Dynetix Design Solutions, Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc.

Filing 297

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting in part and denying in part 62 Motion for Summary Judgment (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

DYNETIX DESIGN SOLUTIONS INC., a
California corporation,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
SYNOPSYS INC., a Delaware corporation, and )
DOES 1-50,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

18
19
20

Case No.: CV 11-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Re: Docket No. 62)

In this patent infringement case, Defendant Synopsys Inc. (“Synopsys”) moves for
summary judgment of non-infringement on a variety of issues.1 Plaintiff Dynetix Design Solutions
Inc. (“Dynetix”) opposes the motions, and seeks a summary judgment of its own.2 The parties

21
22

have appeared for multiple hearings on the motions. This order deals only with Synopsys’ first

23

motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. A further order addressing the remaining

24

motions will issue. Having reviewed the papers and considered the arguments of counsel, the court

25

GRANTS-IN-PART Synopsys’ first summary judgment motion.

26
27

1

See Docket No. 62, 136, 141.

28

2

See Docket No. 87.

1
Case No.: C 11-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I.

1

The reasoning that the court applies to the pending summary judgment motion is

2
3

BACKGROUND

straightforward, and so the court will provide only a limited background.

4

On December 5, 2011, Dynetix filed this suit, alleging that various Synopsys products and

5

in particular its VCS multicore technology infringe Dynetix’s patent, United States Patent

6

6,466,898 (“the ‘898 patent”).3 Dynetix and Synopsys are both electronic design automation

7
8
9

(“EDA”) companies, involved in creating software tools to design and test integrated circuits.4 The
‘898 patent discloses a multithread HDL logic simulator that can process both VHDL and Verilog

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

languages in a single program, and uses special algorithms to accelerate performance on

11

multiprocessor systems.5 The VCS product is an EDA tool and a logic simulator.6 VCS Multicore

12

features two levels of parallelism: Design Level Parallelism (“DLP”) and Application Level

13

Parallelism (“ALP”).7 DLP allows the user to run a parallel simulation by dividing DUT into

14

multiple partitions, then simulating those partitions on different threads.8 ALP allows the user to

15
16

run simulations in parallel with other applications.9
On September 3, 2012, before claim construction had taken place, Synopsys moved for

17
18

partial summary judgment of non-infringement.10 Synopsys challenges that Dynetix cannot prove

19
3

20
21

See Docket No. 1. Synopsys filed an answer and cross-complaint denying infringement of
Dynetix’s patent and claiming that Dynetix’s products infringe two of Synopsys’s patents. See
Docket No. 58.
4

22

See Docket No. 1 ¶ 8; Docket No. 64 ¶ 3.

5

23

‘898 Patent at 1. Dynetix has asserted 18 claims of the ‘898 patent: claims 1-3, 5-7, 19-23, 36,
37, 39, 44, 45, 48, and 53. See Docket No. 143, Ex. B.

24

6

See Docket No. 142 ¶ 8.

25

7

See id. ¶ 9-10.

26

8

See Docket No. 64 ¶ 2.

27

9

See id. ¶ 17.

28

10

See Docket No. 62.

2
Case No.: C 11-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

VCS Multicore infringes claims 1-3, 5-7, 36, 37, 39, 44, 45, 48, and 53 (“the parallel simulation

2

claims”).11 On October 10, 2012 the court held a claim construction hearing12 and construed the

3

term “to create a master thread and a plurality of slave threads” as “creating one thread for each

4

processor where the master thread is executed on one processor and each of the slave threads is

5

executed on a separate remaining processor.”13

6

II.

7

LEGAL STANDARDS

Summary judgment is appropriate only if there is “no genuine dispute as to any material

8
9

fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”14 The moving party bears the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

initial burden of production by identifying those portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits

11

which demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of material fact.15 If, as here, the moving party is

12

the defendant, he may do so in two ways: by proffering “affirmative evidence negating an element

13

of the non-moving party’s claim,” or by showing the non-moving party has insufficient evidence to

14

establish an “essential element of the non-moving party’s claim.”16 If met by the moving party, the

15
16

burden of production then shifts to the non-moving party, who must then provide specific facts

17

showing a genuine issue of material fact for trial.17 The ultimate burden of persuasion, however,

18

remains on the moving party.18 In reviewing the record, the court must construe the evidence and

19
20

11

Claims 19-23 (“the remote access claims”) are not challenged in the present motion.

21

12

See Docket No. 119.

22

13

Docket No. 121 at 175-76.

23

14

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

24

15

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

25

16

Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 331.

26

17

27

See id. at 330; T.W. Elec. Service, Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 630, 630 (9th
Cir. 1987).
18

28

Id.

3
Case No.: C 11-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1
2

the inferences to be drawn from the underlying evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.19
To infringe a claim, each claim limitation must be present in the accused product, literally

3
4

or equivalently.20 Patent infringement is a two-step process: first, the court must construe the

5

asserted claims; then, the court must compare the accused products with the construed claims and

6
7
8
9

determine whether the products contain each limitation of the claims, either literally or
equivalently.21 A product literally infringes if it contains each element and limitation of the patent
claim as construed.22 A product may also infringe under the doctrine of equivalents, which applies

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

if the element in the accused device performs substantially the same function, in substantially the

11

same way, to obtain substantially the same result as the element claimed in the patent.23

12

III.

13
14

DISCUSSION

Of the parallel simulation claims challenged by Synopsys, only claims 1, 36, and 45 are
independent. Claim 1 includes the following language:

15
automatically detecting the number of microprocessors (CPUs) available on the
multiprocessor platform to create a master thread and a plurality of slave threads for
concurrent execution of the multithreaded event driven simulation of the design to achieve
linear to super-linear scalable performance speedup as according to the number of CPUS on
the multiprocessor platform.24

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

19

See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S.
574, 587 (1986).
20

See Dawn Equip. Co. v. Kentucky Farms, Inc., 140 F.3d 1009, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

21

See Freedman Seating Co. v. American Seating Co., 420 F.3d 1350, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

22

See id. at 1357.

23

See Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282, 1296-97 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

24

‘898 Patent, col. 23, ll. 21-27.

24
25
26
27
28

4
Case No.: C 11-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

Claims 36 and 45 contain the following language:
creating a master thread and a plurality of slave threads, based on the number of available
CPUs on the multiprocessor platform, prior to the start of simulation.25

2
3

All three independent claims thus require (1) automatic detection of the number of microprocessers
4
5
6

available (the “Auto Detection Component”) and (2) creation of threads based on the number of
CPUs (the “Purpose Component”).
Synopsys contends that both parallel features of VCS Multicore, DLP and ALP, do not

7
8

automatically detect the number of available processors to create threads. As support, Synopsys

9

submits the declaration of Pallab Dasgupta (“Dasgupta”), Director of Research and Development

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

of the Verification Group.26

11
According to Dasgupta, DLP creates threads based on the characteristics of the Design

12
13

Under Testing (“DUT”).27 DLP breaks up the DUT into partitions, then simulates those partitions

14

in parallel.28 Each partition is simulated on a different thread, and any part of the circuit not

15

attributed to a partition is simulated on a remaining thread.29 The DUT can be partitioned in two

16

ways. The user can input a configuration file, which would inform DLP on how to partition the

17

circuit design.30 Alternatively, if the user is unsure how to partition the DUT, the user can use the

18

DLP “autopartition” feature, which “analyze[s] the DUT and inform[s] the user how to partition

19
20
21

the circuit in a way that will maximize parallelism.”31 DLP thread creation thus depends solely on
the number of partitions in the DUT, whether generated by the configuration file or the

22

25

Id.at col. 28, ll. 33-37; col. 29, ll. 43-44 (emphasis added).

23

26

See Docket No. 64 ¶ 2.

24

27

See id. ¶ 5, 11.

25

28

See id. ¶ 12.

26

29

See id. ¶ 15.

27

30

See id.

28

31

See id. ¶ 14.

5
Case No.: C 11-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1
2

autopartitioning feature, but never on the number of processors available as required by the parallel
simulation claims.32
With respect to ALP, Dasgupta explains that ALP allows the user to run various

3
4

applications alongside the simulation.33 It does this by creating additional “processes” (essentially

5

equivalent to a thread) for each additional application.34 ALP thread creation thus depends on the

6
7
8

number of applications being run, and not the number of processors available on the user’s
hardware platform.35
Dynetix, in turn, submits expert testimony from Minesh B. Amin (“Amin”), informed by

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Amin’s review of VCS Multicore source code, user manuals, and release notes.36 Amin focuses on

11

a portion of the source code in VCS Multicore’s autopartitioning feature that detects the number of

12

available CPUs.37 The autopartitioning element then limits the number of partitions to be created

13

to the total number of CPUs minus one.38 Because the number of threads equals the number of

14
slave partitions, the total number of threads generated (both slave and one master thread) is at least
15
16

sometimes equal to the number of CPUs available.39 In this scenario, although VCS uses an

17

additional step of first partitioning the design at the compile time, converting the partitions into

18

slave threads at the runtime stage practices both the Auto Detection and Purpose Components.

19
20
32

See id. ¶ 16.

33

See id. ¶ 17.

34

See id. ¶ 18.

35

See id. ¶ 20.

36

See Docket No. 168-2 ¶ 31.

37

See id. ¶ 47.

38

See id. ¶ 48.

39

See id.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6
Case No.: C 11-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

In its reply, Synopsys argues that the autopartitioning source code relied upon by Amin is

1
2

“blocked” by other code in the program and therefore can never be executed.40

3

The net result of all this is that, at least with respect to DLP, there is a genuine issue of

4

material fact as to whether the autopartitioning feature infringes the parallel simulation claims.

5

While Synopsys has presented evidence showing the accused product does not practice a key

6
7
8
9

limitation of the claims in question, Dynetix has presented competent evidence to counter that
assertion. In particular, Dynetix’s expert Amin points to portions of the source code that indicate
the user does not supply a variable, the program launches into the autopartioning mode described

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

as infringing.41 This is a classic “battle of the experts” on a material issue of fact.42 It is the jury’s

11

province to resolve such issues, not the court’s.43

12
13
14

As for ALP, even if it could show evidence that ALP has been used, Dynetix offers no
evidence or even argument to rebut Synopsys’s assertion that ALP does not practice the particular
claim limitations at issue in this motion. All of Amin’s testimony regarding autopartitioning

15
16

appears to be directed to DLP exclusively. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), a party asserting that a fact

17

cannot be genuinely disputed must support this assertion by “citing to particular parts of materials

18

in the record,” or else “showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of

19
40

20

See Docket No. 205 at 7.

41

21
22
23
24
25

See Docket No. 168-2 ¶ 38 (citing Ex. 2). To be sure, at least with respect to method claims,
“[i]t is not enough to simply show that a product is capable of infringement; the patent owner must
show evidence of specific instances of direct infringement.” See Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 620
F.3d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2010). But Dynetix has presented an affidavit showing these facts are
unavailable to it and the court has issued not just one but two orders compelling Synopsys to
produce evidence relating to this issue. See, e.g., Docket No. 256 (ordering production of
simulation results and data, which may demonstrate use of the autopartitioning feature). Two other
motions to compel are pending. See Docket No. 262, 284. Under such circumstances, it would be
unjust to penalize Dynetix for failing to tender this very same evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(d)(1); Docket No. 72-1.

26

42

27

43

28

In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 503 F.3d 1254, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

See Regents of Univ. of California v. Dako N. Am., Inc., Case No. 05-03955 MHP, 2009 WL
1083446, at *15 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2009) (explaining that a “battle of the experts” is appropriately
left to the trier of fact to resolve).
7
Case No.: C 11-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1
2

a genuine dispute.” Dynetix has done neither in its opposition. Therefore, summary judgment
regarding ALP’s non-infringement of the claim limitations at issue in this motion is appropriate.
IV.

3

Synopsys’ first motion for summary judgment of non-infringement is GRANTED-IN-

4
5
6

CONCLUSION

PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Dated: March 31, 2013
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Case No.: C 11-05973 PSG
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT