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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?