Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965-38/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

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 DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE;

VACATING HEARING

Before the Court is plaintiff Synopsys, Inc.’s (“Synopsys”) Motion to Dismiss

Defendant ATopTech’s Counterclaims and to Strike Affirmative Defenses, filed February

20, 2015, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On

March 6, 2015, defendant ATopTech, Inc. (“ATopTech”) filed opposition, and, shortly

thereafter, on March 13, 2015, filed its First Amended Answer and First Amended

Counterclaims. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for March 27, 2015,

and DENIES Synopsys’ motion as moot. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (providing party may

amend pleading “once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is

served”); Bullen v. De Bretteville, 239 F. 2d 824, 833 (9th Cir. 1956) (holding “amended

pleading supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2015 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 256 Filed 03/23/15 Page 1 of 1