Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04669/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04669-52/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 

[PROPOSED]JUDGMENT 

CASE NO.: C 03-02289 JW 

RON E. SHULMAN, State Bar No. 178263 

rshulman@wsgr.com 

TERRY KEARNEY, State Bar No. 160054 

tkearney@wsgr.com 

RICHARD G. FRENKEL, State Bar No. 204133 

rfrenkel@wsgr.com 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 

Telephone: (650) 493-9300 

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 

Attorneys for Plaintiff SYNOPSYS, INC. 

and for Defendants AEROFLEX INCORPORATED, 

AMI SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., MATROX 

ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS, LTD., MATROX 

GRAPHICS, INC., MATROX INTERNATIONAL 

CORP., MATROX TECH, INC., and 

AEROFLEX COLORADO SPRINGS, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

IN RE RICOH COMPANY LTD. PATENT 

LITIGATION 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO.: C 03-02289 JW 

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge James Ware

JUDGMENT

Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW Document 740 Filed 05/28/10 Page 1 of 3
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 

[PROPOSED]JUDGMENT 

CASE NO.: C 03-02289 JW

-1- 

This action involves consolidated cases related to Ricoh’s U.S. Patent No. 4,922,432 

(“the ‘432 Patent”). In January 2003, Ricoh filed a patent infringement action in the District of 

Delaware against defendants Aeroflex, Inc., AMI Semiconductor, Inc., Matrox Electronics 

Systems, Ltd., Matrox Graphics, Inc., Matrox International Corp., Matrox Tech., Inc. and 

Aeroflex Colorado Springs, Inc. (hereinafter collectively, “the Customer Defendants”) for 

infringement of the ‘432 Patent. In May 2003, Synopsys filed a declaratory judgment action 

against Ricoh in the Northern District of California on behalf of its customers, seeking a 

declaratory judgment of noninfringement, invalidity and unenforceability of the ‘432 Patent (No. 

C 03-02289). Subsequently, the Delaware action was transferred to the Northern District of 

California (No. C 03-04669). This Court consolidated the two actions into 5:03-cv-02289-JW. 

Pursuant to the Court’s April 15, 2010 Order Granting Synopsys’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment of Noninfringement (“April 15 Order,” Docket Item No. 698), and pursuant to the 

Court’s May 12, 2010 Order Denying Defendant Ricoh Company Ltd.’s Motion for Leave to 

File a Motion for Reconsideration (Docket Item No. 707), there has now been an adjudication of 

all of the infringement claims asserted by Ricoh against the Customer Defendants in this 

consolidated action, and of Synopsys’ declaratory judgment claim and the Customer Defendant’s 

counterclaims for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement. 

First, for the reasons set forth in the April 15 Order, judgment is entered in favor of 

Synopsys and the Customer Defendants and against Ricoh. The Court declares that the asserted 

claims of the ‘432 Patent are not infringed by Synopsys or the Customer Defendants. 

Second, Synopsys’ remaining declaratory judgment claims of invalidity and 

unenforceability of the ‘432 Patent, and the Customer Defendants’ remaining counterclaims of 

invalidity and unenforceability of the ‘432 Patent, are dismissed without prejudice under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), pursuant to the agreement of the parties that these other claims 

and counterclaims should be dismissed without prejudice.1

 

1

 On November 2, 2006, the Court granted Ricoh’s Motion for Summary Judgment on 

Defendants Aeroflex and Aeroflex Colorado, Inc.’s Affirmative Defense of Authorization and 

Consent (D.I. 535), and ordered the Clerk to enter partial judgment on that affirmative defense. 

Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW Document 740 Filed 05/28/10 Page 2 of 3
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 

[PROPOSED]JUDGMENT 

CASE NO.: C 03-02289 JW

-2- 

The Court declares that Synopsys and the Customer Defendants are the prevailing parties, 

and may request recover costs pursuant to Local Rules 54-1 through 54-4. Accordingly, the 

Court finds that there is no just reason for delay of entry of final judgment in favor of Synopsys 

and the Customer Defendants and against Ricoh. Given the dismissal without prejudice of the 

declaratory judgment claims and counterclaims as set forth above, this is accordingly a full and 

final adjudication of all issues before this Court in these consolidated actions. 

Dated: _____________________________________ 

 The Honorable James Ware 

 United States District Judge 

 The Clerk shall close this file. 

Dated: May 28, 2010 ____________________________ 

 JAMES WARE 

 United States District Judge

 and the member case, 03-4669 JW

Case 5:03-cv-04669-JW Document 740 Filed 05/28/10 Page 3 of 3