Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03923/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03923-95/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 MAGMA DESIGN

AUTOMATION, INC.’S MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S

MARCH 30, 2006 ORDER RE:

STANDING

(Docket No. 1181)

Before the Court is defendant Magma Design Automation, Inc.’s (“Magma”) “Motions

for Leave to File: (1) Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s March 30, 2006 Order Re:

Standing under Civil L.R. 7-9; or, in the Alternative, (2) Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment Dismissing Synopsys’s Infringement Claims Based on the ’446 and ’438 Patents

for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.” In light of the Court’s

January 31, 2007 memorandum of decision re: patent ownership, and the Federal Circuit’s

recent opinion in Israel Bio-Engineering Project v. Amgen, Inc., 2007 WL 210378 (Fed. Cir.

Jan. 29, 2007), Magma has demonstrated both “[t]he emergence of new material facts” and

“a change of law occurring after the time of [the] order.” See Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(2).

Accordingly, Magma’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the

Court’s March 30, 2006 order, to the extent the Court denied Magma’s motion for summary

judgment on the issue of Synopsys’s standing to assert claims for infringement of the ’436

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 1182 Filed 02/14/07 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

and ’438 patents, is hereby GRANTED.

This order terminates Docket No. 1181.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 1182 Filed 02/14/07 Page 2 of 2