Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc

Filing 455

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS. The motion to dismiss is denied. The motion to strike ATopTech's Eleventh and Fifteenth Affirmative Defenses is granted, with leave to amend the Fifteenth Affirmative Defense. The motion to strike factual allegations is granted in part and denied in part. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on November 18, 2015. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2015)

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

v.
ATOPTECH, INC.,
Defendant.

/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDED
COUNTERCLAIMS; GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES AND FACTUAL
ALLEGATIONS

16
17

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

18

ATopTech’s Third Amended Counterclaims [(“TACC”)] and to Strike Immaterial Factual

19

Allegations and Affirmative Defenses Nos. 11 and 15,” filed October 5, 2015. Defendant

20

ATopTech, Inc. (“ATopTech”) has filed opposition, to which Synopsys has replied. The

21

matter came on regularly for hearing on November 13, 2015. Patrick T. Michael, David C.

22

Kiernan, and Amir Amiri of Jones Day appeared on behalf of Synopsys. Paul Alexander

23

and Daniel Asimow of Arnold & Porter LLP appeared on behalf of ATopTech. Having

24

considered the parties’ respective written submissions and the arguments of counsel, the

25

Court hereby rules as follows.

26

1. For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, and having reviewed the

27

TACC’s allegations and considered the parties’ written and oral arguments with respect to

28

injury to competition, the Court finds ATopTech has cured the deficiencies discussed in the

1

Court’s prior order.

2

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED.

3

2. For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, the motion to strike

4

ATopTech’s Eleventh and Fifteenth Affirmative Defenses is hereby GRANTED, with leave

5

to amend the Fifteenth Affirmative Defense.

6
7
8

3. Synopsys’s motion to strike factual allegations in the TACC is granted in part and
denied in part, as follows:
a. For the reasons stated by Synopsys, the motion is hereby GRANTED to

9

the extent Synopsys seeks to strike paragraphs 91 - 94 and 105 - 111 of the TACC.

10

b. Contrary to Synopsys’s argument, the Court finds paragraphs 90 and 95 -

11

101 contain allegations relevant to issues that remain in the case, and, in particular

12

the effect of Synopsys’s position in the static timing verification market on

13

competition in the place-and-route market.

14

Accordingly, to the extent Synopsys seeks to strike paragraphs 90 and 95 -

15

101 of the TACC, the motion is hereby DENIED.

16

4. ATopTech is DIRECTED to file, no later than November 25, 2015, its Fourth

17
18
19

Amended Answer and Counterclaims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 18, 2015
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2