+44 (0)24 7671 8970
More publications     •     Advertise with us     •     Contact us
*/
News Article

Synopsys infringement hopes

News
Magma Design Automation Inc. announced that the withdrawal by Synopsys Inc. of two patents at issue in the lawsuit it filed is a "transparent, desperate attempt" to mask the misdeeds Synopsys committed when it submitted fraudulent patent applications and then attempted to enforce those fraudulently obtained patents against Magma.

Now only one of the three patents that Synopsys claimed Magma infringes is still at issue in the case, and Magma is proceeding with its charges that Synopsys violated U.S. antitrust law and that Synopsys infringes four of Magma's patents. Synopsys' Sept. 15 announcement that it would withdraw U.S. Patents 6,434,733 (the '733 patent) and 6,766,501 (the '501 patent) from the litigation and place them in the public domain came only after charges that their applications had been made fraudulently, the patent office commenced re-examination of the patents, and it became apparent the patents would be deemed invalid.

"This action by Synopsys indicates to us that they recognize their patents to be invalid," said David Stanley, Magma's corporate vice president for Corporate Affairs. "But withdrawing the patents from the case now is 'too little, too late' -- it does not erase Synopsys' violation of antitrust law. It remains clear that they violated U.S. antitrust law by filing the lawsuit in the first place, and we continue to assert they have infringed our patents. And putting the patents into the public domain is an embarrassingly transparent, desperate attempt to portray themselves as acting in the best interests of the public -- and an action they didn't pursue until they were caught. If Synopsys is really interested in good corporate citizenship, perhaps they should put into the public domain some intellectual property they actually own.

"In the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Sept. 26, 2005, Synopsys claimed Magma infringes three of Synopsys' patents, including the '733 patent and the '501 patent. Magma's Oct. 19, 2005 response pointed out relevant prior art that Synopsys had knowledge of but failed to cite in its applications to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for the '733 and '501 patents. Magma asserted in the Oct. 19, 2005 filing that this was a violation of Synopsys' duty of good faith and candor and makes all claims of these patents unenforceable. Magma asserted in an Oct. 25, 2005 motion that such omissions constitute fraudulent applications and that Synopsys' attempt to enforce such fraudulently obtained patents constituted a violation of U.S. antitrust law.

"At this point Synopsys clings to just one hope in this case: that they can demonstrate infringement of the '508 patent," Stanley said, referring to U.S. Patent 6,192,508, the third of the three patents on which Synopsys claimed infringement in the Delaware lawsuit and the only one Synopsys has not withdrawn from the case. "And we believe that once the court completes its claims construction it will become clear we don't infringe it. If so, there would be no further claims against Magma in this case."

Claims construction, the so-called "Markman hearing," for the '508 patent is scheduled for December 2006. Synopsys holds the '508 patent as a result of its 2004 acquisition of Monterey Design Systems.

Magma is proceeding with its charges that Synopsys violated U.S. antitrust law by initiating the lawsuit and that Synopsys infringes four of Magma's patents. Magma's claim that Synopsys infringes a fifth Magma patent was withdrawn last month.

As to whether that fifth patent might be reintroduced, Stanley said, "Quite possibly."

In a separate patent infringement dispute between the companies, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California conducted a trial on ownership of three additional patents but has yet to render a decision. But the U.S. PTO has already rejected all the claims of one of those three patents and has been asked to re-examine the other two patents as well, raising the possibility that all three patents at issue in the California case might be found invalid. If so, that patent case could be dismissed.

×
Search the news archive

To close this popup you can press escape or click the close icon.
Logo
×
Logo
×
Register - Step 1

You may choose to subscribe to the Silicon Semiconductor Magazine, the Silicon Semiconductor Newsletter, or both. You may also request additional information if required, before submitting your application.


Please subscribe me to:

 

You chose the industry type of "Other"

Please enter the industry that you work in:
Please enter the industry that you work in: