Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper: 12
`
`
`
` Entered: August 21, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,1
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00579
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review and
`Grant of Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., formerly identified as Patent Owner, filed an
`Updated Mandatory Notice pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) on August 9,
`2018, stating that Uniloc 2017 LLC is now the Patent Owner. Paper 11.
`The caption has been updated accordingly.
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper: 12
`
`
`
` Entered: August 21, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,1
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00579
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review and
`Grant of Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., formerly identified as Patent Owner, filed an
`Updated Mandatory Notice pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) on August 9,
`2018, stating that Uniloc 2017 LLC is now the Patent Owner. Paper 11.
`The caption has been updated accordingly.
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00579
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “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 3
`(“Pet.”). Petitioner also filed a Motion for Joinder, seeking joinder as a
`petitioner in Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., Case No.
`IPR2017-01667 (“the 1667 IPR”). Paper 2 (“Mot.”). Uniloc Luxembourg
`S.A. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 10, “Prelim.
`Resp.”), as well as an Objection to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder (Paper 7,
`“Obj.”).
`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. Apple Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00638-JRG (E.D. Tex.), among numerous
`other actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
`Texas. Pet. 3−4; Paper 5, 3.
`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, Inc. and WhatsApp
`Inc.), in which we instituted inter partes review on January 19, 2018; Cases
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00579
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`IPR2017-01797 and IPR2017-01798 (filed by Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc.), in which we instituted inter partes review on February 6,
`2018; Cases IPR2017-02080 and IPR2017-02081 (filed by Google, Inc.),
`which we denied; and Case IPR2017-02090 (filed by LG Electronics, Inc.
`and Huawei Device Co., Ltd.), in which we instituted inter partes review on
`March 6, 2018, and granted a motion to join LG and Huawei as petitioners
`in IPR2017-01667. In addition, concurrently with the filing of the instant
`Petition, Petitioner filed a petition requesting inter partes review of claims 4,
`5, 12, and 24–26 of the ’622 patent (Case IPR2018-00580) along with a
`motion for joinder with IPR2017-01668.
`
`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
`’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
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00579
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`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.
`
`
`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.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00579
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00579
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`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.
`
`III. INSTITUTION OF INTER PARTES REVIEW
`On January 19, 2018, we instituted inter partes review in the 1667 IPR
`based on the following prior art and grounds of unpatentability
`(IPR2017-01667 IPR, slip op. at 38 (PTAB Jan. 19, 2018) (Paper 8)):
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00579
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`Challenged Claims
`3, 6–8, 10, 11, 13, 18–21,
`23, 27, 32–35, 38
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`§ 103(a) Zydney2 and Shinder3
`
`14–17, 28–31
`
`22, 39
`
`§ 103(a) Zydney, Shinder, and Clark4
`§ 103(a) Zydney, Shinder, and
`Appelman5
`
`The Petition in this proceeding asserts the same grounds as those on
`which we instituted an inter partes review in the 1667 IPR. Pet. 77; see also
`Mot. 1. Petitioner asserts that the Petition relies on the same arguments and
`evidentiary record as in the 1667 IPR, including a Declaration of Tal Lavian,
`Ph.D., filed as Exhibit 1002 (“Lavian Declaration”), previously filed in the
`1667 IPR. Pet. 77; Mot. 1, 4.
`Patent Owner’s instant Preliminary Response differs substantively
`from its preliminary response filed in the 1667 IPR in several regards: First,
`as in its Objection to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder, Patent Owner points
`out that the Board previously denied institution of other petitions that also
`challenged claims of the ’622 patent based on the Zydney reference at issue
`here. Prelim. Resp. 1 (citing IPR2017-02080 and IPR2017-02081). Second,
`Patent Owner revises its claim construction discussion from the 1667 IPR,
`including by adding a discussion of the phrase “wherein the instant voice
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00579
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`messaging application includes a document handler system for attaching one
`or more files to the instant voice message,” as recited in independent
`claim 27. Compare id. at 5–13, with IPR2017-01667, Paper 6, 6–16. Third,
`Patent Owner revises its arguments from the 1667 IPR that Zydney does not
`teach that “document handler system” limitation as Patent Owner alleges it
`should be construed. Compare Prelim. Resp. 15–21, with IPR2017-01667,
`Paper 6, 18–22. Fourth, Patent Owner adds several new arguments as to
`why it alleges Zydney does not disclose or suggest “wherein the instant
`voice message includes an object field including a digitized audio file,” as
`recited in independent claim 3. Prelim. Resp. 21 n.11, 23–26. Fifth, Patent
`Owner revises its arguments that Clark does not cure alleged deficiencies in
`Zydney with respect to “message database” limitations recited in challenged
`claims 14–17 and 28–31, including with citation to the intervening
`deposition testimony of Dr. Lavian (Ex. 2003) and by including an argument
`that Clark teaches away from the proposed combination. Prelim. Resp. 29–
`36.
`
`We have considered Patent Owner’s newly presented arguments, but
`conclude that they do not compel denial of the Petition under the
`circumstances presented here, where the instant Petition is essentially
`identical to that in the 1667 IPR already instituted, and Petitioner seeks
`joinder as a party to that proceeding. In view of the identicalness of the
`issues in the instant Petition and the petition in the 1667 IPR and the
`already-considered arguments from Patent Owner made in the 1667 IPR, we
`determine that this proceeding warrants institution on the grounds presented
`in the Petition for the same reasons stated in our Decision on Institution in
`the 1667 IPR.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00579
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`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.
`We find Petitioner timely filed its motion for joinder concurrently
`with the Petition and not later than one month after institution of the
`1667 IPR, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). We also find that
`Petitioner has met its burden of showing that joinder is appropriate. For the
`challenged claims, the Petition here is substantively identical to the petition
`in the 1667 IPR. The substantive evidence also is identical, including
`reliance on essentially the same Lavian Declaration.6
`
`
`6 Petitioner provided, as Exhibit 1021, a “redlined” version of the Lavian
`Declaration, showing differences between the version filed as Exhibit 1002
`and the version filed in the 1667 IPR. Pet. ix. Apart from edits to the case
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00579
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`Petitioner further has shown that the trial schedule will not be affected
`by joinder. Mot. 5. 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.
`In its Objection to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder, Patent Owner
`contends that the discretionary institution factors set forth in the Board’s
`decision in Blue Coat Systems LLC v. Finjan, Inc., IPR2016-01443 (PTAB
`Jan. 23, 2017) (Paper 13) and later precedential decision in General Plastic
`Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357 (PTAB Sept. 6,
`2017) (Paper 19) “weigh heavily against institution and, therefore, joinder.”
`Obj. 1, 6–11. Patent Owner points out that Petitioner has now filed six
`petitions against claims of the ’622 patent, including, inter alia, a petition in
`IPR2017-01804 that relied on the same references as the instant Petition. Id.
`at 1, 5. Patent Owner contends that the Board already agreed in
`IPR2017-01804 that the Blue Coat Systems/General Plastic factors weigh
`against institution, and further contends that “Petitioner should not be able to
`use joinder as an end run around principles designed to prevent abuse of IPR
`proceedings.” Id. at 6.
`We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments but disagree that the
`Blue Coat Systems/General Plastic factors compel denial under the present
`circumstances. Whereas Patent Owner correctly points out that we exercised
`discretion to deny Petitioner’s essentially identical petition in
`IPR2017-01804, that petition was, critically, not accompanied by a motion
`
`
`caption and page headers, changing the names of the parties where
`applicable, and replacing “Petitioners” in several instances with “Petitioner,”
`there do not appear to be any differences. See, e.g., Ex. 1021, 1, 15, 108.
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00579
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`for joinder. Here, in contrast, the Petition is accompanied by a timely filed
`Motion for Joinder in which Petitioner affirmatively agrees to assume a
`“passive understudy role” and to adhere to the existing schedule in the
`1667 IPR (see Mot. 6–7), effectively neutralizing the General Plastic
`factors. For example, joinder of Petitioner to the 1667 IPR will not put a
`significant additional burden on the Board or jeopardize the Board’s ability
`to issue a final written decision in the 1667 IPR, and this is not a case in
`which a petitioner has used prior preliminary responses or decisions of the
`Board to tailor its substantive arguments. We also decline, under the
`particular circumstances presented, to hold against Petitioner the time
`elapsed between the filing of its petition in IPR2017-01804 and the filing of
`the essentially identical instant Petition, where we denied that earlier petition
`expressly “without prejudice to Petitioner’s ability to file a new petition
`accompanied by a request for joinder pursuant to and within the time period
`permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)” (IPR2017-01804, slip op. 6–7 (Jan. 19,
`2018) (Paper 8)), as Petitioner has done here. As we explained in our
`decision granting Huawei and LG’s petition and motion for joinder to the
`1667 IPR in IPR2017-02090, “joined cases avoid the multiplicity that Patent
`Owner criticizes.” IPR2017-02090, slip op. at 9 (PTAB Mar. 6, 2018)
`(Paper 9).
`Going forward, Petitioner shall adhere to the existing schedule of the
`1667 IPR and the “passive understudy role” it has agreed to assume.
`Mot. 6–7. More specifically, so long as any current petitioner in the
`1667 IPR (i.e., Facebook, WhatsApp, Huawei, and LG) is a party to the
`1667 IPR, all filings of Petitioner in the 1667 IPR shall be consolidated with
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00579
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`the filings of the current 1667 IPR petitioners. 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 current petitioners in the 1667 IPR 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, all
`petitioners in the 1667 IPR shall collectively designate attorneys to present
`at the oral hearing, currently scheduled for August 30, 2018 (see
`IPR2017-01667, Paper 28), 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.
`
`V. ORDER
`In view of the foregoing, it is
`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;
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00579
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder with
`IPR2017-01667 is granted, and Apple is hereby joined as a petitioner in
`IPR2017-01667;
`FURTHER ORDERED that IPR2018-00579 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., Apple) will be bound
`in IPR2017-01667 by all substantive and procedural filings and
`representations of current Petitioner in IPR2017-01667 (i.e., Facebook,
`WhatsApp, LG, and Huawei), without a separate opportunity to be heard,
`whether orally or in writing, unless and until the proceeding is terminated
`with respect to each of Facebook, WhatsApp, LG, and Huawei;
`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 authorized by the Board 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;
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00579
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`
`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 Apple as a party, in accordance with the
`attached example.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00579
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Jason D. Eisenberg
`Michael D. Specht
`Trent W. Merrell
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`jasone-PTAB@skgf.com
`mspecht-PTAB@skgf.com
`tmerrell-PTAB@skgf.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
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., WHATSAPP INC., HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD.,
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`UNILOC 2017LLC,
`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, and Apple Inc., which filed a petition in Case
`IPR2018-00579, have been joined as petitioners in this proceeding.
`
`
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
