1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SYNOPSYS, INC., Case No. 21-cv-06207-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY 9 v. RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, AND 10 DOLPHIN TECHNOLOGY, INC., SCHEDULING HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 11 Defendant. EXPEDITED DISCOVERY

12 Docket No. 9

13 14 15 Plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. has filed suit against Defendant Dolphin Technology, Inc. for 16 violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) and copyright infringement. Soon 17 after filing its complaint, Synopsys moved for a temporary restraining order, an order to show 18 cause regarding a preliminary injunction, and an order requiring expedited discovery. 19 The Court hereby DENIES the request for a TRO and an order to show cause. At this 20 juncture, Synopsys has not made an adequate showing that it would likely suffer irreparable injury 21 without a TRO and/or that the balancing of hardships tips sharply in its favor. Remedies available 22 at law, such as monetary damages, would appear to be adequate to compensate for any injury to 23 Synopsys. See eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.,

(2006). In its papers, 24 Synopsys claims irreparable injury based on (1) harm to goodwill; (2) negotiating leverage; (3) the 25 cost of piracy; and (4) interference with exclusive rights. The Court is skeptical of the first two 26 injuries for the reasons stated by Judge Koh in her decision denying Synopsys’s motion for a TRO 27 1 in Synopsys, Inc. v. Innogrit Corp., No. C-19-2082 LHK (N.D. Cal.) (Docket No. 16).1 Although 2 the cost of piracy and interference with exclusive rights present closer calls, it is debatable whether 3 that injury is irreparable, particularly in light of Synopsys’s admission that it has been on notice of 4 misconduct by Dolphin since June. See Kelly Decl. ¶ 10. 5 Although the Court thus denies the request for a TRO and an order to show cause, the 6 Court notes that it is not precluding Synopsys from filing a fully noticed motion for a preliminary 7 injunction in the future. In addition, the Court shall set Synopsys’s request for expedited 8 discovery on shortened time. Specifically, a hearing shall be held on this request on August 27, 9 2021, at 1:00 p.m. Dolphin’s opposition to the request for expedited discovery shall be filed by 10 12:00 Noon, August 25, 2021. 11 Synopsys is ordered to immediately serve a copy of this order on Dolphin and to file a 12 declaration (1) certifying service and (2) describing how service was effected. Synopsys is 13 advised that the notice it gave Dolphin of the ex parte motion was not adequate. Dolphin is a 14 customer of Synopsys; therefore, the Court expects that there are many Dolphin employees to 15 whom Synopsys can reach out to give notice and/or to assist getting notice to the right people, and 16 not just Dolphin’s formal agent for service of process. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: August 17, 2021 21 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 22 United States District Judge 23

24 1 In its papers, Synopsys misleadingly suggested that Judge Koh had granted its request for a TRO. See Mot. at 1. The Court forewarns Synopsys that it will not tolerate such conduct in the 25 future. It is true that Judge Koh granted Synopsys some relief – i.e., expedited discovery. However, she clearly denied the request for a TRO. 26

The Court also acknowledges that Judge Koh later granted Synopsys a preliminary 27 injunction. See Synopsys, No. C-19-2082 LHK (Docket No. 48). However, that relief was granted