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

Filing 363

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 87 Motion to Dismiss; denying 87 Motion for Summary Judgment (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2013)

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
18
19
20
21

DYNETIX DESIGN SOLUTIONS INC., a
California corporation,

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

Case No.: CV 11-05973 PSG
ORDER DENYING COUNTERDEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS AND MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT
(Re: Docket No. 87)

In this patent infringement suit, Plaintiff Dynetix Design Solutions Inc. (“Dynetix”) sued
Defendant Synopsys Inc. (“Synopsys”), and Synopsys countersued, asserting its own set of patents

22

(the “counterclaim”). Presently before the court is the Dynetix’s motion to dismiss and

23

alternatively, motion for summary judgment regarding Synopsys’ counterclaim. Synopsys

24

opposes. The parties appeared for hearing. Having reviewed the papers and considered the

25

arguments of counsel, the court DENIES Dynetix’s motion to dismiss and motion for summary

26
judgment.
27
28

1
Case No.: C 11-05973 PSG
ORDER DENYING COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

I. BACKGROUND

1

Dynetix and Synopsys are both electronic design automation (“EDA”) companies, involved

2
3

in creating software tools to design and test integrated circuits.1 On December 5, 2011, Dynetix

4

filed suit against Synopsys.2 Synopsys filed a response and counterclaim, denying infringement of

5

Dynetix’s patent and claiming that Dynetix’s various products infringed on two of Synopsys’s

6

patents.3 In particular, Synopsys counterclaims that Dynetix’s V2Sim and RaceCheck products

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

infringe two of Synopsys’s patents, U.S. Patent No. 5,706,473 (“the ‘473 Patent”) and U.S. Patent
No. 5,784,593 (“the ‘593 Patent”).4
A.

Synopsys’ Patents in Suit
The ‘473 Patent, entitled “Computer Model of a Finite State Machine Having Inputs,

11
12

Outputs, Delayed Inputs, and Delayed Outputs,” describes a computer system having a computer

13

model that can be manipulated “for the purposes of simulation, synthesis, and optimization.”5 On

14

January 9, 2013, the court held a claim construction hearing and defined the disputed term “finite

15
16
17

state machine” (“FSM”) as “a sequential circuit whose finite number of output values at a given
instant depends on either the sequence of previous inputs, current inputs, or both.”6
The ‘593 Patent, entitled “Simulator Including Process Levelization,” describes a method of

18
19

using a circuit design simulator that takes a circuit specification written in Hardware Description

20
21
1

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

2

See Docket No. 1.

24

3

See Docket No. 9.

25

4

See Docket No. 58 ¶¶ 17, 23.

26

5

‘473 Patent.

27

6

See Docket No. 254 at 129.

22
23

28

2
Case No.: C 11-05973 PSG
ORDER DENYING COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

1

Language (“HDL”) and simulates how that circuit would behave with a given set of inputs.7 HDL

2

is a textual language used to specify the layout of circuit design.8 Process levelization “attempts to

3

find the ordering of the evaluations of the statements in the processes,” or in other words, an

4

appropriate order of process execution.9

5

B.

The Accused Products

6
7
8

The V2Sim product is an HDL logic simulator. The simulator takes a circuit design
encoded in HDL and simulates its logic and behavior with a given a set of inputs.10
The RaceCheck product is a verification tool that checks for “hard-to-detect race logic.”11

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Race logic is “any logic construct that behaves differently when executed in [a] different order[]”12

11

which if left uncorrected in a circuit could result in unpredictable results in field operations.13 The

12

RaceCheck product consists of a static race logic checker and a dynamic race logic checker, which

13

can be used separately or simultaneously.14 RaceCheck can be used in conjunction with V2Sim as

14
a comprehensive verification solution that detects race logic conditions in a circuit, corrects those
15
16

conditions, and then tests the circuit.15

17
7

‘593 Patent.

8

See Docket No. 114, Ex. H.

9

See id. at 21.

18
19
20
21

10

Docket No. 173 ¶ 7.

22

11

See Docket No. 171 at 1.

23

12

Id.

24

13

25

See Dynetix’s U.S. Patent No. 7,334,203 (“the ‘203 Patent”), entitled “RaceCheck: a race logic
analyzer program for digital integrated circuits,” which according to Dynetix’s website claims the
RaceCheck product. See Docket No. 114, Ex. G.

26

14

See id.

27

15

Id.

28

3
Case No.: C 11-05973 PSG
ORDER DENYING COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

II. LEGAL STANDARD

1
2

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

3

fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”16 "Since the ultimate burden of

4

proving infringement rests with the patentee, an accused infringer seeking summary judgment of

5

noninfringement may meet its initial responsibility either by providing evidence that would

6
7
8
9

preclude a finding of infringement, or by showing that the evidence on file fails to establish a
material issue of fact essential to the patentee's case."17 If met by the movant, the burden of
production then shifts to the non-moving party, who must then provide specific facts showing a

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

genuine issue of material fact.18 The ultimate burden of persuasion, however, remains on the

11

moving party.19 In reviewing the record, the court must construe the evidence and the inferences to

12

be drawn from the underlying evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.20

13
14

Under Rule 56(d), if the nonmovant cannot, for specified reasons, present facts essential to
justify its opposition to the motion, “the court may (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2)

15
16

allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other

17

appropriate order.”21 This requires the nonmovant to show “(1) the specific facts that they hope to

18

elicit from further discovery, (2) that the facts sought exist, and (3) that these sought-after facts are

19
20
21

16

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

22

17

Novartis Corp. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 271 F.3d 1043, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

18

See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986).

19

Id.

23
24
25

20

26

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

27

21

28

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

4
Case No.: C 11-05973 PSG
ORDER DENYING COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

1
2

“essential” to resist the summary judgment motion.”22 The nonmovant must also demonstrate that
he diligently pursued previous discovery opportunities.23
To infringe a claim, each claim limitation must be present in the accused product, literally

3
4

or equivalently.24 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.25 A product literally infringes if it contains each element and limitation of the patent
claim as construed.26 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.27

12
13

III. DISCUSSION
A.

14

Dynetix’s 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss
The court first addresses the timeliness and the validity of Dynetix filing its motion to

15
16

dismiss after it filed an answer to Synopsys’ counterclaim. A motion to dismiss must be made

17

before pleading if a responsive pleading is allowed. As such, “[p]ost-answer motions to dismiss

18

are technically prohibited pursuant to Ninth Circuit authority.”28

19
20
22

21

Family Home and Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loand Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir.
2008).

22

23

See Bank of Am., NT & SA v. PENGWIN, 175 F.3d 1109, 1118 (9th Cir. 1999).

23

24

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

24

25

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

25

26

See id. at 1357.

26

27

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

27

28

Augustine v. U.S., 704 F.2d 1074, 1075 n. 3 (9th Cir.1983).

28

5
Case No.: C 11-05973 PSG
ORDER DENYING COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

Nevertheless, “despite this seemingly unambiguous mandatory language, courts are split on

1
2

allowing post-answer motions to dismiss, and no bright-line rule against allowing such a motion

3

exists in the Ninth Circuit.”29 Indeed, district courts in the Ninth Circuit have entertained “post-

4

answer motions to dismiss despite the mandatory language in Rule 12(b).”30 “With respect to post-

5

answer Rule 12(b) motions that raise nonwaivable defenses, [however,] the solution is not

6
7
8

necessarily to deny the motion, but rather, to treat it as a different motion that would be
permissible.”31 This appears to be the case here.
“Accordingly, and under Ninth Circuit precedent, the court will construe defendant's

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

12(b)(6) motion as a 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings to the extent the motion deals

11

with plaintiffs' ability to state a [patent infringement] claim.”32 Under a Rule 12(c) motion,

12

“judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when, accepting all factual allegations in the

13
14

complaint as true, there is no issue of material fact in dispute, and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.”33 The court’s assessment of a Rule 12(c) challenge is substantially

15
16

similar to that of a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge because, under both rules, a court must determine

17

whether the complaint “contains sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief

18

that is plausible on its face.”34

19
20
29

21
22

Yocum v. Rockwell Med. Technologies, Inc., Case No. 12-CV-568-MMA(MDD), 2012 WL
2502701, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Moreno–Garcia v. Yakima Police Dep't, 2010 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 114656, *3-4 (E.D. Wash. Oct. 27, 2010) (citing cases)).
30

Vineyard v. Soto, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129274, *9–*10 (D. Or. Nov. 7, 2011).

24

31

Schlachte v. U.S., Case No. 07-6446 PJH, 2008 WL 3977901, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 2008).

25

32

Id.

26

33

Chavez v. U.S., 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012).

27

34

Id (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).

23

28

6
Case No.: C 11-05973 PSG
ORDER DENYING COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

Turning to the merits of Dynetix’s motion, Dynetix argues that Synopsys’ counterclaim

1
2

improperly assumes that Dynetix’s products embody its ‘898 Patent,35 even though the complaint

3

never actually mentions this assumption, and improperly relies on the technical description of the

4

patent to describe the allegedly infringing features of Dynetix’s products.36

5
6
7
8
9

Dynetix misunderstands the standard for assessing the sufficiency of a complaint like
Synopsys'. The Supreme Court has explained that the trial court is limited to determining whether
the complaint “contains sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.”37 Thus, the court is not permitted to assess whether supporting evidence is

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

“speculative.” Moreover, Synopsys’ claim that Dynetix’s products practice the ‘898 Patent is

11

plausible on its face because Dynetix’s original complaint made such an admission.38 Accepting

12

these assertions as true, there is no reason why Synopsys could not rely on this patent for purposes

13
14

of pleading, before Synopsys had a chance to conduct discovery, for information on the features of
the accused products. 39 Tellingly, Dynetix never actually denies its products practice the ‘898

15
16

Patent, but merely asserts that the products practice the claims of the ‘898 Patent, not the patent

17
18
19
20
21

35

Dynetix asserts the ‘898 Patent against Synopsys in the original action filed on December 5,
2011.
36

See Docket No. 58.

37

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

38

See, e.g., Docket No. 1 ¶ 12 (“Dynetix practices the inventions claimed in the ’898 Patent by
making and selling V2Sim and RaceCheck”).
39

Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Laboratories, Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1070 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Section
112 requires that the patent specification enable those skilled in the art to make and use the full
scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation in order to extract meaningful
disclosure of the invention and, by this disclosure, advance the technical arts.”).
7
Case No.: C 11-05973 PSG
ORDER DENYING COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

1

itself. As the claims define the invention covered by the patent, this is a distinction without a

2

difference.40

3

B.

The court now addresses Dynetix’s alternative motion for summary judgment of non-

4
5

infringement.

6

1.

7

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

The ‘473 Patent

Dynetix argues that it does not infringe Synopsys’ asserted claims 7-12 from the ‘473

8
9

Dynetix’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Non-Infringement

Patent, because Dynetix does not practice each of the limitations of claim 7, the only independent
claim.41 Claim 7 reads:

11

17

A method of simulating a circuit on a computer system, said circuit including a computer
model of a Finite State Machine (FSM), said computer system including a processor and a
memory, said processor being coupled to said memory, said method comprising:
[…]
accessing a first input value;
accessing a first delayed input value;
accessing a first delayed output value; and
executing a simulation program on said processor causing said processor to access a first
output value from said computer model using said first input value, said first delayed input
value and said first delayed output value, said first output value corresponding to an output
value of said circuit.42

18

Dynetix first argues that Synopsys cannot prove that the accused products simulate any

12
13
14
15
16

19

circuits including FSMs. As noted above, at the time the motion was filed the court had not

20

construed “FSM,” but has since interpreted the term to mean “a sequential circuit whose finite

21

number of output values at a given instant depend on either the sequence of previous inputs,

22
23
24

40

25

See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“It is a bedrock principle of
patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention”).

26

41

See Docket No. 87.

27

42

‘593 Patent, col. 15-16, ll. 60-67, 1-12.

28

8
Case No.: C 11-05973 PSG
ORDER DENYING COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

1

current inputs, or both.”43 Synopsys responds by submitting the expert declaration of Dr. Martin

2

G. Walker (“Walker”), who, after inspecting the source code and user manuals of the accused

3

products, opines that the RaceCheck and V2Sim products often simulate several circuits containing

4

FSMs.44 Walker specifically notes portions of a design simulated by Dynetix, named “uart.vhd,”

5

which contains a transmitter circuit, “txmt.vhd,” and a receiver circuit containing the RXCVER.V

6

file.45 According to Walker, both the transmitter and receiver circuits model FSMs, comprised of

7
8

multiple flip-flops and registers.46
This evidence shows both that Dynetix itself may have infringed, and that it intentionally

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

induced its customers to engage in infringing activities.47 While Dynetix disputes that FSMs can

11

include flip-flops,48 nothing in the court’s claim construction excludes the use of flip-flops in a

12

FSM. Treating all inferences in favor of the non-moving party, a reasonable jury could find that

13

FSMs may consist of flip-flops.

14

Dynetix next argues conclusorily that Dynetix’s products do not access any input, delayed

15
16

input, or delayed output value as required by claim 7. Synopsys in turn points to Walker’s analysis

17
43

18

See Docket No. 254 at 129.

44

19
20
21

See Docket No. 173 ¶ 17-19. It is unclear whether Synopsys’ theory of infringement is whether
the FSM may be comprised of a single flip-flop, or the configuration of a number of flip-flops.
See, e.g., Docket No. 113 (“for example, one type of finite state machine is a “flip-flop”). As
Synopsys appears to argue the latter in its supplemental reply, the court primarily evaluates this
version of Synopsys’ theory.
45

Docket No. 192, Ex. B ¶¶ 5-9.

46

See id.

22
23
47

24

See Docket No. 232 (citing Alloc, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed.
Cir. 2003)).

25

48

26
27
28

Dynetix’s reply states that “Dynetix’s simulation tool does not contain any flip-flops.” See
Docket No. 120 at 6. But the supporting declaration does not say anything about the use of flipflops. In fact, the declaration states elsewhere that Dynetix products do simulate flip-flops. See,
e.g., Docket No. 232-1 ¶ 5, 10 (“just because Dynetix products can simulate finite state machines
containing flip-flops…”). See also Docket No. 192, Ex. C at 129-130.
9
Case No.: C 11-05973 PSG
ORDER DENYING COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

1

of V2Sim’s source code, which identified specific portions where the V2Sim product accesses

2

inputs, delayed inputs, outputs, and delayed outputs of various circuit design components.49

3

Further, Walker also found parts of the RXCVER.v file to be simulated with inputs, elayed inputs,

4

and delayed outputs as required by claim 8.50 Synopsys also argues that the V2Sim and

5

RaceCheck user’s manual shows that the products access inputs, outputs, delayed inputs, and

6

delayed outputs.51 This creates a triable issue of fact that Dynetix’s products satisfy the limitations

7
8

of claim 7.
2.

9

For the ‘593 Patent, Synopsys asserts claims 8-13. Dynetix claims that it does not infringe

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

The ‘593 Patent

because Synopsys cannot establish infringement of claims 8 and 12, the two independent claims.

12

a.

13

Claim 8

Claim 8 requires the following:

14
A method of simulating a system on a computer, said method comprising the steps of:
determining an end time of a first cycle;
evaluating a stimulus process using said end time;
evaluating a set of processes that include a combinational feedback loop, said set of
processes that include a combinational feedback loop including a state change signal and a
process in said combinational feedback loop;
if said state change signal is activated, then evaluating a subset of processes of said set of
processes including the process in said combinational feedback loop effected by said state
change signal; and
else if said state change signal is not activated, then determining a next end time of a second
cycle.52

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

49

See Docket No. 173 ¶ 20. See also id., Ex. A (expert’s claim-by-claim analysis of how V2Sim
while simulating RXCVER.V practices the steps of accessing a first input value, a first delayed
input value, and a first delayed output value).

25

50

See Docket No. 192, Ex. B ¶ 7, Ex. C.

26

51

See Docket No. 172 at 22.

27

52

‘593 Patent, col. 19, ll. 35-50.

28

10
Case No.: C 11-05973 PSG
ORDER DENYING COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

1

Dynetix interprets the limitations “determining an end time of a first cycle,” “evaluating a stimulus

2

process using said end time,” and “determining a next end time of a second cycle” to limit claim 8

3

to embodiments that use cycle-based simulation. Dynetix claims that its products use event-driven

4

simulation, not cycle-based, and so its products do not infringe claim 8. As Synopsys points out,

5

however, the court is not required to accept Dynetix’s conclusory allegation that only cycle-based

6

simulation can satisfy claim 8, and instead focuses on the actual language of claim 8. Synopsys

7
8
9

also contends that even the event-driven features of the accused products practice all three steps
challenged by Dynetix. Walker identifies points in the products’ User’s Manual showing that the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

products identify the end time of the simulation, in addition to at other points of the simulation.53

11

This creates a triable issue of fact that Dynetix’s products exhibit the limitations challenged above.

12
13
14

Moreover, Synopsys also identifies code implementing cycle-based simulation features in
the RaceCheck product. Walker notes that sections of code exhibiting cycle-based features appear
to have been commented out, but it is unclear when these features were taken out.54 Dynetix does

15
16

not contest that the code was once a part of its product, but states that the feature “has been

17

abandoned in all Dynetix’s products.”55 Under Dynetix’s own assertions, the implication is that

18

Dynetix’s product once contained cycle-based simulation features, which at a minimum creates a

19

disputed issue of fact regarding infringement.

20

Dynetix also argues that its products do not evaluate “combinational feedback loops,”

21

which occurs “where an output signal is fed back into a combinational component of a system” and

22

may cause problems when the design is simulated.56 But as Synopsys points out, the RaceCheck

23
24

53

See Docket No. 173 ¶ 25. See also Docket No. 172 at 21, 25.

25

54

See Docket No. 173 ¶ 27.

26

55

Docket No. 90 ¶ 13.

27

56

‘593 Patent, col. 2, ll. 42-44.

28

11
Case No.: C 11-05973 PSG
ORDER DENYING COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

1

brochure touts RaceCheck’s ability to “Detect[] a comprehensive set of… Combinational feedback

2

loops.”57 Walker has also located code in RaceCheck demonstrating that the product evaluates a

3

set of processes to determine if the set includes a combinational feedback loop.58 Synopsys

4

therefore has pointed to specific evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact on whether

5

the products exhibit this limitation.

6

b.

Claim 12

7
Next, Dynetix contends that Synopsys is unable to prove the accused products practice the

8
9

limitations of claim 12, which reads:

15

A computer implemented method of generating an ordered sequences of processes from a
plurality of processes, said plurality of processes including a first process and a second
process, said plurality of processes representing a hardware description language
specification of a system, said method comprising:
[…]
ordering said plurality of processes so that processes that drive said nets are evaluated prior
to processes that use said nets; and
[…]
wherein if a process is part of a combinational feedback loop, then attempting to split said
process so as to break said combinational feedback loop.59

16

While claim 12, like claim 8, also involves detecting combinational feedback loops within

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

17
18

the set of evaluated processes, claim 12 further requires that upon finding the combinational
feedback loop, the invention also “attempt[] to split said process so as to break said combinational

19
20

feedback loop.” Dynetix argues that Synopsys cannot prove that Dynetix’s customers practice this

21

element of splitting and breaking the combinational feedback loop. As Dynetix points out,

22

Synopsys must show that customers actually practiced this element.60 Synopsys’ theory of

23
57

Docket No. 171 at 2.

58

See Docket No. 173 ¶ 28.

59

‘593 Patent, col. 20, ll. 1-23.

24
25
26
60

27
28

See ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Mfr. Co., 501 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“In order
to prove direct infringement, a patentee must either point to specific instances of direct
infringement or show that the accused device necessarily infringes the patent in suit.”).
12
Case No.: C 11-05973 PSG
ORDER DENYING COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

1

infringement of this limitation is that RaceCheck allows customers to identify race logic

2

conditions, which Synopsys states includes combinational feedback loops, and fix those conditions,

3

which constitutes “breaking” the combinational feedback loop. As evidence that RaceCheck aids

4

customers in doing so, Synopsys submits Terence Chan’s (“Chan”) deposition stating that

5

RaceCheck identifies race logic problems to enable the user to fix them.61 A reasonable trier could

6
7
8
9

take Chan's testimony to indicate further that users proceed to do just that. The identify-and-fix
function of the RaceCheck product is further demonstrated by the ‘203 Patent, which according to
Dynetix’s website claims the RaceCheck product.62 In describing the technology, the ‘203 Patent

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

notes that “the combinational feedback loops, if present, will cause the event-driven simulation to

11

run forever, thus they can only be detected by the static race logic checker program. Those

12

combinational feedback loops must be corrected before the dynamic race logic checker program

13

can analyze the CUT [circuit-under-test].”63 This creates a triable issue of fact that Dynetix and its

14
customers infringe because Dynetix enables its customers to use RaceCheck to detect and correct
15
16

combinational feedback loops.
Dynetix also argues that its products do not “order said plurality of processes” in the way

17
18

described by claim 12. In response, Synopsys points to Chan’s testimony that V2Sim and

19

RaceCheck “evaluate[] processes according to range order only in the circuit initialization phase,”

20

or “rank the process blo[ck]s in the circuit,” “but only for the purpose of the circuit presimulation

21
22
23
24
61

25

Docket No. 192, Ex. C at 62.

62

26

See Docket No. 114, Ex. G. (“Dynamic race logic checker uses advanced multithreaded… HDL
simulation technologies to detect ‘real-life’ race events”).

27

63

28

‘203 Patent, col. 15, ll. 10-16.

13
Case No.: C 11-05973 PSG
ORDER DENYING COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

1
2

in the initialization of the circuit.”64 A reasonable jury could equate Dynetix’s admission that the
products rank the processes according to range order as satisfying the “ordering” limitation.
Because the court finds triable issues of fact regarding Dynetix’s infringement of both

3
4

patents, the court need not reach Synopsys’ Rule 56(d) request.

5

IV. CONCLUSION

6

Dynetix’s motion to dismiss and, in the alternative, for summary judgment of non-

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

infringement is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 21, 2013

11

____________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
64

28

Docket No. 192, Ex. C at 201-02.

14
Case No.: C 11-05973 PSG
ORDER DENYING COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT