Synopsys, Inc. v. Dolphin Technology, Inc.

Filing 10

ORDER Denying #9 Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause, and Scheduling Hearing on Plaintiff's Request for Expedited Discovery. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/17/2021. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2021)

Case 3:21-cv-06207-EMC Document 10 Filed 08/17/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SYNOPSYS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

v.
DOLPHIN TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. 21-cv-06207-EMC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE, AND
SCHEDULING HEARING ON
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
Docket No. 9

13
14
15

Plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. has filed suit against Defendant Dolphin Technology, Inc. for

16

violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) and copyright infringement. Soon

17

after filing its complaint, Synopsys moved for a temporary restraining order, an order to show

18

cause regarding a preliminary injunction, and an order requiring expedited discovery.

19

The Court hereby DENIES the request for a TRO and an order to show cause. At this

20

juncture, Synopsys has not made an adequate showing that it would likely suffer irreparable injury

21

without a TRO and/or that the balancing of hardships tips sharply in its favor. Remedies available

22

at law, such as monetary damages, would appear to be adequate to compensate for any injury to

23

Synopsys. See eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). In its papers,

24

Synopsys claims irreparable injury based on (1) harm to goodwill; (2) negotiating leverage; (3) the

25

cost of piracy; and (4) interference with exclusive rights. The Court is skeptical of the first two

26

injuries for the reasons stated by Judge Koh in her decision denying Synopsys’s motion for a TRO

27
28

Case 3:21-cv-06207-EMC Document 10 Filed 08/17/21 Page 2 of 2

1

in Synopsys, Inc. v. Innogrit Corp., No. C-19-2082 LHK (N.D. Cal.) (Docket No. 16).1 Although

2

the cost of piracy and interference with exclusive rights present closer calls, it is debatable whether

3

that injury is irreparable, particularly in light of Synopsys’s admission that it has been on notice of

4

misconduct by Dolphin since June. See Kelly Decl. ¶ 10.
Although the Court thus denies the request for a TRO and an order to show cause, the

5
6

Court notes that it is not precluding Synopsys from filing a fully noticed motion for a preliminary

7

injunction in the future. In addition, the Court shall set Synopsys’s request for expedited

8

discovery on shortened time. Specifically, a hearing shall be held on this request on August 27,

9

2021, at 1:00 p.m. Dolphin’s opposition to the request for expedited discovery shall be filed by

10

12:00 Noon, August 25, 2021.
Synopsys is ordered to immediately serve a copy of this order on Dolphin and to file a

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

declaration (1) certifying service and (2) describing how service was effected. Synopsys is

13

advised that the notice it gave Dolphin of the ex parte motion was not adequate. Dolphin is a

14

customer of Synopsys; therefore, the Court expects that there are many Dolphin employees to

15

whom Synopsys can reach out to give notice and/or to assist getting notice to the right people, and

16

not just Dolphin’s formal agent for service of process.

17
IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20

Dated: August 17, 2021
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

In its papers, Synopsys misleadingly suggested that Judge Koh had granted its request for a
TRO. See Mot. at 1. The Court forewarns Synopsys that it will not tolerate such conduct in the
future. It is true that Judge Koh granted Synopsys some relief – i.e., expedited discovery.
However, she clearly denied the request for a TRO.
The Court also acknowledges that Judge Koh later granted Synopsys a preliminary
injunction. See Synopsys, No. C-19-2082 LHK (Docket No. 48). However, that relief was granted
after a fuller record had been developed; furthermore, Judge Koh did not find irreparable injury
based on harm to goodwill or negotiating leverage.
2