Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965-93/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

By the same order, the Court denied the motion to the extent it sought to seal

Exhibits 5 and 6 to the Alexander Declaration and related portions of the opposition.

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 RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

TO SEAL PORTIONS OF

DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT AND

EXHIBITS 3 - 6 IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Before the Court is an administrative motion to file under seal, filed January 15,

2016, by defendant ATopTech, Inc. (“ATopTech”), by which ATopTech seeks permission to

seal material designated as confidential by plaintiff Synopsys, Inc., namely, portions of

ATopTech’s opposition to plaintiff Synopsys, Inc.’s (“Synopsys”) “Motion for Leave (A) to

File Supplemental Complaint and (B) to File Motion for Reconsideration,” as well as the

entirety of Exhibits 3 - 6 to the Supporting Declaration of Paul Alexander (“Alexander

Declaration”). 

By order filed January 22, 2016, the Court deferred ruling on the administrative

motion to the extent it seeks to seal Exhibits 3 and 4 and related portions of the opposition,

and directed Synopsys to file a version of each said exhibit in which the redactions are

limited to sealable material.1

 On January 29, 2016, Synopsys timely filed redacted versions

of each said exhibit. Having read and considered the redacted versions of Exhibits 3 and

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 678 Filed 03/09/16 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

4, the Court finds good cause to seal the portions therein that are identified as sealable

material, and accordingly, hereby GRANTS the administrative motion to the extent it seeks

to seal portions of Exhibits 3 and 4 to the Alexander Declaration. 

On January 29, 2016, concurrently with its filing of the redacted versions of Exhibits

3 and 4, Synopsys filed in the public record a version of ATopTech’s opposition that

contains no redactions. Accordingly, to the extent the administrative motion seeks to seal

portions of the opposition that refer to Exhibits 3 and 4, the motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2016 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 678 Filed 03/09/16 Page 2 of 2