throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 8
`
`
`
` Entered: September 15, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FITBIT, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ALIPHCOM, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00714
`Patent 8,446,275 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
`MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00714
`Patent 8,446,275 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Fitbit, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute
`an inter partes review of claim claims 1–5, 8–10, 13–15, and 18–19 of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,446,275 (Ex. 1001, “the ’275 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 311–319. AliphCom, Inc., . (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response to the Petition. (Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Section 314(a) provides that an inter partes
`review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that
`the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary
`Response, and associated evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing
`unpatentability of claims 1–5, 8–10, 13–15, 18, and 19.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`The parties state that the ’275 patent has been asserted in AliphCom
`d/b/a Jawbone and BodyMedia, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., No 3:15-cv-02579 (N.D.
`Cal.), and Certain Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components
`Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-963 (ITC). Pet. 2; Paper 5, 2. Petitioner also has
`filed petitions for inter partes review challenging claims 1–26 of the U.S.
`Patent No. 8,529,811 patent and claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 8,793,522 patent,
`Fitbit, Inc. v. AliphCom, Inc., Nos. IPR2016-00607 and IPR2016-00658.
`
`B. The ʼ275 Patent
`The ’275 patent relates to a health and wellness monitoring system
`and device. Ex. 1001, Abstract. The system claims to be a “general health
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00714
`Patent 8,446,275 B2
`
`and wellness management” device and system which receives “user data”
`from the user that includes “profile” and “preferences” information (id. at
`20:62–64), tracks the user’s activity using wearable devices having sensors
`(id. at Abstract), and then rewards a user’s activity with “points” determined
`based on “reference values” that define activity to-point conversion rates.
`(id. at 44:6–12). The system can also set a “target score” for a user as a
`means of increasing user motivation to reach health and wellness goal. Id. at
`38:58–59.
`
`C. Challenged Claim
`Independent claim 2 is reproduced below (Ex. 1001, 30:41–31:7):
`1. A method comprising:
`receiving data representing a profile defining
`parameters upon which a target score is established based
`on one or more health-related activities;
`acquiring data representing one or more subsets of
`acquired parameters based on one or more sensors
`disposed in a wearable computing device;
`determining data representing values for the one or
`more subsets of the acquired parameters based on
`reference values for the parameters set forth in the profile;
`calculating at a first processor a score based on data
`representing the values, the score representing an attained
`portion of the one or more health-related activities;
`causing presentation of a representation of the score
`relative to the target score; and
`adjusting a determination upon which to modify the
`target score,
`wherein the target score is indicative of one or more
`standards against which to compare one or more groups of
`the values aggregated to form the score.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00714
`Patent 8,446,275 B2
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`The information presented in the Petition sets forth proposed grounds
`of unpatentability for the claims of the ’275 patent as follows (Pet. 3):
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Basis
`
`Hoffman1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`Hoffman and Gilley2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims
`1–5, 8–9, 13–15,
`and 19
`10, 18, and 19
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Interpretation
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs.,
`LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), No. 15-446, slip op. 13 (June 20, 2016).
`(upholding the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard as the
`claim interpretation standard to be applied in inter partes reviews). Under
`this standard, we interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable
`meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood
`by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
`enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by
`the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re
`Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We presume that claim terms
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2012/0041767 published Feb. 16, 2012
`(“Hoffman”) (Ex. 1003).
`2 U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2008/0076637 published Mar. 27, 2008
`(“Gilley”) (Ex. 1004).
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00714
`Patent 8,446,275 B2
`
`have their ordinary and customary meaning. See Trivascular, Inc. v.
`Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Under a broadest
`reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain
`meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification and
`prosecution history.”); In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
`(Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning is the meaning that
`the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.”
`(internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). A patentee, however, may
`rebut this presumption by acting as his or her own lexicographer, providing a
`definition of the term in the specification with “reasonable clarity,
`deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`1994). Only those terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and
`only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
`Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`Neither party provides any express claim constructions for terms in the
`challenged claims. Pet. 7–9; Prelim. Resp. 4. Patent Owner notes generally
`that “[t]he specification also explains that the target score corresponds to a
`health and wellness goal.” Prelim. Resp. 7. However, Patent Owner does
`not offer an express construction of the term “target score.” Patent Owner
`further contends that Petitioner’s failure to construe the claims is a sufficient
`basis for the Board to deny institution. Id. at 6–7. We disagree. Petitioner
`has stated that the terms of the challenged claims should be given their plain
`and ordinary meaning. Pet. 9. And we need not construe any particular term
`in order to determine whether to institute. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Science
`& Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803, (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms
`5
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00714
`Patent 8,446,275 B2
`
`need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to
`resolve the controversy.”). For purposes of this Decision, we presume the
`claims carry their plain meaning, and we determine that no terms require
`construction at this juncture.
`
`B. Anticipation Based on Hoffman (Ex. 1003)
`1. Hoffman
`Hoffman teaches an activity monitoring system that can, among other
`things, “encourage individuals to participate in athletic activities and
`improve their fitness levels.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 4. In particular, the system
`motivates users to perform activities by rewarding them with “activity
`points” when they perform certain athletic and nonathletic activities. Id. ¶ 5.
`Accumulated activity points can then be “spent” on rewards such as
`products, services, discounts, and status upgrades. Id.
`The system includes a “platform that maintains user account
`information.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 69. This allows users to “register with [the
`system] to track and monitor their athletic performance and other types of
`activity.” Id. The system collects and stores information likely to “produce
`insights into various aspects of the user” such as their interests in sports,
`personal styles, and strengths, their preferences for events or event locations,
`shopping and/or browsing interests, their social network memberships, and
`event participation and workout data. Id. ¶ 73. This allows the system to
`“customize content based [] user interests” and to “personalize the user’s
`experience” with the system. Id.
`Based on the user’s interests in their profile, the system can suggest
`rewards that may be “purchased” with a certain number of activity points.
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00714
`Patent 8,446,275 B2
`
`See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 5, 114, 122–23. These rewards can include “VIP treatment”
`at stores or events, product and/or service discounts, and “video game
`related items.” Id. ¶ 122. Hoffman teaches modifying the “cost” of these
`rewards based on the user’s interests, for example discounting the price for
`items relating to those interests. See id.
`The system also displays the user’s accumulated activity points
`relative to their reward in order to “visually represent [the] progress a user
`has made toward earning a number of activity points needed to purchase [a]
`corresponding reward.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 87, 114, 123, 130, Figs. 14–16. This
`allows the user to compare their progress towards their reward over multiple
`types of athletic and non-athletic activities. See id. ¶¶ 91, 123.
`2. Analysis
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–5, 8–9, 13–15, and 19 are
`anticipated by Hoffman. Pet. 10. To support its contentions, Petitioner
`provides detailed explanations as to how the prior art meets each claim
`limitation. Id. at 10–43. Petitioner also relies upon a Declaration of
`Dr. Mark A. Musen, who has been retained as a Declarant by Petitioner for
`the instant proceeding. Ex. 1002.
`3. Claim 1
`The present record supports the contention that Hoffman describes
`receiving data representing a profile defining parameters upon which a target
`score is established based on one or more health-related activities as recited
`in claim 1. Pet. 10–14; Ex. 1003 (multiple paragraphs cited in Petition).
`The present record also supports the contention that Hoffman describes
`acquiring data representing one or more subsets of acquired parameters
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00714
`Patent 8,446,275 B2
`
`based on one or more sensors disposed in a wearable computing device as
`recited in claim 1, for example. Pet. 15–16; Ex. 1003 (multiple paragraphs
`cited in Petition). The present record also supports the contention that
`Hoffman describes determining data representing values for the one or more
`subsets of the acquired parameters based on reference values for the
`parameters set forth in the profile as recited in claim 1, for example. Pet.
`16–17; Ex. 1003 (multiple paragraphs cited in Petition). The present record
`also supports the contention that Hoffman describes calculating at a first
`processor a score based on data representing the values, the score
`representing an attained portion of the one or more health-related activities
`as recited in claim 1. Pet. 17–18; Ex. 1003 (multiple paragraphs cited in
`petition). The present record supports the contention that Hoffman describes
`causing presentation of a representation of the score relative to the target
`score as recited in claim 1. Pet. 18–19; Ex. 1003 (multiple paragraphs cited
`in petition). The present record supports the contention that Hoffman
`describes adjusting a determination upon which to modify the target score,
`wherein the target score is indicative of one or more standards against which
`to compare one or more groups of the values aggregated to form the score as
`recited in claim 1. Pet. 19–22; Ex. 1003 (multiple paragraphs cited in
`petition).
`Petitioner asserts: that “[t]he number of activity points necessary to
`‘purchase’ a reward is established and presented to the user as a ‘goal’ (i.e.,
`a target score).” Petition 13–14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 114, 123). Patent
`Owner argues that Petitioner’s reliance on reward items as the target score is
`misplaced. Prelim. Resp. 13–21. Patent Owner argues that “the price of a
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00714
`Patent 8,446,275 B2
`
`reward item is not set ‘based on one or more health-related activities’” (id. at
`18), as required by claim 1. Additionally, Patent Owner argues that
`“Hoffman still fails to disclose a target score that is ‘established based one or
`more health-related activities’ because it is the user who selects the reward
`item.” Id. at 19. We disagree. The Petition states that the activity points
`(which include athletic activity) in Hoffman are converted to a form of
`currency that can be used to buy reward items. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 5,
`77). Thus, athletics (a health related activity) is used to establish the price of
`the reward item in activity points. Additionally, the reward item can be
`selected as a goal based on a user’s interest in athletics. Pet. 13–14 (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 114, 123). Additionally, while it may be true that the user
`ultimately selects the reward, as noted above, the activity point price of the
`reward, which is the claimed “target score,” is established based on the
`activity, for example athletics. Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent
`Owner’s argument.
`Claim 1 also recites that “the target score is indicative of one or more
`standards against which to compare one or more groups of the values
`aggregated to form the score.” Petitioner relies on the activity point value of
`the reward the “standard” by which to compare groups of values. Pet. 21–
`22. Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner appears to be using the reward
`price as both the target score and the standards the target score
`indicates . . . .” Prelim. Resp. 21. Patent Owner misses the point. The
`claims recite that the target score itself is indicative of the standards. Thus,
`Petitioner adequately points to the activity point value of the reward item as
`the target score, which is indicative of the standard (activity points) against
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00714
`Patent 8,446,275 B2
`
`which groups of values (point accumulated from various activities) are
`compared. Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.
`Claim 1 also recites “determining data representing values for the one
`or more subsets of the acquired parameters based on reference values for the
`parameters set forth in the profile.” Petitioner relies on Hoffman’s
`conversion of, for example, steps taken during a walking workout to activity
`points. Pet. 17. In other words, the conversion rate of steps to activity
`points provides a reference value for the steps (the acquired parameters).
`Patent Owner argues essentially that the steps, in this example, are not
`parameters in the profile. Prelim. Resp. 24. We disagree. Hoffman
`suggests that “activity level” is part of the profile. Pet. 17; Ex. 1003 ¶ 78.
`We determine that the number of steps that a person takes in a walking
`activity is an activity level that can, according to Hoffman, be included in
`the profile. Thus, we are not persuaded by this argument.
`4. Claims 2–5, 8–9, 13–15, and 19
`For the reasons above, we are persuaded, at this juncture of the
`proceeding, that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claim 1. Claim 1 is similar in
`scope to independent claim 19, however, we have considered any
`differences in scope in analyzing claim 19. Also, as to the Ground based on
`Hoffman alone, the parties argue these claims collectively, choosing claim 1
`as representative. See, e.g., Pet. 52–56; Prelim. Resp. 8. Accordingly, the
`previous discussion with respect to claim 1 equally applies to claim 19. We
`are persuaded, at this juncture of the proceeding, that Petitioner has
`established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00714
`Patent 8,446,275 B2
`
`challenge claim 19. For claims 2–5, 8–9, and 13–15, each of which depends
`directly or indirectly from independent claim 1, on this record, we agree that
`Petitioner has adequately shown Hoffman’s disclosure of the additional
`limitations of claims 2–5, 8–9, and 13–15.
`5. Summary
`We have reviewed the proposed ground of anticipation by Hoffman
`against claims 1–5, 8–9, 13–15, and 19, and we are persuaded, at this
`juncture of the proceeding, that Petitioner has established a reasonable
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claims 1–5, 8–9,
`13–15, and 19 on this ground.
`
`C. Obviousness Based on Hoffman (Ex. 1003) and Gilley (Ex. 1004)
`1. Gilley
`Gilley establishes a user profile that defines a variety of health and
`activity parameters (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 15, 45, 84), monitors and analyzes activity
`data from sensors disposed in a wearable computing device (id. ¶¶ 14, 71,
`82, 89, 90), sets health and activity targets for a user (id. ¶¶ 17, 49, 75, 96,
`105), tracks and provides feedback regarding a user’s progress towards those
`targets (id. ¶¶ 16, 99, 169), and includes a reward system through which an
`attained amount of activity can be exchanged for a reward (id. ¶¶ 73, 182).
`Gilley’s system is designed to “maintain the user’s motivation” to
`engage in exercise and to “assist or motivate the user” to meet activity goals.
`Id. ¶¶ 67, 75, 140. For example, Gilley’s system can “assign an activity
`level to the user’s profile, e.g., beginner, intermediate, or advanced” in order
`to “suggest fitness activities in step 104 that are more suited to . . . the
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00714
`Patent 8,446,275 B2
`
`capabilities of the user” (id. ¶¶ 49–50) and later update a user’s level based
`on collected activity data. See id. ¶ 72.
`To assist users in meeting fitness goals, Gilley also teaches that its
`system determines the difference between a user’s progress and their target
`and recommends that a user engage in a health-related activity that the
`system predicts will compensate for a user’s projected shortfall by, for
`example, “increas[ing] the level or intensity of future workout(s).” Id. ¶ 76.
`Where “the collected data (e.g., sensor data) indicates that the user will not
`reach a target” the system also can “reduce the target performance metric to
`a level that is more attainable” and “adjust the user's fitness goals to be less
`ambitious to maintain the user's motivational level.” Id. ¶¶ 75, 140.
`2. Analysis
`Petitioner contends that Hoffman and Gilley teach the limitations of
`claims 10, 18, and 19. Pet. 43. To support its contentions, Petitioner
`provides detailed explanations as to how the prior art meets each claim
`limitation. Id. at 43–54. Petitioner also relies upon a Declaration of Dr.
`Musen. Ex. 1002.
`The present record supports the contention that the combination of
`Hoffman and Gilley describes determining a magnitude of a difference
`between the score and the target score; predicting a subset of the acquired
`parameters to reduce the difference between the score and the target score;
`and generating data representing a recommendation to present to a user to
`engage in a health-related activity as recited in claim 10. Pet. 45–49; Exs.
`1003, 1004 (multiple paragraphs cited in Petition). The present record
`supports the contention that the combination of Hoffman and Gilley
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00714
`Patent 8,446,275 B2
`
`describes determining a subset of scores; changing a classification associated
`with a user based on the subset of scores, wherein changing the classification
`including leveling up to a first classification or leveling down to a second
`classification as recited in claim 18. Pet. 49–52; Exs. 1003, 1004 (multiple
`paragraphs cited in Petition). The present record also supports the
`contention that the combination of Hoffman and Gilley describes a general
`health and wellness module configured to facilitate modification of a value
`of an acquired parameter associated with a state of a user to change the
`target score as recited in claim 19. Pet. 52–54; Exs. 1003, 1004 (multiple
`paragraphs cited in Petition). Finally, Petitioner provides a reasonable
`rationale to combine Hoffman and Gilley. Pet. 47–49, 51–52, 54.
`As to claim 19, the Petition states that Gilley teaches reducing the
`user’s long-term goals to more attainable levels if collected data indicates
`that users are falling short of their fitness goals. Pet. at 53 (citing Ex. 1004
`¶ 75). The petition then argues that one of ordinary skill “would have been
`motivated to combine the Hoffman and Gilley systems based on teachings in
`both references” and that this modification involves “[u]sing the target score
`adjustments taught by Gilley in the Hoffman system.” Pet. at 54 (citation
`omitted).
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner does not specify what
`modification would be made to Hoffman to incorporate the teaching of
`Gilley to meet the claim limitation for claim 19. Prelim. Resp. 29.
`Additionally, Patent Owner argues that any modification of Hoffman to
`adjust the reward item, and thus, adjust the target score, would be non-
`sensical because the reward item has a price that must be set by sellers and
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00714
`Patent 8,446,275 B2
`
`because lowering the price would reduce incentive to exercise by making the
`goal easier to obtain. Id. at 30–31. We disagree. Petitioner states that the
`reward goal (the activity points price of a reward item) is the thing being
`modified in the combination. Additionally, Hoffman explicitly suggest that
`the price of reward items can be discounted. Thus, reducing the price of a
`reward item is not “non-sensical.” Additionally, we determine that it is
`reasonable, as the Petition suggests, to make goals more attainable in order
`to increase a person’s motivation to achieve those goals. See Pet. 54. Thus,
`we are not persuaded by this argument.
`For the reasons above, we are persuaded, at this juncture of the
`proceeding, that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claim 19. For claims 10 and 18,
`each of which depends directly from independent claim 1, on this record, we
`agree that Petitioner has adequately shown Hoffman’s disclosure of the
`additional limitations of claims 10 and 18. Prelim. Resp. 25–26.
`3. Summary
`We have reviewed the proposed ground of obviousness over the
`combination of Hoffman and Gilley against claims 10, 18, and 19, and we
`are persuaded, at this juncture of the proceeding, that Petitioner has
`established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its
`challenge to claims 10, 18, and 19 on this ground.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00714
`Patent 8,446,275 B2
`
`would prevail in its challenge to claims 1–5, 8–10, 13–15, 18, and 19 of the
`’275 patent. At this juncture, we have not made a final determination with
`respect to the patentability of the challenged claims, nor with respect to
`claim construction.
`
`ORDER
`IV.
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review is hereby instituted for the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Basis
`
`Claims
`
`Hoffman
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`1–5, 8–9, 13–15, and 19
`
`Hoffman and Gilley
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`10, 18, and 19
`
` ;
`
` and
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial
`will commence on the entry date of this Decision.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00714
`Patent 8,446,275 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Naveen Modi
`Yar Chaikovsky
`David Okano
`PH-Fitbit_Aliph-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Michael Rosato
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`
`Andrew Brown
`asbrown@wsgr.com
`
`Richard Torczon
`rtorczon@wsgr.com
`
`Jose Villarreal
`jvillarreal@wsgr.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