throbber
IPR2020-01628
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`Filed on behalf of Supercell Oy
`
`By:
`
`RAJIV P. PATEL, Reg. No 39,327
`BRIAN HOFFMAN, Reg. No. 39,713
`JENNIFER R. BUSH, Reg. No. 50,784
`KEVIN X. McGANN, Reg. No. 48,793
`MICHAEL J. SACKSTEDER (pro hac vice)
`GEOFFREY R. MILLER (pro hac vice)
`EMILY J. BULLIS (pro hac vice)
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone: 650.988.8500
`Facsimile: 650.938.5200
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-01628
`Patent 9,561,439
`_____________
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01628
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`EXHIBIT LIST (37 CFR § 42.63(e)) ..................................................................... iii
`I.
`INTRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF ...................................... 1
`II.
`LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................... 2
`III. BASIS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF .................................................... 3
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Removal of Five of the Seven Challenged
`Claims from the Parallel Litigation Immediately After the
`Decision Mitigates Concerns of Duplicative Efforts and
`Potentially Conflicting Decisions ........................................................ 3
`Patent Owner’s Gamesmanship Thwarts the Notion that
`Petitioner is the “Master of its Complaint” .......................................... 6
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01628
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Apple Inc. v. DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc.,
`IPR2015-00369, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2015) ........................................... 2
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ..................................passim
`Apple Inc. v. Maxwell, LTD,
`IPR2020-00200, Paper 21 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2021) .............................................. 4
`Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee,
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .......................................................................................... 8
`Illumina, Inc. v. Natera, Inc.,
`IPR2019-01201, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2019) ........................................... 6
`Precision Planting, LLC v. Deere & Co.,
`IPR2019-01051, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2019) ........................................... 6
`Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Snik, LLC,
`IPR2020-01429, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. March 9, 2021) .......................................... 6
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp.,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2020) ........................................... 4
`SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) .................................................................................. 1, 2, 8
`STATUTES AND RULES
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................... 3, 6
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .............................................................................................. 2, 3, 7, 8
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 11.303(a)(1) ............................................................................................ 7
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71 ................................................................................................... 1, 2
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01628
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`EXHIBIT LIST (37 CFR § 42.63(E))
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1008
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,561,439 to Oono
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No 9,561,439
`Declaration of Dr. Emmet J. Whitehead, Jr.
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0300926 A1 to Englman
`et al.
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0190094 A1 to Ronen et
`al.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,376,838 B2 to Schulhof et al.
`1006
`1007 World of Warcraft, Guild Advancement and You, (Jan. 21, 2011),
`https://worldofwarcraft.com/en-us/news/2113741/guild-advancement-
`and-you
`Arc Games, Forsaken World – Overview – Guild Contribution,
`(Mar. 29, 2011) https://www.arcgames.com/en/games/forsaken-
`world/news/detail/1077620-forsaken-world-___-free-mmorpg-___-
`overview-_-guild-contribution
`1009 MMORPG, Divina – Unique Guild System, (May 12, 2012),
`https://www.mmorpg.com/divina/developer-journals/unique-guild-
`domain-system-2000093507
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0024462 A1 to Qiang et
`al.
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0157212 A1 to Kane et al.
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0071245 A1 to Kotkin
`et al.
`Curriculum Vitae for Dr. Emmet J. Whitehead, Jr.
`
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01628
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`Scott McKeown, District Court Trial Dates Tend to Slip After PTAB
`Discretionary Denials, Patents Post-Grant (July 24, 2020),
`https://www.patentspostgrant.com/district-court-trial-dates-tend-to-slip-
`after-ptab-discretionary-denials/
`Scott McKeown, Congress Urged to Investigate PTAB Discretionary
`Denials, Patents Post-Grant (June 30, 2020),
`https://www.patentspostgrant.com/congress-urged-to-investigate-ptab-
`discretionary-denials/
`Order (Granting Continuance of In-Person Jury Trials) (Dkt. 261),
`entered on November 20, 2020, Infernal Technology, LLC, et al. v. Sony
`Interactive Entertainment LLC, Case. No. 19-cv-00248 (E.D. Texas)
`Katie Buehler, COVID-19 Outbreak Leads to Mistrial in EDTX,
`Law360 (Nov. 17, 2020),
`https://www.law360.com/articles/1329617/covid-19-outbreak-leads-to-
`mistrial-in-edtx
`Sixth Amended Docket Control Order [Dkt 94], entered on October 23,
`2020, Case No. 19-cv-00311 (E.D. Texas)
`GREE, Inc.’s Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`Contentions, served on August 3, 2020, Case No. 19-cv-00311
`(E.D. Texas)
`1020 Minute Order re Markman Hearing [Dkt 73], entered on September 1,
`2020, Case No. 19-cv-00311 (E.D. Texas) (resulting in Claim
`Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order [Dkt 86], entered on
`October 13, 2020)
`E-mail from Lee Matalon, Law Clerk to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap,
`to Petitioner and Patent Owner counsel, Case No. 19-cv-00311 (E.D.
`Texas) (March 17, 2021)
`Updated Section D, Contentions of the Parties, to the Parties Joint
`Pretrial Order [Dkt 222], filed on March 12, 2021, Case No. 19:cv-
`00311 (E.D. Texas)
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01628
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`Description
`
`GREE, Inc.’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`Contentions, served on January 28, 2020, Case No. 19-cv-00311 (E.D.
`Texas)
`Patent Owner’s Response to Petitioner’s Additional Briefing Regarding
`Overlap Factor, filed on March 15, 2021, PGR2020-00043 (P.T.A.B.)
`
`Exhibit
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01628
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`INTRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`I.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71, Petitioner Supercell Oy (“Supercell” or
`
`“Petitioner”) respectfully requests rehearing of the Board’s Decision Denying
`
`Institution of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,561,439 (the “’439 Patent”)
`
`to Oono (Paper 9) (“Decision”) because the Board “misapprehended or
`
`overlooked” matters addressed by the Petition and thus abused its discretion in
`
`denying institution. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) and (d).
`
`In its Decision, the Board determined that Petitioner adequately made an
`
`initial showing that the cited references teach or suggest the limitations of the
`
`challenged claims, but exercised its discretion to deny institution due solely to the
`
`pending district court litigation involving the ’439 Patent. Decision at 14.
`
`Immediately after the Board issued its Decision, however, Patent Owner narrowed
`
`the litigation by dropping five of the seven challenged claims. Ex. 1022. As a
`
`result, only two of the claims challenged in the instant Petition (claims 1 and 5)
`
`will be evaluated by the district court. Id. Accordingly, any overlap between this
`
`proceeding and the litigation would be minimal. When considered in view of the
`
`holistic assessment required by Fintiv, these facts demonstrate that institution is the
`
`proper course of action.
`
`Further, granting the Request for Rehearing will discourage the type of
`
`abusive gamesmanship in which Patent Owner is engaged. SAS designates the
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01628
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`petitioner the “master of its complaint” and allows the petitioner to “define the
`
`contours of the proceeding” (SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355
`
`(2018)), yet denial of institution reverses the roles of the parties and effectively
`
`sanctions and
`
`incentivizes Patent Owner’s shady
`
`litigation
`
`tactics. This
`
`gamesmanship directly contravenes the Board’s goal of promoting efficiency and
`
`fairness in exercising its discretion under § 314. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 6 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential).
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board grant rehearing for the reasons
`
`presented herein.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party
`
`believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each
`
`matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply, or a sur-
`
`reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`
`Institution decisions are reviewed on rehearing for an abuse of discretion.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision [i]s
`
`based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or. .
`
`. a clear error of judgment.” Apple Inc. v. DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc., IPR2015-00369,
`
`Paper 14 at 3 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2015) (citation omitted).
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01628
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`III. BASIS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF
`Patent Owner’s Removal of Five of the Seven Challenged Claims
`A.
`from the Parallel Litigation Immediately After the Decision
`Mitigates Concerns of Duplicative Efforts and Potentially
`Conflicting Decisions
`In its Petition for Inter Partes Review, Petitioner sought review of claims 1-7
`
`of the ’439 Patent, asserting that these claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`over Englman, Ronen, and Schulhof. Decision at 4-5. All seven claims of the ’439
`
`Patent were at issue in the parallel litigation when Petitioner filed the instant
`
`Petition. Ex. 1019. In evaluating the Fintiv Order’s “overlap” factor, the Board
`
`noted that the Petition and litigation concerned “the exact same challenged claims”
`
`and expressed concerns about duplicative efforts and potentially conflicting
`
`decisions between the two proceedings. Decision at 12-13. Immediately after the
`
`Board exercised its discretion to deny institution on § 314 grounds, however,
`
`Patent Owner dropped five of the seven challenged claims from the litigation. That
`
`litigation, which has been postponed until at least May 2021 (Ex. 1021), is now
`
`proceeding on a single independent claim (claim 1) and a single dependent claim
`
`(claim 5) of the ’439 Patent. Ex. 1022.
`
`This development is a proper basis for granting rehearing because it
`
`constitutes a matter the Board misapprehended or overlooked in the Decision. The
`
`Board may properly consider post-decision developments in determining whether a
`
`misapprehension or overlooking of facts justifies the grant of a Request for
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01628
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`Rehearing. See Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp., IPR2019-
`
`01393, Paper 24 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2020) (informative). In Sand Revolution, the
`
`Board stated that new evidence of record submitted after denial of institution
`
`mitigated concerns of the Board related to discretionary denial, and supported
`
`institution. Id. at 2-3. More recently, the Board explicitly stated that consideration
`
`of discretionary denial need not “be constrained to the facts as they existed when
`
`the Petition was filed.” Apple Inc. v. Maxwell, LTD, IPR2020-00200, Paper 21 at 4
`
`(P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2021) (referencing Sand Revolution).
`
`In the instant Decision, the Board acknowledged Petitioner adequately made
`
`an initial showing of obviousness (Decision at 14), yet now, because of Patent
`
`Owner’s gamesmanship, the dropped claims will be insulated from review.
`
`Accordingly, substantial issues will remain even after the parallel litigation
`
`concludes. For example, neither of the remaining claims (claims 1 and 5) address
`
`providing different game pieces to the plurality of users (claim 2). This omission is
`
`particularly egregious given that it relates to the very solution the ’439 Patent
`
`purports to provide: allowing users of different skill levels to participate in a
`
`cooperative game by allocating different game pieces to users having different
`
`parameter values. Pet. at 5. Rather, under the limitations of claim 1, multiple users
`
`in a group could collect the same game pieces.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01628
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`Nor do claims 1 or 5 address what the game control device does with the
`
`stored allocation information when the predetermined period of time has elapsed
`
`(claim 3). Claim 1 merely recites that the allocation information is “stored…in the
`
`storage unit” and used to determine whether all of the required game pieces have
`
`been provided to the first plurality of users. Moreover, neither claim 1 nor claim 5
`
`recites periodically causing an event to occur for providing one or more of the
`
`plurality of game pieces to a user. Rather, claim 1 involves a single “group event”
`
`in which the game control device provides game pieces to users and allocates a
`
`game item if the required game pieces have been provided within the
`
`predetermined time period. It does not contemplate that the game pieces could be
`
`collected over the course of multiple events after the predetermined period of time
`
`has elapsed, as recited in claim 4. Resolution of claims 1 and 5 at the district court
`
`will therefore not resolve a number of key issues in the Petition regarding the
`
`validity of these claims.
`
`The Fintiv factors favor institution in view of these changed facts. The
`
`Board’s stated concerns about duplicative efforts and the potential for conflicting
`
`decisions are rendered moot due to the lack of overlap between the instant IPR and
`
`the parallel litigation. The Board recently found the overlap factor weighed against
`
`discretionary denial where, as here, the patent owner reduced the number of claims
`
`asserted in the litigation such that the majority of claims challenged in the IPR
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01628
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`were not at issue in the parallel proceeding. See Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Snik,
`
`LLC, IPR2020-01429, Paper 10 at 11 (P.T.A.B. March 9, 2021). Similarly, in this
`
`case, inefficiency concerns are minimal because the Petition overlaps with only a
`
`small slice of the parallel proceeding. See also Illumina, Inc. v. Natera, Inc.,
`
`IPR2019-01201, Paper 19 at 6 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2019) (discretionary denial
`
`disfavored where the petition challenged additional claims beyond those reviewed
`
`by the district court); Precision Planting, LLC v. Deere & Co., IPR2019-01051,
`
`Paper 18 at 8-9 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2019) (same). Here, the potential for
`
`inconsistent results is limited to a single independent claim and a single dependent
`
`claim. Petitioner has further mitigated the potential for overlap by stipulating not to
`
`pursue the grounds from the instant Petition in the district court if the Board
`
`institutes Inter Partes Review. See Samsung Elecs. Am., IPR2020-01429, Paper 10
`
`at 11.
`
`Accordingly, the overlap factor favors instituting review of the ’439 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner’s Gamesmanship Thwarts the Notion that
`Petitioner is the “Master of its Complaint”
`Patent Owner initially asserted all seven claims of the ’439 Patent and all
`
`eleven claims of the related ’107 Patent (at issue in IPR2020-01633) in the parallel
`
`district court litigation. Ex. 1023. Petitioner thereafter filed the instant Petition,
`
`arguing that all claims of the ’439 Patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In its
`
`Preliminary Response, Patent Owner claimed that the overlap factor favored the
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01628
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`Board’s exercise of discretionary denial, arguing that there was “substantial
`
`overlap between the claims, grounds, arguments, and evidence presented in the
`
`Petition and what has been, and continues to be, litigated in the parallel district
`
`court proceeding.” POPR at 21 (emphasis added). The Board relied on this
`
`statement in its analysis of the Fintiv factors, ultimately concluding that the overlap
`
`factor favored exercise of its discretion and denied institution under § 314.
`
`Decision at 14-15.
`
`Immediately after the Board’s Decision, however, Patent Owner dropped the
`
`majority of challenged claims from the litigation. Ex. 1022. Patent Owner
`
`thereafter informed the Board, in another matter between the parties, that
`
`narrowing of the claims at trial was “required by the District Court’s procedures”
`
`and that it was exercising its “common practice of selecting the claims it will
`
`present to the jury,” indicating Patent Owner knew in advance it would
`
`subsequently drop claims from the litigation. Ex. 1024 (emphasis added). Hence,
`
`while Patent Owner argued overlap of the claims asserted, it neglected to inform
`
`the Board that it was allegedly required to subsequently reduce the number of
`
`asserted claims. Id. These circumstances create a perception that Patent Owner
`
`intentionally made a false statement of material fact to the Board or failed to
`
`correct a false statement of material fact it previously made to the Board. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 11.303(a)(1). Upholding the Board’s discretionary denial on these facts
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01628
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`would effectively sanction this gamesmanship and incentivize such misleading
`
`tactics in the future.
`
`Moreover, the public’s interests, and Petitioner, are harmed by discretionary
`
`denial in this context. The Board already concluded that the Petition adequately
`
`made an initial showing that “the[] references teach or suggest the limitations of
`
`the challenged claims and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
`
`the asserted references.” Decision at 14. The public has a “‘paramount interest in
`
`seeing that patent monopolies . . . are kept within their legitimate scope.’” Cuozzo
`
`Speed Techs. v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144 (2016) (internal cite omitted).
`
`Exercising discretion here thwarts this interest and signals to patent owners that
`
`they can defeat IPR by asserting a single independent claim and a single dependent
`
`claim in a fast-moving parallel proceeding.
`
`The harms to the public directly impact Petitioner. “[P]etitioner is master of
`
`its complaint and normally entitled to judgment on all of the claims it raises.” SAS
`
`Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018). Exercising discretion here
`
`reverses the roles of the parties, allowing Patent Owner to limit Petitioner’s
`
`complaint to only two of the seven claims of the ’439 Patent.
`
`The Board’s goal in exercising its discretion under § 314 is to “balance[e]
`
`efficiency, fairness, and patent quality.” Decision at 6 (citing Fintiv, IPR2020-
`
`00019, Paper 11, at 5-6). By denying institution of petitions based solely on
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01628
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`parallel district court litigation, the Board is incentivizing Patent Owner
`
`gamesmanship and undermining
`
`the Board’s commitment
`
`to considering
`
`efficiency, fairness, and the merits in evaluating whether to exercise discretionary
`
`denial. Fintiv, IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 6. It is manifestly unfair and inefficient
`
`to deny institution of a meritorious Petition because a narrow subset of the
`
`challenged claims are asserted in the parallel proceeding. Denying institution in
`
`this context allows bad patents to persist and incentivizes patent owners to engage
`
`in gamesmanship.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board grant Rehearing and institute
`
`Inter Partes Review of the ’439 Patent. Doing so will further public interests by
`
`improving patent quality and will be an efficient use of the Board’s time and
`
`resources in light of the lack of overlap between the instant Petition and the related
`
`litigation.
`
`
`
`Dated: March 19, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`/Rajiv P. Patel/
`Rajiv P. Patel
`Reg. No. 39,327
`Attorneys for Petitioner Supercell Oy
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01628
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE ON PATENT OWNER
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Petitioner’s Request for
`
`Rehearing and Exhibits 1021-1024 were served on Patent Owner’s lead and back-up
`
`counsel in its entirety by electronic service at the email addresses provided below:
`
`Andrew W. Rinehart
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1001 West Fourth Street
`Winston-Salem, NC 27101
`arinehart@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Scott A. McKeown
`Ropes & Gray
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 2006
`scott.mckeown@ropesgray.com
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`/Rajiv P. Patel/
`Rajiv P. Patel
`Reg. No. 39,327
`Attorneys for Petitioner Supercell Oy
`
`
`
`John C. Alemanni
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1400
`Raleigh, NC 27609
`jalemanni@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Joshua H. Lee
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309-6582
`jlee@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`Date: March 19, 2021
`Fenwick & West LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`
`
`
`10
`
`

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