Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc

Filing 967

CONSENT JUDGMENT. Consent judgment in favor of Synopsys, Inc. against Atoptech, Inc. Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 06/27/17. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Robert A. Mittelstaedt (State Bar No. 60359) Patrick T. Michael (State Bar No. 169745) Krista S. Schwartz (State Bar No. 303604) JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: +1.415.626.3939 Facsimile: +1.415.875.5700 Paul Alexander (#49997) Philip W. Marsh (#276383) ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 1801 Page Mill Road Suite 110 Palo Alto, CA 94304-1216 Telephone: (650) 798-2920 Facsimile: (650) 798-2999 Attorneys for Plaintiff SYNOPSYS, INC. Attorneys for Defendant ATOPTECH, INC. 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 13 14 SYNOPSYS, INC., 15 16 17 Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CONSENT JUDGMENT ATOPTECH, INC., 18 Defendant. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Stipulation and Consent Judgment Case No. 3:13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR) 4810-7728-9032\1 1 This Stipulation and Consent Judgment ("Order") is ordered by the Court as of the date 2 indicated below and is consented to by Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Synopsys Inc. (“Synopsys”) 3 and Defendant/Counterclaimant ATopTech Inc. (“ATopTech”). 4 WHEREAS, on November 25, 2013, Synopsys filed its Amended Complaint asserting 5 claims for copyright infringement, patent infringement, breach of contract and breach of covenant 6 of good faith and fair dealing. 1 7 WHEREAS, on November 25, 2015, ATopTech filed its Fourth Amended Answer and 8 Counterclaims asserting counterclaims for violation of the Sherman Act, Sections 1 and 2, and 9 California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. The claims and counterclaims 10 are collectively referred to as “the Lawsuit.” 11 WHEREAS, a jury trial on Synopsys’ copyright and breach claims concluded on March 12 10, 2016, in which the jury found in favor of Synopsys on its copyright infringement claim and 13 awarded Synopsys $30.4 million in damages (“Synopsys’ Copyright Infringement Claims”). 14 WHEREAS, on December 19, 2016, the Court entered a Permanent Injunction and 15 Disposition Order in connection with Synopsys’ Copyright Infringement Claims (the “Permanent 16 Injunction”). 17 18 WHEREAS, on January 13, 2017, the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy seeking relief under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Chapter 11 Case). 19 WHEREAS, as a result of the Chapter 11 Case, the Lawsuit was stayed, including 20 Synopsys’ claims against ATopTech for patent infringement (the “Synopsys Patent Infringement 21 Claims”) and ATopTech’s counterclaims against Synopsys for antitrust violations (the 22 “ATopTech Antitrust Counterclaims”). 23 WHEREAS, in the Chapter 11 Case, the parties have reached an agreement under which 24 ATopTech has agreed, and the Bankruptcy Court has approved, that Synopsys will receive an 25 allowed claim of $30.4 million in the Chapter 11 Case. 26 27 28 WHEREAS, the stay in the Chapter 11 Case has been lifted for the limited purpose of allowing the parties to file this Order with the District Court. 1 Synopsys’ Amended Complaint was supplemented on January 26, 2016 to include supplemental copyright registration certificate numbers. -1Stipulation and Consent Judgment Case No. 3:13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR) 4810-7728-9032\1 1 2 3 4 WHEREAS, Synopsys and ATopTech wish to resolve all of the remaining claims and counterclaims that were asserted by either party in the Lawsuit. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Lawsuit hereby stipulate to dismiss this Lawsuit and enter this Order as follows. 5 Based on this stipulation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 6 1. Judgment is hereby entered on the jury’s verdict in the Lawsuit. This Order and 7 the Permanent Injunction issued in connection with the Synopsys Copyright Infringement Claims 8 are final and non-appealable. The Parties waive all rights to appeal in this Lawsuit. 9 2. The Synopsys Patent Infringement Claims and the ATopTech Antitrust 10 Counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice, and this Order shall finally conclude and dispose of 11 the Lawsuit. 12 3. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and over the subject matter of this 13 dispute and shall retain continuing subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction for the 14 purposes of construing or enforcing the terms of this Order and the Permanent Injunction. 15 4. The parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs. 16 17 IT IS SO STIPULATED AND AGREED: 18 Dated: June 21, 2017 19 JONES DAY 20 By: /s/ Patrick T. Michael Patrick T. Michael 21 Counsel for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant SYNOPSYS, INC. 22 23 24 Respectfully submitted, Dated: June 21, 2017 ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER By: /s/ Paul Alexander Paul Alexander 25 26 Counsel for Defendant/Counterclaimant ATOPTECH, INC. 27 28 -24810-7728-9032\1 Stipulation and Consent Judgment Case No. 3:13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR) ATTESTATION OF E-FILER 1 2 Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i), the undersigned ECF user whose login and password are 3 being used in filing this document, hereby attests that the signatory above has concurred in the 4 filing of this document. 5 Dated: June 21, 2017 6 JONES DAY By: /s/ Patrick T. Michael Patrick T. Michael 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 June 27, 2017 Dated: ___________________ ________________________________ Honorable Maxine M. Chesney United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -34810-7728-9032\1 Stipulation and Consent Judgment Case No. 3:13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR)

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?