Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965-29/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright 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

1

 The arguments the Court accepted in issuing the challenged rulings were raised for

the first time in ATopTech’s reply in support of its motion to dismiss. In lieu of granting

Synopsys’ motion to strike those arguments, the Court adopted Synopsys’ alternative

request that the Court consider arguments made by Synopsys in response to an earlier

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.

ATOPTECH, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 13-2965 MMC

ORDER GRANTING SYNOPSYS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

Before the Court is the “Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration,” filed

January 15, 2015, by plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”). By said motion, Synopsys

challenges certain of the rulings made in the Court’s January 7, 2015 order granting in part

and denying in part defendant ATopTech, Inc.’s (“ATopTech”) motion to dismiss, and

argues reconsideration of the order is warranted due to an asserted “failure by the Court to

consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court

before [said] interlocutory order.” (See Mot. for Leave at 2:2-12 (citing Civil L.R. 

7-9(b)(3)).) Although the Court does not agree that all of the arguments made in the instant

motion were presented prior to the rulings Synopsys now challenges, the Court finds it

appropriate to afford Synopsys leave to move for reconsideration.1

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 207 Filed 01/21/15 Page 1 of 2
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

motion filed by ATopTech. In retrospect, although not requested, it would have been

preferable to afford Synopsys leave to file a sur-reply directly responsive to ATopTech’s

reply.

2

In the interest of time, the Court will consider the instant motion as Synopsys’ motion

for reconsideration, and hereby sets the following briefing schedule: 

1. ATopTech’s opposition shall be filed on or before February 4, 2015;

2. Synopsys’ reply shall be filed on or before February 11, 2015;

3. Unless otherwise ordered, the matter will stand submitted as of February 11,

2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2015 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 207 Filed 01/21/15 Page 2 of 2