame as defined in the Lanham
`
`Act.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32:
`
`
`
`Admit that when You transferred the ownership of Respondent’s Mark from Ninja
`
`Theory Limited to You you failed to execute a document that transferred any goodwill associated
`
`with Respondent’s Mark from Ninja Theory Limited to You.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 36:
`
`
`
`Admit that the news page of Your website bleedingedge.com for Your game BLEEDING
`
`EDGE has no update or news on it dated more recently than July 30, 2020.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`All of these requests for admission were automatically deemed admitted when Respondent
`
`failed to respond within the original 30-days, or the extended period of the additional 30-days
`
`agreed between the parties. Even just cursory review of only the small subset of admissions
`
`above reveals that these admissions mean Respondent has no case, and no prospect of prevailing
`
`in these proceedings given what it has been deemed to have admitted.
`
`CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Respondent having admitted all the requests for admission and thus having admitted, in real
`
`terms, that it has no case and no prospect of prevailing in these proceedings, Petitioner asks that
`
`the Board (a) rule that Respondent is deemed to have automatically admitted all of Petitioner’s
`
`requests for admission, and (b) that having so admitted the requests and thus having no case or
`
`prospect of prevailing, that judgement in this matter be granted in favor of Petitioner with
`
`Respondent’s mark BLEEDING EDGE being removed from the U.S. Trademarks Register
`
`forthwith.
`
`Dated March 25, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: ____________________
`Dr. Tim Langdell, CEO
`Petitioner in pro se.
`
`EDGE Games, Inc.
`530 South Lake Avenue 171
`Pasadena, CA 91101
`edgegames@gmail.com
`626 824 0097
`
`(certificate of service on separate page)
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that pursuant to CFR 2.101(b), on March 25. 2024 a true and correct copy of the
`foregoing MOTION THAT PETITIONER’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION BE DEEMED
`ADMITTED FOR LACK OF TIMELY RESPONSE
`Was served via email on Respondent’s counsel:
`
`trademarkslv@dickinsonwright.com, jkrieger@dickinsonwright.com,
`cvillanueva@dickinsonwright.com
`
`/Tim Langdell/____________
`Dr. Tim Langdell
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`EDGE GAMES, INC.
`
`
`Cancellation No. 92081334
`
`
`
`
`Registration No. 5,766,386
`
`
`
`
`Mark: BLEEDING EDGE
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`Respondent.
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 2.120 of the
`
`Trademark Rules of Practice, Petitioner EDGE Games, Inc. (“Petitioner”), in pro se, hereby
`
`requests that within thirty (30) days from the date of service hereof, Microsoft Corporation
`
`(“Respondent”) admit in writing the truth of the following matters. For each request, if an answer
`
`or objection is not timely submitted within thirty (30) days, then the matter shall be deemed to be
`
`admitted, as provided under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`INSTRUCTIONS
`
`These requests seek responses and information as of the date on which Respondent
`
`responds and shall be deemed continuing, requiring Respondent to serve upon Petitioner such
`
`further responses within a reasonable time after Respondent may have acquired additional
`
`documents, knowledge, or information.
`
`For each and any request that Respondent denies or objects to, in whole or in part,
`
`Respondent shall state specifically the reason for such denial or objection.
`
`
`
`
`DEFINITIONS
`
`As used herein, the following definitions apply:
`
`1
`
`
`
`1.
`
`“Respondent”, “You”, or “Your” means Microsoft Corporation, and its
`
`predecessors, successors, assigns, parents, subsidiaries and divisions, affiliates, partners, and all
`
`past and present officers, directors, employees, partners, corporate parents, subsidiaries,
`
`affiliates, agents, and representatives.
`
`2.
`
`“Respondent’s Mark” means the mark BLEEDING EDGE subject of these
`
`proceedings.
`
`3.
`
`“Petitioner’s Marks” means the EDGE and EDGE-formative marks as described by
`
`Petitioner in paragraphs 2, 4 and 24 of the Amended Petition, as follows: EDGE PC, EDGE
`
`GAMES, EDGE GAMING PC, EDGE, THE EDGE, MAGIC EDGE, CUTTING EDGE, OVER
`
`THE EDGE, EDGE 3D, GAMING EDGE, EDGE GAMERS, CROSS EDGE, PLANET’S EDGE,
`
`EDGE OF TWILIGHT, LEADING EDGE, DOUBLE EDGE, SOUND EDGE, EDGE
`
`PRODUCTIONS.
`
`4.
`
`“Petitioner’s Goods and Services” means the goods and services identified in
`
`Petitioner’s registration and pending applications for Petitioner’s Marks and in Petitioner’s
`
`Amended Petition that are being asserted in this Cancellation proceeding.
`
`5.
`
`“Use” or “Used” shall refer to the Lanham Act definition (§45, 15 U.S.C.A. §1127),
`
`namely “bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a
`
`right in a mark.” Consistent with the Lanham Act definition, a mark shall be considered to be in
`
`use in commerce: (1) on goods when the mark is placed on the goods themselves or their containers
`
`or displays used to sell the goods or on tags or labels attached to the goods, and the goods are sold
`
`or transported in commerce; and (2) on services when the mark is used or displayed in the sale or
`
`advertising of services and the services are rendered in U.S. commerce.
`
`6.
`
`“Each” means each and every.
`
`2
`
`
`
`7.
`
`The connectives “and” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or
`
`conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request all responses that
`
`might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope.
`
`8.
`
`The use of the singular form of any word includes the plural and vice versa.
`
`RESPONDENT’S FIRST REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO PETITIONER
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:
`
`
`
`
`
`Admit that the computer game titled BLEEDING EDGE was developed by Ninja
`
`Theory Limited, not by you.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2:
`
`
`
`Admit that an employee of Ninja Theory Limited selected the mark BLEEDING EDGE
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3:
`
`
`
`Admit that whoever selected Respondent’s Mark failed to do adequate due diligence as to
`
`the conflicting prior extensive ownership of Petitioner’s Marks.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4:
`
`
`
`Admit that at the time Respondent’s Mark was selected for use in relation to the sale of a
`
`computer game in the US market the Wikipedia entry for Petitioner stated that Petitioner is “best
`
`known for the practices of its founder and chief executive officer, Tim Langdell, in enforcing
`
`trademarks relating to the word "edge", which sources have described as "litigious".”
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:
`
`
`
`Admit that at the time Respondent’s Mark was selected for use in relation to the sale of a
`
`computer game in the US market any reasonable due diligence as to conflicting claims of
`
`ownership of the Mark would have included viewing the Wikipedia page for Petitioner.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6:
`
`
`
`Admit that at the time Respondent’s Mark was selected for use in relation to the sale of a
`
`computer game in the US market any reasonable due diligence as to conflicting claims of
`3
`
`
`
`ownership of the Mark would have included identification of Petitioner’s Marks used in relation
`
`to computer games and Petitioner’s various EDGE marks either registered on the USPTO
`
`database or applied for and in process of being registered.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7:
`
`Admit that at the time Respondent’s Mark was selected for use in relation to the sale of a
`
`computer game in the US market any reasonable due diligence as to conflicting claims of
`
`ownership of the Mark would have revealed Petitioner’s use of its EDGE marks for computer
`
`games dating back to 1984.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8:
`
`
`
`Admit that You purchased Ninja Theory Limited.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9:
`
`
`
`Admit that it is widely reported that You announced the purchase of Ninja Theory
`
`Limited in 2018.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10:
`
`
`
`Admit that Ninja Theory was acquired for $117 million by You, according to FTC filings
`
`revealed in the FTC v. Microsoft case and this acquisition was made public on June 10, 2018.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11:
`
`
`
`Admit that the filing date of Respondent’s Mark in the United States was July 18, 2018
`
`and based on International Registration No. 1414773, filed April 12, 2018 and matured to the
`
`International Register on July 11, 2018.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12:
`
`
`
`Admit that You were not involved in the selection of Respondent’s Mark.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13:
`
`
`
`Admit that You became responsible to apply to extend the International Mark rights to the
`
`US market in July 2018.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14:
`
`
`
`Admit that You had an obligation in July 2018 before the filing of the instant mark with
`
`the USPTO to undertake all reasonable due diligence as to conflicting claims of ownership of
`
`EDGE marks for the US market.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15:
`
`Admit that You had an obligation in July 2018 before the filing of the instant mark with
`
`the USPTO to undertake all reasonable due diligence as to conflicting claims of ownership of
`
`EDGE marks for the US market and you failed to do so.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16:
`
`Admit that the game published by Ninja Theory Limited titled BLEEDING EDGE was
`
`first published in March 2020.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17:
`
`
`
`Admit that the games news outlet named “Polygon” (www.polygon.com) stated in its
`
`article dated January 28, 2021 when summarizing the reception of the BLEEDING EDGE game,
`
`“It just never drew much of an audience.”
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18:
`
`
`
`Admit that the games news outlet named “Polygon” (www.polygon.com) stated in its
`
`article dated January 28, 2021 when summarizing the reception of the BLEEDING EDGE game,
`
`“SteamCharts counted the game’s PC playership at an average of 480 in its launch month of
`
`March 2020, and it’s dwindled ever since.”
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19:
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Admit that in 2020 there were probably more than 214 million game players across the
`
`United States.
`
`
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20:
`
`
`
`Admit that in March 2020 having an average of only 480 players of a computer game was
`
`insufficient to build appreciable goodwill in Respondent’s Mark.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21:
`
`Admit that the total sales of the game titled BLEEDING EDGE is barely token and
`
`insufficient to have built up any goodwill for Respondent in Respondent’s Mark.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22:
`
`
`
`Admit that on January 28, 2021 Ninja Theory Limited, using its Twitter handle
`
`“@BleedingEdgeNT” tweeted “we have decided that there will be no further content updates for
`
`Bleeding Edge.”
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23:
`
`Admit that the Steam database indicating how many U.S. players played Your game
`
`BLEEDING EDGE from May 2021 to December 2023 ranged from as few as 7 players per
`
`month to no more than 10 players per month (steamdb.info).
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24:
`
`
`
`Admit that Your game titled BLEEDING EDGE that forms the basis of your claim to
`
`Respondent’s Mark has been described as “a flop.”
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25:
`
`
`
`Admit that your game BLEEDING EDGE essentially stopped having any meaningful
`
`sales in the United States in or about May 2021.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 26:
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Admit that Ninja Theory Limited’s game BLEEDING EDGE having “flopped” thus
`
`tarnished the EDGE brand that Petitioner had built up over the past 40 years in US commerce.
`
`
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27:
`
`
`
`Admit that at the time of acquisition of Ninja Theory Limited by you the game titled
`
`BLEEDING EDGE was in active development.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 28:
`
`
`
`Admit that You did due diligence on Ninja Theory Limited before purchasing that
`
`company for a reputed $117million.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 29:
`
`
`
`Admit that any reasonably competent due diligence of Ninja Theory Limited prior to
`
`purchase would have flagged an issue of Ninja Theory naming a forthcoming game using
`
`Petitioner’s long standing EDGE marks.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 30:
`
`
`
`Admit that a brand name that has been used in US commerce consistently in respect to
`
`computer games for around 40 years, with no other entity making comparable use of the brand
`
`name, has likely acquired significant goodwill.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 31:
`
`Admit that Petitioner’s mark EDGE having been used in US commerce consistently in
`
`respect to computer games for around 40 years has likely attained fame as defined in the Lanham
`
`Act.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 32:
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Admit that when You transferred the ownership of Respondent’s Mark from Ninja Theory
`
`Limited to You failed to execute a document that transferred any goodwill associated with
`
`Respondent’s Mark from Ninja Theory Limited to You.
`
`
`
`
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 33:
`
`
`
`Admit that at least one person involved in the selection of Respondent’s Mark was aware
`
`of Petitioner’s claim to the mark EDGE for computer games and Petitioner’s aggressive stance in
`
`protecting its EDGE marks for computer games.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 34:
`
`
`
`Admit that You have taken several actions against entities or person who have sought to
`
`use one or more of your trademarks (such as “Microsoft” or “Windows”) and added one word to
`
`create a formative mark which you have argued infringes your rights in your mark.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 35:
`
`Admit Respondent’s BLEEDING EDGE mark does not meet the definition of fame
`
`required under Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 36:
`
`
`
`Admit that the news page of Your website bleedingedge.com for Your game BLEEDING
`
`EDGE has no update or news on it dated more recently than July 30, 2020.
`
`DATED: this 23rd day of January, 2024.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`EDGE GAMES, INC. in pro se
`
`
`/s/ Tim Langdell
`Dr Tim Langdell CEO
`EDGE Games Inc
`
`8
`
`
`
`530 S. Lake Avenue 171
`Pasadena CA 91101
`Tel 626 824 0097
`Edgegames@gmail.com
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of PETITIONER’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
`
`FOR ADMISSION is being served by electronic mail, this 23rd day of January, 2024, via email
`
`as follows:
`
`trademarkslv@dickinsonwright.com, jkrieger@dickinsonwright.com,
`cvillanueva@dickinsonwright.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Tim Langdell
`
`9
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Ww, Gmail
`
`EDGE Games <edgegames@gmail.com>
`
`
`
`RE: EXTERNAL: Re: EDGE Gamesv. Microsoft; Cancellation No 92081334 for BLEEDING
`EDGE
`
`
`John L. Krieger (he/him/his) <JKrieger@dickinson-wright.com>
`To: "Tim@Edge" <edgegames@gmail.com>
`Cc: TrademarksLV <TrademarksLV@dickinson-wright.com>, "Cindy A. Villanueva" <CVillanueva@dickinson-wright.com>
`
`Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 5:34 PM
`
`Hi Tim:
`
`Weare in receipt of your discovery responses. | note you indicated in response to the RFPs that you would be producing
`documents. When do youanticipate you'll be producing the documents referenced?
`
`Also, as you know, our client is a large organization and it’s taking some time to gather the information and documentation
`requested per Edge Games’ discovery requests. My purpose in writing to you is to request the profession courtesy of an extension
`of time. | anticipate we’ll be able to get back to you in a couple of weeks. To be on the safe side, could we agree our client’s
`responses be due March 22? Please confirm.
`
`Thanks in advance.
`
`John
`
`
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
