throbber
Paper No. 41
`Entered: August 18, 2014
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
` 1 RECORD OF ORAL HEARING
` 2 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` 3 - - - - - -
` 4 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` 5 - - - - - -
` 7 ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS
` 8 Petitioner
`
` 9 v.
`
` 10 VERINATA HEALTH, INC.
` 11 Patent Owner
` 12 - - - - - -
` 13 IPR2013-00276 and IPR2013-00277
` 14 Patent 8,318,430
` 15 Application No. 13/368,035
` 16 Technology Center 1600
` 17 - - - - - -
` 18 Oral Hearing Held: July 16, 2014
` 19
` 20 Before LORA M. GREEN, TONI R. SCHEINER, and RAMA G. ELLURU,
` 21 Administrative Patent Judges.
`
` 22 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on
` 23 Wednesday, July 16, 2014 at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
` 24 Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia at 2:00 p.m.,
` 25 in Courtroom A.
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00276 and IPR2013-00277
`Patent No. 8,318,430
`
`
` 1 APPEARANCES:
` 2 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
` 3 GREG H. GARDELLA, ESQ.
` 4 KEVIN B. LAURENCE, ESQ.
` 5 DIANNA DeVORE, Ph.D., ESQ.
` 6 Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier
` 7 & Neustadt, L.L.P.
` 8 1940 Duke Street
` 9 Alexandria, Virginia 22314
` 10 703-413-3000
` 11 ggardella@oblon.com
` 12
` 13 ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
` 14 MICHAEL T. ROSATO, ESQ.
` 15 STEVE PARMALEE, ESQ.
` 16 ALLISON M. De WISPELAERE, Ph.D., ESQ.
` 17 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
` 18 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
` 19 Seattle, Washington 98104
` 20 206-883-2529
` 21
` 22
` 23
` 24
` 25
` 2
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00276 and IPR2013-00277
`Patent No. 8,318,430
`
` 1 P R O C E E D I N G S
` 2 (2:00 p.m.)
` 3 JUDGE GREEN: Good afternoon. Please be seated.
` 4 Welcome everyone. This is the final oral hearing
` 5 for cases IPR-2013-00276 and IPR-2013-00277. The Board
` 6 instituted inter partes review in these proceedings on
` 7 October 25th, 2013. Both proceedings involve patent
` 8 8,318,430.
` 9 At this time we would like counsel to introduce
` 10 yourselves and your colleagues, beginning with Petitioner.
` 11 MR. GARDELLA: Good afternoon, Your Honor, Greg
` 12 Gardella from Oblon Spivak on behalf of Petitioner. I am
` 13 joined by Dianna DeVore of Ariosa Diagnostics, Kevin
` 14 Laurence, also of Oblon Spivak, and Sally Brashears of
` 15 Convergent Law Group.
` 16 JUDGE GREEN: Okay. Thank you. Patent Owner?
` 17 MR. ROSATO: Thank you, Your Honor, Michael Rosato
` 18 for the Patent Owner. I have my colleague Steve Parmalee and
` 19 Allison de Wispelaere.
` 20 JUDGE GREEN: Thank you.
` 21 Welcome to the Board.
` 22 Consistent with our previous order, each party has
` 23 one hour to present their arguments. Petitioner will proceed
` 24 first to present its case as to the challenged claims and may
` 25 reserve rebuttal time for its case. Thereafter, Patent Owner
`
` 3
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00276 and IPR2013-00277
`Patent No. 8,318,430
`
` 1 will respond to Petitioner's case.
` 2 Counsel for Petitioner, do you have a copy of your
` 3 demonstratives for the court reporter, opposing counsel, and
` 4 the panel?
` 5 MR. GARDELLA: We do, Your Honor.
` 6 JUDGE GREEN: If you would provide that. Then
` 7 would you like to reserve rebuttal time?
` 8 MR. GARDELLA: Please, Your Honor, 40 minutes,
` 9 please.
` 10 JUDGE GREEN: 40 minutes?
` 11 MR. GARDELLA: Yes.
` 12 JUDGE GREEN: Thank you. And you may proceed when
` 13 you are ready.
` 14 MR. GARDELLA: Thank you, Your Honor.
` 15 So to kick off the discussion, I would like to
` 16 first discuss for a bit the technologies which would be known
` 17 to a person skilled in the art, so a distinction is useful to
` 18 recognize between the molecular biology on the one hand and
` 19 working with the actual molecules, running the actual tests,
` 20 designing the actual tests, on the one hand, and the
` 21 bioinformatics piece, which is on the tail end. And that is
` 22 largely number crunching.
` 23 So the bioinformatics piece is not really
` 24 implicated by the combination, not in any principal respect.
` 25 The combination principally implicates the molecular biology,
`
` 4
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00276 and IPR2013-00277
`Patent No. 8,318,430
`
` 1 how you design the tests, what tests would work together, how
` 2 one could modify a test.
` 3 So as we see in the background of the invention,
` 4 it is described that the need which gave rise to the putative
` 5 invention is a need for an approach or a method which
` 6 selectively enriches nucleotides by massively parallel
` 7 sequencing to the end of detecting aneuploids.
` 8 And, again, and as we will see, it is the
` 9 molecular biology piece which is really central to the
` 10 combinations. And this translates in this field to wet lab
` 11 experience.
` 12 Now I would like to introduce the experts.
` 13 Professor Morton from Harvard University.
` 14 JUDGE ELLURU: Counsel, could you please refer to
` 15 the -- identify the slide number that you are referring to?
` 16 MR. GARDELLA: Certainly. My -- my copy of the
` 17 slides are not numbered. This should be number 3. Is that
` 18 correct?
` 19 MR. LAURENCE: It is Exhibit 1048.
` 20 MR. GARDELLA: You are referring to the
` 21 demonstrative slide number?
` 22 JUDGE ELLURU: Yes.
` 23 MR. GARDELLA: This should be slide number 3.
` 24 Could I get a copy of ours as numbered, so I can make that's
` 25 right? Good.
`
` 5
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00276 and IPR2013-00277
`Patent No. 8,318,430
`
` 1 So we're on slide 3.
` 2 So Professor Morton has published extensively in
` 3 prenatal genetic testing. And importantly Professor Morton
` 4 has run biochemical -- excuse me, a molecular biology or wet
` 5 lab that actually performs the test, actually uses the
` 6 equipment.
` 7 Professor Nussbaum is to the same effect. He
` 8 likewise has supervised a wet lab. And he is the chief of
` 9 genomic medicine at the University of California, San
` 10 Francisco.
` 11 So both of these professors have published
` 12 extensively, again, in the field of prenatal genetic testing.
` 13 And they have familiarity with the molecular biology aspects
` 14 of the test, which as we will see that's primarily what's
` 15 implicated by the issues that have arisen in this case.
` 16 So now in contrast Associate Professor Butte, a
` 17 relatively young fellow in comparison to our experts, he,
` 18 with respect, seems to be quite competent in the field of
` 19 bioinformatics. That's what he has done. When it comes to
` 20 actually the wet lab side, handling the molecules, designing
` 21 the tests, running the tests, he has not actually supervised
` 22 such a biochem or wet lab.
` 23 Cynthia Morton, our Harvard expert, is familiar
` 24 with Dr. Butte from earlier work. She was familiar that he
` 25 did not have familiarity with the wet lab aspects of the
`
` 6
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00276 and IPR2013-00277
`Patent No. 8,318,430
`
` 1 technology. And Dr. Butte during his deposition acknowledged
` 2 as much. So this will help explain to some degree the
` 3 positions that we see in which two experts with due respect
` 4 were head scratchers.
` 5 So further to the point of this distinction
` 6 between bioinformatics knowledge, on the one hand, versus
` 7 knowledge of the actual sequencing techniques, on the other,
` 8 Dr. Butte was presented during his deposition a four-page
` 9 brochure. This is Exhibit 1010.
` 10 This is an important document in this case because
` 11 it is relied upon by, for instance, Professor Nussbaum at
` 12 paragraph 21 of his declaration as showing that, you know, as
` 13 to the motivation to combine and the knowledge that this
` 14 would be readily doable, the proposed combination, that is,
` 15 and that it would be advantageous, he could have just used
` 16 off-the-shelf systems to do this.
` 17 So now in response to questioning on this exhibit,
` 18 which is drafted to the customer, which would be someone in a
` 19 wet lab, say a first year post-doc in a wet lab, Dr. Butte --
` 20 and we, of course, have to take him at his word -- indicated
` 21 he couldn't even begin to guess how long it would take to
` 22 interpret this document fully.
` 23 And the second quote is to the same effect. So,
` 24 you know, perhaps this is why the positions that we're about
` 25 to see, there is such a difference of opinion between our
`
` 7
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00276 and IPR2013-00277
`Patent No. 8,318,430
`
` 1 experts, again, just couldn't make sense of some of the
` 2 allegations Dr. Butte was making.
` 3 Let's cover now the claimed subject matter. One
` 4 useful way to conceptualize the claims here is to think of
` 5 them in terms of, well, on the firsthand, you have to detect
` 6 aneuploidy by sequencing 100, at least, non-random alleles.
` 7 And then what else does the claim require? Well,
` 8 it essentially requires counting them, so massively parallel
` 9 sequencing does that and indexing. And as we will see in the
` 10 prior art as skilled artisans knew, as Professor Nussbaum
` 11 did, that this was off-the-shelf technology at the time.
` 12 So how does that map to the references in
` 13 question?
` 14 And this is -- what I am about to cover now is
` 15 going to be an important theme that will come up several
` 16 times during today's presentation. Dhallan was 2003. So
` 17 back in that time frame there were only first and second
` 18 generation sequencing technologies available. But even then
` 19 Dhallan proposed to Dr. Butte's count 21 different techniques
` 20 by which you could detect non-random alleles.
` 21 Shoemaker discusses the off-the-shelf, you know,
` 22 then, so Shoemaker is 2007. Illumina's genome analyzer was
` 23 available then, so it discusses the use of that. So
` 24 Shoemaker stands amongst other things for the proposition
` 25 that there is off-the-shelf MPS technologies that one could
`
` 8
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00276 and IPR2013-00277
`Patent No. 8,318,430
`
` 1 use.
` 2 And now on the last element here, the indexing,
` 3 Shoemaker was '07. It talks about Illumina, which was again
` 4 at the time the benchmark system.
` 5 Shoemaker is one year before the Illumina kit,
` 6 essentially expansion of the genome analyzer platform, which
` 7 is manifest in this Exhibit 1010. This came out in 2008.
` 8 December 2008 is the date shown, I believe, on this last
` 9 page.
` 10 So Binladen is not here simply because Binladen
` 11 chose to make his own tags. So that's a perfectly acceptable
` 12 way to do it as well. And we will discuss why one skilled in
` 13 the art would have had no difficulty making this combination
` 14 with, you know, custom tags.
` 15 JUDGE ELLURU: Counsel, can you point me to where
` 16 in the petition you discuss the reason to combine these
` 17 references?
` 18 MR. GARDELLA: I believe I can, Your Honor.
` 19 Now, would it be acceptable if I pointed to
` 20 declarations to which we cite?
` 21 JUDGE ELLURU: That's acceptable. I would also
` 22 like to see where you cite those declarations in the
` 23 petition.
` 24 MR. GARDELLA: So could I get a copy of the
` 25 petition from co-counsel? In order to give her a moment to
`
` 9
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00276 and IPR2013-00277
`Patent No. 8,318,430
`
` 1 grab that, could I come back to your question?
` 2 JUDGE ELLURU: That's fine.
` 3 MR. GARDELLA: So to make sure we -- could you
` 4 just tee those up for me? And I will direct Your Honor to --
` 5 well, so pull up paragraph 21 of Nussbaum and paragraph 38 of
` 6 Morton's. Actually I guess paragraph 21 of Nussbaum and the
` 7 petition would suffice. So when you have those ready, I will
` 8 answer Judge Elluru's question.
` 9 So while those materials are being prepared, we
` 10 will move on, unless the Board has any other questions they
` 11 would like us to field.
` 12 So Patent Owner had three primary contentions in
` 13 its response. And I emphasize "had" because on inspection of
` 14 their demonstratives, it does appear as though the second
` 15 two, which were the most significant head scratchers to our
` 16 experts, it appears that opposing counsel is going to
` 17 distance themselves substantially from them. These are
` 18 scarcely mentioned in the slides. But, again, so to the
` 19 extent there is kind of a new focus in today's argumentation
` 20 from opposing counsel, I will deal with that on rebuttal.
` 21 With regard to issue number 1, that was made
` 22 before. And that's still an argument. We will address that
` 23 first.
` 24 So with regard to the locater elements, most
` 25 fundamentally any first year post-doc in a wet lab would
`
` 10
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00276 and IPR2013-00277
`Patent No. 8,318,430
`
` 1 understand that locator elements or tags are -- I mean that's
` 2 what they are, the nucleotide tags that are used to identify
` 3 a source of a sample.
` 4 And in that regard the different sources can be
` 5 different cells. They can be cells taken at different times.
` 6 Both of those are discussed in Shoemaker. And they can also
` 7 be, you know, consistent with the teaching of Dhallan, which
` 8 says take blood samples from multiple different pregnant
` 9 women naturally. If a first year post-doc even would
` 10 understand that, well, the sample tags in that circumstance
` 11 would naturally be used to track to individuals as opposed to
` 12 cells taken from the same individual, perhaps at a different
` 13 time, as in Shoemaker.
` 14 And just as significantly, if one considers the
` 15 embodiment in Shoemaker in which there is one cell in a
` 16 particular assay -- excuse me, one cell in a well, and that
` 17 embodiment is described in Shoemaker as illustrated and
` 18 conceded by Professor Butte during his deposition. And
` 19 that's the quote we have here on the screen.
` 20 In that embodiment, you have one cell per well, so
` 21 necessarily each cell is going to track to an individual.
` 22 You don't have an agglomeration of cells.
` 23 So that embodiment is probably sufficient to
` 24 address the issue. Let me ask co-counsel, are we ready to
` 25 respond to Judge Elluru's question?
`
` 11
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00276 and IPR2013-00277
`Patent No. 8,318,430
`
` 1 MS. DeVORE: I have a first cite for Judge Elluru.
` 2 MR. GARDELLA: So do you have a copy of the
` 3 petition for me?
` 4 MS. DeVORE: I do have a copy of the petition.
` 5 MR. GARDELLA: Could you put that up? Once that
` 6 is queued, I will turn to that.
` 7 Okay. So actually I will address their three
` 8 arguments and then for cohesiveness of the presentation, I
` 9 will return to Your Honor's question.
` 10 So the second issue raised in the response, the
` 11 second primary argument is that in the combined method, you
` 12 would physically combine the fluoro label of Dhallan. You
` 13 would use that specific embodiment and in doing so you would
` 14 cleave off the tag. Our experts' response to that was
` 15 essentially no one would do that.
` 16 As a matter of fact, I was sitting next to
` 17 Professor Morton when she said it in essentially that tone in
` 18 the deposition. This is something that just no one who knows
` 19 this field who has actually worked with the equipment would
` 20 ever do.
` 21 Further to that, Professor Morton explains that in
` 22 Dhallan there is essentially two buckets of techniques. Some
` 23 require fluorescent or radiographic labeling; and others do
` 24 not. I will ask the Board to turn its attention to paragraph
` 25 18 of Morton's declaration.
`
` 12
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00276 and IPR2013-00277
`Patent No. 8,318,430
`
` 1 And therein we have a description that as of 2002
` 2 and 2003, many techniques require this sort of labeling, but,
` 3 however, many other techniques do not. And I won't bore Your
` 4 Honors with it, but she lists a couple. This fragmentation,
` 5 fragmentation of DNA in extension to incorporate labels is
` 6 one. A technique that does not require the use of
` 7 restriction enzymes or fluorescent labels. Another is in
` 8 vitro transcription of the loci followed by RNA, cleavage and
` 9 detection, inspection. And there are three others listed by
` 10 Professor Morton in her declaration.
` 11 So, so as to this --
` 12 JUDGE ELLURU: Counsel, when you get to the
` 13 question about the identification of the petition of where
` 14 the reason to combine is located, could you also point me to
` 15 where you talk about, if you do and where it is, where you
` 16 talk about the Dhallan embodiments that do not require the
` 17 use of a restriction enzyme?
` 18 MR. GARDELLA: You know, as to that, Your Honor,
` 19 again, this was a head scratcher. This is not something we
` 20 expected. And so this is something we addressed in the
` 21 second round in the reply.
` 22 So our experts thought with respect that it is not
` 23 something they needed to explain, that one wouldn't use the
` 24 restriction enzyme embodiment, but rather you would use a
` 25 different embodiment.
`
` 13
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00276 and IPR2013-00277
`Patent No. 8,318,430
`
` 1 So even more fundamentally this discussion of
` 2 Dhallan is anchored back in 2003. If one steps forward to
` 3 2008, and this is what Professor Nussbaum did in paragraph 21
` 4 of his original declaration, he said, well, in 2008 one of
` 5 the reasons why this would be so obvious is I would know that
` 6 I could implement this whole thing, the whole combined method
` 7 with off-the-shelf equipment and techniques. And he refers,
` 8 of course, to Exhibit 1010 amongst other information.
` 9 But relying on that, he says, well, it is known at
` 10 that point in time that it is all off-the-shelf. Again, that
` 11 is more than a year prior to the filing date.
` 12 Lastly, and then hopefully we will get to Your
` 13 Honor's question, the third argument that they raise -- and,
` 14 again, this is one that I expect you are going to see
` 15 opposing counsel is going to distance himself from now -- is
` 16 that the Binladen sample tags, you know, those are not useful
` 17 because Binladen talks about mitochondrial DNA, as opposed to
` 18 cell-free DNA.
` 19 This likewise our experts also thought was really
` 20 a head scratcher. Here again, any first year post-doc, at
` 21 least if they are in a wet lab, if they have the relevant
` 22 experience, would know that in this respect DNA is just DNA.
` 23 Once you have it isolated, it amplifies the exact same way.
` 24 So a sequence is just a sequence.
` 25 So this, I don't expect you are going to hear much
`
` 14
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00276 and IPR2013-00277
`Patent No. 8,318,430
`
` 1 about during opposing counsel's argument. And I see my
` 2 co-counsel is still working a bit. Are you ready?
` 3 (Discussion off the record.)
` 4 MR. GARDELLA: So in response to your question,
` 5 Your Honor, before we get to essentially the final point of
` 6 our case-in-chief, and I realize I might go a couple minutes
` 7 over the 20 minutes. Is that okay? I assume you will take
` 8 it out --
` 9 JUDGE GREEN: It is your rebuttal time. Use it
` 10 however you want to.
` 11 MR. GARDELLA: It is zero sum game, right. I am
` 12 going to direct Your Honor in response to Judge Elluru's
` 13 question, page 17 of the petition, a scientist in the field
` 14 would have had strong incentive to combine these techniques
` 15 because doing so would clearly result in enhanced
` 16 productivity and increased throughput of sample analysis.
` 17 Nussbaum paragraph 36.
` 18 And so now I am going to turn to the Nussbaum
` 19 declaration, paragraph 36. And so in paragraph 36 this,
` 20 importantly, this comes after his discussion of what one
` 21 skilled in the art would know from paragraphs 13 through 25.
` 22 He goes through various just contextual information that
` 23 anybody skilled in the art would know.
` 24 And in paragraph 21 in this lead-up section, he
` 25 talks about how in 2008 this was widespread, that he would be
`
` 15
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00276 and IPR2013-00277
`Patent No. 8,318,430
`
` 1 well able to -- to use off-the-shelf techniques such as those
` 2 shown in Exhibit 1010 to implement the technique.
` 3 Now, in paragraph 36, and that's the pin cite,
` 4 which is provided in the declaration. And I am going to move
` 5 you actually to paragraph 109, which is cited on page -- what
` 6 of the petition?
` 7 MS. DeVORE: 41.
` 8 MR. GARDELLA: -- on page 41. And this is the
` 9 correspondence of the combination of Shoemaker and Dhallan
` 10 and Binladen. We have a cite directly to Nussbaum at 109 to
` 11 111.
` 12 And here Professor Nussbaum says, "I have reviewed
` 13 Shoemaker and Dhallan and Binladen. It is my view that the
` 14 combination discloses each element and that one skilled in
` 15 the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings
` 16 as the combination would clearly result in enhanced
` 17 productivity and increased throughput of sample analysis."
` 18 Further to that same point, Professor Nussbaum
` 19 says this at 23, and this is, this is in that background
` 20 section leading up to this. He says what's on the screen.
` 21 "So as a molecular geneticist in 2008, I would have the
` 22 ability to order a commercially available kit for production
` 23 of enriched and indexed libraries, which I could have
` 24 analyzed on a commercially-available massively parallel
` 25 sequencing platform sold by the same vendor."
`
` 16
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00276 and IPR2013-00277
`Patent No. 8,318,430
`
` 1 I expect that opposing counsel is going to, you
` 2 know, complain, if you will, about our "reliance" on
` 3 Exhibit 110, so let's just address that. We did in the
` 4 petition precisely what I believe should have been done. We
` 5 relied upon the more detailed patent documents as the primary
` 6 references.
` 7 The relatively short product brochure and other
` 8 information, which demonstrates what was off-the-shelf
` 9 technology at the time, this was presented as the level of
` 10 skill in the art. And our expert properly looked at that
` 11 level of ordinary skill in the art and what would have been
` 12 known by a person skilled in the art to determine that the
` 13 combination would, in fact, have been advisable.
` 14 So I would like to, as my last point, at least for
` 15 my case-in-chief, to take you to page 2 of Exhibit 110. And
` 16 this is, again, what Professor Nussbaum cited.
` 17 And this is by Illumina. This is -- and, by the
` 18 way, Illumina is the Patent Owner. Illumina purchased
` 19 Verinata. Illumina also was at the time the industry
` 20 standard. So this is not some small outfit whose marketing
` 21 literature, you know, has perhaps a -- carries with it some
` 22 puffery. This is Illumina itself.
` 23 Here in the box we see at right, so this comes
` 24 from the first page of the Exhibit 110, fast,
` 25 high-throughput; faster. Second bullet point, cost-effective
`
` 17
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00276 and IPR2013-00277
`Patent No. 8,318,430
`
` 1 method; cheaper. Next bullet point, high-quality data;
` 2 better. And next bullet point, simplified analysis. Faster,
` 3 cheaper, better, simpler.
` 4 Off-the-shelf as of 2008. That was the proper
` 5 analysis. That was the proper use of Exhibit 110. The
` 6 arguments that have come back, again, to our way of thinking,
` 7 and with due respect, are head scratchers. So that's how we
` 8 got to kind of a focus on what was just known to, again, to
` 9 our way of thinking, to any first year post-doc. That's the
` 10 reason why we're talking so much about this.
` 11 But the case was presented properly. And we
` 12 submit that there are no defects whatsoever in terms of the
` 13 manner in which it was presented.
` 14 Anything else, co-counsel?
` 15 Judge E

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