`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`GREENSBORO DIVISION
`
`OPTOLUM, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CREE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No.
`17-cv-00687-WO-JLW
`
`DEFENDANT CREE, INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF OPTOLUM INC.’S
`MOTION FOR DISALLOWANCE OF COSTS
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 393 Filed 09/01/23 Page 1 of 21
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`I. INTRODUCTION ......................................... 1
`
`II. BACKGROUND ........................................... 2
`
`III. ARGUMENT ............................................. 3
`
`A. LEGAL STANDARD .................................. 3
`
`B. THERE IS NO INJUSTICE IN AWARDING CREE THE
`COSTS IT INCURRED DEFENDING ITSELF IN THIS
`ACTION .......................................... 4
`
`C. CREE’S BILL OF COSTS IS PROPER .................. 7
`
`1. Hearing Transcripts and Rough Trial
`Transcripts ................................ 8
`
`2. Deposition Transcripts ..................... 9
`
`3. Copying and Printing ...................... 10
`
`4. Exemplification ........................... 11
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .......................................... 16
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 393 Filed 09/01/23 Page 2 of 21
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`For approximately seven years, Plaintiff OptoLum, Inc.
`
`(“OptoLum”) litigated the present case using a variety of
`
`causes actions against Defendant Cree, Inc. (“Cree”),
`
`including its allegations of patent infringement, all of
`
`which were rejected. With the employ of two sophisticated
`
`law firms (McCarter & English, LLP and Womble Bond
`
`Dickinson LLP), these allegations spanned numerous
`
`hearings, a trial, and a subsequent appeal of an
`
`infringement theory rejected by this Court on summary
`
`judgment and summarily affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
`
`But, now that OptoLum must pay the relatively modest and
`
`statutorily mandated costs sought by Cree, OptoLum suddenly
`
`claims (without the necessary and appropriate
`
`documentation) a wholesale inability to pay.
`
`There is no dispute that Cree is the prevailing party.
`
`Indeed, this Court’s judgment clearly ordered that Cree
`
`“recover costs from . . . OptoLum.” (D.I. 367). OptoLum’s
`
`claim of inability to pay Cree’s reasonable costs lacks
`
`credibility in view of the backdrop of the numerous lawyers
`
`OptoLum has employed through trial and on appeal. Also,
`
`notwithstanding OptoLum’s self-serving affidavit alleging
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 393 Filed 09/01/23 Page 3 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`no ability to pay (and lacking any supporting
`
`documentation), the asserted patents in this case (which
`
`OptoLum contends are extremely valuable) have not been
`
`invalidated, and thus, remain as assets that OptoLum could
`
`use to pay costs if necessary.
`
`In light of the history of this case, and the obviously
`
`significant resources expended to date by OptoLum pursuing
`
`claims that were unsupported and/or completely rejected at
`
`every turn, there is no unfairness nor inequity in
`
`requiring OptoLum to pay Cree its requested costs in this
`
`case. Accordingly, for the reasons below, this Court
`
`should reject OptoLum’s attempt to escape the legal
`
`consequences of pursuing meritless theories and order
`
`OptoLum pay Cree’s reasonable costs.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`In consideration of judicial efficiency, Cree will
`
`forgo a detailed recitation of the seven-year history of
`
`this litigation. Instead, Cree incorporates by reference
`
`the background of its motion for attorney fees, which
`
`detailed at least some of the theories that OptoLum pursued
`
`without any basis to do so. (D.I. 368). These included
`
`claims for violation of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act through
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 393 Filed 09/01/23 Page 4 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`false advertising, improper damages theories concerning
`
`brand value, and baseless theories of willful infringement
`
`for which OptoLum had no evidence to maintain through trial
`
`(as confirmed by the Court’s grant of summary judgement).
`
`Cree was forced to defend against these allegations,
`
`and many others, in opposition to OptoLum’s assertions that
`
`it was owed tens of millions of dollars. Cree prevailed on
`
`all these claims, including prosecution history disclaimer
`
`and estoppel, through this Court’s rulings, the jury’s
`
`findings, and the Federal Circuit’s summary affirmance.
`
`On January 31, 2022, this Court entered judgment in
`
`Cree’s favor that “plaintiff recover nothing” and that Cree
`
`“recover costs from” OptoLum. (D.I. 367). On June 12,
`
`2023, the Federal Circuit issued the mandate affirming the
`
`Court’s judgment. Cree promptly filed its Bill of Costs.
`
`OptoLum has now moved to challenge those costs.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that
`
`“costs—other than attorneys’ fees—should generally be
`
`allowed to the prevailing party.” This “rule creates the
`
`presumption that costs are to be awarded to the prevailing
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 393 Filed 09/01/23 Page 5 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`party.” Cherry v. Champion Int’l Corp., 186 F.3d 442, 446
`
`(4th Cir. 1999) (citing Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August,
`
`450 U.S. 346, 352 (1981); Teague v. Bakker, 35 F.3d 978,
`
`995–96 (4th Cir. 1994)); see also Oak Hall Cap & Gown Co.
`
`v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., 899 F.2d 291, 296 (4th
`
`Cir. 1990) (“[D]istrict courts may not depart from the
`
`normal practice of awarding fees to the prevailing party
`
`without first articulating some good reason for doing so.”)
`
`(citation and internal quotes omitted).
`
`Here, it is undisputed that Cree is the prevailing
`
`party, as established by the jury’s verdict (D.I. 342) and
`
`the Court’s judgment (D.I. 367). Rather, OptoLum argues
`
`that awarding costs in this case would be inequitable and
`
`that certain costs are not properly taxed.
`
`B.
`
`There Is No Injustice in Awarding Cree the
`Costs It Incurred Defending Itself In This
`Action
`
`The long record of this seven-year litigation
`
`indisputably shows that Cree has been forced to vigorously
`
`defend itself at every possible stage. Throughout, OptoLum
`
`has operated no differently than any other sophisticated
`
`litigant, represented by well-known local and national law
`
`firms and engaging numerous experts to assert their claims.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 393 Filed 09/01/23 Page 6 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`But now that the chips have fallen in Cree’s favor and
`
`costs to Cree are warranted, OptoLum conveniently attempts
`
`to portray struggling financial woes that would make it
`
`inequitable and unjust for the Court to tax costs against
`
`OptoLum. The Court should reject that effort.
`
`First, the Court should deny OptoLum’s argument as
`
`insufficiently supported. “Merely stating that one is of
`
`‘modest means’ is insufficient to overcome the presumption
`
`that the losing party must pay the prevailing party's
`
`costs.” Wyne v. Medo Indus., Inc., 329 F. Supp. 2d 584,
`
`588 (D. Md. 2004).1 Here, the sole support for OptoLum’s
`
`claim centers around a self-serving affidavit provided by a
`
`corporate representative. But that is not enough under the
`
`record and facts of this case.
`
`OptoLum’s “claim of poverty is not meaningfully
`
`
`1 Id. (citing Chapman v. Al Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1039
`(11th Cir. 2000) (noting that losing litigant's financial
`status is factor to be considered, but court must first
`require substantial documentation of true inability to pay
`costs); Briscoe v. City of Phila., Civ. A. No. 95–1852, 1998
`WL 52064, *2 (E.D.Pa. Jan. 28, 1998) (acknowledging that court
`may consider indigency but refusing to do so because plaintiff
`provided no documentation); McGuigan v. CAE Link Corp., 155
`F.R.D. 31, 35 (N.D.N.Y.1994) (refusing to reduce costs
`because plaintiff did not adequately document inability to
`pay).
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 393 Filed 09/01/23 Page 7 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`supported by the record” where “[t]he only evidence of an
`
`inability to pay [Cree’s] taxable costs is the affidavit of
`
`[a corporate representative] but there is no documentation
`
`to support h[er] statement” about OptoLum’s exhausted
`
`funds. Deep Fix, LLC v. Marine Well Containment Co., No.
`
`CV H-18-0948, 2020 WL 1845336, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 10,
`
`2020). Moreover, OptoLum’s allegations of its exhaustion
`
`of funds are “refuted by the record” as OptoLum “has
`
`demonstrated an ability to pay the costs required to pursue
`
`an appeal in this case, and to pay attorneys from multiple
`
`law firms to represent it before this Court and on appeal.”
`
`Id. In short, after continuously mounting many legal
`
`challenges against Cree over the years, OptoLum cannot
`
`claim injustice over costs that Cree was inevitably forced
`
`to incur defending itself.
`
`Second, OptoLum clearly has remaining assets in the
`
`form of patents that have not been legally adjudicated as
`
`invalid. Throughout this litigation, OptoLum has
`
`maintained that its patents, including those asserted
`
`against Cree, are worth millions of dollars. Any effort
`
`now on OptoLum’s part to show an element of injustice
`
`regarding poverty would require, at minimum, that OptoLum
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 393 Filed 09/01/23 Page 8 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`provide extensive documentation and explanation as to why
`
`its presumptive assets cannot be used to satisfy Cree’s
`
`reasonable costs. Simply put, under the facts of this case
`
`and this record, the only element of plausible injustice
`
`here would be if the Court were to not follow the legal
`
`“presumption in favor of an award of costs to the
`
`prevailing party.” Williams v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 609
`
`F.3d 622, 636 (4th Cir. 2010); Cherry, 186 F.3d at 446–48
`
`(ordering the plaintiff, an individual with “no independent
`
`income and [] no property in [plaintiff’s] own name,” to
`
`pay costs to the defendant corporation).
`
`OptoLum’s argument that it would be unjust to award
`
`costs should be rejected on this record.
`
`C.
`
`Cree’s Bill of Costs Is Proper
`
`Cree submitted a Bill of Cost for a total of
`
`$88,978.10. OptoLum contends that those costs should be
`
`reduced by $68,452.63. In contrast, Cree maintains that
`
`its requested costs are by no means unusual for a patent
`
`infringement case spanning almost seven years, especially
`
`one that includes a two-week trial, and a subsequent
`
`Federal Circuit appeal and argument. Cf. Bell v. Am. Int’l
`
`Indus., No. 1:17CV111, 2022 WL 4095903 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 7,
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 393 Filed 09/01/23 Page 9 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`2022) (Osteen, J.) (awarding $45,721.13 in costs for an
`
`asbestos litigation); Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Epic Games,
`
`Inc., 917 F. Supp. 2d 503, 515 (E.D.N.C. 2012) (awarding
`
`$277,852.13 in costs in breach of contract, copyright
`
`infringement, and trade secret misappropriation case).
`
`1.
`
`Hearing Transcripts and Rough Trial
`Transcripts
`
`OptoLum contends that transcripts for certain hearings
`
`and trial are not proper costs. But transcript costs are
`
`recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, which provides, in
`
`pertinent part, that “[a] judge or clerk of any court of
`
`the United States may tax as costs . . . [f]ees for
`
`printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily
`
`obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2).
`
`This Court is well-aware that numerous citations to
`
`hearing transcripts were provided in various pre-and-post
`
`trial briefs. Moreover, every transcript for trial was
`
`included in the subsequent appeal to the Federal Circuit.
`
`So, as this Court has previously recognized, “these
`
`transcripts were reasonably necessary to understand the
`
`contours of multiple oral orders contained therein” and
`
`address the challenges that OptoLum raised on appeal.
`
`Bell, 2022 WL 4095903, at *6.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 393 Filed 09/01/23 Page 10 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`OptoLum’s request should thus be summarily rejected.
`
`2.
`
`Deposition Transcripts
`
`OptoLum challenges the deposition transcript costs of
`
`witnesses who did not testify at trial or whose transcripts
`
`were not part of dispositive briefs. But that is not the
`
`test. As this Court has previously noted, the Fourth
`
`Circuit has not made “use of a transcript in a dispositive
`
`motion the test of whether the costs are taxable.” Bell,
`
`2022 WL 4095903, at *2. Instead, the deposition “only
`
`needs to have been reasonably necessary at the time of the
`
`taking of the deposition” to be taxable. Id. (citation
`
`omitted).
`
`OptoLum contests a total of eight depositions. Five of
`
`those depositions – Watson, Edmond, Vollers, Athalye,
`
`Baldwin – were noticed by OptoLum. Relating to those
`
`depositions, OptoLum seemingly takes the absurd position
`
`that depositions it noticed were not reasonably necessary
`
`at their time. This Court as specifically rejected that
`
`proposition. Bell, 2022 WL 4095903, at *3 (“Also
`
`reasonably necessary, indeed required, were the depositions
`
`of AII's experts because Plaintiff noticed these
`
`depositions.”).
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 393 Filed 09/01/23 Page 11 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`With respect to the other three depositions – Hill,
`
`Lenkszus, and Nelson – each of them was reasonably
`
`necessary at the time. When these depositions were taken,
`
`Cree was investigating issues concerning inventorship.
`
`Hill and Nelson were engineers hired by the inventor on the
`
`face of the patents to model the design that resulted in
`
`the patent, and Lenkszus was the attorney who prosecuted
`
`the asserted patents. As such, in order to evaluate the
`
`veracity of the inventor’s claim of inventorship, these
`
`depositions were necessary.
`
`Accordingly, in view of the above, this Court should
`
`“conclude[] that all depositions are taxable because they
`
`were reasonably necessary when taken,” and deny OptoLum’s
`
`request. Bell, 2022 WL 4095903, at *3.
`
`3.
`
`Copying and Printing
`
`OptoLum’s apparent position is that Cree incurred no
`
`printing charges at all over the entire seven-year saga of
`
`defending this litigation through a plethora of hearings,
`
`trial, and appeal. On its face, that assertion is devoid
`
`of merit. Nevertheless, despite all the printing charges
`
`that Cree incurred over the years, the request in the bill
`
`of cost, for convenience and in an effort to minimize
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 393 Filed 09/01/23 Page 12 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`disputes, was narrowly tailored specifically to those
`
`arising from trial, including the printing of trial
`
`exhibits that Cree submitted to the Court’s staff as
`
`requested when the exhibits were admitted into the record.
`
`These costs were therefore plainly necessary and should be
`
`allowed.
`
`4.
`
`Exemplification
`
`OptoLum contends that the $16,268.75 charge for
`
`demonstrative graphics should be excluded.
`
`This Court’s bill of cost guide explicitly states that
`
`exemplification costs “include the costs for producing a
`
`demonstrative aid.” Bill of Costs Guide at F. “A party
`
`may recover costs for creating demonstrative exhibits . .
`
`. if the exhibits were ‘necessarily obtained for use in the
`
`case.’” Silicon Knights, Inc., 917 F. Supp. 2d at 514. In
`
`making this determination courts consider if “the
`
`exemplification was vital to the presentation of the
`
`information, or whether it was . . . merely a convenience
`
`or, worse, an extravagance. To do so, courts may consider
`
`‘whether the nature and context of the information being
`
`presented genuinely called for the means of illustration
`
`that the party employed.’” Id. (cleaned up and internal
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 393 Filed 09/01/23 Page 13 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`citations omitted).
`
`As this Court may recall, this patent-infringement
`
`action concerned complicated infringement theories of
`
`thermal dissipation inside LED light bulbs, including the
`
`construction of the LEDs themselves – the very issue that
`
`was appealed to the Federal Circuit. To aid the Court’s
`
`recollection, Cree includes below a few exemplary
`
`demonstrative aids that were used throughout trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 393 Filed 09/01/23 Page 14 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`yo
`
`— Common Sense
`
`‘303 Patent
`
`ttt Opte Lum ra
`ATT bib wait be Jin ifrar
`
`Aue)
`
`in Size 10 Comsact
`
`
`PTX-621
`
`PTX-619
`
`
`
` PTX-635
`to be a chimneyinside globe.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cree bulbs designed to
`conduct heat to a heat sink.
`
`The heat conducts to fins
`outside the globe,
`then out to the atmosphere.
`
`The Cree bulbs are NOT
`specifically designed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`- 13 -
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 393 Filed 09/01/23 Page 15 of 21
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 393 Filed 09/01/23 Page 15 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The nature and context of the information being
`
`presented in this case necessarily required means of
`
`illustration that would allow a jury to comprehend the
`
`relevant scientific principles and legal theories. Indeed,
`
`“[i]It is especially important in patent cases, because of
`
`their complexity, to present evidence in a manner that can
`
`be easily understood by a judge and jury,” so
`
`“demonstrative evidence at trial in these types of cases is
`
`therefore important for the fact-finder.” Merck Sharp &
`
`Dohme Pharms., SRL v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., No. CIVA 07-
`
`1596 (GEB), 2010 WL 1381413, at *5 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2010)
`
`(allowing costs of $89,026.55 for exemplification which
`
`included preparing demonstrative exhibits).
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 393 Filed 09/01/23 Page 16 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`Demonstrative aids in this case thus required, for
`
`instance, (1) that Cree educate the jury on the physics
`
`behind heat dissipation, (2) that Cree illustrate OptoLum’s
`
`theories (which themselves relied on highly graphical heat
`
`simulations) and distinguish from them, and (3) that Cree
`
`show how the various components of the accused LED
`
`lightbulbs worked and how they actually dissipated heat.
`
`It is clear from the face of the supporting invoice
`
`produced, along with the bill of costs, that Cree is not
`
`merely capturing all of the time spent by its trial
`
`graphics vendor during trial. Instead, Cree is
`
`specifically requesting for the time spent only for
`
`creation of graphic demonstratives. These charges are
`
`reasonable. Cornell Univ. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2009 WL
`
`1405208, *2 (N.D. N.Y. 2009) (Rader J., sitting by
`
`designation) (rejecting argument that “charge for trial
`
`graphics is unreasonable and should be reduced to $114,851”
`
`and noting that “[t]rial graphics provide tremendous
`
`assistance to the sitting judge and jury” and that “graphic
`
`artists are highly skilled artisans trained at creating
`
`highly technical demonstratives”).
`
`Accordingly, Cree’s requested cost are proper and
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 393 Filed 09/01/23 Page 17 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`OptoLum’s argument should be rejected.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Cree respectfully requests
`
`that the Court deny OptoLum’s motion and sustain the
`
`reasonable costs Cree incurred in defense of this
`
`litigation as the prevailing party.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 393 Filed 09/01/23 Page 18 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted, September 1, 2023.
`
`By: /s/ Blaney Harper
`Blaney Harper
`JONES DAY
`51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001-2113
`Telephone: (202) 879-3939
`Facsimile: (202) 626-1700
`Email: bharper@jonesday.com
`
`
`/s/ Peter D. Siddoway
`Peter D. Siddoway
`NC State Bar No. 45647
`SAGE PATENT GROUP
`2301 Sugar Bush Road,
`Suite 200
`Raleigh, NC, 27612
`Telephone: 984-219-3358
`Facsimile: (984) 538-0416
`Email: psiddoway@sagepat.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Cree, Inc.
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 393 Filed 09/01/23 Page 19 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`GREENSBORO DIVISION
`
`OPTOLUM, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CREE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Civ. Action No. 1:17-cv-
`00687
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
`
`I hereby certify that the foregoing complies with the
`
`limitations set forth in Local Rule 7.3(d) by not exceeding
`
`6,250 words, including the body of the memorandum, headings
`
`and footnotes, but excluding the caption, signature lines,
`
`certificate of service, cover page, and index.
`
`/s/ Peter D. Siddoway
`Peter D. Siddoway
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 393 Filed 09/01/23 Page 20 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`
`OPTOLUM, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CREE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Civ. Action No. 1:17-cv-
`00687
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on September 1, 2023, I
`
`electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the
`
`Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification
`
`to counsel of record.
`
`/s/ Peter D. Siddoway
`Peter D. Siddoway
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 393 Filed 09/01/23 Page 21 of 21
`
`
`
`
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
