Coho Licensing LLC v. Twitter Inc.

Filing 1

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT filed with Jury Demand against Twitter Inc. - Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf. ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0311-1370198.) - filed by Coho Licensing LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet)(cla, )

Download PDF
Exhibit A US008024395B1 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent N0.: Odom (54) US 8,024,395 B1 (45) Date of Patent: Sep. 20, 2011 DISTRIBUTED PROCESSING MULTIPLE 6,775,831 Bl * 8/2004 Carrasco et a1. ............ .. 707/200 TIER TASK ALLOCATION 6,782,422 B1* 8/2004 Bahl et al. ........ .. 709/224 6,826,753 B1 * 11/2004 Dageville et al. 718/102 7,188,113 (76) Inventor: Gary Odom, Portland, OR (US) (*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended or adjusted under 35 B1* 3/2007 Thusoo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,383,426 7,668,800 7,849,178 2004/0045002 B2 * B2 * B2* A1* 6/2008 Chung et a1. ................ .. 712/220 2/2010 Motoyama et al. . . . . . . . . . .. 1/1 707/999.001 12/2010 Shen et al. 3/2004 Berger et a1. .. . 709/223 718/102 2004/0264503 A1* 12/2004 Draves, Jr. 370/469 2008/0216859 A1* 9/2008 132/224 2009/0204470 A1* U.S.C. 154(b) by 508 days. 8/2009 Weylet al. ...................... .. 705/9 (21) App1.No.: 10/228,588 (22) Filed: Chan ......... .. OTHER PUBLICATIONS Aug. 26, 2002 Kao, “Subtask deadline assignment for complex distributed soft real time tasks,” Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Related US. Application Data Distributed Computing Systems, 1994; Jun. 21-24, 1994; pp. 172 181, USA. Lee, “Some simple task assignment problems for distributed (60) Provisional application No. 60/317,108, ?led on Sep. 4, 2001. networked agents,” Fourth International Conference on Knowledge (51) Int. Cl. G06F 15/16 2000. Proceedings. vol. 1, Aug. 30-Sep. 1, 2000 pp. 305-308, USA. (52) (58) US. Cl. ....................... .. 709/201; 709/223; 709/226 Field of Classi?cation Search .................. .. 705/37; Based Intelligent Engineering Systems and Allied Technologies, (2006.01) * cited by examiner 709/226, 201, 208, 223; 718/105 See application ?le for complete search history. (56) Primary Examiner * Faruk HamZa (57) ABSTRACT Described is a system and methods for multiple tier distribu References Cited tion of task portions for distributed processing. Essentially, a U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS task is divided into portions by a ?rst computer and a task portion transferred to second participatory computer on the 3,662,401 A * 5/1972 Collins et al. ............... .. 718/103 5,025,369 6/1991 Schwartz 8/2000 Kraft et al. ............... .. 709/202 A * 6,112,225 A * 6,167,427 A * 6,192,388 Bl* 6,263,358 Bl* 6,370,560 Bl* 6,463,457 B1 * ..... . . . . .. 718/102 12/2000 Rabinovich et a1. . 709/201 2/2001 Cajolet .................... .. 718/100 7/2001 Lee et a1. . ... ... .. . . . . .. 4/2002 RobeItaZZiet al. .. 10/2002 718/100 subtask portion transferred by the second computer to a third participatory computer on the netWork, Whereby distributed processing transpires, and results collated as required. 718/105 Armentrout et al. ........ .. 709/201 1 1 ALLOCATING COMPUTER netWork, Whereupon an allocated task portion is again por tioned by the second computer into subtask portions, and a 20 Claims, 6 Drawing Sheets 10 SUB-ALLOCATING 1 COMPUTER 12 SUB-ALLOCATING 2 COMPUTER 13 ALLOCATED COMPUTER 14 COMPUTER 15 COLLATING COMPUTER US. Patent Sep. 20, 2011 Sheet 1 of6 100 COMPUTER 101 CPU 102 STORAGE 103 MEMORY 104 RETENTION DEVICE(S) 105 DISPLAY DEVICE 106 INPUT DEv1cE(s) 107 POlNITNG DEVICE (E.G. MOUSE) 103 KEYBOARD 109 NETWORK CONNECTION DEvTcE FIGURE 1 US 8,024,395 B1 US. Patent Sep. 20, 2011 11 ALLOCATING COMPUTER Sheet 2 of6 US 8,024,395 B1 1O SUB-ALLOCATING 1 COMPUTER l2 SUB-ALLOCATING 2 COMPUTER l3 ALLOCATED COMPUTER 14 COMPUTER 15 COLLATING COMPUTER FIGURE 2 US. Patent Sep. 20, 2011 Sheet 3 0f 6 US 8,024,395 B1 70D TASK (DATA) 71D TASK PORTION \\J 721) SUBTASK r ____ _ _ PORTION \// FIGURE 3A 81 7 IP TASK PORTION / \ 70p TASK ZY / 8 3A l 83 84A 84 / 85 FIGURE 35 3Y 72P SUBTASK PORTION 842 \/ 7 COLLATE US. Patent Sep. 20, 2011 Sheet 4 0f 6 US 8,024,395 B1 20 COORDINATOR 21 ALLOCATOR 22 SCHEDULER 23 ESTIMATOR 24 PROCESSOR 25 INI'I'IATOR 26 SUsPENDER 27 COLLATOR 28 COMMUNICATOR 29 ADDRESSOR FIGURE 4 6O (SUB)TASK PORTION IDENTTFLABLE BY DIVISION 61 MESSAGE TYPE ACTIONSPECIFIC (E.G. ALLOCATE, 62 DATA 63 CODE 64 STATUs/ DIRECTIVE (SUB)TASK SOFTWARE DEPENDS ON DATA OR OR SW MESSAGE DATA REFERENCE TYPE CANCEL, REFERENCE RESULT, COLLATE) FIGURE 5 65 RESULTS DEPENDS ON MESSAGE TYPE US. Patent Sep. 20, 2011 Sheet 5 of6 US 8,024,395 B1 1 — ALLOCATING COMPUTER: ALLOCATE TASK PORTION TO A COMPUTER l 2 —SET COMPLETION SCHEDULE (OPTIONAL) l 3 - ESTIMATE COMPLETION TIME (OPTIONAL) l 4 - ALLOCATED COMPUTER: SUB-ALLOCATE SUBTASK PORTION l 5 - PROCESSING COMPUTERS: PROCESS TASK PORTION/SUBTASK l 6 — PROCESSING COMPUTERS: TRANSFER RESULTS (OPTIONAL) l 7 - COLLATING COMPUTER(S): COLLATE RESULTS (OPTIONAL) l 8 — RESULTS COMPUTER(S): TRANSFER RESULTS (OPTIONAL) FIGURE 6 US. Patent Sep. 20, 2011 Sheet 6 of6 11 US 8,024,395 B1 11 14 l2 FIGURE 7A FIGURE 75 I (SUB-)ALLOCATE 40 A V l l V .l A COLLATE f\ ; (ALT. EMBODIMENT) v { TRANSFER i (ALTERNATIVE EMBODIMENT) ll FIGURE 7C 91 10 FIGURE 70 US 8,024,395 B1 1 2 DISTRIBUTED PROCESSING MULTIPLE TIER TASK ALLOCATION described technology localiZes further (sub)task portion allo cation control to computers having been assigned task por tions. Further task processing division to other computers on the network may be extended to initial task portioning, schedul CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS ing, and results collation. Admittedly, only those tasks capable of being subdivided This application claims priority bene?t under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) of US. Provisional Application No. 60/317,108, ?led Sep. 4, 2001. in some manner may bene?t from the described technology. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWINGS STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a suitable computer. FIG. 2 depicts an example computer network. Not Applicable FIG. 3 depicts example tasks. FIG. 4 depicts relevant distributed processing application components. THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT FIG. 5 depicts an abstract of a distributed processing mes sage. Not Applicable 20 INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A COMPACT DISC FIG. 6 depicts distributed processing steps. FIG. 7 depicts examples of processing distribution and results collation. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION Not Applicable 25 FIG. 1 is a block diagram ofa computer 100 which com BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION prises at least a CPU 101; storage 102, which comprises memory 103 and optionally one or more devices with reten 1. Field of the Invention The relevant technical ?eld is computer software, speci? cally distributed processing in a networked environment. 2. Description of the Related Art Including Information Disclosed Under 37 CFR 1.97 and tion medium(s) 104 such as hard disks, diskettes, compact 30 are not exclusive to, a keyboard 108, and/or one or more 1.98 In what is not ironically called a “network effect”, the advantage of distributed processing is positively correlated to availability of powerful computers in a networked environ ment. This trend is especially encouraged by always-on broadband connection to the ultimate wide-area network: the Internet. US. Pat. No. 6,192,388 details “detecting available com disks (e. g. CD-ROM), or tape; a device 109 for connection to a network 99; an optional display device 105; and optionally one or more input devices 106, examples of which include but pointing devices 107, such as a mouse. Such a computer 100 35 40 is suitable for the described technology. FIG. 2 is a block diagram of distributed processing partici patory computers 100 connected to each other through a network 99. Computers 100 are participatory based upon having installed required software and, optionally, meeting speci?ed conditions for participation. Example conditions processing problems”, and switching an allocated task por include su?icient processing power, storage, network band width or reliability, or adequate security precautions, such as tion to a different computer if the one ?rst assigned the task a particular installed operating system. puters to participate in computationally complex distributed Computer 11 in FIG. 2 is depicted in the role of an allocat portion becomes occupied. US. Pat. No. 6,192,388 also describes some of the resource factors involved in determin 45 Likewise, other computers in FIG. 2 are signi?ed by their roles. FIGS. 2, 6, and 7 are used for example explanation of ing whether to allocate a task portion to a computer. With some content overlap to the earlier-?led US. Pat. No. 6,192,388, US. Pat. No. 6,112,225 describes a “task distri bution processing system and the method for subscribing computers to perform computing tasks during idle time”, and the technology. The roles of computers are envisioned as 50 monitoring and re-allocating task portions. 55 described technology relies upon network connectivity, including inter-application messaging and data or software transfer capabilities that are well known. agents. In the face of schedule slippage, such a system relies upon coordination among multiple agents to work effectively. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION transitory: for example, a computer initiating distributed pro cessing and allocating task portions for its task may next have a task or sub-task portion allocated to it by another computer in a succeeding task. A network 99 may be any means by which computers are connected for software program or data transfer. The goes into detail as to various ways of specifying “idle time”. Both US. Pat. Nos. 6,192,388 and 6,112,225, incorporated herein by reference, use the same computer for allocating, US. Pat. No. 6,263,358 describes sophisticated regimes of scheduling of distributed processing tasks using software ing computer, signifying initial allocation of task portions. Participatory computers have software installed enabling 60 the desired distributed processing. The software may be installed by download through network 99 connection, or via a more traditional local retention medium, such as CD-ROM Multiple tier task allocation maximizes ?exibility and pro or ?oppy disk. ductivity of distributed processing participatory computers. A computer which has been allocated a distributed pro cessing task portion may itself determine to reallocate a por tion of its subtask, for example, in order to meet a schedule, or if its performance pro?le deteriorates below expectation. The The desired distributing processing may take various forms. FIG. 3 illustrates examples. 65 One example is a divisible and distributable chunk of data requiring a single processing, as depicted in FIG. 3a, split into portions so that the various participatory computers can pro US 8,024,395 B1 3 4 cess the data portions. The task data 70d is shown portioned embodiment, the distributed processing application may be into equal quarter task portions 71d. A task portion has been further split into subtask portions 72d. An example at the other end of the spectrum, depicted in heterogeneous, comprising relative capabilities according to computer capacity. Messages are passed as required, including, for example, the folloWing types of messages 61: (sub)task portion alloca tion; data 62 or code 63 transfer; cancellation; scheduling: FIG. 3b, is a series of processing steps Which to some extent may overlap, Whereby each of the participatory computers performs some portion of the task 70. Task 70p processing can be portioned into task portions 71p (8211-8411 and 82y 84y/z). Further, a subtask portion 72p could be allocated at directives or estimation initiation or results; processing: directives (such as initiation, suspension, or collation) and results 65. FIG. 5 depicts an abstract of a distributed process ing message; intended for conceptual understanding and sug gestion, not speci?c implementation (as this message format speci?c processing steps (8311/!) or 84y/z). Note that synchro niZation may be an issue, such as in FIG. 3b Where processing is not particularly e?icient). Not all ?elds shoWn Would nec essarily be used for each message type 61, and other ?elds may be required depending upon message type 61 or embodi step 83b requires the output of preceding steps 82a and 82y to proceed. There may also be a results collation 85 step. BetWeen the extreme examples lies divisible and distributable ment. data capable of being processed in an overlap (not exclusively (Sub)task portions may be identi?able by its division, such serial) manner. as, for example: 2/5-1/4-2/3, Where each set of number indi cates a (sub)task division. 2/ 5, for example, Would be part 2 of 5 portions. The point is to alloW portioning by an allocator 21 One possible employment scenario for the described tech nology is a set of participatory computers running one or more applications Which intermittently require intermittent excessive (to a single computer) processing. Distributed pro 20 and recombination of results by a collator 27. A table or database may be kept and transferred as necessary that iden cessing may be used as a remedy for those times When a ti?es actual and/or possible (sub)task portions. singular computer may otherWise bog doWn or be insuf?cient. In this scenario, any computer With excessive processing needs may initiate shared task processing, either by direct allocation of task portions, or by directing another computer them may be transferred via messaging. Status/directive 64 and result 65 depend on message type 61. Data 62 or executable softWare code 63 or references to 25 Keeping track of processing times of allocated (sub)tasks (including CPU overhead and other performance factors) by to perform task portion allocation and attendant processing. Note that the term “allocate” and its conjugations may refer to initial allocation or subsequent sub-allocationiafter all, the allocation process is self-similar. In the preferred embodi computer is recommended as a Way to calibrate future allo 30 distributed processing. FIG. 7 illustrates examples of the dis tribution process. An allocating computer 11 allocates a portion of a task to another computer 10 in step 1. As depicted in FIG. 7a, an ment, allocation (and sub-allocation) necessarily implies por tioning of a (sub)task prior to transferring a portion to another computer. In an alternative embodiment, depicted in FIG. 7d, a task or (sub)task portion may be (sub-)allocated by transfer 90 of the (sub)task to another computer 10 prior to any por cations. FIG. 6 outlines the steps for the described multiple tier tioning by the initially transferring computer 11, With a allocating computer 11 may allocate task portions to multiple computers (11 and 14). An allocator 21 may be employed for task and subtask portioning and transfer, and for tracking such request or directive that a portion be (sub-)allocated 91 to the (sub-)allocations and portions. computer 11 initiating the transfer, thus putting the overhead of (sub-)allocation on the recipient 10 rather than the initially transferring computer 11. 35 40 FIG. 4 depicts an exemplary embodiment of relevant com ponents of a distributed processing program, some of Which upon the nature of the task, a schedule may be a single completion time for an allocated portion, or for intermediate computations as Well. Ostensibly, a schedule is the raison are optional, depending upon embodiment; other compo nents, such as user interface, event handling, and the actual 45 processing modules, likely exist. Components may have dif ferent con?gurations in different embodiments. While an application program is used as the preferred embodiment, an alternative preferred embodiment may incorporate all or portions of the described distributed pro historical usage Would indicate, making (sub)task portion 50 If scheduling is a factor, an estimated completion time resources, such as processor(s) 101 and storage 102, may 55 cessing steps 3 and 2 respectively. 60 take on jobs Which a coordinator 20 needs to off-load. For example, a computer With limited storage or process ing poWer may not have a scheduler 22 or collator 27, Whereby a coordinator 20 off-loads those jobs to an appro communication-intensive jobs, such as collation 7. In this naturally ?gure into such calculation. Estimation calculations may be done by any participatory computer With suf?cient information. As depicted in FIG. 4, an allocator 21 may employ a sched uler 22, Which may employ an estimator 23, to perform pro ing, by an addressor 29 With a database tracking such capa priate computer. A poWerful computer With relative poor net Work capacity (speed or reliability) may be shunned from of?oading prudent. calculation (step 3) is advised. The availability and speed of bilities of the application, and compensate accordingly. Operationally, that compensation may take the form of knoW bilities, of suitable computers With adequate capabilities to d’etre for multiple tier subtask sub-allocation, but subtask sub-allocation may be driven by anticipation of available resources Which later fail to appear forthcoming. For example, an allocated computer 13 may become busier than cessing functionality in an operating system. An overall coordinator 20 may be employed to ensure proper interaction betWeen the relevant distributed process ing modules. In one embodiment, certain modules may be missing from an application on a particular computer, in Which case the coordinator 20 Would knoW the (limited) capa Optionally, an allocating 11 (or sub-allocating 10) or allo cated 13 computer may set a completion schedule (step 2) for the time by Which results should be available. Depending The overhead of distribution may be considered by an estimator 23 or scheduler 22 as a factor in (sub-)allocation. Distribution overhead includes the time and resources to por 65 tion and distribute subtask portions, and to collect and collate results. Depending on the netWork, communication lags may also be a factor. Excessive (sub)task portion (sub-)allocation granularity is conceivable and should be accounted for. A suggested rule is that estimate of (sub-) allocation should be US 8,024,395 B1 6 5 a fraction of estimated processing time if processing time is the bottleneck; storage 102 capacity or other such bottlenecks necessitate similar consideration. An estimate of processing capability may be ascertained an allocating computer transferring at least one said task for a computer targeted for processing prior to (sub-)alloca into a plurality of subtask portions; said sub-allocating computer transferring at least one said subtask portion to an allocated computer, portion to a sub-allocating computer; said sub-allocating computer receiving said task portion; said sub-allocating computer dividing said task portion tion, so as to portion (sub)tasks accordingly. For Whatever reason, in step 4, a computer 10 With an allocated task portion 71 decides to sub-allocate a portion 72 of its allotted subtask to another computer 13, as depicted in FIG. 7a. said allocated computer receiving said subtask portion; said allocated computer processing said subtask portion, Whereby producing at least one result; Participatory computers With (sub-)allocated (sub)task portions perform required processing per step 5. The generic said allocated computer transferring said result to a pre designated results computer; said results computer receiving and storing said result; and processor 24 signi?es the performer of step 5. An initiator 25 may synchroniZe With other processors 24 if necessary. A such that all foregoing transferring occurs by netWork con nection. 2. The method according to claim 1, Wherein said sub computer may be Watchful (a possible coordinator 20 j ob) and sub-allocate after beginning processing, upon realiZing sub allocation as a prudent measure because of some unantici pated constraint, such as, for example, high CPU utiliZation allocating computer conditionally determines allocating said (processing overhead) or suddenly limited storage. A sus pender 26 may suspend processing, saving state as necessary task portion to said allocated computer. 3. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: 20 said sub-allocating computer redundantly allocating said subtask portion. for later resumption. Depending upon embodiment, processing may occur only under speci?ed conditions, for example, only When a com puter is past a threshold state deemed idle. Other conditions, such as available storage 102, or netWork 99 connection speed or reliability, may also be pertinent allocation or processing 4. The method according to claim 1, Wherein said sub 25 criteria. If processing is conditional, temporary results may be stashed (locally or elseWhere on the netWork) for later resumption. A processor 24 initiator 25 and suspender 26 may, for example, respectively detect and act upon onset and termination of speci?ed threshold conditions. 30 based upon, at least in part, a schedule and estimation related to said schedule. 6. The method according to claim 5, Wherein said schedule is not received from said allocating computer. 7. A computer-implemented method for distributed pro Step 6 speci?es transferring results. This step may not be necessary, depending upon the task 70. LikeWise, in step 7, results are optionally collated by one or more participatory computers, With results monitoring as required. Results allocating computer receives indicia of predetermined sub task portions of said task portion separate from receiving said task portion. 5. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: said sub-allocating computer dividing said task portion 35 cessing comprising: monitoring and collation may itself become a distributed task. Collators 27 on multiple computers may collaborate to piece dividing a task into a plurality of task portions, Wherein at least one ?rst task portion comprises further together and conclude the task. With the notable exception of 53', FIG. 7a depicts results returned to the computer Which allocated (or sub-allocated) hereinafter referred to as subtask portions; divisible portions, 40 the task (subtask) portion (50, 53, 54) for collation. But, as shoWn by example, results may be sent 53' to the allocating tion; computer 11 instead of or in addition to that computer 10 that (sub-)allocated a (sub)task portion. FIG. 70 depicts results being transmitted (likely for colla 45 is processing multiple subtask portions allocated by different computers (12, 14). This is doable given identi?able portions connectivity; 50 task portion and storing said result; said allocated computer transferring said result to a results computer; 55 precaution. Redundant (sub)allocation may be sensible given scheduling constraints. 60 dividing a task into a plurality of task portions, divisible executable instruction sets; said results computer receiving a plurality of results related to said ?rst task; and said results computer collating said results. 8. The method according to claim 7, further comprising: said sub-allocating computer communicating With said allocated computer regarding subtask allocation prior to allocating said subtask portion to said allocated com puter. cessing comprising: Wherein said task comprises at least one of divisible data or said allocated computer receiving said subtask portion; said allocated computer processing said subtask portion, Whereby producing at least one result related to said sub as suggested. Task or subtask portions may be redundantly assigned as a Security may be an issue. Data, results, messages, or other content may be encrypted as required. The invention claimed is: 1. A computer-implemented method for distributed pro said sub-allocating computer dividing said ?rst task por tion into a plurality of subtask portions; said sub-allocating computer allocating at least one said subtask portion to an allocated computer via netWork tion) to a different computer 15 than the allocating computer 11. This strategy may make sense, for example, When a series of tasks are allocated in succession: a division of duty betWeen an allocating computer 11 and a results-collating computer 15. Final results may be sent to the allocating com puter 11 or other computers by the collating computer 15 as necessary. FIG. 7b depicts a situation Where an allocated computer 13 an allocating computer allocating said ?rst task portion to a sub-allocating computer via netWork connectivity; said sub-allocating computer receiving said ?rst task por 65 9. The method according to claim 7, further comprising: said results computer receiving redundant results portions. 10. The method according to claim 7, further comprising: said sub-allocating computer determining said subtask portion allocation by relying partly upon a schedule. US 8,024,395 B1 8 7 14. The method according to claim 12, further comprising: said sub-allocating computer selecting said allocated com puter based, at least in part, upon netWork communica 11. The method according to claim 7, wherein said allocat ing computer and said results computer comprise the same computer. 12. A computer-implemented method for distributed pro tion With at least one other computer. cessing comprising: 15. The method according to claim 12, further comprising: associating a schedule With said subtask portion. 16. The method according to claim 12, Wherein said allo cated computer and said subtask processing computer com prise the same computer. 17. The method according to claim 12, Wherein said allo cated computer and said subtask processing computer com dividing a task into a plurality of task portions; an allocating computer allocating at least one said task portion to a sub-allocating computer; said sub-allocating computer receiving said task portion; said sub-allocating computer allocating a subtask portion to an allocated computer, Wherein said subtask portion comprises a portion of a task prise different computers. portion; said allocated computer receiving said subtask portion; a subtask processing computer processing said subtask portion, thereby creating and storing at least one result; said subtask processing computer transferring said result to a results computer; and said results computer receiving and storing results related to said task from a plurality of computers. 13. The method according to claim 12, Wherein said sub allocating computer partially processes said at least a portion of said task portion prior to allocating said subtask portion to said allocated computer. 20 18. The method according to claim 12, Wherein said allo cated computer processes a plurality of subtask portions received from a plurality of computers. 19. The method according to claim 12, further comprising: conditionally determining at least one of a sub-allocating computer and an allocated computer based, at least in part, upon data received via netWork communication. 20. The method according to claim 12, further comprising: said allocated computer conditionally allocating said sub task portion to said subtask processing computer.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?