Synopsys, Inc. vs. Real Intent, Inc.

Case Background

On April 23, 2020, Plaintiff  Synopsys, Inc. filed a Copyright Infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court, California Northern (Case number: 5:20cv2819). This case was assigned to District Judge Edward J. Davila and referred to Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen.

Cause

Synopsys, Inc., a leading provider of electronic design automation (EDA) tools and semiconductor intellectual property, filed a lawsuit against Real Intent, Inc. for copyright infringement, breach of contract, and patent violation. Synopsys claimed that Real Intent copied proprietary features from Synopsys’ flagship software products, including the Design Compiler, PrimeTime, and IC Compiler. These tools, which enabled engineers to design and verify integrated circuits efficiently, incorporated innovative algorithms and command sets developed over decades. Synopsys alleged that Real Intent used these proprietary materials to develop competing products, such as Ascent, Meridian, and Verix, violating the Software License Agreement (SLA) and misappropriating Synopsys’ intellectual property. The dispute began when Synopsys attempted to audit Real Intent in May 2019 and discovered irregularities, including the unauthorized use of its confidential software and documentation.

Injuries

Real Intent’s unauthorized actions caused Synopsys significant harm. By copying proprietary commands, algorithms, and software structures, Real Intent created tools that directly competed with Synopsys’ products. This unauthorized competition diverted customers, undermined Synopsys’ pricing structure, and resulted in the loss of substantial market share. Synopsys further suffered reputational damage as Real Intent promoted its products using stolen innovations from Synopsys. The prolonged resistance from Real Intent during the audit process forced Synopsys to expend resources on legal fees and external auditors to uncover the full scope of the violations. These actions not only disrupted Synopsys’ business operations but also compromised its leadership in the EDA tools market.

Damages

Synopsys suffered extensive economic and reputational damages. It lost revenue due to customer migration to Real Intent’s infringing products, which were priced competitively using Synopsys’ stolen technology. The erosion of product pricing in the market further compounded these losses. Synopsys incurred substantial costs for conducting the audit and initiating legal proceedings, which included hiring independent auditors and attorneys. Additionally, the misappropriation of Synopsys’ intellectual property and the breach of the SLA directly impacted its ability to maintain its competitive edge in the EDA industry. The harm extended beyond financial losses, affecting Synopsys’ trust with clients and partners due to the misuse of its proprietary tools.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Synopsys, Inc.
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Krista Sue Schwartz | Aaron Stafford Oakley | Alex Rhim | Anna Kurian Shaw | Barrington E. Dyer | Christopher J. Lee | Christopher T. Pickens | Corey T. Leggett | Damon M. Lewis | Dane Sowers | Devon Wesley Edwards | Helen Yiea Trac | Jacob Karim | Joshua Douglas Anderson | Lauren Beth Cury | Lisa Dong | N. Thomas Connally, III | Patrick Thomas Michael | Rebecca B. Horton | Shaimaa M Hussein | Stephen William Henrick

 

  • Defendant(s):Real Intent, Inc.
    • Counsel for Defendants:Bilal Malik | Catherine Porto | Cody Justin Kirmil Gray | Elizabeth A. Heckmann | Kristin Elizabeth Hucek | Reid Patrick Mullen | Robert Addy Van Nest | Ryan K.M. Wong | Theresa Marie Dawson | Victor T. Chiu | Jeffrey Andrew Miller | James McDonell

Claims

Synopsys claimed that Real Intent infringed its copyrights under the U.S. Copyright Act by copying proprietary software elements and documentation. It further asserted that Real Intent violated U.S. Patent No. 9,721,057, which protected specific innovations in clock domain crossing verification. Additionally, Synopsys alleged that Real Intent breached the SLA by failing to honor confidentiality terms, reverse engineering protected materials, and obstructing the audit process. Synopsys also argued that Real Intent violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by leveraging its contractual relationship with Synopsys to gain unauthorized access to proprietary information. Synopsys sought damages to recover financial losses, attorney fees, and audit costs. Furthermore, Synopsys requested an injunction to prevent Real Intent from further exploiting its intellectual property. This legal action aimed to protect Synopsys’ market position, ensure compliance with intellectual property laws, and restore trust in its business relationships.

Defense

The key defenses that Real Intent presented against Synopsys’ Copyright Infringement lawsuit are:

Main Claims Real Intent Made:

  • Real Intent maintained that Synopsys never complained about their conduct during their decade-long beneficial relationship (2012-2019), which involved partnership agreements for software compatibility.
  • Real Intent argued that Synopsys only initiated this litigation after changing their corporate strategy following their acquisition of Atrenta, a direct competitor to Real Intent’s Meridian CDC product.
  • Real Intent claimed that Synopsys tried to erase years of Real Intent’s interoperability development to justify the price they paid for Atrenta.

Specific Legal Defenses Real Intent Presented:

  1. Real Intent claimed that Synopsys failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
  2. Real Intent asserted they did not infringe any copyrights or patents owned by Synopsys.
  3. Real Intent maintained that any use they made of Synopsys’ material constituted fair use.
  4. Real Intent argued that Synopsys’ claims were barred by laches, acquiescence, estoppel, and/or waiver due to their prior conduct.
  5. Real Intent claimed Synopsys abandoned their copyright through their actions and inaction over several years.
  6. Real Intent asserted that Synopsys had “unclean hands” in the matter.
  7. Real Intent maintained they had an implied and/or express license to use the copyrights and patents in question.
  8. Real Intent argued that certain commands were not entitled to copyright protection as they constituted a “method of operation.”
  9. Real Intent claimed that Synopsys’ patent claims were invalid under various sections of the Patent Act.
  10. Real Intent asserted that Synopsys’ copyright claims were time-barred under the statute of limitations.

Jury Verdict

On October 29, 2024, the jury found that Synopsys suffered lost profits of $248,776 due to Real Intent’s copying of commands/options and attributes, with syntax, from Design Vision after April 2013. They determined that Real Intent had not proven any amount that Synopsys could have mitigated through reasonable efforts or expenditures. Additionally, the jury concluded that Real Intent was unjustly enriched by $297,500 through its use and access of DesignWare files. The total damages awarded in the case amounted to $546,276, combining both the lost profits and unjust enrichment findings in a Copyright Infringement Lawsuit .

Court Documents:

Available Upon Request