Synopsys, Inc. v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. et al

Plaintiff: Synopsys, Inc.
Defendant: Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., Ubiquiti Networks International Limited and Ching-Han Tsai
Case Number: 5:2017cv00561
Filed: February 3, 2017
Court: California Northern District Court
Office: San Jose Office
County: Santa Clara
Presiding Judge: Nathanael M. Cousins
Nature of Suit: Copyrights
Cause of Action: 17:501
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
May 21, 2018 201 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler adjudicating 198 Discovery Letter Brief.As set forth in the attached order, the court declines to order Synopsys to produce printouts of the source code in question. This denial is without prejudice to a futur e request for source-code printouts, upon a proper showing that such printouts "are reasonably necessary for the preparation of court filings, pleadings, expert reports, or other papers, or for deposition or trial."The court also remi nds the parties that discovery letter briefs must be filed under the Civil Events category of "Motions and Related Filings > Motions General > Discovery Letter Brief," not as "Letters," on ECF. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on May 21, 2018. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2018)
May 14, 2018 192 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler adjudicating 190 Discovery Letter Brief. As set forth in the attached order, the court orders that (subject to the terms of the Protective Order) Ubiquiti's expert Dr. Vojin Oklobdzija can view the call-home data, SNPS00000001, but not the other Synopsys user manuals/technical documents at issue in the discovery letter brief. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2018)
March 13, 2018 145 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS by Judge William H. Orrick denying 77 Motion for Leave to File, granting 79 Motion to Dismiss, and denying 80 Motion to Strike. Defendants' further motions to amend, if any, should be filed within twenty days of the date below. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2018)
January 29, 2018 123 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER by Judge Laurel Beeler adjudicating 109 Discovery Letter Brief.As set forth in the attached order, the court holds that Ubiquiti's Taiwanese computers are not per se outside the scope of relevant discovery merely because they are located outside the United States.As the court previously advised the parties, discovery, including any forensic inspections of the computers, must comply with the standard discovery factors, including proportionality, burden, and the defen dants' legitimate interests in maintaining the integrity of their systems and the confidentiality of their data. If the parties have not yet reached an agreement, they must meet and confer regarding an appropriate inspection protocol. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2018)
November 8, 2017 91 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting 90 STIPULATION to continue hearing as to 79 MOTION to Dismiss, 80 MOTION to Strike, and 77 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Counterclaims. Motion Hearing reset for 11/29/2017 02:00 PM in Courtroom 4, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Judge William H. Orrick. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 11/8/2017. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2017)
October 10, 2017 83 Opinion or Order of the Court STIPULATION AND ORDER extending deadline to file reply to 77 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Counterclaims. Reply due by 10/13/2017. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 10/10/2017. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2017)
August 15, 2017 70 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS by Judge William H. Orrick granting in part and denying in part 34 Motion to Dismiss; denying 35 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 54 Motion to Strike. If Synopsys wishes to file a further Amended Complaint, it must do so within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2017)
June 20, 2017 65 Opinion or Order of the Court CIVIL PRETRIAL ORDER. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 06/20/2017. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2017)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Synopsys, Inc. v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Synopsys, Inc.
Represented By: Denise Marie Mingrone
Represented By: Robert Luis Uriarte
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Ubiquiti Networks, Inc.
Represented By: Joyce Liou
Represented By: Amanda Danielle Phillips
Represented By: Jennifer Lee Taylor
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Ubiquiti Networks International Limited
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Ching-Han Tsai
Represented By: Joyce Liou
Represented By: Amanda Danielle Phillips
Represented By: Jennifer Lee Taylor
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?