Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc

Filing 773

REVISED JOINT ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULE FOR ATOPTECH'S FOURTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 24, 2016. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Robert A. Mittelstaedt (SBN 60359)
[e-mail]
Patrick T. Michael (SBN 169745)
[e-mail]
Krista S. Schwartz (SBN 303604)
[e-mail]
David C. Kiernan (SBN 215335)
[e-mail]
Nathaniel P. Garrett (SBN 248211)
[e-mail]
Joe C. Liu (SBN 237356)
[e-mail]
JONES DAY
555 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
+1.415.626.3939
Facsimile:
+1.415.875.5700
Heather N. Fugitt (SBN 261588)
[e-mail]
JONES DAY
Silicon Valley Office
1755 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Telephone:
+1.650.739.3939
Facsimile:
+1.650.739.3900

Paul Alexander (#49997)
[e-mail]
Martin R. Glick (#40187)
[e-mail]
Sean M. Callagy (#255230)
[e-mail]
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Denise McKenzie (#193313)
[e-mail]
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
777 South Figueroa Street
Forty-Fourth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
ATOPTECH, INC.

Attorneys for Plaintiff
SYNOPSYS, INC.

16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

20
21

SYNOPSYS, INC.,

22

Plaintiff,

23

v.

24

ATOPTECH, INC.,

25

Case No. 3:13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR)
REVISED JOINT [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULE
FOR ATOPTECH’S FOURTH
AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS

Defendant.

26
27
28
Revised Joint (Proposed) Order
Case No. 3:13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR)

1

WHEREAS, Synopsys filed its Amended Complaint on November 25, 2013, asserting

2

claims for copyright infringement (Count I), breach of contract and breach of covenant of good

3

faith and fair dealing (Counts XI-XII), and patent infringement (Counts II-V) (ECF No. 43) 1;

4

WHEREAS, on March 13, 2015, ATopTech filed its First Amended Answer and

5

Counterclaims, which asserted a copyright misuse counterclaim and several antitrust claims

6

including a claim under Section 7 of the Clayton Act challenging two acquisitions and claims

7

under Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act for tying and monopolization (ECF No. 252);

8

WHEREAS, on April 9, 2015, the Court bifurcated Synopsys’s patent claims from its

9

copyright and breach of contract claims, but deferred ruling on whether to bifurcate ATopTech’s

10

copyright misuse and antitrust counterclaims pending resolution of Synopsys’ motion to dismiss

11

(ECF No. 280);

12

WHEREAS, on April 27, 2015, the Court entered an Order setting deadlines and

13

discovery limits on “Synopsys’ patent claims (Counts II–V)” (ECF No. 291), which provides that

14

fact discovery closes on July 15, 2016, expert discovery closes on October 15, 2016, dispositive

15

motions shall be filed by December 15, 2016, and trial shall commence on February 27, 2017 2;

16

WHEREAS, by Orders issued on May 8, 2015, August 7, 2015, and November 18, 2015

17

(ECF Nos. 294, 342, 455), the Court dismissed ATopTech’s copyright misuse defense claim and

18

certain of its antitrust counterclaims and denied Synopsys’ motion to dismiss regarding Count III,

19

Count VI, and Count VIII to the extent they challenge certain license restrictions;

20

WHEREAS, on November 25, 2015, ATopTech filed its Fourth Amended Answer and

21

Counterclaims, which asserts the remaining Antitrust Counterclaims that were not dismissed by

22

the Court (ECF No. 471) (the “Antitrust Counterclaims”);

23
24
25
26
27
28

WHEREAS, on December 15, 2015, Synopsys filed its Amended Answer to the
Counterclaim (ECF No. 486);
1

Synopsys’ Amended Complaint was supplemented on January 26, 2016 to include
supplemental copyright registration certificate numbers. See ECF No. 523; see also ECF No. 596
(order denying motion to dismiss Supplemental Complaint).
2
On July 30, 2015, the Clerk issued a Notice confirming the deadlines for the Copyright
and Breach of Contract claims and the Patent Claims (ECF. 333).
-1-

Revised Joint (Proposed) Order
Case No. 3:13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR)

1

WHEREAS, on November 19, 2015, the Court bifurcated the Antitrust Counterclaims

2

from the copyright and breach of contract claims (ECF No. 456), and the parties agreed to meet

3

and confer regarding a proposed schedule for the Antitrust Counterclaims (ECF No. 465, p. 60-

4

61);

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

WHEREAS, a jury trial on Synopsys’ copyright and breach of contract claims (Counts I,
XI-XII) concluded on March 10, 2016;
WHEREAS, a bench trial is set for July 25, 2016 on ATopTech’s equitable estoppel
affirmative defense;
WHEREAS, the parties have conducted minimal discovery related to the Antitrust
Counterclaims to date and no Case Management Conference has been held or set;
WHEREAS, the parties agree that the Antitrust Counterclaims should be bifurcated from

12

the patent claims (Counts II-V) because the claims involve separate, complex bodies of law and

13

involve distinct factual and legal issues;

14

WHEREAS, the parties agree that discovery on the Antitrust Counterclaims should be

15

deferred until thirty days after the entry of a verdict at the trial on the patent claims, in light of the

16

time and cost associated with the equitable estoppel bench trial and the ongoing patent discovery

17

and ultimate trial on the patent claims; and

18

WHEREAS, the parties agree that the period of time required to complete proceedings on

19

the Antitrust Counterclaims shall not, in and of itself, constitute a basis for entry of partial

20

judgment under Rule 54(b) as to any other claims.

21
22

NOW, THEREFORE the parties jointly submit the following proposed deadlines relating
to ATopTech’s Fourth Amended Counterclaims:

23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

Revised Joint (Proposed) Order
Case No. 3:13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Proposed Schedule for ATopTech’s Fourth Amended Counterclaims:
DEADLINE
30 days after entry of a
verdict at the trial on
Synopsys’ Patent Claims

EVENT
Discovery commences. Any discovery
previously served will be deemed served as of
this date

30 days after commencement Updates to Rule 26 Initial Disclosures
of Fact Discovery
Six months after
commencement of Fact
Discovery
30 days after conclusion of
Fact Discovery

Close of Fact Discovery, including third-party
discovery
ATopTech’s Opening Expert Report(s)

30 days after service of
Synopsys’s Expert Report(s)
ATopTech’s Opening Expert
Report
21 days after service of
Synopsys’s Rebuttal Report

ATopTech Rebuttal Expert Reports

21 days after service of
ATopTech’s Rebuttal Expert
Reports

Close of Expert Discovery

30 days after Close of Expert Motion for Summary Judgment
Discovery
3 weeks after filing Motions
for Summary Judgment
2 weeks after filing
Oppositions

Opp. to Motion for Summary Judgment
Reply in support of Motion for Summary
Judgment

TBD

Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

TBD

Pre-Trial Conference

TBD

Trial

26
27
28
-3-

Revised Joint (Proposed) Order
Case No. 3:13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR)

1

Dated: June 23, 2016

JONES DAY

2

By: /s/ David C. Kiernan
David C. Kiernan

3
4

Attorneys for Plaintiff
SYNOPSYS, INC.

5
6

Respectfully submitted,

In accordance with Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the above signatory attests that concurrence in

7

the filing of this document has been obtained from the signatory below.

8

ARNOLD & PORTER

9

By: /s/ Paul Alexander
Paul Alexander

10

Attorneys for Defendant
ATOPTECH, INC.

11
12
13
14
15

The above joint proposed deadlines relating to ATopTech’s Fourth Amended
Counterclaims is approved and all parties shall comply with its provisions.
IT SO ORDERED.

16
17

June 24, 2016
Dated: _________________________

By:

18

Hon. Maxine Chesney
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

Revised Joint (Proposed) Order
Case No. 3:13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR)