throbber
IPR2020-01633
`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. IPR2020-01633
`Patent 9,079,107 B2
`_____________
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01633
`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 Eight of the Ten 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
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01633
`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, 7
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .............................................................................................. 2, 3, 7, 9
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 11.303(a)(1) ............................................................................................ 8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71 ................................................................................................... 1, 2
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01633
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST (37 CFR § 42.63(E))
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,079,107 to Oono
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No 9,079,107
`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
`U.S. Patent No. 7,824,253 B2 to Thompson et al.
`1007
`1008 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
`1010 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.
`Curriculum Vitae for Dr. Emmet J. Whitehead, Jr.
`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/
`
`1009
`
`1011
`1012
`1013
`1014
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01633
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`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)
`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.)
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01633
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`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. 9,079,107 (the “’107 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 ’107 Patent. Decision at 13.
`
`Immediately after the Board issued its Decision, however, Patent Owner narrowed
`
`the litigation by dropping eight of the ten challenged claims. Ex. 1022. As a result,
`
`only two of the claims challenged in the instant Petition (claims 1 and 6) 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
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01633
`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
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01633
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`III. BASIS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF
`Patent Owner’s Removal of Eight of the Ten 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 1-11
`
`of the ’107 Patent, asserting that these claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Englman, Ronen, Schulhof, and Thompson. Decision at 4. Ten of the eleven
`
`challenged claims 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 same statutory grounds,
`
`substantially the same arguments, and substantially the same prior art evidence” with
`
`respect to claims 1-7 and 9-11 and expressed concern about duplicative efforts and
`
`potentially conflicting decisions between the two proceedings. Decision at 12.
`
`Immediately after the Board exercised its discretion to deny institution on § 314
`
`grounds, however, Patent Owner dropped eight of the ten 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 6) of the ’107 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
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01633
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`misapprehension or overlooking of facts justifies the grant of a Request for
`
`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 13), 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 6) address
`
`group formation or how a user joins an existing group, including the interactions
`
`between the game control device and the various communication terminals of
`
`existing and new group members (claims 2, 3, and 11). Nor do claims 1 and 6
`
`contemplate that each user may be limited to receiving a single game piece (claim
`
`7).
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01633
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`
`Further, claim 8 is the only claim of the ’107 Patent that recites a battle
`
`between two users in the game and the transfer of a game piece based on the battle
`
`outcome. Both claims 1 and 6 involve users working together to achieve a common
`
`goal (i.e., collection of game pieces and a game item); neither claim contemplates
`
`users working against each other. Nor does either claim address game piece transfer
`
`generally, let alone transfer as a result of a battle outcome.
`
`Most egregious, however, is the district court’s lack of review of claims 4-5
`
`given that these claims relate to the very solution the ’107 purports to provide:
`
`allowing users of different skill levels to participate in a cooperative game by
`
`allocating different game pieces to users having different skill levels. Pet. at 5. These
`
`claims differ in scope from claim 6. For example, claim 6 explicitly limits the
`
`distribution of each of the game pieces to users with skill levels in a predetermined
`
`range. The predetermined range is definitionally bounded. In contrast, claim 4 recites
`
`providing game pieces to users with skill levels in different ranges with different
`
`probabilities, which differs from bounded ranges. Likewise, claim 5 recites
`
`providing game pieces to users with skill levels in different ranges, which is
`
`unbounded. Resolution of claims 1 and 6 at the district court will therefore not
`
`resolve a number of key issues in the Petition regarding 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
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01633
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`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 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). 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 ’107 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner’s Gamesmanship Thwarts the Notion that
`Petitioner is the “Master of its Complaint”
`Patent Owner initially asserted all eleven claims of the ‘107 Patent and all
`
`seven claims of the related ’439 Patent (at issue in IPR2020-01628) in the parallel
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01633
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`district court litigation. Ex. 1023. Claim 8 was dropped from the litigation in August
`
`2020. Ex. 1019. Petitioner then filed the instant Petition, arguing that all claims of
`
`the ’107 Patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In its Preliminary Response,
`
`Patent Owner claimed that the overlap factor favored the 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.
`
`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
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01633
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`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 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 13. 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 eleven claims of the ’107 Patent.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01633
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`
`The Board’s goal in exercising its discretion under § 314 is to “balance[e]
`
`efficiency, fairness, and patent quality.” Decision at 5 (citing Fintiv, IPR2020-
`
`00019, Paper 11 at 5-6). By denying institution of petitions based solely on 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 ’107 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
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01633
`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