Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03923/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03923-70/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 REGARDING OWNERSHIP TRIAL;

CASE NO.: C 04-03923 MMC (JCS) 12502215.1

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

1117 California Avenue

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 

REGARDING OWNERSHIP TRIAL

AND RELATED COUNTER-CLAIMS.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 990 Filed 03/27/06 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 REGARDING OWNERSHIP TRIAL; 1

CASE NO.: C 04-03923 MMC (JCS) 12502215.1

WHEREAS, the Twenty-Second Affirmative Defense asserted by Magma Design 

Automation, Inc. (“Magma”) consists of a bona fida purchaser defense under U.S.C. Section 261,

WHEREAS, Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”) has requested that, in light of Special Master’s

Order No. 1, depositions and other discovery be taken which relates to Magma’s Section 261 

defense, Synopsys’s claim of willful infringement and/or privileged communications relating to 

meetings between Synopsys and Magma, and

WHEREAS, the parties agree that it would be preferable to defer the above-mentioned

discovery until after the Ownership Trial so the parties can focus on issues pertaining to 

ownership;

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate as follows:

1. Magma’s Twenty-Second Affirmative Defense shall not be tried at the Ownership 

Trial, but rather shall be adjudicated in further proceedings after conclusion of the Ownership 

Trial.

2. Subject to Paragraph 3 below, all remaining discovery and determination of issues 

pertaining to Synopsys’s allegation of willful infringement, Magma’s Section 261 defense, 

meetings between Synopsys and Magma (except to the extent such meetings are relevant to 

Lukas van Ginneken’s understanding of Sutherland’s theory of logical effort or the use of gain to 

determine the delays of cells in an integrated circuit design), or any matters arising from Special 

Master’s Order No. 1, shall be deferred until after conclusion of the Ownership Trial.

3. The foregoing shall not be construed as an concession by Synopsys that any 

evidence pertaining to meetings between Synopsys and Magma, or relating to Lukas van 

Ginneken’s understanding pertaining to such meetings, is relevant or admissible in the Ownership 

Trial and Synopsys reserves the right to object or seek exclusion of such evidence.

4. On or before April 7, 2006, Magma shall produce any remaining documents 

discussing or analyzing the issues of ownership, inventorship, conception or reduction to 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 990 Filed 03/27/06 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 REGARDING OWNERSHIP TRIAL; 2

CASE NO.: C 04-03923 MMC (JCS) 12502215.1

practice that fall within the scope of the privilege waiver set forth in Special Master’s Order 

No. 1.

Dated: March 27, 2006 DECHERT LLP

By:/s/Michael N. Edelman

Michael N. Edelman

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,

SYNOPSYS, INC.

Dated: March 27, 2006 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP

By:/s/Mark E. Miller

Mark E. Miller

Attorneys for Defendant and Counter-Claimant,

MAGMA DESIGN AUTOMATION, INC.

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

been obtained from Mark E. Miller.

Dated: March 27, 2006 DECHERT LLP

By:/s/Michael N. Edelman

Michael N. Edelman

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,

SYNOPSYS, INC.

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ______________, 2006

HON. MAXINE M. CHESNEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

March 27

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 990 Filed 03/27/06 Page 3 of 3