Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc

Filing 871

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying as moot 863 Administrative Motion; granting 864 Motion for Leave to File. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2016)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

SYNOPSYS, INC.,

Case No. 13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR)

Plaintiff,
6
v.
7
8

ATOPTECH, INC,
Defendant.

9
10

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF SYNOPSYS,
INC.'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND EMERGENCY MOTION FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF
Re: Dkt. No. 863, 864

Plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”) filed (1) a motion for leave to file a motion for

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

reconsideration (“motion for leave”) of this Court’s September 19, 2016 order denying its motion

12

for leave to amend its infringement contentions [Docket No. 864]; and (2) an emergency motion

13

for administrative relief on its motion for leave [Docket No. 863]. Synopsys’s motion for leave is

14

granted. Its emergency motion is denied.

15

I.

16

On June 14, 2016, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding Synopsys’s proposed

17
18

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

amendments to its invalidity contentions. [Docket No. 764].
On July 20, 2016, the court held a telephonic hearing on the joint discovery letter [Docket

19

No. 764]. July 20, 2016 Minute Order [Docket No. 800]. During the hearing, the court denied the

20

joint discovery letter without prejudice, and granted Synopsys leave to file a motion to amend.

21

[Docket No. 800]. The court instructed the parties as follows on the motion to amend:
The parties’ briefing may not incorporate by reference the joint letter
or other documents, with the exception of the exhibits of the proposed
amended infringement contentions and the redline between the proposed
and operative infringement contentions.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

[Docket No. 800] (emphasis added).
Synopsys filed its motion to amend on July 25, 2016. In direct violation of the court’s
order, Synopsys also filed a supporting declaration with attachments amounting to over one
hundred pages of documents. [Docket No. 815]. Defendant ATopTech, Inc. (“ATopTech”) filed

1

an opposition on July 29, 2016. [Docket No. 828]. Synopsys filed its reply on August 2, 2016.

2

[Docket No. 833].

3

On September 19, 2016, the court denied Synopsys’s motion to amend without additional

4

oral argument. [Docket No. 848]. It found that while “it was clear that Synopsys diligently

5

sought production of ATopTech’s source code, which was not produced in full form for four

6

versions of the accused products until March 22, 2016,” Synopsys had not demonstrated in its

7

motion papers how its proposed amendments were tied to ATopTech’s late production of source

8

code, and therefore had not met its burden to demonstrate diligence. [Docket No. 848 at 5:28-6:2,

9

6:6-9:4].

10

On September 30, 2016, Synopsys filed a motion for relief from the September 19, 2016

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

order with Presiding Judge Chesney. Synopsys’s motion for relief included new evidence.

12

[Docket No. 852]. On October 5, 2016, Judge Chesney denied Synopsys’s motion for relief

13

without prejudice to Synopsys filing a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration before

14

this court. [Docket No. 861]. Judge Chesney noted Synopsys’s motion was based newly-offered

15

evidence and was essentially a motion for reconsideration. [Docket No. 861].

16

On October 7, 2016, Synopsys filed its motion for leave and an emergency motion for

17

administrative relief on the motion to amend. [Docket Nos. 863, 864]. In moving for

18

reconsideration, however, Synopsys withdrew the new evidence. [Docket No. 864 at 1, n.1].

19
20

On October 11, 2016, ATopTech filed its opposition to Synopsys’s emergency motion for
administrative relief. [Docket No. 867].

21

II.

DISCUSSION

22

Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, a party must seek leave of court to file any motion for

23

reconsideration. In seeking leave of court, a party must show reasonable diligence in bringing and

24

one of the following grounds: (1) a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was

25

presented to the court, which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the party applying for

26

reconsideration did not know at the time of the order for which reconsideration is sought; (2) the

27

emergence of new material facts or a change of law; or (3) a manifest failure by the court to

28

consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments presented before such order. N.D. Civ. L.R.
2

1

7-9(b)(1)-(3).
Synopsys bases its motion for leave on the third ground, e.g. manifest failure by the court

2
3

to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments presented before it. Synopsys argues that

4

the court failed to consider documents in the record explaining why it could not have amended its

5

invalidity contentions based on the portions of the source code produced in October through

6

December 2015. Synopsys explains that it could not ascertain how the accused features actually

7

worked without the complete code. [Docket No. 864 at 1, 3-5].
Synopsys’s argument is problematic. To begin with, all of the documents that Synopsys

8
9

now cites in support of its current motion were filed inappropriately as exhibits to its motion to
amend. The court’s July 20, 2016 order explicitly prohibited this; it limited the parties to “exhibits

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

of the proposed amended infringement contentions and the redline between the proposed and

12

operative infringement contentions” in briefing Synopsys’s motion to amend. [Docket No. 800].

13

The court instructed Synopsys to make its arguments in its motion, and not anywhere else.

14

Moreover, Synopsys has already had two opportunities (joint discovery letter and motion to

15

amend) to explain to the court why it could not move to amend its infringement contentions before

16

ATopTech completed its production of source code. Synopsys is now asking for another bite at

17

the apple. In light of the above, the court would be well within its authority to deny Synopsys’s

18

motion for leave.
In examining the equities, however, the court cannot ignore the fact that ATopTech clearly

19
20

dragged its heels in producing the full source code to Synopsys, despite Synopsys’s diligent

21

efforts. Both parties are far from blameless. In the interest of justice, the court GRANTS

22

Synopsys’s motion for leave, which the court construes as its motion for reconsideration.

23

ATopTech shall file its opposition by October 18, 2016. Synopsys shall file its reply by October

24

21, 2016.

25

The parties do not have an entitlement to oral argument, and should not assume that the

26

court will set this matter for hearing. See Civil L.R. 7-(b). The court will notify the parties if it

27

determines that a hearing is warranted.

28

//
3

1

Synopsys’ emergency motion for relief on its motion to amend is DENIED as moot.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S
NO

7

RT

9
10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ER

M. Ryu

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

A

H

8

onna
Judge D

FO

6

R NIA

______________________________________
Donna M. RyuRED
RDE
UnitedSO O Magistrate Judge
IT IS States

LI

5

UNIT
ED

4

Dated: October 13, 2016

RT
U
O

3

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C