United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
H. KOH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
April 23, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiffs ex parte
application for a temporary restraining order. ECF No. 16 at
6. However, the Court also ordered Defendant to show cause
why a preliminary injunction should not issue. Id.
The Court permitted the parties to brief whether a
preliminary injunction is appropriate here. Before the Court
is the question of whether to impose a preliminary injunction
in the instant case. Having considered the parties'
submissions, the relevant law, and the record in this case,
the Court GRANTS a preliminary injunction.
is a provider of electronic design automation
(“EDA”). ECF No. 39 (first amended complaint, or
“FAC”) at ¶ 8. EDA refers to “using
computers to design, verify, and simulate the performance of
electronic circuits.” Id. Plaintiff has
invested substantial sums of money in designing EDA software,
and offers a variety of software applications to purchasers.
Id. at ¶¶ 10, 11.
order to access Plaintiff's software, customers purchase
licenses, which grant “customers limited rights to
install [Plaintiff's] EDA software and to access and use
specific . . . software programs subject to control by
[Plaintiff] via its license key system.” Id.
at ¶ 11. The license key system is a “security
system that controls access to its licensed software by
requiring a user to access an encrypted control code provided
by [Plaintiff] in order to execute the licensed
software.” Id. The “encrypted control
code is contained in a license key file that specifies the
location(s) where the licensed software is authorized to be
used and controls certain aspects of the licensed software,
including among other items the quality and term of the
licensed software in accordance with the purchased license
early 2017, Synopsys International Ltd. (“Synopsys
Ltd.”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Plaintiff
Synopsys, Inc., began negotiations to license the EDA
software to Defendant. Id. at ¶ 18. On January
20, 2017, an end user license and maintenance agreement
(“EULA”) was executed between Synopsys
Ltd.-Plaintiff's wholly-owned subsidiary charged with
distribution and oversight of Synopsys software in China-and
Defendant for Defendant's use of Plaintiff's software
at the address Defendant provided. Id. at ¶ 19.
The address Defendant provided is located in Shanghai, China.
around May 2017, months after the EULA specifying use
exclusively in Shanghai was signed, Plaintiff accused
Defendant of pirating Plaintiff's software for use in
Defendant's San Jose, California office. Id. at
¶ 27. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's
circumvention of the license key system “has enabled
[Defendant] to use [Plaintiff's] software without
authorization many thousands of times.” Id.
first cause of action is for violations of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C.
§ 1201(a)(1). Id. at ¶¶ 48-57.
Plaintiff's second cause of action is for violations of
another section of the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2).
Id. at ¶¶ 58-65.
April 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint against
Defendant. ECF No. 1. On April 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed an
ex parte motion for: (1) a temporary restraining order; (2)
an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should
not issue; (3) expedited discovery; and (4) entry of
protective order. ECF No. 12. On April 23, 2019, the Court:
(1) denied entry of a temporary restraining order; (2)
ordered Defendant to show cause why a preliminary injunction
should not issue; (3) granted expedited discovery; and (4)
denied without prejudice the request to enter a protective
order. ECF No. 16. Specifically, the Court denied entry of a
temporary restraining order because the Court determined that
Plaintiff could not show that Plaintiff would be irreparably
harmed in the absence of a temporary restraining order.
Id. at 4-6. On May 14, 2019, Defendant filed a
response to the Court's order to show cause why a
preliminary injunction should not issue. ECF No. 31
(“Def.'s Br.”). On May 23, 2019, Plaintiff
filed a first amended complaint. ECF No. 33. On June 4, 2019,
Plaintiff filed a response to the Court's order to show
cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. ECF No.
43 (“Pl.'s Br.”).
plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must make a
four-fold showing: (1) that he is likely to succeed on the
merits; (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in
the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of
equities tips in his favor; and (4) that an injunction is in
the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Amer. Trucking Assocs.,
Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th
the party seeking the injunction bears the burden of proving
these elements. Klein v. City of San Clemente, 584
F.3d 1196, 1201 (9th Cir. 2009). “A preliminary
injunction is ‘an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one
that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear
showing, carries the burden of ...