Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965-77/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

On January 20, 2016, ATopTech filed an “Objection to Reply Evidence and Motion

for Leave to File Sur-Reply in Opposition to Synopsys’ Motion for Leave to File

Supplemental Complaint and to File Motion for Reconsideration.” On the record at the

January 22, 2016, hearing, the Court granted the leave requested.

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 IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT; SETTING

DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT TO

RESPOND TO SUPPLEMENTAL

COMPLAINT

Before the Court is plaintiff Synopsys, Inc.’s (“Synopsys”) “Motion for Leave (A) to

File Supplemental Complaint and (B) to File Motion for Reconsideration,” filed January 11,

2016. Defendant ATopTech, Inc. (“ATopTech”) has filed opposition, to which Synopsys

has replied.1

 The matter came on for hearing on January 22, 2016. Robert A. Mittelstaedt,

Patrick T. Michael, Krista S. Schwartz, and Matthew J. Silveira of Jones Day appeared on

behalf of Synopsys. Paul Alexander and Sean M. Callagy of Arnold & Porter LLP appeared

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 518 Filed 01/22/16 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

2

on behalf of ATopTech. Having considered the parties’ respective written submissions, and

the arguments of counsel at the hearing, the Court rules as follows.

1. To the extent plaintiff seeks leave to file the proposed supplemental complaint,

the motion, for the reasons stated by the Court on the record at the hearing, is hereby

GRANTED.

2. To the extent plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order, filed January 7,

2016, the motion, for the reasons stated by the Court on the record at the hearing, is

hereby DENIED.

3. As discussed with the parties at the hearing, the deadline for ATopTech to file its

response to the supplemental complaint is January 29, 2016; if the response is a motion,

the opposition is due no later than February 3, 2016, the reply is due no later than February

4, 2016 at 4:00 p.m., and the matter will be heard on February 5, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2016 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 518 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 2