Synopsys, Inc. v. Real Intent, Inc.

Background

Before the scheduled pretrial conference, the court issued a tentative order on some of the parties’ motions in limine—requests to decide before trial whether particular evidence or arguments may be presented. The court stated that the parties should be prepared to discuss all pending motions, including those not addressed in this order.

Rulings on the Joint Motion and Synopsys’s Motions

The court tentatively granted the parties’ joint motion to exclude evidence and argument concerning the Deloitte audit.

The court tentatively deferred Synopsys’s Motion in Limine No. 2, which sought to exclude evidence about unrelated litigation involving Synopsys or its predecessors. The court stated that references to prior litigation might be appropriate for impeaching witnesses and allowed the parties to raise related objections again during trial.

The court tentatively granted Synopsys’s Motion in Limine No. 5. Both parties and their personnel may not be called “greedy,” “corrupt,” “evil,” “dishonest,” “unethical,” or “thieves.” The court said it would address other potentially pejorative terms as they arise.

The court tentatively denied Synopsys’s Motion in Limine No. 13, which sought to exclude references to Real Intent’s patents. Real Intent may present evidence about its patenting activities for purposes including showing when it first knew about the asserted patent, responding to allegations of willful infringement, and responding if Synopsys argues that Real Intent is not innovative. The court noted that Real Intent represented it would not argue that its patents establish a defense to infringement. The court could give a limiting instruction explaining that patent ownership or licensing is not a defense to infringement in this case.

The court tentatively granted Synopsys’s Motion in Limine No. 19 as to both parties. Neither party may present evidence or argument about the court’s prior orders without permission. The parties may refer to the court’s claim constructions, but not the court’s reasoning in reaching those constructions. The court will instruct the jury about contract liability.

As to Synopsys’s Motion in Limine No. 22, concerning Real Intent’s equitable affirmative defenses, the court tentatively denied the motion as to Real Intent’s failure-to-mitigate defense. Real Intent may present that defense to the jury because its evidence overlaps with Synopsys’s damages case, so bifurcation is not appropriate. The court otherwise deferred ruling until it received clarification about whether Real Intent intended to present other affirmative defenses to the jury.

The court tentatively granted Synopsys’s Motion in Limine No. 24 specifically as to evidence or argument suggesting that a damages award would cause Real Intent to lose jobs. The court nevertheless allowed related evidence supporting Real Intent’s argument that Synopsys’s requested damages were not foreseeable, subject to further rulings during trial.

Rulings on Real Intent’s Motions

The court tentatively granted in part and denied in part Real Intent’s Motion in Limine No. 2 concerning evidence about the earlier ATopTech litigation and related court rulings. Synopsys may not introduce evidence or argument about the verdict amount. But Synopsys may use the fact that it sued ATopTech and prevailed to respond to Real Intent’s expected argument that Synopsys knew other vendors used the disputed command sets but did not pursue them. The court warned that it might issue additional rulings about references to that litigation during trial.

The court tentatively denied Real Intent’s Motion in Limine No. 3 as to the Taraporevala declaration, to the extent the motion was not moot. The court found that the declaration did not directly address competition or show a clear inconsistency with earlier testimony, while allowing Real Intent to challenge the declaration and witness at trial. The court tentatively granted the motion as to the Krishnamoorthy declaration because Synopsys did not address that declaration in opposition.

The court tentatively denied as moot Real Intent’s Motion in Limine No. 7, which sought to prevent Synopsys from presenting contractual-breach theories not disclosed in discovery. The ruling followed Synopsys’s representation that it would narrow its breach-of-contract claim to breaches already identified in the court’s summary-judgment order.

The court tentatively denied Real Intent’s Motion in Limine No. 9, which sought to exclude all evidence of Synopsys’s patent-infringement claim. The court said the request raised issues more appropriate for summary judgment and that neither party had sought summary judgment on patent-related issues. The court also stated that Synopsys might still seek a jury finding of infringement to support injunctive relief and might be entitled to nominal damages even without a viable damages theory.

The court tentatively denied Real Intent’s Motion in Limine No. 10, which sought to exclude evidence about pre-suit patent damages based on the patent-marking statute. The court identified factual issues affecting whether Synopsys had to mark its SpyGlass or VC SpyGlass products and permitted Synopsys to present evidence and argument concerning pre-suit damages.

The court tentatively denied Real Intent’s Motion in Limine No. 11, which sought to exclude evidence and testimony about Synopsys’s claim for pre-suit willful infringement. The court held that the request sought a dispositive ruling based on an alleged pleading failure and was not a proper use of a motion in limine.

Effect of the Order

This was a tentative pretrial evidentiary order, not a final decision on the parties’ patent or contract claims. Several matters remained subject to clarification or renewed objections during trial. The order was issued by Judge Edward J. Davila on September 30, 2024.