Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03923/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03923-2/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYNOPSYS, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

MAGMA DESIGN AUTOMATION, INC.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

No. C04-3923 MMC (JCS)

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL

[Docket Nos. 112, 114, 115, 118 and 119]

On May 25, 2005, the parties filed a joint letter brief describing their unresolved discovery

disputes.

On June 3, 2005, the Court held a telephonic hearing. Chris Graham and Esther Law, counsel for

Plaintiff, appeared. Luann L. Simmons, Peter Obstler and Chris Catalano, counsel for Defendant,

appeared.

For reasons stated on the record and good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Motion to Compel Production of Magma’s Source Code and Executable Code, [Docket

No. 112] is GRANTED. Magma shall produce the source code and executable code for its Cobra

products identified in Plaintiff’s preliminary infringement contentions, under a Protective Order. 

2. The Motion to Compel Magma’s Responses to Synopsys’ Interrogatories and Request for

Admissions, [Docket No. 114] is GRANTED IN PART, and DENIED IN PART as follows:

A. The Motion to Compel Further Answers to Interrogatory No. 1 is DENIED.

B. The Motion to Compel Further Answers to Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 5 is DENIED as

moot.

C. The Motion to Compel Further Answers to Interrogatory No. 2 is GRANTED.

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 144 Filed 06/08/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Defendant shall amend its response to provide a complete list of all the names of the individuals who

participated in the meetings at issue in this interrogatory.

D. The Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatory No. 10 is GRANTED. 

Defendant shall amend this interrogatory answer to state that it contends that the patents do not meet the

written description, enablement and best mode requirements.

E. The Motion to Compel Further Responses To The Request for Admissions Nos. 15-16

is DENIED.

3. The Motion to Compel Synopsys’ to Produce in Response to Magma’s Document Request

Nos. 20-22 [Docket No. 119] is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall produce the following IBM documents by

June 10, 2005:

A. All documents (including but not limited to source code) created up to the termination

of the JDA that relate to the JDA and/or the Dissolution Agreement;

B. All documents (including but not limited to source code) created at any time that relate

to IBM’s interest or rights in any of the patents-in-sut or the alleged Synopsys proprietary or confidential

information at issue in this lawsuit; and

C. All documents (including but not limited to source code) created at any time that relate

to ownership of inventions or materials created under the JDA.

4. The parties have resolved their disputes with respect to the discovery issues raised in Docket

Nos. 115 and 118, and these motions are DENIED as moot.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT before filing any future discovery motions, lead

trial counsel for Plaintiff, and lead trial counsel for Defendant, shall meet and confer in person. Any side

may demand a meeting on ten (10) days’ notice. Within five (5) business days of the lead trial counsels’

meet-and-confer session, the parties shall provide a detailed Joint Letter to the Court. This Joint Letter

shall include a description of every issue in dispute and, with respect to each such issue, a detailed summary

of each party’s final substantive position and their final proposed compromise on each issue. The Court will

then determine what additional proceedings are necessary. If discovery disputes related to scope of

discovery continue to be brought before the Court, and it appears to the Court that these issues would be

resolved by the parties in good faith negotiations, the Court will order that the CEO of each company 

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 144 Filed 06/08/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

attend the meet-and-confer sessions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2005

/s/ Joseph C. Spero 

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 144 Filed 06/08/05 Page 3 of 3