Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: May 25, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`T-MOBILE US, INC., T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
`TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC., ERICSSON INC., and
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRACBEAM, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00728
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DAVID C. MCKONE, JAMES A. TARTAL,
`and BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`Denying Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: May 25, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`T-MOBILE US, INC., T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
`TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC., ERICSSON INC., and
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TRACBEAM, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00728
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before KEVIN F. TURNER, DAVID C. MCKONE, JAMES A. TARTAL,
`and BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`Denying Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00728
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`A. Background
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`T-Mobile US, Inc., T-Mobile USA, Inc., TeleCommunication
`
`Systems, Inc., Ericsson Inc., and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
`
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) to institute an
`
`inter partes review of claim 25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 B2 (Ex. 1002,
`
`“the ’484 patent”). Concurrently, Petitioner filed a Motion for Joinder
`
`(Paper 3, “Mot. for Joinder”), requesting that we join this proceeding to
`
`IPR2015-01708, in which we instituted inter partes review of claims 1 and
`
`51 of the ’484 patent, but declined to institute as to claim 25.
`
`TracBeam, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response
`
`(Paper 9, “Prelim. Resp.”). Patent Owner also filed an Opposition to the
`
`Motion for Joinder (Paper 8, “Opp. to Mot. for Joinder”). Petitioner, in turn,
`
`filed a Reply in support of its Motion for Joinder. Paper 10.
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we
`
`exercise our discretion, under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), to deny institution of inter
`
`partes review as to claim 25.
`
`
`
`B. The ’484 Patent
`
`The ’484 patent describes location systems for wireless
`
`telecommunication infrastructures. Ex. 1002, Abstract. According to the
`
`’484 patent, the location techniques are useful for 911 emergency calls,
`
`vehicle tracking and routing, and location of people and animals. Id. at
`
`Abstract, 12:11–17.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00728
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`Figure 4, reproduced below, illustrates an embodiment:
`
`
`
`Figure 4 is an overall view of a wireless radio location network architecture.
`
`Id. at 21:66–67. The network includes a plurality of mobile stations (“MS”)
`
`140, a mobile switching center (“MSC”) 112, and a plurality of wireless cell
`
`sites forming radio coverage area 120, each site including a fixed-location
`
`base station 122 for voice and data communication with MSs 140. Id. at
`
`24:41–57. The network also includes location base stations (“LBS”) 152
`
`with wireless location enablement, e.g., with transponders used primarily in
`
`communicating MS location related information to location center 142 (via
`
`base stations 122 and MSC 112). Id. at 24:57–64. LBSs can be placed, for
`
`example, in dense urban areas, in remote areas, along highways, or wherever
`
`more location precision is required than can be obtained using conventional
`
`wireless infrastructure components. Id. at 28:29–38.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00728
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`Location center 142 determines a location of a target MS 140. Id. at
`
`25:8–10, 37:43–46. The system uses a plurality of techniques for locating
`
`MSs, including two-way time of arrival (“TOA”), time difference of arrival
`
`(“TDOA”), and Global Positioning System (“GPS”). Id. at Abstract, 9:5–23,
`
`11:7–55, 66:45–50. To determine a location for a MS, the system computes
`
`a first order model (also referred to as a hypothesis or estimate) for one or
`
`more of the locating techniques, computes a confidence value for each
`
`model indicating the likelihood that the model is correct, performs additional
`
`computations on the models to enhance the estimates, and computes from
`
`the models a “most likely” location for the MS. Id. at 12:62–13:20, 38:9–31.
`
`The most likely location can be a composite of the estimates. Id. at 13:22–
`
`30, 66:45–50.
`
`Location estimates can be provided to location requesting
`
`applications, such as 911 emergency, police and fire departments, taxi
`
`services, etc. Id. at 8:52–60, 13:20–22, 38:32–34.
`
`
`
`Claim 25, the only claim challenged in the Petition, is reproduced
`
`below:
`
`25. A method for estimating, for each mobile station M
`of a plurality of mobile stations, an unknown terrestrial location
`(LM) for M using wireless signal measurements obtained via
`transmissions between said mobile station M and a plurality of
`fixed location terrestrial communication stations, wherein each
`of said communications stations is substantially co-located with
`one or more of a transmitter and a receiver for wirelessly
`communicating with said mobile station M, comprising:
`
`initiating a plurality of requests for information related to
`the location of said mobile station M, the requests
`provided to each of at least two mobile station
`location evaluators, wherein there is at least a first
`of the requests provided to a first of the location
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00728
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`evaluators and a second of the requests, different
`from the first request, provided to a second of the
`location evaluators, such that when said location
`evaluators are supplied with corresponding input
`data having values obtained using wireless signal
`measurements obtained via two way wireless
`communication between said mobile station M, and
`the communication stations, each of said first and
`second
`location
`evaluators
`determine
`corresponding location information related to LM,
`and
`
`wherein for at least one location L of one of the mobile
`stations, said first location evaluator and said
`second location evaluator output, respectively, first
`and second position information related to the one
`mobile station being at L wherein neither of the first
`and second position information is dependent upon
`the other;
`
`obtaining a first collection of location information of said
`mobile station M, wherein the first collection
`includes first location information from the first
`location evaluator, and second location information
`from the second location evaluator;
`
`determining resulting information related to the location
`LM of the mobile station M, wherein the resulting
`information
`is dependent on geographical
`information in each of the first and second location
`information; and
`
`to a predetermined destination via a
`transmitting,
`communications
`network,
`the
`resulting
`information.
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00728
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`C. Related Matters; IPR-1708
`
`The ’484 patent is the subject of several lawsuits filed in the United
`
`States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Pet. 12; Paper 6, 1–2.
`
`These include TracBeam, LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc., Case No. 6:14-cv-678
`
`(E.D. Tex.) (“the ’678 litigation”), and TracBeam, LLC v. AT&T, Inc., Case
`
`No. 6:11-cv-96 (E.D. Tex.) (“the ’96 litigation”). Various related patents
`
`also are the subjects of these and other proceedings before the district courts
`
`and the Board. Paper 6, 1–4.
`
`The ’484 patent also is the subject of Apple Inc. v. TracBeam, LLC,
`
`Case IPR2015-01696 (PTAB); Apple Inc. v. TracBeam, LLC, Case
`
`IPR2015-01697 (PTAB); and T-Mobile US, Inc. v. TracBeam, LLC., Case
`
`IPR2015-01711 (PTAB). Paper 6, 3.
`
`Most pertinent to this proceeding, the ’484 patent also is the subject of
`
`T-Mobile US, Inc. v. TracBeam, LLC., Case IPR2015-01708 (PTAB) (“IPR-
`
`1708”). In a Decision on Institution in IPR-1708, we instituted inter partes
`
`review as to claims 1 and 51, but denied institution as to claim 25 (the claim
`
`challenged in the instant proceeding). IPR-1708, Paper 10 (“1708-Dec.”).
`
`Petitioner seeks to join this proceeding to IPR-1708. See Mot. for Joinder.
`
`In IPR-1708, as it does here, Petitioner contended that claim 25 would
`
`have been obvious over Loomis1 and Wortham.2 As summarized in the
`
`1708-Decision on Institution, Loomis describes a hybrid location
`
`determining (“LD”) system that includes an outdoor LD unit that determines
`
`location using GPS technology and a radio LD unit that determines location
`
`
`1 Ex. 1008, U.S. Patent No. 5,936,572, issued Aug. 10, 1999.
`
`2 Ex. 1009, U.S. Patent No. 6,748,226 B1, issued June 8, 2004.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00728
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`using FM radio technology. 1708-Dec. 9–11. In order to determine a
`
`location estimate from the FM signals it receives, Loomis’s radio LD unit
`
`must first know the relative phases of the FM signals. Id. at 11. For those
`
`phases, the radio LD unit relies on determinations from the outdoor (GPS)
`
`LD unit. Id. at 11–12. Wortham describes a differential positioning system
`
`for a mobile communication (cellular telephone) network in which GPS
`
`signals are evaluated at a fixed station with known (surveyed) coordinates to
`
`generate correction data. The correction data are sent via the mobile
`
`communication system to mobile receivers for use in correcting the GPS
`
`coordinate determinations made at the mobile receivers. Id. at 12–14.
`
`Petitioner argued that a skilled artisan would have modified Loomis to
`
`replace its FM terrestrial location capabilities with cellular-based signals, as
`
`would be transmitted by Wortham’s transmitter sites. Id. at 14.
`
`In IPR-1708, Petitioner relied on Loomis to show “wherein neither of
`
`the first and second position information is dependent upon the other,” as
`
`recited in claim 25, arguing that Loomis’s outdoor LD and radio LD units
`
`are independent of one another. IPR-1708, Paper 1, 49–50. We determined
`
`that the respective position information generated by the radio LD unit and
`
`outdoor LD unit are not independent, because the radio LD unit’s position
`
`information depends on the outdoor LD unit’s determination of phase, which
`
`depends on the outdoor LD unit’s computation of GPS coordinate position
`
`information. 1708-Dec. 19–20. Accordingly, Petitioner did not demonstrate
`
`a reasonable likelihood of success in showing that claim 25 would have been
`
`obvious over Loomis and Wortham. Petitioner did not request rehearing of
`
`that determination.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00728
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioner contends that claim 25 would have been obvious, under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103, over Loomis and Wortham. Pet. 15. Citing the same
`
`references, Petitioner advances two theories as to how a skilled artisan
`
`would have applied Loomis and Wortham. In the first theory, Petitioner
`
`contends that a skilled artisan would have used a stationary FM signal
`
`monitor, as in Loomis’s description of the prior art, rather than Loomis’s
`
`outdoor LD unit, to supply phase information to the radio LD unit. Pet. 29–
`
`31.3 In the second theory, Petitioner contends that Wortham describes using
`
`cellular time of arrival (“TOA”) techniques, rather than GPS techniques, to
`
`determine location. Id. at 31–33. According to Petitioner, a skilled artisan
`
`would have swapped Wortham’s cellular TOA technique for Loomis’s FM
`
`radio LD unit. Id. at 33–34.
`
`Petitioner contends that its application of Loomis and Wortham
`
`merely “provides further clarification on how the Loomis-Wortham
`
`combination satisfies the claim limitations relied on in the Board’s prior
`
`decision not to institute review of this claim,” Pet. 9, and introduces
`
`“nominal additional subject matter,” id. at 10.
`
`
`
`E. One Year Bar Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and Joinder Under 35
`U.S.C. § 315(c)
`
`According to 35 U.S.C. § 315(b):
`
`An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition
`requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date
`
`
`3 Loomis criticizes this prior art technique (Ex. 1008, 4:9–17) and describes
`using the outdoor LD unit to remedy such deficiencies as “an important
`feature of the invention” (id. at 7:31–38).
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00728
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the
`petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the
`patent. The time limitation set forth in the preceding sentence
`shall not apply to a request for joinder under subsection (c).
`
`Patent Owner contends that the Petition is barred by Patent Owner’s
`
`complaint (Ex. 2003) in the ’678 litigation, allegedly served on Petitioner on
`
`August 11, 2014, more than one year prior to the March 8, 2016, filing date
`
`of the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 2–5.
`
`Petitioner argues that the Petition is not barred by a prior lawsuit filed
`
`by Patent Owner against MetroPCS and TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.,
`
`arguing that “[t]hose lawsuits were dismissed without prejudice, and thus are
`
`treated as if they had never been filed.” Pet. 14. Here, Petitioner refers to
`
`the ’96 litigation. Id. (citing Ex. 1019). Nevertheless, Petitioner states that
`
`“Patent Owner TracBeam is currently asserting the ’484 Patent . . . against
`
`Petitioner T-Mobile in” the ’678 litigation. Id. at 12. Petitioner does not
`
`appear to address whether the ’678 litigation bars the Petition.
`
`Petitioner also has filed a motion to join the instant Petition to IPR-
`
`1708. Mot. for Joinder. Petitioner argues that the Petition is timely by
`
`virtue of its Motion for Joinder. Pet. 13–14; see also 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`
`(“The time limitation set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a
`
`request for joinder under subsection (c).”).
`
`Joinder, however, is appropriate only when the underlying petition
`
`sought to be joined warrants institution. According to 35 U.S.C. § 315(c)
`
`(emphasis added):
`
`If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in
`his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes
`review any person who properly files a petition under section 311
`that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under
`section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00728
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`response, determines warrants the institution of an inter partes
`review under section 314.
`
`As explained below, we have considered the Petition and the Preliminary
`
`Response and determine that the Petition does not warrant the institution of
`
`an inter partes review. Accordingly, we do not reach whether the Petition is
`
`time barred or whether joinder otherwise would be appropriate.
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is denied as moot.
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`Institution of inter partes review is subject to Board discretion. “At
`
`any time prior to institution of inter partes review, the Board may deny
`
`some or all grounds for unpatentability for some or all of the challenged
`
`claims. Denial of a ground is a Board decision not to institute inter partes
`
`review on that ground.” 37 C.F.R. 42.108(b). In particular, “[i]n
`
`determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under this chapter,
`
`chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take into account whether, and
`
`reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same
`
`prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 325(d). This is an instance in which Petitioner presents the same prior art
`
`in a second petition along with arguments to correct errors in a first petition.
`
`Previous panels of this Board have expressed concern with permitting
`
`a petitioner to file an inadequate first petition and subsequently allowing the
`
`petitioner to correct errors in the first petition through the filing of a second
`
`petition. For example, in ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings Inc., Case
`
`IPR2013-00454 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2013) (Paper 12), slip op. at 5–6, a panel
`
`explained:
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00728
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`The Board is concerned about encouraging, unnecessarily, the
`filing of petitions which are partially inadequate. A decision to
`institute review on some claims should not act as an entry ticket,
`and a how-to guide, for the same Petitioner who filed an
`unsuccessful joinder motion, and is outside of the one-year
`statutory period, for filing a second petition to challenge those
`claims which it unsuccessfully challenged in the first petition.
`
`Similarly, another panel denied a petition with grounds that served as
`
`“second bites at the apple” and used a prior decision “as a roadmap to
`
`remedy [the first petition’s] prior, deficient challenge,” explaining that
`
`“[a]llowing similar, serial challenges to the same patent, by the same
`
`petitioner, risks harassment of patent owners and frustration of Congress’s
`
`intent in enacting the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.” Butamax
`
`Advanced Biofuels LLC, v. Gevo, Inc., Case IPR2014-00581, 2014 WL
`
`5299385, at *6 (PTAB Oct. 14, 2014) (Paper 8). Patent Owner contends that
`
`we should follow this guidance and deny the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 10–19.
`
`We agree with Patent Owner that this is a factor that weighs against
`
`institution of the Petition.
`
`Petitioner (Pet. 6) contends that the Petition is justified by three
`
`factors:
`
`(1) the prejudice to Petitioners caused by Patent Owner’s
`assertion of an unreasonable number of claims in the co-pending
`litigation; (2) recent deposition testimony from Dr. Dennis
`Dupray, a named inventor of the ’484 Patent, that was not
`available when IPR proceedings IPR2015-01708 and IPR2015-
`01711 were filed; and (3) the public interest in adjudicating the
`validity of a clearly invalid claim and having consistent
`outcomes concerning similar sets of claimed subject matter and
`prior art.
`
`As to its first factor, Petitioner argues that, in an act of gamesmanship,
`
`Patent Owner asserted over 140 claims against Petitioner in the co-pending
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00728
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`district court litigation and dropped the majority of those claims only after
`
`Petitioner had filed IPR2015-01708 and IPR2015-01711. Id. at 6–7.
`
`Petitioner argues that “[t]his gamesmanship made it unrealistic for the initial
`
`IPR petitions to proactively address every conceivable argument from the
`
`Patent Owner.” Id. at 7. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s accusation of
`
`gamesmanship and argues that it properly followed a procedure set by the
`
`District Court for electing a reasonable number of claims. Prelim. Resp. 21–
`
`22. Patent Owner then follows up with its own gamesmanship accusations
`
`concerning the timing of Petitioner’s submissions of invalidity contentions
`
`in district court. Id. at 23–24.
`
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. In IPR-1708,
`
`Petitioner devoted a significant portion of its petition to addressing
`
`independent claim 25 on the same prior art as asserted here. IPR-1708,
`
`Paper 1, 42–53. Even if there was gamesmanship in the district court
`
`litigation, Petitioner was unsuccessful as to claim 25 in IPR-1708 not
`
`because it failed to anticipate an argument made by Patent Owner, but
`
`because it failed to present evidence that the location determination by
`
`Loomis’s radio LD unit is independent of the location determination by the
`
`outdoor LD unit. 1708-Dec. 18–20.
`
`For its second justification, Petitioner argues that, since filing the IPR-
`
`1708 petition, Petitioner deposed Dr. Dennis Dupray, a named inventor on
`
`the ’484 patent, who allegedly admitted that the limitation of claim 25 we
`
`found not established was, in fact, known in the art. Pet. 7–8. According to
`
`Petitioner, “Dr. Dupray’s testimony confirms the teachings of Loomis and
`
`Wortham: that multiple, independent location techniques can output
`
`location estimates that are independent of each other.” Id. at 8. In response,
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00728
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`Patent Owner argues that Dr. Dupray was not testifying about Loomis and
`
`Wortham, the cited prior art. Prelim. Resp. 25.
`
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s second justification. Dr. Dupray
`
`testified that cell tower triangulation “may or may not be” dependent on
`
`GPS “in certain circumstances” and that he believed there existed prior art
`
`techniques for cell tower triangulation that were not dependent on GPS.
`
`Ex. 1027, 332:5–334:12. To the extent that this testimony is relevant at all,
`
`Petitioner does not explain persuasively how it bears on whether the prior art
`
`references asserted by Petitioner (in the instant Petition or in the IPR-1708
`
`petition) would have taught such a feature.
`
`For its third justification, Petitioner argues that “it would be against
`
`the public’s interest not to institute inter partes review of this clearly invalid
`
`claim.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner responds that it is against public interest to
`
`expend the Board’s limited resources on petitions that merely attempt to fix
`
`issues that were not presented adequately in an earlier petition. Prelim.
`
`Resp. 27 (citing ATopTech, Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc., Case IPR2015-00760, slip
`
`op. at 8–9 (PTAB July 21, 2015) (Paper 14) (“[W]e are mindful that
`
`permitting second chances without constraint undermines judicial efficiency
`
`by expending the Board’s limited resources on issues that were not presented
`
`adequately the first time around.”).
`
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s third justification. In IPR-1708,
`
`Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with
`
`respect to the same prior art. While we do not reach whether the second
`
`Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on that art,
`
`Petitioner has not shown that claim 25 is so clearly unpatentable as to
`
`undermine public interest.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00728
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`We have considered Petitioner’s proffered justifications as well as
`
`Patent Owner’s concerns regarding allowing Petitioner to correct its first
`
`petition through filing a second Petition advancing the same prior art. We
`
`exercise our discretion, under Section 325(d), to deny the Petition because
`
`“the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were
`
`presented to the Office.”
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`We exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 325(d). Because we deny the Petition, we deny Petitioner’s Motion for
`
`Joinder as moot.
`
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), an inter partes
`
`review is not instituted for claim 25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,525,484 B2; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is denied
`
`
`
`14
`
`as moot.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00728
`Patent 7,525,484 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Brian W. Oaks
`BAKER BOTTS, LLP
`brian.oaks@bakerbotts.com
`
`Douglas M. Kubehl
`BAKER BOTTS, LLP
`doug.kubehl@bakerbotts.com
`
`Chad C. Walters
`BAKER BOTTS, LLP
`chad.walters@bakerbotts.com
`
`Ross G. Culpepper
`BAKER BOTTS, LLP
`ross.culpepper@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Sean Luner, Esq.
`DOVEL & LUNER LLP
`sean@dovellaw.com
`
`
`
`Steven C. Sereboff, Esq.
`SOCAL IP LAW GROUP LLP
`ssereboff@socalip.com
`
`
`
`
`
`15
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
