Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc

Filing 518

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT; SETTING DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT. To the extent plaintiff seeks leave to file the proposed supplemental complaint, the motion is granted. To the extent plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's Order, filed January 7, 2016, the motion is denied. The deadline for ATopTech to file its response to the supplemental complaint is January 29, 2016. If the response is a m otion, the opposition is due no later than February 3, 2016, the reply is due no later than February 4, 2016 at 4:00 p.m., and the matter will be heard on February 5, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 22, 2016. (mmclc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
SYNOPSYS, INC.,

No. C-13-2965 MMC

13
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT; SETTING
DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT TO
RESPOND TO SUPPLEMENTAL
COMPLAINT

14
v.
15
ATOPTECH, INC.,
16

Defendant.

17

/

18
19

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

20

File Supplemental Complaint and (B) to File Motion for Reconsideration,” filed January 11,

21

2016. Defendant ATopTech, Inc. (“ATopTech”) has filed opposition, to which Synopsys

22

has replied.1 The matter came on for hearing on January 22, 2016. Robert A. Mittelstaedt,

23

Patrick T. Michael, Krista S. Schwartz, and Matthew J. Silveira of Jones Day appeared on

24

behalf of Synopsys. Paul Alexander and Sean M. Callagy of Arnold & Porter LLP appeared

25
26
27
28

1

On January 20, 2016, ATopTech filed an “Objection to Reply Evidence and Motion
for Leave to File Sur-Reply in Opposition to Synopsys’ Motion for Leave to File
Supplemental Complaint and to File Motion for Reconsideration.” On the record at the
January 22, 2016, hearing, the Court granted the leave requested.

1

on behalf of ATopTech. Having considered the parties’ respective written submissions, and

2

the arguments of counsel at the hearing, the Court rules as follows.

3

1. To the extent plaintiff seeks leave to file the proposed supplemental complaint,

4

the motion, for the reasons stated by the Court on the record at the hearing, is hereby

5

GRANTED.

6

2. To the extent plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order, filed January 7,

7

2016, the motion, for the reasons stated by the Court on the record at the hearing, is

8

hereby DENIED.

9

3. As discussed with the parties at the hearing, the deadline for ATopTech to file its

10

response to the supplemental complaint is January 29, 2016; if the response is a motion,

11

the opposition is due no later than February 3, 2016, the reply is due no later than February

12

4, 2016 at 4:00 p.m., and the matter will be heard on February 5, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 22, 2016
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

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