Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation

Filing 122

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. Each party shall submit separate additional briefing by 12 p.m. on January 17, 2014. Each submission shall be restricted to six double-spaced pages. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 01/14/14. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
SYNOPSYS INC,

12
13

Plaintiff(s),

No. C-12-06467 DMR
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING

v.

14

MENTOR GRAPHICS CORP,

15

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

16
17

On November 21, 2013, Defendant Mentor Graphics Corp. filed a motion for entry of

18

protective order. [Docket No. 107.] Judge Chesney referred the motion and all further discovery

19

matters to this court, and ordered Mentor to meet and confer with Plaintiff Synopsys Inc. and

20

prepare a joint discovery letter explaining the dispute. [Docket No. 110.] The parties filed a joint

21

discovery letter on December 12, 2013. [Docket No. 113.] The hearing on the joint discovery letter

22

is set for January 23, 2014.

23

Having reviewed the joint discovery letter, the court has determined that supplemental

24

briefing is necessary to explain the actual, non-speculative impact of proceeding in this case with a

25

prosecution bar. Accordingly, each party shall submit separate additional briefing by 12 p.m. on

26

January 17, 2014, addressing the following: (1) the extent to which the issues have overlapped or

27

will overlap in this case and the Oregon cases; (2) the extent to which discovery has overlapped or

28

will overlap in this case and the Oregon cases; (3) the names of counsel participating in each of the

1

cases on behalf of the party, including an indication of whether that attorney is outside counsel or in-

2

house and the extent to which that attorney is involved in competitive decisionmaking relating to the

3

subject matter of the litigations; (4) the potential difficulty the party has faced and/or realistically

4

might face if limited to certain counsel for the pending litigation or required to engage other counsel

5

for purposes of patent prosecution; (5) the subject matter of the invention in this case, as

6

differentiated from the subject matters of the inventions in the Oregon cases, and (6) the subject

7

matter of the highly confidential technical information produced or to be produced in this case, as

8

differentiated from the highly confidential technical information produced or to be produced in the

9

Oregon cases. Each submission shall be restricted to six double-spaced pages.

15

Dated: January 14, 2014

M. Ryu
Don a
e RYUn
Judg
DONNA M.

16

R NIA

14

I

LI

13

ERED

ORD
T IS SO

FO

UNIT
ED

12

RT

United States Magistrate Judge

ER

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

A

H

For the Northern District of California

S

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RT
U
O

11

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

NO

United States District Court

10

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C