Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03923/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03923-26/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 PERMITTING FILING OF

AMENDED OPPOSITION AND REPLY

TO MAGMA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AS TO THE SECOND

THROUGH SIXTH CAUSES OF ACTION

IN SYNOPSYS’S SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT; DIRECTIONS TO PARTIES

Before the Court are three related motions for summary judgment: (1) plaintiff

Synopsys, Inc.’s (“Synopsys”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Establishing Unfair

Competition; (2) defendant Magma Design Automation, Inc.’s (“Magma”) Cross-Motion for

Summary Judgment on Synopsys’s Sixth Cause of Action (Unfair Competition); and (3)

Magma’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Second Through Sixth Causes of Action

in Synopsys’s Second Amended Complaint. On July 14, 2005, all three motions were

taken off calendar to be rescheduled for hearing, if necessary, after the claim construction

hearing, which was held August 15, 2005. 

Also before the Court is Synopsys’ request, filed June 29, 2005, two weeks before

the Court vacated the original hearing date on the motions for summary judgment, seeking

a continuance, pursuant to Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of the

hearing on Magma’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Second Through Sixth

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 458 Filed 10/14/05 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

Causes of Action in Synopsys’s Second Amended Complaint. In said request, Synopsys

asked that the hearing on Magma’s motion be continued until a date after November 10,

2005, to allow Synopsys to complete a “significant amount of critical discovery.” (See

Williams Decl. in Support of Plaintiff Synopsys, Inc.’s Request For Continuance Pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) ¶¶ 2, 12.) As several months have passed since

Synopsys filed its Rule 56(f) request, much of the discovery Synopsys desired to conduct

before opposing Magma’s motion should have been completed. Consequently, the Court

finds it appropriate to permit the parties to amend their briefing with respect to Magma’s

Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Second Through Sixth Causes of Action in

Synopsys’s Second Amended Complaint, to take into account discovery completed after

Synopsys’s Rule 56(f) request was filed.

The Court is aware that the parties are in the process of briefing a number of other

motions. Accordingly, rather than imposing a briefing schedule on the parties, the Court

will order the parties to meet and confer as to an appropriate briefing schedule.

Accordingly, the parties are hereby ordered to meet and confer with respect to

Magma’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Second Through Sixth Causes of Action 

and to file with the Court, no later than October 25, 2005, a stipulated schedule for the filing

of an amended opposition and amended reply, as well as for the hearing of all of the three

above-referenced motions.

This order terminates Docket No. 209.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2005 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 458 Filed 10/14/05 Page 2 of 2