Synopsys, Inc. v. Dolphin Technology, Inc.
- Edward Chen
- 3:21-cv-06207
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Synopsys v. Dolphin, Judge Chen denied a temporary restraining order and show-cause order while scheduling a hearing on expedited discovery.
Synopsys must serve the order, certify and describe that service, and continue pursuing its expedited-discovery request. Dolphin must respond to that request by the stated deadline and attend the scheduled hearing.
What happened
Synopsys, Inc. sued Dolphin Technology, Inc., alleging violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and copyright infringement. Soon after filing the lawsuit, Synopsys asked for a temporary restraining order, an order requiring Dolphin to explain why a preliminary injunction should not issue, and expedited discovery.
The court denied the temporary restraining order and the show-cause request because Synopsys had not adequately shown likely irreparable harm or that the hardships strongly favored it. The court said money damages appeared sufficient and noted that Synopsys had known about Dolphin’s alleged misconduct since June. The court did not prevent Synopsys from later seeking a preliminary injunction through the regular process.
The court scheduled an August 27, 2021 hearing on Synopsys’s expedited-discovery request and set Dolphin’s opposition deadline for August 25. Judge Edward M. Chen also ordered Synopsys to immediately serve Dolphin with the order and file proof describing how service occurred.
The detailed version
- Synopsys, Inc. v. Dolphin Technology, Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-06207
- Edward Chen
- Aug. 17, 2021
Background
Synopsys, Inc. sued Dolphin Technology, Inc., alleging violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and copyright infringement. Synopsys then requested three forms of relief: a temporary restraining order, an order requiring Dolphin to show why a preliminary injunction should not issue, and expedited discovery.
Temporary Restraining Order and Show-Cause Request
The court denied Synopsys’s request for a temporary restraining order and its request for an order to show cause regarding a preliminary injunction. The court found that, at that stage, Synopsys had not adequately shown that it was likely to suffer irreparable injury without immediate relief or that the balance of hardships sharply favored Synopsys.
Synopsys identified alleged harm involving goodwill, negotiating leverage, piracy costs, and interference with exclusive rights. The court was skeptical that the first two types of harm were irreparable. It viewed the piracy costs and interference with exclusive rights as closer questions but said their irreparability remained debatable, particularly because Synopsys had acknowledged receiving notice of misconduct by Dolphin since June. The court also stated that monetary damages appeared adequate to compensate Synopsys for any injury.
The court clarified that its ruling did not prevent Synopsys from later filing a regularly noticed motion for a preliminary injunction.
Expedited Discovery and Service
The court scheduled a hearing on Synopsys’s request for expedited discovery for August 27, 2021, at 1:00 p.m., on shortened time. Dolphin’s opposition was due by noon on August 25, 2021.
The court ordered Synopsys to immediately serve Dolphin with a copy of the order and file a declaration certifying service and describing how service was completed. The court stated that Synopsys’s notice of the emergency motion had not been adequate and expected Synopsys to contact Dolphin employees, not only Dolphin’s formal service agent, to provide notice or help reach the appropriate people.
Disposition
Judge Edward M. Chen denied the request for a temporary restraining order and the request for an order to show cause, while scheduling a hearing on expedited discovery. The opinion did not decide the underlying copyright or Digital Millennium Copyright Act claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.