Synopsys, Inc. v. Library Technologies, Inc.

Filing 151

ORDER RE SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 8/2/2022. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2022)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DENISE M. MINGRONE (SBN 135224) dmingrone@orrick.com ROBERT L. URIARTE (SBN 258274) ruriarte@orrick.com ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015 Telephone: +1 650 614 7400 Facsimile: +1 650 614 7401 Attorneys for Plaintiff, SYNOPSYS, INC. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 12 SYNOPSYS, INC., 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:20-cv-07014-CRB [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF CASE WITH PREJUDICE LIBRARY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL 3:20-CV-07014-CRB 1 WHEREAS Plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Library Technologies, 2 Inc., (“Defendant”) are parties to a civil action entitled Synopsys, Inc. v. Library Technologies, 3 Inc., et al., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 4 3:20-cv-07014-CRB (the “Litigation”); 5 WHEREAS Plaintiff has alleged that the Defendant violated the Digital Millennium 6 Copyright Act (“DMCA”) and Breach of the Parties Contracts and Defendant denies these 7 allegations; and 8 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and in consideration of the 9 payments, promises and mutual undertakings set forth herein and in the Parties’ Confidential 10 Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) executed by Plaintiff and Defendant and incorporated 11 herein by this reference, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Court orders as 12 follows. 13 14 15 16 17 18 1. Defendant, its representatives, officers, agents, directors, affiliates, servants, employees, contractors, and consultants and all persons acting in concert or participation with it agree they have ceased accessing any Synopsys applications or any electronic files associated with the use of or access to any Synopsys applications, including but not limited to counterfeit license key files. Defendant, its representatives, officers, agents, directors, affiliates, servants, employees, consultants and all persons acting in concert or participation with it including employees and independent contractors, are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly accessing, using, transferring, or copying, in any way, any Synopsys software without authorization from Synopsys. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2. Defendant shall certify with the court that all Synopsys software located on devices have within Defendants’ control been removed, including devices within the control of Defendant’s representatives, officers, agents, directors, affiliates, servants, employees, consultants and all persons acting in concert or participation with it including employees and independent contractors. 3. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the terms of the Agreement without the necessity of any party’s filing a separate lawsuit to do so. In any contest over an alleged violation of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 4. All claims filed herein are hereby dismissed with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own fees and costs, except as specified in the Parties’ Confidential Settlement Agreement. 28 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP -1- [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL 3:20-CV-07014-CRB 1 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. August 2, 2022 Dated: _____________________ HONORABLE CHARLES R. BREYER United States District Judge 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 4162-5212-1148.1 -2- [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL 3:20-CV-07014-CRB

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?