Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division

April 9, 2014

MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION, an Oregon Corporation, Plaintiff/Counter-defendant,
v.
EVE-USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and SYNOPSYS EMULATION AND VERIFICATION S.A., formed under the laws of France, Defendants/Counter-claimants. EVE-USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and SYNOPSYS EMULATION AND VERIFICATION S.A., formed under the laws of France, Plaintiffs/Counter-defendants
v.
MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation, Defendant/Counter-claimant

Page 1117

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1118

For Mentor Graphics Corporation, an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff (3:10-cv-00954-MO): Elysa Q. Wan, Geoffrey H. Yost, Nick Janda, Robin M. Wall, LEAD ATTORNEYS, George Riley, Luann Simmons, Mark E. Miller, Michael Sapoznikow, PRO HAC VICE, O'Melvany & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA; James E. Geringer, Patrick M. Bible, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Andrew M. Mason, Kristin L. Cleveland, Mark W. Wilson, Salumeh R. Loesch, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Portland, OR.

For EVE-USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Synopsys Emulation and Verification S.A., Defendant, Counter Claimant (3:10-cv-00954-MO): Aseem Saran Gupta, M. Patricia Thayer, Philip W. Woo, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PRO HAC VICE, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, CA; David T. DeZern, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX; David T. Pritikin, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL; Gino Cheng, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Irvine, CA; Indra Neel Chatterjee, Jesse Y. Cheng, Scott D. Lindlaw, Scott Lonardo, Travis Jensen, Vickie L. Feeman, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PRO HAC VICE, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, CA; James C. Brooks, William H. Wright, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PRO HAC VICE, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Julia E. Markley, Scott D. Eads, Stephen F. English, Perkins Coie, LLP, Portland, OR.

For Mentor Graphics Corporation an Oregon corporation, Counter Defendant (3:10-cv-00954-MO): Elysa Q. Wan, Geoffrey H. Yost, Nick Janda, Robin M. Wall, LEAD ATTORNEYS, George Riley, Mark E. Miller, Michael Sapoznikow, PRO HAC VICE, Luann Simmons, O'Melvany & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA; James E. Geringer, Patrick M. Bible, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Kristin L. Cleveland, Andrew M. Mason, Mark W. Wilson, Salumeh R. Loesch, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Portland, OR.

For Mentor Graphics Corporation, an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff (3:12-cv-01500-MO): David T. Pritikin, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL; Elysa Q. Wan, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, O'Melvany & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA; Geoffrey H. Yost, George Riley, Michael Sapoznikow, Nick Janda, Robin M. Wall, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PRO HAC VICE, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA; James E. Geringer, Kristin L. Cleveland, Mark W. Wilson, Patrick M. Bible, Salumeh R. Loesch, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Andrew M. Mason, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Portland, OR; Mark E. Miller, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, O'Melvey & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA.

For EVE-USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Synopsys Emulation and Verification S.A., Defendants (3:12-cv-01500-MO): Aseem Saran Gupta, M. Patricia Thayer, Philip W. Woo, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PRO HAC VICE, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, CA; David T. DeZern, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX; David T. Pritikin, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL; Gino Cheng, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Irvine, CA; James C. Brooks, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Scott Lonardo, Travis Jensen, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PRO HAC VICE, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Julia E. Markley, Scott D. Eads, Stephen F. English, Perkins Coie, LLP, Portland, OR.

For Synopsys Inc, a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff (3:13-cv-00579-MO): Christopher Ryan Ottenweller, LEAD ATTORNEY, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Menlo Park, CA; M. Patricia Thayer, Philip W. Woo, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Aseem Saran Gupta, PRO HAC VICE, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, CA; Robin M. Wall, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA; Travis Jensen, LEAD ATTORNEY, Scott D. Lindlaw, PRO HAC VICE, Indra Neel Chatterjee, Jesse Y. Cheng, Robert John Benson, Scott Lonardo, Vickie L. Feeman, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, CA; David T. DeZern, PRO HAC VICE, Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX; David T. Pritikin, PRO HAC VICE, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL; Gino Cheng, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Irvine, CA; William H. Wright, PRO HAC VICE, James C. Brooks, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Julia E. Markley, Scott D. Eads, Stephen F. English, Perkins Coie, LLP, Portland, OR.

For Eve-USA Inc, a Delaware Corporation, Emulation and Verification, Engineering, S.A., Plaintiffs (3:13-cv-00579-MO): David T. DeZern, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX; David T. Pritikin, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL; Indra Neel Chatterjee, Travis Jensen, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Scott D. Lindlaw, PRO HAC VICE, Jesse Y. Cheng, Scott Lonardo, Vickie L. Feeman, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, CA; M. Patricia Thayer, Philip W. Woo, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Aseem Saran Gupta, PRO HAC VICE, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, CA; Robin M. Wall, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA; Gino Cheng, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Irvine, CA; William H. Wright, PRO HAC VICE, James C. Brooks, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Julia E. Markley, Scott D. Eads, Stephen F. English, Perkins Coie, LLP, Portland, OR.

For Mentor Graphics Corporation, an Oregon Corporation, Defendant (3:13-cv-00579-MO): Elysa Q. Wan, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, O'Melvany & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA; Geoffrey H. Yost, George Riley, Nick Janda, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PRO HAC VICE, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA; James E. Geringer, LEAD ATTORNEY, Mark W. Wilson, Patrick M. Bible, Salumeh R. Loesch, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Portland, OR; Mark E. Miller, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, O'Melvey & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA; Diana Catherine Rogosa, Michael Sapoznikow, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA; Robin M. Wall, PRO HAC VICE, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA.

For Mentor Graphics Corporation, an Oregon Corporation, Counter Claimant (3:13-cv-00579-MO): Elysa Q. Wan, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, O'Melvany & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA; Geoffrey H. Yost, George Riley, Nick Janda, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PRO HAC VICE, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA; Mark E. Miller, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, O'Melvey & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA; Diana Catherine Rogosa, Michael Sapoznikow, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA; Patrick M. Bible, Salumeh R. Loesch, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Portland, OR; Robin M. Wall, PRO HAC VICE, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA.

For Emulation and Verification Engineering, S.A., Eve-USA Inc, a Delaware Corporation, Counter Defendants (3:13-cv-00579-MO): David T. DeZern, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX; David T. Pritikin, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL; Gino Cheng, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Irvine, CA; Indra Neel Chatterjee, Jesse Y. Cheng, Scott Lonardo, Travis Jensen, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PRO HAC VICE, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, CA; M. Patricia Thayer, Philip W. Woo, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PRO HAC VICE, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, CA; Robin M. Wall, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA; Aseem Saran Gupta, PRO HAC VICE, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, CA; James C. Brooks, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Scott D. Lindlaw, PRO HAC VICE, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Vickie L. Feeman, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, CA; William H. Wright, PRO HAC VICE, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Julia E. Markley, Scott D. Eads, Stephen F. English, Perkins Coie, LLP, Portland, OR.

For Synopsys Inc, a Delaware Corporation, Counter Defendant (3:13-cv-00579-MO): Christopher Ryan Ottenweller, LEAD ATTORNEY, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Menlo Park, CA; David T. DeZern, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX; David T. Pritikin, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL; Gino Cheng, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Irvine, CA; Jesse Y. Cheng, Scott Lonardo, Travis Jensen, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PRO HAC VICE, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, CA; M. Patricia Thayer, Philip W. Woo, LEAD ATTORNEYS, PRO HAC VICE, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, CA; Robin M. Wall, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA; Aseem Saran Gupta, PRO HAC VICE, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, CA; Indra Neel Chatterjee, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, CA; James C. Brooks, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Robert John Benson, ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Scott D. Lindlaw, PRO HAC VICE, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, CA; Vickie L. Feeman, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, CA; William H. Wright, PRO HAC VICE, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Julia E. Markley, Scott D. Eads, Stephen F. English, Perkins Coie, LLP, Portland, OR.

OPINION

Page 1119

OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN, United States District Judge.

In case no. 12-1500, the second of the three consolidated patent actions captioned above, EVE-USA, Inc., and Synopsys Emulation and Verification S.A. (collectively " Synopsys" ) move [461][1] to amend their answer to Mentor Graphics Corporation's (" Mentor Graphics" ) complaint. Synopsys seeks to add an affirmative defense and counterclaim accusing Mentor Graphics of inequitable conduct in the prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 6,947,882 (" '882 patent" ). Mentor Graphics filed a response in opposition [467], and Synopsys replied [476]. For the reasons set forth below, I DENY the motion.

BACKGROUND

The patents at issue in the consolidated cases concern methods of simulating an integrated circuit design, allowing a manufacturer to ensure that a circuit will function as intended before committing to the expense of manufacturing it en masse. The '882 patent in particular is directed at emulators, or hardware systems composed of reconfigurable elements onto which a manufacturer can map the logic operations of the design it wishes to test. Within the emulator, as within the circuit ultimately to be manufactured, data signals travel from one logic operation to the next under the metronomic guidance of a clock signal. By watching the operation of the emulated circuit design, the manufacturer can determine the nature and location of any logic errors.

The '882 patent describes methods of combining multiple data signals within one reconfigurable logic device into a single signal for export to another reconfigurable logic device within an emulation system. '882 Patent col.2 l.10-21 (filed Sept. 24, 1999). This " multiplexing" process is timed by a clock signal independent of the clocks that time operation of the individual logic devices. Id. Independently clocked multiplexing allows large emulation systems consisting of many reconfigurable logic devices to be divided into different " time domains," each controlled by a different clock signal. E.g., id. at col.7 l.3-9. Committing different regions to the governance of different clock signals eliminates the danger that distributing a single clock signal over what may be a very large emulation system will lead to timing errors. See id. at col.1 l.59-col.2 l.7.

I. The '882 Patent and the Allegedly Material Prior Art

Synopsys's inequitable conduct allegations center on Mentor Graphics's failure

Page 1120

to disclose four prior art references while prosecuting the '882 patent. Three of these references are U.S. Patent Nos. 5,802,348 (" '348 patent" ) and 6,233,148 (" '148 patent" ) and U.S. Patent Application No. 09/804,504 (" '504 application" ). Because all three references share a common specification and relate back to the '348 patent's filing date, the parties refer to them collectively as the " '348 family." The fourth undisclosed reference is U.S. Patent ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.