Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965-113/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

Revised Joint (Proposed) Order

Case No. 3:13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR)

Robert A. Mittelstaedt (SBN 60359)

ramittelstaedt@JonesDay.com

Patrick T. Michael (SBN 169745)

pmichael@jonesday.com

Krista S. Schwartz (SBN 303604)

ksschwartz@JonesDay.com

David C. Kiernan (SBN 215335)

dkiernan@jonesday.com

Nathaniel P. Garrett (SBN 248211)

ngarrett@JonesDay.com

Joe C. Liu (SBN 237356)

jcliu@JonesDay.com

JONES DAY

555 California Street, 26th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: +1.415.626.3939

Facsimile: +1.415.875.5700

Heather N. Fugitt (SBN 261588)

hfugitt@JonesDay.com

JONES DAY

Silicon Valley Office

1755 Embarcadero Road

Palo Alto, CA 94303

Telephone: +1.650.739.3939

Facsimile: +1.650.739.3900

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SYNOPSYS, INC.

Paul Alexander (#49997)

Paul.Alexander@aporter.com

Martin R. Glick (#40187)

Marty.Glick@aporter.com

Sean M. Callagy (#255230)

Sean.Callagy@aporter.com

ARNOLD & PORTER LLP

Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111-4024

Telephone: (415) 471-3100

Facsimile: (415) 471-3400

Denise McKenzie (#193313)

Denise.McKenzie@aporter.com

ARNOLD & PORTER LLP

777 South Figueroa Street

Forty-Fourth Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844

Telephone: (213) 243-4000

Facsimile: (213) 243-4199

Attorneys for Defendant

ATOPTECH, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

SYNOPSYS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ATOPTECH, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR)

REVISED JOINT [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULE 

FOR ATOPTECH’S FOURTH 

AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 773 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 5
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 

- 1 - Revised Joint (Proposed) Order 

Case No. 3:13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR)

WHEREAS, Synopsys filed its Amended Complaint on November 25, 2013, asserting 

claims for copyright infringement (Count I), breach of contract and breach of covenant of good 

faith and fair dealing (Counts XI-XII), and patent infringement (Counts II-V) (ECF No. 43)1; 

WHEREAS, on March 13, 2015, ATopTech filed its First Amended Answer and 

Counterclaims, which asserted a copyright misuse counterclaim and several antitrust claims 

including a claim under Section 7 of the Clayton Act challenging two acquisitions and claims 

under Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act for tying and monopolization (ECF No. 252); 

WHEREAS, on April 9, 2015, the Court bifurcated Synopsys’s patent claims from its 

copyright and breach of contract claims, but deferred ruling on whether to bifurcate ATopTech’s 

copyright misuse and antitrust counterclaims pending resolution of Synopsys’ motion to dismiss 

(ECF No. 280); 

WHEREAS, on April 27, 2015, the Court entered an Order setting deadlines and 

discovery limits on “Synopsys’ patent claims (Counts II–V)” (ECF No. 291), which provides that 

fact discovery closes on July 15, 2016, expert discovery closes on October 15, 2016, dispositive 

motions shall be filed by December 15, 2016, and trial shall commence on February 27, 20172; 

WHEREAS, by Orders issued on May 8, 2015, August 7, 2015, and November 18, 2015 

(ECF Nos. 294, 342, 455), the Court dismissed ATopTech’s copyright misuse defense claim and 

certain of its antitrust counterclaims and denied Synopsys’ motion to dismiss regarding Count III, 

Count VI, and Count VIII to the extent they challenge certain license restrictions; 

WHEREAS, on November 25, 2015, ATopTech filed its Fourth Amended Answer and 

Counterclaims, which asserts the remaining Antitrust Counterclaims that were not dismissed by 

the Court (ECF No. 471) (the “Antitrust Counterclaims”); 

WHEREAS, on December 15, 2015, Synopsys filed its Amended Answer to the 

Counterclaim (ECF No. 486); 

 1

 Synopsys’ Amended Complaint was supplemented on January 26, 2016 to include 

supplemental copyright registration certificate numbers. See ECF No. 523; see also ECF No. 596 

(order denying motion to dismiss Supplemental Complaint). 

2

 On July 30, 2015, the Clerk issued a Notice confirming the deadlines for the Copyright 

and Breach of Contract claims and the Patent Claims (ECF. 333). 

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 773 Filed 06/24/16 Page 2 of 5
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 - Revised Joint (Proposed) Order 

Case No. 3:13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR)

WHEREAS, on November 19, 2015, the Court bifurcated the Antitrust Counterclaims 

from the copyright and breach of contract claims (ECF No. 456), and the parties agreed to meet 

and confer regarding a proposed schedule for the Antitrust Counterclaims (ECF No. 465, p. 60-

61); 

WHEREAS, a jury trial on Synopsys’ copyright and breach of contract claims (Counts I, 

XI-XII) concluded on March 10, 2016;

WHEREAS, a bench trial is set for July 25, 2016 on ATopTech’s equitable estoppel 

affirmative defense;

WHEREAS, the parties have conducted minimal discovery related to the Antitrust 

Counterclaims to date and no Case Management Conference has been held or set; 

WHEREAS, the parties agree that the Antitrust Counterclaims should be bifurcated from 

the patent claims (Counts II-V) because the claims involve separate, complex bodies of law and 

involve distinct factual and legal issues;

WHEREAS, the parties agree that discovery on the Antitrust Counterclaims should be 

deferred until thirty days after the entry of a verdict at the trial on the patent claims, in light of the 

time and cost associated with the equitable estoppel bench trial and the ongoing patent discovery 

and ultimate trial on the patent claims; and

WHEREAS, the parties agree that the period of time required to complete proceedings on 

the Antitrust Counterclaims shall not, in and of itself, constitute a basis for entry of partial 

judgment under Rule 54(b) as to any other claims.

NOW, THEREFORE the parties jointly submit the following proposed deadlines relating

to ATopTech’s Fourth Amended Counterclaims: 

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 773 Filed 06/24/16 Page 3 of 5
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

- 3 - Revised Joint (Proposed) Order 

Case No. 3:13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR)

Proposed Schedule for ATopTech’s Fourth Amended Counterclaims: 

DEADLINE EVENT 

30 days after entry of a 

verdict at the trial on 

Synopsys’ Patent Claims

Discovery commences. Any discovery 

previously served will be deemed served as of 

this date

30 days after commencement 

of Fact Discovery

Updates to Rule 26 Initial Disclosures

Six months after 

commencement of Fact 

Discovery

Close of Fact Discovery, including third-party 

discovery 

30 days after conclusion of 

Fact Discovery

ATopTech’s Opening Expert Report(s)

30 days after service of 

ATopTech’s Opening Expert 

Report

Synopsys’s Expert Report(s)

21 days after service of 

Synopsys’s Rebuttal Report

ATopTech Rebuttal Expert Reports

21 days after service of 

ATopTech’s Rebuttal Expert 

Reports

Close of Expert Discovery

30 days after Close of Expert 

Discovery

Motion for Summary Judgment 

3 weeks after filing Motions 

for Summary Judgment

Opp. to Motion for Summary Judgment 

2 weeks after filing 

Oppositions

Reply in support of Motion for Summary 

Judgment 

TBD Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment 

TBD Pre-Trial Conference

TBD Trial 

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 773 Filed 06/24/16 Page 4 of 5
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

- 4 - Revised Joint (Proposed) Order 

Case No. 3:13-cv-02965-MMC (DMR)

Dated: June 23, 2016 Respectfully submitted,

JONES DAY

By: /s/ David C. Kiernan

David C. Kiernan

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SYNOPSYS, INC.

In accordance with Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the above signatory attests that concurrence in 

the filing of this document has been obtained from the signatory below.

ARNOLD & PORTER

By: /s/ Paul Alexander

Paul Alexander

Attorneys for Defendant

ATOPTECH, INC.

The above joint proposed deadlines relating to ATopTech’s Fourth Amended 

Counterclaims is approved and all parties shall comply with its provisions. 

IT SO ORDERED.

Dated: _________________________ By: 

Hon. Maxine Chesney 

United States District Judge 

June 24, 2016

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 773 Filed 06/24/16 Page 5 of 5