Case 6:06-cv-00341-AA Document 10 Filed 05/19/06 Page 1 of 7 Page ID#: 146
`Case 6:O6—cv—OO341—AA Document 10
`Filed 05/19/06 Page 1 of 7 Page ID#: 146
`
`PATENT
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF OREGON
`
`MENTOR GRAPHICS CORP.,
`
`Civil Action No. 6: 06—CV-341-AA
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VS.
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`EVE-USA, Inc. and Emulation and
`Verification Engineering, SA,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
`
`Mentor Graphics Corporation, by and through its undersigned counsel, respectfully
`
`makes the following allegations for its First Amended Complaint against Emulation and
`
`Verification Engineering, SA, of France, and EVE-USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation based in
`
`California. These allegations are made upon knowledge with respect to Plaintiff and its own
`
`acts, and upon information and belief as to all other matters.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a simple case of patent infringement. Plaintiff Mentor Graphics
`
`Corp. (“Mentor Graphics”) is a technology leader in electronic design automation, including the
`
`use of hardware emulation for verification and debugging of circuit designs. Numerous Mentor
`
`Graphics innovations in this area are patented, and Defendants have infringed at least three of
`
`these patents, including by their commercial activities in this District.
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - Page 1 of 7
`
`

`
`Case 6:06-cv-00341-AA Document 10 Filed 05/19/06 Page 2 of 7 Page ID#: 147
`Case 6:O6—cv—OO341—AA Document 10
`Filed 05/19/06 Page 2 of 7 Page ID#: 147
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Mentor Graphics is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`the State of Oregon, with a principal place of business at 8005 SW Boeckman Road, Wilsonville,
`
`OR 97070.
`
`3.
`
`EVE—USA, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`Delaware, with a principal office in San Jose, California. Emulation and Verification
`
`Engineering, SA is a French corporation headquartered in Palaiseau, France. EVE—USA, Inc.
`
`and Emulation and Verification Engineering, SA operate jointly to develop, market and support
`
`EVE’s “ZeBu” verification system, and are hereinafter sometimes referred to collectively as
`
`“EVE.”
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`4.
`
`This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §
`
`271 inter alia. This Court has jurisdiction under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1 3 3 8 (a).
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`EVE—USA, Inc. has committed acts of patent infringement in this District.
`
`EVE—USA, Inc.’s contacts with this District are sufficient to subject it to
`
`personal jurisdiction here..
`
`7.
`
`Emulation and Verification Engineering, SA has committed acts of patent
`
`infringement in this District.
`
`8.
`
`Emulation and Verification Engineering, SA’s contacts with this District
`
`are sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction here.
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - Page 2 of 7
`
`—2—
`
`

`
`Case 6:06-cv-00341-AA Document 10 Filed 05/19/06 Page 3 of 7 Page ID#: 148
`Case 6:O6—cv—OO341—AA Document 10
`Filed 05/19/06 Page 3 of 7 Page ID#: 148
`
`9.
`
`EVE’s contacts with this District include Visits by officers, employees
`
`and/or agents of both EVE-USA, Inc. and Emulation and Verification Engineering, SA.
`
`10.
`
`Luc M. Burgun (“Burgun”) is a cofounder, the Chief Executive Officer,
`
`and president of Emulation and Verification Engineering, SA. Burgun has conducted business in
`
`this District on behalf of both EVE-USA, Inc. and Emulation and Verification Engineering, SA.
`
`11.
`
`Burgun visited Intel Corporation in Oregon in October of 2005 on behalf
`
`of both EVE-USA and Emulation and Verification Engineering, SA, to offer to license and/or
`
`sell products accused of infringement in this case — namely, EVE’s “ZeBu” verification system.
`
`12.
`
`EVE offered to sell ZeBu verification system hardware to Intel in Oregon
`
`in 2005.
`
`13.
`
`EVE has offered to sell ZeBu verification system hardware to Intel in
`
`Oregon in 2006.
`
`14.
`
`EVE has offered product support for ZeBu verification systems in this
`
`District.
`
`15.
`
`Emulation and Verification Engineering, SA and EVE-USA, Inc. jointly
`
`operate a website at www.eve—team.com (“the EVE website”). EVE has advertised the EVE
`
`website within this District as part of its promotion of the use of methods which infringe one or
`
`more claims of the asserted patents.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`16.
`
`Mentor Graphics is an industry leader in functional design and
`
`verification. From its Oregon headquarters, Mentor Graphics has provided the world’s leading
`
`circuit design companies with mission—critical design and verification tools for over two decades.
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT — Page 3 of 7
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`Case 6:06-cv-00341-AA Document 10 Filed 05/19/06 Page 4 of 7 Page ID#: 149
`Case 6:O6—cv—OO341—AA Document 10
`Filed 05/19/06 Page 4 of 7 Page ID#: 149
`
`As an industry leader, Mentor Graphics has introduced numerous innovations in the design and
`
`verification field, including but not limited to those covered by United States Patents No.
`
`6,009,531, No. 5,649,176, and No. 6,240,376.
`
`17.
`
`United States Patent No. 6,009,531 (the ‘S31 patent) is titled “Transition
`
`Analysis and Circuit Resynthesis Method and Device for Digital Circuit Modeling,” and issued
`
`on or about December 28, 1999. A copy of the ‘531 patent is attached as Exhibit A to this
`
`Complaint.
`
`18.
`
`United States Patent No. 5,649,176 (the ‘ 176 patent) is also titled
`
`“Transition Analysis and Circuit Resynthesis Method and Device for Digital Circuit Modeling,”
`
`and issued on or about July 15, 1997. A copy of the ‘ 176 patent is attached as Exhibit B to this
`
`Complaint.
`
`19.
`
`United States Patent No. 6,240,376 (the ‘376 patent) is titled “Method and
`
`Apparatus For Gate-Level Simulation Of Synthesized Register Transfer Level Designs With
`
`Source—Leve1 Debugging,” and issued on or about May 29, 2001. A copy of the ‘376 patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit C to this Complaint.
`
`20.
`
`Mentor Graphics owns all right, title and interest in the ‘S31, ‘ 176 and
`
`‘376 patents.
`
`21.
`
`EVE has been aware of the ‘531, ‘ 176 and ‘376 patents since at least 2004.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`Burgun has been aware of the ‘376 patent since 2001.
`
`Mentor Graphics gave EVE written notice of the ‘531, ‘176 and ‘376
`
`patents at least as early as April 2004.
`
`24.
`
`The ‘531, ‘176 and ‘376 patents are sometimes referred to collectively
`
`herein as “the Patents in Suit.”
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - Page 4 of 7
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`Case 6:06-cv-00341-AA Document 10 Filed 05/19/06 Page 5 of 7 Page ID#: 150
`Case 6:O6—cv—OO341—AA Document 10
`Filed 05/19/06 Page 5 of 7 Page ID#: 150
`
`COUNT I - PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the
`
`preceding paragraphs, with the same force and effect as if repeated in full here.
`
`26.
`
`Defendants have infringed the Patents in Suit by, inter alia, using, selling
`
`and supporting EVE’s “ZeBu” verification system in the United States.
`
`27.
`
`Defendants have infringed and continue to infiinge the Patents in Suit by
`
`making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing infringing products, without authority
`
`or license from Plaintiff, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 27l(a).
`
`28.
`
`Defendants have induced others to infringe one or more claims of the
`
`Patents in Suit in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`29.
`
`Defendants have contributorily infringed one or more claims of the Patents
`
`in Suit in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 27l(c).
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`Defendants’ infringement has been and continues to be willful.
`
`Defendants’ acts of infringement, unless enjoined by this Court, will
`
`continue to cause Plaintiff to sustain irreparable damage, loss and injury, for which Plaintiff has
`
`no adequate remedy at law.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Mentor Graphics respectfully prays for judgment as
`
`follows:
`
`1.
`
`That Defendants and their affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees,
`
`and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of these entities
`
`who receive actual notice or knowledge of this injunction by personal service or otherwise, be
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - Page 5 of 7
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`Case 6:06-cv-00341-AA Document 10 Filed 05/19/06 Page 6 of 7 Page ID#: 151
`Case 6:O6—cv—OO341—AA Document 10
`Filed 05/19/06 Page 6 of 7 Page ID#: 151
`
`preliminarily and permanently enjoined from making, importing, using, offering for sale, selling
`
`or causing to be sold any product falling within, or designed to practice all or part of a method
`
`falling within, the scope of any claim of the Patents in Suit, or otherwise directly or indirectly
`
`infringing any claim of the Patents in Suit;
`
`2.
`
`That Defendants and their affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees,
`
`and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with Defendants who
`
`receives actual notice or knowledge of this injunction by personal service or otherwise, be
`
`ordered to destroy or offer up to Mentor Graphics for destruction all infringing instrumentalities
`
`within Defendants’ possession, custody or control;
`
`3.
`
`That each Defendant file with this Court and serve on Plaintiff, within 30
`
`days after service on either Defendant of such injunction (or such extended period as this Court
`
`may direct), a report in writing and under oath, setting forth in detail the manner and form in
`
`which it has complied with this injunction;
`
`4.
`
`That each Defendant be required to account immediately to Plaintiff for all
`
`gains, profits and advantages derived from its infringing acts;
`
`5.
`
`That Defendants jointly and severally pay Mentor Graphics damages as
`
`provided by law, including Plaintiffs lost profits, together with prejudgment interest, and that
`
`the Court treble the amount of Mentor Graphics’ actual damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`6.
`
`That the Court declare this case to be exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
`
`285 and award Mentor Graphics its attorney fees;
`
`7.
`
`That Mentor Graphics further recover its reasonable costs and
`
`disbursements in this action; and
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - Page 6 of 7
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`Case 6:06-cv-00341-AA Document 10 Filed 05/19/06 Page 7 of 7 Page ID#: 152
`Case 6:O6—cv—OO341—AA Document 10
`Filed 05/19/06 Page 7 of 7 Page ID#: 152
`
`8.
`
`That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as the Court may deem
`
`just and proper.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff hereby makes demand for a trial by jury pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38 as
`
`to all issues herein so triable.
`
`Dated: May 19, 2006
`
`
`_
`
`uckler, OSB No. 02493
`ZN/ilichael L.
`/ michae1.buckler@klarguist.com
`James E. Geringer, OSB No. 95178
`j ames.geringer@klarguist.com
`John D. Vandenberg, OSB No. 89375
`john.vandenberg@k1arguist.com
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`121 S.W. Salmon Street, Suite 1600
`
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503)595-5300
`Fax: (503)595-5301
`
`Of Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - Page 7 of 7
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05025-LB Document1 Filed09/27/12 Page1 of 11
`Case3:12—cv-9§O25-LB Documentl Fi|edO9/27/12.. Pagel of 11
`
`wwright@orrick.con1
`ROBERT J. BENSON (STATE BAR NO. 155971)
`
`1
`
`_
`
`CHRIS R. OTTENWELLER (STATE BAR NO. 73649)
`eottenwe1ler@orriek.com
`1. NEEL CI-IATTERJEE (STATE BAR NO. 173985)
`"
`nchatIerjee@orriek.com
`WILLIAM H. WRIGHT (STATE BAR NO. 161580) F E
`rbenson@orric1<.com
`"$12.13
`I
`I 201'?
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SLHCLIFFE LLP
`(3 w WIEKING
`1000 Marsh Road
`53513:; 5;. o.s&I1.qTc<flsFgTRN,,
`Menlo Park, California 94025
`Teleplione:
`+1-650-614-7400
`Facsimile:
`+1-650-614-7401
`
`i
`
`_
`
`__
`
`5 £1-
`T
`
`(T;
`
`_
`
`'
`
`\
`
`R,
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff SYNOPSYS, INC.,
`
`MICHAEL G. RHODES (STATE BAR NO. 116127)
`rhocIesmg@cooIey.com
`-
`‘
`
`RICARDO RODRIGUEZ (STATE BAR N(5.:‘I*i:l0l§lg
`
`rr@cooley.com
`REUBEN H. CHEN (STATE BAR NO. 228725)
`rchen@cooley.eom
`COOLEY LLP
`
`Five Palo Alto Square
`3000 El Camino Real
`Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
`Telephone: +1-650-843-5000
`Facsimile: +1-650-857-0663
`
`ORIGINAL
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs EVE—USA, INC, and
`EMULATION AND VERIFICATION
`ENGINEERING, S.A.
`
`A
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ._
`NORTHERN DISTRICT or cALI@R\I1A§_sQ~IT660 Ifillgog
`
`5
`
`SYNOPSYS, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`EVE-USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and
`EMULATION AND VERIFICATION
`ENGINEERING, S.A., formed under the laws
`of France,
`
`Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF‘
`
`Plainti1Ts,
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`V.
`
`MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION, an
`Oregon Corporation,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPIAINT FOR DECIARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVIZ RELIEF
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05025-LB Document1 Filed09/27/12 Page2 of 11
`Case3:12—cvfiO25—LB Documentl Fi|edO9/27/K Page2 of 11
`
`-3;
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05025-LB Document1 Filed09/27/12 Page3 of 11
`Case3:12—cvE!Q§O25—LB Documentl Fi|edO9/27/Jag’ Page3 of 11
`
`—.n
`
`—-—a
`
`'-‘$\Ox§@\I|-§l-Ni‘)
`I~.)u—nn—o-—-au-:---:-»©\O%\lO\\IIJ>UJI\J
`
`N’ u—-
`
`IOR0
`
`[0U)
`
`is)-I3
`
`I0fill
`
`I0O\
`
`I0\I
`
`I000
`
`Plaintiffs Synopsys, lnc., EVE-USA, Inc. and Emulation and Verification Engineering,
`
`S.A. (collectively, “Plainti£fs”) allege as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Mountain View, California.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff EVE-USA, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in San Jose, California.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Emulation and Verification Engineering, S.A. is a French corporation
`
`headquartered in Wissous, France. Plaintiffs EVE-USA, Inc. and Emulation and Verification
`
`Engineering, S.A. are collectively referred to herein as “EVE.”
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Mentor Graphics Corp. (“Mentor
`
`Graphics”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oregon. Mentor
`
`Graphics has four offices in California (Fremont, El Segundo, Irvine and San Diego) and
`
`additional offices in other parts of the United States.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`5.
`
`Mentor Graphics has alleged in a Complaint filed in the United States District
`
`Court for the District of Oregon, Case No. 6:06-cv—0034l-AA, that it owns all right, title and
`
`interest in U.S. Patent No. 6,009,531 (“the ’53l patent”), entitled “Transition Analysis and Circuit
`
`Resynthesis Method and Device for Digital Circuit Modeling,” which issued on or about
`
`December 28, 1999. This action was dismissed with prejudice on November 30, 2006.
`
`6.
`
`Mentor Graphics also alleged in a Complaint filed in the United States District
`
`Court for the District of Oregon, Case No. 6:06-cv-00341-AA, that it owns all right, title and
`
`interest in U.S. Patent No. 5,649,176 (“the ’176 patent”), entitled “Transition Analysis and Circuit
`
`Resynthesis Method and Device for Digital Circuit Modeling,” which issued on or about July 15,
`
`1997. This action was dismissed with prejudice on November 30, 2006.
`
`7.
`
`Mentor Graphics also alleged in a Complaint filed in the United States District
`
`Court for the District of Oregon, Case No. 6:06-cv-00341-AA, that it owns all right, title and
`
`1
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05025-LB Document1 Filed09/27/12 Page4 of 11
`Case3:12—cv—(g§O25—LB Documentl Fi|edO9/27/1&3 Page4 of 11
`
`p—n
`
`8\OOO\lO\Ut-kbutx)
`
`y—o
`
`|—|
`
`n— N)
`
`o— U0
`
`n—- -h
`
`:-I (J1
`
`n-n O\
`
`u-0 \l
`
`n---- %
`
`u—- \D
`
`IQO
`
`IQ I-I
`
`IQIO
`
`NU)
`
`N4'?-
`
`[0U1
`
`IQO\
`
`(Q'~J
`
`IQ ®
`
`interest in U.S. Patent No. 6,240,376 (“the ’376 patent”), entitled “Method and Apparatus for
`
`Gate-Level Simulation of Synthesized Register Transfer Level Designs With Source-Level
`
`Debugging,” which issued on or about May 29, 2001. This action was dismissed with prejudice
`
`on November 30, 2006.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This action arises under the Declaratory Judgment Act and the patent laws of the
`
`United States, more particularly under Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Title 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 100 et. seq., respectively. This court has jurisdiction under Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338 and
`
`2201.
`
`9.
`
`Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and l400(b). Plaintiff
`
`Synopsys, Inc. is headquartered in this District, occupying more than 800,000 square feet in eight
`
`different buildings in Mountain View and Sunnyvale, California. Synopsys, Inc. recently entered
`
`into a long-term lease for an additional 340,000-square-foot building in Mountain View, where it
`
`has had a long-term presence since it was founded in 1986. EVE-USA, Inc. also has its principal
`
`place of business in this District. EVE-USA, Inc’s headquarters are located in San Jose,
`
`California.
`
`10.
`
`Mentor Graphics has alleged that the ZeBu line of hardware-assisted verification
`
`products, which are manufactured, imported, sold and offered for sale by EVE (hereinafter the
`
`“ZeBu Products”), infringe the ’53l, ‘176 and ’376 patents. On or about March 13, 2006, Mentor
`
`Graphics filed a Complaint in the United States District Court of Oregon, Case No. 6:O6-cv-
`
`00341-AA, which alleged that EVE infringed the ‘S31 patent by selling and supporting the ZeBu
`
`Products. On or about May 19, 2006, Mentor Graphics filed a First Amended Complaint, which
`
`alleged that EVE infringed the ‘S31, ’ 176 and ’376 patents, directly, contributorily and by
`
`inducement, by selling and supporting the ZeBu Products. On November 30, 2006, the action
`
`was dismissed with prejudice and the parties finalized a settlement agreement in December 2006.
`
`l 1.
`
`On or about August 12, 2010, Mentor Graphics initiated a second litigation against
`
`EVE by filing a Complaint in the United District Court of Oregon, Case No. 3: 10-cv-00954-MO,
`
`2
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05025-LB Document1 Filed09/27/12 Page5 of 11
`Case3:12—cv—@5,025—LB Documentl Fi|edO9/27/Jz%Page5 of 11
`
`alleging that EVE infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,876,962 by making, using, selling, offering for sale,
`
`importing and supporting the ZeBu Products.
`
`12.
`
`On or about August 17, 2012, Mentor Graphics commenced a third litigation
`
`against EVE by filing yet another Complaint in the United States District Court of Oregon, Case
`
`No. 3:12-cv-01500-SI, alleging that EVE infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,947,882 by making, using,
`
`selling, offering for sale, importing and supporting the ZeBu Products.
`
`13.
`
`On September 27, 2012, Synopsys, Inc. entered into an agreement to acquire the
`
`business of EVE, including the ZeBu Products. The proposed acquisition is expected to close in
`
`the immediate future. Accordingly, in the immediate future, Plaintiffs will be using, importing,
`
`selling, offering for sale and/or supporting the ZeBu Products in the United States, which line of
`
`products was previously accused by Mentor Graphics of infringing the ’53 1, ’l76 and ’376
`
`patents and which products share structures and functionality that Mentor Graphics alleged are
`
`relevant to the claims of the ’53], ’l76 and ’376 patents.
`
`14.
`
`On August 20, 2012, Dr. Walden C. Rhines, Chairman and Chief Executive
`
`Officer of Mentor Graphics, wrote to Dr. Aart dc Geus, Chairman and Co-Chief Executive
`
`Officer of Synopsys, Inc. In reference to a published rumor that Synopsys, Inc. was in
`
`discussions to acquire the business of EVE, Dr. Rhines stated that the settlement agreement
`
`entered into between Mentor Graphics and EVE in 2006 contains terms that may be considered
`
`“material” to the acquisition, and that Dr. dc Geus “should ensure [his] team is aware” of them.
`
`15.
`
`Upon information and belief, and given the terms of the 2006 settlement
`
`agreement, coupled with the timing of the communication, Mentor Graphics’ statements were
`
`meant to convey an explicit threat that should Synopsys, Inc. consummate its contemplated
`
`acquisition of EVE, Synopsys and/or EVE would thereupon be subject to suit by Mentor Graphics
`
`for patent infringement of the ’531, ’ 176 and ’376 patents.
`
`16.
`
`Based on the acts, conduct and statements of Mentor Graphics, there exists an
`
`actual and substantial controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, between
`
`Plaintiffs and Mentor Graphics, as to whether Plaintiffs or any of the ZeBu Products have
`
`3
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCI‘IVE RELIEF
`
`\OOO\lO\UI-hulk)
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05025-LB Document1 Filed09/27/12 Page6 of 11
`Case3:12—cv;__Q§O25—LB Documentl Fi|edO9/27/J,a»,§Page6 of 11
`
`I—n
`
`8\OO0\l©!.h.bLoJl\)
`
`I—n
`
`p_a
`
`r—I K9
`
`I-5 D)
`
`n— A
`
`-- U!
`
`I- O\
`
`u—- \I
`
`a—I x
`
`I—I V0
`
`[00
`
`I0 u—-
`
`t~JND
`
`IN)to)
`
`IQA
`
`B) U’:
`
`IQON
`
`(0\l
`
`B.) 00
`
`infringed, or continue to infringe, any of the claims of the ’53 1, ’ 176 and ’376 patents, as to
`
`whether the claims of the ’53 l , ’ 176 and ’376 patents are valid, and as to whether Mentor
`
`Graphics is without right or authority to threaten or to maintain suit against Plaintiffs for alleged
`
`infringement of the ’53 l ,
`
`’ 176 and ’376 patents. The existing controversy is of sufficient
`
`immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and
`
`invalidity, as set forth further herein.
`
`COUNT I
`
`§Declarator_'y Judgment of Invalidity)
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through
`
`16 of this Complaint as though set forth in full herein.
`
`18.
`
`This is a claim for declaratory judgment of invalidity of any and all claims of the
`
`’531, ’l76 and ’376 patents.
`
`19.
`
`The ’53 1, ’l76 and ’376 patents, and each claim thereof, are invalid under one or
`
`more provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code, including, without limitation, Sections
`
`101,102,103 and 112.
`
`20.
`
`The claims of the ’53l, ’ 176 and ’376 patents are invalid because they are vague
`
`and indefinite and do not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
`
`applicants regarded as their alleged inventions, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`21.
`
`The claims of the ’53], ’ 176 and ’376 patents are invalid because the
`
`specifications of the ’53 1, ’ 176 and ’376 patents do not contain a written description of the
`
`invention and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such fiill, clear, concise and
`
`exact tenns as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most
`
`nearly connected, to make and/or use the same, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`22.
`
`The claims of the ’53 l , ’ 176 and ’376 patents are invalid for failure to meet the
`
`conditions for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
`
`23.
`
`Absent a declaration of invalidity, Mentor Graphics will continue to wrongfully
`
`assert or threaten to assert the ’53 1 , ’ 176 and ’376 patents against Plaintiffs, in violation of the
`
`4
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05025-LB Document1 Filed09/27/12 Page7 of 11
`Case3:12—cv(,_-,,Q.:§O25-LB Documentl Fi|edO9/27/my Page? of 11
`
`laws and contrary to the public policy of the United States, and will thereby continue to cause
`
`Plaintiffs irreparable injury and damage.
`
`24.
`
`A judicial determination on the disputes recited herein is necessary and appropriate
`
`at this time so the parties may ascertain their respective rights and obligations with respect to the
`
`'53 1, ’ l 76 and ’376 patents and any past, present or fiiture manufacture, use, importation,
`
`distribution, sale, or offer for sale of ZeBu Products.
`
`25.
`
`Synopsys, Inc. has filed a petition for inter partes review of the patentability of the
`
`claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,240,376 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`Accordingly, adjudication of this action as to the ’376 patent may be automatically stayed under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(a) unless Mentor Graphics files a counterclaim or civil action alleging that
`
`Plaintiffs have infringed the ’376 patent or moves to lift the stay.
`
`COUNT II
`
`|l_)eclaratofl Judgment of Non-Infringement] ~
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through
`
`16 of this Complaint as though set forth in full herein.
`
`27.
`
`This is a claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of any valid claims
`
`ofthe ‘S31, ’176 and ’376 patents.
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiffs do not directly, contributorily, or by inducement, infringe any claim of
`
`the ’53 1, ’ l 76 and ’376 patents, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`29.
`
`The manufacture, importation, use, sale, or offer for sale of any of the ZeBu
`
`Products in the United States does not directly infringe, contributorily infringe, or induce
`
`infiingement of any claim of the ’53 1 , ’ 176 and ’376 patents, either literally or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant Mentor Graphics is without right or authority to threaten or to maintain
`
`suit against Plaintiffs for alleged infringement of the ’53 1, ’176, and ’376 patents.
`
`31.
`
`Absent a declaration of non-infiingement, Mentor Graphics will continue to
`
`wrongfully assert or threaten to assert the ’531, ’I76 and ’376 patents against Plaintiffs, in
`
`5
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`\DOO\lO\U\-I39-DB3
`
`10
`
`11
`
`I2
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05025-LB Document1 Filed09/27/12 Page8 of 11
`Case3:12—cv—(_9§O25—LB Documentl Fi|edO9/27/J,%Page8 of 11
`
`I—A
`
`S©OO\l@1JI-U39-)l\>
`
`:0 |—-a
`
`—- BJ
`
`—I U)
`
`-- -5
`
`—I LII
`
`1-: O\
`
`|— \I
`
`n—- %
`
`n—- ‘:0
`
`IOQ
`
`N) n—
`
`ix)IQ
`
`IQDJ
`
`I0«I3
`
`l\)(II
`
`NO\
`
`IN)\I
`
`I000
`
`violation of the laws and contrary to the public policy of the United States, and will thereby
`
`continue to cause Plaintiffs irreparable injury and damage.
`
`32.
`
`A judicial determination on the disputes recited herein is necessary and appropriate
`
`at this time so the parties may ascertain their respective rights and obligations with respect to the
`
`’S3 1, ’ 176 and ’376 patents and any past, present or future manufacture, use, importation,
`
`distribution, sale, or offer for sale of ZeBu Products.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for adjudication as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Entry ofjudgment
`
`a.
`
`that Defendant Mentor Graphics is without right or authority to threaten or to
`
`maintain suit against Plaintiffs for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`6,009,531, 5,649,176 and 6,240,376;
`
`b.
`
`that said patents are invalid; and
`
`c.
`
`that said patents are not infringed and have not been infringed by Plaintiffs or
`
`by the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, or importation of Plaintiffs’
`
`products, by Plaintiffs or otherwise.
`
`2.
`
`Entry of preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining Defendant, its officers,
`
`agents, servants, employees, licensees and attorneys and those persons in active concert or
`
`participation with them and all others in privity therewith (a) from initiating or prosecuting any
`
`lawsuit or proceeding placing at issue the right of Plaintiffs, their customers, licensees,
`
`successors, assigns and all others in privity therewith, to make, use, sell, offer for sale or import
`
`Plaintiffs’ products, with respect to the ’53 1, ’ 176 and ’376 patents (b) from interfering with or
`
`threatening to interfere with the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, use or importation of Plaintiffs’
`
`products by Plaintiffs, or each of them, or any of their customers, licensees, dealers, agents,
`
`servants, or employees, or any prospective or present sellers, dealers, or users of Plaintiffs’
`
`products, and all others in privity therewith, with respect to the ’53 1 , ’ 176 and ’376 patents; and
`
`(c) from making any claim to any person or entity that Plaintiffs’ products infringe the ’53l, ’ 176
`
`and ’376 patents, said injunction to be made permanent following trial.
`
`6
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`IN.lUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05025-LB Document1 Filed09/27/12 Page9 of 11
`Case3:12—cv-Q5025-LB Documentl Fi|edO9/27/12... Page9 of 11
`
`3.
`
`That this case is declared exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and that Plaintiffs be
`
`awarded their reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses incurred in connection with this
`
`action; and
`
`4.
`
`That this Court grant the Plaintiffs such other further relief as the Court deems
`
`appropriate.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiffs hereby demand trial byjury on all issues triable to ajury.
`Dated: Septembe1‘?'_7,20 I 2
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`CHRIS R. OTTENWELLER
`I. NEEL CI-IATTERJ EE
`WILLIAM H. WRIGI-IT
`ROBERT J. BENSON
`
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`
`/42%
`
`CI-IRIS R. OTTENWELLER
`
`Attomeysfor P1a:°m‘iffSynopsys, Inc.
`
`7
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`(.1133-'laJt-J
`
`'--J
`
`--IC3‘-OX
`
`15
`
`I6
`
`17
`
`18
`
`20
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-05025-LB Document1 Filed09/27/12 Page10 of 11
`Case3:12—cvz%O25—LB Documentl Fi|edO9/27/1%Page1O of 11
`
`Dated: September 11, 2012
`
`Respectfully submitted. '
`
`MICHAEL G. RHODES
`RICARDO RODRIGUEZ
`REUBEN H. CHEN
`
`Cooley LI.;P
`
`REUBEN H. CHEN
`
`Attorneysfor Plaiutm EVE USA, Inc., and
`Emulation & Verification Engineering, SA.
`
`1
`
`ts)
`
`'o-\
`
`C@®QC‘\UI-5
`
`1--
`
`H 5
`
`8
`
`('.‘0Ml‘l.A|N'l‘ FOR lJl:‘C1..A.RA'l'ORY AND
`INIUNCIIVE RELIEF
`
`

`
`Case3:12-cv-@25-LB Documenti Fi|ed09/27/1_.._...
`Case3:12-cv-05025-LB Document1 Filed09/27/12 Page11 of 11
` agell of 11
`
`"
`
`.
`
`0
`
`':'.
`
`I
`
`r»
`, "'.'
`
`~J
`‘M