Technology Development and Licensing, LLC v. Comcast Corporation

Filing 167

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 6/19/2017. Mailed notice. (mgh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

Technology Development and
Licensing, LLC

)
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 08-cv-3584
) Case No. 09-cv-430
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.

Comcast Corporation, Dish Network
Corporation and Echostar
Corporation,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In these twin patent infringement suits, plaintiff Technology
Development and Licensing, LLC, alleges that defendants Comcast
(in

No.

08-cv-3584)

infringe

various

“Television
Feature.”
system

claims

Receiver

The

for

and

and

Echostar

of

U.S.

Patent

Having

claimed

selecting

Dish

Memory

invention
a

Re.

Control

provides

television

(in

a

channel

No.

09-cv-430)

35,952,

for

titled

Tune—By-Label

“television

control

corresponding

to

a

preassigned channel designation.” ‘952 Pat., Exh. A to Pl.’s Resp.
at col. 2:24-26.
Before

me

are

defendants’

motions

for

judgment

on

the

pleadings, which argue that claims 1 and 2 of the patent—the only
claims

now

at

issue—are

directed

to

patent-ineligible

subject

matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For the reasons explained below, I
grant the motions.
I.
The ‘952 patent generally relates to a television control
system

that

television

offers

channels

novel

ways

of

selecting

provided

by

cable

and

and

tuning

satellite

to

providers.

Claims 1 and 2 are directed to a system that allows an “operator”
to assign individualized labels identifying the various channels
on which programming is broadcast, and thereafter allows a viewer
to use those labels, rather than the preassigned channel numbers,
to select programming. The Background of the Invention explains
that historically, television channels were identified by numbers
corresponding to both a particular signal frequency and a number
on the control of the television receiver. With the advent of
cable and satellite television, however, whose providers broadcast
programming on different frequencies from traditional over-the-air
providers, it became increasingly difficult for viewers to find
the

channels

viewers

and

needed

channels,

which

a

programs

they

“conversion
the

were
chart”

specification

looking
to

for.

locate

explains

was

Accordingly,

their

desired

awkward

and

inconvenient to use, particularly in large cities with more than
one cable service provider, or for travelers or other viewers
unfamiliar with the local system. ‘952 Pat. at 2:2-8 (Pl.’s Resp.,
Exh. A). Claims 1 and 2 of the ‘952 patent aim to solve this
2

problem by allowing a TV operator to assign labels, or “channel
select designations,” to various “channel tuning designations,”
the latter of which correspond to particular signal frequencies.
The viewer can then use the operator-assigned labels to select
programming.
TDL filed the instant cases in June of 2008 and January of
2009, respectively, but both cases were stayed in 2009 and again
in 2014 pending reexamination by the Patent and Trademark Office.
TDL also asserted many—but not all—of the claims asserted here in
another case, captioned Technology Development and Licensing, LLC
v.

General

Instrument

Corp.

No.

07-cv-04512

(N.D.

(“Motorola”), which was also stayed pending reexamination.1

Ill.)
By

early 2015, all of these cases had returned to active status.
Then, in December of 2016, Judge Lefkow granted summary judgment
in the defendant’s favor in Motorola on the ground that that the
asserted claims—claims 8, 9, 37, and 38—were directed to patentineligible subject matter.

See

Order of December 6, 2016 (the

“Motorola Order”).
Although the Motorola Order is now final, it did not resolve
the

§ 101

conceptually

patent

eligibility

distinct

from

of

the

claims

claims

1

1

at

and
issue

2,
in

which

are

Motorola.

Although the case caption has since changed to reflect a change
in corporate ownership, I continue to refer to this case as
“Motorola” for the sake of consistency with my claim construction
order.
3

Specifically, claims 1 and 2 are drawn to the “tune-by-label”
feature

described

above,

while

claims

8,

9,

37,

and

38

are

directed to a distinct, “favorites list” feature of the invention,
which allows an operator to create multiple lists of favorite
channels that are stored in memory for later use by a viewer to
select programming. Indeed, at step 1 of the Alice inquiry, Judge
Lefkow described the claims before her as concerning the “routine,
conventional

activity...of

making

multiple

lists

of

selected

television channels and storing them so a user can readily choose
a

desired

channel

without

having

to

go

through

the

cable

provider’s full viewer guide.” Motorola Order at 8. In this case,
by contrast, defendants assert that claims 1 and 2 are drawn to
the

abstract

idea

of

a

conversion

chart—an

argument

that

was

neither raised nor resolved in Motorola. Accordingly, my analysis
begins on a clean slate.
I.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, “[w]hoever invents or discovers any
new and useful process, machine, or composition of matter, or any
new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor,
subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” The
Supreme Court has long recognized that this provision contains “an
important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v.
CLS

Bank

Int’l,

134

S.

Ct.

2347
4

(2014),

(quoting

Ass'n

for

Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 2107, 2116
(2013)). The Alice Court cautioned, however, that because “[a]t
some level, all inventions...embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or
apply

laws

courts

of

must

nature,

“tread

natural

carefully

phenomena,
in

or

construing

abstract
this

ideas,”

exclusionary

principle lest it swallow all of patent law.” Id. (citing Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. at
1293-94) (ellipses in Alice, internal quotation marks omitted).
Alice

established

a

two-part

framework

for

determining

whether patent claims are drawn to patent-eligible subject matter.
First, the court must determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea.
Id. at 2355. If so, the court must determine whether the claim
elements, individually or in combination, contain an “inventive
concept”

that

“transform[s]

the

nature

of

the

claim”

into

a

patent-eligible application. Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 72,
78

(2012)).

Although

the

two

steps

are

“plainly

related”

and

involve “overlapping scrutiny of the content of the claims,” the
first stage inquiry looks at the “focus” of the claims, i.e.,
their “character as a whole,” while the second stage inquiry looks
“more

precisely

at

what

the

claim

elements

add.”

Elec.

Power

Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(citations omitted).

5

“Whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter
under § 101 is an issue of law.”

In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 951

(Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d, 561 U.S. 593 (2010). Patent
eligibility may be resolved on the pleadings and the prosecution
history

when

no

material

facts

are

in

dispute.

Genetic

Technologies Ltd. v. Merial L.L.D., 818 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir.
2016); Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLC v. Telular Corp.,
173 F. Supp. 3d 717, 724 (N.D. Ill. 2016).
Issued
under

35

patents
U.S.C.

generally

§ 282(a).

enjoy
In

a

presumption

Microsoft

Corp.

of
v.

validity
i4i

Ltd.

Partnership, 564 U.S. 91 (2011), a case involving § 102(b)’s “onsale

bar,”2

the

presumption,
convincing

Supreme

Court

an

accused

infringer

evidence

of

held

invalidity.

that
must

Id.

at

to

overcome

present

clear

95.

as

But

this
and

Justice

Breyer observed in a concurring opinion joined by Justices Scalia
and Alito, the standard announced by the Court applies only when
the validity of a patent turns—as it did in the case before it—on
disputed

factual

ultimate

question

issues.
of

Id.

patent

at

114.

validity

Where,
turns

by
“not

contrast,
upon

the

factual

disputes, but upon how the law applies to the facts as given,” the
clear

and

convincing

standard

“has

2

no

application.”

Id.

But

“[T]he on-sale bar of § 102(b) precludes patent protection for
any ‘invention’ that was ‘on sale in this country’ more than one
year prior to the filing of a patent application.” i4i, 565 U.S.
at 96.
6

neither the Supreme Court nor the Federal Circuit has offered
definitive guidance on whether, or under what circumstances, the
clear and convincing evidentiary standard applies in the § 101
context.
Meanwhile, district courts, and, indeed, individual judges of
the Federal Circuit, have disagreed on the issue. Compare CLS Bank
Int’l v. Alice Co. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1304–05 (Fed. Cir.
2013) (Rader, J., concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part) (“any
attack on an issued patent based on a challenge to the eligibility
of

the

subject

matter

must

be

proven

by

clear

and

convincing

evidence”) with Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709,
720-21 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Mayer, J., concurring) (“no presumption
of eligibility attends the section 101 inquiry.”); compare also
Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 05–cv–4811,
2015

WL

(applying

774655,

*3

clear

and

(N.D.

Ill.

convincing

Feb.

24,

standard

2015)
to

(Coleman,

deny

motion

J.)
for

judgment as a matter of law under § 101), aff’d ---F. App’x.---,
2017 WL 192716, at *1 n. 1 (Jan. 18, 2017) (acknowledging, but
declining to resolve, dispute over whether clear and convincing
standard applies); with Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (U.S.) Inc.,
No. 3:12-cv-01065-HZ, 2015 WL 4203469, at *4 (D. Or. July 9, 2015)
(“the clear and convincing evidentiary standard simply does not
come into play” when resolving summary judgment motion based on
§ 101), aff’d 664 F. App’x 968, 972 n. 1 (declining to “address
7

the proper evidentiary standard”). See also Berkheimer v. HewlettPackard Co., ---F.Supp.3d---, 2016 WL 7188159, at *3-*5 and n.3
(surveying case law and concluding that “the clear-and-convincing
standard has no role to play in the § 101 determination” absent
factual disputes to which the standard might apply).
Mindful of both the settled and the unsettled aspects of the
legal landscape, I turn to my analysis of claims 1 and 2.
II.
Defendants assert that the essence of these claims is the
abstract idea of a “conversion chart,” i.e., a map or guide that
directs

TV

viewers

accustomed

to

accessing

networks

(NBC,

for

example) or programs (“Law and Order: Criminal Intent”) on certain
over-the-air

channels

which

networks

these

to
or

the

potentially

programs

are

different
broadcast

channels
by

cable

satellite providers.
Claim 1 recites:
In a televised control system apparatus for
selecting a television channel corresponding to a
preassigned channel tuning designation, the system
apparatus comprising:
tuner

means for receiving a processor signal and a
multichannel input signal, and in response to said
processor signal, tuning out all but one channel
corresponding a selected one of said preassigned
channel tuning designations;

memory means for storing at least one operator assigned
channel select designation for at least one of said
channel tuning designations;

8

on
or

first operator actuated control means for generating a
first control output signal comprising a first data
set representative of a desired channel select
designation
for
one
of
said
channel
tuning
designation;
second operator-actuated control means for generating a
second control output signal comprising a second
data set representative of a desired viewing
channel identified by an operator selected one of
said channel select designations;
processor means for receiving said first and second
control output signals from said first and second
operator-actuated control means, and upon receipt
of said first data set, causing said memory means
to store said desired channel select designation as
corresponding
to
said
one
channel
tuning
designation, and upon receipt of said second data
set, retrieving from said memory means the one of
said channel tuning designations corresponding to
said operator selected channel select designation,
and generating said processor signal to correspond
to said one channel tuning designation;
said first control output signal comprising a first one
of said channels of said multi-channel input
signal;
said processor means including means for generating said
processor signal to cause said tuner means to tune
out all but said first one of said channels, and
for receiving from said [tuner] means said first
one of said channels.
’952 patent at 14:18-56.3

3

Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites: “Apparatus as defined
in claim 1, wherein said first operator actuated control means is
remote from said second operator actuated control means.” ‘952
patent at 14: 57-59. Because neither party discusses claim 2
separately, I assume they agree that claim 1 is representative of
both claims. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60.
9

Dish and Echostar argue that claims 1 and 2 recite the use of
generic

computing

and

television

equipment

to

implement

the

abstract idea of “mapping the correspondence” between one channel
and another, Dish/Echostar Br. at 2, while Comcast argues that the
focus of these claims is to “implement electronically what was
previously

done

with

a

paper

‘conversion

chart’”

of

the

kind

published in TV Guide, for example, which Comcast submits has long
“allowed viewers to find the correct channel number by looking up
the television program (or the network or local broadcast service)
they wished to view.” Comcast Br. at 7.
TDL
faults

disputes

these

defendants

for

characterizations
citing

“no

of

the

evidence

invention

other

than

and
the

conversion chart described in the ‘952 Patent” to support their
argument that claims 1 and 2 are directed to an abstract idea.4
Resp. at 6. As noted above, however, subject matter eligibility is
a

question

of

law,

recognized

that

in

determine

patent

and
many

the
cases

Federal
it

eligibility

on

is

Circuit

has

“repeatedly

possible

and

proper”

the

pleadings.

to

Genetic

Technologies, 818 F.3d at 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, TDL does

4

TDL simultaneously faults Comcast for going outside of the record
with a Wikipedia link apparently describing TV Guide. While it is
true that under Rule 12(c), I may consider only the pleadings and
matters of public record, it is common knowledge that TV Guide is
a decades-old publication that informs television viewers of the
days, times, and channels on which television shows are broadcast.
I need not, and in fact did not, rely on the Wikipedia link for
any part of my analysis.
10

not identify any disputed facts, nor does it explain how extrinsic
evidence potentially bears on the ultimate legal issue. Because I
share

the

view

expressed

by

other

courts

that

absent

any

suggestion of a factual dispute on which the legal question of
subject-matter eligibility turns, I conclude that defendants need
not come forward with clear and convincing evidence to prevail on
their § 101 challenge. See Nextpoint, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
No. 15 C 8550, 2016 WL 3181705, at *6 (N.D. Ill. June 8, 2016)
(Bucklo, J.), aff’d ---F. App’x.---, 2017 WL 977036, at *1 (Fed.
Cir.

Mar.

14,

2017).

Accordingly,

I

may

resolve

defendants’

motions based on the text of the ‘952 patent, the prosecution
history, and my claim construction order of November 7, 2016.5 See
Berkheimer, 2016 WL 7188159, at *5 (conducting Alice inquiry based
on

the

asserted

claims

and

claim

construction

order)

(citing

Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat.
Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (§ 101 determinations
may be made at the pleading stage, prior to development of the
factual record); and Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d
709,

714–15

(Fed.

Cir.

2014)

(applying

the

two-part

Alice

framework by conducting an “examination of the claim limitations”
on their face).
5

Actually, my analysis would be the same with or without the
prosecution history; but because it is a matter of public record,
and
because
TDL
argues
that
the
Examiner’s
comments
on
reexamination support § 101 subject matter eligibility, I address
a portion of the prosecution history briefly below.
11

TDL

argues

that

the

fact

that

the

patent

disparages

conversion charts means that its claims are drawn to something
other than a conversion chart—specifically, a “television control
system.” TDL insists that the claims “represent a new structure”
that improves previously known television control systems. Resp.
at 10, 5. This new structure comprises “three new things: channel
select

designations;

the

use

of

two

controls,

each

issuing

a

different signal; and transmission of the first control signal via
the multi-channel signal, with one control at the origin of the
signal.”

Id.

limitations

at

is

10.

Although

generally

the

examination

province

of

of

specific

Alice’s

claim

second

step,

Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TDL insists
that the combination of the foregoing elements takes the invention
claimed in claims 1 and 2 outside the realm of an abstract idea. I
disagree.
First, TDL highlights the Examiner’s comments distinguishing
the

“channel

select

designation”

from

the

“channel

relocation

table” disclosed in the Jeffers prior art reference. Resp. at 4.
In TDL’s view, Jeffers describes a conversion chart because it
simply

maps

designation.”

one

“tuning

Claims

1

and

designation”
2,

by

to

contrast,

another
do

not

“tuning

describe

a

conversion chart because the “channel select designation” is not a
channel—it is a signal used to pick a channel. But I see no
principled

basis

for

concluding
12

that

the

abstract

idea

of

a

conversion chart is limited to a system that maps channel-tochannel conversions, and excludes systems like the one recited in
claim 1, which maps channel select designations to corresponding
channel tuning designations. Indeed, claim 1 recites that each
“channel selection designation” is stored in the system’s memory
“as corresponding to...one channel tuning designation.” ‘952 Pat.
at

14:42-44.

As

the

parties

agree,

each

“channel

tuning

designation” is “a tuner designation at which a particular signal
may be found.” See Claim Construction Order at 3. At bottom, then,
each

channel

select

designation

ultimately

corresponds

to

a

particular signal to which the system’s “tuner means” can tune to
receive programming. This correspondence describes the essence of
a

conversion

chart,

regardless

of

how

the

channel

selection

designations are labeled.6
TDL points out that unlike the conversion chart in Jeffers,
the claimed system allows a viewer to select a program based on
the program name alone, without knowing either the over-the-air

6

To illustrate, in a channel-to-channel conversion chart that
could be created using pencil and paper, the fields in column one
would
be
populated
with
over-the-air
channels,
while
the
corresponding fields in column two would be populated with cable
channels. Alternatively, one could create a network-to-channel
conversion chart in which column one is populated with names like
“NBC” or “HBO,” while column two is populated with cable channels
on
which
these
networks
broadcast
programs.
In
another
alternative, one could create a program-to-channel conversion
chart in which column one is populated with program names, such as
“Law and Order: Criminal Intent,” and column two is populated with
the cable channels on which these programs are broadcast.
13

channel or the cable or satellite channel on which the program
airs. Resp. at 5, 10 and Exh. F. While this feature may represent
a technical advantage over channel-to-channel conversion charts
such as the one in Jeffers, the operator’s ability to assign a
label

corresponding

to

the

name

of

a

program

that

airs

on

a

particular channel, rather than to the channel name or number,
does not change the essence of claims 1 and 2. Nothing in the
Examiner’s

observations

suggests

the

contrary.7

In

short,

I

conclude that claims 1 and 2 are drawn to an abstract idea and
thus proceed to the second step of the Alice inquiry.
TDL suggests that claims 1 and 2 add an inventive concept
because

pencil-and-paper

conversion

charts

cannot

“transmit

a

control signal including a data set on a channel of a multichannel signal transmitted from far away.” Resp. at 12. That is
plainly

true,

just

as

it

is

presumably

true

that

the

claimed

system offers advantages in terms of convenience and efficiency
over the use of pencil-and-paper conversion charts or published
guides

like

naturally

TV

from

Guide.
the

But

use

features

of

and

computers

advantages
to

perform

that

flow

functions

previously performed manually do not establish the existence of an
inventive concept. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC. v. Capital One
Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[s]teps that do
7

All agree that the Examiner’s analysis on reexamination concerned
only anticipation and obviousness under §§ 102 and 103 and did not
address subject-matter patentability under § 101.
14

nothing more than spell out what it means to ‘apply [an abstract
idea] on a computer’ cannot confer patent-eligibility.”). See also
In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation, 823 F.3d 607, 61314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[f]or the role of a computer in a computerimplemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of
this analysis, it must involve more than performance of wellunderstood,

routine,

[and]

conventional

activities

previously

known to the industry”) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted, original alterations).
TDL cites McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837
F.3d

1299

(Fed.

Cir.

2016),

for

the

proposition

that

“[i]mprovements to computers—either hardware or software—can be
non-abstract.” Resp. at 4. That observation is correct, but it
does not establish the subject matter eligibility of claims 1 and
2

because

“improvement
control

the
to

system

‘952

patent

computers.”
that

uses

neither
Instead,

discloses
it

conventional

nor

describes
technologies

claims
a

an

telephone
performing

their well-known and expected functions. Indeed, the specification
describes

all

of

the

system’s

physical

components

as

“conventional,” “typical,” and “readily commercially available.”
‘952 Pat. at cols. 4:45-58; 5:3; 5:60-63. Moreover, the factors
supporting the court’s decision in McRO simply are not present in
this case.

15

The

patents

in

McRO

“relate[d]

to

automating

part

of

a

preexisting 3-D animation method.” 837 F.3d at 1303. As the court
explained,

the

preexisting

animation

technology

required

a

combination of automated and human processes to produce realistic
visual

representations

of

human

speech,

which

was

both

“very

tedious and time consuming” and required “a visual and subjective
process.”

Id.

at

1306.

The

patent

improved

the

preexisting

technology by using “specific, limited mathematical rules” that
obviated the need for human animators “to subjectively identify
the problematic sequence and manually fix it.” Id. at 1314, 1307.
The

court

steps,

concluded

using

that

the

unconventional

“ordered

rules

that

combination
relate

of

claimed

sub-sequences

of

phonemes, timings, and morph weight sets, is not directed to an
abstract

idea,”

id.

at

1302-03,

noting

that

it

was

“the

incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer,
that improved [the] existing technological process. Id. at 1314.
(original alteration). As noted above, the system disclosed and
claimed

in

performing

the
their

‘952

patent

expected

uses

functions

only
to

conventional
achieve

the

elements
kinds

of

improvements that one would expect from the automation of a manual
process. Accordingly, McRO does not support its eligibility under
§ 101.

See

also

Bascom

Global

Internet

Servs.,

Inc.

v.

AT&T

Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims that
take an abstract idea and add the requirement “to perform it on a
16

set

of

generic

computer

components...would

not

contain

an

inventive concept.”)
That

the

communicates

claims

with

a

incorporate

viewer’s

“a

distant

television,”

does

control
not

that

change

the

analysis. TDL argues that the “spatial separation” of the two
controls adds an inventive concept, citing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue
Coat Sys., LLC, No. 15-cv-03295-BLS, 2016 WL 7212322, at *11 (N.D.
Cal. Dec. 13, 2016). But the patent at issue in Finjan claimed
improvements in the technology available for protecting devices
and networks from malicious intrusions, which were achieved, in
part, by “mov[ing] malware profiling from its traditional location
on end-user computers to an intermediate location on the network.”
Id. at *11. In other words, the novel placement of an element of
the

system

overcame

problems

associated

with

the

traditional

positioning of that element. Here, the problems the ‘952 patent
purports to solve have nothing to do with the location of the
claimed
providers

control
have

units.
long

As

assigned

the

specification

channel

explains,

identifiers

cable

remotely

from

viewers’ TV receivers. ‘952 Pat. at 1:66-2:2. That is neither
novel nor inventive.
Finally,

TDL

identifies

the

requirement

“that

the

control

signal travel over the multi-channel signal” as “something new,”
but it articulates no argument to explain how this features adds
an inventive concept. Nor does the patent itself suggest an answer
17

to this question, as the claim element responsible for receiving
the multi-channel signal is the “tuner means,” the structure of
which, as TDL emphasized during claim construction, was well-known
in the art. See TDL’s Resp. Br. in 08-cv-3584, at 10 (“Just as a
television was known, so were a variety of tuners known to persons
of skill in the art. The ‘952 patent says so explicitly, and
nowhere

describes

all

of

the

detail

of

any

specific

tuner.”).

Accordingly, I perceive no basis on which to conclude that the
limitation requiring a control signal that travels over a multichannel signal imparts an inventive concept to claims 1 and 2.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motions for judgment
on the pleadings are granted.

ENTER ORDER:

Elaine E. Bucklo
United States District Judge
Dated: June 19, 2017

18