A team from Keker, Van Nest & Peters secured a defense victory for California electronic design automation software company Real Intent. in a case of copyright infringement and breach of contract filed by competitor Synopsys.
The defense prevailed on a copyright defense of fair use on Tuesday, but the San Jose federal court jury awarded Synopsys $550,000 in nominal damages on its breach of contract claim.
Real Intent was represented by Keker attorneys Bob Van Nest, Reid Mullen, Ryan Wong, Cody Gray, Kristin Hucek, Bilal Malik, Victor Chiu, Catherine Porto, Elizabeth Heckmann and Theresa Dawson.
Synopsys, an EDA software and semiconductor design company based in Mountain View, California, filed the original complaint against Real Intent, headquartered in Sunnyvale, in April 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The claim alleged copyright infringement, breach of contract, patent infringement and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
According to the claim, Real Intent breached several contracts between the two companies by copying “command sets,” which are used in computer software that designs computer chips, from Synopsys’ software and infringing on Synopsys’ copyrighted EDA software products used in designing and designing computer chips. verification of integrated circuits or microchips.
According to Reid Mullen, a Keker attorney representing Real Intent, both parties filed motions for summary judgment in early 2024 on Synopsys’ copyright claim and Real Intent’s fair use defense. In August, the court granted Keker’s request for summary judgment on the copyright claim and denied Synopsys’ request for summary judgment on the fair use argument.
“Our defense of fair use relied very heavily on the recent Supreme Court decision Google vs Oracle America,Mullen said, referring to a 2021 Supreme Court ruling that found Google’s use of the Java programming language in its Android operating system falls within the parameters of fair use. Keker represented Google in the Oracle case.
“And so when we moved for summary judgment, we relied heavily on that case and others to make the point that Real Intent’s use of these command set elements furthered the objectives of copyright law and was exactly what copyright law should encourage in terms of innovation and fair competition,” Mullen said.
“The possibility of a major copyright claim with significant damages is potentially very bad for the industry that relies on the use of common commands and products that work together…for example, when a customer uses the products of two different companies. really have to work together. And that’s extremely important for innovation… We’re obviously grateful that the court agrees with us on the fair use claim, and we think this is an important ruling for the industry because these software copyright cases seem so. they will only increase and that this will become a more important area of law as we move forward.”
Synopsys was represented by attorneys from Willkie Farr & Gallagher, Hogan Lovells and Nixon Peabody, none of whom immediately responded to requests for comment.
“Tuesday’s jury verdict only addresses one of Synopsys’ claims against Real Intent, because Real Intent copied Synopsys’ own IP address,” a Synopsys spokesperson said. “After the court found that Real Intent had breached its contracts with Synopsys, the jury determined that Real Intent had caused Synopsys harm as a result of its breach. Synopsys will vigorously pursue all remedies against Real Intent for its breach of contract, including injunctive relief and an attorney The breach of contract claim involved a small portion of the intellectual property copied by Real Intent. Synopsys’ other claims are still pending, and the company will continue to vigorously pursue all claims against Real Intent to protect Synopsys’ intellectual property. .
