throbber
Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 83 Filed 12/19/11 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 422
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 83
`Filed 12/19/11 Page 1 of 14 Page|D #: 422
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`FASTVDO LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`APPLE INC., et al.
`
` Defendants.
`
`C.A. No. 1 1-797-RGA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANT DXG TECHNOLOGY (U.S.A.) INC.’S
`ANSWER, AFFIRNIATIVE DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant DXG Technology (USA) Inc. (“DXG”) hereby answers the First Amended
`
`Complaint of Plaintiff FastVDO LLC (“FastVDO” or “Plaintiff’), dated October 31, 2011. DXG
`
`denies each and every allegation set forth in the First Amended Complaint, except for those
`
`allegations expressly and specifically admitted below. In particular, DXG specifically denies
`
`Plaintiff’ s allegations of patent infiingement with respect to DXG. With respect to each of the
`
`numbered paragraphs of the First Amended Complaint, DXG responds as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`With respect to Paragraph 1 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`2.
`
`With respect to Paragraph 2 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 83 Filed 12/19/11 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 423
`Case 1:11-cv—007975RGA Document 83
`Filed 12/19/11 Page 2 of 14 Page|D #: 423
`
`3.
`
`With respect to Paragraph 3 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`4.
`
`With respect to Paragraph 4 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`5.
`
`With respect to Paragraph 5 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`6.
`
`With respect to Paragraph 6 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG admits that DXG is a
`
`California corporation with a principal place of business at 1001 Lawson Street, City of Industry,
`
`CA 91748.
`
`7.
`
`With respect to Paragraph 7 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`8.
`
`With respect to Paragraph 8 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`9.
`
`With respect to Paragraph 9 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`{0O5846l3;v1}
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 83 Filed 12/19/11 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 424
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 83
`Filed 12/19/11 Page 3 of 14 Page|D #: 424
`
`10. With respect to Paragraph 10 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`11. With respect to Paragraph 11 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`12. With respect to Paragraph 12 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`13. With respect to Paragraph 13 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`14. With respect to Paragraph 14 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`15. With respect to Paragraph 15 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`16. With respect to Paragraph 16 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`{0O584613;v1}
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 83 Filed 12/19/11 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 425
`Case 1:11-cv—00797-RGA Document 83
`Filed 12/19/11 Page 4 of 14 Page|D #: 425
`
`17. With respect to Paragraph 17 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`18. With respect to Paragraph 18 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`19. With respect to Paragraph 19 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`20. With respect to Paragraph 20 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`21. With respect to Paragraph 21 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG admits that the First
`
`Amended Complaint alleges claims for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
`
`United States of America, Title 35 of the United States Code. DXG admits that this Court has
`
`subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`22. With respect to Paragraph 22 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG admits that it has
`
`sold or offered for sale certain digital cameras and/or camcorders in Delaware but denies all
`
`other allegations of Paragraph 22 to the extent those allegations are directed to DXG. With
`
`respect to the allegations directed to other Defendants, DXG is without sufficient knowledge or
`
`information to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations and therefore denies them.
`
`{0O5846l3;vl}
`
`'
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 83 Filed 12/19/11 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 426
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 83
`Filed 12/19/11 Page 5 of 14 Page|D #: 426
`
`23. With respect to Paragraph 23 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG admits that Venue is
`
`proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 139l(b)-(c) and l400(b); however, DXG maintains that
`
`there are more convenient forums in which to proceed with this action. DXG further denies all
`
`other allegations of Paragraph 23 to the extent those allegations are directed to DXG. With
`
`respect to the allegations directed to other Defendants, DXG is without sufficient knowledge or
`
`information to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations and therefore denies them.
`
`COUNT I — INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. RE 40,081
`
`24. With respect to Paragraph 24 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG admits that a copy
`
`of U.S. Patent No. RE 40,081 (“the ‘O81 patent”) is attached to the First Amended Complaint as
`
`Exhibit A. DXG admits that, on its face, the ‘O81 patent indicates that it reissued on February 19,
`
`2008 and is entitled “Fast Signal Transforms With Lifting Steps.” With respect to the other
`
`allegations, DXG is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of those allegations and therefore denies them.
`
`25. With respect to Paragraph 25 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`26. With respect to Paragraph 26 ofthe First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or infonnation to fonn a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`27. With respect to Paragraph 27 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`{00584613;v1}
`
`-
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 83 Filed 12/19/11 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 427
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 83
`Filed 12/19/11 Page 6 of 14 Page|D #: 427
`
`28. With respect to Paragraph 28 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`29. With respect to Paragraph 29 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG admits that it sells,
`
`offers for sale, or imports certain digital cameras and camcorders, but denies all allegations of
`
`infringement or inducement of infringement of the ‘O81 patent. DXG admits that it received
`
`actual notice of the ‘081 patent on September 21, 2011 — the date when DXG was served the
`
`original Complaint.
`
`30. With respect to Paragraph 30 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`31. With respect to Paragraph 31 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`32. With respect to Paragraph 32 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`33. With respect to Paragraph 33 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`34. With respect to Paragraph 34 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`{00584613;vl}
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 83 Filed 12/19/11 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 428
`Case 1:11-cv—00797-RGA Document 83
`Filed 12/19/11 Page 7 of 14 Page|D #: 428
`
`35. With respect to Paragraph 35 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`36. With respect to Paragraph 36 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`37. With respect to Paragraph 37 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`38. With respect to Paragraph 38 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`39. With respect to Paragraph 39 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`40. With respect to Paragraph 40 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`41. With respect to Paragraph 41 of the First Amended Complaint, DXG is without sufficient
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`{005846l3;vl}
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 83 Filed 12/19/11 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 429
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 83
`Filed 12/19/11 Page 8 of 14 Page|D #: 429
`
`AFFIRNIATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES
`
`DXG asserts the following affirmative and other defenses to the allegations contained in
`
`the First Amended Complaint.
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Failure to State a Claim)
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff fails to state a claim against DXG upon which relief may be granted.
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Patent Invalidity)
`
`43.
`
`One or more claims of the ‘O81 patent are invalid for failing to comply with one or more
`
`provisions of the patent laws and regulations of the United States including without limitation,
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112, 121 and/or 251.
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Non-Infringement)
`
`44.
`
`DXG has not infringed and does not infiinge, either directly, contributively, or by
`
`inducement, any claim of the ‘081 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`FOURTH AFF‘IRlVIATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Prosecution History Estoppel)
`
`45.
`
`DXG avers that by reason of the proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office during the prosecution of the original application and the reissue which resulted in the
`
`‘O81 patent, and by reason of the admissions and representations therein made by or on behalf of
`
`the applicant for the ‘O81 patent, Plaintiff is estopped from construing the claims of the ‘O81
`
`patent, even if this were otherwise possible, to cover and include any acts of DXG.
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Limitation on Damages Based on Failure to Mark)
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiffs claims for damages is barred, in whole or in part, by a failure to satisfy the
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`{005846l3;vl}
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 83 Filed 12/19/11 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 430
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 83
`Filed 12/19/11 Page 9 of 14 Page|D #: 430
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Absolute and Equitable Intervening Rights)
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiffs claims for recovery are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of
`
`intervening rights under 35 U.S.C. § 252.
`
`SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Costs Barred)
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff is barred from recovering costs in connection with this action under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`288.
`
`EIGHT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Unenforceability)
`
`49.
`
`FastVDO is estopped from asserting the ‘081 patent against DXG.
`
`50.
`
`The Joint Video Team (“JVT”) is the standardization body for the ITU H.264 Standard
`
`and the ISO/IEC 14496-10 (MPEG-4 AVC) Standard (collectively, the “H.264/MPEG-4 AVC
`
`Standard”) for video compression.
`
`51.
`
`The H.264 Standard and MPEG-4 AVC Standard are jointly maintained so that they have
`
`identical technical content.
`
`52.
`
`The H/264/MPEG-4 AVC Standard is a standard for video recording, compression and
`
`distribution of high definition video.
`
`53.
`
`The consumer electronic industry has relied and continues to rely on the JVT to develop
`
`and maintain a video compression standard for world-wide distribution of high definition video.
`
`54.
`
`The JVT is operated and continues to operate through a committee of video coding
`
`industry representatives. In developing the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC Standard, proposals for
`
`inclusion in the standard were made at JVT meetings primarily by its members. In the intervals
`
`between the meetings, members would invest time and resources evaluating these proposals for
`
`{00584613;v1}
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 83 Filed 12/19/11 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 431
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 83
`Filed 12/19/11 Page 10 of 14 Page|D #: 431
`
`suitability. Over a series of meetings, input from industry participants would be considered.
`
`Eventually, a consensus emerged on the specific set of features to be included in the standard.
`
`55.
`
`The JVT has rules and procedures that are designed to prevent its participants from using
`
`the JVT for anticompetitive or illegal purposes. One specific kind of anticompetitive effect that
`
`the JVT guards against is the unintended inclusion ofpatented elements in the H.264/MPEG-4
`
`AVC Standard. The JVT requires that each proposal include a disclosure to indicate whether the
`
`proposal includes any technology from granted, pending or planned patents. Although the JVT
`
`does not prohibit the inclusion of patented technology, the JVT’s policy sets forth a preference
`
`for a baseline profile that is royalty-free.
`
`56.
`
`FastVDO submitted several proposals to the JVT during the development of the
`
`H.264/MPG-4‘AVC Standard.
`
`57.
`
`These rules, among other things, required submitters, including FastVDO, to disclose to
`
`the JVT any patents, patent applications or intentions to file patents that might bear upon
`
`proposals being considered by the JVT.
`
`58.
`
`On information and belief, FastVDO agreed, both explicitly and implicitly, that it would
`
`abide by the rules governing the JVT submissions as a result of its participation in the JVT.
`
`5 9.
`
`By participating in the JVT, FastVDO knew or should have known that companies would
`
`be reasonably induced to rely upon FastVDO’s promises and representations that it would
`
`disclose any patents, patent applications, or intentions to file patents that may bear upon
`
`proposals being considered by the JVT.
`
`60.
`
`The final draft of the first version of the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC Standard was completed in
`
`May 2003.
`
`{0O5846l3;vl}
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 83 Filed 12/19/11 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 432
`Case 1:11-cv—00797-RGA Document 83
`Filed 12/19/11 Page 11 of 14 Page|D #: 432
`
`61.
`
`In May 2003, FastVDO submitted to the JVT a patent statement and licensing declaration
`
`for U.S. Patent No. 6,421,464 (“the ‘464 patent”) stating that it will provide a license for the ‘464
`
`patent on reasonable and non-discriminatory (“RAND”) terms.
`
`62.
`
`By being a participant in the JVT, FastVDO gained insight into the industry’s efforts to
`
`develop an advanced video compression standard.
`
`63.
`
`Two months after the completion of the final draft of the first version of the
`
`H.264/MPEG-4 AVC Standard, FastVDO filed a reissue application for the ‘464 patent in order
`
`to broaden the claims to cover the Standard. As a result, the ‘O81 patent (reissue of the ‘464
`
`patent) is issued.
`
`64.
`
`As a result of FastVDO’s interactions with JVT related to the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC
`
`Standard, the ‘081 patent is unenforceable due to waiver and/or equitable estoppel.
`
`NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Implied License)
`
`65.
`
`DXG incorporates by reference paragraphs 49-64 herein.
`
`66.
`
`Because of FastVDO’s conduct in the JVT, FastVDO is barred from asserting the ‘081
`
`patent by the doctrine of implied license.
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Counterclaimant DXG alleges as follows for its Counterclaims against Plaintiff:
`
`l.
`
`DXG incorporates herein paragraphs 1-66 of DXG’s Answer.
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`DXG is a California corporation with a principal place of business at 1001 Lawson Street,
`
`City of Industry, CA 91748.
`
`{005846l3;vl}
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 83 Filed 12/19/11 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 433
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 83
`Filed 12/19/11 Page 12 of 14 Page|D #: 433
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff pleads in its First Amended Complaint that it is a Florida limited liability
`
`corporation with a principal place of business at 750 N. Atlantic AVe., Cocoa Beach, FL 32931.
`
`Plaintiff further pleads that it is the assignee and owns the entire right, title, and interest in the
`
`‘O81 patent.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff alleges that DXG’s cameras and/or camcorders infringe the ‘O81 patent and that,
`
`as owner of the patent, it is entitled to damages. DXG denies these allegations and contends that
`
`the cameras and/or camcorders sold by DXG do not infringe any Valid claim of the ‘O81 patent.
`
`5.
`
`A justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiff and Defendant DXG regarding the ‘O81
`
`patent and a judicial declaration is necessary to establish the rights and duties of the parties with
`
`respect to the ‘O81 patent.
`
`6.
`
`The counterclaims arise under the Patent Laws, Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`Therefore, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, l338(a), and
`
`I § 2201 et esq. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Plaintiff.
`
`VENUE
`
`7.
`
`Venue for these counterclaims is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b)
`
`and (c).
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`COUNT I — Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement
`
`Defendant DXG incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1-7 of these counterclaims.
`
`The cameras and/or camcorders imported, sold or offered for sale by DXG do not
`
`infringe the claims of the ‘O81 patent.
`
`{0O584613;vl }
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 83 Filed 12/19/11 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 434
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 83
`Filed 12/19/11 Page 13 of 14 Page|D #: 434
`
`10.
`
`A judicial declaration of non-infringement is necessary to establish DXG’s right to
`
`import, sell, and offer for sale its cameras and/or camcorders free of any claim of infringement.
`
`COUNT II — Declaratog Judgment of Invalidity
`
`11.
`
`Defendant DXG incorporates and realleges paragraphs 1-7 of these counterclaims.
`
`12.
`
`Upon information and belief, the claims of the ‘O81 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`101,102,103, and/or 112.
`
`13.
`
`A judicial declaration of invalidity is necessary to establish DXG’s right to import, sell,
`
`and offer for sale its cameras and/or camcorders free of any claim of infringement.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant DXG respectfully requests that the Court award the following
`
`relief:
`
`1.
`
`Enter judgment in favor of DXG and against Plaintiff on all claims in the First Amended
`
`Complaint;
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Declare that DXG has not infringed the ‘081 patent or any valid asserted claim therein;
`
`Declare that the ‘O81 patent, or some or all of the claims therein, is invalid;
`
`Enj oin Plaintiff, its assigns, and all those in privity therewith from asserting the ‘O81
`
`patent against DXG or any of its customers or suppliers;
`
`5.
`
`Find this case an exceptional case and award DXG attorneys’ fees and costs (including
`
`expert fees) under 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
`
`6.
`
`Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`{00584613;vl}
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 83 Filed 12/19/11 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 435
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 83
`Filed 12/19/11 Page 14 of 14 Page|D #: 435
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Defendant DXG demands a trial by jury of any and all issues triable as of right by a jury
`
`in this action.
`
`ASHBY & GEDDES
`
`/s/ Tzflany Geyer Lydon
`
`John G. Day (#2403)
`Tiffany Geyer Lydon (#3950)
`Andrew C. Mayo (#5207)
`500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
`P.O. Box 1 150
`
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 654-1888
`jday@ashby-geddes.com
`tlydon@ashby-geddes.com
`amayo@ashby—geddes.com
`
`Attorneys for DXG Technology (U. S.A.) Inc.
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Brian E. Mitchell
`
`Jigang Jin
`Mitchell + Company, Law Offices
`4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 766-3514
`brian.mitchell@mcolawoffices.com
`jigang.jin@mcolawoffices.com
`
`Dated: December 19, 2011
`
`{005846l3;v1}
`
`14

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