Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-02289/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-02289-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

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 RE SUBPOENAS AND

INFORMAL DOCUMENT REQUESTS

Pursuant to this Court’s August 24, 2006 Order (Synopsys Dkt. No. 440), the parties have

met and conferred to narrow the scope of the subpoenas and informal requests that were the subject

of Ricoh’s Motion For Protective Order (Synopsys Dkt. No. 409). The parties were unable to

resolve their differences and each side has submitted its proposed limitations to the informal

document requests and Rule 45 subpoenas. The Court, having considered the submissions of the

parties, and good cause appearing therefor, hereby adopts the following limitations. The Court finds

with the refinements below that the limitations set forth by the Defendants as narrowed by its offer

to limit documents to those created by or for Dr. Papaefthymiou in addition to the limitations

contained in their proposed order establish a reasonable scope of production.

Case 5:03-cv-02289-JW Document 447 Filed 09/01/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) The informal document requests are limited by restricting each category to

documents that relate to or discuss in any way logic synthesis (including any discussion of the inputs

to logic synthesis tools), register transfer level (‘RTL’), or computer or circuit architecture and

which documents authored were by Dr. Papaefthymiou.

2) Defendants shall not seek enforcement of Michigan Request No. 4, MIT Request No.

3, and Yale Request No. 3.

3) Defendants shall inform the subpoenaed parties that the remaining requests are

limited to documents that relate to or discuss in any way logic synthesis (including any discussion of

the inputs to logic synthesis tools), register transfer level (‘RTL’), or computer or circuit architecture

and which documents were authored by Dr. Papaefthymiou.

4) Defendants shall not enforce any third party subpoena beyond the scope set forth in

point 3 above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2006 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:03-cv-02289-JW Document 447 Filed 09/01/06 Page 2 of 2