UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00862
`Patent 8,689,568
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. AMIR FAGHRI
`
`
`
`GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GE v. UTC
`Trial IPR2016-00862
`
`UTC-2002.001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00862
`Patent 8,689,568
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. AMIR FAGHRI
`
`
`
`GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GE v. UTC
`Trial IPR2016-00862
`
`UTC-2002.001
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00862
`Declaration of Dr. Amir Faghri
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`I, Dr. Amir Faghri, declare as follows:
`
`Introduction
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by United Technologies Corporation (“Patent
`
`Owner”) as an independent expert consultant in this proceeding before the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office. I understand that this Inter Partes Review
`
`proceeding involves U.S. Patent No. 8,689,568 B2 (“the ’568 patent”), which
`
`issued on April 8, 2014, from U.S. Patent Application No. 13/544,097 (“the ’097
`
`application”), filed on July 9, 2012. The ’097 application claims priority to
`
`Provisional Application Nos. 61/599,388, 61/599,372, and 61/599,379, all filed
`
`February 15, 2012. My opinions on the patent and other issues relevant to the
`
`proceeding are set forth below.
`
`II. Qualifications
`
`2.
`
`I am presently a professor of Mechanical Engineering at the
`
`University of Connecticut (“UConn”) and I have served in this position since 1994.
`
`I was the Dean of the UConn’s School of Engineering from 1998-2006. Prior to
`
`that, I was the head of the Mechanical Engineering Department at UConn from
`
`1994-1998. Prior to working at UConn, I was a Brage Golding Distinguished
`
`Professor at Wright State University in Dayton Ohio from 1982-1993.
`
`3.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of
`
`California, Berkeley, a M.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of
`
`
`
`1
`
`UTC-2002.002
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00862
`Declaration of Dr. Amir Faghri
`
`California, Berkeley, and a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Oregon State
`
`University (with highest honors).
`
`4.
`
`I have published 8 books and editorial volumes, 210 peer-reviewed
`
`journal publications, and 110 conference articles. I have also authored several
`
`book chapters and review articles relating to heat transfer. I am also a named
`
`inventor on 11 U.S. patents.
`
`5.
`
`I am a leading authority on heat pipes and heat transfer. I authored
`
`the treatise, Heat Pipe Science and Technology, 1995, Taylor & Francis
`
`Incorporated, ISBN: 1-56032-383-3 (2d ed. 2016, Global Digital Press), and two
`
`other related graduate heat transfer textbooks (Advanced Heat and Mass Transfer
`
`and Transport Phenomena in Multiphase Systems). I also authored several book
`
`chapters relating to heat pipes and heat transfer: (1) “Advances and Challenges in
`
`Micro/Miniature Heat Pipes,” Annual Review of Heat Transfer, Volume 12, 2001,
`
`pp. 1-26; (2) “Introduction to Heat Pipe Design & Theory,” Handbook of Heat
`
`Transfer & Fluid Flow, Genium Publishing Corp., 2000; (3) “Recent Advances in
`
`Heat Pipe Analysis and Simulation,” Annual Review of Heat Transfer, Volume 8
`
`(ARHT-VIII), 1997; and (4) “Performance Characteristics of an Annular Heat
`
`Pipe,” Experiments in Heat Transfer and Thermodynamics, Edited by Robert A.
`
`Granger, Cambridge University Press, 1994.
`
`
`
`2
`
`UTC-2002.003
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00862
`Declaration of Dr. Amir Faghri
`
`I have served in countless organizations and technical leadership roles
`
`6.
`
`due to my work on thermal fluid and heat transfer. For example, I was the
`
`Chairman of the Scientific Committee for the 11th International Heat Pipe
`
`Symposium. I have been an Executive Editor of Heat Transfer Engineering
`
`Journal (Thermal Storage and Heat Pipes) since 1993, the Editor-in-Chief of
`
`Frontiers in Heat Pipes since 2010, and the Editor-in-Chief of Frontiers in Heat
`
`and Mass Transfer since 2010. I have also been an honorary editorial board
`
`member of the International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer since 1997. I
`
`have given numerous lectures and keynote speeches on heat pipes, and I serve on
`
`the editorial boards of a number of additional publications.
`
`7. My work in heat transfer has resulted in many awards, including the
`
`ASME/AIChE Max Jakob Memorial Award (2010), which is the highest award in
`
`heat transfer for those organizations. I was also awarded the 75th Anniversary
`
`Medal of the ASME Heat Transfer Division (2013), the ASME James Harry Potter
`
`Gold Medal (2005), and the ASME Heat Transfer Memorial Award (1998).
`
`8.
`
`On my 60th birthday I was recognized by my peers as “arguably the
`
`world’s leading expert in the area of heat pipes and a significant contributor to
`
`thermal-fluids engineering in energy systems.” In Celebration, Professor Amir
`
`Faghri on His 60th Birthday, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol.
`
`54, 2011, pp. 4459-4461 (UTC-2005).
`
`
`
`3
`
`UTC-2002.004
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00862
`Declaration of Dr. Amir Faghri
`
`9. More details regarding my background and experience are provided in
`
`my curriculum vitae, attached as Exhibit UTC-2006.
`
`III. Legal Standards
`
`A. Patentability
`
`10.
`
`I understand that Dr. John Eaton and Petitioner argue that the claims
`
`of the ’568 patent are either (1) anticipated or (2) obvious. (See generally Petition;
`
`GE-1003.) Regarding anticipation, I understand that the subject matter of the
`
`patent claim is anticipated only if a single item of prior art teaches each and every
`
`element recited in the claim. I also understand that the prior art needs to disclose
`
`the elements arranged the same way that they are arranged in the claim—merely
`
`disclosing the elements is not enough. And I understand that the disclosure of the
`
`prior art must be substantial enough that it would have enabled a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention recited in the claim without
`
`undue experimentation.
`
`11.
`
`I understand that, in some cases, a prior art reference can be
`
`considered to inherently disclose an element of the claim even if the reference does
`
`not expressly teach it. But I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have had to recognize that the missing element was necessarily present
`
`despite the reference’s failing to expressly disclose it.
`
`
`
`4
`
`UTC-2002.005
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00862
`Declaration of Dr. Amir Faghri
`
`I am informed that a patent claim that is not anticipated might still be
`
`12.
`
`unpatentable if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are
`
`such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art. In this proceeding, I have used the filing date of Provisional Application
`
`Nos. 61/599,388, 61/599,372, and 61/599,379, all filed February 15, 2012, as the
`
`time of the invention for my analysis.
`
`13.
`
`I understand that the claimed subject matter as a whole must be
`
`considered when determining obviousness. Additionally, I understand that this
`
`obviousness analysis takes into account the scope and content of the prior art, the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. I understand that the
`
`proponent of an obviousness challenge must provide reasoning showing why the
`
`claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the invention.
`
`14.
`
`I understand that multiple prior art references or teachings can be
`
`combined to show that a patent claim would have been obvious. When taking this
`
`approach, I understand that the proponent of obviousness must show that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason or motivation to combine the
`
`
`
`5
`
`UTC-2002.006
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00862
`Declaration of Dr. Amir Faghri
`
`references in the way the elements are recited in the claim, as well as a reasonable
`
`expectation of success.
`
`IV. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`15.
`
`It is my understanding that, when analyzing the claims of the ’568
`
`patent, I must do so based on the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art as of
`
`the relevant 2012 priority date.
`
`16.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’568 patent
`
`would typically have a M.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering or Aerospace
`
`Engineering, as well as at least 3 to 5 years of experience in heat transfer.
`
`V. Cooling Hole Technology
`
`A. Cooling Holes Must Achieve a Delicate Balance that
`Extends Component Life and Maintains Engine Efficiency
`
`17. Gas turbine engines generate significant amounts of heat, and it is
`
`important to cool engine components exposed to high temperatures to ensure
`
`component longevity and high engine efficiency. Higher pressures and higher gas
`
`temperatures tend to increase engine efficiency, but both lead to shorter service life
`
`and lower reliability because of the thermal stress on the engine components.
`
`Engine designers strive for a balanced solution that ensures acceptable service life
`
`and reliability while maintaining high efficiency.
`
`18. Active cooling is one method of preventing engine component
`
`damage. One active cooling technique is to send cooler fluids (e.g., steam or air)
`
`
`
`6
`
`UTC-2002.007
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00862
`Declaration of Dr. Amir Faghri
`
`to the hot side of engine components via cooling holes in the components. Cooling
`
`holes carry the cooler fluid from other sections of the engine and provide it to the
`
`hotter components. The resulting thermal fluid flow configuration must be
`
`carefully designed and directed.
`
`19. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the fluid flow
`
`through a cooling hole is complex, and minor changes in the cooling holes may
`
`have significant consequences. (See, e.g., UTC-2007.004 (Michael Benson et al.,
`
`Experimental-Based Redesigns for Trailing Edge Film Cooling of Gas Turbine
`
`Blades, 135 Journal of Turbomachinery 041018-1, 041018-4 (July 2013)
`
`(comparing relatively minor design changes to trailing edge cooling holes and
`
`finding that the changes have “an important impact on the spanwise motion and
`
`penetration of the mainstream flow”)); see also UTC-2003 at 54:6-17 (explaining
`
`the differences between trailing edge cooling hole design and film cooling hole
`
`design).) Slight changes in the geometry of a cooling hole can alter the delicate
`
`balance that achieves the proper cooling, without overcooling, and does not
`
`unnecessarily disrupt the flow through the engine core. (See, e.g., GE-1010.005-
`
`.006 (discussing the trade-offs associated with shaped film hole injection); GE-
`
`1008.025 (“The goal is to minimize the coolant consumption, maximize the
`
`cooling effect, and produce an acceptable temperature level and distribution on the
`
`vane surface . . . .”).)
`
`
`
`7
`
`UTC-2002.008
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00862
`Declaration of Dr. Amir Faghri
`
`20. For example, while undercooling is undesirable because components
`
`can wear out or be damaged more quickly, overcooling can also adversely affect
`
`the components by subjecting them to issues like thermo-mechanical fatigue.
`
`Thermo-mechanical fatigue causes cracks that weaken the component and alter its
`
`cooling properties through the cyclical expanding and contracting of the
`
`component during the heating and cooling process. (See, e.g., UTC-2003 at 78:22-
`
`81:16 (discussing thermo-mechanical fatigue).) This introduces component stress
`
`rather than extending component life.
`
`21. Cooling hole design is further complicated because the cooled fluid
`
`must be ejected onto the hot surface with the necessary direction, velocity, and
`
`contact, including attachment characteristics. Small changes to the design of a
`
`cooling hole can result in shear mixing, whereby the difference in velocity between
`
`the cooling air and gas stream causes turbulence. This turbulence leads to mixing
`
`between the cooling air and the hot gas stream, which can result in uneven or
`
`diminished cooling and a decrease in overall engine efficiency. Similarly, small
`
`changes to the design of cooling holes can cause the flow of cooling air to
`
`separate—or not attach itself to the engine component—as it exits the cooling hole.
`
`This separation can also lead to mixing between the cooling air and the hot gas
`
`stream, rendering the cooling hole inoperable for its intended purpose.
`
`
`
`8
`
`UTC-2002.009
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00862
`Declaration of Dr. Amir Faghri
`
`22. Understanding and predicting the behavior of air in a cooling hole is
`
`inherently difficult because of the nonlinear behavior of air moving through and
`
`exiting the cooling hole. Fluid mechanics problems are in general nonlinear in
`
`nature and extreme care must be taken when combining different flow
`
`configurations to achieve a given goal. Therefore, full numerical simulation and/or
`
`experimentation of the combined embodiment is required to predict the
`
`performance thermal fluid performance properties. As a result, none of these
`
`consequences of altering a cooling hole design can be appreciated by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art without detailed computational or experimental analysis of
`
`the cooling hole.
`
`B. One of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Not Have Combined
`Different Cooling Hole Designs Without Numerical Simulation
`and Optimization or Experimentation
`
`23. Designers of cooling holes understand that even minor alterations to
`
`the design of a cool hole require detailed numerical simulation and optimization or
`
`experimentation of both the thermal flow and thermal stress characteristics of the
`
`revised system to properly understand how a change will impact the operation of a
`
`cooling hole. Computational fluid dynamics software can allow one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to understand the temperature distributions, airflow, and thermal
`
`stress resulting from a particular cooling hole. For example, commercial
`
`computational fluid dynamics software such as ANSYS Fluent allows one of
`
`
`
`9
`
`UTC-2002.010
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00862
`Declaration of Dr. Amir Faghri
`
`ordinary skill in the art to simulate the thermal stress and thermal fluid
`
`characteristics that result from design changes to cooling hole.
`
`24.
`
`In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would also use
`
`experimental techniques, including prototype testing, to measure the temperature
`
`distributions resulting from a particular cooling hole. Combined with numerical
`
`simulations, experimental analysis can provide a proper understanding of a cooling
`
`hole design. Without these analyses, one of ordinary skill in the art would be
`
`unable to determine whether a particular cooling hole design would operate
`
`effectively.
`
`VI. Petitioner’s Mixing and Matching From Different Embodiments in
`Bunker Cannot Demonstrate Anticipation
`
`25. Petitioner and Dr. Eaton have stated that the claims of the ’568 patent
`
`are anticipated by Bunker. I have been asked to consider whether one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have combined the various embodiments in Bunker to create
`
`a modified cooling hole design, and I have found that neither Petitioner nor Dr.
`
`Eaton have demonstrated that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
`
`the different embodiments in Bunker without further numerical simulation and
`
`optimization or experimentation.
`
`26. Petitioner and Dr. Eaton primarily rely on Figure 5 to argue similarity
`
`between Bunker and the ’568 patent. (See Petition at 17, 28, 30, 32, 34-39, 41, 42,
`
`
`
`10
`
`UTC-2002.011
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00862
`Declaration of Dr. Amir Faghri
`
`47, and 48 (each depicting Bunker’s Figure 5); GE-1003 ¶¶ 40, 50, 51, 53, 55, 58,
`
`60, 62, 64, 66, 69, 71, 75, 78, each depicting Bunker’s Figure 5.) To fill in the
`
`gaps of Figure 5, Petitioner and Dr. Eaton cites features from other embodiments in
`
`Bunker to support its arguments. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Eaton, however,
`
`provided any support with respect to numerical simulation and optimization or
`
`experimentation to support its arguments, and this analysis would be crucial for
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to find that features from various cooling
`
`hole designs could be combined.
`
`27.
`
`I understand
`
`that
`
`the Board found
`
`that “Bunker appears
`
`to
`
`contemplate combining the elements disclosed in the various embodiments.”
`
`(Institution Decision at 14.) In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`not recognize the particular combination of embodiments from Bunker alleged by
`
`Petitioner and Dr. Eaton. As stated by the Board, “Bunker states generally that
`
`‘the described inventive features may be combined in any suitable manner in the
`
`various embodiments.’” (Institution Decision at 14 (citing GE-1005 ¶ 32)
`
`(emphases added).)
`
` However,
`
`this statement acknowledges
`
`that some
`
`combinations would be unsuitable, and without more information, one cannot
`
`assume that any combination is suitable. One of ordinary skill would recognize
`
`that design features used in particular cooling holes cannot be arbitrarily inserted
`
`into other cooling holes, and to find otherwise would fail to account for the
`
`
`
`11
`
`UTC-2002.012
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00862
`Declaration of Dr. Amir Faghri
`
`complexities of altering cooling hole systems due to the nonlinear nature of flow
`
`configuration.
`
`28. For example, Dr. Eaton explained that certain of Bunker’s plateau
`
`features would not be suitable for other cooling holes: “[N]o one would make a
`
`thing that looked like that [because] a face to me would imply a blockage that went
`
`all the way across there. And no one would do that.” (UTC-2003 at 94:3-19.) I
`
`agree with Dr. Eaton that not all features of a cooling hole design are necessarily
`
`suitable for use in every context.
`
`29. Suitability would need to be determined through further numerical or
`
`experimental analysis, and neither have been provided in this case. Changes to the
`
`configurations of cooling holes, no matter how minor, can have significant and
`
`potentially unpredictable and undesirable changes on the effectiveness of the
`
`cooling hole. As discussed above, cooling holes must not only produce the
`
`required cooling, but the holes must not cause failure in the cooled component or
`
`detrimentally disrupt the flow of hot gases used to generate thrust. Thermal stress
`
`in the form of thermo-mechanical fatigue may weaken engine components and
`
`negatively alter the cooling properties of the component. Relatedly, such
`
`combinations could also result in unpredictable flow paths and could harm overall
`
`engine efficiency. Accordingly, Bunker never states that any of its embodiments
`
`may be combined. Instead, it states that “the described inventive features may be
`
`
`
`12
`
`UTC-2002.013
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00862
`Declaration of Dr. Amir Faghri
`
`combined in any suitable manner in the various embodiments,” (GE-1005.013
`
`¶ 32), but without further numerical or experimental analysis, this is insufficient to
`
`determine which embodiments could be successfully combined.
`
`30. The components of a cooling hole are not plug-and-play tools, yet
`
`Petitioner and Dr. Eaton pick and choose elements from different embodiments of
`
`Bunker, without explanation of how these elements result in an arrangement of
`
`elements as in the claims or whether the combination would result in an operable
`
`cooling hole. Such a determination is not possible without further numerical or
`
`experimental analysis. I understand that such picking-and-choosing features
`
`amongst separate embodiments in this particular art is inappropriate in an
`
`anticipation analysis.
`
`VII. Petitioner and Dr. Eaton Have Not Demonstrated that One of Ordinary
`Skill in the Art Would Have a Reasonable Expectation of Success in
`Combining Bunker and Liang
`
`31. Petitioner and Dr. Eaton state that claims 8 and 19 of the ’568 patent
`
`are obvious in light of Bunker in view of Liang. I have been asked to consider
`
`whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in combining features from the cooling hole designs in Bunker and Liang.
`
`Again, I disagree with Petitioner and Dr. Eaton because their analysis of Bunker
`
`and Liang suffers from many of the same flaws as his analysis of Bunker alone.
`
`
`
`13
`
`UTC-2002.014
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00862
`Declaration of Dr. Amir Faghri
`
`32. Bunker teaches that valley-plateau structure is important to the
`
`operation of its cooling hole designs: “the shape and size of the plateau and the
`
`valley from which it rises are important factors in maximizing the diffusion of
`
`cooling air that is channeled through the passage holes.” (GE-1005.014 ¶ 49.)
`
`Petitioner and Dr. Eaton, however, seek to remove the valley-plateau feature from
`
`Bunker and replace it with an extra trough. (See Petition at 50-52.) This
`
`modification is contrary to Bunker’s teaching and would change the operation of
`
`Bunker’s cooling hole by altering the diffusion of cooling air that is channeled
`
`through the passage holes.
`
`33. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in replacing Bunker’s central plateau region with a channel,
`
`in the manner articulated by Dr. Eaton and Petitioner. Petitioner and Dr. Eaton
`
`argue that “dividing the cooling flow into more than two channel-like passages”
`
`would have been a “known design choice” and “obvious to try” (Petition at 51-52;
`
`GE-1003 ¶¶ 83-85), but, as discussed above, Petitioner and Dr. Eaton do not
`
`explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify a cooling hole design
`
`without numerical simulation, optimization, or experimentation to confirm that the
`
`modified cooling hole would operate for its intended purpose. Petitioner proposes
`
`a major change to the design of Bunker’s cooling hole, yet it is not possible to say
`
`whether the modified Bunker cooling hole would operate as a cooling hole for its
`
`
`
`14
`
`UTC-2002.015
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00862
`Declaration of Dr. Amir Faghri
`
`intended purpose without this additional simulation or experimental testing. As a
`
`result, Petitioner and Dr. Eaton have not established that one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in altering Bunker’s
`
`cooling hole
`
`34. Moreover, Bunker is already established to be an effective cooling
`
`hole design, and the modification proposed by Petitioner and Dr. Eaton would be a
`
`major modification to Bunker’s design. Not only have Petitioner and Dr. Eaton
`
`failed to provide a reasonable expectation of success, but one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would not be motivated to modify a cooling hole design that Bunker
`
`contends to be effective without numerical or experimental analysis to confirm that
`
`the modified cooling hole design would be effective for its intended purpose.
`
`35. Cooling hole design is complex, and altering one cooling hole design
`
`with a supposedly desirable feature from another design is not a matter of simple
`
`substitution. As a result, Petitioner and Dr. Eaton do not establish that the
`
`combination of Bunker and Liang would have a reasonable expectation of success,
`
`and Petitioner and Dr. Eaton have not established that claims 8 and 19 would have
`
`been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`UTC-2002.016
`
`
`
`Case No. IPRZO l 6—00862
`Declaration of Dr. Amir Faghri
`
`VIII. Conclusion
`
`36.
`
`In summary, it is my opinion that Bunker does not anticipate claims 1-
`
`7, 9-11, 13-18, and 20-21 and the combination of Bunker and Liang do not render
`
`obvious claims 8 and 19 of the ‘S68 patent. For these reasons, I disagree with
`
`Petitioner and Dr. Eaton’s analysis of the anticipation and obviousness of the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`37.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my knowledge are true,
`
`and that all statements made on infonnation and belief are believed to be true, and
`
`that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements
`
`and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under
`
`Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Dated:jm 11/ go (7
`
`By: /A-hm}
`
`f"_1—‘:;¢3lr\n-.‘
`
`
`
`Amir Faghri, Ph.D.
`
`16
`
`UTC-2002.017
`
`UTC-2002.017
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
