Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02965-44/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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SYNOPSYS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ATOPTECH, INC, 

Defendant. 

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

ORDER TAKING MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS UNDER SUBMISSION 

WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT; 

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 

DECLARATIONS ON MOTIONS TO 

SEAL

TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

 The court has received Synopsys’s motion for sanctions [Docket No. 273] and finds that 

the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). 

Accordingly, the May 14, 2015 hearing on the motion is hereby VACATED. The court will issue 

a written order on the motion. 

ATopTech has filed a motion to seal certain exhibits and declarations related to its 

opposition to the motion for sanctions. [Docket No. 283.] Specifically, ATopTech moves to seal 

Exhibit A to the Declaration of Henry Chang, which is a copy of a chart that shows all the 

commands that are available an executable file. ATopTech notes that it “does not claim this chart 

is confidential, but understands that Synopsys may.” [Docket No. 283-1 at ¶ 3.] Synopsys has not 

filed a responsive declaration as required by Civil Local Rules 79-5(e)(1) and 79-5(d)(1)(A) 

establishing that Exhibit A to the Declaration of Henry Chang is sealable. By May 14, 2015, 

Synopsys shall file either a responsive declaration or a statement of non-opposition to ATopTech’s 

motion to seal. 

Synopsys moves to seal portions of its reply to its motion for sanctions that refer to the 

Declaration of Andrew Kahng. [Docket No. 287.] Synopsys also moves to seal the portions of 

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 297 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

the

ma

doe

con

bur

sea

Civ

Sec

sea

non

Da

e Second Sup

arked “HIGH

es not conten

nfidential, bu

rden to estab

alable.” [Do

vil Local Ru

cond Supple

alable. By M

n-opposition

IT IS S

ated: May 11

pplemental D

HLY CONFI

nd that eithe

ut rather not

blish that the

ocket No. 287

ules 79-5(e)(

emental Decl

May 14, 2015

n to Synopsy

SO ORDER

1, 2015 

Declaration o

IDENTIAL—

er of these do

es that it has

e material de

7 at 1]. ATo

1) and 79-5

laration of M

5, ATopTech

ys’s motion t

RED. 

2

of Martin W

—ATTORNE

ocuments co

s filed its mo

esignated con

opTech has n

(d)(1)(A) es

Martin Walke

h shall file e

to seal. 

___

DO

Un

Walker that re

EYS’ EYES

ntains mater

otion to seal 

nfidential so

not filed a re

stablishing th

er or the Dec

either a respo

__________

ONNA M. R

nited States M

efer to inform

S ONLY” by

rials that Syn

to give ATo

olely by ATo

esponsive de

hat the relev

claration of A

onsive decla

___________

RYU 

Magistrate Ju

mation previ

y ATopTech

nopsys has d

opTech “noti

opTech is pro

eclaration as 

ant portions 

Andrew Kah

aration or a s

__________

udge 

iously 

. Synopsys 

designated as

ice of its 

operly 

required by

of the 

hng are 

statement of 

________ 

s

y

Case 3:13-cv-02965-MMC Document 297 Filed 05/11/15 Page 2 of 2