throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 9
`
`Entered: March 6, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD. and LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02090
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, KERRY BEGLEY, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review and
`Grant of Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.108, 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02090
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Huawei Device Co., Ltd. (“Huawei”) and LG Electronics, Inc. (“LG”)
`
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of
`
`claims 3, 6–8, 10, 11, 13–23, 27–35, 38, and 39 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,724,622 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’622 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”).1
`
`Petitioner also filed a Motion for Joinder, seeking joinder as petitioner with
`
`Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) and WhatsApp Inc. (“WhatsApp”)
`
`(collectively, “Facebook 1667 Petitioner”) in Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc
`
`Luxembourg S.A., Case No. IPR2017-01667 (the “Facebook 1667 IPR”).
`
`Paper 3 (“Mot.”). Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`
`Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Patent Owner did not file
`
`an opposition to the Motion for Joinder.
`
`We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314. Upon considering the
`
`information presented in the parties’ papers, for reasons discussed below, we
`
`institute inter partes review of claims 3, 6–8, 10, 11, 13–23, 27–35, 38, and
`
`39 of the ’622 patent and grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`The parties indicate that the ’622 patent is involved in Uniloc USA,
`
`Inc. v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00991-JRG (E.D. Tex.), and
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00994-JRG
`
`
`
`1 The Petition identifies Huawei Device USA, Inc., Huawei Investment &
`Holding Co., Ltd., Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device
`(Dongguan) Co., Ltd., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and LG Electronics
`MobileComm USA, Inc., in addition to Petitioner entities Huawei and LG,
`as real parties in interest. Pet. 1.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02090
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`(E.D. Tex.), among numerous other actions in the United States District
`
`Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Pet. 23; Paper 5, 2. The
`
`’622 patent also has been the subject of petitions for inter partes review in
`
`Cases IPR2017-00223, IPR2017-00224, IPR2017-01804, and
`
`IPR2017-01805 (filed by Apple Inc.), all of which were denied; Cases
`
`IPR2017-01667 and IPR2017-01668 (filed by Facebook and WhatsApp), in
`
`which we instituted inter partes review on January 19, 2018; and Cases
`
`IPR2017-01797 and IPR2017-01798 (filed by Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc.), in which we instituted inter partes review on February 6,
`
`2018. In addition, Google LLC formerly known as Google, Inc. (“Google”)
`
`has filed petitions for inter partes review of certain claims of the ’622 patent
`
`in Cases IPR2017-02080 and IPR2017-02081, in which Petitioner Huawei is
`
`listed as a real party in interest along with Google, Motorola Mobility LLC
`
`(“Motorola”), Huawei Technologies USA, Inc., Huawei Investment &
`
`Holding Co., Ltd., Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., and Huawei Device
`
`(Dongguan) Co., Ltd. See IPR2017-02080, Paper 2 at 1; IPR2017-02081,
`
`Paper 2 at 1.
`
`B. The ’622 Patent
`
`The ’622 patent, titled “System and Method for Instant VoIP
`
`Messaging,” relates to Internet telephony, and more particularly, to instant
`
`voice over IP (“VoIP”) messaging over an IP network, such as the Internet.
`
`Ex. 1001, [54], 1:18–22. The ’622 patent acknowledges that “[v]oice
`
`messaging” and “instant text messaging” in both the VoIP and public
`
`switched telephone network environments were previously known. Id.
`
`at 2:22–46. In prior art instant text messaging systems, according to the
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02090
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`’622 patent, a server would present a user of a client terminal with a “list of
`
`persons who are currently ‘online’ and ready to receive text messages,” the
`
`user would “select one or more” recipients and type the message, and the
`
`server would immediately send the message to the respective client
`
`terminals. Id. at 2:34–46. According to the ’622 patent, however, “there is
`
`still a need in the art for . . . a system and method for providing instant VoIP
`
`messaging over an IP network,” such as the Internet. Id. at 1:18–22, 2:47–
`
`59, 6:47–49.
`
`In one embodiment, the ’622 patent discloses local instant voice
`
`messaging (“IVM”) system 200, depicted in Figure 2 below. Ex. 1001,
`
`6:22–24.
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02090
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`As illustrated in Figure 2, local packet-switched IP network 204,
`
`which may be a local area network (“LAN”), “interconnects” IVM
`
`clients 206, 208 and legacy telephone 110 to local IVM server 202. Id.
`
`at 6:50–7:2; see id. at 7:23–24, 7:61–65. Local IVM server 202 enables
`
`instant voice messaging functionality over network 204. Id. at 7:61–65.
`
`In “record mode,” IVM client 208 “displays a list of one or more IVM
`
`recipients,” provided and stored by local IVM server 202, and the user
`
`selects recipients from the list. Ex. 1001, 7:57–59, 7:65–8:4. IVM
`
`client 208 then transmits the selections to IVM server 202 and “records the
`
`user’s speech into . . . digitized audio file 210 (i.e., an instant voice
`
`message).” Id. at 8:4–11.
`
`When the recording is complete, IVM client 208 transmits audio
`
`file 210 to local IVM server 202, which delivers the message to the selected
`
`recipients via local IP network 204. Ex. 1001, 8:1529. “[O]nly the
`
`available IVM recipients, currently connected to . . . IVM server 202, will
`
`receive the instant voice message.” Id. at 8:3334. IVM server 202
`
`“temporarily saves the instant voice message” for any IVM client that is “not
`
`currently connected to . . . local IVM server 202 (i.e., is unavailable)” and
`
`“delivers it . . . when the IVM client connects to . . . local IVM server 202
`
`(i.e., is available).” Id. at 8:34–39; see id. at 9:17–21. Upon receiving the
`
`instant voice message, the recipients can audibly play the message. Id.
`
`at 8:29–32.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02090
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 3, 27, and 38 are independent.
`
`Claims 3 and 27 are illustrative of the challenged claims and are reproduced
`
`below.
`
`3. A system comprising:
`a network interface connected to a packet-switched network;
`a messaging system communicating with a plurality of instant
`voice message client systems via the network interface; and
`a communication platform system maintaining connection
`information for each of the plurality of instant voice
`message client systems indicating whether there is a current
`connection to each of the plurality of instant voice message
`client systems,
`wherein the messaging system receives an instant voice
`message from one of the plurality of instant voice message
`client systems, and
`wherein the instant voice message includes an object field
`including a digitized audio file.
`
`27. A system comprising:
`a client device;
`a network interface coupled to the client device and connecting
`the client device to a packet-switched network; and
`an instant voice messaging application installed on the client
`device, wherein the instant voice messaging application
`includes a client platform system for generating an instant
`voice message and a messaging system for transmitting the
`instant voice message over the packet-switched network via
`the network interface,
`wherein the instant voice messaging application includes a
`document handler system for attaching one or more files to
`the instant voice message.
`
`Ex. 1001, 24:12–27, 26:17–30.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02090
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`III. INSTITUTION OF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`On January 19, 2018, we instituted inter partes review in Case
`
`IPR2017-01667 based on the following prior art and grounds of
`
`unpatentability (Facebook 1667 IPR, slip op. at 38 (PTAB Jan. 19, 2018)
`
`(Paper 8)):
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`3, 6–8, 10, 11, 13, 18–21,
`23, 27, 32–35, 38
`
`§ 103(a) Zydney2 and Shinder3
`
`14–17, 28–31
`
`§ 103(a) Zydney, Shinder, and Clark4
`
`22, 39
`
`§ 103(a) Zydney, Shinder, and Appelman5
`
`The Petition in this proceeding asserts the same grounds as those we
`
`instituted in the Facebook 1667 IPR. Pet. 1, 6; see also Mot. 1. Petitioner
`
`relies also on a Declaration of Tal Lavian, Ph.D., filed as Exhibit 1002
`
`(“Lavian Declaration”). Petitioner asserts that the Lavian Declaration is
`
`identical to the Lavian Declaration filed in the Facebook 1667 IPR. Mot. 1.
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response presents three procedural
`
`arguments not presented in the Facebook 1667 IPR. We address those
`
`arguments here. First, Patent Owner argues that we should deny the instant
`
`Petition because Petitioner fails to identify all related administrative matters.
`
`
`
`2 Zydney et al., WO 01/11824 A2, published Feb. 15, 2001 (filed with line
`numbers added by Petitioner as Exhibit 1003).
`
`3 Excerpts from Debra Littlejohn Shinder, Computer Networking Essentials
`(2002) (Ex. 1014).
`
`4 Clark et al., US 6,725,228 B1, issued Apr. 20, 2004 (Ex. 1008).
`
`5 Appelman, US 6,750,881 B1, issued June 15, 2004 (Ex. 1004).
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02090
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`Prelim. Resp. 14. Specifically, Patent Owner points out that the Petition
`
`does not mention at least seven petitions for inter partes review filed against
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,995,433, a patent that issued from a continuation of the
`
`application for the ’622 patent, or other petitions filed against other related
`
`patents. Id. The omission, according to Patent Owner, violates the Board’s
`
`rule regarding mandatory notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) and the relevant
`
`statutory requirement in 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(4). Prelim. Resp. 4.
`
`Second, Patent Owner alleges that Petitioner failed to identify all real
`
`parties in interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1). Prelim. Resp. 56. In
`
`particular, Patent Owner alleges that the unnamed real parties in interest
`
`pertain to the collection of co-defendants that, together with Petitioner, filed
`
`joint invalidity contentions in the district court litigation. Id. at 5 (referring
`
`to Exhibits 2002 and 2003). Patent Owner also argues that Huawei has
`
`coordinated with Google and Motorola to file petitions in Cases
`
`IPR2017-02080 and IPR2017-02081, in which, as noted above, Google
`
`identified Motorola, Petitioner Huawei, and other Huawei entities as real
`
`parties in interest. Id. at 5–6; see supra § II.A.
`
`Third, Patent Owner proffers that Huawei challenges the ’622 patent
`
`in two other petitions, i.e., in Cases IPR2017-02080 and IPR2017-02081,
`
`and, therefore, Huawei has presented the same or substantially similar
`
`arguments relying on Zydney. Prelim. Resp. 68. According to Patent
`
`Owner, the “redundancy” presented by this third petition on the overlapping
`
`grounds based on Zydney is sufficient to deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 325(d), in light of the factors set forth in the Board’s precedential decision
`
`in General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`
`IPR2016-01357 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (Paper 19). Id. at 8–10.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02090
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`We do not agree with any of Patent Owner’s arguments. Under the
`
`circumstances of this case, the alleged failure to identify either related
`
`matters or real parties in interest, alone,6 does not compel denial of the
`
`Petition. First, mandatory notices are updateable on an ongoing basis.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3). Second, identification of real parties in interest is not
`
`a jurisdictional issue and may be corrected. See Lumentum Holdings, Inc., v.
`
`Capella Photonics, Inc., Case IPR2015-00739, slip op. at 5 (PTAB Mar. 4,
`
`2016) (Paper 38) (precedential). Further, an allegation that defendants in
`
`district court filed joint invalidity contentions is not sufficient to show that
`
`all co-defendants are real parties in interest. See, e.g., Azure Gaming Mac.,
`
`Ltd., v. MGT Gaming, Inc., Case IPR2014-01288, slip op. at 1112 (PTAB
`
`Feb. 20, 2015) (Paper 13) (describing that the real party in interest is the
`
`relationship between a party and a proceeding not the relationship between
`
`parties). Finally, the instant Petition is intentionally identical to the
`
`Facebook IPR previous petition as it seeks joinder on the same grounds
`
`instituted therein. There is no “redundancy” or “multiple bites of the apple”
`
`as Patent Owner alleges. Indeed, joined cases avoid the multiplicity that
`
`Patent Owner criticizes. Accordingly, we decline Patent Owner’s request to
`
`deny the Petition based on the proffered procedural arguments.
`
`We have reviewed the Preliminary Response and find that the
`
`remaining arguments were presented and that we considered them in
`
`connection with the Facebook 1667 IPR. In view of the identicalness of the
`
`issues in the instant Petition and in the Facebook 1667 IPR and the
`
`
`
`6 For example, Patent Owner does not allege any prejudice sufficient to
`consider the alleged deficiencies worthy of redress via denial of the Petition.
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02090
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`already-considered arguments from Patent Owner proffered in the Facebook
`
`1667 IPR, we institute inter partes review in this proceeding on the grounds
`
`presented in the Petition for the same reasons stated in our Decision on
`
`Institution in the Facebook 1667 IPR.
`
`IV. GRANT OF MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`Joinder in inter partes review is subject to the provisions of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(c):
`
`(c) JOINDER.—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 response, determines warrants the institution of an inter
`parties review under section 314.
`
`As the moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that it is
`
`entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). A motion for joinder
`
`should: (1) set forth the reasons joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any new
`
`grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; and (3) explain what
`
`impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing
`
`review. See Frequently Asked Question H5, https://www.uspto.gov/patents-
`
`application-process/appealing-patent-decisions/trials/patent-review-
`
`processing-system-prps-0.
`
`Petitioner asserts it has grounds for standing because, in accordance
`
`with 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), Petitioner filed a motion for joinder concurrently
`
`with the Petition and not later than one month after institution of the
`
`Facebook 1667 IPR. Mot. 1. Patent Owner did not file an opposition to the
`
`Motion for Joinder. We find that the Motion for Joinder is timely. We also
`
`find that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that joinder is appropriate.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02090
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`For the challenged claims, the Petition here is substantively identical to the
`
`petition in the Facebook 1667 IPR. Id. at 57; Pet. 6. The evidence also is
`
`identical, including reliance on the same Lavian Declaration. Mot. 1–2, 5, 7.
`
`Petitioner further has shown that the trial schedule will not be affected
`
`by joinder. Mot. 56. No changes in the schedule are anticipated or
`
`necessary, and the limited participation, if at all, of Petitioner will not impact
`
`the timeline of the ongoing trial.
`
`Going forward, Petitioner shall adhere to the existing schedule of
`
`IPR2017-01667 and the “second-chair” role it has agreed to assume. Id.
`
`More specifically, so long as any Facebook 1667 Petitioner entity is a party
`
`to IPR2017-01667, all filings of Petitioner in IPR2017-01667 shall be
`
`consolidated with the filings of the Facebook 1667 Petitioner. The page
`
`limits set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 will apply to all consolidated filings.
`
`Petitioner shall be bound by any discovery agreements between Patent
`
`Owner and the Facebook 1667 Petitioner in IPR2017-01667, and shall not
`
`seek any additional discovery. Patent Owner shall not be required to provide
`
`any additional discovery or deposition time as a result of joinder. In
`
`addition, if an oral hearing is requested and scheduled, Petitioners in
`
`IPR2017-01667 shall collectively designate attorneys to present at the oral
`
`hearing in a consolidated argument.
`
`The Board expects Petitioner to attempt to resolve any disputes among
`
`the entities involved and to contact the Board only if such matters cannot be
`
`resolved. This arrangement promotes the just and efficient administration of
`
`the ongoing trial and the interests of Petitioner and Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02090
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`In view of the foregoing, it is
`
`V. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that an inter partes review is instituted as to
`
`claims 3, 6–8, 10, 11, 13–23, 27–35, 38, and 39 of the ’622 patent on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`(1) Claims 3, 6–8, 10, 11, 13, 18–21, 23, 27, 32–35, and 38 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zydney and Shinder,
`
`(2) Claims 14–17 and 28–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
`
`over Zydney, Shinder, and Clark, and
`
`(3) Claims 22 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
`
`Zydney, Shinder, and Appelman;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder with
`
`IPR2017-01667 is granted, and Huawei and LG are hereby joined as
`
`petitioners in IPR2017-01667;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that IPR2017-02090 is terminated under
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72 and all future filings are to be made only in
`
`IPR2017-01667;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the grounds on which inter partes review
`
`was instituted in Case IPR2017-01667 remain unchanged, and no other
`
`grounds are instituted in the joined proceedings;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner here (i.e., Huawei and LG) will
`
`be bound in IPR2017-01667 by all substantive and procedural filings and
`
`representations of current Petitioner in IPR2017-01667 (i.e., Facebook and
`
`WhatsApp), without a separate opportunity to be heard, whether orally or in
`
`writing, unless and until the proceeding is terminated with respect to
`
`Facebook and WhatsApp;
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02090
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner here is bound by any discovery
`
`agreements between Patent Owner and the current Petitioner in
`
`IPR2017-01667, and that Petitioner here shall not seek any additional
`
`discovery;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order entered in
`
`IPR2017-01667 shall remain in effect and govern the proceeding, subject to
`
`any schedule changes agreed to by the parties in IPR2017-01667 pursuant to
`
`the Scheduling Order;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner entities in IPR2017-01667
`
`shall collectively designate attorneys to present at the oral hearing in a
`
`consolidated argument;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision shall be entered
`
`into the record of IPR2017-01667; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2017-01667, from
`
`now on, shall reflect joinder of Huawei and LG as parties in accordance with
`
`the attached example.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02090
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`David A. Garr
`Gregory S. Discher
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`dgarr@cov.com
`gdischer@cov.com
`
`
`Anand K. Sharma
`Minjae Kang
`Joshua L. Goldberg
`Bradford C. Schulz
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P
`anand.sharma@finnegan.com
`minjae.kang@finnegan.com
`joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com
`bradford.schulz@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brett Mangrum
`James Etheridge
`Jeffrey Huang
`Ryan Loveless
`ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP
`brett@etheridgelaw.com
`jim@etheridgelaw.com
`jeff@etheridgelaw.com
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`
`
`
`Sean D. Burdick
`UNILOC USA, INC.
`sean.burdick@unilocusa.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., WHATSAPP INC., HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD.,
`and LG ELECTRONICS, INC
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-016677
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7 Huawei Device Co., Ltd. and LG Electronics, Inc., which filed a petition in
`Case IPR2017-02090, have been joined as petitioners in this proceeding.
`
`

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