This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Patent Infringement
Electronic Design Automation

Dynetix Design Solutions Inc. v. Synopsys Inc. and Does 1 through 50

Published: Mar. 29, 2014 | Result Date: Sep. 16, 2013 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 5:11-cv-05973-PSG Bench Decision –  Defense

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Daniel Shafer

Jennifer Gilbert

Richard S. Ballinger

Jing Li

Christopher D. Banys
(Banys PC)


Defendant

I. Neel Chatterjee
(Goodwin Procter LLP)

Jason T. Yu
(Snell & Wilmer LLP)

Andrew S. Ong
(Goodwin Procter LLP)

Christopher R. Ottenweller


Facts

Dynetix Design Solutions Inc. sued Synopsys Inc. for patent infringement. Synopsys filed a counter-suit seeking declaratory relief for non-infringement.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Dynetix was the owner, by assignment, of U.S. Patent No. 6,466,898 (Patent '898), which was invented by Terrance Chan, who was also the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Dynetix. The patent covered, among others, logic simulators that support multiple hardware description languages such as "VHDL" and "Verilog" in a single program. This patent was entitled "Multithreaded, Mixed Hardware Description Languages Logic Simulation on Engineering Workstations."

Dynetix contended that Synopsys directly infringed on it patents with its products that were used as simulation tools for "IC design codes" written in various "HDL" languages, including Verilog and VHDL. As a result, Dynetix was damaged by Synopsys' infringement. Dynetix sought injunctive and monetary relief.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Synopsys denied Dynetix's allegations, and asserted various affirmative defenses. In addition, it filed counter-claims against Dynetix for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the '898 Patent and declaratory judgment of invalidity of the '898 Patent.

Synopsys also filed counterclaims that Dynetix infringed on U.S. Patent No. 5,706,473 and U.S. Patent 5,784,593.

Result

The court issued orders on claim construction, summary judgment, and motions in limine. As a result, the parties stipulated to judgment of non-infringement of the '898 Patent, and to dismissal of the unadjudicated claims without prejudice.


#84663

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390