Cadence Design Systems, Inc. v. Syntronic AB et al

Filing 71

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS' AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 61 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 12/13/2021)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8

SYNTRONIC AB, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 61

Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

v.

9
10

Case No. 21-cv-03610-SI

12
13

On October 21, 2021, plaintiff Cadence Design Systems Inc. (“Cadence”) filed the instant

14

motion to strike all eighteen affirmative defenses asserted by defendant Syntronic AB (“Syntronic”)

15

in its answer. Dkt. No. 611 (Motion to Strike). Each affirmative defense is plead with the support

16

of a single sentence. Dkt. No. 60 at 27-28 (Answer). For example, the first five affirmative defenses

17

read:

18
19
20

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Complaint fails to state a claim against Syntronic Beijing on which relief can be
granted.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Syntronic Beijing.

21
22
23

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff has not served sufficient process on Syntronic Beijing.

24
25

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent any copyright
registration asserted by Plaintiff is invalid and/or unenforceable.

26
27
28

1

For ease of reference, page number citations refer to the ECF branded number in the
upper right corner of the page.

1
2
3

Dkt. No. 60 at 27 (Answer).
Plaintiff argues defendant’s affirmative defenses are inadequately plead and wholly
unsupported by facts. Dkt. No. 61 at 7 (Motion to Strike). The Court agrees.

4

However, the Court also agrees with defendant that had plaintiff simply met and conferred

5

with defendant, this entire motion could have been avoided. Dkt. No. 65 at 8 (Opposition)

6

(“Plaintiff’s motion could have and should have been resolved through the meet and confer process

7

or at least through a stipulation for leave to amend.”).
As such, the Court hereby GRANTS Cadence’s motion to strike all of Syntronic’s

9

affirmative defenses WITHOUT prejudice. Syntronic may file an amended answer on or before

10

January 14, 2022. The Court strongly urges the parties to meet and confer regarding the affirmative

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

defenses prior to Syntronic filing any amended answer.

12

If Syntronic files an amended answer, the parties are ORDERD to meet and confer, in

13

person or over video, prior to any further motion to strike being filed to the amended answer.

14

Written meet and confers or telephonic meet and confers will not comply with this order.

15
16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 13, 2021
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2