Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03923/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03923-86/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 RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(Docket Nos. 1003, 1005, 1006, 1009,

1011, 1014)

Before the Court are six motions in limine. The motions came on regularly for

hearing April 18, 2006 at the Pretrial Conference.

1. For the reasons stated on the record at the April 18, 2006 Pretrial Conference,

Synopsys’s Motion in Limine No. 1, to exclude all evidence and argument that IBM has an

ownership interest in the ’438 patent, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. To the

extent Synopsys seeks to preclude Dr. Majid Sarrafzadeh from providing expert opinion

that IBM is an owner of the ’438 patent, the motion is GRANTED. To the extent Magma

seeks to submit non-expert testimony, or to present legal argument, that IBM is an owner of

the ’438 patent, the motion is DENIED.

2. For the reasons stated on the record at the April 18, 2006 Pretrial Conference,

and subject to the parties’ April 20, 2006 Stipulation Regarding Ownership Trial,

Synopsys’s Motion in Limine No. 2, to preclude Magma from offering any opinions,

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 1111 Filed 04/20/06 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

argument, or evidence that any Magma employee other than Lukas van Ginneken invented

any claims of the ’446 or ’438 patents, is GRANTED.

3. For the reasons stated on the record at the April 18, 2006 Pretrial Conference,

Synopsys’s Motion in Limine No. 3, to preclude Magma from offering any opinions or

testimony relating to the inventiveness or obviousness of any contributions to any claims of

the patents, is DENIED without prejudice to Synopsys’s raising particularized objections at

the time such evidence is offered.

4. For the reasons stated on the record at the April 18, 2006 Pretrial Conference,

Synopsys’s Motion in Limine No. 4, to exclude parol evidence as to the meaning of the

Joint Development Agreement, is DENIED.

5. For the reasons stated on the record at the April 18, 2006 Pretrial Conference,

Synopsys’s Motion in Limine No. 5, to exclude expert testimony of Eby Friedman, Ph.D., is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. To the extent Magma seeks to present the expert

opinion of Dr. Friedman as to the Glasser and Mead & Conway references, the motion is

GRANTED. To the extent Magma seeks to present the expert opinion of Dr. Friedman as

to the Grodstein and Sutherland references, the motion is DENIED. 

6. For the reasons stated on the record at the April 18, 2006 Pretrial Conference, as

well as the reasons set forth in Special Master Martin Quinn’s April 17, 2006 order, and

subject to the parties’ April 20, 2006 Stipulation Regarding Ownership Trial, Magma’s

motion in limine to exclude its responses to requests for admissions Nos. 7, 8, 11, 12, 52,

and 53, or, in the alternative, for leave to withdraw those responses and serve amended

responses, is DENIED.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 1003, 1005, 1006, 1009, 1011, 1014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03923-MMC Document 1111 Filed 04/20/06 Page 2 of 2