throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED,1
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-002122
`U.S. Patent No. 7,974,339 B2
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`CONTINGENT MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Vedanti Systems Limited has assigned the patent to the current patent owner,
`Vedanti Licensing Limited.
`2 Case IPR2016-00215 has been consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of Its Contingent Motion to Amend
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`The Amendments Add Terms Whose Plain Meanings Are Easily
`
`Petitioner’s Obviousness Section Misstates Patent Owner’s
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. ii
`I.
`Understood and Are Supported by the Original Application......................... 1
`II.
`The Proposed Substitute Claims are Definite ............................................... 4
`III.
`Arguments .................................................................................................... 5
`IV. Petitioner’s Arguments that Substitute Claims 14 and 15 Are
`Unpatentable Is Based on Misreadings of the Prior Art ................................ 7
`A.
`Spriggs Fails to Teach or Suggest Different Aspect Ratios ................. 7
`B.
`and Shin Do Not Render the Claims Obvious..................................... 8
`a Non-Predetermined Set of Pixel Data from Each Region ......................... 10
`A.
`Predetermined Set of Pixel Data from Each Region ......................... 10
`B.
`is Flawed .......................................................................................... 10
`
`Petitioner Incorrectly Argues that the Art of Record Teaches Selecting
`
`
`
`V.
`
`Petitioner’s Asserted Combinations of Spriggs, Golin/Keith,
`
`Spriggs Fails to Teach or Suggest Selecting a Non-
`
`Petitioner’s Asserted Combination of Spriggs and Golin/Keith
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of Its Contingent Motion to Amend
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., IPR2014-
`00441 (PTAB Oct. 30, 2014) .............................................................................. 1
`
`Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ................................................. 2
`
`Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027 (PTAB June 11,
`2013) .................................................................................................................. 6
`
`In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ........................................................ 11
`
`In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008 (C.C.P.A. 1977) ....................................................... 4
`
`In re Nuvasive, Inc., No. 2015-1670, 2016 WL 7118526 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7,
`2016) .................................................................................................................. 9
`
`Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015 ..................................... 4
`
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 327 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................ 3
`
`MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc., IPR2015-00040 (PTAB July 15, 2015) ......... 6
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................... 3
`
`Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................ 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`Statutes
`Other Authorities
`
`MPEP ........................................................................................................... 3, 4, 11
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of Its Contingent Motion to Amend
`
`
`
` This Reply responds to Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s
`
`Contingent Motion to Amend.
`
`I. The Amendments Add Terms Whose Plain Meanings Are Easily
`Understood and Are Supported by the Original Application
`
` Petitioner wrongly argues that “Vedanti’s Motion should be denied because
`
`a proper claim construction was not provided.” (Opp. at 5.) A claim construction
`
`may be required when the meaning of a new term in a proposed substitute claim
`
`reasonably can be anticipated as subject to dispute. See Corning Optical
`
`Commc’ns RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., IPR2014-00441, at 4 (PTAB Oct. 30,
`
`2014) (Paper 19). Petitioner fails to point out any truly reasonable disputes and
`
`instead manufactures them.
`
` “Aspect ratio” is well-understood: it is a width to height ratio of the number
`
`of pixels in a region. As the Patent Owner pointed out in its motion to amend,
`
`Figure 10 of the applications discloses regions that can be “(7 x 3), (5 x 6), (5 x 4),
`
`(7 x 7), (2 x 3), (2 x 7),” (Exs. 1002 and 1018 at ¶ 67 and Fig. 10), which results in
`
`aspect ratios of 7x3, 5x6, 5x4, 1x1, 2x3, and 2x7. This confirmed that the Patent
`
`Owner interprets aspect ratio in accordance with its ordinary meaning. This same
`
`specification support also provides written description and enablement support.
`
`Contrary to Petitioner’s belief, (Opp. at 5–8), the specification does not need to use
`
`the precise words of the claim to satisfy section 112. Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of Its Contingent Motion to Amend
`
`
`
`1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“[T]he prior application need not describe the
`
`claimed subject matter in exactly the same terms as used in the claims . . . .”).
`
`Petitioner also contends that the specification “merely” discloses matrices of pixel
`
`data having “different sizes,” and that “‘[d]ifferent size’ does not require different
`
`aspect ratios.” (Opp. at 6.) Petitioner ignores, however, that Figure 10 discloses
`
`five regions having different aspect ratios of “(7 x 3), (5 x 6), (5 x 4), (7 x 7), (2 x
`
`3), (2 x 7).” (Exs. 1002 and 1018 at ¶ 67 and Fig. 10.) Petitioner’s argument that
`
`this example does not “isolate two different aspect ratios as such” is confusing:
`
`Figure 10 “isolates” five different regions having five different aspect ratios, which
`
`is an unambiguous disclosure of the “at least two regions having different aspect
`
`ratios” limitation.
`
` As to “non-predetermined,” Petitioner admits that the “ordinary meaning” of
`
`the term is not determined beforehand. (Opp. at 9 (“The scope of ‘non-
`
`predetermined’ could refer to ‘not known ahead of time’ based on its ordinary
`
`meaning . . . .” (emphasis added); “the ordinary meaning of ‘nonpredetermined’ []
`
`signifies something not already determined before a selection event occurs.”).)
`
`Petitioner also concedes that the “random” pixel selection embodiment is an
`
`“example” of the “non-predetermined” limitation. (Id.) Petitioner attempts to sow
`
`confusion, however, by arguing that “it could” be construed as limited to this
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of Its Contingent Motion to Amend
`
`
`
`“random” pixel selection example. But limiting an otherwise broad term to the
`
`preferred embodiment is improper under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005), and certainly under the BRI standard. Finally, Petitioner’s
`
`admission that the “random” selection embodiment in the specification is an
`
`example of “non-predetermined” is fatal to its written description and enablement
`
`arguments.
`
` Petitioner’s characterization of “non-predetermined” as a negative limitation
`
`is immaterial. (Opp. at 7.) As an initial matter, it is unclear whether “non-
`
`predetermined” is a negative limitation because it does not preclude predetermined
`
`selections from also being made.3 But even if the term was a negative limitation,
`
`Petitioner admits that a negative limitation can have proper written description
`
`support where the disclosure “specif[ies] alternatives where applicable,” and that
`
`here, the specification does, in fact, disclose alternatives to non-predetermined
`
`
`
` 3
`
` The proposal is an open-ended “comprising” claim that requires “selecting a non-
`
`predetermined set of pixel data”; it does not exclude systems that also include
`
`selecting a predetermined set of pixel data. See Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg.,
`
`L.P., 327 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also MPEP § 2111.03.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of Its Contingent Motion to Amend
`
`
`
`pixel selections. (Id.) Indeed, Petitioner correctly explains that in addition to
`
`disclosing an example of non-predetermined pixel selection (“‘random’
`
`selection”), the patent’s original specification discloses several “predetermined”
`
`pixel selections. (Id.) Because alternative elements are positively recited in the
`
`specification, they may be excluded in the claims. See Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc.,
`
`805 F.3d 1350, 1356–57 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“We hold that [Santarus, Inc. v. Par
`
`Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)] did not create a heightened
`
`written description standard for negative claim limitations and that properly
`
`described, alternative features are sufficient to satisfy the written description
`
`standard of § 112, paragraph 1 for negative claim limitations.”); In re Johnson, 558
`
`F.2d 1008, 1019 (C.C.P.A. 1977) (“[T]he ‘written description’ . . . supported the
`
`claims in the absence of the limitation, and that specification, having described the
`
`whole, necessarily described the part remaining.”); see also MPEP § 2173.05(i)
`
`(“If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be
`
`explicitly excluded in the claims.”).
`
`II. The Proposed Substitute Claims are Definite
`
` Petitioner argues that proposed dependent claim 15 is indefinite because it is
`
`“not possible” for dependent claim 15 to “require[] a frame to have both uniform
`
`and non-uniform matrix size data at the same time.” (Opp. at 8.) Petitioner
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of Its Contingent Motion to Amend
`
`
`
`misinterprets the claims. Claim 14 requires “at least two regions having different
`
`aspect ratios” (emphasis added). It does not require that all of the regions have
`
`different aspect ratios. And claim 15 does not require that all of the matrix size
`
`data that is transmitted be “uniform” matrix size data. Some of the regions can
`
`have different aspect ratios, and some of the regions can have the same aspect
`
`ratios as well as being of uniform size. Indeed, the specification discloses that
`
`matrix size system 204 can generate both uniform and “nonsymmetrical matrix
`
`dimensional data, such as NxM dimensions where ‘N’ and ‘M’ are integers that are
`
`not equivalent.” (Exs. 1002 and 1018 at ¶ 33 (emphasis added).) Figure 10 (and
`
`accompanying text) discloses that these NxM dimensions can vary within a frame.
`
`Claims 14 and 15 are consistent with this disclosure.
`
` Further, as discussed above, Petitioner clearly understands that the ordinary
`
`meaning of “non-predetermined” is “not known ahead of time.” (Opp. at 9–10.)
`
`Petitioner creates confusion where there is none by suggesting—contrary to
`
`Federal Circuit law—that “non-predetermined” could reasonably be limited to the
`
`disclosed “random” selection of pixel data example in the specification.
`
`III. Petitioner’s Obviousness Section Misstates Patent Owner’s Arguments
`
` Signaling weakness, Petitioner begins its 35 U.S.C. § 103 section by
`
`wrongly accusing Patent Owner of misleading the Board. Petitioner claims that
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of Its Contingent Motion to Amend
`
`
`
`Vedanti “ignores” prior art—such as Golin and Keith—that teach the newly added
`
`claim language. (Opp. at 11.) But Vedanti’s motion directly addressed these
`
`references. (Mot. at 6–8, 11, 22.)
`
` Petitioner then accuses Vedanti of “mischaracteriz[ing] Golin and Keith as
`
`teaching ‘non-uniform aspect ratios’ rather than ‘different aspect ratios.’” (Opp. at
`
`11–12 (citation omitted).) The argument is perplexing because two regions with
`
`“non-uniform” aspect ratios have “different” aspect ratios (“different” is an
`
`antonym of “uniform”).
`
` Petitioner improperly implicates Patent Owner’s duty of candor. (Opp. at
`
`13.) But Patent Owner’s motion extensively describes a large number of prior art
`
`references, focusing primarily on art Google raised in this IPR and in a foreign
`
`proceeding (as well as other art). Google does not explain why any of the
`
`“additional references” previously cited to the Examiner during the initial
`
`prosecution are “material.” Petitioner fully met its obligations by grouping these
`
`less material references and explaining that none included the proposed amended
`
`language. See Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, at 7 (PTAB
`
`June 11, 2013) (Paper 26) (informative); MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc.,
`
`IPR2015-00040, at 2–3 (PTAB July 15, 2015) (Paper 42).
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of Its Contingent Motion to Amend
`
`
`
`IV. Petitioner’s Arguments that Substitute Claims 14 and 15 Are
`Unpatentable Is Based on Misreadings of the Prior Art
`
`A.
`
`Spriggs Fails to Teach or Suggest Different Aspect Ratios
`
` Petitioner mistakenly states that “Spriggs’ vertices ‘define at least two
`
`regions having different aspect ratios.’” (Opp. at 14; id. at 1–2 (“Vedanti
`
`overlooks teachings of blocks with different aspect ratios in Spriggs”). Rather,
`
`Spriggs expressly subdivides a block into four subblocks having the same aspect
`
`ratio, not a non-uniform aspect ratio. (See Ex. 1005, at Figs. 2–3, 6; 3:5–7 (“The
`
`block is sub-divided into four by cutting it in half horizontally and vertically.”);
`
`3:21–23 (“If it has to be sub-divided it is removed from the stack and replaced by
`
`the four new blocks.”); 3:44–46 (“Alternatively, data may be regarded as
`
`associated with the act of dividing a block into four . . . .”).)
`
` Petitioner further points to “the rectangles defined by FBIG versus JLCH or
`
`EPJR” as disclosures of the new “different aspect ratio” limitation. (Opp. at 14.)
`
`But the purported region JLCH is actually two separate regions JNCM and NLMH,
`
`which Spriggs generates through the quadtree decomposition of region EICH.
`
`Similarly, the purported region EPJR is actually two separate regions EPOS and
`
`OSJR which Spriggs generates through the quadtree decomposition of region
`
`EKJN. Those separate regions JNCM, NLMH, EPOS, and OSJR have the same
`
`aspect ratios as one another and as FBIG. These regions—not Petitioner’s creation
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of Its Contingent Motion to Amend
`
`
`
`of a new and undisclosed region formed by adding separate regions together—do
`
`not meet the “different aspect ratios” new claim language.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s Asserted Combinations of Spriggs, Golin/Keith, and
`Shin Do Not Render the Claims Obvious
`
` Attempting to cure these deficiencies in Spriggs with respect to Patent
`
`Owner’s proposed claim language “wherein the optimized matrix data defines at
`
`least two regions having different aspect ratios,” Petitioner asserts a flawed
`
`combination of Spriggs and Golin or Keith. Petitioner points to case law
`
`instructing that an obviousness inquiry requires a “flexible approach,” (Opp. at 17),
`
`and claims to have provided “rationales set out above” for why a POSA would
`
`have been motivated to combine the teachings, (Opp. at 18). But a “flexible”
`
`approach does not allow for the creation of a motivation to combine through
`
`conclusory evidence and by ignoring evidence suggesting that the combination
`
`should not be made. Indeed, the Federal Circuit recently identified “some
`
`insufficient articulations of motivation to combine” and clarified that (i)
`
`“‘conclusory statements’ alone are insufficient and, instead, the finding must be
`
`supported by a “reasoned explanation,” (ii) “it is not adequate to summarize and
`
`reject arguments without explaining why the PTAB accepts the prevailing
`
`argument,” and (iii) “although reliance on common sense may be appropriate in
`
`some circumstances, the PTAB cannot rely solely on common knowledge or
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of Its Contingent Motion to Amend
`
`
`
`common sense to support its findings.” In re Nuvasive, Inc., No. 2015-1670, 2016
`
`WL 7118526, at *6–8 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2016).
`
` In its opposition, Petitioner incorrectly states, “A POSA . . . would have seen
`
`Golin’s binary tree divisions as a simple substitution for Spriggs’ division codes,
`
`with a predictable result.” (Opp. at 15.) Rather, a POSA at best would have seen
`
`Golin’s adjacent pixel variation roughness test as a substitution for Sprigg’s
`
`interpolation-type roughness test, not Sprigg’s division codes. (See Mot. at 7–8).
`
` Likewise, Petitioner asserts an impermissible combination of Spriggs in
`
`view of Golin or Keith and further in view of the new reference Shin. Petitioner
`
`argues that “Shin expressly teaches” combining “Golin’s splits resulting in
`
`different aspect ratios with Spriggs’ division codes (0, 1).” (Opp. at 21 (citation
`
`omitted).) Petitioner further argues, without support, “The [Shin and Spriggs]
`
`references themselves suggest their combination” because “Spriggs teaches
`
`selecting pixel data in regions to reduce the amount of pixel data needing to be
`
`transmitted.” (Opp. at 24.) However, a POSA would have had no reason to apply
`
`the non-uniform aspect ratios disclosed by Shin in Spriggs. The nonuniform
`
`aspect ratios require additional bits to describe the different actions – no need for
`
`split or split to normal, horizontal, or vertical quad (GOOG 1034, Figs. 5A–5B) –
`
`whereas Spriggs merely requires a 0 or 1 to describe split or no split. Thus, when
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of Its Contingent Motion to Amend
`
`
`
`the objective is to reduce data, non-uniform aspect ratios would increase the
`
`necessary division code data.
`
`V. Petitioner Incorrectly Argues that the Art of Record Teaches Selecting a
`Non-Predetermined Set of Pixel Data from Each Region
`
`Spriggs Fails to Teach or Suggest Selecting a Non-Predetermined
`A.
`Set of Pixel Data from Each Region
`
` Petitioner incorrectly contends that “[b]ecause [Spriggs] divides and
`
`subdivides each frame and region, it is not possible for the pixels to always be
`
`predetermined.” (Opp. at 19.) This argument overlooks the context of the
`
`proposed amendment: “selecting a non-predetermined set of pixel data from each
`
`region” (emphasis added). Although Spriggs teaches that the arrangement of the
`
`regions and sub-regions within a frame may change and thus the set of pixels
`
`selected from the frame may change, the set of pixels selected from each region
`
`within the frame is always the four corner pixels of the region and thus is always
`
`predetermined. (See Ex. 2003 at 97:10–14; Mot. at 20 (“With respect to any given
`
`region that is created, the transmitted pixels for that region are always the four
`
`corner pixels according to Spriggs.”). Indeed, Petitioner concedes that Spriggs
`
`teaches “selecting the same center pixel values for each subregion.” (Opp. at 19.)
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s Asserted Combination of Spriggs and Golin/Keith is
`Flawed
`
` Attempting to cure these deficiencies in Spriggs with respect to Patent
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of Its Contingent Motion to Amend
`
`
`
`Owner’s proposed claim language “selecting a non-predetermined set of pixel data
`
`from each region,” Petitioner asserts yet another impermissible combination of
`
`Spriggs and Golin or Keith. Petitioner alleges that “Golin also provides motivation
`
`. . . to use random selection instead of predetermined selection” and “[t]hus, even if
`
`‘non-predetermined’ means ‘random,’ the Spriggs-Golin combination would have
`
`suggested to a POSA random pixel selection from each region.” (Opp. at 19–20.)
`
`However, Golin discloses random pixel selection for performing a mean square
`
`difference calculation, (Ex. 1006 at 27:41–68), and thus cannot be combined with
`
`Spriggs which requires corner pixels to define each region and perform an
`
`interpolation calculation. Indeed, Spriggs could not determine the addresses of
`
`pixels or regions using the random pixel selection technique disclosed in Golin.
`
`Cf. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding that the claimed
`
`combination cannot render a reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose);
`
`MPEP § 2143.01 (“If proposed modification would render the prior art invention
`
`being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion
`
`or motivation to make the proposed modification.”).
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of Its Contingent Motion to Amend
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: December 20, 2016
`
`
`By:
`
`
`/Robert M. Asher, #30,445/
`Robert M. Asher
`Registration No. 30,445
`Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP
`125 Summer Street
`Boston, MA 02110
`Tel: (617) 443-9292
`Fax: (617) 443-0004
`rasher@sunsteinlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner, Vedanti
`Licensing Limited
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00212
`Patent Owner’s Reply in Support of Its Contingent Motion to Amend
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTINGENT MOTION TO
`
`AMEND was served on December 20, 2016, by filing this document through the
`
`PTAB E2E System as well as delivering a copy via electronic mail directed to the
`
`attorneys of record for the Petitioner at the following address:
`
`Michael V. Messinger
`Michell K. Holoubek
`Brian W. Lee
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20005-3934
`mikem-PTAB@skgf.com
`mholoubek-PTAB@skgf.com
`blee-PTAB@skgf.com
`PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`Dated: December 20, 2016
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Robert M. Asher, #30,445/
`Robert M. Asher
`Registration No. 30,445
`Sunstein Kann Murphy & Timbers LLP
`125 Summer Street
`Boston, MA 02110
`Tel: (617) 443-9292
`Fax: (617) 443-0004
`rasher@sunsteinlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner, Vedanti
`Licensing Limited

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