Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. RE41,980
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2016-01367
`U.S. Patent RE41,980
`
`
`
`REQUEST FOR REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(D)(2)
`
`
`United States Patent No. RE41,980
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2016-01367
`U.S. Patent RE41,980
`
`
`
`REQUEST FOR REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(D)(2)
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. RE41,980
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`II. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`The Board misapprehended the “distinction” between “interlayer
`insulating film” and “buried insulating film”......................................... 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Board misapprehended the features of the “buried
`insulating film.” ........................................................................... 3
`
`The smoothness of the bottom surface of interlayer
`insulating film 11 in the figures does not justify the
`Board’s definition of “interlayer insulating film.” ...................... 5
`
`The Board misapprehended the intrinsic evidence to limit
`the scope of “interlayer insulating film” to exclude any
`intralayer properties. .................................................................... 7
`
`B.
`
`The extrinsic evidence does not support the Board’s construction
`of “interlayer insulating film” ................................................................ 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Board misapprehended the teachings of the ’811
`patent ............................................................................................ 9
`
`The Board misapprehended the dictionary definitions the
`Patent Owner cited ..................................................................... 11
`
`C.
`
`The Board’s misapprehension of the evidence led it to err in
`finding Wollesen’s layer 9, which fills areas both between metal
`wire layers and between metal wires in the same layer, was not
`an “interlayer insulating film” as claimed in the ’980 patent .............. 12
`
`III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. RE41,980
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(2), Petitioner respectfully requests rehearing of
`
`the Board’s Decision (Paper No. 8) because the Board misapprehended or
`
`overlooked the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence to misconstrue the term “interlayer
`
`insulating film.”
`
`In discussing the intrinsic evidence, the Board, referring only to Figures 1-17
`
`and the different titles of “buried” and “interlayer” insulating films,
`
`misapprehended the distinction between the “buried insulating film” 13 and
`
`“interlayer insulating film” 11 in the ’980 patent. Decision at 8-10. The Board
`
`overlooked the entirety of the ’980 patent disclosure showing that those terms differ
`
`because: (1) the “buried” insulating film must be formed on the uppermost metal
`
`wire layer (which means it cannot be an “interlayer” insulating film); and (2) the
`
`term “buried” is used to reflect the alleged inventive concept of the invention
`
`(which distinguished it over the prior art). The difference is not, as the Board
`
`concluded, a superficial one based on the drawings showing the buried insulating
`
`film 13 extending into another film. Indeed, the specification explains the drawings
`
`are only partial renditions of the layers in a semiconductor structure, and do not
`
`accurately depict interlayer insulating film 11.
`
`Moreover, the Board equated the ’980 patent’s buried insulating film 13 with
`
`an “intralayer” dielectric, even though film 13 did not meet the definition the Board
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. RE41,980
`
`assigned for “intralayer,” and the term “intralayer” appears nowhere in the ’980
`
`patent. Figure 1 shows that film 13 not only exists between adjacent metal wires 12,
`
`it also extends above the layer of metal wires 12, something that the Board
`
`specifically excluded from its definition of “intralayer.” Despite this evidence, the
`
`Board incorrectly concluded that a “buried” insulating film was identical to an
`
`“intralayer” film, and that an “interlayer” film could not have “intralayer” features.
`
`With regard to extrinsic evidence, the Board misapplied the teachings of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,432,811 (“the ’811 patent”) to the ’980 patent in equating the ’980
`
`patent’s use of “buried” to the ’811 patent’s use of “intralayer.” The Board
`
`overlooked that the ’811 patent teaches a composite “interlayer” dielectric that
`
`provides both “interlayer” and “intralayer” insulating properties. The Board also
`
`overlooked the fact that the ’811 patent addressed an intralayer dielectric material,
`
`and not a dielectric layer or film like the ’980 patent’s buried insulating film. The
`
`Board also cited general dictionary definitions of “inter-” and intra-,” which have
`
`dubious value in this technology, and, in any event, do not support the Board’s
`
`limiting construction of “interlayer insulating film.” Those definitions do not
`
`require that an insulating film only have interlayer features or intralayer features,
`
`but not both.
`
`These misapprehensions and errors led the Board to discount the Wollesen
`
`reference, which teaches an “interlayer insulating film” as the claims recite.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. RE41,980
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A. The Board misapprehended the “distinction” between “interlayer
`insulating film” and “buried insulating film”
`
`The “interlayer” and “buried” insulating films in the ’980 patent are
`
`“distinct,” but the Board misapprehended the reason for that distinction when it
`
`concluded they are “two distinct configurations of insulating films.” Decision at 9.
`
`In its preliminary response (“POPR”), Patent Owner superficially
`
`distinguished between an “interlayer insulating film” and a “buried insulating film”
`
`by simply pointing to the patent figures, which all showed metal wires inside the
`
`buried insulating film and the interlayer insulating film with metal wires on top of it.
`
`See Paper No. 7, POPR, at 9-10. The Board agreed with this distinction (Decision at
`
`8-10), and thus, misapprehended and misunderstood the ’980 patent. There is no
`
`evidence to support the Patent Owner’s and the Board’s reason for the distinction,
`
`which is whether the film extends into a metal wire layer. Rather, the record
`
`evidence demonstrates the ’980 patent uses “buried” and “interlayer” to describe
`
`insulating films that differ because of their location in the semiconductor structure
`
`and to differentiate the claimed structure over the prior art.
`
`1.
`
`The Board misapprehended the features of the “buried
`insulating film.”
`
`When the Board characterized the “buried insulating film” as a film “with
`
`something (namely, metal wires) buried within it” (Decision at 10), it overlooked
`
`the fact that the “buried” film in the ’980 patent is always deposited on the
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. RE41,980
`
`uppermost metal wire layer as a part of a surface protection film 20 and fills areas
`
`between and above adjacent metal wires 12 in the uppermost metal wire layer of a
`
`semiconductor device. Ex. 1001, 8:4-9, 10:44-49, 13:39-47, 15:7-16, 15:52-57, FIG.
`
`1 (film 13) (each cited in POPR at 10); see also id. 1:23-27 (cited in Decision at 3);
`
`7:25-28 (part of citation in Petition at 25, n. 3). By filling those areas, the buried
`
`film 13 allows the top passivation layer of the surface protection film 20 to form
`
`over the buried film without coverage defects (e.g., air pockets shown in FIG. 20a)
`
`between the wires as in the prior art. See id., Abstract (cited in Petition at 11); 2:11-
`
`15 (within citation in Petition at 11); FIG. 20 (cited in Petition at 11-12).
`
`Because buried insulating film 13 is formed on the uppermost metal wire
`
`layer, it cannot be an “interlayer insulating film” between different metal wire
`
`layers. Decision at 9. The intrinsic evidence supports this distinction.
`
`Using the modifier “buried” to describe film 13 also distinguished the
`
`invention from the prior art, which had an “underlying” insulating film 19 in the
`
`uppermost metal wire layer. See, e.g., Petition at 11-15. Calling film 13 a “buried”
`
`insulating film thus highlights the alleged inventive feature, which is forming the
`
`top “passivation” film of the surface protection film over both the buried film and
`
`metal wire layer without forming coverage defects. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract
`
`(cited in Petition at 11); 2:11-15 (within citation in Petition at 11); and claims 18
`
`and 35 (claiming a “surface protecting film” with a “first dielectric film” and a
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. RE41,980
`
`“second dielectric film with a higher moisture absorption preventing function than
`
`said first dielectric film for covering said metal wire layer and said first dielectric
`
`film”).
`
`Although the ’980 patent used two different terms “buried” and “interlayer”
`
`to describe insulating films 13 and 11, respectively, the intrinsic evidence shows
`
`that different words were used because of film 13’s location and its features, not, as
`
`the Board found, because film 13 protrudes into another layer.
`
`2.
`
`The smoothness of the bottom surface of interlayer
`insulating film 11 in the figures does not justify the Board’s
`definition of “interlayer insulating film.”
`
`Without the benefit of an expert declaration, Patent Owner assigned
`
`significance to the fact that the bottom surface of interlayer insulating film 11 was
`
`smooth, while that of buried insulating film 13 was not. See POPR at 9-10;
`
`FIGS. 1-17 (cited in POPR at 9). The Board appears to have adopted this position
`
`(Decision at 8), and thus, misapprehended the reason for the difference.
`
`The specification suggests only one reason for the smooth bottom of film 11,
`
`which is that Figures 1-17 omitted all of the metal wire layers and interlayer
`
`insulating films below the interlayer insulating film 11 because they had “no
`
`relation to the characteristics of the present invention.” Ex. 1001, 7:18-28 (cited in
`
`Petition at 25, n. 3). The ’980 patent only concerns the uppermost metal wire layer
`
`12, which is why only the interlayer insulating film 11 formed under the metal
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. RE41,980
`
`wires 12 is shown in the Figures. Ex. 1001, 1:35-44 (within citation in Petition at
`
`11). The smooth bottom surface of interlayer film 11 is consistent with only
`
`showing a partial view of the semiconductor device. Nothing else in the
`
`specification provides any other reason for the smooth bottom surface, and it would
`
`be error to invent such a reason. See, e.g., Starhome GMBH v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`
`743 F.3d 849, 857 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (refusing to limit a claim construction based on
`
`a “simplified drawing,” which at best inserted ambiguity as to the ordinary meaning
`
`of the claim term).
`
`In addition, nothing in the ’980 patent precludes an interlayer insulating film
`
`from containing wires or being partially formed between wires in an underlying
`
`metal wire layer. There is no clear and unmistakable disavowal, and neither the
`
`Board nor Patent Owner have cited any, that would mandate imposing the Board’s
`
`negative limitation of prohibiting the “interlayer insulating film” from extending
`
`into another layer. See, e.g., Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314,
`
`1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (finding no support for a negative limitation in a claim
`
`construction absent “any express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the
`
`written description that would justify adding that negative limitation”). It would be
`
`clear error to find such a disavowal when the only reason the ’980 patent suggests
`
`for not showing metal wire layers under the interlayer insulating film 11 is because
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. RE41,980
`
`they were not relevant to the invention. Ex. 1001, 7:18-28 (cited in Petition at 25, n.
`
`3); see also id. 1:35-44 (within citation in Petition at 11).
`
`3.
`
`The Board misapprehended the intrinsic evidence to limit
`the scope of “interlayer insulating film” to exclude any
`intralayer properties.
`
`The Board based its construction and scope of “interlayer insulating film” on
`
`the observation that “[t]he ’811 patent . . . uses the term ‘intralayer’ in the same
`
`manner as the ’980 patent uses the term ‘buried.’” Decision at 9. The Board
`
`elaborated that “an intralayer dielectric is found between adjacent interconnect
`
`lines, rather than vertically above or below those interconnect lines.” Id. Thus, the
`
`Board essentially erroneously concluded that “interlayer” and “intralayer” refer to
`
`two distinct and exclusive configurations of insulating films in the ’980 patent. Id.
`
`The Board, however, misapprehended the buried insulating film 13 in the
`
`’980 patent. Figure 1 of the ‘980 patent (reproduced below) shows buried film 13
`
`both between adjacent interconnect lines (metal wires 12) and vertically above
`
`those lines.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. RE41,980
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, FIG. 1. See FIGS. 1, 5, 7 (cited in POPR at 4-6).
`
`Figure 1 shows dielectric material in film 13 extending vertically above the
`
`metal wires 12, which conflicts with the Board’s definition of “intralayer” as “‘a
`
`dielectric [] found between adjacent interconnect lines, rather than vertically above
`
`or below those interconnect lines.’” Ex. 2003, 3:48-53 (emphasis added) (cited in
`
`Decision at 9; POPR at 11). Based on its own logic, the Board clearly erred in
`
`concluding that the ’811 patent uses “intralayer” in the same manner as the ’980
`
`patent uses the term “buried.” Decision at 9.
`
`The Board’s error in calling the “buried” film an “intralayer” film, in
`
`combination with its misapprehension of why the “buried” and “interlayer” films
`
`are distinct (Section II(A)(1) supra), incorrectly led the Board to limit the claimed
`
`“interlayer insulating film” to a film that does not have “intralayer” properties.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. RE41,980
`
`B.
`
`The extrinsic evidence does not support the Board’s construction
`of “interlayer insulating film”
`1.
`In support of its construction of “interlayer insulating film,” Patent Owner
`
`The Board misapprehended the teachings of the ’811 patent
`
`cited this definition from the ’811 patent:
`
`The term intralayer dielectric as used in this field is understood to
`refer to the dielectric material disposed between interconnect lines
`on a given interconnect level. That is, an intralayer dielectric is
`found between adjacent interconnect lines, rather than vertically
`above or below those interconnect lines.”
`
`POPR at 11 (citing Ex. 2003, 3:48-53) (emphasis added). The Board accepted this
`
`extrinsic evidence but misapprehended its significance and improperly relied on it.
`
`Decision at 8-9.
`
`Consistent with the Board’s cited definition, dielectric material that provides
`
`electrical insulation vertically, which the ’811 patent defines as substantially
`
`perpendicular to the surface of the substrate (Ex. 2003, 3:54-55), between different
`
`interconnect layers would be an interlayer dielectric layer. The ’811 patent,
`
`however, does not in any way preclude an insulating film from having both
`
`“intralayer” and “interlayer” insulating properties. Indeed, the ’811 patent teaches a
`
`composite “interlayer” dielectric that provides both “interlayer” and “intralayer”
`
`insulating properties.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. RE41,980
`
`For example, Figure 1 in the ’811 patent (reproduced and annotated below)
`
`shows a “composite interlayer dielectric” with combined layers 104 and 102 located
`
`between adjacent trenches for interconnect lines (“intra” direction shown by the red
`
`line), and between the interconnect lines above and below the composite interlayer
`
`dielectric (“inter” direction shown by the blue lines). Ex. 2003, 1:55-58. This
`
`dielectric layer provides an “interlayer” insulating property between different metal
`
`wire layers, and also has a portion disposed between adjacent interconnect lines that
`
`provides an “intralayer” insulating property.
`
`
`
`Therefore, the ’811 patent does not support the conclusion that an “interlayer
`
`insulating film” cannot have “intralayer” insulating properties.
`
`The Board’s cited definition from the ’811 patent only indicates that
`
`intralayer dielectric material (not film) disposed between adjacent metal wires in an
`
`interconnect layer prevents parasitic capacitance and electrical current flow
`
`horizontally between the wires. See also, Petition at 6 (describing parasitic
`
`capacitance between adjacent interconnect lines). It does not refer to or define what
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. RE41,980
`
`is an intralayer dielectric film. The ’811 patent teaches that the intralayer dielectric
`
`is “material” between individual metal wires in a layer, and nowhere is that
`
`intralayer dielectric material referred to as a “layer” or “film.” In contrast, the ’811
`
`patent does consistently refer to “interlayer dielectric (ILD) layers” as separate from
`
`the defined dielectric “material.” Compare, e.g., Ex. 2003, 3:48-53 with 3:62-63.
`
`The ’980 patent terms only concern films and layers, not material.
`
`2.
`
`The Board misapprehended the dictionary definitions the
`Patent Owner cited
`
`The Federal Circuit has cautioned against using general-purpose dictionaries
`
`in a manner inconsistent with the specification. See, e.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). This case shows why. The dictionary
`
`definitions of the prefixes “inter-” and “intra-” offered by the Patent Owner and
`
`cited by the Board have nothing to do with layers in a semiconductor structure.
`
`Moreover, those definitions do not support the Board’s conclusions that the
`
`terms are mutually exclusive in the context of insulating layers in a semiconductor
`
`device. The dictionary merely defined “intra” as “within, in, or into something,”
`
`and “inter” as “located between” or “between the limits of.” Decision at 8; Ex.
`
`2001, 2002. Nothing in either definition precludes an “interlayer insulating film”
`
`from also being “within or in” another layer, as the Board concluded.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. RE41,980
`
`C. The Board’s misapprehension of the evidence led it to err in
`finding Wollesen’s layer 9, which fills areas both between metal
`wire layers and between metal wires in the same layer, was not an
`“interlayer insulating film” as claimed in the ’980 patent
`
`The Board’s misapprehension of the “buried insulating film” and its
`
`supposed distinct configuration from an “interlayer insulating film” in the ’980
`
`patent resulted in the erroneous conclusion that Wollesen’s dielectric layer 9 is a
`
`“buried insulating film,” and therefore not an “interlayer insulating film.” Decision
`
`at 12. Wollesen’s dielectric layer 9 is not a buried insulating film because it is not
`
`between metal wires in the uppermost metal wire layer.1 Although Wollesen’s
`
`dielectric layer 9 cannot be the “buried insulating film” in the ’980 patent, it is an
`
`“interlayer insulating film” since it provides electrical insulation between different
`
`metal wire layers 8 and 10. See Petition at 25-26; Ex. 1006, FIG. 1.
`
`Both the Patent Owner and Board acknowledge that Wollesen’s dielectric
`
`layer 9 (in Figure 1) is “partially” within the same layer as the conducting layer 8.
`
`Decision at 12; POPR at 24. That means part of dielectric layer 9 is not buried
`
`within the conducting layer 8. At least this portion of dielectric 9 that is not buried
`
`
`1 In contrast, dielectric layer 12 in Wollesen’s Figure 1 fills areas between wires in
`
`the uppermost wire layer 10. Petition at 29 (“The dielectric layer 12 (claimed “first
`
`dielectric film”) is used to fill at least a part of the areas among the aluminum lines
`
`in the conductive layer 10 (claimed “metal wires in said metal wire layer . . .)”).
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. RE41,980
`
`provides electrical insulation between layers in a vertical direction under the plain
`
`meaning of “interlayer insulating film” that the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence
`
`mandate. Layer 9’s function in providing insulation between adjacent metal wires
`
`(“intralayer”) does not disqualify it from also acting as an “interlayer insulating
`
`film” vertically, where it is disposed between metal wire layers 8 and 10.2
`
`
`
`Figure copied from Petition at 26, “interlayer” and “intralayer” annotations added.
`
`The Board recognized that an “interlayer dielectric layer” could have dual
`
`“inter” and “intra” functions where only a portion of the film exists between
`
`
`2 Although there is no basis for the negative limitation in the Board’s construction
`
`of “interlayer insulating film,” the portion of Wollesen’s dielectric layer 9 that is not
`
`buried satisfies that definition despite the negative limitation.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. RE41,980
`
`adjacent metal wires when it acknowledged that Wollesen discloses an “interlayer
`
`dielectric layer 6.” Decision at 12, n. 5 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:57). Wollesen’s
`
`interlayer dielectric layer 6 is just another example of an “interlayer insulating film”
`
`that provides both intralayer insulation between metal wires 49 and interlayer
`
`insulation between different metal wire layers 8 and 49. Id.; Ex. 1006, FIG. 1
`
`(interlayer dielectric layer 6). The Board’s construction of “interlayer insulating
`
`film” as “an insulating film located between but not within other layers” (Decision
`
`at 9) improperly excludes the interlayer insulating films 6 and 9 in Wollesen.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`The Board misapprehended or overlooked the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence,
`
`so rehearing is appropriate under the abuse-of-discretion standard of 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.71(c). See Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`(an abuse of discretion occurs if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation
`
`of law or a factual finding not supported by substantial evidence).
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests the Board grant a rehearing and institute inter
`
`partes review on all asserted grounds.
`
`
`
`Dated: February 6, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` By: /E. Robert Yoches/
`E. Robert Yoches, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 30,120
`
`14
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`United States Patent No. RE41,980
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing REQUEST FOR
`
`REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(D)(2) is being served on February 6,
`
`2017, by electronic mail at the following address of record for the Patent Owner as
`
`follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael J. Fink (Reg. No. 31,827)
`E-mail: mfink@gbpatent.com
`Neil F. Greenblum (Reg. No. 28,394)
`E-mail: ngreenblum@gbpatent.com
`Arnold Turk (Reg. No. 33,094)
`Email: aturk@gbpatent.com
`Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`Reston, Virginia 20191
`Tel: 703-716-1191
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner has agreed to electronic service.
`
`
`Dated: February 6, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Lauren K. Young/
`Lauren K. Young
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
