throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: March 18, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-01553
`Patent 10,076,708 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, HYUN J. JUNG, and
`RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Seal
`37 C.F.R. § 42.55
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`A. Background and Summary
`Supercell Oy (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
`requesting institution of an inter partes review of claims 1–3 of U.S. Patent
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01553
`Patent 10,076,708 B2
`No. 10,076,708 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’708 patent”), along with a Motion to
`Seal Exhibit 1034 and for Entry of Protective Order (Paper 3). GREE, Inc.
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”).
`With our authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (Paper 8, “Prelim.
`Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply to Petitioner’s Reply to Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 9, “Prelim. Sur-Reply”).
`After considering the parties’ briefs and the evidence of record, we
`exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny inter partes review.
`We also deny as moot Petitioner’s motion.
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner identifies itself as the real party in interest. Pet. 1. Patent
`Owner identifies itself as the real party in interest. Paper 4, 2.
`C. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’708 patent has been asserted in GREE,
`Inc. v. Supercell Oy, 2:19-cv-00310 (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 1; Paper 4, 3 (“the
`parallel district court proceeding”).
`D. The ’708 Patent
`The ’708 patent issued on September 18, 2018, and claims priority to
`foreign applications, the earliest of which was filed on June 21, 2012.
`Ex. 1001, codes (22), (30), (45), 1:7–10.
`The ’708 patent “provides a game control method, a game server, and
`a program that can increase the variations on methods for acquiring battle
`cards . . . , increase the predictability of acquisition of a card . . . with a high
`rarity value . . . , and heighten interest in the game.” Ex. 1001, 1:48–53.
`Figure 1 of the ’708 patent is reproduced below.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01553
`Patent 10,076,708 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 is a block diagram of battle game server 1. Id. at 3:38–39. Figure 1
`also shows communication terminal 2 in wireless communication with battle
`game server 1. Battle game server 1 includes communication unit 10,
`memory unit 11, information presentation unit 12, and control unit 13. Id. at
`3:63–4:2. Memory unit 11 stores information “on items to provide, a total
`count of items, item type, and an acquisition count” for each user that
`operates a communication terminal 2 in tables. Id. at 4:7–10, 4:17–18. “An
`‘item’ refers to any of a variety of objects used within a game, such as a
`battle card constituting a user’s deck, a character, a weapon, armor, an
`ornament, a plant, food, and the like.” Id. at 4:11–14. The tables that store
`item information include item information tables 111 (e.g., 111a–111c) and
`user information table 112. Id. at 4:18–20. Memory unit 11 also stores item
`data 113. Id.
`According to the ’708 patent, “when a request to present information
`is received from the communication terminal 2 via the communication unit
`10, then based on the item information tables 111a to 111c, the information
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01553
`Patent 10,076,708 B2
`presentation unit 12 tallies the total count of items for each item type.”
`Ex. 1001, 4:65–5:2. “The information presentation unit 12 also refers to the
`user information table 112 to calculate the acquisition count of items for
`each item type based on the identification information of provided items and
`the table identification information that correspond to the user identification
`information pertaining to the communication terminal 2.” Id. at 5:2–8. “The
`information presentation unit 12 then presents the communication terminal
`2, via the communication unit 10, with the result of [the] calculation as the
`acquirable item information.” Id. at 5:8–11.
`E. Illustrative Claim
`The ’708 patent includes independent claims 1–3, all of which
`Petitioner challenges. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
`1.
`A game control method comprising the steps of:
`(a) initializing a virtual game;
`(b) displaying, during the virtual game, a plurality of cells
`and acquirable item information that is received from a server
`over a communication line, the plurality of cells being displayed
`in the same size, wherein each of a plurality of items extracted
`from an item information table pertaining to a user is associated
`with each of the plurality of cells, the plurality of items being
`selected randomly only from items in the item information table,
`and at least one of the cells including a character which indicates
`a rarity value of an item associated with the at least one of the
`cells;
`
`(c) receiving, during the virtual game, a selection request
`selecting one of the plurality of cells and sending the selection
`request to the server; and
`(d) displaying, during the virtual game, an item associated
`with the selected cell, which is determined by the server based
`on the selection request.
`Ex. 1001, 13:51–14:13.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01553
`Patent 10,076,708 B2
`F. Asserted Grounds and Proffered Testimonial Evidence
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–3 would have been unpatentable on the
`following grounds:
`References/Basis
`35 U.S.C. §
`Claim(s) Challenged
`Hawkins,2 Robbers3
`103(a)1
`1–3
`SCM,4 Stroffolino5
`103(a)
`1–3
`Pet. 3. Petitioner also provides a Declaration of Ravin Balakrishnan, Ph. D.
`Ex. 1007.
`
`II. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`Patent Owner argues that “the Board should exercise its discretion
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny the Petition because Petitioner raises
`substantially the same arguments in a parallel district court proceeding filed
`more than one year ago and scheduled for trial in approximately two months
`(March 1, 2021).” Prelim. Resp. 1 (citing NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex
`Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8, at 19–20 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018)
`(precedential); Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020- 00019, Paper 11, at 6
`(P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) (“Fintiv”) (precedential)).
`A. Legal Standards
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) states that
`
`
`1 The relevant sections of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), took effect on March 16,
`2013. Because the ’708 patent claims priority to an application filed before
`that date, our citations to 35 U.S.C. § 103 are to its pre-AIA version.
`2 U.S. 9,511,285, issued December 6, 2016. Ex. 1022 (“Hawkins”).
`3 U.S. 2009/0051114 A1, published February 26, 2009. Ex. 1023
`(“Robbers”).
`4 Scrabble Complete PC Manual, Infogrames Interactive, Inc., 2002.
`Ex. 1016 (“SCM”).
`5 U.S. 8,352,542 B2, issued January 8, 2013. Ex. 1024 (“Stroffolino”).
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01553
`Patent 10,076,708 B2
`[t]he Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be
`instituted unless the Director determines that the information
`presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response
`filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`The language of § 314(a) expressly provides the Director with discretion to
`deny institution of a inter partes review. See Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v.
`Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a
`petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”);
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019 (“TPG”) at 55 (available
`at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated).
`In exercising the Director’s discretion under § 314(a), the Board may
`consider “events in other proceedings related to the same patent, either at the
`Office, in district court, or the ITC.” TPG at 58. NHK Spring explains that
`the Board may consider the advanced state of a related district court
`proceeding, among other considerations, as a “factor that weighs in favor of
`denying the Petition under § 314(a).” NHK Spring, Paper 8 at 20.
`Additionally, the Board’s precedential order in Fintiv identifies several
`factors for analyzing issues related to the Director’s discretion to deny
`institution, with the goal of balancing efficiency, fairness, and patent quality.
`B. Applying the Fintiv Factors
`1. Whether the Court Granted a Stay or Evidence Exists that one
`may be Granted if a Proceeding is Instituted
`Petitioner argues that it “has not yet sought a stay but will do so
`should the IPR be instituted.” Pet. 69. Patent Owner responds that
`“Petitioner has not filed any motion to stay the parallel district court
`proceeding” and “there is little evidence here to suggest that the district
`court will grant a stay.” Prelim. Resp. 7 (citing Pet. 69). Patent Owner
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01553
`Patent 10,076,708 B2
`argues that a stay is “extremely unlikely” because stays are denied before
`institution and an institution decision is “not due until after the jury trial in
`the parallel district court proceeding.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 2011, 1).
`Because the district court has not yet granted a stay and the record
`does not include any evidence that a stay, if requested, would be granted, we
`determine that the facts underlying this factor are neutral.
`2. Proximity of the Court’s Trial Date to the Board’s Projected
`Statutory Deadline for a Final Written Decision
`Petitioner argues that “[w]hile the trial date is currently scheduled to
`occur before the statutory deadline for the [final written decision], this factor
`should be afforded little weight, as the date is very likely to change.”
`Pet. 69. Petitioner also argues that trial dates reset when review is instituted
`and significantly slip after institution has been denied. Id. at 69–70 (citing
`Ex. 1031, 2; Ex. 1030, 3).
`Patent Owner responds that a “jury trial in the parallel district court
`proceeding is currently set to begin on March 1, 2021” and thus, “scheduled
`to conclude more than twelve months before a final written decision would
`be due in this proceeding.” Prelim. Resp. 9. Patent Owner lists several
`proceedings where the Board has denied institution based on a smaller gap
`between trial date and due date for a final written decision. Id. at 9–10.
`Patent Owner also argues that “Petitioner fails to present any specific
`evidence that the jury trial in the Eastern District of Texas in the parallel
`proceeding will not proceed on March 1, 2021, as currently scheduled.” Id.
`at 12–13. Patent Owner further argues that, “even if trial is ultimately
`delayed by a few months, it will still likely conclude well before a final
`written decision would be due in this proceeding, if the Board were to
`institute.” Id. at 15.
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01553
`Patent 10,076,708 B2
`Petitioner replies that “determining the true trial date requires
`speculation.” Prelim. Reply 2. According to Petitioner, “[t]he record
`indicates that the Eastern District of Texas court is at least triple booked for
`the [current] trial date.” Id. at 2–3 (citing Ex. 1039, 1044). Petitioner argues
`that it is unlikely that jury trials will resume on March 1 because of the
`continuing pandemic. Id. at 3. Patent Owner replies that “Petitioner’s
`speculative claim that trial in the parallel district court proceeding may not
`proceed on March 1, 2021 ignores a key fact in the record: trial remains
`scheduled to proceed on March 1, 2021—which is now just one week
`away.” Prelim. Sur-Reply 1 (citing Ex. 2011, 1).
`The present record shows that, the trial date in the parallel district
`court proceeding has not been set, but will likely be set for no later than
`May, 2021. Ex. 2017; see also Ex. 2016. If review were instituted in this
`proceeding, a final written decision would be due 10 months or more after
`the trial date in the parallel district court proceeding. Id. Given the
`considerable overlap in claims, prior art, and arguments as described below,
`institution would create a potential for the district court proceeding and the
`review to arrive at inconsistent results spaced approximately 10 months
`apart. Thus, we determine that this factor weighs in favor of denying
`institution.
`3. Investment in the Parallel Proceeding by the Court and the
`Parties
`Petitioner argues that “[t]he district court proceeding is . . . only in its
`initial stages, and the court has not made any substantial investments in the
`merits of the invalidity positions.” Pet. 70. Patent Owner responds that the
`“the parties and the district court have each already invested . . . substantial
`resources in the parallel proceeding by the time this Board decides whether
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01553
`Patent 10,076,708 B2
`to institute a trial in March 2021.” Prelim. Resp. 17. Specifically, Patent
`Owner asserts that “the parties have already completed claim construction
`briefing, the Court held a Markman hearing in September, and the Court
`issued its order on claim construction . . . on October 12, 2020.” Id. (citing
`Ex. 2009; E-One, Inc. v. Oshkosh Corp., IPR2019-00161, Paper 16, at 7
`(P.T.A.B. May 15, 2019). Patent Owner argues further that “[t]he district
`court and parties have each already invested, and will have invested even
`more, substantial resources in claim construction, fact discovery, expert
`discovery, dispositive motions, pretrial disclosures, and trial itself by the
`time this Board decides whether to institute a trial in March 2021.” Id. at 19.
`Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner did not file its Petition until
`twelve months after the parallel district court proceeding was initiated and
`contends with citations to other Board decisions that the unexplained delay
`weighs in favor of denying institution. Prelim. Resp. 19–20 (citing
`Ex. 2004). Petitioner replies that “[t]he Investment factor (Factor 3) is
`neutral, because, to the extent the court has invested, it invested primarily in
`non-overlapping issues, e.g., determining issues related to potential
`invalidity based on different references, or related to alleged infringement.”
`Prelim. Reply 4.
`In the parallel district court proceeding, a Claim Construction
`Memorandum Opinion and Order has been issued and by this time, the
`parties have, inter alia, completed expert discovery, filed dispositive
`motions and motions to strike expert testimony, served pretrial disclosures,
`and attended a pretrial conference. Ex. 2011; Ex. 2012, 2. The district court
`and the parties have made substantial investments in the parallel proceeding.
`The parties still have to expend significant resources to conduct the trial
`itself, as well as potential post-trial proceedings.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01553
`Patent 10,076,708 B2
`Based on the record, weighing the investments thus far made and yet
`to be made, we determine that substantial investments have been made in the
`parallel proceeding, and thus, this factor weighs in favor of denying
`institution.
`4. Overlap Between Issues Raised in the Petition and in the Parallel
`Proceeding
`Petitioner argues that “[t]he references raised in Grounds 1 and 2
`discussed herein are distinct from those raised in the related litigation.”
`Pet. 68.6 Petitioner, thus, argues there are no significant concerns regarding
`duplicative efforts or potentially conflicting outcomes. Id. at 69.
`Patent Owner responds that “[t]here is substantial overlap between at
`least the claims, grounds, and arguments presented in the Petition and what
`has been, and continues to be, litigated in the parallel district court
`proceeding.” Prelim. Resp. 21; see also Prelim. Sur-Reply 3–5 (arguing
`similarly). As an example of overlap, Patent Owner asserts that “Petitioner
`relies on the Scrabble Complete PC Manual (‘SCM’) as the primary
`reference in Ground 2 of the Petition” and “Petitioner’s expert in the parallel
`district court proceeding also relies on SCM (as well as other Scrabble-
`related materials) as allegedly disclosing limitations of claims 1–3 of the
`’708 Patent.” Prelim. Resp. 21–22 (citing Pet. 36–39, 55–57; Ex. 2006
`¶¶ 133–134). According to Patent Owner the “testimony in the parallel
`proceeding is identical to arguments made by Petitioner in the Petition
`
`
`6 Petitioner also argues that the “patent ineligibility standard” at the Office
`“is different” from the standard for jury trials. Pet. 69. However, because
`patent ineligibility has not and cannot be asserted in the present Petition, we
`do not need to address this argument.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01553
`Patent 10,076,708 B2
`regarding SCM and other Scrabble-related materials.” Id. at 22 (citing
`Pet. 20–21).
`Petitioner replies that “[t]here is no overlap whatsoever between the
`art in the IPR grounds and that applied in the litigation invalidity
`contentions.” Prelim. Reply 1. According to Petitioner, “SCM is discussed
`only in the ‘general state of the prior art’ section, not as ‘asserted prior art’”
`in a litigation expert report (Ex. 2006) and “SCM is only present in Ground
`2; Ground 1 has no overlap.” Id. (citing Ex. 2006, 2). Petitioner further
`argues that Patent Owner has reduced the claims at issue in the parallel
`district court proceeding which further reduces overlap between the parallel
`proceeding and this proceeding. Paper 10, 1 (“Patent Owner is now
`asserting only independent claim 1 of the ’708 patent.”)
`Patent Owner replies that “Petitioner does not dispute that it
`challenges the same claims of the ’708 Patent under § 103 in each of the
`instant Petition and at the district court” and “that expert testimony
`submitted by the Petitioner at the district court regarding SCM is identical to
`arguments made by Petitioner in the Petition.” Prelim. Sur-Reply 3–4
`(citing Prelim. Resp. 21–22). Patent Owner asserts even though “Petitioner
`has not formally identified SCM as ‘asserted prior art’ at the district court,”
`“the undisputed inclusion of SCM in both proceedings ‘may result in
`duplication of work and create the potential for inconsistent decisions,’
`which weighs in favor of discretionary denial.” Id. at 4 (citing Prelim. Reply
`1; Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd., IPR2020-00203, Paper 12, at 14 (P.T.A.B. July
`6, 2020); Prelim. Resp. 21–24).
`The record shows that although the same claims are at issue in this
`proceeding as in the parallel district court proceeding, the same prior art is
`not. Even if Petitioner’s expert offers testimony in the district court as to the
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01553
`Patent 10,076,708 B2
`general state of the art that mirror its discussion of SCM here, the invalidity
`arguments in the district court cannot be the same as the grounds here
`because they are directed to different prior art. Thus, the potential for
`inconsistent results is minimal.
`On this record, we determine that this factor weighs in favor of
`institution.
`5. Whether Petitioner and the Defendant in the Parallel Proceeding
`are the Same Party
`Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner and Patent Owner are the
`defendant and plaintiff, respectively, in the parallel district court
`proceeding.” Prelim. Resp. 24–25 (citing GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, No.
`2:19-cv-00310 (E.D. Tex. filed Sept. 16, 2019); Exs. 2001–2005, 2010,
`2011). Petitioner replies that the same party factor “should be given little
`weight.” Prelim. Reply 5.
`The record shows that Petitioner and defendant in the parallel
`proceeding are the same. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of denying
`institution.
`6. Other Circumstances that Impact the Board’s Exercise of
`Discretion, Including the Merits
`Regarding the merits, Petitioner challenges claims 1–3 as
`unpatentable over Hawkins and Robbers with citations to the asserted
`references and declarant testimony. Pet. 42–55 (“Ground 1”). Petitioner
`also challenges claims 1–3 as unpatentable over SCM and Stroffolino with
`citations to the asserted references and declarant testimony. Id. at 55–67
`(“Ground 2”). For both grounds Petitioner’s challenges assert a rationale for
`combining the references.
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01553
`Patent 10,076,708 B2
`For Ground 1, Patent Owner contends that “Hawkins, even in view of
`Robbers, does not disclose nor suggest” several limitations of claims 1–3.
`Prelim. Resp. 34. Petitioner replies that Patent Owner bases its arguments in
`the Preliminary Response “on limitations that are not claimed.” Prelim.
`Reply 6.
`Without conducting a full analysis of the merits and based on the
`record before us, we determine that Petitioner adequately makes an initial
`showing that Hawkins and Robbers teach or suggest the limitations of claims
`1–3 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the
`asserted references. We further determine that Patent Owner raises
`arguments that would be best decided on a full record, not the preliminary
`record before us. Accordingly, we determine that the merits of this
`challenge are neither weak nor strong.
`For Ground 2, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner fails to establish
`that SCM is a printed publication. Prelim. Resp. 41. Patent Owner further
`contends that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that SCM discloses or suggests
`a “plurality of cells and acquirable item information” as required by the
`claims at issue. Id. at 45 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:50–14:55). Petitioner replies
`that SCM is a printed publication as shown by the submitted evidence and
`testimony. Prelim. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1007; Ex. 1026; Ex. 1027).
`Petitioner further replies that Patent Owner mischaracterizes its challenge.
`Id. at 8.
`Without conducting a full analysis of the merits and based on the
`record before us, we determine that Petitioner adequately makes an initial
`showing that SCM and Stroffolino teach or suggest the limitations of claims
`1–3 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the
`asserted references. We further determine that Patent Owner raises
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01553
`Patent 10,076,708 B2
`arguments that would be best decided on a full record, not the preliminary
`record before us. Accordingly, we determine that the merits of this
`challenge are neither weak nor strong.
`For at least the foregoing reasons, based on the incomplete record
`before us, an initial review of the merits of Petitioner’s two grounds suggests
`that the merits are neither weak nor strong. Thus, we determine that this
`factor is neutral.
`7. Holistic Analysis of Fintiv Order Factors
`We undertake a holistic analysis of the Fintiv Order factors,
`considering “whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served
`by denying or instituting review.” Fintiv Order, Paper 11 at 6. As discussed
`above, factors 1 and 6 are neutral, factors 2, 3, and 5 weigh toward denying
`institution, and factor 4 weighs in favor of institution.
`The evidence in the record indicates that duplication of efforts and
`potential for inconsistent results exist, because both the district court and the
`Board would consider similar issues and the district court will reach trial
`many months before we would reach a final decision. We determine that the
`facts underlying factors 2, 3, and 5 collectively outweigh the facts
`underlying factors 1, 4, and 6. Accordingly, we determine that the
`circumstances presented weigh in favor of denying institution under
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`
`III. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SEAL
`Petitioner filed a Motion to Seal Exhibit 1034 and for Entry of
`Protective Order. Paper 3. We do not rely on Exhibit 1034. Accordingly,
`we deny the motion as moot.
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01553
`Patent 10,076,708 B2
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Based on our application of the precedential Fintiv Order factors to
`the record before us, we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`and deny institution of inter partes review.
`
`
`V. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims, and
`no trial is instituted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Seal Exhibit 1034
`and for Entry of Protective Order is denied as moot; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file a motion to
`expunge Exhibit 1034 within 90 days after the date of entry of this Decision
`or, if a request for rehearing is filed, within 90 days after the date of entry of
`a decision on the request.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01553
`Patent 10,076,708 B2
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Jennifer R. Bush
`Brian M. Hoffman
`Kevin X. McGann
`Gregory A. Hopewell
`Eric Zhou
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`jbush-ptab@fenwick.com
`bhoffman@fenwick.com
`kmcgann-ptab@fenwick.com
`ghopewell@fenwick.com
`ezhou@fenwick.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`John C. Alemanni
`Andrew Rinehart
`Joshua H. Lee
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`jalemanni@kilpatricktownsend.com
`arinehart@kilpatricktownsend.com
`jlee@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Scott A. McKeown
`ROPES & GRAY
`Scott.McKeown@ropesgray.com
`
`16
`
`

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