throbber
DOCKET NO.: 2003195-00123US1 and US2
`Filed By: David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`Dominic E. Massa, Reg. No. 44,905
`Michael H. Smith, Reg. No. 71,190
`1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: (202) 663-6000
`Email: David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Dominic.Massa@wilmerhale.com
`MichaelH.Smith@wilmerhale.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-018411
`
`
`PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVES FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`
`1 Case IPR2017-01842 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICEUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`----------------------------------------------------------------
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARDBEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`----------------------------------------------------------------
`
`TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. MANU
`
`
`v. v.
`GODOO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1
`
`
`
`Inter Partes es Review Internterr Pter Partees eview Re
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Nos. IPR2017PR201177 1841 and IPR2011717-77--01841 and IPR2017171 -7-01842010 177 0
`U.S. Patent No. 7,893,501
`
`PETITIONER’S ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`

`

`Proposed Agenda
`
`Technology Background
`Overview of the ’501 Patent
`Overview of the Prior Art
`Undisputed Issues
`Obviousness of Claims
`Issues Raised by Patent Owner and Responses
`– Claim 1: whether applied prior art discloses a transistor
`that includes an active region
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`

`

`Technology Background
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`

`

`Basic Elements of a MISFET (Transistor)
`
`MISFETs include:
`– an active region made
`of a substrate, located
`between the shallow
`trench isolation regions
`(STI);
`– a gate insulating film
`(red);
`– a gate electrode
`(orange);
`– source and drain regions
`including a silicide layer
`(green); and
`– other elements such as
`sidewalls (purple)
`
`Example metal-insulator-semiconductor
`field effect transistors (MISFETs) from
`Plummer textbook (1st ed. 2000):
`
`Plummer at 86 (Ex. 1008) (annotated); see also Petition at
`6-7, Paper 2; Shanfield Decl., ¶¶33-44 (Ex. 1002); Rabaey
`at 42-43 (Ex-1010)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`

`

`Active Regions
`
`Textbooks such as Plummer and Rabaey explain transistors are built in
`an active region, which is isolated from other active regions
`
`Plummer at 53 (Ex. 1008); see also Petition at 7-13, Paper 2; Shanfield Decl., ¶¶37-44 (Ex.
`1002); Reply at 7-8, Paper 22; Shanfield Reply Decl., ¶13 (Ex. 1027); D.I. at 8-9
`
`Rabaey at 42 (Ex. 1010); see also Petition at 7-13, 26, Paper 2; Shanfield Decl., ¶¶37-44,
`66 (Ex. 1002); Reply at 7-8, Paper 22; Shanfield Reply Decl., ¶13 (Ex. 1027); D.I. at 8-9
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`

`

`Overview of the ’501 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`

`

`The ʼ501 Patent
`
`Claimed MISFET includes:
`– an active region 1a made
`of a substrate 1;
`– a gate insulating film 5
`(red);
`– a gate electrode 6a
`(orange);
`– source and drain regions
`3a, 4a including a silicide
`layer (green); wherein:
`– the gate electrode 6a
`(orange) protrudes from a
`silicon nitride film 8a
`(blue).
`
`’501 Patent at 3:19-64, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1001); see also Petition
`at 15, Paper 2; Shanfield Decl., ¶¶45-46 (Ex. 1002)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`

`

`’501 Patent File History
`
`Claims repeatedly rejected until amended to recite
`allegedly novel “protruding gate”
`’501 patent specification does not mention or
`identify any advantages of “protruding gate”
`
`August 5, 2010 Response at 8 (Ex. 1003); see also Petition at 1-2,
`19-21, Paper 2; Shanfield Decl., ¶¶53-56 (Ex. 1002)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`

`

`The ʼ501 Patent, Claim 1
`
`’501 Patent at claim 1 (Ex. 1001)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`

`

`Overview of the Prior Art
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`

`

`Igarashi
`
`Igarashi’s MISFET includes
`each of the claimed elements,
`including the allegedly novel
`protruding gate:
`– an active region made of a
`substrate 1;
`– a gate insulating film 2
`(red);
`– a gate electrode 3
`(orange);
`– source and drain regions 4,
`including a silicide layer 5
`(green); wherein:
`– the gate electrode 3
`(orange) that protrudes
`from a silicon nitride film 8
`(blue).
`
`Igarashi at Fig. 12 (Ex. 1004); see also
`Petition at 16-17, Paper 2; Shanfield Decl., ¶¶47-48
`(Ex. 1002)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`

`

`Igarashi
`
`Igarashi expressly
`discloses formation of
`active region made of a
`substrate 1 using trench
`method.
`
`Igarashi at [0068] (Ex. 1004)
`
`Igarashi at Fig. 1 (Ex. 1004)
`
`Igarashi at Fig. 12 (Ex. 1004)
`
`Petition at 16-17, 22-23, Paper 2; Shanfield Decl., ¶¶47-48, 60 (Ex. 1002)
`12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Woerlee
`
`Secondary reference Woerlee expressly shows the
`active region made of the semiconductor substrate
`between two isolation regions
`
`Woerlee at 4:66-5:5 (Ex. 1006)
`
`Woerlee at Fig. 13 (Ex. 1006)
`
`Petition at 27-32, Paper 2; Shanfield
`Decl., ¶¶ 67-73 (Ex. 1002)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`

`

`Undisputed Issues
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`

`

`Undisputed Issues: “protruding gate”
`
`There is no dispute that Igarashi discloses the
`allegedly novel “protruding gate”
`
`’501 Patent at Fig. 1 (Ex. 1001)
`
`Igarashi at Fig. 12 (Ex. 1004)
`
`Petition at 14-16, 41-46, Paper 2; Shanfield Decl.,
`¶¶45-48, 91-102 (Ex. 1002)
`15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Undisputed Issues: “protruding gate”
`
`In fact, Patent Owner cites Igarashi’s disclosure as evidence of the
`purported advantages of the allegedly novel “protruding gate”:
`
`IPR2017-01843 POPR at 32 (emphasis added), Paper 6; see also
`Reply at 1, Paper 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`

`

`Other Undisputed Issues
`
`Except for claimed “active region,” Patent Owner does
`not dispute instituted grounds disclose all other
`limitations
`– Patent Owner does not dispute that claimed “active region”
`was known in the art
`– In related IPR 2017-01843, Patent Owner does not dispute
`primary reference Misra discloses this limitation
`Patent Owner does not dispute references in the
`instituted grounds would have been obvious to
`combine
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`Reply at 1-2, Paper 22
`
`

`

`Obviousness of the Claims
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`

`

`ʼ501 Patent – MISFET That Includes an “Active Region”
`
`’501 Patent at claim 1 (Ex. 1001)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`

`

`Igarashi Discloses Claimed “Active Region”
`
`Dr. Shanfield explains how Igarashi’s disclosure of forming an
`“active element region” made of “semiconductor substrate 1”
`would have been understood and how it discloses the claimed
`MISFET that includes an active region
`
`Igarashi at [0068] (Ex. 1004)
`
`Igarashi at Fig. 12 (Ex. 1004) (annotated)
`
`Petition at 24-27, Paper 2; Shanfield Decl., ¶¶64-66 (Ex. 1002)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`

`

`Woerlee Confirms Obviousness of
`Claimed “Active Region”
`
`Secondary reference Woerlee expressly discloses MISFETs that
`include an active region made of the semiconductor substrate
`Woerlee expressly shows the active region formed between two
`isolation regions
`
`Woerlee at 4:66-5:5 (Ex. 1006)
`
`Woerlee at Fig. 13 (Ex. 1006)
`
`Petition at 27-32, Paper 2; Shanfield
`Decl., ¶¶ 67-73 (Ex. 1002)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`

`

`Woerlee Confirms Obviousness of
`Claimed “Active Region”
`
`To the extent not expressly disclosed, secondary
`reference Woerlee confirms it would have been obvious
`to form Igarashi’s “active element region” in Igarashi’s
`“substrate 1” using the “trench method” (STI)
`
`Woerlee at Fig. 13, 4:66-5:5 (MISFET
`includes “active region 4” made of
`“semiconductor body 1” between
`“isolating regions 3”) (Ex. 1006)
`
`Igarashi at Fig. 12 (Ex. 1004) (annotated), [0068]
`(MISFETs include “active element region” made of
`“semiconductor substrate 1” formed using the
`“trench method” of isolation)
`Petition at 27-37, Paper 2; Shanfield Decl.,
`¶¶ 67-81 (Ex. 1002)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`

`

`Issues Raised by Patent Owner
`and Responses
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`

`

`Issues Raised by Patent Owner
`
`Claim 1: whether applied prior art discloses a
`transistor that includes an “active region”
`– First, Patent Owner argues the claims require a “one-to-
`one correspondence” between an active region and a
`MISFET
`– Second, Patent Owner argues Igarashi’s express disclosure
`of an “active element region” does not apply to Igarashi’s
`Fig. 12 embodiment
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`

`

`Response to Patent
`Owner’s First Argument
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`

`

`The Board Properly Rejected Patent Owner’s
`Narrow View of “an active region”
`
`D.I. at 8, Paper 10
`
`D.I. at 9, Paper 10
`
`Reply at 1, 3, Paper 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Response Advances the Same Argument
`
`Patent Owner no longer advances its rejected
`construction
`But Patent Owner still attempts to read-in a
`requirement of a “one-to-one correspondence”
`
`Response at 26, 74; Reply at 5, Paper 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Interpretation Improperly Reads
`Limitations into the Claims
`
`Patent Owner attempts to
`read-in the requirements,
`which are not recited Claim 1:
`– “region in which a single
`transistor is formed”
`(POR at 74)
`– “one-to-one correspondence”
`(POR at 76)
`No basis for importing any of
`these IPR-induced limitations
`
`Response at 26, 74, Paper 20;
`Reply at 3, 5, Paper 22
`
`’501 Patent at claim 1 (Ex. 1001)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Expert Admits
`“Includes” Is Open-Ended
`
`Q. And similarly, from your work on
`patent cases, do you have an
`understanding of what the term
`“includes” means in the context of
`patent claims?
`A. My general – the general instruction I
`received in patent cases is that
`“includes” means that it has at least
`these features.
`Q. Are those the understandings you
`applied in your analysis in this case?
`A. The standard that I applied for
`includes would essentially, yes, that it
`has at least these elements.
`Glew Tr. at 94:20-95:7 (Ex. 1024)
`Reply, 20-21, Paper 22; Glew Sur-Reply Tr. at 93:15-22 (Ex. 1029) (confirming he stands by his
`prior testimony); Sur-Sur-Reply at 2-3, Paper 33
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’501 Patent at claim 1 (Ex. 1001)
`
`29
`
`

`

`There Is No Dispute That Igarashi’s MISFET Includes
`Each Identified Component of an “Active Region”
`
`Q. What are the components of an active region?
`A. Well, a region is a geographical distinction. What’s in that geographical
`distinction can vary, but it would include, at least, the source gate and
`drain regions or actually the source channel and drain regions for a
`typical transistor.
`
`Glew Sur-Reply Tr. at 70:5-12 (Ex. 1029)
`
`Igarashi’s source and drain regions, including silicide
`layer (4 and 5) (green)
`Petition at 16-17, 23, 39-41; Igarashi at [0044], [0068], Fig. 12 (Ex. 1004); Sur-Sur-Reply at 3, Paper 33
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`

`

`Textbooks Cited in Petition Confirm an Active Region
`Is Not Limited to a Single Transistor
`
`Contrary to the assertions in the POR, the textbooks
`cited in the Petition recognize an active region can
`include “transistors” (plural)
`
`Plummer at 53 (Ex. 1008)
`
`Rabaey at 42 (Ex. 1010)
`
`Reply at 7, Paper 22; Petition at 7-8, 26, Paper 2
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`

`

`Petitioner’s Reply Confirms an Active Region
`Is Not Limited to a Single Transistor
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion that “a transistor’s active
`region refers to a region in which a single transistor is formed,”
`Agata shows MOSFET 10a and MOSFET 10b (green) formed in
`active region 2 (blue)
`
`Agata at Fig. 2 (Ex. 1025) (annotated)
`
`Reply at 11-12, Paper 22; Agata at 5:18-19, 5:33-38, Fig. 2 (Ex. 1025);
`Shanfield Reply Decl., ¶17 (Ex. 1027)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`

`

`Patent Owner and Its Expert Concede an Active Region
`Can Have Multiple Transistors
`
`Patent Owner’s response had argued an active region can
`have only a single transistor:
`– Arguing “a transistor’s active region refers to a region in which a single
`transistor is formed” (POR at 74) (emphasis added)
`After reviewing Agata, Patent Owner and its expert concede
`an active region can have multiple transistors:
`– Admitting “the active region of a multi-transistor device in Agata and
`Rashed has multiple transistors”(PO’s Sur Reply at 2) (emphasis
`omitted)
`– Admitting “multiple transistors exist in an active region of a multi-
`transistor device” (Glew Sur Reply Decl., ¶ 6) (emphasis omitted)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`Sur-Sur-Reply at 1-2, Paper 33
`
`

`

`PO’s Expert Unable to Answer Basic Questions About
`Whether a MISFET Includes an Active Region
`
`Dr. Glew was unable to say whether the MISFET in his
`drawing of “a MISFET that includes an active region” (left)
`still includes an active region when the isolation regions
`are spaced further apart (right)
`
`Ex. 1028, Figure 1
`
`Ex. 1028, Figure 2
`
`Glew Sur-Reply Tr. at 16:4-23 (Ex. 1029);
`Sur-Sur-Reply at 2, Paper 33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`

`

`PO’s Expert Unable to Answer Basic Questions About
`Whether a MISFET Includes an Active Region
`
`Dr. Glew was unable to say whether the MISFET in his
`drawing of “a MISFET that includes an active region” (left)
`still includes an active region when a second MISFET is
`added (right)
`
`Ex. 1028, Figure 1
`
`Ex. 1028, Figure 3
`
`Glew Sur-Reply Tr. at 19:3-11 (Ex. 1029); Sur-Sur-Reply at 2, Paper 33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`

`

`PO’s Expert Unable to Answer Basic Questions About
`Whether a MISFET Includes an Active Region
`
`Patent Owner’s expert initially testified an “active
`region” is “the region where the transistor is
`formed.” (Glew Tr., Ex. 1024, 43:10-14)
`
`On Sur-Reply Cross, when asked whether each
`transistor in Igarashi’s Fig. 12 “includes an area
`where the transistor is formed,” Patent Owner’s
`expert testified this was “not an opinion I've given or
`analyzed.” (Glew Sur-Reply Tr., 63:10-20 (Ex. 1029))
`
`Sur-Sur-Reply at 2-3, Paper 33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`

`

`Dr. Glew Hasn’t Thought Through How His Interpretation
`of “includes” Applies to All Challenged Claims
`Claim 10 recognizes that the “active region” of claim 1 may be
`“divided by an isolation region”
`
`ʼ501 Patent, claim 10 (Ex. 1001)
`Dr. Glew admitted this requirement of claim 10 “doesn’t make
`physical sense” under his interpretation of claim 1
`Q. Could a person of skill in the art form an isolation region that
`divides the active region that’s included in the MISFET?
`* * *
`It’s nothing I’ve opined on. It doesn’t make physical sense to
`me.
`
`A.
`
`Dr. Glew at 66:23-67:3 (Ex. 1029)
`
`Glew Sur-Reply Tr. at 66:23-67:3 (Ex. 1029); Sur-Sur-Reply at 3, Paper 33
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Cannot Reconcile Its Interpretation in This
`IPR With Its Own Infringement Contentions
`Patent Owner asserts in this proceeding that it is “uncontroverted” that
`the claims allow only a “single” transistor in the active region, while
`arguing the opposite in district court
`
`Patent Owner’s Interpretation In IPR
`
`Patent Owner’s Interpretation
`In District Court
`
`POR at 74, Paper 20
`
`Infringement Contentions at 32 (Ex. 1021)
`Sur-Sur-Reply at 2, Paper 33; Reply at 6-7, Paper 22
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Offers Claim Construction for Different
`Terms in Each Proceeding
`
`Patent Owner offers constructions for different terms in each
`proceeding, despite both proceedings addressing the same
`challenged patent and claims.
`
`In IPR2017-01841, Patent Owner only offers construction of
`an “active region made of a semiconductor substrate.”
`
`In IPR2017-01843, Patent Owner only offers construction of a
`“silicon nitride film.”
`
`These constructions are not offered to provide an
`understanding of the claims terms, but rather as a vehicle to
`argue patentability independently in each proceeding
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply at 5, Paper 22
`
`39
`
`

`

`Response to Patent
`Owner’s Second Argument
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`

`

`Igarashi Expressly Discloses “an active region”
`Igarashi uses common reference numerals for substrate 1 where
`active region is formed
`
`Igarashi at Figs. 1, 12, [0068], [0117] (Ex. 1004)
`This uniform numbering scheme for common features is
`undeniably evident when the two figures in Igarashi are viewed
`side by side
`
`Petition, 22-25, Paper 2; Reply at 17-18, Paper 22; DI, 19-20, Paper 10
`Shanfield Decl., ¶¶ 25-26 (Ex. 1002); Shanfield Reply Decl., ¶26 (Ex. 1027)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`

`

`Dr. Glew Agrees That Common Reference Numerals
`Describe Common Features
`
`“… Figure 9 shows the isolation region in a different
`embodiment, but I also understand that the isolation
`region 2 would be substantially similar…”
`
`“…it uses the same Item No. 2, which indicates to me
`that it is going to be substantially similar to the other
`uses of Item 2.”
`
`Glew Tr. at 81:8-24 (Ex. 1024);
`Reply at 17-18, Paper 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Does Not Dispute Combinability of
`Igarashi and Woerlee
`
`Patent Owner Does Not Dispute Combinability of Igarashi
`and Woerlee
`Patent Owner argues that Petition relies on Woerlee only
`for the location of the active region, not for forming the
`active region in Fig. 12 embodiment, ignoring express
`statements in Petition:
`
`Petition at 31, Paper 2; id. at 32; POR, 37
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`

`

`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Opening-44
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives for Oral Argument
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 5, 2018 Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/Michael Smith /________________
`Michael H. Smith, Reg. No. 71,190
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,893,501
`IPR2017-01841
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives for Oral Argument
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that, on September 5, 2018, I caused a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing materials:
`
` Petitioner’s Demonstratives for Oral Argument
`
`to be served via email on the following counsel of record as listed in Patent
`
`Owner’s Mandatory Notices:
`
`Gerald B. Hrycyszyn, Registration No. 50,474
`GHrycyszyn-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Richard F. Giunta, Registration No. 36,149
`RGiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Edmund J. Walsh, Registration No. 32,950
`EWalsh-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Joshua Miller, admitted pro hac vice
`Joshua.Miller@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, Ma 02210
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`___/ Michael Smith/__________
`Michael H. Smith
`Registration No. 71,190
`
`

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