Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc

Filing 207

ORDER GRANTING SYNOPSYS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Although the Court does not agree that all of the arguments made in the instant motion were presented prior to the rulings Synopsys now challenges, the Court fin ds it appropriate to afford Synopsys leave to move for reconsideration. In the interest of time, the Court will consider the instant motion as Synopsys' motion for reconsideration, and hereby sets the following briefing schedule: ATopTechs oppos ition shall be filed on or before February 4, 2015; Synopsys reply shall be filed on or before February 11, 2015. Unless otherwise ordered, the matter will stand submitted as of February 11, 2015. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 21, 2015. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

SYNOPSYS, INC.,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

ATOPTECH, INC.,
Defendant.
/

15

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

ORDER GRANTING SYNOPSYS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.

14

16

No. C 13-2965 MMC

Before the Court is the “Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration,” filed
January 15, 2015, by plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”). By said motion, Synopsys
challenges certain of the rulings made in the Court’s January 7, 2015 order granting in part
and denying in part defendant ATopTech, Inc.’s (“ATopTech”) motion to dismiss, and
argues reconsideration of the order is warranted due to an asserted “failure by the Court to
consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court
before [said] interlocutory order.” (See Mot. for Leave at 2:2-12 (citing Civil L.R.
7-9(b)(3)).) Although the Court does not agree that all of the arguments made in the instant
motion were presented prior to the rulings Synopsys now challenges, the Court finds it
appropriate to afford Synopsys leave to move for reconsideration.1

26
27
28

1

The arguments the Court accepted in issuing the challenged rulings were raised for
the first time in ATopTech’s reply in support of its motion to dismiss. In lieu of granting
Synopsys’ motion to strike those arguments, the Court adopted Synopsys’ alternative
request that the Court consider arguments made by Synopsys in response to an earlier

In the interest of time, the Court will consider the instant motion as Synopsys’ motion

1
2

for reconsideration, and hereby sets the following briefing schedule:

3

1. ATopTech’s opposition shall be filed on or before February 4, 2015;

4

2. Synopsys’ reply shall be filed on or before February 11, 2015;

5

3. Unless otherwise ordered, the matter will stand submitted as of February 11,

6
7

2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: January 21, 2015
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

motion filed by ATopTech. In retrospect, although not requested, it would have been
preferable to afford Synopsys leave to file a sur-reply directly responsive to ATopTech’s
reply.
2