Synopsys, Inc. v. University of Rhode Island
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-00581
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Synopsys v. University of Rhode Island, Judge Freeman granted Synopsys’s motion for a 30-day restraint, evidence preservation, and expedited forensic discovery over alleged software access.
Synopsys received immediate injunctive relief. The University of Rhode Island and the specified people acting for or with it were barred from unauthorized access to Synopsys software, required to preserve potentially relevant evidence, and required to provide access to identified devices for forensic imaging.
What happened
Synopsys, Inc. sued the University of Rhode Island, alleging that URI bypassed Synopsys’s technological protections to access its copyright-protected software without authorization. The court found that Synopsys was likely to succeed on its claim under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The court granted Synopsys’s motion. It barred URI and specified associated people from accessing, using, transferring, or copying Synopsys software without authorization; required preservation of potentially relevant evidence; and ordered expedited forensic discovery of identified devices and user accounts. The restraint was ordered for 30 days, and the parties were directed to appear for a status conference.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman also found that Synopsys faced irreparable harm without immediate relief, that the balance of the parties’ interests favored Synopsys, and that the public interest favored enforcing the federal anti-circumvention law and preventing copyright infringement.
The detailed version
- Synopsys, Inc. v. University of Rhode Island · No. 5:21-cv-00581
- Beth Freeman
- Feb. 4, 2021
Background
Synopsys sought a temporary restraining order, an order requiring the University of Rhode Island to explain why a longer preliminary injunction should not issue, expedited discovery, and a status conference. Synopsys claimed that URI circumvented its technological measures to obtain unauthorized access to Synopsys’s copyright-protected software, in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Synopsys was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim. It also found that diminution in market share, reputational harm, lost profits, and unfair competition with unlicensed services established irreparable harm. The court concluded that the balance of equities favored Synopsys, that an injunction would not harm URI because it would require only compliance with federal and state anti-piracy laws, and that the public interest favored enforcing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and preventing copyright infringement.
The court further found that Synopsys would suffer irreparable harm before the matter could be heard on a noticed motion unless immediate relief was granted. It also found good cause for expedited forensic discovery involving devices associated with the user IDs “yubi” and “jingyang,” and devices identified by specified hostnames and media-access-control addresses.
Order
The court granted Synopsys’s motion. It enjoined URI, its representatives, officers, agents, directors, affiliates, servants, employees, students, and people acting with it—including employees and independent contractors—from directly or indirectly accessing, using, transferring, or copying Synopsys software without authorization from Synopsys.
The order required URI and the listed associated persons to immediately preserve all evidence that might relate to the matter, including paper materials, computer hard drives, and other electronic devices within their possession, custody, or control. It also required specified devices in URI’s possession, custody, or control to be made immediately accessible to a neutral third-party forensic consultant for imaging. The parties were ordered to establish a forensic protocol and protective order by February 9, 2021, or notify the court of any remaining issues.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the court enjoined URI for 30 days. The parties were ordered to appear for a status conference on March 4, 2021, at 11:00 a.m.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.