Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03923/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03923-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

DECHERT LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LA W

PALO ALTO

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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE MODIFIED 1

BRIEFING SCHEDULE; CASE NO: C-04-03923 MMC (JCS) 11833469.2.BUS

Chris Scott Graham (State Bar No. 114498)

chris.scott.graham@dechert.com

Michael N. Edelman (State Bar No. 180948)

michael.edelman@dechert.com

DECHERT LLP

975 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1013

Telephone: 650.813.4800

Facsimile: 650.813.4848

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,

SYNOPSYS, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

SYNOPSYS, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,

v.

MAGMA DESIGN AUTOMATION, a 

Delaware corporation,

Defendant and Counter-Claimant.

Case No. C 04-03923 MMC (JCS)

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE: MODIFIED BRIEFING

SCHEDULE

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

WHEREAS, Synopsys has filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment to Dismiss Magma’s Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses 

Under Estoppel by Contract, which are currently set for hearing on December 2, 2005,

WHEREAS, Synopsys intends to file additional summary judgment motions on issues

pertaining to ownership of the '446 and '438 Patents,

WHEREAS, Magma also intends to file summary judgment motions on issues pertaining 

to ownership of the '446 and '438 Patents,

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 457 Filed 10/14/05 Page 1 of 3
DECHERT LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LA W

PALO ALTO

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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE MODIFIED 2

BRIEFING SCHEDULE; CASE NO: C-04-03923 MMC (JCS) 11833469.2.BUS

WHEREAS, Synopsys believes resolution of the upcoming summary judgment motions 

may address the concerns raised by the Court in footnote 2 of the Order Granting Synopsys’ 

Temporary Restraining Order relating to the pretrial adjudication of ownership issues,

WHEREAS, the parties previously stipulated, and the Court ordered, that any additional

summary judgment motions relating to ownership of the ‘446 and ‘438 Patents would be set for 

hearing on December 2, 2005, 

WHEREAS, the Court previously ordered that all replies to the motions set for hearing 

on December 2, 2005 shall be filed no later than November 9, 2005,

WHEREAS, after the Court’s order, the parties met and conferred and determined that 

they need an additional two days to file and serve their replies to accommodate the availability

of witnesses whose depositions are necessary to oppose and/or support the various motions,

THEREFORE, Synopsys and Magma hereby stipulate to a modified briefing schedule as

follows:

1. The replies to Synopsys’ revised brief on its Motion for Preliminary Injunction 

and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to Dismiss Magma’s Counterclaims and Affirmative 

Defenses Under Estoppel by Contract shall be filed and served on or before November 11, 2005.

2. To the extent the parties wish to file any additional summary judgment motions

relating to ownership of the ‘446 and ‘438 Patents, all such summary judgment motions shall be 

filed and served on or before October 24, 2005. All oppositions to such motions shall be filed 

and served on or before November 4, 2005. All replies in support of such motions shall be filed

and served on or before November 11, 2005.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 457 Filed 10/14/05 Page 2 of 3
DECHERT LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LA W

PALO ALTO

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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE MODIFIED 3

BRIEFING SCHEDULE; CASE NO: C-04-03923 MMC (JCS) 11833469.2.BUS

This Stipulation is without prejudice to the parties' filing of additional dispositive 

motions, including motions relating to ownership issues if needed, by the deadline set forth in 

the Court's January 21, 2005 Pre-Trial Preparation Order.

Dated: October 12, 2005 DECHERT LLP

By:/s/Michael N. Edelman

Chris Scott Graham

Michael N. Edelman

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,

SYNOPSYS, INC.

Dated: October 12, 2005 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP

By:/s/Luann L. Simmons

George Riley

Mark Miller

Peter Obstler

Christopher Catalano

Luann L. Simmons

Attorneys for Defendant and Counter-Claimant,

MAGMA DESIGN AUTOMATION, INC.

I attest under penalty of perjury that the concurrence in the filing of this document has 

been obtained from Luann L. Simmons.

Dated: October 12, 2005 DECHERT LLP

By:/s/Michael N. Edelman

Chris Scott Graham

Michael N. Edelman

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,

SYNOPSYS, INC.

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: , 2005

HON. MAXINE M. CHESNEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

October 14

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 457 Filed 10/14/05 Page 3 of 3