Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc

Filing 448

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE; REFERRING MATTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. To the extent Synopsys seeks an order excluding evidence that allegedly infringing material has been removed from ATopTech' ;s software, the motion is denied. To the extent Synopsys's motion seeks to reopen fact discovery, the motion is granted. The remaining issue is the scope of said discovery, the resolution of which is referred to Magistrate Judge Ryu. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on November 16, 2015. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2015)

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
11

SYNOPSYS, INC.
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

No. C-13-2965 MMC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION IN LIMINE; REFERRING
MATTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE

v.
ATOPTECH, INC.,
Defendants.

/

16
17

Before the Court is plaintiff Synopsys, Inc.’s (“Synopsys”) “Motion in Limine to Limit

18

Evidence of a ‘Non-infringing Alternative,’” filed October 16, 2015, in which Synopsys seeks

19

an order excluding evidence that defendant ATopTech, Inc. (“ATopTech”) has removed the

20

allegedly copyrighted material from its software program, or, in the alternative, an order

21

reopening fact discovery to allow Synopsys to verify that the material has been so

22

removed. ATopTech has filed opposition, to which Synopsys has replied. Having read and

23

considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court finds the

24

matter appropriate for decision on the parties’ respective written submissions, VACATES

25

the hearing scheduled for November 20, 2015, and rules as follows.

26

For the reasons stated in the opposition, the Court finds evidence that the allegedly

27

infringing material has been removed from ATopTech’s software appears relevant to

28

several issues in the above-titled action, namely Synopsys’s entitlement to injunctive relief,

1

the amount of damages attributable to the allegedly infringing aspects of ATopTech’s

2

software, and the duration of the alleged infringement.

3
4

Accordingly, to the extent Synopsys seeks an order excluding such evidence, the
motion is DENIED.

5

Synopsys is, however, entitled to additional discovery to discern whether ATopTech

6

has, in fact, removed all of the allegedly infringing terms from its software. Accordingly, to

7

the extent Synopsys’s motion seeks to reopen fact discovery, the motion is GRANTED.

8
9
10
11
12

The remaining issue is the scope of said discovery, the resolution of which is hereby
REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Ryu, to whom all discovery matters in the above-titled
action previously have been referred. (See Order, filed March 25, 2014.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 16, 2015
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2