throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 11
`
`Entered: February 27, 2018
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01979
`Patent 8,761,130 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and
`KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01979
`Patent 8,761,130 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”)1 requested an inter
`partes review of claims 9–16 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`8,761,130 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’130 patent”). Paper 1 (“Petition” or “Pet.”).
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted
`unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`will prevail with respect to at least one of the Challenged Claims. Applying
`this standard, we are not persuaded Petitioner has shown a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the Challenged
`Claims because the Petition does not account properly for all the limitations
`of either independent claim 9 or independent claim 13. Accordingly, we
`deny the Petition and decline to institute inter partes review of the
`Challenged Claims for the reasons set forth below.
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`II.
`The ’130 patent (Ex. 1001)
`A.
`The ’130 patent is related to wireless communication systems and was
`“considered in the development of the 3rd Generation Partnership Project
`(3GPP) Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) long term
`evolution (LTE).” Ex. 1001, 1:15–16, 1:25–28. The ’130 patent describes
`transmitting “control and data information” simultaneously in a Single-
`
`1 Petitioner identifies the following additional real parties in interest to the
`Petition: HiSilicon Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc.,
`Huawei Investment and Holding Co., and Huawei Technologies USA, Inc.
`Pet. 2.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01979
`Patent 8,761,130 B2
`
`Carrier Frequency Division Multiple Access communication systems. Id. at
`1:15–19. “Control information” consists of positive and negative
`acknowledgement information (“ACK/NAK”) and a channel quality
`indicator (“CQI”). Id. at 1:36–38. Figure 1 of the ’130 patent is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a block diagram of a sub-frame structure 110 used to
`transmit information. Id. at 1:53–55. The sub-frame includes two slots 120.
`Id. at 1:55–56. Each slot further includes seven symbols 130. Id. at 1:56–
`57. The middle symbol in each slot carries the transmission of reference
`signals (RS) 140, also known as “pilot signals.” Id. at 1:61–65. These
`reference signals are used to provide channel estimation for coherent
`demodulation of the received signal. Id. According to the ’130 patent, the
`control information should be placed “immediately next to the RS” in order
`to minimize the bit error rate degradation. Id. at 5:57–59. Figure 6 of the
`’130 patent is reproduced below.
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01979
`Patent 8,761,130 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6 of the ’130 patent illustrates the placement of both
`ACK/NAK bits 610 and CQI bits 620 within a slot of a sub-frame. Id. at
`5:60–62. “Due to the requirement for better reception reliability, the
`ACK/NAK bits are placed closer to the RS than the CQI bits.” 5:65–67.
`Data bits 640 occupy the remaining space of the symbols in the slot,
`including the otherwise unoccupied space of the symbols containing the
`control bits. 5:62–65.
`Illustrative Challenged Claims
`B.
`Claims 9 and 13 are independent and illustrative of the Challenged
`Claims. Claims 9 and 13 are reproduced below.
`9.
`An apparatus for transmitting a signal in a slot of a
`sub-frame in a wireless communication system, the signal
`including data
`information and acknowledgement
`information, the apparatus comprising:
`a mapper for mapping a reference signal to a middle
`symbol in the slot, mapping the data information to
`remaining symbols in the slot that are not used to map the
`reference signal, and mapping the acknowledgement
`information to first symbols among the remaining symbols
`in the slot, the first symbols not being used to map
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01979
`Patent 8,761,130 B2
`
`
`reference signals and the first symbols being directly
`adjacent to the middle symbol; and
`a transmitter for transmitting the signal including
`the mapped
`data
`information,
`the mapped
`acknowledgement information, and the mapped reference
`signal,
`wherein some of the data information is mapped to
`the first symbol which are directly adjacent to the middle
`symbol, and
`wherein CQI information is multiplexed with the
`data information.
`Id. at 7:52–8:14.
`13. A method for transmitting a signal in a slot of a sub-
`frame in a wireless communication system, the signal
`including data
`information and acknowledgement
`information, the method comprising:
`mapping a reference signal to a middle symbol in
`the slot;
`mapping the data information to remaining symbols
`in the slot that are not used to map the reference signal;
`mapping the acknowledgement information to first
`symbols among the remaining symbols in the slot, the first
`symbols not being used to map reference signals and the
`first symbols being directly adjacent to the middle symbol;
`and
`
`transmitting the signal including the mapped data
`information, the mapped acknowledgement information,
`and the mapped reference signal,
`wherein some of the data information is mapped to
`the first symbols which are directly adjacent to the middle
`symbol, and
`wherein CQI information is multiplexed with the
`data information.
`Id. at 8:26–45.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01979
`Patent 8,761,130 B2
`
`
`Evidence Relied Upon
`C.
`Petitioner relies on the following references (Pet. 4):
`1. Cho et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0262871 (“Cho”) (Ex. 1005);
`2. 3GPP Contribution R1-072122, published on 2007 (Exs. 1015,
`1024), in advance of the RAN1 Working Group 1 meeting 49 (R1-
`49) held in Kobe, Japan, May 7–11, 2007 (“R1-072122”)
`(Ex. 1006);
`3. 3GPP Contribution R1-070777, published on February 6, 2007
`(Ex. 1035), in advance of the RAN1 Working Group 1 meeting 48
`(R1-48) held in St. Louis, Missouri, Feb. 12–16, 2007 (“R1-
`070777”) (Ex. 1007); and
`4. 3GPP Contribution R1-071000, published on February 6, 2007
`(Ex. 1022), in advance of the RAN1 Working Group 1 meeting 48
`(R1-48) held in St. Louis, Missouri, Feb. 12–16, 2007 (“R1-
`071000”) (Ex. 1008).
`Petitioner further relies on a declaration of Dr. Robert Akl (Ex. 1003).
`Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`D.
`Petitioner advances the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 5):
`1. Claims 9–11 and 13–15 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by
`Cho;
`2. Claims 9–16 as rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by
`Cho;
`3. Claims 12 and 16 as rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by
`Cho and R1-072122;
`4. Claims 9–16 as rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by R1-
`072122 and R1-070777;
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01979
`Patent 8,761,130 B2
`
`
`5. Claims 13–16 as rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by
`R1-072122 and R1-071000; and
`6. Claims 9–16 as rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by R1-
`072122, R1-070777, and R1-071000.
`Related Proceedings
`E.
`According to Petitioner, the ’130 patent is a continuation of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,331,328 and is the parent application of U.S. Patent No.
`9,300,454 and three pending continuation applications, namely U.S. Patent
`App. Nos. 14/862,995, 14/863,015, and 14/863,024. Pet. 2. Petitioner
`further states the ’130 patent is at issue in Huawei Techs Co. v. Samsung
`Elecs. Co., 3:16-cv-02787-WHO (N.D. Cal.). Id.; Paper 4, 2. Finally, the
`’130 patent is the subject of the petition filed in IPR2017-01980. Paper 4, 2.
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`Principles of Law
`A.
`Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the
`Challenged Claims, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent
`Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375,
`1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner must
`establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect
`to at least one of the Challenged Claims. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 only if every element
`set forth in the claims is found, either expressly or inherently described in a
`single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil. Co. of Cal.,
`814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “The identical invention must be shown
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01979
`Patent 8,761,130 B2
`
`in as complete detail as is contained in the . . . claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki
`Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
`U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis
`of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of
`the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective
`evidence of non-obviousness, i.e., so-called secondary considerations such
`as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, and failure of others.
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). The obviousness
`inquiry further requires an analysis of “whether there was an apparent reason
`to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at
`issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
`Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
`to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)).
`Claim Construction
`B.
`Petitioner addresses proposed constructions of the following three
`terms: (i) “a mapper” (claim 9); (ii) “a middle symbol in the slot” (claims 9,
`13); and (iii) “the some of the data information and the acknowledgement
`information are respectively transmitted over different subcarriers for
`transmission of the first symbols” (claims 10, 14) (Ex. 1001, 8:15–18, 8:46–
`49). Pet 9–12. Patent Owner does not seek construction of these terms
`because “the construction of all three terms has no bearing on whether inter
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01979
`Patent 8,761,130 B2
`
`partes review should be instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 14, fn. 7. We do not
`construe the terms identified by Petitioner because construction of these
`terms is not necessary for our analysis on whether to institute a trial, as
`detailed below. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining that only claim terms in controversy need
`to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).
`Asserted Anticipation of Claims 9–11 and 13–15 by Cho
`C.
`Overview of Cho
`1.
`Cho describes multiplexing and transmitting data and control
`information in a wireless communication system based on frequency
`division multiple access. Ex. 1005 ¶ 3. More specifically, Cho discloses
`multiplexing data and control information in at least one symbol block and
`simultaneously transmitting the multiplexed data and control information.
`Id. at ¶ 37. Control information may include “Channel Quality Indicator
`(CQI) or ACK/NACK.” Id.
`As described by Cho, each symbol block includes M number of
`symbols. Id. at ¶ 40. “When there is control information to be transmitted
`during one [Transmission Time Interval (TTI)], the transmitter inserts the
`control information into a symbol block predetermined within the TTI.” Id.
`at ¶ 44. Data is inserted into a remaining portion of the symbol block. Id.
`“The pilot signal is included in and transmitted by one symbol block.” Id.
`Cho further describes that “data is included in a portion of the symbol block
`including the control signal and other symbol blocks except for the symbol
`block including the pilot signal.” Id. Figure 6 of Cho is reproduced below.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01979
`Patent 8,761,130 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6 depicts an embodiment of Cho’s invention where “the
`control information 602 is transmitted after being distributed to multiple
`symbol block periods within one TTI 600.” Id. at ¶ 62. Cho describes:
`“The core of the second exemplary embodiment of the present invention is
`that the control information 602 is multiplexed with the data in each symbol
`block period 604 and is transmitted after being distributed to the multiple
`symbol block periods in the TTI 600.” Id. The “control information
`includes K number of symbols, [and] data includes (M-K) number of
`symbols.” Id.
`Analysis
`2.
`Petitioner contends that Cho anticipates the “symbols” recited in
`independent claims 9 and 13 by reciting “symbol block periods.” See, e.g.,
`Pet. 35, 45. For instance, Petitioner asserts: “Cho discloses this claim
`element because Cho discloses a TTI consisting of 8 symbol block periods
`(claimed ‘symbol’).” Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 6; Ex. 1003 ¶ 119).
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01979
`Patent 8,761,130 B2
`
`Patent Owner responds, inter alia, that Petitioner erroneously conflates a
`symbol and a symbol block. Prelim. Resp. 28–29.
`Petitioner has not shown in the record before us that Cho’s symbol
`block anticipates the claimed symbol. Unlike the ’130 patent’s disclosure of
`multiplexing data and control information within one symbol (see, e.g.,
`Ex. 1001, 6:60–67), Cho describes multiplexing data and control
`information into different symbols within one symbol block. Ex. 1005 ¶ 37.
`Cho states a symbol block comprises M number of symbols. Id. at ¶ 40.
`The embodiment of Cho cited by Petitioner describes using the M number of
`symbols within a symbol block to multiplex K number of symbols of control
`information with M−K number of symbols of data information. Id. at ¶ 62.
`The implied equivalence of a “symbol block” in Cho to a “symbol” in
`the ’130 patent must be adequately explained. Petitioner and its declarant,
`Dr. Akl, offer no construction of the claim term “symbol” and no
`explanation of why one of ordinary skill would have understood the
`foregoing description of Cho’s symbol block—which itself is comprised of
`symbols—as meeting the claimed symbol. See id.; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶
`119, 175. Also, significantly, the first named inventor of the Cho reference,
`Joon-Young Cho, is also the second named inventor of the ’130 patent.
`Compare Ex. 1001, at [72], with Ex. 1005, at [76]. Petitioner does not
`address why one of ordinary skill would have understood overlapping
`inventive entities to have used different terms, namely Cho’s “symbol
`block” and the ’130 patent’s “symbol,” ostensibly to refer to equivalent
`structures. See generally Pet. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has not
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its anticipation
`challenge to claims 9 and 13.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01979
`Patent 8,761,130 B2
`
`
`Petitioner’s analysis of claims 10, 11, 14, and 15 refers back to its
`analyses of claims 9 and 13. Pet. 40–42, 49–50. For the same reasons
`discussed above in the context of claims 9 and 13, we determine Petitioner
`has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its anticipation
`challenge to claims 10, 11, 14, and 15.
`Asserted Obviousness of Claims 9–16 over Cho, either alone or in
`D.
`combination with R1-072122
`Petitioner’s obviousness analyses of claims 9–16 relying in whole or
`in part on Cho do not repair the deficiencies of its analysis with regard to the
`claimed “symbol,” as described above in Section III.C.2. Pet. 50–56.
`Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, we determine Petitioner
`has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on this
`obviousness challenge to claims 9–16.
`Asserted Obviousness of Claims 9–16 over various combinations of
`E.
`R1-072122, R1-070777, and R1-071000
`Overview of R1-072122, R1-070777, and R1-071000
`1.
`R1-072122 is directed to multiplexing of uplink data-non-associated
`control signals without data. Ex. 1006, 1. R1-072122 describes situations in
`which control information is transmitted separately from data. Id. In such
`situations, R1-072122 discloses multiplexing ACK/NACK and CQI, and
`further depicts mapping ACK/NACK to the symbol directly adjacent to the
`reference signal. Id. at 2, Fig. 2.
`R1-070777 is directed to multiplexing of uplink control signals with
`data. Ex. 1007, 1. This multiplexing is achieved by puncturing the data “to
`provide room for control signalling.” Id.
`R1-071000 is directed to transmission of control information together
`with data. Ex. 1008, 1. R1-071000 depicts placing data in the symbols
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01979
`Patent 8,761,130 B2
`
`directly adjacent to the symbol containing the reference signal. Id. at 4,
`Figs. 4 and 5.
`Analysis
`2.
`Independent claims 9 and 13 each recite, in relevant part: mapping a
`reference signal to a middle symbol in the slot, mapping acknowledgement
`information to first symbols being directly adjacent to the middle symbol,
`wherein some of the data information is mapped to the first symbols which
`are directly adjacent to the middle symbol, and wherein CQI information is
`multiplexed with the data information. Id. at 7:52–8:14, 8:26–45. Thus,
`independent claims 9 and 13 each require mapping acknowledgement
`information and data information to the symbols directly adjacent to the
`middle symbol, which contains a reference signal.
`Petitioner contends R1-072122 describes that “reference signals are
`mapped to the 4th symbol of each slot, and the ACK/NACK signals are
`mapped to the 3rd and 5th symbols of each slot,” thus teaching a reference
`signal in the middle symbol with acknowledgement information directly
`adjacent to the middle symbol. Pet. 64–65 (citing Ex. 1006, Fig. 3; Ex. 1003
`¶ 229). Petitioner further asserts R1-070777 maps data information to the
`“the 3rd and 5th symbols of the same slot by multiplexing, and more
`particularly by puncturing the data to create space for the ACK/NACK.” Id.
`at 66–67 (citing Ex. 1007, 1; Ex. 1003 ¶ 245). Additionally, Petitioner
`argues that R1-071000 teaches mapping data information to the symbols
`directly adjacent to the middle symbol. Id. at 87 (citing Ex. 1008, Figs. 4, 5;
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 254).
`Relying on Dr. Akl’s testimony, Petitioner asserts one of ordinary
`skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of R1-
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01979
`Patent 8,761,130 B2
`
`072122 and R1-070777 “because of the advantages of using the puncturing
`technique of R1-070777 over other multiplexing techniques.” Id. at 67–68
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 248). Petitioner further argues that one of ordinary skill
`would have been motivated to combine the teachings of R1-072122 and R1-
`071000 because “R1-071000 teaches that even when data and control
`information is multiplexed and transmitted together, the mapping scheme for
`data should not be altered.” Id. at 85–86 (citing Ex. 1008, Fig. 5; Ex. 1003
`¶ 224).
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner fails to identify in the combined
`references sufficient teaching of mapping acknowledgement and data
`information together to the same symbols directly adjacent to the middle
`symbol containing a reference signal. Prelim. Resp. 48–51, 52–54.
`R1-072122, entitled “Multiplexing of uplink data-non-associated
`control signal without data,” specifically segregates control information
`(including acknowledgement information) from data information and is
`limited to situations in which control signals are transmitted without data
`information. Ex. 1006, 1. Petitioner and Dr. Akl offer no persuasive
`explanation of why an ordinary artisan would have applied the teachings of
`R1-072122 in such a manner so as to transmit control signals with data
`information––the exact opposite of R1-072122’s disclosure. Petitioner’s
`reliance on R1-070777 does not remedy this deficiency. R1-070777,
`entitled “Multiplexing of Uplink Control Signaling with Data,” is directed to
`the opposite scenario of R1-072122. Ex. 1007, 1. That is, R1-070777 is
`limited to situations in which control information is transmitted with data
`information and seeks to present a “multiplexing method based on
`puncturing of the data to accommodate control signalling.” Id. Petitioner
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01979
`Patent 8,761,130 B2
`
`and Dr. Akl do not explain in the record before us how or why an ordinarily
`skilled artisan would harmonize the disparate teachings of these two
`references. Similarly, R1-071000 is directed to the opposite scenario of R1-
`072122 in that it addresses transmission of control information together with
`data information. Ex. 1008, 1 (Title: “Data non-associated control signal
`transmission with UL data.”). We are not persuaded sufficiently that one
`with ordinary skill in the art would have modified the system of R1-072122
`to do the opposite of what R1-072122 discloses.
`Further, R1-070777 does not address a reference signal, much less
`placement of a reference signal at the middle symbol of a slot and placement
`of control and data information in the first symbols directly adjacent to the
`middle symbol. See generally Ex. 1007. Petitioner and Dr. Akl do not
`address why an ordinarily skilled artisan would look to R1-070777 when
`considering the teachings of R1-072122 related to placement of control
`information directly adjacent to the reference signal. See Pet. 67–69.
`Finally, although the cited portions of R1-071000 teach placing data
`in the symbols directly adjacent to the symbol containing the reference
`signal, R1-071000 depicts placing the ACK/NAK in the symbols farthest
`from the symbol containing the reference signal––directly opposite to the
`cited teachings of R1-072122 describing placing the ACK/NAK in the
`symbols directly adjacent to the reference signal. Ex. 1008, Figs. 4, 5. Here
`too, Petitioner and Dr. Akl do not address how or why an ordinarily skilled
`artisan would have harmonized the disparate teachings of these two
`references.
`Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness challenges to either
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01979
`Patent 8,761,130 B2
`
`claim 9 or claim 13 relying on various combinations of R1-072122, R1-
`070777, and R1-071000. Petitioner’s analyses of claims 10–12 and 14–16
`refer back to its analyses of claims 9 and 13. Pet. 70–72, 83, 89–91, 92. For
`the same reasons discussed above in the context of claims 9 and 13, we
`determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on its obviousness challenges to claims 10–12 and 14–16 relying
`on various combinations of R1-072122, R1-070777, and R1-071000.
`
`
`IV. SUMMARY
`We determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing on its challenges to any one of claims 9–16 of the
`’130 patent.
`
`
`V. ORDER
`
`It is, therefore,
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01979
`Patent 8,761,130 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`jkushan@sidley.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Kevin Johnson
`Alan L. Whitehurst
`Marissa R. Ducca
`Brian Mack
`Deepa Acharya
`Jared Newton
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`QE_Huawei.Samsung@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`17
`
`

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