Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04669/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04669-35/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYNOPSYS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICOH CO., LTD.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

RICOH CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

AEROFLEX, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-03-2289 MJJ (EMC)

No. C-03-4669 MJJ (EMC)

ORDER REMOVING DOCUMENTS

FROM FILING UNDER SEAL

Previously, the Court provisionally granted two of Ricoh's requests to file under seal and

instructed Ricoh to file declarations justifying the filing under seal. See Docket No. 359 in C-03-

2289 and Docket No. 495 in C-03-4669 (order filed on 6/16/06); Docket No. 387 and Docket No.

529 in C-03-4669 (order filed on 7/6/06). Ricoh did not file any declarations by the date ordered by

the Court. Ricoh subsequently confirmed that it did not intend to file any declarations and that it

understood that the documents at issue would be removed from filing under seal and become part of

the public record.

Accordingly, the Court hereby orders that the following documents be removed from filing

under seal and that the same documents shall be filed as part of the public record.

Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW Document 533 Filed 07/18/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

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

2

(1) Exhibits 1-3 attached to the De Mory declaration, filed in support of Synopsys and the

Customer Defendants' notice of withdrawal of portion of expedited motion to compel access

to information allegedly covered by the protective order. 

(2) Exhibits 3, 17, 27, 28, 29, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38 attached to the De Mory declaration,

filed in support of Synopsys and the Customer Defendants' motion to compel. 

(3) Exhibits 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 attached to the Brothers declaration, filed in support of the

opposition to Synopsys and the Customer Defendants' motion to compel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2006

 

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW Document 533 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 2