Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03923/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03923-37/pdf.json

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

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.

MAGMA DESIGN AUTOMATION, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-04-3923 MMC

ORDER GRANTING MAGMA’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Docket No. 650)

Before the Court is defendant Magma Design Automation, Inc.’s (“Magma”) motion,

filed November 8, 2005, for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s

October 19, 2005 order striking, inter alia, Magma’s inequitable conduct and unclean hands

affirmative defenses. Magma seeks leave to amend its answer to assert new inequitable

conduct and unclean hands defenses based on information recently produced in discovery

by Synopsys.

With respect to the inequitable conduct defense, Magma contends the ’446 and ’438

patents are unenforceable because Synopsys failed to disclose to the United States Patent

and Trademark Office (“PTO”) that IBM and Synopsys jointly developed a software system

known as Synzilla that reduced to practice the inventions claimed in those patents, and that

Synopsys offered to license Synzilla to a customer more than one year before the

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 719 Filed 11/21/05 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

2

filing date of the relevant patent application. Magma also contends the same evidence

supports a defense that Synopsys’s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. 

Magma states the above-referenced information with respect to the joint development of

Synzilla, and Synopsys’s offer to license Synzilla, was not disclosed to Magma until after

briefing closed on the motion addressed in the Court’s October 19, 2005 order.

Magma’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s

October 19, 2005 order, to the extent such order struck Magma’s inequitable conduct and

unclean hands affirmative defenses, is hereby GRANTED. Any such motion shall address

why Magma contends Synopsys owed a duty of disclosure to the PTO in connection with

the prosecution of the ’446 and ’438 patents despite Synopsys’s lack of involvement in the

prosecution of those patents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2005 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 719 Filed 11/21/05 Page 2 of 2