Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03923/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03923-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYNOPSYS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MAGMA DESIGN AUTOMATION, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-04-3923 MMC

ORDER GRANTING SYNOPSYS’S

MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

(Docket No. 394)

Before the Court is the motion filed August 25, 2005 by plaintiff Synopsys, Inc.

(“Synopsys”) for a temporary restraining order, by which motion Synopsys seeks to restrain

defendant Magma Design Automation, Inc. (“Magma”) from abandoning or dedicating to

the public, or seeking reexamination of, United States Patents Nos. 6,453,446 (“the ’446

Patent”) and 6,725,438 (“the ’438 Patent”). Although Magma is the owner of record of the

two patents, Synopsys contends that Synopsys is actually the true owner of the patents. 

The matter came on for hearing August 29, 2005, Chris Scott Graham of Dechert LLP

appearing on behalf of Synopsys and George A. Riley of O’Melveny & Myers LLP

appearing on behalf of Magma.

Magma has agreed to pay the maintenance fee that is currently due for the ’446

patent and, further, has agreed not to take steps to dedicate, abandon, or destroy the

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 401 Filed 08/30/05 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 Magma confirmed at the hearing that it has immediate plans to seek reexamination

of both patents. Additionally, Magma currently is prosecuting three continuation

applications, which applications are not the subject of the instant motion.

2

above-cited patents. (See Motion at 2:24-26; Opp. at 1:14-18, 3:20-21.) Consequently, as

clarified at the August 29, 2005 hearing, the remaining dispute concerns whether Magma

should be enjoined from seeking reexamination of the ’446 and ’438 patents.1

In order to obtain a temporary restraining order, Synopsys must show “either (1) a

combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or

(2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of

the moving party.” See Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush and Co., Inc., 240

F.3d 832, 839-40 and n.7 (9th Cir. 2001).

At this stage of the proceedings, the Court is unable to determine the probability of

success on the merits of Synopsys’s claim that it owns the patents. It is clear, however,

that serious questions have been raised, particularly in light of (1) the Proprietary

Information and Inventions Agreement, dated May 17, 1995, between Synopsys and Lukas

van Ginneken (“van Ginneken”), the inventor of the ’446 and ’438 patents, by which van

Ginneken agreed to assign to Synopsys all inventions he developed during his employment

with Synopsys; and (2) van Ginneken’s declaration that the ’446 and ’438 patents disclose

inventions that he conceived while employed at Synopsys. (See van Ginneken Decl., filed

April 11, 2005, ¶¶ 44-45 and Ex. 1.)

As to the balance of hardships, the primary harm Synopsys would suffer were the

Court to deny the instant motion is that Synopsys likely would be precluded from

participating in any reexamination initiated by Magma. By statute, reexamination

proceedings are conducted by the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), the patent owner,

and the person seeking reexamination. See 35 U.S.C. § 305. As Magma is the patent

owner of record, Synopsys likely would be excluded from the proceedings, despite its claim

of ownership of the patents. Indeed, the PTO has previously indicated an unwillingness to

become involved in the ownership dispute between Synopsys and Magma, or to allow

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 401 Filed 08/30/05 Page 2 of 4
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

 Although the parties have sought summary adjudication of a number of issues,

neither party has done so with respect to the issue of ownership. If the issue does not lend

itself to pretrial adjudication, the Court will consider the feasibility of conducting a separate

trial thereon.

3

Synopsys to participate in the prosecution of the continuation applications. (See Edelman

Decl., filed July 29, 1995, Ex. R (April 27, 2005 order dismissing Synopsys’s petition to

suspend prosecution of United States Patent Application No. 10/828,547 pending

resolution of ownership dispute between Synopsys and Magma).) Magma, for its part,

asserts that the requested relief will preclude it from seeking to narrow the patent claims, in

an effort to avoid a future defense of invalidity; Magma also expresses a concern with

respect to its ability to comply with its statutory and ethical obligations to the PTO. Magma,

however, has set forth these considerations in relatively general terms. As a result, the

Court is unable at this time to fully ascertain their weight in the balance.

The Court recognizes issuance of a temporary restraining order against Magma

would not ensure that reexamination would not occur pending determination of Synopsys’s

ownership rights in the patents. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 303, the PTO may initiate

reexamination sua sponte. At the hearing, Magma represented that it intends to submit

prior art to the PTO in the context of prosecuting the above-referenced continuation

applications. Although, as Magma concedes, it has no statutory obligation to seek

reexamination of the ’446 and ’438 patents themselves, Magma’s act of bringing such prior

art to the attention of the PTO in the context of the continuation applications may trigger

sua sponte reexamination of those patents by the PTO. In addition, as Magma noted at the

hearing, other persons or entities may decide to seek reexamination in light of the Court’s

recent construction of certain of the claims of the ’446 and ’438 patents. Any temporary

restraining order the Court might issue against Magma would not preclude the PTO or such

other parties from initiating reexamination, and, as noted, it is likely that any such

reexamination would proceed without Synopsys’s participation, unless and until the Court

were to issue judgment in Synopsys’s favor on the issue of ownership.2

 Nevertheless,

although the harm Synopsys seeks to prevent may occur even if the Court issues a

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 401 Filed 08/30/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

temporary restraining order, the Court finds, on the record before it, that Synopsys has

demonstrated the balance of hardships tips sufficiently in its favor.

Finally, the Court notes that in deciding whether to issue an injunction, the Court

also must consider, where applicable, “advancement of the public interest." See Johnson

v. California State Board of Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting

“traditional equitable criteria” for preliminary injunctive relief includes, in certain cases,

“advancement of the public interest”). As the Federal Circuit has observed, “[t]he public

interest lies in having valid patents upheld and invalid patents rendered invalid, and hence

patents should be reexamined when a substantial question of patentability is raised.” See

In re Baker Hughes Inc., 215 F.3d 1297, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2000.) Regardless of who initiates

a reexamination, “the PTO is charged with making an independent determination

concerning the patentability of inventions.” See id. Consequently, the public interest

weighs in favor of permitting reexamination where a question of validity exists. The relief

sought by the instant motion, however, is of relatively short duration, specifically, pending

the October 28, 2005 hearing on Synopsys’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Magma

has not shown how preservation of the status quo for this brief period of time will affect the

public interest in any appreciable manner.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Synopsys’s motion for a temporary

restraining order is hereby GRANTED, as set forth in a separate order filed concurrently

herewith. 

This order terminates Docket No. 394.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2005 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 401 Filed 08/30/05 Page 4 of 4