throbber
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:460TzegNXWQJ:https://www.law360.com/articles/916431/fed-circ-reverses-ptab-nix-of-s...
`
`This is Google's cache of https://www.law360.com/articles/916431/fed-circ-reverses-ptab-nix-of-synopsys-circuit-patent. It is a snapshot of the
`page as it appeared on 4 Jan 2018 19:00:36 GMT.
`
`The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
`
`Full version
`
`Text-only version
`
`View source
`
`Tip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar.
`
`Advanced Search
`Take a Free Trial | Sign In
`
`Sign In
`
`Take a Free Trial
`Sign In
`
`Advanced Search
`
`Law360 In-Depth
`Law360 UK
`
`Adv. Search & Platform Tools
`Browse all sections
`Banking
`Bankruptcy
`Class Action
`Competition
`Employment
`Energy
`Expert Analysis
`Insurance
`Intellectual Property
`Product Liability
`Securities
`Rankings
`Regional Powerhouses
`Law360's MVPs
`Glass Ceiling Report
`Global 20
`Law360 400
`Diversity Snapshot
`Practice Group Partner Rankings
`Practice Groups of the Year
`Pro Bono Firms of the Year
`Rising Stars
`Trial Aces
`Site Menu
`Join the Law360 team
`
`Close
`
`Voip-Pal Ex. 2064
`IPR2016-01198 and IPR2016-01201
`
`1 of 5
`
`Fed. Circ. Reverses PTAB Nix Of Synopsys Circuit Patent - Law360
`
`

`

`https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:460TzegNXWQJ:https://www.law360.com/articles/916431/fed-circ-reverses-ptab-nix-of-s...
`
`Search legal jobs
`Learn more about Law360
`Read testimonials
`Contact Law360
`Sign up for our newsletters
`Site Map
`Help
`
`Fed. Circ. Reverses PTAB Nix Of Synopsys Circuit Patent
`
`By Ryan Davis
`
`Law360, New York (April 24, 2017, 6:42 PM EDT) -- The Federal Circuit ruled Monday that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board incorrectly
`invalidated a Synopsys Inc. circuit patent, reversing a decision favoring ATopTech Inc., which recently filed for bankruptcy after being
`ordered to pay $30 million for infringing Synopsys’ copyrights.
`
`In a rare instance of the Federal Circuit fully reversing the PTAB, rather than vacating and remanding for further proceedings, the court held
`that there was not enough evidence for the board’s finding in an inter partes review that the claims were invalid as obvious or anticipated.
`
`“Because the board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence, we reverse,” the court wrote.
`
`According to statistics compiled by Law360, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decisions 72 percent of the time in 2016.
`
`Synopsys sued software company ATopTech in 2013, alleging infringement of the patent, which covers a method for designing the layout of
`a large integrated circuit, as well as the copyrights related to software for analyzing digital circuits. ATopTech responded by challenging the
`patent at the PTAB, which found many claims invalid.
`
`The infringement case was bifurcated, with the copyright claims going to trial first, and a California jury found in March 2016 that
`ATopTech infringed and ordered it to pay $30.4 million in damages.
`
`In December, Synopsys dismissed the infringement claim on the patent at issue in the PTAB proceeding with prejudice. The following
`month, ATopTech filed for bankruptcy, listing the $30.4 million verdict as its largest debt by far.
`
`The PTAB found that some of the claims of Synopsys’ patent were invalid as either obvious or anticipated, but the Federal Circuit said
`those findings did not have support.
`
`The patent describes ways of improving circuit performance by splitting large components into smaller components. While the board found
`that the method described by the patent was found in two scientific articles, making it invalid as obvious, the Federal Circuit said neither of
`the articles suggest the methods describe the method found in the patent.
`
`The court also held that contrary to the board's finding that one of the articles disclosed the patent's method of optimal placement of one
`type of component known as hard blocks, the article in fact only describes a different type of component known as soft blocks.
`
`Attorneys for the parties could not immediately be reached for comment Monday.
`
`The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent Number 6,567,967.
`
`Judges Alan Lourie, Kimberly Moore and Todd Hughes sat on the panel for the Federal Circuit.
`
`Synopsys is represented by Matthew Silveira, Krista Schwartz, Gregory Castanias, David Cochran, Joseph Sauer and Joshua Nightingale of
`Jones Day.
`
`ATopTech is represented by Philip Marsh, Paul Alexander, Sean Callagy and Willow White Noonan of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.
`
`The case is Synopsys Inc. v. ATopTech Inc., case number 2016-1956, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
`--Editing by Aaron Pelc.
`
`Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated the name of the firm representing ATopTech. The error has been corrected.
`
`2 of 5
`
`Fed. Circ. Reverses PTAB Nix Of Synopsys Circuit Patent - Law360
`
`

`

`https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:460TzegNXWQJ:https://www.law360.com/articles/916431/fed-circ-reverses-ptab-nix-of-s...
`
`View comments
`
`Add to Briefcase
`Printable Version
`Rights/Reprints
`Editorial Contacts
`
`Documents
`
`Opinion
`
`Related
`
`Sections
`
`Appellate
`Intellectual Property
`Technology
`
`Case Information
`
`Case Title
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. ATopTech, Inc.
`
`Case Number
`
`16-1956
`
`Court
`
`Appellate - Federal Circuit
`
`Nature of Suit
`
`-
`
`Date Filed
`
`May 3, 2016
`
`Law Firms
`
`Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer
`Jones Day
`
`Companies
`
`3 of 5
`
`Fed. Circ. Reverses PTAB Nix Of Synopsys Circuit Patent - Law360
`
`

`

`https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:460TzegNXWQJ:https://www.law360.com/articles/916431/fed-circ-reverses-ptab-nix-of-s...
`
`Synopsys Inc.
`
`Patents
`
`6,567,967 - Method for designing large standard-cell base integrated circuits
`
`Check out Law360's new podcast, Pro Say, which offers a weekly recap of both the biggest stories and hidden gems from the world of law.
`Listen To Our Latest
`
`Most Popular
`
`1 Simpson Thacher Accused Of Owing $937K To Recruiting Firm
`2 Ex-Katten Atty Conviction A Cautionary BigLaw Tale
`3 Greenberg Traurig Partner Named Interim SDNY US Attorney
`4 The 4 Hottest Practice Areas For 2018
`5 The Top In-House Hires Of December
`
`© 2018, Portfolio Media, Inc. About | Contact Us | Legal Jobs | Careers at Law360 | Terms | Privacy Policy | Law360 Updates | Help | Lexis
`Advance
`Beta Tools: Track docs | Track attorneys | Track judges
`
`Visit Our Site Map
`
`Already have access? Click here to login
`
`Get instant access to the one-stop news source for business lawyers
`
`Register Now!
`
`Sign up now for free access to this content
`
`Email (Professional email required)
`
`First Name
`
`Last Name
`
`Password (at least 6 characters required)
`
`Confirm Password
`
`Select at least one primary interest:
`
` Appellate
`
` Intellectual Property
`
` Technology
`
`4 of 5
`
`Fed. Circ. Reverses PTAB Nix Of Synopsys Circuit Patent - Law360
`
`

`

`https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:460TzegNXWQJ:https://www.law360.com/articles/916431/fed-circ-reverses-ptab-nix-of-s...
`
`Show all interestsRegister
`
`Sign up for our free Appellate newsletter
`
`You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
`
`Please provide a professional email:
`Select more newsletters to receive for free
`
`Thank You!
`
`Sign up now
`
`5 of 5
`
`Fed. Circ. Reverses PTAB Nix Of Synopsys Circuit Patent - Law360
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket