Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04669/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04669-48/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 

Case Nos. C03-4669 MJJ (EMC) and C03-2289 MJJ (EMC)

[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DECEMBER 12, 2006 SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT HEARING

DM_US\8405782.v1 

HOWREY LLP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

RICOH COMPANY, LTD., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

AEROFLEX INCORPORATED, et al., 

Defendants. 

 Case No. C03-04669 MJJ (EMC) 

Case No. C03-2289 MJJ (EMC) 

[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING 

DECEMBER 12, 2006 SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT HEARING 

SYNOPSYS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

RICOH COMPANY, LTD., 

Defendant. 

 Judge: Martin J. Jenkins

Case 3:03-cv-04669-MJJ Document 724 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 1 of 2
 Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW Document 726 Filed 10/31/06 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 

Case Nos. C03-4669 MJJ (EMC) and C03-2289 MJJ (EMC) 

PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DECEMBER 12, 2006 SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT HEARING

1 

DM_US\8405782.v1 

HOWREY LLP

At a Status Conference on October 12, 2006, the Court informed the parties of its intention to 

hear a subset of the already fully briefed summary judgment motions on December 12, 2006. The 

parties set forth their respective positions on the issues in letters to the Court dated October 20, 2006 

[Dkt. No. 526, Case No. 03-2289] and October 23, 2006 [Dkt. Nos. 527 and 529, Case No. 03-2289]. 

Having considered those letters, and the respective positions of the parties, and finding good cause 

therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Aeroflex agrees to entry of a stipulated judgment against it on its authorization and 

consent affirmative defense. The parties are to work out a proposed stipulated judgment on this issue 

as well as Ricoh’s willfulness issue and present it to the Court by no later than November 15, 2006. 

2. Synopsys and the Customer Defendants may file two revised summary judgment 

motions composed of text contained in the already-filed opening briefs, as described in its letter to the 

Court of October 23, 2006 [Dkt. No. 529, Case No. 03-2289]. These briefs may be no longer than 25 

pages each, may not contain any arguments not already present in the current opening briefs, and must 

be filed with the Court within 2 court days of this order. 

3. Within 1 weeks of the filing of the revised opening briefs, Ricoh shall file two 

opposition briefs composed of text contained in its already-filed opposition briefs. 

4. Within 3 court days of the filing of the revised opposition briefs, Synopsys and the 

Customer Defendants shall file two reply briefs composed of text contained in its already-filed reply 

briefs. 

The Court will consider the arguments presented by both sides in this revised briefing at the 

hearing scheduled for December 12, 2006. 

DATED: ________________ _______________________________________ 

The Honorable Martin J. Jenkins 

United States District Court Judge 

Submitted by: 

HOWREY LLP 

By /s/ Denise M. De Mory

Attorneys for Plaintiff Synopsys 

and for Defendants Aeroflex, Inc., et al. 

Case 3:03-cv-04669-MJJ Document 724 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 2 of 2

10/31/2006

Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW Document 726 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 2