`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:17-CV-140-WCB
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. On October
`
`24, 2018, the Court held a hearing on various motions in this case, including the motion for
`
`summary judgment of invalidity. After considering the arguments made in the parties’ briefs and
`
`during the hearing, the Court DENIED the motion in open court and noted the denial in a minute
`
`order issued on October 26, 2018. Dkt. No. 238, at 1. This memorandum opinion and order
`
`details the reasons for the Court’s ruling.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Plaintiff CyWee Group Ltd. owns U.S. Patent No. 8,441,438 (“the ’438 patent”), which is
`
`entitled “3D Pointing Device and Method for Compensating Movement Thereof,” and U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,552,978 (“the ’978 patent”), which is entitled “3D Pointing Device and Method for
`
`Compensating Rotations of the 3D Pointing Device Thereof.” CyWee has asserted claims 1, 3-5,
`
`14-17, and 19 of the ’438 patent and claims 10 and 12 of the ’978 patent against defendants
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Dkt. No. 178, at 1, 5.
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 249 Filed 11/07/18 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 11194
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’438 patent, which is representative of the four asserted apparatus claims,
`
`provides as follows:
`
`A three-dimensional (3D) pointing device subject to movements and rotations in
`dynamic environments, comprising:
`a housing associated with said movements and rotations of the 3D
`pointing device in a spatial pointer reference frame;
`a printed circuit board (PCB) enclosed by the housing;
`a six-axis motion sensor module attached to the PCB, comprising a
`rotation sensor for detecting and generating a first signal set
`comprising angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz associated with said
`movements and rotations of the 3D pointing device in the spatial
`pointer reference frame, an accelerometer for detecting and
`generating a second signal set comprising axial accelerations Ax,
`Ay, Az associated with said movements and rotations of the 3D
`pointing device in the spatial pointer reference frame; and
`a processing and transmitting module, comprising a data transmitting
`unit electrically connected to the six-axis motion sensor module for
`transmitting said first and second signal sets thereof and a
`computing processor for receiving and calculating said first and
`second signal sets from the data transmitting unit, communicating
`with the six-axis motion sensor module to calculate a resulting
`deviation comprising resultant angles in said spatial pointer
`reference frame by utilizing a comparison to compare the first
`signal set with the second signal set whereby said resultant angles
`in the spatial pointer reference frame of the resulting deviation of
`the six-axis motion sensor module of the 3D pointing device are
`obtained under said dynamic environments, wherein
`the
`comparison utilized by the processing and transmitting module
`further comprises an update program to obtain an updated state
`based on a previous state associated with said second signal set and
`a measured state associated with said second signal set; wherein
`the measured state includes a measurement of said second signal
`set and a predicted measurement obtained based on the first signal
`set without using any derivatives of the first signal set.
`
`
`Claim 14 of the ’438 patent is representative of the five asserted method claims of that
`
`
`
`patent. It provides as follows:
`
`A method for obtaining a resulting deviation including resultant angles in a spatial
`pointer reference frame of a three-dimensional (3D) pointing device utilizing a six-
`axis motion sensor module therein and subject to movements and rotations in
`dynamic environments in said spatial pointer reference frame, comprising the steps
`of:
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 249 Filed 11/07/18 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 11195
`
`obtaining a previous state of the six-axis motion sensor module;
`wherein the previous state includes an initial-value set associated
`with previous angular velocities gained from the motion sensor
`signals of the six-axis motion sensor module at a previous time
`T−1;
`obtaining a current state of the six-axis motion sensor module by
`obtaining measured angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz gained from the
`motion sensor signals of the six-axis motion sensor module at a
`current time T;
`obtaining a measured state of the six-axis motion sensor module by
`obtaining measured axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az gained from the
`motion sensor signals of the six-axis motion sensor module at the
`current time T and calculating predicted axial accelerations Ax′,
`Ay′, Az′ based on the measured angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz of
`the current state of the six-axis motion sensor module without
`using any derivatives of the measured angular velocities ωx, ωy,
`ωz; said current state of the six-axis motion sensor module is a
`second quaternion with respect to said current time T; comparing
`the second quaternion in relation to the measured angular
`velocities ωx, ωy, ωz of the current state at current time T with the
`measured axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az and the predicted axial
`accelerations Ax′, Ay′, Az′ also at current time T;
`obtaining an updated state of the six-axis motion sensor module by
`comparing the current state with the measured state of the six-axis
`motion sensor module; and
`calculating and converting the updated state of the six axis motion
`sensor module to said resulting deviation comprising said resultant
`angles in said spatial pointer reference frame of the 3D pointing
`device.
`
`Claim 10 of the ’978 patent is representative of the two asserted method claims of that
`
`
`
`patent. It provides as follows:
`
`A method for compensating rotations of a 3D pointing device, comprising:
`generating an orientation output associated with an orientation of the
`3D pointing device associated with three coordinate axes of a
`global reference frame associated with Earth;
`generatinq [sic] a first signal set comprising axial accelerations
`associated with movements and rotations of the 3D pointing device
`in the spatial reference frame;
`generating a second signal set associated with the Earth’s magnetism;
`generating the orientation output based on the first signal set, the
`second signal set and the rotation output or based on the first signal
`set and the second signal set;
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 249 Filed 11/07/18 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 11196
`
`generating a rotation output associated with a rotation of the 3D
`pointing device associated with three coordinate axes of a spatial
`reference frame associated with the 3D pointing device; and
`using the orientation output and the rotation output to generate a
`transformed output associated with affixed reference frame
`associated with a display device, wherein the orientation output
`and the rotation output is generated by a nine-axis motion sensor
`module; obtaining one or more resultant deviation [sic] including a
`plurality of deviation angles using a plurality of measured
`magnetisms Mx, My, Mz and a plurality of predicted magnetism
`[sic] Mx′, My′, Mz′ for the second signal set.
`
`
`The defendants have moved for summary judgment invalidating all of the asserted claims
`
`
`
`of the ’438 patent and the ’978 patent as ineligible for patenting under section 101 of the Patent
`
`Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101. In their motion, the defendants particularly focus on the language of claim
`
`14 of the ’438 patent and claim 10 of the ’978 patent. The defendants contend that “CyWee’s
`
`patent claims merely recite algorithms that operate on data obtained from conventional sensors,”
`
`and that the claims are therefore not directed to subject matter that is eligible for patenting under
`
`section 101. Dkt. No. 178, at 1.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Section 101 of the Patent Act states that “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and
`
`useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
`
`improvement thereof, may obtain a patent.” However, patent protection does not extend to
`
`claims that monopolize “the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Gottschalk v.
`
`Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972). In order to determine whether the claims of the ’139 patent are
`
`patent-eligible under section 101, the court “must first determine whether the claims at issue are
`
`directed to a patent-ineligible concept,” such as a law of nature, a mathematical formula, or an
`
`abstract idea. Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). If the court finds
`
`that the claims are directed to such a patent-ineligible concept, the court must then examine the
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 249 Filed 11/07/18 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 11197
`
`elements of the claims to determine whether they contain “an inventive concept sufficient to
`
`transform the claimed [ineligible] idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
`
`2357 (internal quotations and citation omitted). If the court determines that the claims are not
`
`directed to a patent-ineligible concept, it need not proceed to step two. See Enfish, LLC v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., 850 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`
`
`Whether a claim that recites a mathematical formula is directed to a patent-ineligible
`
`concept depends on the role that the mathematical formula plays in the claim. “[A] process is not
`
`unpatentable simply because it contains a . . . mathematical algorithm.” Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S.
`
`584, 590 (1978). As the Supreme Court noted in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 (1981), “an
`
`application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well
`
`be deserving of patent protection.” The Federal Circuit has likewise stated that “[c]laims are patent
`
`eligible under § 101 ‘when a claim containing a mathematical formula implements or applies that
`
`formula in a structure or process which, when considered as a whole, is performing a function
`
`which the patent laws were designed to protect.’” Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d
`
`1343, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 192). On the other hand, the Supreme
`
`Court has explained that a mathematical formula is not itself patent-eligible subject matter, “and
`
`this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular
`
`technological environment . . . [or by subsequently claiming] insignificant post-solution activity.”
`
`Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191–92 (internal citations omitted).
`
`
`
`The claims asserted in this case involve using a particular combination of sensors to gather
`
`raw data points relating to an object’s position, and then placing those data points into a
`
`mathematical formula to determine the orientation of the object in a spatial reference frame. The
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 249 Filed 11/07/18 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 11198
`
`defendants argue that “the asserted claims are plainly directed to an unpatentable mathematical
`
`algorithm and therefore fail step 1 of the Alice test.” Dkt. No. 178, at 8. The Court disagrees.
`
`
`
`Mathematical formulas, operations, or algorithms are at the heart of countless inventions;
`
`the application of mathematical principles has been the key to advancements in any number of
`
`fields. Just considering fields akin to the orientation-sensing devices and methods at issue in this
`
`case, mathematical algorithms are at the heart of such inventions as driverless vehicles, drone
`
`navigation, and the remote orientation of satellites and scientific instrumentation in space. The
`
`mathematical processes used in the operation of such devices have consequences in the physical
`
`world that make those devices precisely the kinds of inventions that the patent system was
`
`designed to protect and encourage. Moreover, improvements in such devices are patentable even
`
`when the improvements in the devices are the product of improvements in the sophistication of the
`
`algorithms that drive the product’s performance. For example, autonomous emergency braking
`
`systems in automobiles have evolved through the use of more and more sophisticated algorithms,
`
`even when the brakes themselves and the sensors used to detect collisions may not have evolved
`
`significantly. An improved system for autonomous emergency braking could hardly be deemed
`
`unpatentable if it used an algorithm that was more sophisticated than its predecessors, even though
`
`the mechanical components were themselves known in the art. See, e.g., U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,523,391.
`
`
`
`In Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017), a case involving
`
`technology similar to the technology at issue in this case, the Federal Circuit held that the claims at
`
`issue were not directed to unpatentable subject matter. The patent in that case “disclose[d] an
`
`inertial tracking system for tracking the motion of an object relative to a moving reference frame.”
`
`Id. at 1344. The patent recited two independent claims, claim 1 and claim 22. Claim 1, the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 249 Filed 11/07/18 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 11199
`
`independent system claim, recited: “(1) a first inertial sensor mounted on the tracked object; (2) a
`
`second inertial sensor mounted on the moving platform; and (3) an element that uses the data from
`
`the two inertial sensors to calculate the orientation of the tracked object relative to the moving
`
`platform.” Id. at 1348. Similarly, claim 22, the independent method claim, recited: “(1) a first
`
`inertial sensor on a tracked object; (2) a second inertial sensor on the moving platform; and (3) the
`
`determination of orientation of the tracked object ‘based on’ the signals from the two inertial
`
`sensors.” Id.
`
`In Thales, the trial court held that the claims were “merely directed to the abstract idea of
`
`using mathematical equations for determining the relative position of a moving object to a moving
`
`reference frame.” Id. at 1348 (internal quotation and citation omitted). The Federal Circuit
`
`reversed. As the court explained, the mathematical equations recited in the claims “serve[d] only
`
`to tabulate the position and orientation of the object relative to the moving reference frame.” Id.
`
`The court held the claims to be patent eligible because they specified “a particular configuration of
`
`inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more
`
`accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform.” Id. at 1349.
`
`The Thales court found claims 1 and 22 closely analogous to the claims at issue in
`
`Diamond v. Diehr. See Thales, 850 F.3d at 1347. The asserted claims in Diehr were directed to a
`
`process for curing rubber that used the well-known Arrhenius equation. The process included
`
`“installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly determining the temperature of the
`
`mold, constantly recalculating the appropriate cure time through the use of the formula and a
`
`digital computer, and automatically opening the press at the proper time.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at
`
`187. The Supreme Court ruled that the patentee did not seek to patent a mathematical formula,
`
`but rather sought “patent protection for a process of curing synthetic rubber.” Id. The Court
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 249 Filed 11/07/18 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 11200
`
`held that “an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or
`
`process may well be deserving of patent protection” and “when a process for curing rubber is
`
`devised which incorporates in it a more efficient solution of the [Arrhenius] equation, that
`
`process is at the very least not barred at the threshold by § 101.” Id. at 187–88.
`
`The Federal Circuit in Thales emphasized that both the claims in that case and the claims
`
`before the Supreme Court in Diehr were directed to a new and useful technique, not simply to a
`
`mathematical algorithm. The Thales court explained that “[j]ust as the claims in Diehr reduced the
`
`likelihood that the rubber molding process would result in ‘overcuring’ or ‘undercuring,’ the
`
`claims here result in a system that reduces errors in an inertial system that tracks an object on a
`
`moving platform.” Thales, 850 F.3d at 1348 (internal citation omitted).
`
`The Diehr and Thales courts distinguished their respective claims from the claims at issue
`
`in the Supreme Court’s 1978 decision in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978). In Flook, the
`
`sole independent claim at issue was directed to a “method for updating the value of at least one
`
`alarm limit on at least one process variable in a process comprising the catalytic chemical
`
`conversion of hydrocarbons.” Id. at 596. The claim contemplated that the operator of the
`
`process would select an “alarm base” (a temperature), a “margin of safety” (another
`
`temperature), a time interval between each updating, and a “weighting factor” between 0 and 1.
`
`Id. at 596–97. The invention simply consisted of an equation into which each of those operator-
`
`selected values would be inserted. Id. In light of those facts, the Supreme Court held that the
`
`asserted claims were not directed to a patentable invention. Id. at 594–95. Importantly, the
`
`Court explained that the patent did not “purport to contain any disclosure relating to the chemical
`
`processes at work, the monitoring of process variables, or the means of setting off an alarm or
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 249 Filed 11/07/18 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 11201
`
`adjusting an alarm system. All that it provide[d] [was] a formula for computing an updated
`
`alarm limit.” Id. at 586.
`
`Besides Flook, the defendants rely heavily on the Federal Circuit’s decision in Digitech
`
`Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The
`
`patent at issue in that case was directed to an “improved device profile” that described the spatial
`
`and color properties of the devices used in a digital image processing system so as to enable
`
`more accurate translation of an image’s pixel data in the output devices. The Federal Circuit
`
`found that the “device profile,” claimed in the patent, was simply “a collection of information.”
`
`Id. at 1349. The court noted that the device profile claims were “not directed to any tangible
`
`embodiment of this information” or “any tangible part of the digital processing system,” but
`
`were “instead directed to information in its non-tangible form,” and thus the claims were not
`
`patentable. Id. The court reached the same conclusion with regard to the related method claims,
`
`holding that they simply claimed “a process of organizing information through mathematical
`
`correlations,” id. at 1350, that consisted of “taking two data sets and combining them into a
`
`single data set, the device profile,” id. at 1351. The court concluded that “a process that employs
`
`mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is
`
`not patent eligible.” Id.
`
`This case differs from Flook and Digitech in important respects. The asserted claims in
`
`the ’438 and ’978 patents entail more than simply performing a calculation or organizing
`
`information through mathematical correlations, as in Flook and Digitech. The apparatus claims
`
`of the ’438 patent recite a three-dimensional pointing device with a processing and transmitting
`
`module that computes the angular deviations of the pointing device in a dynamic environment
`
`based on the signal sets from a six-axis motion sensor module. Unlike the claims in Flook and
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 249 Filed 11/07/18 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:
` 11202
`
`Digitech, those claims are directed to a particular device that performs a specific, useful function
`
`in the physical world. The claims recite tangible, physical results from the receipt and
`
`assessment of information. Those claims are clearly directed to more than merely manipulating
`
`existing information to generate additional information.
`
`As for the asserted method claims of the ’438 patent and the ’978 patent, on which the
`
`defendants focus, those claims discuss utilizing “a six-axis motion sensor module” (the ’438
`
`patent) and a “nine-axis motion sensor module” (the ’978 patent), respectively, to output position
`
`and movement-related data points that are then used in mathematical equations. ’438 patent, col.
`
`21, line 10-11; ’978 patent, col. 37, line 17. The result is a system that more accurately translates
`
`movement from a 3D pointing device to a display reference frame. See ’438 patent, col. 4, ll. 20-
`
`24 (“the present invention provides an enhanced comparison method to eliminate the accumulated
`
`errors as well as noises over time associated with signals generated by a combination of motion
`
`sensors”); ’978 patent, col. 4, ll. 33-37 (same).
`
`Thus, the method claims do not simply describe a mathematical calculation, as in Flook.
`
`Rather, they are directed to a means of using the inputs from six-axis and nine-axis sensors to track
`
`the orientation status of the 3D pointing device and correct errors associated with conventional
`
`motion detectors. See ’438 patent, col. 4, line 20, through col. 5, line 13; ’978 patent, col. 4, line
`
`15, through col. 6, line 45.
`
`As both Flook and Diehr make clear, the mathematical equations set forth in the patents
`
`must be viewed in conjunction with all other claim components. See Flook, 437 U.S. at 590–91
`
`(“[A] process is not unpatentable simply because it contains a law of nature or a mathematical
`
`algorithm. . . . The process itself, not merely the mathematical algorithm, must be new and
`
`useful.”); Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187 (holding that respondents “seek only to foreclose from others the
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 249 Filed 11/07/18 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:
` 11203
`
`use of [the Arrhenius] equation in conjunction with all of the other steps in their claimed process”).
`
`Here, as in Thales, the mathematical equations “serve only to tabulate the position and orientation
`
`of the object relative to the . . . reference frame.” Thales, 850 F.3d at 1348. Based on that
`
`characterization, the court in Thales described those claims as being “directed to a new and useful
`
`technique for using sensors to more efficiently track an object,” and thus as being patent eligible.
`
`Id. at 1349. That characterization applies equally to the asserted claims in this case.
`
`The defendants argue that the claims in this case merely recite known and conventional
`
`structures, such that any recitation of structure is incidental and fails to distinguish the subject
`
`matter of the claims from claims directed solely to mathematical concepts. See Dkt. No. 178, at 10
`
`(“[N]one of the asserted claims requires anything specific or non-conventional with respect to the
`
`sensors or their configuration”); see also Dkt. No. 178, at 4 (Stating that the structures recited in
`
`Claim 14 are “generic, well-known components”); id. at 6 (“Claim 10 does not refer to any
`
`structure except for a 3D pointing device . . . and a nine-axis motion sensor module”). They
`
`contend that Thales is distinguishable from this case because the inertial sensors in Thales were
`
`being used in an unconventional manner, unlike the sensors recited in the patents in this case.
`
`The defendants place undue weight on that asserted distinction between this case and
`
`Thales. While the court in Thales recognized that the sensors in the patents before it were
`
`positioned in an unconventional manner, the court did not suggest that the unconventional
`
`positioning of the sensors was critical to the patentability of the recited subject matter.
`
`Significantly, the court in Thales based its decision on its conclusion that the claims at issue
`
`satisfied step one of Alice, holding that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea; the court
`
`did not find it necessary to reach the question whether the claims satisfied step two of Alice, by
`
`being directed to subject matter that was not well-understood, routine, and conventional. 850 F.3d
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 249 Filed 11/07/18 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:
` 11204
`
`at 1349. Moreover, the court in Thales noted that the case before it was analogous to Diehr, in that
`
`“[j]ust as the claims in Diehr reduced the likelihood that the rubber molding process would result
`
`in ‘overcuring’ or ‘undercuring,’” the claims in Thales resulted “in a system that reduces errors in
`
`an inertial system that tracks an object on a moving platform.” Id. at 1348. In this case, similarly,
`
`the claimed inventions resulted in a system that assertedly improved the accuracy of a method for
`
`tracking the movements of a pointing device in three-dimensional space. The Supreme Court in
`
`Diehr made clear that its analysis of the patent eligibility issue did not turn on the novelty of any of
`
`the structures used in the rubber curing process. To the contrary, the Court in Diehr stated that
`
`“[t]he ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance
`
`in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories.”1
`
`Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Thales court’s reference to the unconventional use of
`
`inertial sensors was merely additional evidence that the claims were not directed to an abstraction
`
`in the form of a pure mathematical formula, but instead to a new and useful technique that simply
`
`relied heavily on an algorithm for its effectiveness.
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court concluded that the defendants’ motion for summary
`
`judgment invalidating all of the asserted claims of the ’438 patent and the ’978 patent as ineligible
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be DENIED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 CyWee disputes Samsung’s contention that the motion sensor modules were well-
`known and conventional as of 2010. The Court’s ruling does not adopt either party’s arguments
`regarding the conventionality of the motion sensor modules. Whether or not the structures were
`conventional as of that time does not alter the Court’s analysis of whether the claims were
`directed to an abstract idea.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP Document 249 Filed 11/07/18 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:
` 11205
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`SIGNED this 7th day of November, 2018.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_____________________________
`WILLIAM C. BRYSON
`UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`