( ESNUG 528 Item 7 ) -------------------------------------------- [10/25/13]
Subject: Aart's lawyers get trounced in judge's SNPS vs. ATOP ruling
I love a scoop!
First, DeepChip leaked the SYNOPSYS SUES ATOPTECH rumor on 5/23/13:
> I've heard from a single source who has an excellent rumor record
> that Synopsys is about to sue Atoptech and serve them with papers
> fairly soon. Sniffing around, what I've found is that in June 2011,
> Extreme DA licensed its Parmetric OCV signoff technology used in
> their GoldTime STA tool to Atoptech -- to use in Atoptech's P&R and
> timing engine. POCV is less pessimistic than standard OCV -- thus
> POCV helps make Atop's Aprisa and Apogee tighter-yet-accurate tools.
> Problem is Aart sued Extreme DA in June 2011. Then 5 months later
> Synopsys fully acquired Extreme DA in October 2011.
>
> So it's my guess this rumored lawsuit, if true, is Aart's lawyers
> wanting to somehow "undo" the original POCV licensing deal; as a
> sleazy attempt to cripple a rival P&R start-up.
>
> - from http://www.deepchip.com/items/0528-01.html
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Second, 6 weeks later this rumor is confirmed:
> Exactly as DeepChip had rumored in detail 6 weeks ago in ESNUG 528 #1,
> Synopsys is now suing Atoptech in Nothern California US District Court
> over the Parmetric OCV (POCV) signoff technology that Extreme DA had
> licensed to Atoptech waaaay back in June 2011.
>
> Told you so!!!!
>
> - from http://www.deepchip.com/items/0528-03.html
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
And now DeepChip is breaking the news that Aart's lawyers just got kicked
in the face in U.S. District Court by Judge Samuel Conti's ruling of:
"All of Plaintiff's [SYNOPSYS] claims except its copyright
infringement claim based on its proprietary input and output
formats and its UCL unlawfulness claim predicated on that
alleged infringement are DISMISSED with leave to amend."
- Judge Samuel Conti, U.S. District Court (10/24/13)
That is, in a MOTION TO DISMISS in Synopsys vs. Atoptech, the judge ruled:
- Atoptech was engauging in Trade Secret Misappropriation
against Synopsys. DISMISSED.
- Atoptech was enguaging in Common Law Misappropriation of
Synopsys proprietary information from SolvNet. DISMISSED.
- Atoptech had violated the CFAA by unauthorized use into
SolvNet. DISMISSED.
- Atoptech had violated the CDAFA by using SolvNet without
Synopsys permission. DISMISSED.
- Atoptech did a Breach of Contract with Synopsys. DISMISSED.
- Atoptech did Breach of Implied Covenant vs. SNPS. DISMISSED.
- Atoptech did UCL unlawful and unfair business act(s) against
Synopsys. DISMISSED.
- Atoptech infringed four Synopsys patents ('348, '941, '127,
and '967). DISMISSED.
- Atoptech input and out infringe on the Synopsys copyrights
of Synopsys file formats. THIS ONE CLAIM CAN CONTINUE.
TOO VAGUE AND SLOPPY FILINGS:
In reading the 40 page docket, it appears that the judge was ruling against
Synopsys because their claims against Atoptech were simply too vague.
"Plaintiff's pleadings, unsupported by more facts, fail to
provide a reasonable basis..."
"Plaintiff fails to plead sufficient facts to support an
allegation of unauthorized access either by breach of
contract or by technical means."
"The court finds Plaintiff's allegations do not provide enough
detail to be plausible."
"Other parts of Plaintiff's allegations are insufficiently vague
and conclusory..."
"These deficiencies make it impossible for the Court to find
Plaintiff's claim of breach plausible."
"Second, Plaintiff's assertions of bad faith are unacceptably
conclusory, because Plaintiff simply asserts -- without
supporting facts -- that Defendant acted in bad faith and for
independently wrongful purposes."
Also, what I got from the judge's language in this ruling is that Aart's
lawyers filed a sloppy lawsuit against AtopTech. Judge Conti called
out all sorts of errors the Synopsys filing and effectively asked in
legalese "Hey, I really need more info from you Synopsys guys if you want
the court to take these claims seriously" by granting a "leave to ammend"
with each dismissal.
"Plaintiff's breach of contract claim is DISMISSED with leave to
amend, so that Plaintiff can more plausibly explain the alleged
breach and how it damaged Plaintiff."
"It is therefore DISMISSED with leave to amend, if Plaintiff can
distinguish it from its trade secret misappropriation claim."
"Since there are many ways for Plaintiff to repair its CDAFA
claim, the Court DISMISSES this claim with leave to amend."
"Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty (30)
days of this Order's signature date. Failure to do so may
result in dismissal of this action with prejudice."
You'd think with the $1.75 billion that SNPS made in FY12, Aart could hire
lawyers who weren't filing such vague and sloppy lawsuits...
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
So out of the 9 charges that Aart's lawyers made against Atoptech, only the
copyright voilation claim from fact that Aprisia and Apogee reads and writes
PrimeTime and GoldTime file formats gets the Atoptech bad boys in trouble:
"Plaintiff's copyright infringement claim based on alleged
infringement of Plaintiff's input and output formats in
Defendant's Aprisa software and documentation is undisturbed.
The rest of the claim is DISMISSED with leave to amend."
which is kind of weird because Synopsys likes to publically support EDA tool
interoperability -- yet Aart's lawyers attack Atop for being interoperabile
with SNPS tools???
"Interoperability is at the heart of Synopsys' solutions, design
platforms, tools, and IP."
- from Synopsys.com
This is kind of a big point. Synopsys has been promoting and supporting a
Synopsys EDA Interoperability Forum for 25 years now. Heck, they even have
their paid EDA marketing bloggers brag about it for them!
But is this really selective interoperability that Aart can retract on whim?
That is, does all this "open" Interop talk suddenly fly out the window the
moment you're a small EDA start-up that happens to make a better P&R tool
that threatens IC Compiler?
- John Cooley
DeepChip.com Holliston, MA
Join
Index
Next->Item
|
|
