Case: 12-1522 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 10/25/2012

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

~niteb ~tate~ ~ourt of §ppeaI~ for tbe jfeberaI ~irtuit

IN RE RICOH COMPANY, LTD. PATENT LITIGATION

SYNOPSYS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. RICOH COMPANY, LTD., Defendant- Appellant.

RICOH COMPANY, LTD., Plaintiff, v. AEROFLEXINCORPORATED, AMI SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., MATROX ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS, LTD., MATROX GRAPHICS, INC., MATROX INTERNATIONAL, INC., MATROX TECH, INC., AND AEROFLEX COLORADO SPRINGS, INC., Defendants.

2012-1522 Case: 12-1522 Document: 37 Page: 2 Filed: 10/25/2012

SYNOPSYS, INC. v. RICOH COMPANY, LTD. 2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in case no. 03-CV-2289, Judge James Ware.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The court construes Synopsys, Inc.'s August 10, 2012 letter as a motion to reform the caption to name only Synopsys as an appellee.

Ricoh Company, Ltd. appeals from an order awarding costs to Synopsys. It is this court's usual practice to include in the caption all parties that participated in the court below, even if they are no longer participating in the case on appeal. Because Aeroflex Incorporated et al. (Aeroflex) are not involved in this appeal, however, the court grants the motion to the extent that the official caption is revised to indicate that only Synopsys is an appellant in this matter. Since Aeroflex are not partici- pating in this appeal, they do not need to file a certificate of interest and docketing statement.

Accordingly,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted to the extent that the official caption is revised as reflected above. Case: 12-1522 Document: 37 Page: 3 Filed: 10/25/2012

3 SYNOPSYS, INC. V. RICOH COMPANY, LTD.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk s25