Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965-117/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

555 CALIFORNIA STREET, 26TH FLOOR • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104

TELEPHONE: +1.415.626.3939 • FACSIMILE: +1.415.875.5700

Direct Number: (415) 875-5710

ramittelstaedt@JonesDay.com

ALKHOBAR • AMSTERDAM • ATLANTA • BEIJING • BOSTON • BRISBANE • BRUSSELS • CHICAGO • CLEVELAND • COLUMBUS • DALLAS

DETROIT • DUBAI • DÜSSELDORF • FRANKFURT • HONG KONG • HOUSTON • IRVINE • JEDDAH • LONDON • LOS ANGELES • MADRID

MEXICO CITY • MIAMI • MILAN • MINNEAPOLIS • MOSCOW • MUNICH • NEW YORK • PARIS • PERTH • PITTSBURGH • RIYADH

SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • SÃO PAULO • SHANGHAI • SILICON VALLEY • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TAIPEI • TOKYO • WASHINGTON

July 14, 2016

VIA CM/ECF

Hon. Maxine M. Chesney

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: Pretrial Conference in Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-02965-MMC 

Dear Judge Chesney:

Synopsys respectfully requests that the Court schedule a pretrial conference on Tuesday, 

July 19, 2016 at 3:00 p.m. in anticipation of the parties’ July 25 bench trial on ATopTech’s 

equitable estoppel defense. 

A pretrial conference is warranted because ATopTech has declined to identify the nonATopTech witnesses it actually intends to call at trial. In its list of witnesses likely to be called at 

trial, ATopTech has identified eight former and current Synopsys employees and independent 

contractors. See ECF No. 783-1 at 44-50, 72-74.1

 But seven of these witnesses were never 

disclosed by ATopTech in the copyright case and its belated designation of such witnesses 

violates the parties’ September 2015 stipulation. As set forth in Synopsys’ pending Motion in 

Limine No. 2, ATopTech should be precluded from calling these previously undisclosed 

witnesses at trial. A pretrial conference will allow the Court to decide Synopsys’ pending in 

limine motion to ensure an orderly trial. 

A pretrial conference also will provide the opportunity to establish time limits for 

opening statements and for each party to present its case. And, to the extent ATopTech is 

permitted to examine previously undisclosed witnesses, a pretrial conference should be held to 

settle on the identity and order of witnesses that will actually be called at trial. While ATopTech 

has acknowledged that it does not intend to call all the non-ATopTech witnesses identified on its 

list, it has declined to provide Synopsys with a final list. For the sake of efficient trial 

management, and out of respect for the professional schedules of Synopsys’ former and current 

employees, a pretrial conference should be held to determine the parties’ final witness lists.

 1 The non-ATopTech witnesses include Dr. Dwight Hill, Noel Strader, Richard Goldman, 

Stephen Meier, Mark Lewis, Sridhar Panchapakesan, Mark B. Lefevre, and Mustafa Celik. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

DENIED

Judge Maxine M. Chesney

*

*Insufficient notice and improper form of request. Dated: July 14, 2016

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 792 Filed 07/14/16 Page 1 of 2
Hon. Maxine M. Chesney

July 14, 2016

Page 2

Respectfully submitted,

JONES DAY

 /s/Robert A. Mittelstaedt 

Robert A. Mittelstaedt

ATTORNEYS FOR SYNOPSYS, INC.

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 792 Filed 07/14/16 Page 2 of 2