Trials@uspto.gov Paper 58
`571-272-7822 Date: September 9, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`COOLER MASTER CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`AAVID THERMALLOY LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2019-00144
`Patent 7,066,240 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before LINDA E. HORNER, KEN B. BARRETT, and
`ROBERT A. POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Petitioner’s Request on Rehearing of Final Written Decision
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822 Date: September 9, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`COOLER MASTER CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`AAVID THERMALLOY LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2019-00144
`Patent 7,066,240 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before LINDA E. HORNER, KEN B. BARRETT, and
`ROBERT A. POLLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Petitioner’s Request on Rehearing of Final Written Decision
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144
`Patent 7,066,240 B2
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Cooler Master Co., Ltd., (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,066,240 B2 (“the ’240 patent,”
`Ex. 1001). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). The Petition challenged the patentability of
`claims 9‒13 of the ’240 patent (“the challenged claims”) on the grounds of
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioner asserted two grounds of
`unpatentability. Id. at 5. Aavid Thermalloy LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On June 6,
`2019, the Board instituted inter partes review of all the challenged claims on
`all of the asserted grounds. Paper 9 (“Inst. Dec.”), 40.
`Subsequently, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 29, “PO Resp.”)
`to the Petition, Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 35, “Pet. Reply”) to the Patent
`Owner Response, and Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 41, “PO Sur-
`Reply”). An oral hearing was held on March 5, 2020, and a transcript of the
`hearing is included in the record. Paper 54 (“Tr.”).
`We entered a Final Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
`Paper 55 (“Final Dec.”). We determined that Petitioner had not shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 9–12 of the ’240 patent are
`unpatentable, but Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence
`that claim 13 of the ’240 patent is unpatentable. Final Dec. 74.
`On July 6, 2020, Petitioner filed a Request for Rehearing (Paper 56)
`and on July 14, 2020, Petitioner filed a Corrected Request for Rehearing
`(Paper 57, “Request” or “Req. Reh’g”) of our Final Written Decision.1
`Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the finding that Petitioner had not shown
`
`
`1 Citations in this Decision to the Request refer to Paper 57.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144
`Patent 7,066,240 B2
`that claim 11 of the ’240 patent is unpatentable. For the reasons provided
`below, Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.
`II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
`A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the
`decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify
`specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place
`where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a
`reply. Id. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the
`decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of
`discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous
`interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial
`evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing
`relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir.
`2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`III. ANALYSIS
`Petitioner asserts that the Board’s finding as to claim 11 “is based on
`the incorrect construction for the phrase, ‘at least one spacer extending
`between and contacting said first and second plates.’” Request 1 (emphasis
`in original). In the Final Decision, the Board construed “at least one spacer
`extending between and contacting said first and second plates” as referring
`to a “structure separate from and in contact with the first and second plates
`and configured to maintain a space or clearance between the plates.” Final
`Dec. 23.
`Petitioner argues: (1) the Board misapprehended the intrinsic
`evidence regarding the spacer limitation; (2) the spacer limitation must be
`construed to include depressions because that is how the specification
`describes them; and (3) Nakamura discloses the limitation of “spacer
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144
`Patent 7,066,240 B2
`extending between and contacting” the two plates under the correct
`construction. Request 2, 11, 13. We address each argument in turn below.
`A. Petitioner’s assertion that the Board misapprehended the intrinsic
`evidence regarding the spacer limitation
`Petitioner asserts that the Board misapprehended the intrinsic
`evidence in three ways: (1) the Board incorrectly interpreted two distinct
`claim terms, “contacting” and “bonded to,” as the same thing; (2) the
`construction that the spacer be “separate from . . . the first and second
`plates” excludes depressions, which contradicts the express disclosure in
`the ’240 patent; and (3) the construction excludes preferred embodiments of
`“spacer” described and depicted in the specification. Request 2‒3.
`As to the first asserted error, Petitioner argues “[i]n adopting
`Patentee’s construction, the Board apparently (and incorrectly) interpreted
`two distinct claim terms, ‘contacting’ and ‘bonded to,’ as the same thing,
`even though they are not the same in the context of the ’240 patent or
`otherwise.” Request 3 (citing Final Dec. 22). Petitioner argues that “the
`Board seemed to rely on the comparison between how solid columns and
`embossed depressions are differently ‘bonded to’ the plates to conclude that
`depressions could not be ‘contacting’ both plates.” Request 4. Petitioner
`argues that the ’240 patent uses these terms differently so that “how a
`spacers is ‘bonded to’ one or both plates is a different matter from whether
`the spacer is ‘contacting’ the two plates.” Id.
`The Board’s construction of a “spacer extending between and
`contacting said first and second plates,” as reproduced above, does not
`include any reference to how–or whether–the spacer is bonded. Final Dec.
`23. Rather, in determining the scope of a spacer “extending between and
`contacting” both plates, the Board looked to the description of spacers
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144
`Patent 7,066,240 B2
`provided in the ’240 patent. In the Final Decision, the Board observed that
`the ’240 patent describes two types of spacers: (1) embossed depressions
`that are formed in one plate with the portion of the depression which
`contacts the opposite plate bonded to that opposite plate, and (2) solid
`columns that are separate from, and bonded to, both plates. Id. at 22. The
`Board interpreted the claimed “spacer extending between and contacting”
`the two plates as referring to the latter type. Id. at 23. The Board did not
`focus on how the spacer is bonded to the plate, rather the Board construed
`the claim language of “extending between and contacting” in light of the
`Specification of the ’240 patent to discern whether the language
`encompasses both types of disclosed spacers or only one of the types of
`spacer.
`Petitioner argues that the panel erred because “the ’240 patent uses the
`terms ‘contacting’ and ‘bonded to’ differently.” Request 4. For instance,
`Petitioner argues that “claim 11 of the ’240 patent recites ‘contacting’ and
`‘bonded to’ as two distinct terms, so they should have different meanings.”
`Id. To the extent “bonded to” may be a narrower term than “contacting,”
`any such difference in scope fails to support Petitioner’s position. Claim 11
`recites “at least one depression formed in said first plate which . . . is
`sealingly bonded to said second plate” and “at least one spacer extending
`between and contacting said first and second plates.” Ex. 1001, 6:38‒41,
`49‒50. The fact that the claim uses different language to recite a depression
`“formed in” one plate and “bonded to” the other plate, as compared to the
`language used to recite a spacer “extending between and contacting” both
`plates supports the Board’s reading of the claim language as drawing a
`distinction between a depression and the claimed spacer. The claim
`language does not use “contacting” to describe the depression with respect to
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144
`Patent 7,066,240 B2
`the first plate. This confirms our view, as expressed in the Final Decision,
`that a depression would not be understood to contact the plate in which it is
`formed without rendering the word “contacting” meaningless. Final Dec. 23
`(citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 116).
`Petitioner also identifies portions of the’240 patent that “describe[]
`components as contacting each other without indicating they are also bonded
`to each other.” Request 4 (citing Ex. 1001, Abstract (“the region which
`contacts the heat source”), 1:35‒36 (“the heat sink surface which contacts
`the device to be cooled”), 4:11 (“cover plate 20 is held in intimate contact
`with fin plate 38”)). None of these examples describes, however, a
`component formed in the plate itself as also “contacting” the plate.
`Petitioner relies, in part, on the description provided in column 2, lines
`3 through 11 of the ’240 patent as support for a construction that
`encompasses depression spacers. Request 5. Petitioner argues that “a
`pattern of spacers extending between and contacting the two plates”
`described in this portion of the patent is a genus of spacers that includes
`embossed depressions and solid columns. Id. at 5‒6.
`As an initial matter, we agree with Petitioner that “spacer,” when that
`term is considered without the surrounding language in the claim, is a
`generic term encompassing both embossed (depression) spacers and solid
`column spacers. When, however, the term “spacer” is considered in light of
`the surrounding claim language, the phrase “extending between and
`contacting” the two plates limits the claimed spacer to the species where the
`spacer is separate from the two plates. We disagree with Petitioner’s view
`that one having ordinary skill in the art would read this portion of the ’240
`patent to mean that embossed spacers are spacers extending from and
`contacting both of the recited plates.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144
`Patent 7,066,240 B2
`Instead, we reviewed the evidence, and in the Final Decision, we
`adopted the Patent Owner’s proffered reading of this portion of the ’240
`patent. See Final Dec. 23 (citing PO Resp. 25 and Ex. 2002 ¶ 116).
`Specifically, Dr. Faghri opined:
`when the last sentence of the above-quoted paragraph [Ex. 1001,
`2:3-11] states that ‘[t]hese spacers can be solid columns,
`embossed depressions formed in one of the plates, or a mixture
`of the two,’ it is referring to the preceding sentence and
`describing examples of structure that can be used to ‘prevent the
`plates from bowing inward.’ It is not identifying ‘embossed
`depressions formed in one of the plates’ as ‘spacers extending
`between and contacting the two plates.’ This is at least because
`a depression would not be understood to contact the plate in
`which it is formed; otherwise, the word ‘contacting’ becomes
`meaningless.
`Ex. 2002 ¶ 116.
`Petitioner argued in the Petition that “[r]eading the above passage
`[Ex. 1001, 2:3‒9], a [person having ordinary skill in the art] would have
`understood that, in the context of the ’240 patent, the word ‘spacer’ simply
`meant a structure used to create or maintain space between the plates.”
`Pet. 24. Dr. Pokharna supports this interpretation of lines 3 through 9 of
`column 2 and the understanding of “spacer” in his declaration. Ex. 1002
`¶ 50. The problem with this construction is that Dr. Pokharna and Petitioner
`do not address in this discussion of column 2 of the ’240 patent, the meaning
`of “extending between and contacting.” Instead, they propose a construction
`of “spacer” that fails to consider the context of the surrounding claim
`language.
`Petitioner further argued in the Petition, and Dr. Pokharna testified,
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the
`subsequent sentence in lines 9 through 11 of column 2 that the claimed
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144
`Patent 7,066,240 B2
`“depression” could have functioned as a “spacer.” Pet. 24; Ex. 1002 ¶ 51.
`Again, this testimony does not address the claim language “extending
`between and contacting said first and second plates.”
`We agree that a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`understand that a depression can perform the function of a spacer, but we
`disagree that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand this
`portion of the ’240 patent as describing that the depression-type of spacer
`extends between and contacts both plates. We disagree with Petitioner that
`the language in lines 9 through 11 of column 2 is inconsistent with this
`construction. Instead, we agree with, and rely on Patent Owner’s expert’s
`testimony as to how a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`understand this disclosure.
`In its Rehearing Request, Petitioner argues that
`because “the spacers” in the second sentence [of lines 3 through
`11 of column 2] are the same as the “pattern of spacers” in the
`first sentence, the “two” types of spacers, “solid columns” and
`“embossed depressions formed in one of the plates,” referenced
`in the third sentence are both “contacting the two plates.”
`Request 5 (citing Pet. 24; Pet. Reply 14‒15). Although Petitioner argued in
`the cited portions of both the Petition and the Reply that Patent Owner’s
`proposed construction is “inconsistent with the specification,” Petitioner
`presents this grammatical argument parsing the language of this passage for
`the first time in its rehearing request, unsupported by expert testimony. We
`do not find Petitioner’s argument persuasive. Rather, as in the Final
`Decision, we find Patent Owner expert’s reading of this passage to be more
`persuasive in light of the remainder of the specification and in the context of
`the totality of the description provided in the ’240 patent. See Final Dec. 23
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144
`Patent 7,066,240 B2
`(adopting Dr. Faghri’s reading of this passage as set forth in Ex. 2002
`¶ 116).
`Petitioner cites to disclosure in the ’240 patent of bonding of solid
`columns to the plates and bonding of depressions to one of the plates as
`being focused on bonding rather than contacting. Request 6 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 2:29‒36). Petitioner argues that “while the through-hole
`providing depressions may be bonded to only one plate, they can
`nonetheless be extending between and contacting two plate at the same time
`in the context of the ‘240 patent.” Id. at 7.
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s asserted distinction between
`“bonding” and “contacting.” The passage in the ’240 patent relied on by
`Petitioner fails to support Petitioner’s assertion that a depression formed in a
`plate can also contact the same plate. Likewise, we find unavailing
`Petitioner’s assertion that other portions of the ’240 patent do not contradict
`Petitioner’s view that a depression can be viewed as extending between and
`contacting two plates. Request 7 n.1. If anything, Petitioner’s citations
`support the view that an embossed spacer does not “contact” the plate in
`which it is embossed. For instance, the ’240 patent describes, in column 2
`lines 34 to 35, spacers embossed in one plate, where “the portions of the
`depressions which contact the opposite plate [are bonded] to that opposite
`plate.” Ex. 1001, 2:34‒35. Thus, the patent uses “contacting” to describe
`only the relationship between the extended end of the depression and the
`plate opposite to the plate in which the depression is formed. Similarly, the
`’240 patent describes in column 3, lines 40 to 41 that when contact plate 18
`and cover plate 20 are joined, “the flat portions of depressions 26 are in
`contact with inner surface 28 of contact plate 18.” Id. at 3:40‒41. By
`contrast, the ’240 patent does not describe the embossed end of the
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144
`Patent 7,066,240 B2
`depressions being “in contact with” or “contacting” the plate in which it is
`embossed.
`For the reasons discussed above, we do not see how a spacer can be
`embossed in a plate and, at the same time, contact that same plate. We find
`Patent Owner’s expert more credible than Petitioner’s expert as to how a
`person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the description
`of the types of spacers in the challenged patent and which type of spacers are
`described as “extending between and contacting” both plates.
`For these reasons, we did not misapprehend the evidence presented as
`to the term “contacting.” We considered Petitioner’s arguments and
`evidence and Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence, and determined
`Patent Owner had the better position.
`Along these same lines, Petitioner argues in its second asserted error
`that our construction that requires the “spacer extending between and
`contacting” the two plates be “separate from . . . the first and second plates”
`contradicts the specification of the ’240 patent. Request 7. Petitioner argues
`that this “separate from” construction amounts to a negative limitation that
`contradicts specification. Id. The Request relies, in part, on the same
`portion of column 2, lines 3 through 11 of the ’240 patent that we discussed
`above. Id. For the reasons discussed above, we do not agree that our
`construction is inconsistent with this portion of the ’240 patent.
`Petitioner supports its proposed construction by reference to the
`Figures and corresponding description of some embodiments of spacers as
`solid columns 44 integral with the bottom plate and depressions 26 integral
`with the top plate. Request 8‒9 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:3‒11, 3:38‒42, 4:20‒24
`and references annotated Figures 1, 2). Petitioner argues that “the
`specification suggests that the recited ‘spacer’ should not always be
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144
`Patent 7,066,240 B2
`‘separate from … the first and second plates.’” Id. at 8‒9. Petitioner asserts
`that “not only is there no support for this negative limitation, but the
`specification also contradicts it.” Id. at 9.
`First, we disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that our claim
`construction of “at least one spacer extending between and contacting” the
`two plates introduces a negative limitation. Our interpretation was not
`limited to construction of only the term “spacer.” Rather, we interpreted the
`express language in the claim that the spacer is “extending between and
`contacting” the two plates, and in doing so, determined that this express
`recitation narrowed the claimed “spacer” to not encompass spacers formed
`by depressions.
`Second, we disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the requirement
`for the spacer to be separate from both plates in order to meet the claim
`limitation that requires the spacer to be “extending between and contacting”
`both plates is contradicted by the specification. Indeed, as we noted in our
`claim construction in the Final Decision, the ’240 patent describes a spacer
`that is separate from both plates. Final Dec. 22 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:32‒36).
`We agree with Petitioner that this specific embodiment of a spacer that is
`separate from both plates is not shown in the exemplary Figures of the ’240
`patent. But that the applicant did not depict the separate spacer embodiment
`in a figure does not erase the description of this embodiment from the
`specification. Petitioner has pointed us to no authority that supports the
`view that a claim interpretation of explicit claim language to encompass only
`an embodiment disclosed in the patent’s text but not depicted in an
`accompanying figure is incorrect or inconsistent with the specification. The
`claim recites limitations directed to one disclosed spacer embodiment that
`excludes another disclosed spacer embodiments shown in the Figures.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144
`Patent 7,066,240 B2
`Petitioner argues that “[t]he Board appeared to believe that, because
`the ‘depression’ and ‘spacer’ limitations are separately recited elements in
`claim 11, ‘spacer’ must be construed to exclude ‘depression’ so that there is
`no overlap between them.” Request 9. This is a mischaracterization of our
`claim construction analysis. The Board did not simply rely on separate
`recitation of these two limitations to determine that the recited “spacer” does
`not encompass an embossed depression. Rather, the Board relied on the
`additional surrounding claim language reciting a specific type of spacer (i.e.,
`one that is separate from the plates). Final Dec. 22.
`Finally, as to the third asserted error involving our review of the
`intrinsic evidence, Petitioner argues that the Board’s construction is
`incorrect because it excludes preferred embodiments of “spacer” described
`in specification. Request 10 (arguing that “[t]he ’240 patent discloses
`‘spacer’ embodiments such as the ‘embossed depressions formed in one of
`the plates’ (’240, 2:10), the ‘spacers embossed in one plate’ and bonded to
`the ‘opposite plate’ (id., 2:33‒35), as well as depressions 26 and solid
`columns 44 (id., Figs. 1‒2) that are integral to one of the two plates.”). As
`explained above, the description of the spacers in the ’240 patent
`encompasses generally various types of spacers, including the embossed
`spacer embodiments shown in the Figures, but the claim language is
`expressly limited to one type of spacer that is separate from both plates.
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown that we
`misapprehended or overlooked relevant law, arguments, or evidence related
`to the “at least one spacer extending between and contacting said first and
`second plates” of claim 11.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144
`Patent 7,066,240 B2
`B. Petitioner’s assertion that the spacer limitation must be construed to
`include depressions because that is how the specification describes them
`Similar to Petitioner’s first assertion that we misapprehended the
`intrinsic evidence in reaching our claim construction, Petitioner’s second
`assertion relies on the same portions of the ’240 patent to argue that the
`spacer limitation must be construed to include depressions to be consistent
`with the specification. Request 11‒13 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:3‒11 (discussed
`above, describing extending between and contacting) and 2:29‒36
`(discussed above, describing bonding)). Petitioner argues that the Board
`overlooked distinctions in the specification between “bonding” and
`“extending between and contacting”:
`the choices the Patentee has made with respect to describing
`“bonding” and “extending between and contacting” in the
`specification were different. The fact the specification made a
`distinction as to “bonding” shows that the Patentee could have
`done so as to “extending between and contacting” as well, but
`chose not to.
`Id. at 13.
`We disagree with this asserted distinction, or that the distinction is as
`clear from the intrinsic evidence as Petitioner asserts. For the reasons
`discussed in detail above, we find that Patent Owner’s expert’s explanation
`of these portions of the specification of the ’240 patent is the better one.
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown that we
`misapprehended or overlooked relevant law, arguments, or evidence related
`to the “at least one spacer extending between and contacting said first and
`second plates” of claim 11.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144
`Patent 7,066,240 B2
`C. Petitioner’s assertion that Nakamura discloses the limitation of “spacer
`extending between and contacting” the two plates under the correction
`construction
`Petitioner argues that under the “correct” construction, which includes
`a spacer embossed in one of the plates as the claimed spacer “extending
`between and contacting” both plates, Nakamura’s concavities 9 embossed in
`the top and bottom plates that abut each other when the plates are joined
`meet this claim limitation. Request 13. Petitioner interprets Nakamura as
`disclosing “the two halves of the whole ‘spacer’ together [] extending from
`the first and second plates, respectively, towards and contacting the other
`plates in-between them.” Id. at 14 (citing Pet. 65‒67). “Thus, the spacer as
`a whole is extending between and contacting the two plates.” Id.
`This assertion is moot because we disagree with Petitioner’s
`arguments about claim construction of “at least one spacer extending
`between and contacting said first and second plates.” Further, even if we
`adopted Petitioner’s claim construction, we agree with the Patent Owner’s
`argument, raised in its Patent Owner Response, that “[t]he Petition provides
`no basis for relying on the combination of two concavities 9 (distinct from
`the surfaces in which they are formed) as the claimed spacer. Neither of the
`concavities ‘extend[s] between’ the surfaces but only extend half-way across
`the container.” PO Resp. 48 n.5; Ex. 2002 ¶ 154.
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown that we
`misapprehended or overlooked relevant law, arguments, or evidence related
`to the “at least one spacer extending between and contacting said first and
`second plates” of claim 11 or related to Petitioner’s assertion that Nakamura
`discloses this limitation.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00144
`Patent 7,066,240 B2
`
`D. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown that we
`misapprehended or overlooked Petitioner’s arguments or evidence in
`determining that Petitioner failed to show by a preponderance of evidence
`that challenged claim 11 of the ’240 patent is unpatentable.
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Erik B. Milch
`Andrew C. Mace
`Reuben Chen
`COOLEY LLP
`emilch@cooley.com
`amace@cooley.com
`rchen@cooley.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Kenneth M. Albridge, III
`Kevin P. Moran
`Brian J. N. Marstall
`MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP
`kmalbridge@michaelbest.com
`kpmoran@michaelbest.com
`bjmarstall@michaelbest.com
`
`
`
`15
`
`
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
