Petitioner
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`IPR2019-01026 – U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`(Claims 11–12)
`
`Hearing before Administrative Patent Judges
`Sally C. Medley, Jeffrey S. Smith, & Garth D. Baer
`
`Sarah E. Jelsema
`September 10, 2020
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`IPR2019-01026 – U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049
`(Claims 11–12)
`
`Hearing before Administrative Patent Judges
`Sally C. Medley, Jeffrey S. Smith, & Garth D. Baer
`
`Sarah E. Jelsema
`September 10, 2020
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Grounds
`
`Petition (Paper 1), 2
`
`2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Disputed Issues – Claim Construction
`
` “Inquiry message”
` Petitioner: does not require construction but could be
`construed as “a query for information” or “a message
`seeking information.” Petition 11; Pet. Reply, 4
` PO: should be construed as “a specific type of message
`used, at least in part, to discover other devices in the
`vicinity which may request to join a piconet” (POR, 8–9) or “a
`type of message used to discover other devices in the
`vicinity.” PO Sur-Reply, 12
`
`3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Disputed Issues – Claim Construction
`
` “Additional data field”
` Petitioner: does not require construction. Petition, 11–12; Pet.
`Reply (Paper 10), 1–6
` PO: should be construed to mean both:
`•
`“an extra data field appended to the end of an inquiry
`message” (POR (Paper 9), 8) and
`“a data field that is not in the first communications
`protocol.” PO Sur-Reply (Paper 12), 5–6 (construction first argued by PO on
`Sur-reply)
`
`•
`
`4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Disputed Issues – Larsson Ground
`
` Does Larsson disclose “inquiry messages”?
` Petitioner: Even under PO’s proposed construction, yes. See,
`e.g., Pet. Reply, 13–16
` PO: It appears that PO’s argument is that, if the Board
`adopts its construction, no, but otherwise, yes. See, e.g., PO
`Sur-Reply, 13–15
`
` Does Larsson disclose “additional data field”?
` Petitioner: Even under PO’s proposed constructions, yes.
`See, e.g., Pet. Reply, 7–13
` PO: No. It appears that PO’s position is not reliant on the
`Board adopting its proposed constructions. See, e.g., PO Sur-Reply,
`13–15
`
`5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Disputed Issues – 802.11 Ground
`
` Does the 802.11 ground disclose “additional data field”?
` Petitioner: If Board adopts PO’s proposed constructions,
`then no. See, e.g., Pet. Reply, 16–23
` PO: No. It appears that PO’s position is not reliant on the
`Board adopting its constructions. See, e.g., PO Sur-Reply, 20–22
`
`6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Prior FWD Construing Terms Under BRI
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, No. IPR2019-00251, 2020 WL 4196575, at *3
`(P.T.A.B. July 20, 2020)
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, No. IPR2019-00251, 2020 WL 4196575, at *4
`(P.T.A.B. July 20, 2020)
`
`8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“additional data field”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Additional Data Field”
`
`1. Must the “additional data field” be added “to the end” of an
`inquiry message? POR, 6–8; Pet. Reply, 1–2
`
`2. Argument PO raises for the first time on sur-reply: Must the
`“additional data field” be “a data field that is not in the first
`communications protocol”? PO Sur-Reply, 4–6
`
`10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Additional Data Field”
`Added “To The End”
`
`POR, 8; see also POR, 6–8
`
`11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Additional Data Field”
`
`12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’049 Patent (Ex. 1001), 8:35–47 (highlighting added)
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Additional Data Field”
`Added “To The End”
` PO seeks to import limitation from disclosed embodiment:
`
`POR, 6–7 (citing ’049 Patent (Ex. 1001) Fig. 5 and 4:59–5:11 (highlighting added by Patent Owner))
`
`13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Additional Data Field”
`Added “To The End”
` Claim differentiation creates strong presumption that
`“additional data field” need not be added “to the end” of an
`inquiry message. Pet. Reply, 2
`
`14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’049 Patent (Ex. 1001) 7:42–52 (highlighting added)
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Additional Data Field”
`Added “To The End”
`
`’049 Patent (Ex. 1001) 5:12–14 (cited by PO Sur-Reply, 8–9)
`
`15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Additional Data Field” “not
`in the first communications protocol”
`
`PO Sur-Reply, 5
`
`16
`
`PO Sur-Reply, 6 (highlighting added)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Additional Data Field” “not
`in the first communications protocol”
` May 6, 2019 – Petition filed in this IPR
`
` November 8, 2019 – Board in Cisco Sys. Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-
`00965 (“Cisco IPR”), involving related patent 6,664,891, adopts “not in the
`first communications protocol” construction Institution Decision (Paper 7), 11
`
` December 9, 2019 – Board in Microsoft Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-
`01188, involving related patent 6,664,891, adopts Board construction from
`Cisco IPR Institution Decision (Paper 9), 14–15 (cited by Pet. Reply, 2–3, n.1)
`
` January 31, 2020 – In Cisco IPR, Uniloc files POR arguing that the Board’s
`Cisco IPR construction was incorrect Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-00965,
`Paper 9 at 11–12 (filed Jan. 31, 2020) (cited by Pet. Reply, 2–3, n.1)
`
` March 2, 2020 – In Microsoft 891 IPR, Uniloc files POR arguing that the
`Board’s Cisco IPR construction was correct Microsoft Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-
`01188, Paper 13 at 18 (filed March 2, 2020)
`
`17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Additional Data Field” “not
`in the first communications protocol”
`
`Uniloc’s position on January 31, 2020:
`“[T]he record is clear, particularly when reviewing the embodiments,
`that the ‘additional data field’ is appended to an inquiry message, but
`need not be a field not in the first communications protocol.
`
`There is nothing in the Detailed Description section of the specification
`of the ‘891 Patent that precludes the additional data field from taking
`the place of a data field provided for by a communications protocol.”
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-00965, Paper 9 at 11–12 (filed Jan. 31, 2020)
`(emphasis added) (cited by Pet. Reply, 2–3, n.1)
`
`18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`“inquiry message”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Inquiry Message”
`
`1. Should “inquiry message” be limited to “a specific type of
`message used, at least in part, to discover other devices in the
`vicinity which may request to join a piconet” (POR, 8–9) or “a type
`of message used to discover other devices in the vicinity”? PO Sur-
`Reply, 12
`2. Should “inquiry message” be given its plain and ordinary
`meaning or construed, consistent with that meaning, as “a
`query for information” or “a message seeking information”?
`Petition 11; Pet. Reply, 4
`
`20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Inquiry Message”
`
`Rysavy Second Decl. (Ex. 1028), ¶ 9 (cited by Pet. Reply, 4, 7)
`
`21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Inquiry Message”
`
`Webster’s New World College Dictionary (4th ed. 1999) (Ex. 1037); see also
`Rysavy Second Decl. (Ex. 1028), ¶¶ 9–10 (cited by Pet. Reply, 4–7)
`
`22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Inquiry Message”
`
` PO proposes to limit the claimed “inquiry message” based on a
`feature from a Bluetooth embodiment disclosed in the
`Specification:
`
`23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 8–9
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Inquiry Message”
`
`’049 Patent (Ex. 1001), 1:6–8 (cited by Petition, 1)
`
`’049 Patent (Ex. 1001), 3:22–29 (highlighting added) (cited by Pet. Reply, 1–2)
`
`24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Ground 1: Larsson + Bluetooth Spec. +
`RFC826
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “inquiry messages”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Prior FWD on Larsson Disclosing Inquiry
`Messages
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, No. IPR2019-00251, 2020 WL 4196575, at *5 (P.T.A.B. July 20, 2020)
`
`27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “Inquiry Messages”
`
`Larsson (Ex. 1004), 2:66–3:2 (cited by Petition, 26–27, 28, 39; Pet. Reply. 14, 15)
`
`Larsson (Ex. 1004), 3:25–28 (cited by Petition, 28; Pet. Reply, 14)
`
`28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “Inquiry Messages”
`
`Larsson (Ex. 1004), 6:3–7 (cited by Petition, 32; Pet. Reply, 13)
`
`29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “Inquiry Messages”
`
`Larsson (Ex. 1004), Fig. 6a (excerpted in part) (excerpted and cited in Petition, 13–14, 26–27, 32;
`cited in Pet. Reply, 12)
`
`30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “Inquiry Messages”
`
`’049 Patent (Ex. 1001), 8:35–47 (highlighting added)
`
`31
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “Inquiry Messages”
`
`Larsson (Ex. 1004), Fig. 7a (excerpted in part) (cited by Petition, 15, 22, 27, 32; Pet. Reply, 12)
`
`32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “Inquiry Messages”
`
`33
`
`Rysavy Decl. (Ex. 1003), ¶ 63 (cited by Petition, 27, 31)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “Inquiry Messages”
`
`Rysavy Second Decl. (Ex. 1028), ¶ 37 (cited by Pet. Reply, 16)
`
`34
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “Inquiry Messages”
`
`35
`
`Rysavy Second Decl. (Ex. 1028), ¶ 37 (cited by Pet. Reply, 16)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “Inquiry Messages”
`
`Rysavy Second Decl. (Ex. 1028), ¶ 38 (cited by Pet. Reply, 16)
`
`36
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “Inquiry Messages”
`
` PO does not dispute that Larsson discloses “inquiry messages”
`under a plain and ordinary meaning of that term or if it is
`construed as “a query for information” or “a message seeking
`information.” POR, 11–12; PO Sur-Reply, 13–15
`
` PO acknowledges that Larsson’s request for route messages
`seek information, noting that their “purpose is to discover an
`optimal route to a known destination node which is already
`joined to a piconet.” POR, 11 (emphasis removed)
`
`37
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “Inquiry Messages”
`
` PO argues that Larsson does not show “inquiry messages”
`under PO’s proposed constructions for that term:
`“a specific type of message used, at least in part, to
`
`discover other devices in the vicinity which may request to
`join a piconet” (POR, 8–9) or
`“a type of message used to discover other devices in the
`vicinity.” PO Sur-Reply, 12
`
`
`
` PO argues that Larsson is “directed to a route discovery
`technique” and that the recited “inquiry messages” require “a
`device discovery technique.” POR, 11
`
`38
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses Adding
`“additional data fields”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Prior FWD Finds Larsson Teaches “Additional
`“Data Field”
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, No. IPR2019-00251, 2020 WL 4196575, at *5 (P.T.A.B. July 20, 2020)
`
`40
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “Additional Data Field”
`
`Rysavy Decl. (Ex. 1003), ¶ 75 (cited by Petition, 33)
`
`41
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “Additional Data Field”
`
`Larsson (Ex. 1004), 7:58–61 (cited by Petition, 15, 22, 33, 38; Pet. Reply, 19)
`
`42
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “Additional Data Field”
`
`’049 Patent (Ex. 1001), 4:15–17 (highlighting added) (cited by Petition, 1, 8, 32; Pet. Reply, 12)
`
`43
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “Additional Data Field”
`
`Rysavy Second Decl. (Ex. 1028), ¶¶ 17–18 (cited by Pet. Reply, 8, 11–12)
`
`44
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “Additional Data Field”
`
`Stevens (Ex. 1036), 56–57 (excerpted in and cited by Pet. Reply,
`10–11); see also RFC826, 3 (Ex. 1006), Larsson (Ex. 1004), 7:58–
`61; Rysavy Second Decl. (Ex. 1028), ¶¶ 32–32, 41–42.
`
`45
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “Additional Data Field”
`
`46
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Rysavy Decl. (Ex. 1003), ¶ 78 (cited by Petition, 34–35)
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “Additional Data Field” Added
`“To The End”
`
`47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Rysavy Second Decl. (Ex. 1028), ¶ 20 (cited by Pet. Reply, 13)
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “Additional Data Field” Added
`“To The End”
`
`Rysavy Second Decl. (Ex. 1028), ¶ 20 (cited by Pet. Reply, 13)
`
`48
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “Additional Data Field” Added
`“To The End”
`
`Rysavy Second Decl. (Ex. 1028), ¶ 20 (cited by Pet. Reply, 13)
`
`49
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “Additional Data Field” Added
`“To The End”
`
`Rysavy Second Decl. (Ex. 1028), ¶ 20 (cited by Pet. Reply, 13)
`
`50
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “Additional Data Field” Added
`“To The End”
`
`Rysavy Second Decl. (Ex. 1028), ¶ 20 (explaining use of
`“piggyback” in background reference Ex. 1035)
`(cited by Pet. Reply, 13)
`
`51
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “Additional Data Field” “Not In
`The First Communications Protocol”
`
`52
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Larsson (Ex. 1004), 3:50–63 (highlighting added) (cited by Pet. 22, 34, 37)
`
`
`
`Larsson Discloses “Additional Data Field” “Not In
`The First Communications Protocol”
`
`53
`
`Rysavy Second Decl. (Ex. 1028), ¶ 36 (cited by Pet. Reply, 11)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Ground 2: 802.11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`802.11 Discloses “Additional Data Field”
`
`Ex. 1007 (802.11), 55 (highlighting added); see also Rysavy Second Decl. (Ex. 1028), ¶¶
`40–44 (excerpted in and cited by Pet. Reply, 19–20)
`
`55
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`802.11 Discloses “Additional Data Field”
`
`56
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Rysavy Second Decl. (Ex. 1028), ¶ 40 (cited by Pet. Reply, 19)
`
`
`
`802.11 Discloses “Additional Data Field”
`
`Rysavy Second Decl. (Ex. 1028), ¶¶ 42–43 (cited by Pet. Reply, 20)
`
`57
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`802.11 Discloses “Additional Data Field”
`
`Dubuisson (Ex. 1031), 35; see also Rysavy Second Decl. (Ex. 1028), ¶¶ 45–47 (excerpted in and cited by
`Pet. Reply, 20–21, 23)
`
`Modbus Protocol (Ex. 1029), 11; see also Rysavy Second Decl. (Ex. 1028), ¶ 48 (cited by Pet. Reply, 21, 23)
`
`58
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Appendix
`
` Claims
`
`59
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Claim 11
`
`60
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(’049 Patent (Ex. 1001), 8:35–47)
`
`
`
`Claim 12
`
`61
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(’049 Patent (Ex. 1001), 8:48–50)
`
`
`
`IPR2019-01026
`Patent 6,993,049
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on September 4, 2020, a true and correct copy
`
`of PETITIONER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT was served on counsel for
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC via electronic mail as follows:
`
`Ryan Loveless – Lead Counsel
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`Brett Mangrum – Back-up Counsel
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`James Etheridge – Back-up Counsel
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`Jeffrey Huang – Back-up Counsel
`jeff@etheridgelaw.com
`Etheridge Law Group
`2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Ste. 120-324
`Southlake, TX 76092
`
`
`By: /Andrew M. Mason/
`Andrew M. Mason (Reg. No. 64,034)
`andrew.mason@klarquist.com
`Todd M. Siegel (Reg. No. 73,232)
`todd.siegel@klarquist.com
`Joseph T. Jakubek (Reg. No. 34,190)
`joseph.jakubek@klarquist.com
`John M. Lunsford (Reg. No. 67,185)
`john.lunsford@klarquist.com
`Sarah E. Jelsema (Reg. No. 70,804)
`sarah.jelsema@klarquist.com
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Tel: 503-595-5300
`Fax: 503-595-5301
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`
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
