From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 12, 2013
CASE NO. 3:12-cv-06467-MMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2013)

Opinion

CASE NO. 3:12-cv-06467-MMC

03-12-2013

SYNOPSYS, INC., Plaintiff, v. MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION, Defendant.

I. NEEL CHATTERJEE WILLIAM H. WRIGHT VICKIE L. FEEMAN Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP DOUGLAS E. LUMISH JEFFREY G. HOMRIG GABRIEL S. GROSS JOSEPH H. LEE Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP M. PATRICIA THAYER PHILIP W. WOO Sidley Austin LLP By: William H. Wright Attorneys for Plaintiff SYNOPSYS, INC. GEORGE A. RILEY MARK E. MILLER MICHAEL SAPOZNIKOW ELIZABETH OFFEN-BROWN O'Melveny & Meyers, LLP By: Mark E. Miller Attorneys for Defendant MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION William H. Wright Attorneys for Plaintiff SYNOPSYS, INC.


STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS

Counsel report that they have met and conferred regarding ADR and have reached the following stipulation pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5: The parties agree to participate in the following ADR process:

Court Processes:
[ ] Non-binding Arbitration (ADR L.R. 4)
[ ] Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) (ADR L.R. 5)
[ ] Mediation (ADR L.R. 6)
(Note: Parties who believe that an early settlement conference with a Magistrate Judge is appreciably more likely to meet their needs than any other form of ADR must participate in an ADR phone conference and may not file this form. They must instead file a Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference. See Civil Local Rule 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5)
Private Process:
X Private ADR (please identify process and provider). Mediation before JAMS mediator Hon. Edward A. Infante (Ret.) was conducted on January 21, 2013. The parties agree to continue the discussions started with Judge Infante.
The parties agree to hold the ADR session by:
[ ] the presumptive deadline (The deadline is 90 days from the date of the order referring the case to an ADR process unless otherwise ordered.)
X other requested deadline. The parties conducted mediation on January 21, 2013.

I. NEEL CHATTERJEE

WILLIAM H. WRIGHT

VICKIE L. FEEMAN

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP

DOUGLAS E. LUMISH

JEFFREY G. HOMRIG

GABRIEL S. GROSS

JOSEPH H. LEE

Kasowitz, Benson, Torres &

Friedman, LLP

M. PATRICIA THAYER

PHILIP W. WOO

Sidley Austin LLP

By: William H. Wright

Attorneys for Plaintiff SYNOPSYS, INC.

GEORGE A. RILEY

MARK E. MILLER

MICHAEL SAPOZNIKOW

ELIZABETH OFFEN-BROWN

O'Melveny & Meyers, LLP

By: Mark E. Miller

Attorneys for Defendant

MENTOR GRAPHICS

CORPORATION
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), counsel for SYNOPSYS, INC. has obtained the concurrence of MENTOR GRAPHICS counsel in the filing of this Stipulation.

By: __________________

William H. Wright

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SYNOPSYS, INC.
[PROPOSED] ORDER

[x] The parties' stipulation is adopted and IT IS SO ORDERED.

[ ] The parties' stipulation is modified as follows, and IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________

HONORABLE MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States Senior District Judge
When filing this document in ECF, please be sure to use the appropriate Docket Event, e.g., "Stipulation and Proposed Order Selecting Mediation."


Summaries of

Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 12, 2013
CASE NO. 3:12-cv-06467-MMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2013)
Case details for

Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.

Case Details

Full title:SYNOPSYS, INC., Plaintiff, v. MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 12, 2013

Citations

CASE NO. 3:12-cv-06467-MMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2013)