Case 3:20-cv-07014-LB Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 1 of 9
`
`DENISE M. MINGRONE (SBN 135224)
`dmingrone@orrick.com
`MARIA N. SOKOVA (SBN 323627)
`msokova@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
`Telephone:
`+1 650 614 7400
`Facsimile:
`+1 650 614 7401
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`SYNOPSYS, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SYNOPSYS, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`LIBRARY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
`California corporation, and DOES 1-10,
`inclusive,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.
`COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF
`DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT
`ACT 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201, ET SEQ., AND
`BREACH OF CONTRACT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY
`TRIAL
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-07014-LB Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 2 of 9
`
`Plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”) hereby brings this Complaint against Defendant
`Library Technologies, Inc. (“Library Technologies”) for circumventing technological measures
`that effectively control access to Synopsys software in violation of the Digital Millennium
`Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201, et seq. (the “DMCA”) and the parties’ contracts. Synopsys
`seeks injunctive relief, statutory and/or actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, an accounting,
`and any such other relief as the Court may deem proper. Synopsys alleges the following based on
`personal knowledge, unless indicated as on information and belief.
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff Synopsys is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`1.
`State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Mountain View, California.
`2.
`Defendant Library Technologies is a corporation organized and existing under the
`laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business in Saratoga, California.
`3.
`Plaintiff does not presently know the true names and capacities of the defendants
`sued herein as Does 1 through 10, inclusive. Plaintiff may seek leave of court to amend this
`Complaint to allege said defendants’ true names and capacities once it ascertains this information.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`The Court has federal-question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331
`4.
`because the federal courts are vested with exclusive jurisdiction in copyright cases and actions
`arising under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201, et seq. This Court has
`subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (Federal Question
`Jurisdiction) and 1367 (Supplemental Jurisdiction).
`5.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Library Technologies because its
`principal place of business lies within the State of California, and because it has conducted and
`does conduct business within the State of California and the Northern District of California.
`6.
`Venue in this district is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400 because, on
`information and belief, all defendants reside in the State of California and the Northern District of
`California, and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the dispute occurred within
`this district.
`
`- 1 -
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY
`TRIAL
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-07014-LB Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 3 of 9
`
`Defendant Library Technologies also consented to personal jurisdiction in federal
`7.
`and state courts within the Northern District of California under its contracts with Synopsys.
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`General Background
`8.
`As modern electronic devices become more and more compact and powerful, they
`use increasingly sophisticated computer processor chips. When designing a computer processing
`chip, the stakes are enormous. Chip designers need software that will ensure that their complex
`designs will work flawlessly. Accordingly, chip designers require extremely robust and powerful
`computer software to design and test those chips. Many of the world’s biggest and most
`important chip design companies turn to Synopsys for that software.
`9.
`Since it was founded in 1986, Synopsys has been a leading provider of Electronic
`Design Automation (“EDA”) solutions for the semiconductor industry. EDA generally refers to
`using computers to design, verify, and simulate the performance of electronic circuits. For more
`than 30 years, Synopsys’ solutions have helped semiconductor manufacturers and electronics
`companies design, test, and manufacture microchips and electronic systems for a wide range of
`products. Headquartered in Mountain View, California, Synopsys is the fifteenth largest software
`company in the world and currently employs over 14,000 employees worldwide. Synopsys has
`developed a comprehensive, integrated portfolio of prototyping, IP, implementation, verification,
`manufacturing, optical, field-programmable gate array, and software quality and security
`solutions.
`Synopsys EDA software applications, including its HSPICE tool, are creative and
`10.
`original works subject to copyright protection under Title 17 of the United States Code.
`11.
`Synopsys has invested hundreds of millions of dollars and enormous amounts of
`time and effort into the research, development, design, and refinement of the software at issue in
`this case. Such investment is necessary to maintain Synopsys’ place as a leader in the competitive
`EDA industry, and to continue to provide leading circuit and chip manufacturers with cutting-
`edge design technology.
`
`- 2 -
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY
`TRIAL
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-07014-LB Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 4 of 9
`
`Synopsys does not sell ownership rights or copyrights or other intellectual property
`12.
`rights to its EDA software and associated services. Instead, Synopsys customers purchase
`licenses. These licenses grant Synopsys customers limited rights to install Synopsys EDA
`software and to access and use specific Synopsys software programs subject to control by
`Synopsys’ License Key system, which is a built-in security system that controls access to its
`licensed software by requiring a user to access a key code provided by Synopsys in order to
`execute the licensed software. This key code controls the quantity and term of the licensed
`software in accordance with the license terms. Synopsys controls access to and use of its license
`key files through Synopsys’ proprietary license server software, which is licensed to customers
`along with Synopsys’ EDA applications.
`13.
`To protect its valuable intellectual property, Synopsys has incorporated into its
`software technological measures that control access to the software. Synopsys’ access controls, in
`the ordinary course of operation, ensure that Synopsys EDA applications cannot be used without
`appropriate license keys. Synopsys is the sole source of legitimate license keys, which it provides
`to licensed users of its software. For example, a license key file will list the name of the customer,
`identify the software the customer is licensed to use, and the number of concurrent uses
`purchased.
`Each customer needs a license key file to execute Synopsys tools. The license key
`14.
`file contains information that allows Synopsys’ license key system to determine whether the
`customer is authorized to execute specific Synopsys tools.
`15.
`Plaintiff is informed and believes that Library Technologies is a privately held
`company based in Silicon Valley that was founded in 1988. According to its website, Library
`Technologies’ develops and markets design and analysis tools for integrated circuit design.
`Library Technologies’ tools and products are integrated together and interface to popular chip
`design flows, including Synopsys tools.
`Library Technologies’ End User License Agreement
`16.
`On September 6, 2006, Library Technologies entered into an End User License
`and Maintenance Agreement with Synopsys (“EULA”). The EULA was executed by Mehmet
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY
`TRIAL
`
`- 3 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-07014-LB Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 5 of 9
`
`Cirit of Library Technologies and this agreement governs their use of Synopsys’ intellectual
`property.
`Pursuant to the EULA, customers like Library Technologies, purchase specific
`17.
`licenses to Synopsys tools. Synopsys Licenses provide access to only the specific tools purchased
`and the specific number of license seats.
`18.
`Synopsys did not authorize Library Technologies to use additional quantities of
`Synopsys EDA software beyond the quantity of seat(s) listed in the Purchase orders.
`19.
`The EULA also does not permit the Licensee to “use the Licensed Product(s) to
`develop or enhance any product that competes with a Licensed Product(s).”
`20.
`Library Technologies’ SolutionWare products, SolutionWare: Characterization and
`SolutionWare: Model and Library Generators, as well as the CCSTEST: Library Verification and
`Correlation products compete directly with the Synopsys SiliconSmart product, and CCSTEST
`also competes with Synopsys’ Library Compiler product. Library Technologies was never
`authorized to use its access to HSPICE to compete with Synopsys.
`Library Technologies’ Unauthorized Access to Synopsys Software
`21.
`In reliance on the terms of the EULA and Synopsys’ belief that Library
`Technologies would abide by the conditions set forth in the license agreements, Synopsys
`provided Library Technologies with access to the licensed EDA applications and accompanying
`license keys from Synopsys’ customer support website.
`22.
`Library Technologies failed to satisfy conditions precedent to its license by failing
`to pay for required license seats that it used and exceeded the scope of its licenses by making
`and/or using more copies of Synopsys Tools than permitted.
`23.
`Library Technologies bypassed Synopsys license key system by altering
`identifying information on various license server computers in order to facilitate more concurrent
`usage of Synopsys software than permitted under the license.
`24.
`Defendants knew or had reason to know that their access and use of Synopsys
`software was unlawful. The fact that Defendants were using technological measures to avoid
`paying Synopsys license fees for additional access and use of software that Defendants
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY
`TRIAL
`
`- 4 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-07014-LB Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 6 of 9
`
`understood they otherwise would have had to pay for, put Defendants on notice that their access
`and use of Synopsys software was unauthorized.
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Violations of the
`Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201)
`Synopsys hereby restates and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
`25.
`through 24 above and incorporates them by reference.
`26.
`Section 1201(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that no person shall circumvent a
`technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
`27.
`Synopsys software, including HSPICE, is subject to protection under the copyright
`laws of the United States.
`28.
`Access to Synopsys Tools, including HSPICE, is controlled by technological
`measures that effectively control access to Synopsys Tools.
`29.
`Rather than pay for additional licenses of Synopsys Tools, including HSPICE,
`Defendants altered the Host IDs of its license server computers to impersonate a server authorized
`to use Synopsys Tools, in order to circumvent Synopsys’ access control license key protections,
`thereby gaining access to more concurrent usage of Synopsys Tools than authorized. Library
`Technologies is authorized two license seats for HSPICE, however, Synopsys data shows that
`Defendants are altering information in order to spoof the license server and use far more seats
`than they are authorized. Library Technologies has accessed HPSICE in excess of its license over
`400,000 times. By spoofing license servers, Defendants unlawfully gained additional access to
`Synopsys Tools, which are copyright-protected works.
`30.
`The conduct described above has cost Synopsys lost revenue in an amount to be
`computed at trial and constitutes violations of 17 U.S.C. § 1201.
`31.
`The conduct described above was willful and done with knowledge of
`wrongdoing; an award of damages is necessary to dissuade Defendants and others from spoofing
`multiple copies of Synopsys software.
`
`- 5 -
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY
`TRIAL
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-07014-LB Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 7 of 9
`
`Accordingly, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1203, Synopsys is entitled to and hereby
`32.
`demands statutory and/or actual damages in the maximum amount for each of the violations of the
`statute.
`Synopsys is further entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs as provided
`33.
`under 17 U.S.C. § 1203.
`34.
`Defendants’ conduct, unless enjoined and restrained by the Court, will cause
`irreparable harm to Synopsys, which has no adequate remedy at law. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §
`1203, Synopsys is entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting further
`violations of § 1201.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Breach of Contract)
`Synopsys hereby restates and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
`35.
`through 34 above and incorporates them by reference.
`36.
`Defendant Library Technologies entered into a valid EULA for using Synopsys
`Tools on September 6, 2006.
`37.
`The EULA only permits Library Technologies to use HSPICE within the
`limitations of its license, which includes a limited number of license seats for concurrent usage of
`the software.
`Library Technologies breached the terms of the EULA by spoofing its servers to
`38.
`gain additional access to Synopsys Tools that it has not paid for nor been authorized to use.
`39.
`Synopsys has performed all of its obligations under the parties’ contractual
`agreements.
`As a result of Library Technologies’ breaches, Synopsys has been damaged in an
`40.
`amount to be proven at trial.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Breach of Contract)
`Synopsys hereby restates and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
`41.
`through 40 above and incorporates them by reference.
`
`- 6 -
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY
`TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-07014-LB Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 8 of 9
`
`Defendant Library Technologies entered into a valid EULA for using Synopsys
`42.
`Tools on September 6, 2006. The EULA does not permit the Licensee to “use the Licensed
`Product(s) to develop or enhance any product that competes with a Licensed Product(s).”
`43.
`Library Technologies breached the terms of the EULA by using Synopsys software
`tools to develop competing products to Synopsys.
`44.
`Synopsys has performed all of its obligations under the parties’ contractual
`agreements.
`As a result of Library Technologies’ breaches, Synopsys has been damaged in an
`45.
`amount to be proven at trial.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, Synopsys prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:
`A.
`Entry of judgment in favor of Synopsys against Defendants;
`B.
`An order awarding Synopsys statutory and/or actual damages for each instance on
`which Defendants circumvented measures controlling access to Synopsys’ software pursuant to
`17 U.S.C. § 1203;
`C.
`An order awarding Plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. general and specific damages;
`D.
`Prejudgment and post-judgment interest;
`E.
`An order awarding Synopsys its costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §
`
`1203;
`
`An order for an accounting of all gains, profits, cost savings and advantages
`F.
`realized by Defendants from their acts;
`G.
`An order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers,
`agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and affiliated companies, its assigns and successors in
`interest, and those persons in active concert or participation with them, from circumventing or
`aiding and abetting others to circumvent Synopsys’ License Key system or other technological
`measures that control access to Synopsys’ works in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1201; and
`H.
`All such further and additional relief, in law or equity, to which Synopsys may be
`
`- 7 -
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY
`TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-07014-LB Document 1 Filed 10/08/20 Page 9 of 9
`
`entitled or which the Court deems just and proper.
`
`Dated: October 8, 2020
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Denise M. Mingrone
`DENISE M. MINGRONE
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, SYNOPSYS, INC.
`
`4157-7172-3560
`
`- 8 -
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY
`TRIAL
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
`SUTCLIFFE LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SILICON VALLEY
`
`