Synopsys, Inc. v. Atoptech, Inc.

          ROBERT A. MITTELSTAEDT, PATRICK T. MICHAEL, KRISTA S. SCHWARTZ, DAVID C. KIERNAN, NATHANIEL P. GARRETT, JONES DAY ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF SYNOPSYS, INC.

          PAUL ALEXANDER, MARTIN R. GLICK, SEAN M. CALLAGY ARNOLD & PORTER LLP ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ATOPTECH, INC.

          REVISED JOINT [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULE FOR ATOPTECH'S FOURTH AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS

          HON. MAXINE CHESNEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         WHEREAS, Synopsys filed its Amended Complaint on November 25, 2013, asserting claims for copyright infringement (Count I), breach of contract and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Counts XI-XII), and patent infringement (Counts II-V) (ECF No. 43)^[1];

         WHEREAS, on March 13, 2015, ATopTech filed its First Amended Answer and Counterclaims, which asserted a copyright misuse counterclaim and several antitrust claims including a claim under Section 7 of the Clayton Act challenging two acquisitions and claims under Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act for tying and monopolization (ECF No. 252);

         WHEREAS, on April 9, 2015, the Court bifurcated Synopsys's patent claims from its copyright and breach of contract claims, but deferred ruling on whether to bifurcate ATopTech's copyright misuse and antitrust counterclaims pending resolution of Synopsys' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 280);

         WHEREAS, on April 27, 2015, the Court entered an Order setting deadlines and discovery limits on "Synopsys' patent claims (Counts II-V)" (ECF No. 291), which provides that fact discovery closes on July 15, 2016, expert discovery closes on October 15, 2016, dispositive motions shall be filed by December 15, 2016, and trial shall commence on February 27, 2017^[2];

         WHEREAS, by Orders issued on May 8, 2015, August 7, 2015, and November 18, 2015 (ECF Nos. 294, 342, 455), the Court dismissed ATopTech's copyright misuse defense claim and certain of its antitrust counterclaims and denied Synopsys' motion to dismiss regarding Count III, Count VI, and Count VIII to the extent they challenge certain license restrictions;

         WHEREAS, on November 25, 2015, ATopTech filed its Fourth Amended Answer and Counterclaims, which asserts the remaining Antitrust Counterclaims that were not dismissed by the Court (ECF No. 471) (the "Antitrust Counterclaims");

         WHEREAS, on December 15, 2015, Synopsys filed its Amended Answer to the Counterclaim (ECF No. 486); WHEREAS, on November 19, 2015, the Court bifurcated the Antitrust Counterclaims from the copyright and breach of contract claims (ECF No. 456), and the parties agreed to meet and confer regarding a proposed schedule for the Antitrust Counterclaims (ECF No. 465, p. 60-61);

         WHEREAS, a jury trial on Synopsys' copyright and breach of contract claims (Counts I, XI-XII) concluded on March 10, 2016;

         WHEREAS, a bench trial is set for July 25, 2016 on ATopTech's equitable estoppel affirmative defense;

         WHEREAS, the parties have conducted minimal discovery related to the Antitrust Counterclaims to date and no Case Management Conference has been held or set;

         WHEREAS, the parties agree that the Antitrust Counterclaims should be bifurcated from the patent claims (Counts II-V) because the claims involve separate, complex bodies ...