Dynetix Design Solutions, Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc.
Filing
71
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND GRANTING SYNOPSYS, INC.S COUNTER ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION RE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEFING AND HEARING DATE re 70 Proposed Order, filed by Synopsys, Inc. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on 8/15/2012. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
CHRIS R. OTTENWELLER (STATE BAR NO. 73649)
cottenweller@orrick.com
I. NEEL CHATTERJEE (STATE BAR NO. 173985)
nchatterjee@orrick.com
JASON K. YU (STATE BAR NO. 274215)
jasonyu@orrick.com
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, California 94025
Telephone:
+1-650-614-7400
Facsimile:
+1-650-614-7401
BENJAMIN J. HOFILEÑA (STATE BAR NO. 227117)
bhofilena@orrick.com
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
777 South Figueroa Street Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone:
+1-213-629-2020
Facsimile:
+1-213-612-2499
Attorneys for Defendant
SYNOPSYS, INC.
12
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16
DYNETIX DESIGN SOLUTIONS, INC., a
California corporation,
17
18
19
20
Plaintiff,
v.
SYNOPSYS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
and DOES 1-50,
[CIVIL L.R. 6-3, 7-11]
SYNOPSYS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
23
24
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION AND GRANTING
SYNOPSYS, INC.’S
COUNTER ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION RE CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION BRIEFING AND
HEARING DATE
Defendant.
21
22
Case No. 5:11-cv-05973-PSG
Counterclaim Plaintiff,
v.
25
26
27
28
DYNETIX DESIGN SOLUTIONS, INC., a
California corporation,
Counterclaim Defendant.
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND GRANTING SYNOPSYS,
INC.’S COUNTER MOTION, CASE NO: 5:11-CV-05973-PSG
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Dynetix Design Solutions, Inc. filed its
Administrative Motion to Continue Briefing and Hearing Dates on August 9, 2012. Defendant
and Counterclaim Plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. filed an Opposition and Counter-Motion on August 13,
2012, opposing Dynetix’s proposed schedule and proposing an alternative schedule. The matter
was submitted to the Court on August 14, 2012. Having considered the papers in support of and
opposition to the Motion, including the proposed scheduling orders of both parties, the Court
enters the following order.
9
10
11
Dynetix’s Administrative Motion to Continue Hearing and Briefing Dates is DENIED.
Synopsys’s Administrative Motion to Continue Claim Construction is GRANTED. The Claim
construction tutorial and hearing is hereby continued to October 10, 2012.
12
Dynetix shall file its opening brief no later than September 14, 2012.
13
Synopsys shall file its opposing brief no later than September 28, 2012.
14
15
Dynetix shall file its reply brief no later than October 5, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED
16
17
Date:
18
The Honorable Paul S. Grewal
United States Magistrate Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
1
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND GRANTING SYNOPSYS,
INC.’S COUNTER MOTION, CASE NO: 5:11-CV-05973-PSG
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
