Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04669/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04669-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

1 

DM_US\8362256.v1 

HOWREY LLP

Teresa M. Corbin (SBN 132360) 

Denise M. De Mory (SBN 168076) 

Jaclyn C. Fink (SBN 217913) 

HOWREY LLP 

525 Market Street, Suite 3600 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Telephone: (415) 848-4900 

Facsimile: (415) 848-4999 

Attorneys for Plaintiff SYNOPSYS, INC. and 

Defendants AEROFLEX INC., AEROFLEX 

COLORADO SPRINGS, INC., AMI 

SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., MATROX 

ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS LTD., MATROX 

GRAPHICS, INC., MATROX INTERNATIONAL 

CORP., AND MATROX TECH, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

SYNOPSYS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

RICOH COMPANY, LTD., 

Defendant. 

RICOH COMPANY, LTD., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

AEROFLEX INCORPORATED, et al., 

Defendant. 

 Case No. C-03-2289 MJJ 

Case No. C-03-4669 MJJ 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

RESOLVING PORTIONS OF 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 

AND RICOH’S MOTION TO QUASH 

With regard to the Defendants’ Motion to Compel as well as Ricoh’s Motion to Quash, the 

parties have reached certain agreements as set forth below and request that that Court enter this 

[Proposed] Order Resolving Portions of Defendants’ Motion to Compel and Ricoh’s Motion to Quash 

1. With regard to the issues raised in Defendants’ Motion to Compel regarding the 

adequacy of Ricoh’s privilege logs, Ricoh agrees that: 

a. By June 28, 2006, Ricoh has updated all of the descriptions in its current 

Case 3:03-cv-02289-MJJ Document 380 Filed 06/30/2006 Page 1 of 7

ORDER

Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW Document 525 Filed 07/05/06 Page 1 of 7
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

2 

DM_US\8362256.v1 

HOWREY LLP

privilege log regarding the prosecution history and by July 19, 2006 Ricoh will 

update the descriptions of the 13 additional documents on the current log, as 

identified by Defendants in their motion, to be consistent with Judge Chen’s 

June 23, 2006 Order. 

b. By July 17, 2005, Ricoh will log all documents that pre-date the filing of 

Ricoh’s Complaint and that are relevant to the claims or defenses asserted by 

any party in this litigation and that have been withheld by Ricoh based on 

privilege, with the following exceptions: communications exclusively between 

Ricoh employees and Ricoh’s counsel, between Ricoh employees for obtaining 

information to be provided to Ricoh’s counsel, or between Ricoh’s counsel and 

non-testifying experts (who are not otherwise employees of Ricoh or percipient 

witnesses), where such communications were not distributed or disseminated to 

any third parties. In addition, Ricoh will log all documents as described above 

that contain factual information (including documents) obtained from interviews 

with any third part(ies), other than non-disclosed experts (who are not otherwise 

employees of Ricoh or percipient witnesses), even if such factual information is 

contained within communications exclusively between Ricoh and Ricoh’s 

counsel or between Ricoh’s counsel and non-disclosed experts (who are not 

otherwise employees of Ricoh or percipient witnesses). 

c. The parties agree that documents responsive to any document request made in 

this litigation that fall within the exceptions of paragraph 2(b), or that post-date 

the filing of Ricoh’s Complaint and are communications exclusively between 

client and trial counsel, between employees of a party for the purpose of 

obtaining information for trial counsel, or trial counsel and non-testifying 

experts (who are not otherwise employees of the client) and that have been 

withheld by any party based on privilege, need not be logged, and that the 

failure by any party to serve such a log is not a waiver of any privilege. 

Case 3:03-cv-02289-MJJ Document 380 Filed 06/30/2006 Page 2 of 7
 Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW Document 525 Filed 07/05/06 Page 2 of 7
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

3 

DM_US\8362256.v1 

HOWREY LLP

2. With regard to the Takada memo and Hoffman letter regarding the meeting with 

Shindo, Defendants stipulate that they will not seek to depose Gary Hoffman, or to disqualify him or 

the firm of Dickstein Shapiro LLP as Ricoh’s counsel. Ricoh will produce the Hoffman letter to 

Shindo and the Takada memo. These documents will be produced in a redacted form if necessary so 

that only the facts communicated by Mr. Shindo to Mr. Takada and Mr. Hoffman will be disclosed. 

All redactions to either the Takada memo or the Hoffman letter will be included on Ricoh’s privilege 

log. These documents will be provided by July 17, 2006. 

3. Regarding the requested in camera review of the prosecution files, Defendants will 

advise Ricoh by Thursday June 29, 2006 whether or not Defendants maintain that there should be an in 

camera review of some subset of the documents. If Defendants indicate that there should be an in 

camera review, Ricoh will submit the identified documents to the Court for an in camera review by 

July 5, 2006 

4. Regarding the cross motions to compel and to quash the continuation of the Kobayashi 

deposition, the parties agree to defer further consideration of this issue until after the resolution of all 

issues relating to the KBSC documents. 

5. Regarding the non-document related written discovery responses, the parties have 

reached the following agreements: 

a. Defendants will withdraw their motion to compel with regard to the following 

RFAs as well as the corresponding interrogatories: 41, 57, 58, 70, 75, 81-82, 

103-128; 151-156, and 214-231. 

b. With regard to RFAs 22-26, Defendants will withdraw their request that Ricoh 

answer the corresponding interrogatories. Ricoh agrees to supplement their 

responses to these RFAs. 

c. With regard to RFAs 28-39, 42-45, 50-56, 59-69, 71-74, 76-80, 83-100, Ricoh 

will supplement its responses to meet the substance of the requests. In the event 

of anything other than an unqualified admission, Ricoh will also supplement its 

answers to the corresponding interrogatories. These responses will be 

supplemented on or before July 17, 2006. 

Case 3:03-cv-02289-MJJ Document 380 Filed 06/30/2006 Page 3 of 7
 Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW Document 525 Filed 07/05/06 Page 3 of 7
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

4 

DM_US\8362256.v1 

HOWREY LLP

d. With regard to RFAs 40, 46, 47, 48, 49, Ricoh agrees either to eliminate the 

phrase “as Ricoh has defined the relevant terms in its Final Infringement 

Contentions” or to specifically identify the referenced definitions of “relevant 

terms” in its response to the RFAs. Provided Ricoh does so, Defendants will 

withdraw their motion with regard to the corresponding interrogatories. These 

responses will be supplemented on or before July 17, 2006. 

e. With regard to RFAs 163-171, Defendants define “participated development of 

the software” to mean “participated in the creation of the specification for or the 

coding of the software.” The parties agree that the phrase “the terms” was a 

typographical error, and should be ignored. Subject to the foregoing definition 

and clarification, Ricoh will supplement its responses to these requests for 

admissions as well as the corresponding interrogatories (without raising any 

objection that the foregoing definition creates subparts). 

f. With regard to RFAs 185-199 and 232-245, Ricoh will supplement its answers 

to meet the substance of these RFAs by admitting or denying whether the 

particular cited prior art reference meets the referenced claim limitation. 

Conditioned expressly on Ricoh’s agreement to meet the substance of each of 

these RFAs as described above (and not profess, for example, a lack of 

information or belief to admit or deny), Defendants withdraw their request that 

Ricoh supplement the corresponding interrogatories. 

g. With regard to RFAs 172-184, 200-213, 246-274, Ricoh will supplement its 

answers to meet the substance of these RFAs by admitting or denying whether 

the particular cited prior art reference meets the referenced claim limitation only 

to the extent that an element is discussed in Defendants’ expert reports or to the 

extent that Ricoh has undertaken a sufficient analysis relating to the particular 

request so that Ricoh can respond to the request at the time its supplemental 

answers are due. However, this provision will not obligate Ricoh in any way to 

do any analysis that it or its experts have not already performed at the time its 

Case 3:03-cv-02289-MJJ Document 380 Filed 06/30/2006 Page 4 of 7
 Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW Document 525 Filed 07/05/06 Page 4 of 7
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

5 

DM_US\8362256.v1 

HOWREY LLP

supplemental answers are due. The supplemental answers to these requests shall 

be provided on or before August 2, 2006. 

h. Defendants agree that a sufficient supplemental interrogatory response from 

Ricoh regarding an RFA would be to provide at least one reason why the request 

cannot be admitted without qualification, or why the request can neither be 

admitted nor denied. Such an answer shall not preclude Ricoh from asserting 

other reasons. The parties further agree that if Ricoh is unable to admit or deny 

a request because it does not have information sufficient to respond, such a 

response shall be adequate, provided Ricoh comply with the requirements of 

Rule 36(a) regarding such responses. Defendants further agree that citation to 

deposition testimony, expert reports or documents produced during discovery 

are sufficient under Rule 33(d), provided that Ricoh gives a reasonable “pinpoint 

cite” to the specific portions of deposition testimony, expert reports, or 

documents produced during discovery upon which it is relying. Ricoh agrees 

that, should it wish to rely upon its infringement contentions, it will include the 

specific language from its infringement contentions upon which it is relying in 

its interrogatory response, or provide a precise citation (and not just reference 

generally to its contentions regarding a particular claim element, for example) to 

its infringement contentions. 

i. Defendants hereby withdraw their motion with regard to their request that Ricoh 

supplement its response to Aeroflex, Inc.’s Interrogatory No. 4, Aeroflex 

Colorado Springs, Inc’s Interrogatory No. 3, Matrox International Corp’s 

Interrogatories Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 

and 32; Matrox Electronic Systems, Inc.’s Interrogatory Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 

14, 23, and 33, and any other aspects of Defendants’ motion to compel not 

specifically addressed in this stipulation. 

Case 3:03-cv-02289-MJJ Document 380 Filed 06/30/2006 Page 5 of 7
 Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW Document 525 Filed 07/05/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6 

DM_US\8362256.v1 

HOWREY LLP

j. Ricoh will supplement its responses to Aeroflex, Inc.’s Interrogatory Nos. 6-7 to 

add pinpoint cites pursuant to Rule 33(d) or otherwise provide a sufficient 

response on or before July 17, 2006. 

k. Ricoh will supplement its responses to Aeroflex Colorado Springs, Inc.’s 

Interrogatory Nos. 4 and Matrox Tech Inc.’s Interrogatory Nos. 2-7 to meet the 

substance of the interrogatory and, to the extent responsive, add pinpoint cites 

pursuant to Rule 33(d) or otherwise provide a sufficient response, on or before 

July 25, 2006. 

l. Ricoh will supplement its responses to Matrox Electronics Systems, Inc’s 

Interrogatory Nos. 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 to meet the 

substance of the interrogatory and, to the extent responsive, add pinpoint cites 

pursuant to Rule 33(d) or otherwise provide a sufficient response, only to the 

extent that an element is discussed in Defendants’ expert reports in relation to a 

respective reference or to the extent that Ricoh has undertaken a sufficient 

analysis relating to the particular interrogatory so that Ricoh can respond to the 

interrogatory at the time its answers are due. However, this provision will not 

obligate Ricoh in any way to do any analysis that it or its experts have not 

already performed at the time its supplemental answers are due. The 

supplemental answers to these interrogatory shall be provided on or before 

August 2, 2006. 

m. For responses 3-11, to Matrox International Corp.’s Interrogatories, provided 

that Ricoh identifies the specific portions of deposition testimony on which it is 

relying pursuant to Rule 33(d), Defendants will not seek further 

supplementation. Ricoh will supplement its responses to responses 27 and 33 to 

Matrox International Corp.’s Interrogatories to add pinpoint cites pursuant to 

Rule 33(d) on or before July 17, 2006. 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:03-cv-02289-MJJ Document 380 Filed 06/30/2006 Page 6 of 7
 Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW Document 525 Filed 07/05/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7 

DM_US\8362256.v1 

HOWREY LLP

Unless provided otherwise herein, Ricoh’s supplemental responses will be provided on or 

before on July 25, 2006. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: June 30, 2006 HOWREY LLP 

By: /s/Denise M. De Mory

Denise M. De Mory 

Attorneys for Plaintiff SYNOPSYS, INC. and 

Defendants AEROFLEX INC., AEROFLEX 

COLORADO SPRINGS, INC., AMI 

SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., MATROX ELECTRONIC 

SYSTEMS LTD., MATROX GRAPHICS, INC., 

MATROX INTERNATIONAL CORP., AND 

MATROX TECH, INC. 

Dated: June 30, 2006 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO MORIN & OSHINSKY, LLP 

By: /s/Gary M. Hoffman 

Gary M. Hoffman 

ALTSHULER, BERZON NUSSBAUM, RUBIN & 

DEMAIN 

Jeffrey B. Demain 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Defendant 

RICOH COMPANY, LTD. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: _________________________ 

HON. EDWARD M. CHEN 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

ATTESTATION AS TO CONCURRENCE

I, Denise M. De Mory, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America, 

attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other 

signatories to this document. 

Case 3:03-cv-02289-MJJ Document 380 Filed 06/30/2006 Page 7 of 7

July 5, 2006

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW Document 525 Filed 07/05/06 Page 7 of 7