Synopsys, Inc. v. Sunlune Corporation
- Beth Freeman
- 5:24-cv-00220
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Synopsys v. Sunlune, Judge Freeman granted Synopsys’s temporary restraining order and ordered Sunlune to explain why a preliminary injunction should not issue.
Synopsys received temporary emergency relief. Sunlune and the specified persons acting for or with it were barred from the listed software activities, required to preserve relevant evidence, and required to respond to the order to show cause.
What happened
In Synopsys, Inc. v. Sunlune Corporation, Synopsys alleged that Sunlune used counterfeit license keys to access more copies of Synopsys electronic-design software than its license allowed. Synopsys brought claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and for breach of contract.
Sunlune received notice of the lawsuit, motion, and hearing but did not respond or appear. The court found that Synopsys had shown likely success on its Digital Millennium Copyright Act claim, likely irreparable harm, that the balance of hardships favored Synopsys, and that the order served the public interest.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the temporary restraining order. The order barred Sunlune and specified related persons from accessing, using, transferring, or copying Synopsys software as specified in the order, required preservation of relevant evidence, required Sunlune to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, and did not require Synopsys to provide security.
The detailed version
- Synopsys, Inc. v. Sunlune Corporation · No. 5:24-cv-00220
- Beth Freeman
- Jan. 25, 2024
Background
Synopsys sued Sunlune under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and for breach of contract. Synopsys develops electronic-design-automation software used in designing, testing, and manufacturing microchips and electronic systems. Sunlune obtained a license for some Synopsys software. Synopsys alleged that Sunlune then used counterfeit license keys to pirate additional copies beyond those authorized by the license.
Synopsys moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO), an order requiring Sunlune to explain why a preliminary injunction should not issue, and expedited discovery. Sunlune received notice of the lawsuit, motion, briefing deadline, and hearing, but did not file a response or appear at the hearing.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the substantially identical standards used for TROs and preliminary injunctions. Those standards require a showing of likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without preliminary relief, a balance of equities favoring the plaintiff, and consistency with the public interest.
The court found that Synopsys was likely to succeed on its DMCA claim. The DMCA provision discussed by the court prohibits circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work. Synopsys presented evidence that its license-key system controlled access to its software and that Sunlune circumvented that system with counterfeit keys, obtaining unauthorized access at least 11,000 times.
The court also found likely irreparable harm, including lost revenue and harm to business relationships, reputation, and goodwill. It concluded that the balance of equities favored Synopsys because Synopsys faced that harm while Sunlune would only be required to refrain from what the court described as illegal activity. The court further found that the public interest favored protecting copyright owners’ rights and the economic incentive to continue creating works.
Order
The court granted Synopsys’s motion for a TRO. Sunlune and its representatives, officers, agents, directors, affiliates, servants, employees, independent contractors, and persons acting in concert or participation with it were enjoined from directly or indirectly accessing, using, transferring, or copying Synopsys software as specified in the order. The covered software included, among other applications, IC Compiler II, Fusion Compiler, HSPICE, and PrimeLib.
The order also required the covered persons to immediately preserve evidence related to the matter, including hard-copy materials, computer hard drives, and other electronic devices in their possession, custody, or control.
Sunlune was ordered to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be entered pending final resolution of the complaint. The order required Sunlune to file a written response by February 23, 2024, and Synopsys to file a reply by March 8, 2024. The hearing was set for March 21, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. via Zoom.
The court determined that there was no realistic likelihood of harm to Sunlune from the TRO and therefore ordered that Synopsys not be required to provide security. The order was to take effect when Synopsys served it on Sunlune by personal and electronic service.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.